Jackson trial mother admits fraud

BBC News

 

The mother of the boy who accused pop star Michael Jackson of child abuse has pleaded no contest to welfare fraud.

Janet Arvizo, 38, had been accused of illegally claiming thousands of dollars in assistance and committing perjury.

 

The Los Angeles resident was ordered to perform 150 hours of community service and repay more than $8,600 (£4,500).

 

A no-contest plea is not regarded as an admission of guilt under California law but is treated as such for the purposes of sentencing.

 

Outside court, defence attorney Patricia J Hattersley said Ms Arvizo chose to plead no contest because she wanted to "move on with her life".

 

"She doesn't want to put her family and her children through a major trial," she told the Associated Press.

 

Witness credibility

 

Janet Arvizo was a key prosecution witness in Jackson's sex abuse trial, which ended with the singer being acquitted of all charges.

 

Evidence of her alleged benefit fraud was presented during the trial by Mr Jackson's defence lawyers in an attempt to undermine her credibility as a witness.

 

Ms Arvizo refused to testify about her financial situation during the trial on the grounds she might incriminate herself.

 

Michael Jackson is in London this week to appear at the World Music Awards, where he will perform his hit single Thriller and receive an award for his contribution to music.

 

Is this a very good example to prove that Californian authorities were "racist" in their prosecution of Michael Jackson?

Michael Jackson is not black though he turned his back on his colour and his roots as far as I am concerned he is the racist

the crime Michael Jackson stood trial for was a very serious one that centred around several counts of repeated child abuse - not the first time he has been accused of the very same thing.

 

Benefit fraud is irrelevant - it has zero standing in Kackson's case.

 

This woman wanted justice for her child.

 

She didn't get it.

Sorry, but I followed this trial very closely and anyone who did the same would clearly know that the entire case was a joke. EVERYTHING that came out of that childs mouth was false, it was proven several times by Jacko's excellent lawyers. The mother herself should be shot. She put her son through all of that just to get money. She is a discrace.

 

She contradicted herself during her testemonies countless times. But those who did'nt follow the word for word trial on Sky One might not realise this sadly.

the crime Michael Jackson stood trial for was a very serious one that centred around several counts of repeated child abuse - not the first time he has been accused of the very same thing.

 

Benefit fraud is irrelevant - it has zero standing in Kackson's case.

 

This woman wanted justice for her child.

 

She didn't get it.

 

Jackson was found not guilty so in the eyes of the law he is an innocent man, certain aspects of his behaviour did him no favours but at the end of the day he was found not guilty

Jackson was found not guilty so in the eyes of the law he is an innocent man, certain aspects of his behaviour did him no favours but at the end of the day he was found not guilty

 

True, I am not saying he has never done anything cause it's clear he is missing something upstairs but in this particular case it was rightly proven he was innocent imo.

Absolutely, Jackson did himself no favours with certain aspects of his conduct but having followed the trial myself I do not believe he was guilty of what he was being accused of, he is his own worst enemy by letting boys stay over at his place but from what I heard in the trial I thought that these 2 were just about the least credible witnesses I have ever come across in my life and that this woman was a leech trying to use her son to milk money out of Jackson so I believe the jury reached the right verdict in this instance

we will never know the truth, as i dont believe its untainted, i think its highly likely that jack used money to buy his innocence, after all... why tf did he offer a kid who was accusing him of the same thing $10,000 ten years ago if he had nothing to hide?... sorry but i believe jacko got off with it.

 

he is more or less my age.... what would be thought about me shareing a bed with a 10 year old girl whom i barely knew and was no relation??? eh??? he has done this repetedly for 25 years....

 

if he is innocent, he certainly doesnt act like it!

we will never know the truth, as i dont believe its untainted, i think its highly likely that jack used money to buy his innocence, after all... why tf did he offer a kid who was accusing him of the same thing $10,000 ten years ago if he had nothing to hide?... sorry but i believe jacko got off with it.

 

he is more or less my age.... what would be thought about me shareing a bed with a 10 year old girl whom i barely knew and was no relation??? eh??? he has done this repetedly for 25 years....

 

if he is innocent, he certainly doesnt act like it!

 

Exactly, if he did not invite boys and girls a quarter of his age round to stay at his house and sleep in his bed he would not face any court cases thats what I mean about him doing himself no favours and by doing what he does even if he is innocent of actual abuse he brings these things on himself by his conduct, what the **** parents are doing letting their kids stay over at Neverland in the first place is another matter as any parent that does that sort of thing with their child should be sterilised but I genuinely believe that this woman acted in a very underhand way and thus undermined any possible case against Jackson

The problem with him might be that in his mind he still thinks of himself as a child,so to him a sleepover is exactly that,he never really grew up,maybe he did physically but not mentally.

 

I am not defending him however,because common sense should still exist and he shows a complete lack of it on many occasions. :angry:

The problem with him might be that in his mind he still thinks of himself as a child,so to him a sleepover is exactly that,he never really grew up,maybe he did physically but not mentally.

