Skip to content

March 15th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Gavin Arvizo’s Testimony (Cross Examination), Terry Flaa, Jeff Klapakis, and Steve Robel (Direct & Cross Examination), Part 2 of 4

June 28, 2012

The next prosecution witness was Terry Flaa, a former Santa Barbara investigator who transferred to Santa Maria before the trial started. On February 20th, 2003 he was assigned two referrals about investigating Jackson for alleged wrongdoing; the first referral was from a reporting party who was concerned about the well-being of Jackson’s children (we’ll find out a little later who the reporting party was), and the second referral was from the Department of Child & Family Services concerning Jackson’s alleged misconduct with Gavin Arvizo (the reporting party was Gavin’s principal Mr. Alpert, who notified the DCFS). Here’s an excerpt from Flaa’s testimony:

7 DIRECT EXAMINATION

8 BY MR. ZONEN:

9 Q. What is your current occupation.

10 A. I’m a police officer employed by the Santa

11 Maria Police Department.

12 Q. And you’ve been employed by Santa Maria

13 Police Department for how long.

14 A. About 14 months.

15 Q. What is your current position with Santa

16 Maria Police Department.

17 A. I’m a patrolman.

18 Q. Prior to your employment with Santa Maria

19 Police Department, where were you employed.

20 A. I was with the Santa Barbara County

21 Sheriff’s Department.

22 Q. And for what period of time.

23 A. A little over — around eight and a half

24 years.

25 Q. And you moved from the sheriff’s office in

26 Santa Barbara County to Santa Maria Police

27 Department.

28 A. Yes, I did. 2077

1 Q. And why did you do that.

2 A. I — I’m from the Santa Maria area. It was

3 an agency I always wanted to work for, and the

4 opportunity was there, so I took that opportunity.

5 Q. And you are able to work closer to your home

6 at this time.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. All right. What was the position that you

9 held at the time that you left the Santa Barbara

10 County Sheriff’s Office.

11 A. I was an investigator assigned to the vice

12 and intelligence unit.

13 Q. Were you called upon to conduct an

14 investigation of a referral that had come into the

15 office.

16 A. Yes, I was.

17 Q. And do you know which one I’m referring to.

18 A. Yes, I do.

19 Q. All right. You have some sense of what case

20 this is; is that correct.

21 A. I do.

22 Q. When was that referral. When did that

23 referral come into the office.

24 A. It was assigned to me on February 20th.

25 Q. What was the nature of the referral.

26 A. The nature of the referral —

27 Q. Excuse me, February 20th of what year,

28 please. 2078

1 A. I’m sorry. 2003.

2 Q. All right. What was the nature of the

3 referral.

4 A. I had received two referrals. The first

5 referral was from L.A. Department of Child & Family

6 Services that stressed — a caller had stressed

7 concern over the welfare of Mr. Jackson’s children.

8 The second referral was in response to the

9 February 6th, I believe it was, airing of the

10 documentary regarding Mr. Jackson. And that

11 referral revealed the identities of the children

12 depicted, specifically of Gavin Arvizo.

13 Q. And what did you do in terms of conducting

14 an investigation on that referral.

15 A. Well, the first thing that we did is I

16 conferred with my immediate supervisor, Sergeant

17 LeGault, and we were going to begin the process of

18 interviewing the children. However, a few days

19 later, on the 24th, I was advised that L.A. CWS —

20 or DCFS, pardon me, had already interviewed the

21 Arvizo family.

22 Q. Do you know when that interview took place.

23 A. That interview took place on February 20th

24 of 2003.

25 Q. Did you have a conversation with anybody

26 from the Department of Child & Family Services in

27 Los Angeles.

28 A. Yes, I did. 2079

1 Q. With whom did you have a conversation.

2 A. Her name was — excuse me, Brenda Blackburn,

3 who was a supervisor.

4 Q. Did she submit to you or forward to you any

5 documentation of that interview.

6 A. No, she did not.

7 Q. Is there a report that they prepared with

8 regards to that interview.

9 A. I was told that there was, yes.

10 Q. What did she tell you with regards to your

11 being able to get possession of that report at that

12 time.

13 A. At that time she told me that, due to

14 confidentiality reasons, that the DCFS would not be

15 able to forward that document to the sheriff’s

16 department.

17 Q. Did she relate to you the content of the

18 document itself.

19 A. Yes. She did, however, explain that she

20 would be able to read the report to me, and which

21 she did.

22 Q. And did you tape-record that conversation.

23 A. Yes, I did.

24 Q. All right. Did she read to you, presumably,

25 the report in its entirety.

26 A. According to what she told me, yes.

27 Q. What was the date that she read to you that

28 report. 2080

1 A. March 13th, 2003.

2 Q. Now, did Miss Blackburn indicate to you that

3 she was the one who actually interviewed the

4 children.

5 A. No, she did not actually interview the

6 children.

7 Q. So she was reading a report of interviews

8 conducted by other workers.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Did she indicate the identity of those

11 workers.

12 A. Yes. If I may, may I refer to my narrative

13 to confirm that date of March 13th.

14 Q. Yes. Please go ahead.

15 A. Refresh my memory.

16 Q. Yes, go ahead.

17 A. Thank you.

18 THE COURT: After he does that, we will take

19 our break.

20 THE WITNESS: I apologize. It was actually

21 March 10th, 2003, that I spoke to Brenda Blackburn.

22 THE COURT: All right. Let’s take our

23 break.

24 (Recess taken.)

After the recess was taken, Flaa stated that he spoke with David Arvizo, as well as a representative from the DCFS, and that he felt that an interview with the Arvizo children by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department would not be necessary, and their investigation was closed:

1 THE COURT: You may proceed, Counsel.

2 MR. ZONEN: Thank you, Your Honor.

3 Q. Officer Flaa, just a clarification, please.

4 You indicated the unit that you were assigned to at

5 the time that you left the sheriff’s office was what

6 again.

7 A. That was the —

8 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Microphone, please.

9 MR. ZONEN: How’s this.

10 A JUROR: Turn it on.

11 MR. ZONEN: How’s this.

12 Q. The unit that you were assigned to at the

13 time you left the sheriff’s office was which again.

14 A. The vice and the intelligence unit.

15 Q. Was that the unit that you were in at the

16 time that this referral came into the office back on

17 the 20th of February of 2003.

18 A. No, sir.

19 Q. What unit were you attached to at that time.

20 A. At that time I was a detective assigned to

21 the Criminal Investigations Division.

22 Q. All right. Now, you told us that when this

23 came in, you had a conversation with Brenda

24 Blackburn from the Department of Child & Family

25 Services in Los Angeles.

26 A. Yes, sir.

27 Q. Did you have a conversation with anybody

28 else. 2087

1 A. Yes, I did.

2 Q. With whom.

3 A. David Arvizo.

4 Q. All right. Who did you understand David

5 Arvizo to be.

6 A. To be the father of the Arvizo siblings.

7 Q. Did you make a determination as to whether

8 or not the children should be interviewed by the

9 sheriff’s department, Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s

10 Department, by you or some other designated

11 detective.

12 A. After the interview with CWS.

13 Q. Yes, that’s right. After CWS indicated to

14 you that they had already done the interview.

15 A. We had made a determination that an

16 interview would not be necessary.

17 Q. Was there any information that was given to

18 you that there was a disclosure of child sexual

19 abuse at all.

20 A. No, no information.

21 Q. And was there any further investigation

22 conducted by the sheriff’s office at that time.

23 A. No, there was not.

24 Q. Was the investigation closed at that time.

25 A. Yes, it was.

26 Q. The date of the interview with — again,

27 with Child — I’m sorry, with Miss Blackburn was

28 what date now. 2088

1 A. March 10th, 2003.

2 Q. And when was your interview with Mr. Arvizo.

3 A. March 13th, 2003.

4 MR. ZONEN: Thank you. I have no further

5 questions.

6 Oh, excuse me. One last question.

7 Q. Did you make a report of this.

8 A. Yes, I did.

9 Q. And did you indicate in your report the date

10 that the referral came in and the date of your

11 interviews.

12 A. I indicated the date that I received the

13 referral.

14 Q. And the date of your interview with Miss

15 Blackburn.

16 A. Yes, sir.

17 Q. All right. And did you also include with

18 it a — the copy of the tape that you had of the

19 interview with Miss Blackburn.

20 A. Yes. I booked that in as evidence.

21 MR. ZONEN: Thank you.

22 No further questions.

23 THE COURT: Cross-examine.

Robert Sanger  began his cross examination of Officer Flaa by asking him about the timing of his transfer to Santa Maria county, to confirm the date that he closed his investigation, and if he was still in that same position of authority when the investigation was reopened in June 2003:

25 CROSS-EXAMINATION

26 BY MR. SANGER:

27 Q. Officer Flaa; is that correct.

28 A. That’s correct, Mr. Sanger. 2089

1 Q. First of all, you were with the sheriff’s

2 department for eight and a half years; is that

3 correct.

4 A. Yes, sir.

5 Q. And what was the date that you terminated

6 your services with the sheriff’s department.

7 A. It was in the beginning of January, 2004.

8 I don’t recall the specific — I think it was like

9 January 2nd, that week.

10 Q. Now, you have told us that you went to the

11 Santa Maria Police Department, right. That’s where

12 you are now.

