April 28th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Debbie Rowe, Iris Finsilver, Andrew Dietz, Jeffrey Schwartz, Crystalee Danko, Jennifer Simmons, Joe Corral, Part 2 of 3
The next prosecution witness was Debbie Rowe’s family law attorney Iris Finsilver, who has represented her since 1996. She helped to write the waiver that allowed Rowe to break her confidentiality agreement in order to participate in the rebuttal documentary, and she was also present during that interview. Here are her recollections of the interview:
15 DIRECT EXAMINATION
16 BY MR. ZONEN:
17 Q. Miss Finsilver, good morning.
18 A. Good morning.
19 Q. You’re not used to being on that side of the
20 witness stand, are you?
21 A. No, I’m not.
22 Q. What is your occupation?
23 A. I’m a lawyer.
24 Q. How long have you been an attorney?
25 A. I was admitted to the bar of Michigan in or
26 about 1986.
27 Q. In then California?
28 A. In California, I believe I was admitted in 8052
2 Q. What kind of a practice do you have?
3 A. Family law.
4 Q. And family law means what?
5 A. Divorce, custody, child custody, support,
6 family matters.
7 Q. All right. Is Debbie Rowe Jackson your
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. How long has she been your client?
11 A. Since in or about 1996.
12 Q. Did you represent her in her divorce with
13 Michael Jackson?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. Do you continue to represent her?
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. Were you present at the filming of an
18 interview that took place in Calabasas at the
19 residence of Marc Schaffel back in February of 2003?
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. Prior to doing that, had you engaged in any
22 legal work to be able to allow Deborah Rowe to
23 participate in that interview?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. What was the purpose of that?
26 A. It was — she had signed a confidentiality
27 agreement, and in order for her to speak of Mr.
28 Jackson, she would have to be released from the 8053
1 confidentiality agreement for the express purpose of
2 speaking about Mr. Jackson.
3 Q. Did you draft that waiver of
5 A. I think it was a mutual effort between Mr.
6 Jackson’s lawyers and myself. It was in fact, yes.
7 Q. But it was one that was drafted as a
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. And was it one that required signatures?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. Whose signatures were required on that
14 A. Mr. Jackson’s and Deborah Rowe Jackson’s.
15 Q. And did Debbie Rowe sign the document?
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. And to your knowledge, did Mr. Jackson sign
18 the document?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. And following the signing of that document,
21 did Miss Rowe participate in an interview?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. Were you present during the interview?
24 A. Yes, I was.
25 Q. Were you present during the entirety of the
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. Approximately how long did that interview 8054
2 A. Well, I can tell you the whole day was about
3 nine hours. And I can’t exactly tell you how long
4 the filming took place. It was many hours of
5 filming throughout a nine-hour day.
Finsilver confirmed that Schaffel was present during the interview, and made suggestions to certain questions and answers, and Zonen quickly ended his direct examination. Mesereau declined to cross examine Finsilver. Read more…
April 28th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Debbie Rowe, Iris Finsilver, Andrew Dietz, Jeffrey Schwartz, Crystalee Danko, Jennifer Simmons, Joe Corral, Part 1 of 3
Debbie Rowe’s direct examination continued today, and but before she took the stand Judge Melville listened to oral arguments from the prosecution and defense outside the presence of the jury. The defense filed a motion to have Debbie Rowe’s testimony from the previous day stricken, and after a short discussion, Judge Melville ruled that Rowe should be able to continue her testimony.
The defense filed a motion titled MOTION TO STRIKE THE TESTIMONY OF DEBBIE ROWE to have Rowe’s testimony stricken because it contradicted the prosecution offer that they would only ask her about whether or not her children (Prince and Paris) were used as pawns to get her to participate in the rebuttal documentary, and the 100 scripted questions that she was asked during her interview. Also, Rowe completely rejected many of the prosecution’s claims and assertions about Jackson.
5 (The following proceedings were held in
6 open court outside the presence and hearing of the
9 THE COURT: Good morning, everyone.
10 COUNSEL AT COUNSEL TABLE: (In unison)
11 Good morning.
12 THE COURT: The reason I came in without the
13 jury is I was provided with a motion to strike the
14 testimony of Debbie Rowe this morning.
