Skip to content

April 29th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Rosibel Ferrufino Smith, Craig Bonner, Harry Koons, and Ian Drew, Part 2 of 3

March 22, 2014

Next, Zonen displayed an image of the screenshot of what a tape analysis looks like, and Dr. Koons described the digitization process and analysis:

19 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: In front of you should be a


20 laser that I left — you have it. Good.


21 Go ahead, please, and tell us what it is


22 that you’re looking at.


23 A. Yes, we’re looking at an image of — do I


24 have to talk close to this?


25 MR. SANGER: We haven’t identified which


26 exhibit is up there, for the record.


27 MR. ZONEN: 858. That’s Exhibit 858 that’s


28 currently being shown. 8218


1 Q. And yes, I’m sorry, I know that’s an


2 awkward position, but you do have to continue to


3 speak through the microphone.


4 A. They won’t be able to see through me.


5 This is an image of the screen when we were


6 analyzing the tape, and the time runs along the


7 bottom axis here. It’s virtually impossible for you


8 to read it, but it starts at two minutes 36.994


9 seconds. That means two minutes and essentially


10 37 seconds into the tape. It’s very difficult to


11 read this little number down here, but that says


12 that the view is 1.8 seconds long. So the time from


13 here to there is 1.8 seconds.


14 The signature is the amplitude of the


15 signal, and it’s centered at the center, about zero.


16 And the best analogy that I can make with


17 this is, if there are people here that are old


18 enough to remember what a vinyl record is, this is


19 very much like the groove in that vinyl record; that


20 the needle would be moving along here, and so it


21 would move faster here, and hardly move at all here,


22 and then it goes through a big bump, and then more


23 here. And by — on a vinyl record, it reproduces the


24 audio in the same way that the voltage that we’re


25 displaying here, when it’s passed through a speaker


26 on a computer, reproduces the speech.


27 Q. Do you see the signature that you refer to?


28 A. Yes. The signature extends from here to 8219


1 here, right in — right in the center, and this is


2 the primary signature which I’ve been calling the


3 turn-on signature.


4 Q. And the break that you refer to?


5 A. Yes, the break is really this entire time


6 period, that during this time period the audio


7 turned off, right here. It’s very low here. And


8 then this is the turn-on signature when the reel


9 started to come back up to speed. And then there’s


10 normal speech after about this time here. So this


11 is all a transient that occurred during what I call


12 the break in the tape.


13 Q. All right. Let’s go ahead to 858, if we


14 can.


15 A. Okay. This is exactly the same –


16 MR. SANGER: Excuse me, Your Honor.


17 MR. ZONEN: We need a question.


18 MR. SANGER: I think this is 857. Am I


19 wrong?


20 THE WITNESS: Yes, this is –


21 MR. ZONEN: Forgive me. My dyslexia is


22 acting in.


23 This is 857. The last one, then, was 858,


24 if we could correct the record accordingly.


25 Q. Please go ahead and tell us about 857.


26 A. Yes, this is the same time period, starting


27 at 236.994 and extending for 1.8 seconds across the


28 axis here. And what’s displayed on the vertical 8220


1 axis now is frequency.


2 And the best way to explain this is if you


3 look at this signature over here, this is a word


4 that a person has spoken, and what you can see is


5 the fundamental of their voice box and then the


6 harmonics of their — of their voice. And you can


7 also see that over here and over here.


8 And this is the time period which was very


9 quiet where I said that the tape had turned off.


10 And you can see that the noise at the bottom, which


11 is indicated by the yellow, has gone away. The blue


12 indicates the lowest volume at that frequency; the


13 green, an intermediate volume; the yellow, a louder


14 volume; and the red, the loudest volume.


15 And the frequency scale is on the left over


16 here. It’s impossible to read it there. This is


17 500 hertz — oop, no, I think you want to….


18 Okay. Yes, okay. So this is a thousand


19 hertz, and it goes well above what most people’s


20 hearing is at, at ten kilohertz up here. Take it


21 back to the full….