13 A. Yes, sir.

14 Q. Did you not like your job as a detective in

15 the intelligence and vice division.

16 A. Yes, I did.

17 Q. You liked it, okay.

18 A. Uh-huh.

19 Q. You filed a report, as you’ve just told us,

20 saying that you found there was no criminal activity

21 in this case; is that correct.

22 A. That’s correct.

23 Q. And you filed that report on April the 16th,

24 right.

25 A. Correct.

26 Q. You were aware that at some time later,

27 there was a further investigation of this case; is

28 that correct. 2090 

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Now, did you continue on in your capacity as

3 a detective at the sheriff’s department until you

4 transferred or until you quit and went on to the

5 Santa Maria Police Department.

6 A. Two different type of positions. It was —

7 I believe it was March of 2003, mid March – I think

8 it was like March 20th, 2003 – is when I ended my

9 tenure as a detective assigned to the Criminal

10 Investigations Division and had the opportunity to

11 assume the role as — an undercover role with my

12 vice and intelligence unit.

13 Q. Okay. When this investigation was

14 reestablished — do you know when it was

15 reestablished.

16 A. No.

17 Q. Did you forward any documents, for instance,

18 to Detective Zelis.

19 A. Any documents.

20 Q. Did you furnish any report to Detective

21 Zelis.

22 A. They had my original report. I did not

23 personally hand them a copy of the report.

24 Q. So you were not — you were not assigned to

25 continue the investigation that you started in this

26 case; is that correct.

27 A. That’s correct.

Officer Flaa received two reports titled “Suspected Child Abuse Report”, and the first one was generated by a complaint from the notorious Dr. Carol Lieberman. She has been a serial detractor of Jackson for many years, and has publicly criticized every facet of Jackson’s life (I’ll go into more details about her at the end of this post):

28 Q. And Detective Zelis started his 2091

1 investigation about June the 13th; is that right.

2 A. I don’t know when he started it.

3 Q. Roughly sometime in June, is that your

4 understanding, or you don’t know at all.

5 A. I do not know what date the investigation

6 commenced.

7 THE COURT: What year are you referring to,

8 Counsel.

9 MR. SANGER: 2003.

10 Q. All right. Let’s go back to the source of

11 the referral in this case. You indicated you

12 received a referral from two different places; is

13 that right. Or — or two different referrals. I’m

14 sorry.

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. And the information for those referrals came

17 from two different places; is that correct.

18 A. That’s my understanding.

19 Q. And you reviewed the referral documents; is

20 that right.

21 A. Yes, I did.

22 Q. And the referral documents were from the

23 Los Angeles Department of Children & Family

24 Services, correct.

25 A. Yes, sir.

26 Q. And they call that the DCFS.

27 A. Yes, sir.

28 Q. Okay. 2092

1 A. My understanding.

2 Q. And that’s sort of like what we call CPS

3 here in Santa Barbara County.

4 A. Or CWS. They changed it. Child Welfare

5 Services.

6 Q. So CPS, or now CWS, that’s what we call it.

7 They call it DCFS.

8 A. My understanding, yes.

9 Q. So you received the reports, the two

10 reports, that were entitled “Suspected Child Abuse

11 Report”; is that correct.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And the first report was actually generated

14 by a Carol Lieberman; is that your understanding.

15 Do you want to look at the report.

16 A. If I may, yes.

17 Q. Yes. And I believe you attached these two

18 reports to your narrative report, did you not.

19 A. I did.

20 Q. Okay. I think it’s page ten might help you.

21 A. Okay. Yes, I see that.

After asking Officer Flaa to explain his training and credentials to the jury, Sanger questioned Flaa to see if he researched the background of Lieberman to determine if she had an agenda or an axe to grind against Jackson, but Flaa replied that he didn’t think it was significant to find out who was making the referral, or why the referral was made, because it was outside of his jurisdiction (even though he received the referral).

22 Q. All right. Now, let me just stop there for

23 a moment and talk about your qualifications.

24 You went to the academy, POST academy; is

25 that correct.

26 A. That’s correct.

27 Q. And the POST academy is a certification for

28 an academy that can give training to — official 2093

1 training to people who are going to become law

2 enforcement officers in the State of California; is

3 that correct.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Which POST academy did you go to.

6 A. I attended Allan Hancock College’s academy.

7 Q. All right. And they have an official

8 academy there. People can go there, learn to be

9 police officers, and get a certification so that

10 they can apply for the job; is that correct.

11 A. That’s correct.

12 Q. And in the course of the academy, you take

13 courses in investigation; is that correct.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. You take courses in report writing.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And you basically learn how to take a case

18 from the initial part of an investigation through as

19 far as a police officer would take it; is that

20 right.

21 A. The basic — yes.

22 Q. Now, since your academy training, you also

23 had other inservice training; is that correct.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And as of 2000 — February — March of 2003,

26 how much inservice training had you had.

27 A. Would you like me to list the various types

28 of training specific to this type of case work. 2094

1 Q. That would be fine.

2 A. Okay. I attended a 40-hour sexual assault

3 investigator’s course, a 24-hour child forensic

4 interview course, an 80-hour homicide course that

5 touched on, you know, sexual assault abuse aspects

6 of homicide, as well as inservice training. There’s

7 been some eight-hour courses here and there for

8 different aspects of this type of investigation.

9 Q. And as a police officer — or, strike

10 that — as a deputy sheriff, before becoming a

11 detective in the sheriff’s department, did you have

12 occasion to investigate cases related to child

13 abuse.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And then when you became a detective, did

16 you have occasion to investigate additional cases.

17 A. Yes, I did.

18 Q. And how long were you a detect — excuse me.

19 How long were you a detective as of March of 2003.

20 A. Four years. Roughly four years.

21 Q. Okay. So suffice it to say, you were an

22 experienced detective with regard to suspected child

23 abuse cases; is that correct.

24 A. Yes. I would say.

25 Q. And when you were assigned this case, you

26 were aware, of course, that we were talking about

27 the entertainer Michael Jackson; is that correct.

28 A. Yes. 2095

1 Q. And you were aware that there had been a

2 good deal of media attention given to Mr. Jackson

3 immediately preceding the time that you started your

4 investigation; is that right.

5 A. Yes, that’s correct.

6 Q. Okay. Now, we’re going back to that

7 question about Carol Lieberman. As an experienced

8 child abuse investigator, when you have a

9 complaining — I’m sorry, when you have a reporting

10 party, is it of interest to the investigator to know

11 who the reporting party is.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Okay. And in your department, in the

14 sheriff’s department, did you call the reporting

15 party an RP.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Okay. So the RP, the reporting party, is

18 often what starts an investigation. Somebody calls

19 in, they’re an RP, and that starts your

20 investigation, correct.

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. Particularly in child abuse — suspected

23 child abuse cases, knowing a good deal about the

24 reporting party is generally useful to the

25 investigation, correct.

26 A. That is correct.

27 Q. People may have all sorts of agendas when

28 they call in a child abuse report; is that right. 2096

1 A. Excuse me. Yes. That’s correct.

2 Q. I think there’s some water there, if you

3 want to —

4 A. Thank you.

5 Q. In this particular case, did you determine

6 who Carol Lieberman was.

7 A. No.

8 Q. Were you aware that she has never met

9 Michael Jackson.

10 A. No.

11 Q. Were you aware that she never met Michael

12 Jackson’s children.

13 A. If I may. Regarding that referral —

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. — my investigative responsibility was not

16 specifically this referral. It would have been —

17 the other would have been within our jurisdictional

18 responsibility.

19 Q. Well, we’re going to get to the other in a

20 second.

21 A. So here, you know, I did not conduct any

22 formal investigation into that referral’s

23 accusations.

24 Q. Okay. Now, I don’t mean to argue with you,

25 but I believe on direct you did say you had two

26 referrals when you started your investigation,

27 right.

28 A. There were two referrals that came in, yes, 2097

1 sir.

2 Q. And you knew this was an important case to

3 investigate carefully, correct.

4 A. Right.

5 Q. And one of the referrals was from Carol

6 Lieberman —

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. — right.

9 Now, I understand what you just said about

10 the second one, which we’ll get to. But I’m asking

11 you if you did any investigation on Carol Lieberman.

12 A. No, sir.

13 Q. Did you Google her name, run it on the

14 Internet.

15 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, I’ll object. The

16 witness has said he did not do an investigation of

17 that referral.

18 THE COURT: Sustained.

19 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Okay. Well, let me ask you,

20 are you saying you did no investigation whatsoever

21 with regard to this — with regard to this report.

22 MR. ZONEN: Which report. Vague.

23 THE COURT: Sustained.

24 MR. SANGER: That’s fine. Let me rephrase

25 it.

26 Q. You indicated you had two referrals. And

27 the first one was from Carol Lieberman, right.

28 A. I indicated there were — two referrals had 2098

1 come in from DCFS, yes.

2 Q. So my question is, what, if anything, did

3 you do with regard to the first referral.

4 A. The one where you have stated Carol

5 Lieberman’s the RP.

6 Q. Right.

7 A. Okay. Nothing.

8 Q. You read it.

9 A. Oh, I apologize. Yes, I read the referral

10 when it came in.