15 I assumed you anticipated I would take that
16 up at this moment. Or did you not?
17 MR. SANGER: We hoped you would, if you
18 would give us the time to do it, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Here’s my sense of it: She
20 hasn’t testified long enough for me to know, really,
21 what she’s going to say, or anyone else. And your
22 motion might be well-taken. It might not. But I –
23 I understand what she said yesterday, but I don’t
24 really understand what she has to say today. So I
25 would want to really hear more testimony, I think.
26 MR. SANGER: Very well. Well, we briefed
27 it, and Your Honor understands our position.
28 THE COURT: I understand your position. 7975
1 I just think the — she barely got started
2 yesterday. I mean, I really — I think I’d have to
3 let it — well, I would have to know more about what
4 she says than what I know already to know whether or
5 not your motion is well-taken.
6 MR. SANGER: Well, my concern was — if I
7 may, my concern was to raise it at the earliest
8 possible moment –
9 THE COURT: I know.
10 MR. SANGER: — because if it goes too long,
11 then we get into a position where it’s hard to undo
12 it. And if –
13 THE COURT: I understand that, but –
14 MR. SANGER: I’m not arguing with the Court.
15 THE COURT: Okay.
16 MR. SANGER: I just want to let you know why
17 I think — whenever you feel –
18 THE COURT: There is another side of the
19 coin, though. I let the testimony in based on their
20 representations in their written materials, which –
21 if the testimony is the exact opposite, I mean,
22 isn’t that the testimony that would be relevant to
23 your side of the case?
24 MR. SANGER: Yes and no. And the problem –
25 I understand that. And we thought about it, but the
26 problem is that this will then lead to a tremendous
27 amount of other collateral testimony to put whatever
28 it is in context. 7976
1 THE COURT: Okay.
2 MR. SANGER: And that’s my concern. If we
3 go too far down the road, then we pretty much are
4 committed to doing the whole thing.
5 THE COURT: Okay. Well, let’s go further
6 down the road before –
7 MR. SANGER: Thank you.
8 THE COURT: Is there anything you — you
9 didn’t get to say anything. I assume –
10 MR. ZONEN: Nor am I requesting to.
11 THE COURT: Huh?
12 MR. ZONEN: Nor am I requesting to.
13 THE COURT: Okay.
Zonen started off his direct examination by continuing his questioning of Rowe about her participation in the Take Two rebuttal documentary. He focused on the questions that were posed to her by Schaffel and his crew in order to back up his assertion that Rowe’s interview was scripted, and she testified that Schaffel would interject to offer suggestions to her answers, but nothing was scripted, although she admitted to lying about presenting herself as being involved with Jackson and his children, when in fact she had not spoken to him since their divorce in 1999: Read more…
April 27th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Hamid Moslehi, Terry Paulsen, Gabriel Dominguez, Anne Marie Sims, Joseph Shebroe, Jeanne Mulcahy, Debbie Rowe, Part 4 of 4
The next prosecution witness was Gabriel Dominguez, a custodian of records for T-Mobile. He was asked to verify phone records for Christopher Carter (Jackson’s bodyguard), Francesco Cascio (Frank), Vincent Amen (Frank’s friend and unindicted co-conspirator), Evelyn Tavasci (Jackson’s assistant), and Christian Robinson (who directed the rebuttal documentary that was aired on Fox) during the period of January through March 2003. His entire direct and cross examination literally consisted of him trying to explain how to read a phone bill! So I’ll just move on to the next witness; if there was anything of any substance to his testimony, I would summarize it, but there was nothing noteworthy that is worth repeating here.
The next prosecution witnesses were Anne Marie Sims , Joseph Shebroe, and Jeanne Mulcahy, custodians of records for the Pacific Bell telephone company, Verizon, and AT&T, respectively. Once again, I will skip their testimonies because nothing worthwhile or significant was said.
The next prosecution witness was Jackson’s ex-wife Debbie Rowe, who started off by explaining her relationship with Jackson, and her visitation rights with Prince and Paris.
Before I get to her testimony, let’s look at the motions that were filed by the prosecution and defense regarding the admission and exclusion, respectively, of Rowe’s testimony.
