Skip to content

May 3rd, 2005 Trial Analysis: David Saunders, Jeff Klapakis, Craig Bonner, Paul Zelis, Steve Robel, John O’Bryan, John Duross, Rudy Provencio, Part 4 of 4

July 19, 2014

Under recross-examination, Mesereau grilled Duross about his assessment of Jackson’s financial position:

Read more…

May 3rd, 2005 Trial Analysis: David Saunders, Jeff Klapakis, Craig Bonner, Paul Zelis, Steve Robel, John O’Bryan, John Duross, Rudy Provencio, Part 3 of 4

July 13, 2014

Under cross examination, Duross testified that –surprise, surprise – there were many financial documents that he requested from the prosecution that were not made available to him. What a shock, huh? I wonder why they weren’t made available to Duross? Could it be because they would make Jackson’s financial condition look better than what they were asserting to the jury?

Much to the chagrin of the prosecution and media, Duross stated that the documents he received from the prosecution put the Sony/ATV catalog’s worth at over one billion dollars!

Read more…

May 3rd, 2005 Trial Analysis: David Saunders, Jeff Klapakis, Craig Bonner, Paul Zelis, Steve Robel, John O’Bryan, John Duross, Rudy Provencio, Part 2 of 4

July 9, 2014

Before ending his direct examination, Sneddon questioned Robel about the Neverland gate logs that were seized 3 or 4 months before the start of the trial. You would think that such important evidence would have been seized much sooner in the investigation, but then again this is the Santa Barbara County Police Department that we’re talking about here! Read more…

May 3rd, 2005 Trial Analysis: David Saunders, Jeff Klapakis, Craig Bonner, Paul Zelis, Steve Robel, John O’Bryan, John Duross, Rudy Provencio, Part 1 of 4

July 6, 2014

The next prosecution witness was David Saunders, the chief criminal investigator for the District Attorney’s office. He assisted Sergeant Bonner and Detective Zelis with their analysis of the telephone records of Jackson, his entourage, and the Arvizos from March 2nd through 4th, 2003.

Assistant District Attorney Mag Nicola began his direct examination of Saunders by asking him to go through the laborious task of describing each phone call on his charts and Excel spreadsheets, and defense attorney Robert Sanger objected because it would take up too much time, and was redundant, but Judge Melville overruled his objection:

Read more…

May 2nd, 2005 Trial Analysis: Beverly Wagner, Craig Bonner, and Paul Zelis, Part 2 of 2

June 28, 2014

Here’s another sign of the incompetence of the police department: Bonner stated that he had evidence of phone calls by Neverland employee Rudy Provencio prior to February 8th, 2003 (which is the day that Vinnie Amen transported Janet Arvizo obtain birth certificates for her family for the purpose of getting visas to travel to Brazil), but it wasn’t analyzed by him and his team, and was thus excluded from his phone chart:

Read more…

May 2nd, 2005 Trial Analysis: Beverly Wagner, Craig Bonner, and Paul Zelis, Part 1 of 2

June 21, 2014

Before calling their next witness, the prosecution asked Judge Melville for permission to admit some additional exhibits into evidence. Those exhibits consisted of hotel records from the Turnberry Inn (where Jackson, his entourage, and the Arvizos stayed during their trip to Miami from February 5th through 7th, 2003), Calabasas Inn & Country Suites (where the Arvizos stayed temporarily on February 25th, 2003), and the Beverly Hilton Hotel (where Jackson met Gavin and his father at one point in time). There were no objections from the defense, and Judge Melville admitted the exhibits into evidence as requested: Read more…

April 29th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Rosibel Ferrufino Smith, Craig Bonner, Harry Koons, and Ian Drew, Part 3 of 3

June 15, 2014
tags:

Under cross examination, Mesereau questioned Drew about an interview he gave to Lt. Klapakis on August 4th, 2004 outside of his office. Sager attempted to object to her client being asked about what exactly he disclosed to police during this interview under the Journalist Shield Law, but Mesereau objected because Drew knew that whatever he told police would be disseminated through the media, and thus not protected from the Journalist Shield Law. This led to a contentious debate between the two attorneys, and the central issue at hand was Mesereau’s assertion that Sager was trying to preclude any type of cross-examination of Drew’s relationships with Schaffel, Konitzer, and Weisner, which he freely articulated to police during his interview. Drew had a falling out with Schaffel after he was unable to secure a piece of the multi-million dollar contract that Schaffel had entered into with Fox for the rights to air the Take Two documentary:

 

Read more…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 378 other followers