April 28th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Debbie Rowe, Iris Finsilver, Andrew Dietz, Jeffrey Schwartz, Crystalee Danko, Jennifer Simmons, Joe Corral, Part 3 of 3
Under cross examination, Schwartz confirmed that the calls were from Jay Jackson’s landline:
14 BY MR. SANGER:
15 Q. Mr. Schwartz, how are you?
16 A. Pretty well.
17 Q. Good. I think you need to kind of list more
18 towards that microphone, if you could.
19 A. This one?
20 Q. Yes, please.
21 The phone records that you just testified to
22 are in the name of Jay Jackson; is that correct?
23 A. Yes, that’s correct.
24 Q. And there’s a billing address in Los
25 Angeles; is that correct?
26 A. That’s correct.
27 Q. Is this a land-based landline phone or is
28 this a mobile phone? 8121
1 A. It’s a land-based phone.
2 Q. Is it your understanding this is a residence
4 A. It is. Our company only provides LD service
5 to residence phones. We don’t provide any type of
6 cellular service.
The remainder of Sanger’s cross examination consisted of him asking Schwartz about several phone calls from Jay Jackson’s telephone to Jackson and his entourage’s phones from January 1st through February 11th, 2003. The three outgoing phone calls from Jackson’s phone to Neverland on February 11th were on the same day was treated to a full leg wax, lip wax, and bikini wax at the Aromatherapy Day Spa at Jackson’s expense!
7 Q. So this particular phone number — let me
8 see if I can put one of these up here.
9 Your Honor, with the Court’s permission,
10 I’ll put up page — I guess it’s really just page
11 one. I’ll put up my copy of page one and see if
12 this looks like your copy of page one of Exhibit
14 A. That is.
15 Q. All right. So you can look at yours,
16 because it’s a little hard to read.
17 A. Okay.
18 Q. But look up here first just so you can see
19 what I’m pointing at. I’m going to point on the
20 screen at a phone number up there. Is that the
21 phone number that is associated with this account?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. And the account is for Jay Jackson, correct?
24 A. That’s correct.
25 Q. Now, I’m going to ask you to tell us what
26 the — well, let me ask –
27 Your Honor, I need to ask for the actual
28 phone number. It’s up there. Is that all right if 8122
1 I do that? I don’t want to –
2 THE COURT: Yes. It was the other
3 information that we were concerned about, the Social
4 Security numbers, that kind of thing.
5 MR. SANGER: That’s fine. Thank you. I
6 just want to make sure.
7 Q. Can you read that phone number from the
9 A. From your exhibit or my exhibit?
10 Q. You have the official exhibit. I’m putting
11 up a copy.
12 A. All right. Yes, I can.
13 Q. Please read it.
14 A. (213) 739-9279.
15 Q. All right. Now, your phone company provided
16 service, provided long-distance service to that
17 number; is that correct?
18 A. That’s correct.
19 Q. Does that mean anytime that the phone was
20 picked up and a call was made on that telephone
21 number ending in 9279, anytime the phone was picked
22 up and a long-distance call was made, it would be
23 automatically billed to your carrier?
24 A. That’s correct.
25 Q. Is there a way to bill it to some other
27 A. No.
28 Q. All right. So I’m going to put up page two 8123
1 with the Court’s permission. And if you can look in
2 the book there so you can actually read it. But
3 I’ll also help you to stay closer to the microphone,
4 because we have that microphone issue here.
5 These records start when?
6 A. On page one is what we’re talking about?
7 Q. Yeah. I mean the records you just –
8 A. January 1 of .03.
9 Q. January 1 of .03. And these appear to be
10 the comprehensive records for that period of time;
11 is that correct?
12 A. They are, correct.
13 Q. All right. Now, do you know what carrier
14 this customer, Jay Jackson, had for his regular
15 telephone services?
16 A. It would — probably — I don’t know
17 specifically. It would probably be Pac-Bell.
18 Q. Pac-Bell. Okay. So if we had seen, for
19 instance, on February 4th a Pac-Bell record showing
20 a call from this number to Reseda, two calls to
21 Reseda on February 4th, they were logged in on the
22 Pac-Bell statement, those calls would not
23 necessarily show up here; is that right?
24 A. I’m not sure I understand your question.
25 Q. Well, let’s do it this way. I’ll just ask
26 you to look at yours, because I can’t read mine from
27 the thing there.