On April 21st, 2005 the prosecution filed PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PRESENT THE TESTIMONY OF DEBBIE ROWE PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE §1101, in which they argued that Rowe should be allowed to testify in order to corroborate Jackson’s plan to force the Arvizo family to shoot the rebuttal video (remember, the prosecution claimed that they were held hostage at Neverland so that they could be forced to shoot the rebuttal video). The prosecution asserted that Rowe agreed to take part in the rebuttal video so that she could see her children, and that she willingly lied to make Jackson look good.
The next day, the defense countered with MR. JACKSON’S OPPOSTION TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO PRESENT THE TESTIMONY OF DEBBIE ROWE, in which they argued that the prosecution was using Rowe to bolster their obviously weak and floundering case, and they wanted to embarrass Jackson by delving into his child custody litigation with Rowe.
On April 26th, 2005 the prosecution filed PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING WITNESS DEBBIE ROWE TO TESTIFY FULLY AS TO RELEVANT MATTERS NOTWITHSTANDING CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT THAT CERTAIN MATTERS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, in which they promised to not ask Rowe to answer any questions that would violate any confidentiality agreements that she and Jackson signed regarding their children. This motion was filed in an obvious attempt to appease the Court and give Judge Melville one less reason to grant the defense’s request to exclude Rowe from testifying.
Well, Judge Melville obviously ruled that Rowe could testify (otherwise, she wouldn’t be here!), so let’s get to her testimony right now:
4 DIRECT EXAMINATION
5 BY MR. ZONEN:
6 Q. Do you refer to be called Miss Rowe?
7 A. Debbie, please.
8 Q. All right. But in court, we’re a little
9 more formal.
10 A. Oh.
11 Q. In terms of surnames, do you go by Miss
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you know the defendant, Michael Jackson,
15 seated to my right with the long, dark hair?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. How do you know Mr. Jackson?
18 A. We’ve been friends and we were married.
19 Q. When were you married to Mr. Jackson?
20 A. From 1997 to 1999.
21 Q. All right. We’ve –
22 A. Sorry.
23 Q. The acoustics are not quite what they could
24 be in this courtroom, so you have to stay close to
25 the microphone and keep your voice up. Is that all
27 A. Okay.
28 Q. All right. You were married to Mr. Jackson 7932
1 between which periods of time again, please?
2 A. I believe 1997 to 1999.
3 Q. For what period of time did you know Mr.
4 Jackson prior to that?
5 A. Probably 20 years or more.
6 Q. Were you friends with Mr. Jackson?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Are you the mother of his two children?
9 A. Yes, I am.
10 Q. The two oldest children?
11 A. Yes, I am.
12 Q. And their names are what?
13 A. Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr., and Paris
14 Michael Katherine Jackson.
15 Q. And when were you divorced from Mr. Jackson?
16 A. October — I believe October 1999.
17 Q. Did you have — did you ever live with Mr.
18 Jackson during the course of your marriage?
19 A. We never shared a home.
20 Q. Did you live with Mr. Jackson prior to that
22 A. We never shared an apartment.
23 Q. At the time that the marriage was dissolved,
24 was there an understanding or an agreement as to
25 child custody?
26 A. I’m sorry?
27 Q. Was there an understanding or agreement as
28 to child custody? 7933
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And who had custody of the two children?
3 A. Michael did.
4 Q. Did you have visitation of the two children?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. And what was the extent of the visitation as
7 determined by that divorce?
8 A. Every 45 days for eight hours.
9 Q. All right. Did you, in fact, see the two
10 children every 45 days for eight hours?
11 A. I tried.
12 Q. All right. Were there difficulties in being
13 able to do so?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What kinds of difficulties?
16 A. There were times that the children and
17 Michael would be out of the country, and I was
18 working at the time, and if they were in South
19 Africa, I would not have enough time to fly to where
20 they were and then return home in time to be at
22 Q. Were you able to make up that eight-hour
23 period when they returned?
24 A. No. It was pushed off until the next 45
26 Q. For what period of time did that continue,
27 that custody arrangement?
28 A. I believe a year and a half. 7934
1 Q. At some point in time did you voluntarily
2 agree to give up parental rights as to those two
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And when was that, can you tell us?