22 So if you can remember what I showed on the


23 preceding exhibit, this is the period when it went


24 very quiet. This is a period where there was just a


25 little bit of low frequency noise here. This is the


26 transient, and this is the beginning where it begins


27 to have speech again over here. So this is the


28 characteristic signature, on this particular media, 8221


1 of a break.


2 Q. Doctor, you had mentioned something about a


3 voice-activated tape-recorder. What is a


4 voice-activated tape-recorder?


5 A. A voice-activated tape-recorder is a


6 tape-recorder which, if the room goes silent, turns


7 off. And if somebody speaks in the room or there’s


8 a noise in the room, the tape-recorder turns back on


9 again.


10 Q. Does there generally have to be a period of


11 silence before the tape-recorder is activated or


12 deactivated?


13 A. Yes, it usually takes quite a bit of time


14 before it deactivates, because it doesn’t want to


15 miss speech. And so they have a circuit that waits


16 a long time, in terms of seconds, for the silence to


17 decide to turn off, but then they usually turn on


18 very rapidly because they want to get the first


19 words.


20 Q. Okay. Doctor, do you have an opinion as to


21 whether this tape is the product of a


22 voice-activated tape-recorder and then those breaks


23 would have been caused by silence in the


24 conversation?


25 A. My opinion is it’s not voice-activated.


26 Q. And why is that?


27 A. Because the turn-off occurred too rapidly


28 after the speech right here. This is only a few 8222


1 tenths of a second.


2 MR. ZONEN: All right. We can turn the


3 lights on and turn off the projector at this time.

Zonen ended his direct examination by asking Dr. Koons for his opinion on the quality of the equipement that was used to record Janet Arvizo: Read more…

April 29th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Rosibel Ferrufino Smith, Craig Bonner, Harry Koons, and Ian Drew, Part 1 of 3

March 16, 2014

Before the jury was seated, Judge Melville addressed the defense and prosecution about his ruling on the foundation of two art books (“The Boy: A Photographic Essay” and “Boys Will Be Boys”) that were seized at Neverland in August 1993. He stated that the prosecution must provide him with more information to establish a foundation that connects the location of where the books were seized in 1993 to the prosecution’s assertion that Jackson used the books to groom Star and Gavin Arvizo. Detective Rosibel Ferrufino Smith was called to testify about the location of the books.

On April 21st, 2005 Sneddon submitted the PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S RULINGREGARDING THE ADMISSIBLITY OF EVIDENCE OF TWO OF DEFENDANT’S ADULT BOOKS in which he argued that those two books should be admitted as incriminating evidence against Jackson due to the fact that, in his opinion, they “demonstrated a prurient interest in adolescent boys” who were the same age of Gavin, Jordan, Brett, Wade, and other young boys who Jackson befriended. 

The defense replied on April 22nd, 2005 with MR. JACKSON’S OPPOSITION TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S RULING REGARDING THE ADMISSIBLITY OF EVIDENCE OF “ADULT BOOKS”, stating that the two books have nothing to do with the current case, they were not shown to any children, and their introduction would be more prejudicial than probative.

Det. Smith participated in the August 1993 Neverland raid, and he seized the two art books from a file cabinet in Jackson’s bedroom closet. Zonen asked Det. Smith a few basic questions about the raid, and Sanger declined to cross examine him for the purpose of the hearing on the admissibility of the books, but did wax poetic about the irrelevancy of the books to the current case:

1 Santa Maria, California


2 Friday, April 29, 2005


3 8:30 a.m.




5 (The following proceedings were held in


6 open court outside the presence and hearing of the


7 jury:)




9 THE COURT: Good morning.




11 Good morning, Your Honor.


12 THE COURT: Let’s see. I understand that the


13 District Attorney has requested the out-of-presence


14 hearing on the foundation on the books.


15 MR. ZONEN: Yes, Your Honor.


16 THE COURT: What exhibit number is that?


17 MR. ZONEN: No. 841 and 842.


18 THE COURT: All right. I did review those


19 materials, as I had requested. I did get the


20 materials, and I looked at those books and indicated


21 that there must be further foundation.


22 Are you prepared to go forward with that?


23 MR. ZONEN: I am, Your Honor. Foundation


24 with regards to where seized, do you mean?