28 If you look at the entries – 8124
1 I’m going to put that page back up again,
2 Your Honor, if I may. Now that I’ve seen it, I’ll
3 do it this way here.
4 I’ll just try to look at the particular
5 entries here. If you look at the entries for –
6 starting at the top, it starts with 1-1-03, correct?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And it goes through the month of January.
9 There is a total of 11 calls through January,
10 correct? Well, no, I’m sorry, there’s a total of
11 nine calls. It starts on line 3 and goes to line
12 11, correct?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. And –
15 A. 1-20-03 would be the last call in January.
16 Q. Okay. And then as far as your carrier is
17 concerned, the next charge you have is on 2-4-03,
19 A. To Newport News, Virginia.
20 Q. That is a call to Newport News, Virginia.
21 A. Talking about line 12, correct?
22 Q. Line 12, correct.
23 A. That’s correct.
24 Q. And then on 2-5-03, there’s a call to
25 Naples, I suppose.
26 A. I’m sorry. Yeah. Naples, Florida, correct.
27 Q. All right. Now, I’m going to show you
28 Exhibit 451, and I’m going to have to ask the clerk 8125
1 for that, if I may, please. Should be a book.
2 May I inquire of the government to see if
3 they have that book there, by any chance? We’re
4 looking for an Exhibit 451, which is the Pac-Bell
5 records. You don’t have it there at the counsel
6 table is what I was inquiring.
7 MR. NICOLA: I don’t. It was released for
8 us to redact per the Court’s instruction. I didn’t
9 bring it down with me.
10 THE COURT: She couldn’t hear what you said.
11 MR. NICOLA: I’m sorry, Your Honor. I took
12 that per the Court’s instructions to redact. I
13 haven’t brought it back.
14 THE COURT: Try to blame it on me, will you?
16 THE COURT: That’s the book you have.
17 MR. NICOLA: Yes. It’s one of several.
18 MR. SANGER: Okay. May I confer with
19 counsel, see if we can find a way around this?
20 THE COURT: Yes.
21 (Discussion held off the record at counsel
23 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, with the
24 stipulation of counsel, we’ll use my copy and the
25 one that was provided to me of 451, Tab 6. It’s
26 already been received into evidence. And that’s
27 what we’ll use in a second, if I may.
28 THE COURT: All right. Good. 8126
1 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Okay. Mr. Schwartz, let me
2 ask you, how long have you worked in the phone
4 A. Nine years.
5 Q. And are you familiar with phone billing
6 records in general?
7 A. Yes, I am.
8 Q. And how many companies have you worked for
9 in that period of time?
10 A. Just one.
11 Q. Which one is that?
12 A. Talk America.
13 Q. Has Talk America been in existence all that
15 A. Yes, that’s correct.
16 Q. Oh, okay.
17 All right. I’m going to show you a phone
18 record that has been admitted into evidence, which
19 is 451, Tab 6, and it’s page three of Tab 6. And
20 this was — I think I can say for your benefit, to
21 orient you, this was provided by a Pac-Bell
23 And I’ll put that up if I may, Your Honor.
24 THE COURT: Yes.
25 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Now, this is — I’ll let you
26 take a look at that for a second and see if you can
27 orient yourself and get a feel for that. That is –
28 A. It looks like a phone bill. 8127
1 Q. There you go. All right. And if you look
2 in the upper left-hand corner, the indication is
3 that this phone bill pertains to this phone number,
4 (213) 739-9279.
5 A. Okay.
6 Q. See that? Is that the phone number that’s
7 referred to on your Exhibit 458, the Talk America
8 exhibit that’s in front of you?
9 A. It is.
10 Q. I think you have to lean into the
12 A. Yes, it is.
13 Q. Oh, that one works, too. All right.
14 Okay. And I guess what I was referring to
15 is there are a couple of entries here for February
16 the 4th at 6:11 p.m. and then 6:14 p.m., both
17 four-minute calls to a number apparently in Reseda,
18 an (818) number.
19 And my question to you is, assuming this is
20 the same telephone, why would there be two calls
21 billed to Pacific Bell on that date and another
22 long-distance call to – where did we say? – Newport
23 News billed to Talk America on the same date?
24 A. Why would there be?
25 Q. Yeah.
26 A. So you’re asking why a long-distance call
27 would show up on a local phone bill?
28 Q. Yes. 8128
1 A. I’m not familiar with the geography of
2 California, but Reseda may be within the latta, and
3 it may not reflect as a long-distance call.