6 A. I believe 2001.
7 Q. And why did you do that?
8 A. The visitations were not comfortable. We
9 were hooked up at a hotel. I was — when I would
10 bring things to do, finger-painting, coloring or
11 whatever, the nanny was always very concerned with
12 the children getting dirty. I would bring T-shirts
13 or something to put over their clothes, and the
14 environment was very sterile. It wasn’t a quality
16 Q. Did you ask to have more time with the kids?
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.
19 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer was,
21 THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.
22 THE COURT: Next question.
23 That’s all right.
24 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: And was that request granted?
25 A. No.
26 Q. And tell me why you made the decision to
27 give up parental rights as to the two children at
28 that time. 7935
1 A. I didn’t believe that –
2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance;
4 THE COURT: Sustained.
5 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: At some point in time — when
6 was the last time that you saw the two children?
7 A. Two and a half, three years ago. I’m not
8 sure. I don’t remember the dates.
Next, Zonen questioned Rowe about how her interview for the “Take Two” rebuttal documentary was set up. The prosecution asserted that Jackson offered Rowe the opportunity to see the children as bait to get her to agree to do the interview: Read more…
April 27th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Hamid Moslehi, Terry Paulsen, Gabrel Dominguez, Anne Marie Sims, Joseph Shebroe, Jeanne Mulcahy, Debbie Rowe, Part 3 of 4
In order to discredit Mesereau’s assertion that if Janet had been in danger at Neverland she would have told Moslehi, Auchincloss asked him if he even had a close relationship with Janet to where she would even feel comfortable enough to tell him in the first place, and Moslehi stated that he felt that they were close due to his close association with her family:
27 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. You were asked
28 if she told you some things about her circumstances 7839
1 at the time. Did Janet confide in you anything
2 other than the fact that her world was upside down
3 at that time?
4 A. I don’t remember.
5 Q. Okay. Did you have a relationship with
6 Janet where she would sit down and confide with you
7 details about her problems, other than what you’ve
9 A. Did I have a relationship? Such as –
10 Q. Is she the type of person that would sit
11 down and confide in you personal things?
12 A. I believe because I worked with her kids a
13 lot during a few other productions, she kind of felt
14 comfortable to just empty herself of whatever she
15 had in mind, I guess, at that time.
16 Q. And did she do that in that phone
17 conversation with you at Neverland?
18 A. Did she did that on that conversation?
19 Q. Yeah. That you had when you were at
21 A. I believe the way she was expressing her,
22 you know, personal life matters, in this case being
23 upside down because of the media, I felt like, you
24 know, she needs a shoulder to cry, kind of things.
25 Q. Did she do that any other time?
26 A. No.
Next, Auchincloss focused on the period of time between February 20th and 21st, 2003, when which is the day the rebuttal video was shot, and the day after, respectively. During his phone call with Jackson (who called to thank him for his work on the rebuttal documentary), Moslehi mentioned to him the unpaid invoices that he was due, and he was told by Jackson to call his attorney David Legrand.
Moslehi called LeGrand to complain about his unpaid invoices, and the next day he received a faxed termination letter that stated his services would no longer be needed. Moslehi was instructed to meet with Konitzer and Weisner, but felt that they were playing games with him because they were insincere with him, and were playing “phone tag” (i.e. Moslehi would call one, and would be told to call the other, etc.) Read more…
April 27th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Hamid Moslehi, Terry Paulsen, Gabrel Dominguez, Anne Marie Sims, Joseph Shebroe, Jeanne Mulcahy, Debbie Rowe, Part 2 of 4
In this next excerpt, Moslehi stated that he wasn’t aware of any subsequent documentaries after the “Take Two” rebuttal (i.e. Jackson’s “Hidden Home Movies” special), that he was present at Neverland on February 8th, 2003 when Ed Bradley and his crew arrived to interview Jackson, and that he developed a friendship with the Arvizos beginning in 2000.
24 Q. The FOX TV special, “The Footage You Were
25 Never Meant To See,” appeared on February 20th,
26 2003, on television, right?
27 A. That’s correct.
28 Q. Did you watch that show? 7794
1 A. Yes, I did.
2 Q. Okay. Did some of the footage you had done
3 of the Bashir interview appear on that documentary?
4 A. Yes, it did.
5 Q. Did your interview, your personal interview,
6 appear in that documentary?