11 Q. Okay. And did you consider it as you

12 conducted your investigation.

13 A. No.

14 Q. So as far as you were concerned, this had no

15 significance whatsoever.

16 A. No, this would have been under CWS’s, Child

17 Welfare Services’, jurisdictional responsibility,

18 not mine, per se, based on the information in the

19 referral.

20 Q. And as an investigator, you didn’t think it

21 was significant to find out who was making the

22 referral, why there was even a referral there.

23 A. Not for that specific referral.

Next, Sanger asked Officer Flaa about the identity of the reporting party of the second referral, and he confirmed that it was Gavin’s principal, who in the report stated that he was motivated to file the report after hearing attorney Gloria Allred’s very public complaints about Jackson after the airing of the Bashir documentary.

24 Q. Okay. Now, the second referral that you

25 talked about is also attached to your reports; is

26 that correct.

27 A. That’s correct.

28 Q. So we’re talking about the same thing here. 2099

1 And the second referral, this is the one

2 you’re saying now was the focus of your

3 investigation.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And in this referral — let me withdraw

6 that.

7 This referral comes from a director or

8 somebody in the administration of the L.A School

9 District; is that correct.

10 A. That’s correct.

11 Q. And in the referral, the DCSF people

12 indicate that the — Attorney Gloria Allred had

13 complained to Santa Barbara County officials

14 regarding the Bashir tape; is that correct.

15 Second to the last paragraph, page 15.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Okay. And do you know who Gloria Allred is.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. She’s a lawyer in Los Angeles; is that

20 correct.

21 A. That’s correct.

22 Q. Tends to get on television a lot; is that

23 correct.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. All right. And she has — in the course of

26 your investigation, you determined she had

27 absolutely no firsthand information whatsoever with

28 regard to Michael Jackson or any of this; is that 2100

1 correct.

2 A. I did not attempt to make any type of —

3 that type of determination.

4 Q. All right. So the second report basically

5 was a revelation by the school district that they

6 had a belief that the people in the Bashir film were

7 students in the L.A. Unified School District; is

8 that correct.

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. And they identified the people by name; that

11 is, Gavin and Star Arvizo; is that correct.

12 A. That’s correct.

13 Q. All right. Now, when you refer — excuse

14 me.

15 When you reviewed these two reports — let

16 me withdraw that.

17 Other than these two reports, did you have

18 any other information to commence your

19 investigation.

20 A. No.

Officer Flaa then went on to testify that in February 2003, he was determined to have his officers interview the Arvizo children, and one of his colleagues, Lieutenant Klapakis, called the Los Angeles DCFS on February 24th, 2003 and submitted a request to interview the Arvizo children, and told the DCFS supervisor to NOT interview them, but by then it was too late because they had already been interviewed by the DCFS on February 20th, 2003. Sanger then asked Flaa about his professional opinion of how the DCFS conducted their interview, and if he would have performed a follow-up interview if he had felt the DCFS were insufficient in their investigation, and Flaa confirmed that he felt that no further investigation was warranted because no criminal activity had occurred as of February 20th, 2003:

10 Q. All right. So when you said at the grand

11 jury, “It was during that time that Lieutenant

12 Klapakis had advised us that he contacted L.A. CPS,”

13 that could have meant that Lieutenant Klapakis told

14 you directly, or told Sergeant LeGault, or told both

15 of you.

16 A. That’s correct. However, I’m not reading —

17 I don’t see what you just said.

18 Q. 1441, lines 12 through 14.

19 A. It could very well have been where Sergeant

20 LeGault and I were together, yes.

21 Q. Now, the point of this —

22 A. I’m sure there’s one.

23 Q. There is a point, I hope.

24 The point of this is at some point, either

25 directly through Klapakis or through LeGault, among

26 the three of you at some point it was determined

27 that the — that you should interview these

28 children, right. 2104

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Okay. And then at some point, Lieutenant

3 Klapakis said he contacted Los Angeles CPS, right.

4 A. I was informed that he had contacted CPS,

5 yes.

6 Q. Okay. And when we say “L.A. CPS,” we’re

7 really meaning L.A. DCFS, right.

8 A. Yes, we are.

9 Q. Those are kind of used interchangeably by

10 Santa Barbarans.

11 A. I believe it’s the same type of agency.

12 Q. All right. So the first point is, you

13 were — you were told that Lieutenant Klapakis

14 contacted the L.A. DCFS, right.

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. And you were told that he instructed them,

17 or had them interview the children; is that what you

18 were told.

19 A. I was — I was told that he had submitted a

20 request to them to interview the children.

21 Q. Now — and then you found out that, in fact,

22 they did interview the children.

23 A. I did, yes.

24 Q. Because that’s what the DCFS worker read to

25 you over the phone.

26 A. Correct.

27 Q. Okay. Were you aware that Lieutenant

28 Klapakis, in fact, called the DCFS supervisor and 2105

1 told her not to interview the children.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And, in fact, the DCFS supervisor said,

4 “You’re too late, we already did it”.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Okay. Now, after — let me withdraw that.

7 You — you then relied upon the DCSF workers

8 as to the contents of their interview with the

9 children; is that correct.

10 A. That’s correct.

11 Q. And you also relied upon them, as fellow

12 professionals, to have done a fairly thorough job in

13 interviewing the children; is that correct.

14 A. That would have been my hope, yes.

15 Q. And, in fact, what they told you was very

16 detailed. They had asked a lot of very detailed

17 questions of the children and the mother, Janet

18 Arvizo; is that correct.

19 A. I can only tell you what Brenda Blackburn

20 informed me, what she read to me in that report.

21 As far as what exact exchange occurred between the

22 interviews and the children, I do not know. I was

23 not present.

24 Q. I understand that. But as the lead

25 investigator on this case involving Mr. Michael

26 Jackson and these allegations, you were at that time

27 concerned that there had been a thorough interview;

28 is that right. 2106

1 A. I was concerned that there had been.

2 Q. In other words — in other words, if you had

3 felt there wasn’t a thorough interview, if you felt

4 that, you know, they’d done a drive-by or got on the

5 phone for a minute and said, “It’s close enough,”

6 you would have said, “No, that’s not sufficient. We

7 need to do a further interview, either they do or we

8 do,” right.

9 A. Me personally, yes. But you have to

10 understand, in this situation those decisions were

11 not being made by me as the lead investigator. They

12 were being made by my — by Lieutenant Klapakis or

13 the administration.

14 Q. Okay.

15 A. So I was informed that they had interviewed

16 the children. She read me the content of what

17 supposedly that interview — what transpired during

18 that interview. And we had to go on on — based on

19 that.

20 Q. Now, when you say “we had to go on that,”

21 let’s — let’s talk about that for a second.

22 A. Okay.

23 Q. You were the lead investigator in this case,

24 correct.

25 A. I was the assigned investigator, yes.

26 Q. Assigned investigator. And in your

27 department, you call it “assigned investigator,”

28 is that — 2107

1 A. “Lead investigator” is a term that’s

2 commonly used.

3 Q. Okay. “Lead investigator.” I just want to

4 use the right words, okay. This will come up again,

5 and we can spend less time with another witness if

6 we just explore this.

7 A. Okay.

8 Q. As lead investigator, it’s your

9 understanding, in any case if you’re lead

10 investigator, you’re responsible to collect all the

11 evidence and make sure all the reports are written,

12 and submit the case; is that correct.

13 A. That’s correct.

14 Q. All right. Now, you have a chain of

15 command —

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. — right.

18 And in the chain of command at that

19 particular time, in your direct chain of command,

20 you had Sergeant LeGault and you had Lieutenant

21 Klapakis, right.

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. The — the people in the chain of command

24 who are above you in the chain of command can give

25 you instructions and orders; is that correct.

26 A. That’s correct.

27 Q. However, it is expected and was expected, in

28 February, March and April of 2003, that any lead 2108

1 investigator on a case take full responsibility for

2 evaluating the evidence and making appropriate

3 recommendations; is that correct.

4 A. That’s correct.

5 Q. All right. And after you heard from Miss

6 Blackburn — let me withdraw that.

7 You heard from Miss Blackburn that there

8 were, in fact, three social workers who went to the

9 home; is that right.

10 A. That’s correct.

11 Q. And that they talked to — not only to Star

12 Arvizo and Gavin Arvizo, but they talked to their

13 sister Davellin, and they also talked to the mother,

14 Janet; is that correct.

15 A. That’s correct.

16 Q. All right. And after you received that

17 information, you then talked to the father of the

18 children; is that correct.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. That was David Arvizo.

21 A. That’s correct.

22 Q. And he told you that he had been subject to

23 a restraining order, so he hadn’t been able to talk

24 with his children for a period of time; is that

25 correct.

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. But he also said that he had been —

28 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as hearsay. 2109

1 THE COURT: Sustained.

2 Q. BY MR. SANGER: In general, he told you the

3 background.

4 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as hearsay.

5 THE COURT: Sustained.

6 MR. SANGER: All right. It’s not offered

7 for the truth. It’s offered with regard to his

8 opinion.