4 Q. Could you turn around and talk into the mike
5 there, please. You said — I think everybody heard,
6 but you said “within the latta”?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And what is a latta? I’m afraid to ask.
9 A. For lack — I guess to — a layman term
10 would be an area code or a geographic area in which
11 the phone call would be billed in, so — do you want
12 me to explain it or –
13 Q. Go ahead.
14 A. A latta is the area where the phone call –
15 you’d be charged different rates when you went
16 across a latta. And once you cross a latta, it
17 would be considered a long-distance call.
18 Q. All right. So your local phone bill might
19 have a call that crosses a latta but does not invoke
20 your carrier’s business?
21 A. That’s correct.
22 Q. All right. So if I then put 458 back up,
23 and this is page two, the calls that we’ve just
24 referred to there are not inconsistent with your
25 carrier providing service during that same period of
26 time; is that right?
27 A. No.
28 Q. Okay. Thank you. I just have a couple of 8129
1 more questions here. And let me look at this first.
2 Yes, all right. I’m going to put this up
3 and we’ll again try to orient ourselves. Okay.
4 You’re welcome to look at the actual exhibit in
5 front of you, but I’m going to refer to Line 17, 18,
6 and 19 from February the 11th, 2003. Do you see
8 A. I do.
9 Q. Okay. And your bill would reflect only
10 outgoing calls, I suppose, unless somebody called
11 collect, correct?
12 A. Outgoing only, that’s correct.
13 Q. So it appears on February the 11th, 2003,
14 there were three outgoing calls to Santa Barbara; is
15 that correct?
16 A. That’s correct.
17 Q. And those three calls were at 2322 hours,
18 which would be 22 minutes after eleven o’clock at
19 night, correct?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And the next — that’s to one number. And
22 then the other two calls are to the same number. I
23 didn’t say that correctly. The first call is to
24 a — one number. And the second two calls are to
25 the same number?
26 A. The first one’s to 2300, and the second two
27 are 2724.
28 Q. And the second two were placed at 11:23 at 8130
1 night and 11:49 at night, correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. SANGER: Let me have just one more
4 second, if I may, Your Honor, please.
5 All right. I have no further questions.
6 MR. NICOLA: No questions, Your Honor. See
7 you “latta.”
8 THE COURT: Call your next witness.
9 MR. NICOLA: Crystalee Danko.
The next prosecution witness was Crystalee Danko, who testified about the validity of Sprint phone records for Dr. Farshchian, and Mark Geragos and David LeGrande’s respective law firms. Once Nicola’s direct examination was finished, Robert Sanger declined to cross examine Danko:
21 DIRECT EXAMINATION
22 BY MR. NICOLA:
23 Q. Good afternoon, Miss Danko.
24 A. Good afternoon.
25 Q. I’ve placed in front of you Exhibit 454,
27 A. That’s correct.
28 Q. Do you recognize that exhibit? 8131
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. Have you had an opportunity to review it and
3 its contents before you came to court today?
4 A. Yes, I have.
5 Q. Can you tell the jury, please, what exhibit
6 four fifty –
7 A. Five.
8 Q. — five is? Excuse me.
9 A. Yes, these are Sprint cell phone records and
10 landline records, including subscriber information
11 and billing information.
12 Q. And are the contents of Exhibit 455 those
13 which are regularly made in the course of your
15 A. Yes, they are.
16 Q. Would you open up Exhibit 455 in the index,
18 A. Yes.
19 (Off-the-record discussion held at counsel
21 MR. NICOLA: Okay. Just want to make sure
22 we’re all on the same page.
23 Q. With respect to Exhibit 455, did you compare
24 the contents of the table of contents with the
25 information contained in the corresponding tabs
26 within the binder?
27 A. Yes, I have.
28 Q. Okay. 8132
1 MR. SANGER: We’re not on the same page.
2 We’re not on the same page, I’m sorry. There is
3 no — there’s no — there’s no table of contents on
4 this one.
5 MR. NICOLA: You can use mine.
6 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you. Let’s see
7 what you did here.
8 MR. NICOLA: You ready?
9 MR. SANGER: Excuse me just one second.
10 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: I’m sorry.
11 A. That’s okay.
12 Q. With respect to the information contained in
13 Tab No. 1, is that subscriber information for a firm
14 listed in the table of contents?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. Okay. And are there telephone numbers that
17 your records show connected with that firm?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And are they also on the table of contents?