7 A. Yes, it did.
8 Q. Was it your understanding that additional
9 documentaries were going to be made to put Mr.
10 Jackson in a favorable light?
11 A. Another after “The Footage You Were Never
12 Meant To See,” I had no knowledge of that.
13 Q. You never understood there was to be a two-
14 or three-part series in that regard?
15 A. No. Nobody informed me anything on that.
16 Q. Okay. Do you recall being at Neverland on
17 approximately February 8th, 2003, to meet people
18 from 60 Minutes?
19 A. I believe so. I think it was a Saturday, if
20 I’m not wrong.
21 Q. Do you remember meeting someone named Ed
22 Bradley at Neverland?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And do you remember meeting Mr. LeGrand on
25 that day?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. Do you remember meeting other people from
28 CBS on that day? 7795
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And why were you at Neverland on February
3 8th, 2003?
4 A. I was there as a personal DP, which stands
5 for Director of Photography, for Mr. Jackson, for
6 his lighting and the look of his picture.
7 Q. Was anything filmed on February 8th, 2003?
8 A. I don’t believe so.
9 Q. Do you know why?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Okay. How long were you there that day, if
12 you remember?
13 A. A few hours.
14 Q. Do you remember seeing Janet Arvizo there
15 that day?
16 A. I don’t remember.
17 Q. Would it refresh your recollection just to
18 look at the police report summary of your interview?
19 A. Sure.
20 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?
21 THE COURT: Yes.
22 THE WITNESS: I don’t remember making that
23 statement about Janet.
24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: How many times do you
25 think you have seen Janet Arvizo at Neverland?
26 A. I would say two or three times.
27 Q. Okay. Do you know approximately when?
28 A. At various times. 7796
1 Q. Okay. Approximately when do you think the
2 first time you saw Janet Arvizo at Neverland was?
3 A. Between 2000 and 2003. It could have been
4 2001. I don’t know.
5 Q. Okay. Did you meet her for the first time
6 when the 60 Minutes crew was at Neverland?
7 A. I don’t remember seeing her that day.
8 Q. Okay. When do you think you first saw her,
10 A. It could have — again, it’s between the
11 year 2000 and 2002, I would say. It could — like
12 approximately 2001. I don’t know.
13 Q. And was your first meeting with her at
14 Neverland, to your knowledge?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. And do you recall whether or not her
17 children were there when you met her the first time?
18 A. I think they were.
19 Q. Okay. And you indicated in response to the
20 prosecutor’s questions you developed a friendship
21 with the Arvizo family?
22 A. Well, as I said, in the year 2000, I did two
23 projects that Arvizo kids, David or Star and Gavin,
24 were involved. One of the project I was directing.
25 And within that project I had a lot of conversations
26 and interactions with David and Gavin. So I kind of
27 got to know them.
28 Q. Did you stay in touch with them on a social 7797
2 A. No.
3 Q. When you weren’t talking to them at
4 Neverland, did you call them on the phone?
5 A. From Neverland, calling them?
6 Q. Let me rephrase it. I’ll ask a better
8 Aside from the instances where you saw them
9 in person, did you have a relationship where you
10 would call them from time to time?
11 A. I don’t think so.
12 Q. Did they call you from time to time?
13 A. I don’t think so.
14 Q. Okay. So your only involvement with them
15 was either at Neverland or when they came to your
16 home; is that right?
17 A. That’s correct.
18 Q. You didn’t see them during your trips to
19 Florida, right?
20 A. No, I didn’t.
Debbie Rowe’s interview with Moslehi was the next subject that Mesereau focused on; the interview was shot at Marc Schaffel’s house in early February 2003, before the Arvizo’s rebuttal video was filmed. Schaffel initially wanted the rebuttal video with the Arvizos shot at his home, but changed his mind because he didn’t want them to know where he lived (which was a very wish choice on his part!) Read more…
April 27th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Hamid Moslehi, Terry Paulsen, Gabrel Dominguez, Anne Marie Sims, Joseph Shebroe, Jeanne Mulcahy, Debbie Rowe, Part 1 of 4
Mesereau’ cross examination of Hamid Moslehi continued today, and he continued on the subject of Moslehi’s $2,000 dollar loan to Janet Arvizo on February 19th, 2003, which he offered to her on his own volition because he felt sorry for her. The check was given to her after the rebuttal video was filmed, and one of the motivating factors for Moslehi was Janet’s comments about being “spit upon and abused”. Mesereau used this information to discredit Janet’s claims of being poor by asking Moslehi if Janet told him that she was living with and receiving financial support from Major Jay Jackson, and if she told him about her $152,000 dollar J.C. Penney settlement, among other facts.