9 THE COURT: Sustained.

10 MR. SANGER: Okay.

11 Q. In any event, after you talked to David

12 Arvizo, did you make a recommendation to your

13 superiors that any further investigation occur in

14 this case.

15 A. That was the final conclusion, yes.

16 Q. The final conclusion was that no further

17 investigation —

18 A. Correct. No further investigation.

19 Q. So you did not make a recommendation to your

20 superiors that there be further investigation.

21 A. Not at that time, based on the information

22 we had received.

23 Q. And, in fact, your conclusion in your report

24 was that there was no criminal activity; is that

25 correct.

26 A. That’s correct.

27 Mr. Sanger.

28 Q. Yes. 2110

1 A. If I can clarify something.

2 You kind of provided a broad time frame when

3 you said February, March, April. And in fact — and

4 then you talked about that no crime occurred within

5 that time frame. That’s not what I’m stating, nor

6 is that what my report states.

7 It was as of the interview on February 20th.

8 I cannot account for what happened, what may have

9 been said by any of the Arvizos after the interview

10 with DCFS.

When Officer Flaa qualified his answer by saying he didn’t suspect any criminal conduct as of February 20th, it took Sanger by surprise, as he was ready to end his cross examination, so upon hearing Officer Flaa’s qualification, he decided to verify that Officer Flaa, as an experienced child abuse investigator, had no reason to believe abuse had occurred after February 20th, 2003:

11 Q. See, I was going to sit down, but now I have

12 to ask you some more questions.

13 A. I’m sorry, I needed to clarify that, because

14 that was a very broad three-month time frame.

15 Q. That’s fine.

16 You submitted your report April 16th; is

17 that correct.

18 A. If I may look at the face page.

19 Q. Yes, please.

20 A. Yes, that’s when I took it to the supervisor

21 for approval.

22 Q. And the referral that you had, as an

23 experienced child abuse investigator, the material

24 you had suggested that a child abuse investigation

25 be commenced; is that correct.

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. And the information that you had from DCFS,

28 you’re telling us, was as of February 20th; is that 2111

1 correct.

2 A. The date of the interview.

3 Q. That was the —

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. That was the information you had from them.

6 You understood it took place on February 20th.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And then you had information March 13th from

9 an interview with David Arvizo, correct.

10 A. I had spoken to Mr. Arvizo on that date,

11 yes.

12 Q. So as of the — as of the time that you

13 submitted your report, you had no evidence of

14 criminal activity; is that correct.

15 A. Based on — yes.

16 Q. I understand. But you were assigned the

17 case, and if you thought there was some reason to

18 investigate beyond the reports that you received

19 from Miss Blackburn and Mr. Arvizo, you would have

20 done that, right.

21 A. Correct.

22 MR. SANGER: All right. Okay. I have no

23 further questions. Thank you.

24 MR. ZONEN: Just a couple, Your Honor.

Zonen began his redirect examination by asking Officer Flaa to clarify how different referrals are distributed through the investigative bodies and agencies in Santa Barbara County, to clarify if he had received an original or a copy of the referral, and if he had interviewed the entire Arvizo family.

1 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

2 BY MR. ZONEN:

3 Q. Just a moment of clarification, if I could,

4 Officer Flaa.

5 There were two referrals that came in. And

6 the first one you said you did no investigation on.

7 That was the referral of which, please.

8 A. That was the referral where the reporting

9 party indicated that they were aware of emotional

10 abuse by Mr. Jackson toward his children.

11 Q. All right. Who handled that referral.

12 Where did that one go to.

13 MR. SANGER: Objection; calls for

14 speculation.

15 MR. ZONEN: If he knows.

16 THE COURT: Well, he — the foundation is

17 sustained.

18 MR. ZONEN: All right.

19 Q. Do you know what becomes of different

20 referrals; in other words, how they’re distributed

21 through the investigative bodies and agencies in

22 Santa Barbara County.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Okay. And how are they distributed.

25 A. Well, a referral such as that, where there’s

26 no apparent criminal on the surface, and there’s no

27 criminal accusations per se, and it’s an in-home

28 abuse situation, would be referred out to Child 2113

1 Welfare Services, and they would assume

2 jurisdictional responsibility for that type of

3 investigation.

4 Q. And did that happen as to the first

5 referral.

6 A. That I do not know.

7 Q. All right. But it was not a referral that

8 went — in other words, the copy that you received

9 was simply a copy. This was a referral to Child

10 Protective Services.

11 A. Correct.

12 MR. SANGER: Objection. Leading, Your

13 Honor, and compound.

14 THE COURT: Sustained.

15 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Tell us about the report that

16 you received. Was it an original or was it a copy.

17 A. It was a copy.

18 Q. To whom was it addressed, then.

19 A. I don’t know. It was given — I was given a

20 copy by Lieutenant Kla — or Sergeant LeGault.

21 Q. In any event, your investigation was limited

22 to the second referral.

23 A. Yes, sir.

24 Q. And that involved which children. Identify

25 them, please.

26 A. Yes. Gavin Arvizo. Star Arvizo. And

27 then – I know that I’m going to mispronounce this –

28 Davelian, I believe it is. Davelian Arvizo. 2114

1 Q. That’s close.

2 A. Okay.

3 Q. All right. The dates that we’re talking

4 about, please, you already told us that it was the

5 20th when the interview was done in Los Angeles, the

6 20th of February, 2003. And the date that you said

7 you had your conversation with Miss Blackburn was

8 the 11th of March, 2003.

9 A. March 10th, 2003.

10 Q. I’m sorry, March 10th, 2003.

11 When was it determined that the

12 investigation would be closed.

13 A. After my conversation with Mr. Arvizo.

14 Q. And that was.

15 A. March 13th, 2003.

16 Q. And you had briefed your supervisor,

17 Sergeant LeGault, of your findings; is that correct.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And that included a copy of the —

20 tape-recorded copy of the conversation with

21 Miss Blackburn.

22 A. Correct.

In an apparent slip of the tongue, Zonen inadvertently asked if “we” (i.e. the Santa Barbara prosecutor’s office) had received a copy of the actual written report of the DCFS, but corrected himself and asked if the sheriff’s office had received it, and Officer Flaa answered that he wasn’t aware of it. Now of course, just because he “wasn’t aware of it”, doesn’t meant that the sheriff’s office didn’t receive the report! It’s very plausible that they received the report and ignored it because it didn’t tell them what they wanted to hear.

23 Q. Did we ever — “we.” Did the sheriff’s

24 office ever receive, to your knowledge, while you

25 were handling this matter, the actual written report

26 of the Child Protective Services — excuse me, the

27 Department of Child & Family Services report that

28 was generated in Los Angeles with regards to their 2115

1 interview of these two children, or three children.

2 A. Not that I’m aware of, no.

3 MR. ZONEN: Thank you. I have no further

4 questions.

5 THE COURT: Mr. Sanger.

After Jackson was arrested in November 2003, and it was reported in the media that Jackson had been cleared by the DCFS in February 2003, a brief summary of their report that exonerated Jackson was leaked, and it was immediately dismissed by Sneddon, who claimed that the alleged abuse didn’t occur until after the interview (despite the fact that Gavin initially stated that he was abused before the interview, but that’s an entirely different matter). Here is the leaked summary of the DCFS report:

 

Here is Sneddon’s press release in response to the leaked DCFS report:

December 9th, 2003

RESPONSE TO DCFS INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

Michael Jackson Molestation Case

 

We are responding to the release of what has been termed a confidential Department of Children & Family Services (DCFS) memo that deemed allegations of sexual abuse by Michael Jackson to be “unfounded.” Our investigators were aware of the contents of the interviews prior to seeking the search warrants and arrest warrant for Mr. Jackson. The report and its contents, along with the totality of the investigation and the circumstances and the timing under which the statements were given, were provided to the judge at the time that the search and arrest warrants were issued.

 

Given what we know, we do not consider the DCFS statement a significant factor.

 

Tom Sneddon, Santa Barbara District Attorney

Jim Anderson, Santa Barbara County Sheriff

http://web.archive.org/web/20071114164321/www.sbsheriff.org/mj/

And when Sneddon gave his press conference in December 2003 to announce that Jackson had been officially charged with 7 counts of lewd acts upon a child, and 2 counts of administering an intoxicant (which Sneddon would later change to 4 counts of lewd acts upon a child, 1 count of attempted lewd act upon a child, 4 counts of administering an intoxicant, and 1 count of conspiracy to commit child abduction), he was sure to emphasize that he felt that the DCFS didn’t conduct an investigation, but rather an interview (he says this at 14:32 ), which implied that they did not thoroughly examine the case, and as a result their findings were irrelevant:

Sanger began his recross-examination by asking Officer Flaa to draw a timeline of the events surrounding his investigation into the second referral, and this was done to establish the fact that when he closed his investigation on April 16th, 2003, he still had no reason to believe that any criminal conduct had taken place, despite the fact that he qualified his statement earlier about not being suspicious of Jackson as of February 20th, 2003:

7 RECROSS-EXAMINATION

8 BY MR. SANGER:

9 Q. We’ve talked about this timeline. And

10 again, we’re starting with you here, so I’m going to

11 ask you to take a look at a piece of paper.