20 A. Yes, they are.
21 Q. Would you read those telephone numbers into
22 the record, please?
23 A. (702) 362-5118; (702) 222-2500; (702)
25 Q. If you would turn to Tab 1 of your exhibit,
26 and does the first page of the exhibit list the same
27 name that is under “Subscriber Name” in the table of
28 contents? 8133
1 A. Yes, it does.
2 Q. If you would turn to page two. And what is
3 page two?
4 A. It is listing information, listing address
5 and names for the information on the front page.
6 Q. Do those names correspond to the 222-2500
8 A. Yes, they do.
9 Q. And is one of those names a David LeGrand?
10 A. Yes, it is.
11 Q. Would you please turn the page and go to the
12 page marked 3 of 11. Are you there?
13 A. Yes, I am.
14 Q. And on page 3 of 11 of what appears to be a
15 February 21, 2003, phone bill, is there a list of
16 telephone numbers which include the 362-5118 and
17 365-6940 numbers listed in the table of contents?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. And do all those telephone numbers
20 belong to the firm of Hale Lane Peek Dennison and
22 A. Yes, they do.
23 Q. If you would turn to Tab 2, please. Now,
24 does Tab 2 contain the subscriber information for a
25 business entitled, “Geragos & Geragos”?
26 A. Yes, it does.
27 Q. And is there a telephone number on the table
28 of contents which corresponds to the number you have 8134
1 on record for Geragos & Geragos?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And what is that number?
4 A. (213) 864-2100.
5 Q. If you would turn to page two, the second
6 page, do you find an additional number for the
7 business “Geragos & Geragos”?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And what is that number?
10 A. (213) 625-3900.
11 Q. Turning to Tab No. 3, does Tab No. 3 contain
12 subscriber and billing information for one Vincent
14 A. Yes, it does.
15 Q. Is there a cellular number associated with
16 Mr. Amen in your subscriber records?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And what is that number, please?
19 A. (201) 838-4345.
20 Q. If you would turn, please, to Exhibit
21 No. — excuse me, Tab 4 in Exhibit 455. Do you have
22 in Tab 4 the subscriber information for one Frederic
23 Marc Schaffel?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. And do the numbers in the table of contents
26 correspond to the subscriber information in your
27 Sprint records?
28 A. Yes, it does. 8135
1 Q. Is there an additional telephone number in
2 your subscriber information for Mr. Schaffel that is
3 not on the table of contents? If you would look at
4 page one.
5 A. Yes, there is.
6 Q. And what is that number?
7 A. (818) 876-0029.
8 Q. And can you tell if that is a cellular
9 number or a landline?
10 A. I cannot tell by these records.
11 Q. If you would turn briefly to Exhibit No. 5.
12 Does Exhibit 5 contain the subscriber information
13 for a Maria Farshchian?
14 A. Yes, it does.
15 Q. F-a-r-s-h-c-h-i-a-n?
16 A. Yes, it does.
17 Q. Okay. And does the Tab No. 5 also contain
18 the toll records — excuse me, the billing for the
19 period of January, February and March of 2003?
20 A. Yes, it does.
21 Q. Are the records contained within Exhibit 455
22 records which Sprint regularly relies upon in the
23 normal course and scope of their business?
24 A. Yes, they are.
25 MR. NICOLA: Your Honor, we would offer 455
26 into evidence at this time, please.
27 MR. SANGER: On these, we have the objection
28 of relevance as to, in particular, some of the 8136
1 subscribers. It’s the same objection that I made
2 previously, that there’s no foundation to show
3 relevance. And I think the Court –
4 THE COURT: I’ll admit them, subject, as I
5 did the others, to the District Attorney tying up
6 the relevance.
7 MR. SANGER: Thank you.
8 MR. NICOLA: Thank you, Your Honor.
9 Your Honor, may I publish?
10 THE COURT: Yes.
11 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Mrs. Danko? It’s Missus?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. If you would please turn to the billing
14 information for Fred Schaffel and find the page that
15 corresponds to February 7th of 2003, please.
16 A. Okay.
17 Q. Have you found it?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. Does the billing for February 7th of
20 2003 begin on page eight of the February 21 bill?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. I’d like to talk to you about a code
23 on your bills which is denoted as “CW.”
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. On line — excuse me. On Line No.