As you would imagine, Janet never revealed to Moslehi the true state of her finances!
18 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued)
19 BY MR. MESEREAU:
20 Q. Good morning.
21 A. Good morning.
22 Q. Mr. Moslehi, yesterday you mentioned that
23 you had decided to give Janet Arvizo a $2,000 loan
24 on approximately February 19th, 2003, right?
25 A. That’s correct.
26 Q. And you said you did that based upon a phone
27 conversation with Ms. Arvizo that lasted about 25
28 minutes, right? 7752
1 A. That’s correct.
2 Q. You didn’t give her the actual check till
3 the next day after you had filmed the Arvizo family
4 in what is often referred to as the rebuttal
5 portion, right?
6 A. Towards the end of it, after the interview,
8 Q. Yes. Now, obviously, if you were filming
9 the Arvizo family in that tape, you heard what Janet
10 was saying, correct?
11 A. Oftentimes I wasn’t paying fully attention
12 to what she was saying because I was mostly
13 concerned about, you know, lighting, camera, that
14 kind of stuff. But, yeah, I heard some.
15 Q. But you heard a number of the things that
16 Janet Arvizo said in that footage, correct?
17 A. Some, yes.
18 Q. And did you hear her saying words to the
19 effect that her family had been spat upon and abused
20 and not treated properly by various people?
21 A. I believe so.
22 Q. And would it be accurate to say that your
23 phone conversation with her the previous day plus
24 what you heard her say in that tape-recording
25 influenced you to give her $2,000?
26 A. In some effect, yes.
27 Q. Okay. Now, in your phone conversation with
28 Ms. Arvizo on February 19th, 2003, did she ever tell 7753
1 you that she was living with and being supported by
2 a Major Jay Jackson?
3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object as assumes
4 facts not in evidence. Compound, as well.
5 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll rephrase it if the Court
6 would like.
7 THE COURT: All right.
8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When Ms. Arvizo on the
9 19th of February 2003 in your approximately
10 25-minute phone conversation discussed her financial
11 situation, did she ever tell you she was living with
12 Major Jay Jackson?
13 A. I don’t remember her making a comment as far
14 as where she lives and who she lives with.
15 Q. In that conversation, did she ever tell you
16 that she was being supported by a Major Jay Jackson?
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object as assuming
18 facts not in evidence.
19 MR. MESEREAU: Strictly a question.
20 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
21 You may answer.
22 THE WITNESS: Um, did she mention whether she
23 lives or being supported by Jay Jackson?
24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: My first question was, did
25 Janet Arvizo in your phone conversation on February
26 19th, 2003, ever mention to you that she was living
27 with a Major Jay Jackson, and I believe you said,
28 “No.” 7754
1 A. I believe — I don’t remember having that
3 Q. My next question is, in that same phone
4 conversation did Janet Arvizo ever mention that she
5 was receiving any financial support from a Major Jay
7 A. I don’t remember having that conversation.
8 Q. In that phone conversation, did Ms. Arvizo
9 ever mention that her family had obtained an
10 approximately $152,000 settlement from J.C. Penney?
11 A. No.
12 Q. In that phone conversation, did Miss Arvizo
13 ever mention that her family had received any money
14 from fund-raisers at The Laugh Factory?
15 A. No.
16 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object and move to
17 strike, as to the last question, as vague as to
19 THE COURT: Overruled.
20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In that phone conversation
21 of February 19th, 2003, did Ms. Arvizo ever mention
22 that any celebrities had at any time given her
23 family money?
24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; vague as to
26 THE COURT: Overruled.
27 THE WITNESS: Do I answer? No.
28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And in your phone 7755
1 conversation on February 19th, 2003, did Ms. Arvizo
2 ever mention that she had set up a bank account for
3 the benefit of her son Gavin from which she withdrew
4 thousands of dollars?