12 And with the Court’s permission — I’ll give

13 one to counsel here. With the Court’s permission,

14 I’d like to approach the witness and —

15 THE COURT: All right.

16 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Do you have a pen.

17 THE COURT: This is shown for refreshment of

18 memory.

19 MR. SANGER: No, what I’m going to do is ask

20 that the piece of paper that I’ve given the witness

21 be marked as defense next in order, which is 50 —

22 THE CLERK: 34.

23 MR. SANGER: 5034. And hopefully this will

24 help avoid confusion, but we’ll see.

25 Q. First of all, Officer, do you recognize that

26 as being a timeline, just generally a linear

27 calendar.

28 A. A blank timeline. 2116

1 Q. Blank timeline, yes.

2 And — all right. What I’m going to do is

3 just ask you — Mr. Zonen was asking you some

4 questions about the timing on —

5 A. Sure.

6 Q. — redirect there. So let’s just get it on

7 paper.

8 First of all, if you’d put your name up on

9 the top. There’s a line that says “Witness.” And

10 then you can indicate on the timeline when you

11 received your referral.

12 A. Circle the date.

13 Q. Yeah, just write, perhaps above it, just

14 “Received Referral.” Whatever you — whatever will

15 help us to see this.

16 And then you can circle the date and write

17 above it the date that you understood the DCFS

18 interview took place.

19 You told us you understood that was on the

20 20th, I believe; is that right.

21 A. It was actually the same date that I got

22 the —

23 Q. Okay. Then just put “DCFS Interview” as

24 well.

25 And then indicate the date that you

26 contacted David Arvizo.

27 And then just before that I think is the

28 date you actually spoke to the DCFS supervisor, 2117

1 which I believe you said was on the 10th.

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. All right. And then I believe you indicated

4 that there was a date that you found out that the

5 Arvizo children had already been interviewed. I

6 don’t think you told us the date. But was that on

7 2-24.

8 A. Yes, it was.

9 Q. Why don’t you just indicate that on there.

10 And then off that particular chart, you have

11 the date of April 16, which is the date you wrote

12 your report; is that correct.

13 That’s off the chart, so it would be at the

14 end. Would you just make a note, an arrow or

15 something, and just put “4-16”.

16 Is that chart now illustrative of your

17 testimony. Does that work for you.

18 A. As far as the timeline, yes.

19 Q. Pretty much tell us about the timeline.

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, in fact, perhaps

22 Deputy Avila could just bring that back with her so

23 I don’t have to approach, if that’s all right.

24 THE BAILIFF: I figured you were going to

25 say that.

26 MR. ZONEN: May I see that, please.

27 MR. SANGER: Certainly.

28 MR. ZONEN: Thank you. 2118

1 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I’d move this into

2 evidence.

3 MR. ZONEN: No objection.

4 THE COURT: It’s admitted.

5 MR. SANGER: I’d like to publish it, if I

6 could, please.

7 Would Your Honor hit the —

8 THE COURT: We need “Input 4,” right.

9 THE WITNESS: Pardon my scribbling.

10 MR. SANGER: Ah-hah, there’s my hand. Oops.

11 Q. We have 5034 on the screen there. And

12 somebody had a laser pointer, but I don’t know where

13 it is. But I think this is simple enough, and let’s

14 just do it this way: You’ve indicated there just

15 what we went over.

16 The date that you got the request, or the

17 referral, on the 20th of February, 2003, which is

18 also, it turns out coincidentally, to be the date of

19 the DCFS interviews, correct.

20 A. That’s correct.

21 Q. And then you were told of — actually, I

22 can’t read it. What’s on the 24th.

23 A. It says, “Detective Flaa” — excuse me,

24 “Detective Flaa learned of the interview,” or the

25 DCSF interviews.

26 Q. Thank you. That’s when you learned of the

27 interviews.

28 And on the 10th of March, that’s when you 2119

1 basically were read the interviews by Miss

2 Blackburn; is that correct.

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. And then the 13th is when you did your

5 interview with Mr. David Arvizo, correct.

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. And then down at the bottom, it’s off the

8 chart, but 4-16-03 is when you submitted your

9 report; is that correct.

10 A. That’s correct.

11 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you.

12 I have no further questions.

13 MR. ZONEN: I have no questions, Your Honor.

14 THE COURT: All right.

15 Thank you. You may step down.

16 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.

17 MR. ZONEN: We’ll call Lieutenant Klapakis

18 to the stand.

19 THE COURT: When you get to the witness

20 stand, remain standing. Face the clerk and raise

21 your right hand.

Summary of Detective Terry Flaa’s Testimony

1. Terry Flaa, a former Santa Barbara investigator who transferred to Santa Maria before the trial started. On February 20th, 2003 he was assigned two referrals about investigating Jackson for alleged wrongdoing; the first referral was from a reporting party who was concerned about the well-being of Jackson’s children, and the second referral was from the Department of Child & Family Services concerning Jackson’s alleged misconduct with Gavin Arvizo (the reporting party was Gavin’s principal Mr. Alpert, who notified the DCFS).

2. After being told the results of the DCFS interview with the Arvizos by the supervisor of the social workers who conducted the interview, Officer Flaa spoke with David Arvizo, and concluded that the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department did not need to interview the Arvizo children, and their investigation was closed on April 16th, 2003.

3. While being cross-examined by Robert Sanger, Officer Flaa revealed that he received two reports titled “Suspected Child Abuse Report”, and the first one was generated by a complaint from the notorious Dr. Carol Lieberman. She has been a serial detractor of Jackson for many years, and has publicly criticized every facet of Jackson’s life.

4. Sanger questioned Flaa to see if he researched the background of Lieberman to determine if she had an agenda or an axe to grind against Jackson, but Flaa replied that he didn’t think it was significant to find out who was making the referral, or why the referral was made, because it was outside of his jurisdiction (even though he received the referral).

5. Sanger asked Officer Flaa about the identity of the reporting party of the second referral, and he confirmed that it was Gavin’s principal, who in the report stated that he was motivated to file the report after hearing attorney Gloria Allred’s public complaints about Jackson after the airing of the Bashir documentary.

6. Officer Flaa testified that in February 2003, he was determined to have his officers interview the Arvizo children, and one of his colleagues, Lieutenant Klapakis, called the Los Angeles DCFS on February 24th, 2003 and submitted a request to interview the Arvizo children, and told the DCFS supervisor to NOT interview them, but by then it was too late because they had already been interviewed by the DCFS on February 20th, 2003. Sanger then asked Flaa about his professional opinion of how the DCFS conducted their interview, and if he would have performed a follow-up interview if he had felt the DCFS were insufficient in their investigation, and Flaa confirmed that he felt that no further investigation was warranted because no criminal activity had occurred as of February 20th, 2003.

7. When Officer Flaa qualified his answer by saying he didn’t suspect any criminal conduct as of February 20th, it took Sanger by surprise, as he was ready to end his cross examination, so upon hearing Officer Flaa’s qualification, he decided to verify that Officer Flaa, as an experienced child abuse investigator, had no reason to believe abuse had occurred after February 20th, 2003. Officer Flaa once again confirmed that when the investigation closed on April 16th, 2003, he had no evidence of criminal activity.

8. Under redirect-examination, Zonen inadvertently asked if “we” (i.e. the Santa Barbara prosecutor’s office) had received a copy of the actual written report of the DCFS, but corrected himself and asked if the sheriff’s office had received it, and Officer Flaa answered that he wasn’t aware of it. Now of course, just because he “wasn’t aware of it”, doesn’t meant that the sheriff’s office didn’t receive the report! It’s very plausible that they received the report and ignored it because it didn’t tell them what they wanted to hear.

9. Sanger began his recross-examination by asking Officer Flaa to draw a timeline of the events surrounding his investigation into the second referral, and this was done to establish the fact that when he closed his investigation on April 16th, 2003, he still had no reason to believe that any criminal conduct had taken place, despite the fact that he qualified his statement earlier about not being suspicious of Jackson as of February 20th, 2003.

Here is some additional information on Dr. Carole Lieberman:

Dr. Carole Lieberman has been a notorious detractor of Jackson ever since the “baby dangling” incident, where she and her good friend Gloria Allred publicly chastised Jackson. In fact, they enabled a “phantom victim” of Jackson to file a frivolous sexual abuse lawsuit against him in 2004, and it was dismissed in 2006 (after Sneddon and his department refused to file criminal charges in 2004).

I won’t go into the details here, as this post is long enough as it is, and Helena and myself have already published several posts about Kapon and other grifters who claimed to have been abused by Jackson. Please the following posts for more information on Dr. Lieberman’s helped Kapon “recover” his “repressed memories” of abuse by Jackson!

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/daniel-kapons-accusations-against-michael-jackson-and-the-beautiful-role-the-news-of-the-world-played-in-it/

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/phantom-victims-of-mj/

https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/analyzing-the-medias-hypocrisy-in-reporting-on-michael-jacksons-settlements-vs-the-settlements-of-other-celebrities-part-2/

Here is the complete transcript of an interview that Dr. Lieberman granted to MJJF Talk Radio on April 16th, 2004, in which she debated Jackson’s innocence with family friend Flo Anthony. It’s very interesting that she first started researching Jackson in the early 90’s, when she was asked by every Michael Jackson fan’s favorite celebrity biographer J. Randy Taraborrelli to be a psychiatric consultant for his biography on Jackson titled “The Magic and The Madness”!