26 194, there’s a “CW” next to the date and time stamp
27 of 10:17 a.m., entitled “Incoming.” Can you explain
28 to us how an incoming call — what an incoming call 8137
1 on your system means, call waiting?
2 A. Yes. Our subscriber was on the phone.
3 Either he had received an incoming call or he had
4 made an outgoing call. Either way, he was on a
5 phone call. And during that phone call, he received
6 another call. And when he received that second
7 call, he answered it. And that’s what indicates
8 here, an incoming call. And a “CW” over there is
9 what indicates the call waiting was used.
10 Q. Okay. Now, after he received, he or she –
11 A. Or she.
12 Q. After the call came in at 10:17 a.m., can
13 you tell whether or not your subscriber stayed on
14 the phone with the call immediately preceding?
15 A. For one minute or less.
16 Q. Okay. How can you tell that?
17 A. Our corporation bills in one-minute
18 increments, and one minute is listed here next to
19 the call waiting indicator.
20 Q. So this could have actually been a
21 2.4-second call?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. My question, however, is, if the caller was
24 on the phone to this number at 10:16 a.m., and it
25 lasted for six minutes, did this call actually
26 interrupt this call?
27 A. Yes, it does.
28 Q. Okay. So the Entry 193, did that continue 8138
1 after the entry on 194?
2 A. Yes, it did.
3 Q. If you could please turn to page nine, and
4 I’d like you to begin at line 215. I’ll project
6 There appears to be the same call — excuse
7 me, the same code here a number of times. “CW” and
9 A. That’s correct.
10 Q. There’s also this code right here, what does
11 that mean, the “3W”?
12 A. The “3W” indicates that a three-way call was
14 Q. And how does that work on your system?
15 A. You would need to be on the phone call in
16 the first place, just like the call waiting
17 situation. In this situation, if you look at 2-7 at
18 3:13 p.m., there was an outgoing call. Our
19 subscriber had made an outgoing call and was on the
20 phone for approximately 14 minutes. During that
21 time frame, at 3:22, our subscriber called out and
22 conferenced in another number.
23 Q. Let me stop you for a minute. Where are
24 you? Which line item?
25 A. I’m on line 230.
26 Q. Would you look at line –
27 A. Sorry.
28 Q. — 218? 8139
1 A. That’s kind of hard for you to see. How
2 about line 217?
3 Q. Okay. Explain how that came about.
4 A. Our customer had received a call, an
5 incoming call, at 3 — at 1:13 p.m., and that lasted
6 for seven minutes. During that call, they made a
7 call out, three-waying into the (702) 222-2520
9 Q. Okay. Would you expect, in a three-way
10 call, that when the user of Mr. Schaffel’s phone
11 dialed the 222-2520 number, that would show as an
12 incoming call on their system, if they record such
14 A. The receiver?
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. NICOLA: Okay. I think I have no
18 further questions. Thank you.
19 THE COURT: Counsel?
20 MR. SANGER: No questions, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Good.
22 You may step down.
23 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
24 THE COURT: Next witness.
25 MR. NICOLA: Our next witness is Ms.
26 Jennifer Simmons.
The next prosecution witness was Jennifer Simmons, who testified about the Nextel phone records from Jackson’s production company MJJ Productions. Sanger declined to cross examine Simmons:
11 DIRECT EXAMINATION
12 BY MR. NICOLA:
13 Q. Good afternoon, Miss Simmons. I’d like to
14 hand you Exhibit No. 450, and ask if you recognize
15 that, please.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What is it?
18 A. It’s records of Nextel statements from
19 Tavasci, Evvy; MJJ Productions.
20 Q. These are records of Nextel Phone Company?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Do you work for them?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. For how long?
25 A. Six years.
26 Q. And are you here today as their custodian of
28 A. Yes. 8141
1 Q. He’s going to adjust your microphone.
2 A. Oh.
3 Q. Are you familiar with the contents of
4 Exhibit 450?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And is there a three-page table of contents?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Have you gone through the subscriber
9 information, the corresponding telephone numbers
10 that are listed out in that table of contents?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And have you confirmed the accuracy of the
13 entries on the table of contents?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. With respect to Tab No. 1, does that contain
16 account statements for the telephone numbers (310)
17 901-7487 and (818) 402-7087 for the billing period
18 of February of 2003?
19 A. Could you repeat the second number? The
20 first one was correct.