5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; assumes facts
6 not in evidence.
7 THE COURT: Sustained.
8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In that phone conversation
9 on February 19th, 2003, did Ms. Arvizo ever mention
10 that she had set up a bank account for the benefit
11 of her son Gavin?
12 A. No.
13 Q. And in that same phone conversation, did she
14 ever mention that her family had ever obtained any
15 vehicle from Michael Jackson?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Did she ever say in that phone conversation
18 any benefits, financial or otherwise, that she or
19 her family had received from Michael Jackson?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Did she ever say anything about someone
22 named Louise Palanker giving the family $20,000?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Did she ever say anything about Fritz
25 Coleman, a newscaster in Los Angeles, trying to
26 raise money for the family?
27 A. No.
28 Q. Did she ever say anything about Chris Tucker 7756
1 giving $2,000 to the family?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Did she ever say anything about Chris Tucker
4 giving the family the use of a vehicle at any time?
5 A. No.
Next, Moslehi was questioned about the process of picking up Davellin, Gavin, and Star from Neverland, so that they could be taken to his home to shoot the rebuttal video. Read more…
Moslehi was told by Schaffel that the rebuttal video wouldn’t be shot at Neverland, but rather at Moslehi’s home. Moslehi responded by asking if it could be shot at Scheffel’s home, but he didn’t want the Arvizos to remember his address (smart man!)
25 Q. Okay. Who informed you of that?
26 A. I believe it was Marc Schaffel.
27 Q. You believe?
28 A. Well, Marc Schaffel, I think. It was Marc 7686
2 Q. And how did you hear from Marc Schaffel that
3 that was not going to take place at Neverland that
5 A. I believe it was a phone conversation.
6 Q. So you had — was this the first phone
7 conversation? Second? You tell me.
8 A. I believe could be second.
9 Q. And did you receive some instructions from
10 Mr. Schaffel regarding the filming on that second
11 phone conversation?
12 A. If I remember correctly, he informed me that
13 Janet, the mom, is going to — is going to be in
14 L.A. She’s in L.A. Therefore, we’re going to shoot
15 this in L.A. He asked me if I can shoot that in my
16 house. I respond to him that if we can shoot it at
17 his house, but then he said he doesn’t want them to
18 remember where he lives. So we ended up shooting at
19 my house.
20 Q. Mr. Schaffel said he didn’t want who to know
21 where he lived?
22 A. I believe the family.
23 Q. So what did you do then?
24 A. I informed my crew that this production will
25 not take — this shoot will not take place at
26 Neverland. I let them know that they should pack
27 the equipment. And then I got the three kids and we
28 drove back to my house. 7687
1 Q. After you spoke to Mr. Schaffel and learned
2 that the shoot was going to take place at your
3 house, did you have a conversation with Joe Marcus,
4 the Neverland Ranch manager?
5 A. If I remember correctly, I — when I arrived
6 at Neverland, I let him know why I’m there, to shoot
7 this interview. Then later, I informed him that
8 it’s not going to happen here at Neverland, it’s
9 going to be at my house, and I’m taking the kids
10 with me.
11 Q. Did you tell him that you were going to do
12 the shoot with the mother and the kids?
13 A. I believe so.
14 Q. What was Mr. Marcus’s reaction when you told
15 him that you wanted to take the kids off of
17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.
18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Offered in furtherance.
19 THE COURT: All right. I’m going to admit it
20 for the limited purposes previously discussed on the
21 conspiracy issue.
22 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: What did Mr. Marcus
23 tell you when you informed him that — of your
24 intent to take the children –
25 A. I believe he said –
26 Q. — to your home?
27 A. I believe he said, “They’re not allowed to
28 leave the property.” 7688
1 Q. You believe that or did –
2 A. I did –
3 Q. Do you remember what he said?
4 A. I remember he said, “They’re not allowed to
5 leave the property.”
6 Q. At some point did you confront him with the
7 intent or did you confront him with the necessity to
8 have the children go down to your home to complete
9 the video shoot?
10 A. Well, at one point I believe I informed him
11 that the video that we were supposed to shoot at
12 Neverland, it’s not going to take place, and it’s
13 going to be at my house.