This is a very detailed and revealing debate, and I’ll highlight and bold the most pertinent points.

Throughout the transcript, Gavin’s name is replaced with “XXXX” for privacy.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/MJ_Dot_Refugees/index.php?showtopic=1017

MJ Dot Refugees -> MJJF Talk Radio Interview transcript *memories*

MJJF Talk Radio Interview Flo Anthony vs Dr. Carole Lieberman

RON: Okay, with us today is Dr. Carole Lieberman, well known media psychiatrist, and Flo Anthony, editor of Black Elegance magazine. Welcome to our program both of you.

FA and CL: Thank you.

RON: Dr. Lieberman, we’re going to start with you. Can you please begin briefly by telling us a little bit about your professional background and your specialties?

CL: Well, I wear a number of different hats. I’m a media psychiatrist, meaning that I not only appear in the media and use that to educate people about psychological issues but also I analyze the media and media stars. I’m also a psychiatric expert witness on all kinds of cases, criminal and defense. I’ve done a number of high profile like the Jenny Jones murder trial. Also, I’m an author and a radio talk show host and sort of on and on. 

RON: Okay.

CL: And in this particular instance, I am the person who made two charges against Michael Jackson to Child Protective Services.

RON: And we’re going to get to all of that very shortly. Ms. Anthony, can you begin by telling us a little bit about yourself and how long you’ve been a celebrity journalist and so on.

FA: Well, currently I have a daily syndicated radio show on the Jones Radio Networks, and I am also the editor and chief of Black Elegance magazine which, of course, is a national magazine and I write columns in ten newspapers that are black newspapers and also author a column in Japan. I’ve been covering the celebrity scene since the early 90’s and prior to that I worked in the entertainment department of the New York Post, but in 1990 I went to Page Six of the New York Post, and that’s when I became totally covering the celebrity scene. I’ve known the Jacksons since the early 70’s. I met Michael, Janet, LaToya, and Randy at Disney World, and LaToya is my best friend. We’ve all just kind of been friends ever since.

RON: Okay. Dr. Lieberman, we read the recent letters that you sent to the Department of Child Services regarding your concern for Michael Jackson’s children. Briefly, can you tell us why you feel it’s necessary that Michael Jackson’s children be taken away from him? You allege “deep psychological problems that he has. Can you share with us your criteria for how you arrived at these conclusions?

CL: Sure. First of all, I’m not asking or did not ask for his children to be taken away from him indefinitely. It was only until he receives sufficient psychiatric treatment to be a proper and fit father to them. I just want to make that distinction.

RON: Okay. 

CL: And the reason why…..the way that I came to this is that I actually have been following Michael Jackson for over a decade now, because over a decade ago I was asked to be the psychiatric consultant to a biography, an unauthorized biography that was written about him. And so I read all about his childhood and it was a very…….the author of the biography had really spent a lot of time and did careful research.

RON: Was that Dr. Taraborrelli? I’m sorry, Mr. Taraborrelli?

CL: J. Randy Taraborrelli.

RON: Who’s not a doctor.

CL: He’s not a doctor. No.

FA: No, he’s a freelance journalist.

RON: Right, and I understand it, he used to know, at least to some extent, the Jackson family 20 years ago.

FA: Not really. No, he worked at Soul magazine. Most of the, I believe in life he’s interviewed Michael perhaps once. And that picture of him interviewing Michael is in one of his books. He worked for Soul magazine, and most of the research for the books that he wrote on came from literature and everything that was on file at Soul magazine. And he’s built an entire career on an interview with Michael when Michael was maybe 16 or 17.

CL: Well, you know, he has written many books on celebrities. It’s not just on Michael Jackson. But I’ve met with him for hours and he was quite a responsible………

FA: I’ve done shows with him, met with him, everything.

CL: He’s a very responsible journalist. In any case, that was how……the book is called “The Magic and the Madness”.

RON: Right, right. We’re familiar with that one. 

CL: And that’s how I first came in contact with this whole issue. And since then, I get asked to comment about all kinds of issues in the news, from terrorism to celebrities. And so over the years, I’ve been asked from time to time to comment about Michael Jackson. So I’ve been following him. And ever since he had……..he got his children I have been saying that I, you know, sometimes after I would do an interview I would kind of tell the people or sometimes I would say it during an interview that I can’t believe that anyone isn’t doing anything to take his children away. Because even by that time, which was after the first accusations and after a number of things that led one to believe that he was a child molester, I couldn’t believe that nothing was happening. And so, when the baby dangling incident happened a year ago, over a year ago, and I was asked to do another bunch of interviews and I was muttering the same thing. I can’t believe nobody is doing anything to take away his children. I thought to my self, now who am I expecting to do something about it and why am I not doing something about it? Because in California, psychiatrists are mandated to report suspected cases of child abuse. So that’s when, last November, I made my first complaint to Child Protective Services.

FA: Well, why do you feel there’s any suspicion of Michael molesting his own children?

CL: Well, first of all, and it wasn’t just about his molesting his own children, it was about his being a danger to them psychologically because of all of his problems.

FA: What problems are these?

CL: What problems?

FA: Yeah, what problems does he have that would be a danger to the children? I just want to know. Maybe you know of some that we don’t

CL: Well, you can check out my website, drcarole.com……. 

FA: I’ve looked at it.

CL: Okay….

FA: I mean, what is the last time that you sat down with Mike and you sat down with the kids and that you could see that there was some psychological problems he had going on that could affect the kids?

RON: Flo, let me interject. Actually, that was a question we were going to ask you. First of all, Dr. Carole Lieberman, have you ever met Michael or his children?

CL: No, I have not personally met Michael or his children. However, I have met a number of people who have met them.

RON: And what do those people tell you?

CL: Well, I’ve heard everything from…….some of the things that I’ve heard I’ve kind of compiled all of these things. I mean, I think what….

FA: Well, what did you compile it from if you didn’t hear it? You pulled out the sky? It was down in the ground? I mean, where was it, Dr. Lieberman?

CL: From observing Michael myself.

FA: Okay, but you’ve never met him so where were you observing him?

CL: I was observing him in various interviews. I was observing him in the documentary. I was reading things about him. I saw videotapes of him at Neverland that were sort of private. I….it’s been….you know, over a decade of information that I put together. Michael talks about a lot of things himself. About how he was abused by his father severely, and a lot of these things are not secret. In the book it talks about how when he was a little boy he slept in the same room, if not the same bed, as……..well, he admitted actually, he slept in the same bed as………..

FA: He slept in the same bed with his brothers….

CL: With family members…. 

FA: Yes, he had to. There were two bedrooms in a two bedroom house and they had two sets of bunk beds and so they all did sleep together. But there was nothing sexual going on. There are many, many children who have to sleep in the same bed with each other because they are poor. And that doesn’t mean that anything dirty is going on. I find great offense with you……

CL: That’s because you’re not letting me finish…

FA: Because what you’re saying is a pile of doodoo.

CL: No, that is….

FA: As Michael would say.

CL: That’s very, ummm, intellectual. No, if you would let me finish what I was trying to say……

RON: That is a direct quote…that is a direct quote from…..

CL: What I was trying to say…..what I was trying to say was that when he was sharing the bed….some of the times that he shared his bed was when they were on tour. And when they were on tour, they would bring women into the room and have sex with them.

FA: Okay, now Michael didn’t say that. That comes from out of the Jackson family movie. No one had any sex in the bed at all. What happened was…..I’ll give you the exact thing because Enid Jackson, who was married to Jackie Jackson, told me this because she said that, you know, everybody’s always talking about Mike is gay and Jermaine, Jackie, and Tito would have all these girls and all this making out in the bed. All of a sudden they feel an extra hand on the girl and it would be Michael. Now, of course, they kicked Michael out of there immediately. I’m not saying people should run around having group sex, but hey, we’re all adults here and musicians are crazy. So they would kick Michael out of the……

CL: So Michael was only a 5 or 6 year old boy….. 

FA: No he wasn’t 5 or 6 years old. First of all, he was 11 years old when the Jackson 5 were formed. He just claimed he was 8. With all of your research and observations if you knew anything, you would know that.

CL: Okay, let’s say…..

RON: Perrin, feel free to interject at any time.

PERRIN: Yes, let’s cool this down just a little bit, okay?

RON: Nobody’s hurt, it’s only a phone call.

FA: I want to say one more thing about Michael and the girls and Jermaine……

CL: Well, wait…….

FA: And another thing – just hush and let me finish.

RON: Let her finish and then you can take over after.

FA: Let me finish, then you can say whatever. There’s another scene in the Jackson American Dream where Jermaine is sitting on the bed with a girl. The girl feels these hands on her legs and then Jermaine looks under the bed. It’s Michael and Marlon and then they chase Michael and Marlon out of there. I mean, you know, I’m not saying it was right Michael and Marlon was feeling some girl’s leg under the bed and they were like, you know, 12 or 13, but boys will be boys.