21 Q. (818) –
22 A. Uh-huh.
23 Q. — 402-7087?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. I have the same question about those
26 two phone numbers in Tab No. 2, and I ask if the
27 contents of Tab No. 2 are the billing statements for
28 the month of March for those two numbers? 8142
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And the same question with respect to those
3 telephone numbers and the April billing statement.
4 Are those contained within Tab No. 3?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Is the bill address under Tab No. 1, 2
7 and 3 – you can look at Tab 1 first – Evelyn
8 Tavasci –
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. — MJJ Productions, P.O. Box 6034, Sherman
11 Oaks, California?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Is that the same on exhibits — excuse me,
14 the bills on Tabs 1, 2 and 3?
15 A. Yes, they are.
16 Q. With respect to Tab No. 4, can you describe
17 what is in that exhibit, please?
18 A. This is a subscriber history, a description
19 of each unit. It will show the unit’s phone number;
20 the user name of that unit that’s listed in our
21 bill; the radio I.D.; an IMSI I.D., which is for our
22 network to identify each unit for billing purposes;
23 a serial number, which is a SIM identification,
24 which tells what piece of equipment it is, as well
25 as the effective date of the activation, and if
26 there was an expiration, meaning a cancellation of
27 that unit, if it cancelled.
28 It also includes the account number for the 8143
1 bill, the billing name, and the billing address.
2 Q. Are there a number of phones — excuse me,
3 phone numbers registered to an Evelyn Tavasci –
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. — that are listed in the table of contents
6 under Tab No. 4?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Did you confirm that each one of those
9 telephone numbers corresponds to the information in
10 Tab No. 4?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And with respect to the billing information,
13 do all the bills appear to go to the address at P.O.
14 Box 6034 –
15 A. Yes, they do.
16 Q. — Sherman Oaks, California?
17 Are some entitled, “Ms. Evelyn Tavasci,
18 Attention: MJJ Productions”?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And some are not, correct?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. But they’re all going to the P.O. Box at
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. I’d like you to turn, please, to Tab No. 5.
26 A. Actually, there is no Tab No. 5 in this one.
27 Q. Oh, I’m sorry.
28 A. That’s all right. 8144
1 Q. It’s actually Tab No. 7. Does Tab No. 7
2 contain four additional phones registered to an
3 Evelyn Tavasci?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And are those phone numbers accurately
6 printed on the table of contents on Exhibit 450?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Are the billing statements attached for the
9 February billing cycle of the year 2003?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. With respect to the final two tabs,
12 No. 8 and No. 9, are the numbers listed in the table
13 of contents and registered to an Evelyn Tavasci
14 contained within the Tabs 8 and 9 for the months of
15 March and April of 2003?
16 A. For 8 and 9, yes.
17 Q. And you confirmed both of those –
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. — sections before you came to court?
20 A. Uh-huh.
21 Q. Now, with respect to the contents of
22 Exhibit 450, are these all records which record the
23 information contained at or near the time of each of
24 the events recorded?
25 A. Yes. Yes.
26 Q. Nextel is just a wireless company, correct?
27 A. Correct.
28 Q. And none of these telephones are landlines? 8145
1 A. Right, they are all wireless.
2 Q. Okay. And does Nextel rely on the
3 information contained within Exhibit 450 in the
4 regular course of their business?
5 A. Yes, they do.
6 MR. NICOLA: We would offer Exhibit 450 into
8 MR. SANGER: I have the same objection.
9 THE COURT: All right. They’re admitted,
10 subject to connection later.
11 MR. NICOLA: Thank you, Your Honor. I have
12 no further questions.
13 MR. SANGER: I have no questions, Your
15 THE COURT: Thank you.
16 Call your next witness.
17 MR. NICOLA: It’s going to be Joe Corral.
The final prosecution witness on this utterly boring day of testimony was Joe Corral, an employee of Verizon who testified about the phone records of Frank Cascio’s sister Franchesco, and Neverland employee Rudy Provencio. Once again, Sanger refused to cross examine, and this just shows how utterly worthless the phone records evidence was in incriminating Jackson of any “conspiracy”; in fact, Judge Melville jokingly asked Sanger if he wanted to go back and cross examine those witnesses!
1 DIRECT EXAMINATION
2 BY MR. NICOLA:
3 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Corral.
4 A. Afternoon.
5 Q. I’d like to show you Exhibit 457 and Exhibit
6 459, please. Do you recognize Exhibit 457?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. And what is it, please?