25 THE COURT: Yes. Connecting –


26 MR. ZONEN: Yes, we’re prepared to do that


27 at this time.


28 We’ll call Detective Rosibel Smith to the 8161


1 stand.


2 THE COURT: When you get to the witness


3 stand, remain standing and face the clerk.






6 Having been sworn, testified as follows:






9 THE CLERK: Please be seated. State and


10 spell your name for the record.


11 THE WITNESS: Rosibel, R-o-s-i-b-e-l;


12 Ferrufino, F-e-r-r-u-f-i-n-o; Smith, S-m-i-t-h.


13 THE CLERK: Thank you.








17 Q. Tell us your current occupation.


18 A. I’m a police detective for the Los Angeles


19 Police Department currently assigned to the Threat


20 Management Unit of the Detective Support Division.


21 Q. How long have you been a police officer for


22 the City of Los Angeles?


23 A. For a little over 20 years.


24 Q. And your current assignment involves what?


25 A. Aggravated stalking cases, criminal threats


26 of elected officials, and workplace violence


27 incidents within the City of Los Angeles.


28 Q. Did you work also as a sex crimes 8162


1 prosecutor — sex crimes detective?


2 A. Yes, I did.


3 Q. For what period of time?


4 A. For nine years.


5 Q. All right. Which period of nine years was


6 that?


7 A. From 1988 to 1997.


8 Q. Did you have occasion to conduct and execute


9 search warrants during that time?


10 A. Yes, I did.


11 Q. In August of 1993, did you participate in


12 the execution of a search warrant at Neverland Ranch


13 in Los Olivos, the County of Santa Barbara?


14 A. Yes, I did.


15 Q. And did you seize objects from that


16 residence during that search?


17 A. Yes.


18 MR. ZONEN: May I approach the witness?


19 THE COURT: Yes.


20 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: I’m going to show you three


21 objects at this time. Exhibits No. 841 and 842;


22 would you take a look at those two objects, please?


23 A. Okay.


24 Q. Do you recognize those two books?


25 A. Yes, I do.


26 Q. Did you seize those two books?


27 A. Yes, I did.


28 Q. From where? 8163


1 A. These books were seized from a cabinet


2 within Michael Jackson’s closet in the master


3 bedroom.


4 Q. All right. Describe his bedroom for us,


5 please.


6 A. The bedroom is a very large –


7 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I think it would be


8 cumulative at this time, wouldn’t it?


9 THE COURT: Sustained.


10 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. Tell us where in


11 his bedroom this particular closet is.


12 A. It was off to the side of the main bedroom.


13 There were — actually, there were two closets on


14 either side of the room, and this would have been


15 the side where the Jacuzzi was located.


16 Q. Now, this is the first floor of his bedroom


17 suite; is that right?


18 A. That’s correct.


19 Q. Was there a bed in that bedroom suite?


20 A. Yes.


21 Q. I’m going to show you Exhibit No. 856.


22 A. Okay.


23 Q. Do you recognize that photograph?


24 A. Yes, I do.


25 Q. And that photograph is what?


26 A. This is a photograph that was taken during


27 the search warrant of Neverland Ranch, and it


28 depicts the file cabinet that the books were seized 8164


1 from.


2 Q. All right. And is that file cabinet


3 depicted in that photograph?


4 A. Yes, it is.


5 Q. How many drawers in that file cabinet?


6 A. Four.


7 Q. In which drawer were those two books seized,


8 from which drawer?


9 A. From the third drawer.


10 Q. Was that file cabinet locked?


11 A. Yes, it was.


12 Q. How were you able to unlock it?


13 A. We were able to get the key from — the maid


14 brought the key over to the home and we were able to


15 unlock it at that time.


16 Q. Do you remember which maid that was?


17 A. I believe it was Blanca Francia.


18 Q. Thank you. Is that photograph — does that


19 photograph accurately depict the subject matter


20 contained within it?


21 A. Yes, it does.


22 MR. ZONEN: Move to introduce 856 into


23 evidence.


24 MR. SANGER: For the purposes of?


25 MR. ZONEN: For the purposes of this


26 hearing.


27 MR. SANGER: For this hearing, I have no


28 objection. 8165


1 THE COURT: Then it’s admitted for the


2 purposes of the hearing.