CL: Well, first of all, there are various accounts of the age but even with saying he’s 11 or 12 or 13, the point is that a child and when he was younger, well, whatever. Even if we’re saying he was around that age, for a child to see people having sex, including his father, and is told not to tell his mother about this, that is very traumatic. And especially….

RON: Are you saying that makes him an unfit father in some way? I just want you to clarify.

CL: No, just one second. 

RON: Okay.

CL: What I’m saying is that that is what contributed to his stunted sexuality and for why he said himself in the documentary that when a woman first approached him to have sex he was so scared he thought he was going to die because he was traumatized. There were lots of things in Michael’s childhood that traumatized him. You can’t, I mean, I’d need like a half an hour to give you the timeline. My point is that he fits, from his childhood to the current day, all of these things that we do know about him fit the profile of a child molester. And the most, the most sort of mind blowing kind of telltale sign of this was when XXXXX, the boy in the documentary, who is now making the allegation, as everybody knows, when he said in the documentary that Michael said, “If you love me, you will sleep in my bed”. Now XXXXX……..

FA: but Michael slept on the floor.

RON: Yes.

CL: So he then said, but if…..

FA: oh, so he then said.

CL: Wait a second, that’s not my point.

RON: Let her finish, let her finish….

CL: These are the manipulative words of a child molester and the very words that, if you look at the documents on Smoking Gun website, that Chandler said in 1993. Those are the same words that this little boy said that Michael Jackson said to him in regard to various sexual activities – if you love me, you will do this.

RON: You know, I want to comment on that if I could.

CL: Sure.

RON: First of all, you saw that on the Smoking Gun website because it was a public, at that point, obviously making it a publicly known fact and publicly known information. Don’t you think XXXXX and/or his mother would also have access to that information, if they wanted to? I mean, let’s just assume for a moment that Michael Jackson is not a child molester. Don’t you think that if there was someone that was victimized, that he was the victim, that these other people that are trying to, you know, get him in whatever way they might be, might do a little bit of research and look on the internet and see what he was accused of ten years ago?

CL: Not at the time that that documentary was shot, no. No, I do not believe that. And not in the way that XXXXX said that in that documentary. Absolutely not.

RON: Okay, okay. Perrin, do you have a question?

PERRIN: Actually, yes, to follow up. Of course not during the documentary, Dr. Lieberman, but considering the…

CL: but that’s when he said it….

PERRIN: Excuse me, but we were talking about the leaked documents. The uproar around February where most of this alleged abuse occurred, don’t you think it would be logical for someone, the mother or whoever, to read these documents that were leaked on the Smoking Gun?

CL: I think that by now Michael Jackson’s lawyers or……. I see what you’re saying. By now it’s possible but that’s……..this child said this in September or October, before February.

PERRIN: We’re talking about two separate things. We’re talking about the leaking of the information by the Smoking Gun in February and what XXXXX, or the accuser…….

RON: I’ll just bleep that out after, it’s okay.

FA: Well, first of all, the Smoking Gun document by Jordan Chandler, everybody knows by now that it was said that he was coerced under drugs when he said all of that. 

CL: Well, I don’t believe that one.

FA: I’m sure you don’t.

CL: But what I’m trying to say is……..

FA: I want to ask you something. Did anything traumatic ever happen for you as a child? Were you ever traumatized as a child? Did something ever seem odd to you?

CL: Now what relevance does that…??

FA: A lot. Because you’re thinking that just because this boy…….that at times he was traumatized that he’s a child molester. So I’m just wondering if you were ever traumatized that you are a child molester too.

CL: No, that’s not what I’m saying. That is not what I’m saying.

RON: Dr. Lieberman, why don’t you describe what you are saying?

CL: What?

RON: Why don’t you go ahead and describe what you are saying if that’s not it?

CL: Well, first of all, let’s clarify what we were just talking about, when they knew what. XXXXX said this, you know, that Michael said if you love me you will do this in September or October of 2002, right?

RON: Yeah, that sounds about right.

CL: And the documentary aired in February 2003, okay? And so, no, I don’t think by September……..and the Smoking Gun had that on the website, at least when I was aware of it, was in February 2003.

FA: You guys, I’m going to jump off just one second. I’ll be right back.

CL: So, in other words, what I’m trying to say is that by September or October of 2002, no, I don’t think XXXXX had access. They aren’t that sophisticated and I don’t think they had access to that document. 

RON: Well, I want to make another comment because I did read the letter in detail, and you mentioned something else about the documentary. You said that the documentary, when Michael Jackson was holding hands with the boy, that the boy was like submissive towards Michael at that point and that was like some kind of evidence, to you at least, that proved that there was some kind of sexual impropriety going on. Now we know that the documentary aired on February 6 or 7th, aired originally in the U.K. and then in the U.S. We know that the prosecution is alleging that the contact happened between February 7th and March 20th. According to what you’re saying, the conduct happened prior to the documentary and, in fact, prior to the filming, you know, three or four months prior. How do you explain that?

CL: Okay, that’s a good question. I explain it because I think…..I do still stand by what I said. I believe that that boy in the documentary had already been undergoing some kind of molestation by Michael Jackson…..

RON: Sexual molestation?

CL: Sexual molestation, right. And I think that it continued after, including the dates that the DA is saying. Why they are not saying it occurred before that as well, you know that may well be coming out in the trial. It could well also be……

FA: I’m back.

CL: that the child, so far, has not admitted to the molestation having begun earlier.

RON: Well, right now we don’t really know because none of that’s been released, so it’s all conjecture. Perrin, do you want to follow up on that?

PERRIN: Well, I was just thinking about something regarding what you said about thinking that the child was molested even prior to that. 

CL: Yes.

PERRIN: You see, the basic issue I’m having with all the suppositions. To speculate, we would have to have some form of evidence. We don’t have any evidence regarding the whereabouts, physical placement of Mr. Jackson and this child, how much time they spent together. I don’t know if it’s really reasonable to actually comment on something that the child hasn’t even said himself. This is the basic comment.

FA: Are you speaking of Mike’s kids? I’m sorry, I had to answer the door.

PERRIN: No, well we’re talking about Dr. Lieberman’s suggestion that this young man, the accuser, was molested before February.

CL: Yes.

FA: No, well, what it is, is the molestation dates, I don’t know if you guys are aware of it are from…..

RON: February 7th….

FA: February 7th until March the 11th.

RON: to March 10th.

FA: of 2002.

RON: of 2003, I’m sorry…..

FA: 2003, I’m sorry. Now there’s proof that will come out in court that Michael really didn’t have any contact with the child within that period of time. Now, they’re saying that the child may have met him at Disney World, but that won’t have any relevance to the case because all of this supposedly happened in Santa Barbara County. But they will be bringing out the proof that Michael had no contact with him at all during that period of time.

PERRIN: Which would actually go into Dr. Lieberman’s assertion that the boy could have been molested before February. 

RON: Well, the question is why would the prosecution have been alleging that it happened during that time?

FA: Because the boy told……I don’t know if the boy or the mother or somebody told the prosecution it was in those dates. You know what happened is that Michael….I don’t know, something went down. First of all, everyone I know, everyone I’ve talked to…….you know, most of the kids that have been to Neverland and know the accuser and his sister and brother all very well and know the three of them always hung out together. They never even knew of the accuser being alone with Michael. It was always the accuser, his brother, and his sister. There was, you know, Michael did provide a car for the family and do different things for the family, as he has done for many cancer patients in the past. However, there came some type of period when the mother……when saw the kid on TV, she demanded money for the kid being on television. Michael wouldn’t pay money for the kid being on television, and that’s when they went to the authorities and said, well, the kid was molested. Now, they went to four different attorneys and none of them would take the case originally. You know, that’s why the L.A. County of Child Services had been investigating them because they went to the attorneys in Los Angeles and, of course, they cleared Michael. Now Diane Dimond is claiming, well in June they said maybe he might not be clear, but they had already cleared Michael. This is stuff that is after the fact here. I don’t know if you guys know this case is extremely, extremely flimsy. Most people, even within the Santa Barbara Police Department don’t even understand why they went ahead with an indictment, trash Neverland, went in with 70 people like it was Waco, and tore the place up. I know you are well aware that they totally destroyed Neverland. They tore a 300,000 dollar painting off the wall in half, valuable gold coins are missing, it’s just a huge mess.

RON: Any comments on that, Dr. Lieberman?

CL: Well, I don’t know what the police did in Neverland, but obviously they found enough……you know, I don’t think that they would want to risk being made fools of in front of the world if they didn’t find hard enough evidence to back their case. They know that the whole world is going to be watching, and I don’t think they’d want to risk that.

FA: Well, we’ll know tomorrow, we’ll know tomorrow who fools are and who fools aren’t when we can see a little bit more into the indictment at the arraignment. You know, so we will know a little bit more. You know, I’m just telling you that four attorneys, people that feel about Michael as Dr. Lieberman did, those four attorneys like that turned down this case because it was that flimsy. These people are con artists, they’re low life junkies, they’re horrible human beings. And all Michael was doing was trying to help these people because that child was suffering from cancer.

RON: Perrin, do you have any follow-up to that? Perrin, are you still there?

PERRIN: Well, I’m still here.

RON: I’m sorry, go on.

PERRIN: I’m just listening.

FA: You’re so soft spoken and sweet.