9 A. It’s telephone records that were subpoenaed
10 from Verizon.
11 Q. Do you work for Verizon?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. For how long?
14 A. Approximately 27 years.
15 Q. And are you here to testify as Verizon’s
16 custodian of records with respect to the California
17 and I think it’s New York records?
18 A. Yes, I am.
19 Q. And are the New York records kept in
20 Exhibit 459?
21 A. Yes, they are.
22 Q. Okay. With respect to Exhibit 457, is there
23 a table of contents with a number of entries
24 corresponding to tabs in the exhibit?
25 A. Yes, there is.
26 MR. NICOLA: Would you give us just a
28 MR. SANGER: Just one second, Your Honor, 8147
2 THE COURT: Why don’t we take our break now.
3 (Recess taken.)
4 THE COURT: Go ahead, Counsel.
5 MR. NICOLA: Thank you, Your Honor.
6 Q. Mr. Corral, we just started talking about
7 the two exhibits in front of you. Why don’t we
8 start with the New York exhibit. Is that Exhibit
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And contained within that exhibit, is there
12 subscriber information and toll records for
13 Franchesco Cascio?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Does he have a billing address in New
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Are the records contained in Exhibit 459
19 those kept within the normal course and scope of the
20 business of Verizon?
21 A. Yes, they are.
22 Q. And is the information contained within that
23 exhibit gathered at or near the time of the event?
24 A. Yes, they are.
25 Q. And does Verizon rely upon those records to
26 conduct their business?
27 A. Yes, we do.
28 MR. NICOLA: Your Honor, we would move 459 8148
1 into evidence at this time.
2 MR. SANGER: Same objection. I take it same
4 THE COURT: Same ruling, yeah. I’ll allow it
5 with the proviso that it’s connected up later.
6 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: If you would please turn to
7 Exhibit 457. Are those the records for Verizon
9 A. Yes, they are.
10 Q. And with respect to the ten numbers listed
11 in the table of contents, are those landlines?
12 A. Yes, they are.
13 Q. I didn’t ask you, but is it a landline in
14 Exhibit 459 as well?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. Okay. And listed within Exhibit 457, is
17 there a table of contents that lists five sections
18 where the subscriber is the Neverland Ranch?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Have you examined the exhibit and all of its
21 contents prior to your testimony today?
22 A. Yes, I have.
23 Q. And are the numbers listed for Neverland
24 Ranch which are listed on the table of contents -
25 those telephone numbers appear on your records
26 contained within Tabs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 – do those
27 numbers correspond to the information contained
28 within those tabs? 8149
1 A. Yes, they do.
2 Q. Do your records show that the numbers listed
3 for Neverland Ranch were active during the period of
4 January through April of 2003 — excuse me, through
5 March of 2003?
6 A. Yes, they do.
7 Q. So those phone lines were active during that
8 period of time?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. If you would turn your attention, please, to
11 the contents of Tab No. 5. Is that subscriber and
12 billing information for one Rudy Provencio?
13 A. I’m sorry? Could you repeat the question?
14 Q. Are the contents of Tab No. 5 the subscriber
15 and billing information for Rudy Provencio?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And is the corresponding telephone number
18 for him (301) 473-5702?
19 A. Yes, it is.
20 Q. Okay. I’m going to show you some records,
21 if you could please turn to page 22.
22 May I publish, Your Honor?
23 THE COURT: They’re admitted, are they? Have
24 these been –
25 MR. NICOLA: Oh, I’m sorry. The rest of the
27 Q. Are the contents of Exhibit 457 records
28 which are kept within the ordinary course and scope 8150
1 of your business?
2 A. Yes, they are.
3 Q. And are the entries recorded at or near the
4 times of the events recorded?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And are they records which Verizon regularly
7 relies upon in the normal course of their business?
8 A. Yes, they do.
9 MR. NICOLA: We’d make our proffer at this
10 time, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Are you asking that they be
13 MR. NICOLA: May we admit 457 in evidence at
14 this time, Your Honor?
15 MR. SANGER: Same objection.
16 THE COURT: All right. Same ruling. It’s
18 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: If you could turn to Tab 4,
19 page 22 at the bottom, if I could direct your
20 attention to this section of the phone bill. And
21 maybe give us a little interpretation of what all
22 this means, this string of numbers and letters and
23 numbers. Start right here where it says, “0204,” if
24 you could.