3 MR. ZONEN: And I have no further questions


4 as to foundation for this witness.


5 THE COURT: Cross-examine?


6 MR. SANGER: May I approach the witness to


7 take a look at the exhibits, please?




9 MR. SANGER: And I have no questions for the


10 purpose of this hearing.


11 THE COURT: All right.


12 MR. ZONEN: I would move to introduce into


13 evidence 841, 842 as well.


14 MR. SANGER: Well, and I suppose that’s the


15 purpose of the hearing, Your Honor. We had


16 previously objected, and — excuse me one second.


17 We still object on the grounds that this is


18 remote in time. We have books from — seized in


19 1993 with regard to events that allegedly occurred


20 in 2003, so the probative value of these books is


21 minimal at best, and it’s outweighed by the


22 confusion to the jury, prejudicial effect, and

23 everything else. There’s got to be some connection


24 in time. It’s just plain stale to bring in


25 something from that far back and try to use it by


26 way of not much more than innuendo at this time.


27 These books were not shown to anybody. There’s no


28 evidence they were shown to anybody. No evidence 8166


1 they were shown to minors. They were locked in a


2 cabinet.

Judge Melville referenced a murder case titled “People vs. Memro”, which the prosecution cited in their pleading. They stated that in that case, evidence was introduced which supported other 1108 evidence, and there were parallels between that case and the current Jackson case. The prosecution also stated that the two books were indicative of Jackson’s proclivity to view that type of material of his own sexual arousal. Once again, Sanger railed against the inclusion of the two books based on their total irrelevancy to the current case: Read more…

April 28th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Debbie Rowe, Iris Finsilver, Andrew Dietz, Jeffrey Schwartz, Crystalee Danko, Jennifer Simmons, Joe Corral, Part 3 of 3

March 8, 2014

Under cross examination, Schwartz confirmed that the calls were from Jay Jackson’s landline:





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


3 phone?


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


13 458.


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


8 exhibit?


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


26 carrier?


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,


18 correct?


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?


15 (Laughter.)


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


22 table.)


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


3 business?


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


14 time?


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


22 representative.


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


11 microphone.


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


7 those?


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:





23 Q. Good afternoon, Miss Danko.


24 A. Good afternoon.


25 Q. I’ve placed in front of you Exhibit 454,


26 correct?


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


14 business?


15 A. Yes, they are.


16 Q. Would you open up Exhibit 455 in the index,


17 please?


18 A. Yes.


19 (Off-the-record discussion held at counsel


20 table.)


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)


24 365-6940.


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


7 number?


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


21 Howard?


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


13 Amen?


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


5 that.


6 There appears to be the same call — excuse


7 me, the same code here a number of times. “CW” and


8 “CW”?

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


13 initiated.


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


8 number.


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


13 things?


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:





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


27 records?


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


23 6034?


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


7 evidence.


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


14 Honor.


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!





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


27 moment.


28 MR. SANGER: Just one second, Your Honor, 8147


1 please.


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


9 459?


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


16 Jersey?


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


3 ruling.


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


8 California?


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


26 foundation.


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


12 admitted?


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


17 admitted.


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


4 questions.


5 THE COURT: Thank you.


6 Call your next witness.


7 MR. NICOLA: We have no other witnesses,


8 Judge.


9 THE COURT: Those are all the witnesses for


10 today?


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


14 time.


15 (Laughter.)


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


26 jury:)




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


13 Honor.


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

March 1, 2014

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:





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


1 1989.


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


8 client?


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


4 confidentiality?


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


8 document?


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


13 document?


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


26 interview?


27 A. Yes.


28 Q. Approximately how long did that interview 8054


1 last?


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

February 24, 2014

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


7 jury:)




9 THE COURT: Good morning, everyone.




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

February 15, 2014

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:





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


12 Rowe?


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


26 right?


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


21 marriage?


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


21 work.


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


25 days.


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


3 children?


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


15 relationship.


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,


20 “Yes.”


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;


3 opinion.


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

February 2, 2014

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


8 stated?


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


20 Neverland.


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…


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 358 other followers