14 Q. Uh-huh.
15 A. So the kids are coming with me.
16 Q. Did he agree to anything at that time during
17 that first conversation with you in terms of letting
18 the kids off the property?
19 A. He agreed?
20 Q. Yes. Did he agree with you about anything
21 during that first conversation you had with Joe
22 Marcus where he told you that the kids are not
23 allowed off of the property?
24 A. What do you mean, did he agree? Do you mean
25 letting them go with me, or –
26 Q. Yes.
27 A. I don’t remember hearing anything from him.
28 Q. Okay. What did you do then? 7689
1 A. Then I let the kids know that within, like,
2 15 minutes we’re going to take off, “So get your
3 stuff ready.”
4 Q. What did you do in the next 15 minutes?
5 A. If I remember correctly, I went to help my
6 crew so we can pack the car, the equipment back to
7 the car, and take off.
8 Q. Did you see Joe Marcus again before you left
10 A. I believe I did.
11 Q. Did you talk to him about getting the kids
12 off the property?
13 A. I’m not sure if I had a conversation with
14 him about that, but he saw me leaving.
15 Q. All right. So you were allowed to leave
16 Neverland when you drove off the property, when you
17 wanted to leave the property?
18 A. Yeah, that’s right.
19 Q. And how much time went by between the time
20 that you first told Joe Marcus — or when Joe Marcus
21 first told you the kids are not allowed off
22 Neverland and the time that you actually drove off
23 of Neverland?
24 A. I would say approximately half an hour.
25 Q. When you went down to the theater to collect
26 your equipment, where was — where did Joe Marcus
27 go, or where was he?
28 A. I don’t know. 7690
1 Q. Did he come with you?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Do you know if he had any conversations with
4 anybody during that meantime?
5 A. I’m not sure.
6 Q. All right. So you took the kids, personally
7 you loaded them up in one of the vehicles?
8 A. That’s correct.
9 Q. How many vehicles?
10 A. I took two vehicles of mine to Neverland.
11 Q. Okay. And which vehicle did the kids go in?
12 A. I had a Suburban for the equipment and the
13 crew, and a BMW for myself, basically.
14 Q. Okay. Which one did the kids go in?
15 A. The BMW.
16 Q. And you drove that?
17 A. That’s correct.
18 Q. And did you drive straight to your home?
19 A. That’s correct.
20 Q. About what time was it when you ultimately
21 arrived at your home?
22 A. Approximately 11:00-ish.
23 Q. And what did the children do during the
24 drive down from Santa Barbara?
25 A. We had some little conversations, and they
26 went to sleep.
27 Q. Your home is in Calabasas?
28 A. West Hills. 7691
1 Q. West Hills. So you arrived at your home
2 about 11:00. What did you do then?
3 A. I immediately started loading equipment to
4 the area that I was going to shoot, and let the kids
5 play with video games and things like that.
6 Q. Do you have some video games at your home?
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. Some fancy ones?
9 A. Not really.
10 Q. Okay. So they played video games?
11 A. That’s right.
12 Q. All three of them?
13 A. I guess the guys. She was — I don’t know
14 what she was doing. I don’t remember exactly. But
15 she was there, too.
16 Q. Did they stay in one area of the house
17 during that period?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. And were your two assistants still with you?
20 A. Yes, they were.
21 Q. Was there anybody else at the house when you
22 first arrived, other than you, your assistants and
23 the Arvizo kids?
24 A. No. Just us.
25 Q. Did someone arrive at the house shortly
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. Who was that? Who was the first person to 7692
2 A. I believe was Christian Robinson, and
3 another gentleman by the name of Paul, which is an
4 associate of Marc Schaffel.
5 Q. Had you met Paul before?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. On what occasion?
8 A. In the year 2001, Mr. Jackson did the
9 project “What More Can I Give?” And Paul was
10 involved somehow with that production helping
12 Q. Did you set up your equipment for the shoot?
13 A. At my house, yeah.
Auchincloss focused on the presence of Brad Miller as a sign that something nefarious was going on during the shooting of the rebuttal video; he tried to sway the jury into believing that he was there to intimidate the Arvizos into cooperating, especially since he had already interviewed them a few weeks prior, Moslehi testified that he didn’t feel “comfortable” about Miller being at his house: Read more…