25 A. Yes, it’s a record of billable calls, and in
26 this case, the first call on the very top shows the
27 date, which would be “0204,” or February 4th. The
28 call that was made to would be Canoga Park – that’s 8151
1 an abbreviation “CANO” – in California.
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. The time right after that is in military
4 time, which would be 2234, which would convert to
5 10:34 p.m.
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. The numbers after that would be the number
8 that was called, which would be (818) 876-0029.
9 Q. Okay. Is there a header column at the top
10 of this? I’ll focus on that so you can see that one
11 more clearly.
12 A. Yes. It basically states calls billed to
13 (310) 473-5702.
14 Q. And that corresponds to the subscriber’s
15 phone number, correct?
16 A. Yes, it does.
17 Q. Now, this column up here that says “Date,”
18 “Call,” et cetera, that corresponds with the numbers
19 down this — these columns here?
20 A. Yes, they do.
21 Q. Okay. So when someone wants to read these
22 records, if they want the phone number dialed, they
23 go to the end of this block and count backwards to
24 get to the area code, correct?
25 A. Yes. Or, on the very top, where it says,
26 “MPA,” which basically is the area code, that’s
27 where you can start, and in this case it’s (818).
28 MR. NICOLA: Okay. Your Honor, I have no 8152
1 further questions.
2 THE COURT: Cross-examine?
3 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I have no
5 THE COURT: Thank you.
6 Call your next witness.
7 MR. NICOLA: We have no other witnesses,
9 THE COURT: Those are all the witnesses for
11 MR. NICOLA: It is.
12 THE COURT: (To Mr. Sanger) Do you want to
13 go back and cross-examine? We’ve got some extra
16 THE COURT: (To the jury) I’ll see you
17 tomorrow morning at 8:30.
18 Counsel approach for just a moment. I want
19 to talk to you about our schedule for a moment.
20 (To the jury) You can go ahead.
After the jury was dismissed for the day, Judge Melville addressed a few issues with the attorneys, including how much longer it would take for the prosecution to complete their case, and the admissibility of evidence regarding a transcript of a phone call between Janet Arvizo and Frank Cascio:
22 (Discussion held off the record at sidebar.)
24 (The following proceedings were held in
25 open court outside the presence and hearing of the
28 THE COURT: All right. Let me just put this 8153
1 on the record. We’re going on the record.
2 The Court was just inquiring of counsel
3 about the schedule tomorrow, and there’s anticipated
4 to be three witnesses tomorrow. Some will be
5 outside the presence of the jury and some will be in
6 the presence of the jury.
7 Do you think it will be a full day tomorrow?
8 Or what’s your anticipation?
9 MR. SNEDDON: I anticipate it will not be,
10 Your Honor. But from there on, it will be.
11 THE COURT: They can’t hear you back there.
12 Go ahead.
13 MR. SNEDDON: And I anticipate it will not
14 be a full day tomorrow. I anticipate on Monday and
15 Tuesday we will complete our case, and we will go
16 all the way through without a break until we finish.
17 THE COURT: And then you now anticipate we’ll
18 complete the People’s case Tuesday?
19 MR. SNEDDON: I believe, depending on
20 cross-examination, but we will not have any more
21 breaks. We will have all our ducks in order for
22 those two days.
23 THE COURT: Then the Court was addressing
24 with counsel Exhibits 809-A and 810-A, which are the
25 transcripts for — 809-A is the transcript for the
26 CD tape of the phone conversation between Janet
27 Arvizo Jackson and Frank. And 810-A is the
28 transcript of the tape, CD, made during the Los 8154
1 Angeles Protective Services interview.
2 And they were previously accepted into
3 evidence, and the Court’s pulling them from evidence
4 and having them lodged as transcripts, which is the
5 proper procedure when you file a transcript with the
6 Court. Unless the parties stipulate the transcript
7 may go to the jury, the transcript doesn’t go to the
8 jury. So we’re just correcting that.
9 The other transcripts all were lodged
10 properly, and those were the only two that we found
11 that were taken into evidence.
12 MR. SNEDDON: That’s fine with us, Your
14 THE COURT: Is there anything else to take
15 up before we recess for the day?
16 MR. SNEDDON: No, sir.
17 MR. MESEREAU: No, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: All right. Court’s in recess.
19 (The proceedings adjourned at 1:49 p.m.)
To be continued….
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…