 

I am not defending him however,because common sense should still exist and he shows a complete lack of it on many occasions. :angry:

 

A good post. It matches exactly my opinion of Michael Jackson over this matter.

 

I put the "racist" quote in, as it is what he had accused the Californian authorities & his previous record company Sony, of being in the past. Which is (of course) laughable when you consider his skin condition. OK so he might have a pigment problem, so why not "blacken" up, instead of "whiten" up, you hypocrite.

The problem with him might be that in his mind he still thinks of himself as a child,so to him a sleepover is exactly that,he never really grew up,maybe he did physically but not mentally.

 

I am not defending him however,because common sense should still exist and he shows a complete lack of it on many occasions. :angry:

 

That's exactly what I think

A good post. It matches exactly my opinion of Michael Jackson over this matter.

 

I put the "racist" quote in, as it is what he had accused the Californian authorities & his previous record company Sony, of being in the past. Which is (of course) laughable when you consider his skin condition. OK so he might have a pigment problem, so why not "blacken" up, instead of "whiten" up, you hypocrite.

 

It was proven to be a disease. I doubt any black person would seriously want to change their skin colour.

Does this ever end.

It was proven to be a disease. I doubt any black person would seriously want to change their skin colour.

 

 

except the thousands that have been hounded and persecuted for it.... jacko hasnt got a disease, he was bleached.

 

he might think of himself as a child, but thats no defence! in fact it makes him seem more like a loony!! theres no excuse for that at all, and how can a kid be thought of as a 'musical genius'?

 

nahhhh... the bloke might be mentaly deficient, but if hes clever enough to be a genius then he knows exactly what hes doing... after all... even kids grow up!!! he believed his own hype, thought he could do anything... and was proven right! an ordinary person like you or me couldnt have gotten away with it, but we arnt multi millionairres and famous.

 

 

and.... he slept at THEIR houses, not at neverland all the time.

Does this ever end.

 

 

why should it? i think the reasons are pretty clear, but 'fans' chose to turn a blind eye to his actions.

 

why dont his supporters let a middle aged stranger sleep in the same bed as THEIR daughter whos 10? go on.... oh but michalien (big dark eyes, grey skin.... alien!) cant be a pervert can he! hes the king of pop!

 

 

(just like gary glitter was) :lol:

Absolutely, Jackson did himself no favours with certain aspects of his conduct but having followed the trial myself I do not believe he was guilty of what he was being accused of,

 

Right. He may very well be a pervert and a paedophile. But the 2005 case against him was ABSURD. This woman had her kids take acting classes before their PREVIOUS frivolous lawsuit. A pathetic, disgusting woman.

 

Michael Jackson is gay. To deal with this, he has suspended himself in the psychological state of a child. His father is CRAZY and probably responsible for each and every one of his numerous mental diseases.

Right. He may very well be a pervert and a paedophile. But the 2005 case against him was ABSURD. This woman had her kids take acting classes before their PREVIOUS frivolous lawsuit. A pathetic, disgusting woman.

 

..And this is the problem.. People are going to look at the absurdity of this ONE case and say, 'oh well, he must be innocent of any wrongdoing..' without taking into account the fact that he sleeps with children on a regular basis, the 'secret room' full of Christ knows that the cops discovered in Neverland, the fact that he has created his whole image and lifestyle around attracting children into his world.... I think he is a predatory p****, I think he is fukked up psychologically, but he refuses to get treatment for his psychological illnesses, so I cant really have any sympathy for him, although as a kid my heart bleeds for him, truly.. Just because they got this one case wrong, does not mean he's not actually at it with some other kid, O J was found 'innocent' as well, I think we all pretty much know that fundamentally OJ was guilty of the crime itself, but he couldn't possibly be convicted because of the racist actions of the LAPD ....

 

As for Jacko's so-called 'skin condition' - what nonsense, I've seen people with sickle-cell anaemia (which is basically the disease that they are claiming Jacko has) and the skin goes white IN PATCHES, it's blotchy, it is not a gradual lightening, it happens in patches all over the face, it is a horrendous, disfiguring disease... Skin condition my arse, it's surgery.... I suppose his bloody nose changed its shape 'naturally' as well eh...? And his hair just went from wiry and afro to straight overnight as well... :lol: And reasons..? Deep rooted psychological ones - he despises his own identity because of the abuse he suffered as a child, so tries to create a new one through plastic surgery... Pretty obvious really....

Sorry, but I followed this trial very closely and anyone who did the same would clearly know that the entire case was a joke. EVERYTHING that came out of that childs mouth was false, it was proven several times by Jacko's excellent lawyers. The mother herself should be shot. She put her son through all of that just to get money. She is a discrace.

 

She contradicted herself during her testemonies countless times. But those who did'nt follow the word for word trial on Sky One might not realise this sadly.

I agree.

Seems the trial was more of a TV drama then an attempt at real justice.