PERRIN: Well, thank you.

RON: It’s cold up here, Flo, we know that.

PERRIN: Well, thank you Ms. Anthony. I was simply about to interject that it’s true, a lot of media talking heads and pundits are talking about the flimsiness of the case. And once you factor in the original leaked memo in February that cleared Mr. Jackson supposedly, I was just wondering about the……..

CL: That memo doesn’t mean anything. It means nothing more than the paper it’s written on. Because, I mean, the whole key here is…….I’m looking at this……you know, I don’t have anything against Michael Jackson. I feel sorry for him. I think he’s a very……

FA: You could have fooled me. 

CL: Really? I think he’s a very sick man, and what he needs is intensive psychiatric treatment. That’s what he needs. And then, when he gets enough of that, hopefully he could have his children back. See, I’m not doing this…..

FA: They’re not going to take his children from him. You know, you can forget that. And as I said to you on Fox News Channel, if those children were regular brown skinned nappy headed kids like me, you couldn’t care less about those children. It’s because their mother is white, they look white, that you’re so concerned. And you said, oh, but I’ve got black people…………no, no, you couldn’t care less……

CL: It doesn’t matter which color…..

FA: Oh, yes it does!

CL: And you know what? You know what, Flo? I thought about it afterwards. What do you mean that the children are white? I thought Michael Jackson was supposed to be their real father.

FA: No, I said the mother is white and they look more white than black. There’s a lot of mulattos out there. I have mulattos in my family that look much more white than…..

CL: I thought about that after…..

FA: No, I said they look white. I have mulattos in my family who look more white than they do black.

CL: There was a very interesting comment you made on Fox News…..

FA: I didn’t say they were white. I said that because their mother is white…….their mother, by the way, is a very good friend of mine, Debbie.

CL: I realized it after we got off, I thought did she say….

FA: I said they look white. 

CL: And, and, you know, it seems like it might have been a little slip of the tongue there.

FA: No, it wasn’t any slip of the tongue

CL: In any case, it doesn’t matter. The thing is it doesn’t matter to me what color they are. The point is that they are in danger. We know enough. We’ve seen Michael with a little baby on his knee shaking him like he was……..you know, there certainly have been comments from family members and

FA: a lot of people, a lot of people bounce a kid on the knee….

CL: Not like that, not like that. He looked like he was either on drugs or had some kind of anxiety disorder.

FA: I gotta jump out again, guys, and then I’m going to get off. I’ve got to go back on my own radio show in a few minutes.

RON: Okay. Dr. Lieberman, I have a question for you. What do you think should happen to his children if you don’t think he’s capable of taking care of the children himself?

CL: Well, I think…….I think that that’s…..I certainly don’t think that they should go with his father. You know there’s talk about them going with his mother and father, and I really don’t think that Michael Jackson’s father should have access to any children since he already destroyed Michael. But I think that’s a very hard question. I think if there was somebody in the Jackson family, you know, if it was maybe just the mother or if there was somebody else that could be found to be healthy and where the children could be safe, that could be one possibility. I understand that Debbie Rowe might be trying to get them back now that she’s heard about this Nation of Islam connection. Of course, Debbie Rowe, unless it’s possible that she could have an about face. You know, of course, Debbie Rowe, you know, unless she’s, it’s possible she could have an about face….I don’t know that one could just hand the children……

FA: I have to address that. Just give me a minute here to let someone in my house.

RON: Go ahead, continue.

CL: Because obviously she gave the children up in the first place and hatched them for Michael, so we would have to see if she was really a fit mother, but if there were somebody else who would come forward who can prove that they can be more fit. But I just want to…….I started to say that I don’t have anything personally against Michael Jackson, okay. The reason…..but I am looking at…..I mean, I have dealt with hundreds and hundreds of patients, both adults and children who have been sexually abused, people who have been child molesters. I mean, this to me…..when I look at him and when I look at the children……I mean, I’ve had to evaluate for custody and for things like that. I mean, these things are just kind of very easy for me to see when I look at the whole picture.

PERRIN: But Dr. Lieberman, this is Perrin Brown, don’t you think it would be more advantageous for you to have Mr. Jackson on your couch…..

CL: Well, I would be happy to. I would be happy to. He has a standing invitation. I would love to be able to.

RON: Does he get a free consultation?

PERRIN: Dr. Lieberman, but your assertions are all subjective unless you have the man on your couch. Don’t you think that’s absolutely true? I can make certain subjective opinions about anyone I can see

CL: You don’t have an M.D. and training in psychiatry. Anybody could look at anybody and have opinions. But, I mean, I’ve spent years and years studying this and have treated thousands of patients.

FA: Okay, I’m back and then I’ve got to go, guys.

RON: Okay, go ahead.

FA: I want to comment on Debbie Rowe. First of all, Debbie is Jewish. Michael has taken the children to synagogue in the past. At the moment,

Michael’s security detail is being handled by the Nation of Islam. It’s nothing more than his security detail that’s being handled by the Nation of Islam. Debbie, because I don’t know if she’s spoken with Mike about all this going on, she’s concerned, not about taking the kids or anything like that. She doesn’t want the kids raised as Muslim. She wants the kids to be raised in the Jewish faith, as they are. And he has been taking them to synagogue. So that’s what the whole problem is with that.

CL: Well, Flo, I happen to have just seen yesterday some documents that indicate that its not just security detail, but the Nation of Islam, in fact, own the house that Michael Jackson, bought for Michael Jackson, or rented for Michael Jackson……

PERRIN: Dr. Lieberman, a Chinese painter, a famous Chinese painter owns the house.

CL: Yes, that’s right. That’s right, and then if you go further, it’s connected to the Nation of Islam. I know what I’m talking about. I saw the papers yesterday.

RON: Can you be more specific about what you saw?

FA: Well, Michael paid cash for that house. They’re saying he’s leasing that. That’s not true. And everybody’s saying, well the Nation of Islam paid for it. I don’t……..that I can’t see. I mean, I don’t know Mr. Farrakhan and all of them and I can’t see them coming up with no 20 million bucks for Michael.

RON: Even if that were true, what would it prove?

FA: Yeah, what would it matter if they bought a house?

CL: What it proves is that they have more control….

FA: They don’t have any control. These are friends of his. Wally Farrakhan has been Jermaine’s best friend for two decades, Louis Farrakhan’s son. Just because all of a sudden publicly you’re seeing the Nation of Islam around……they’ve always around. We’re talking about people who are friends to the Jackson family. 

CL: Well, I think that’s pretty scary.

FA: And Michael Jackson, nobody has control over him. If you all can’t see that by now, I don’t know about your great observations.

CL: Well, in a sense, yes. Nobody has control over what he says and what he does in a sense because he’s so impulsive and has such psychological problems, but……

FA: I don’t think he has any psychological problems. I think you need to sit down and perhaps examine him yourself and stop going on videos and Randy Tamborelli’s and all this stuff.

CL: Flo, you can tell him that he has an open invitation at any time to sit on my couch and I would love to help him.

PERRIN: But don’t you believe you would be somewhat biased, Dr. Lieberman?

CL: No, not at all.

FA: So biased it would be frightening.

PERRIN: Dr. Lieberman, you’ve already made assertions regarding his character and regarding his profile.

RON: Well, let me just comment on that. It seems like…..Dr. Lieberman, in all fairness to what Perrin said, it seems like you’ve already formed a substantial amount of opinions based on not meeting him.

FA: That’s an understatement, Ron! That is an understatement.

CL: I have treated people, public figures, about whom I’ve had various opinions, and when I see them in my office, I am happy to keep an open mind. However, you know…. 

FA: You know what, Dr. Lieberman, Michael Jackson or anybody else would be a fool to walk into your office because you are so biased…..

CL: Well, thank you very much…

FA: I mean, I’ve just never seen such hatred and bias pouring out of one person for another human being in my life.

CL: Flo, you may not…..

FA: And I don’t think you’re a bad person. I read the stuff you write and everything. I’m not saying you’re a bad person. I’m just saying that…..you know….

CL: Well, why would I have something…..

FA: Even when I looked at the case of O.J., I’ve just seen that whenever there’s a black man you just think the worst in the world of them.

RON: Any comment on that, Dr. Lieberman?

CL: Really, that’s why I interviewed Rodney King and am trying to sell his……

FA: Rodney King was not a rich, powerful black man as O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson. You can’t even…… I will tell you something. I think Rodney King is a very handsome man…..

CL: I mean, I like…..I like….

FA: Listen to me….I think Rodney King is a very handsome man. I’ve been in his company quite a bit. I’ve tried to help him with his record label. So you’re talking to the wrong girl. I know all the players.

CL: Okay, I’m the person…..

FA: All the players! I’ve been around the people I’m talking about.

CL: Wait a second, Flo, wait a second… 

RON: Ms. Anthony, let her make a point. Okay, go ahead.

CL: I, in fact, was the first one to play on my radio show Rodney King’s first…….

FA: Wait a minute. You know, I don’t even want to talk about Rodney King. The heck with him for right now. We’re back to Michael Jackson.

CL: The point is you can’t say…..

FA: We’re back to Michael Jackson and O.J. Simpson, extremely powerful and wealthy black men. You can’t put Rodney King, a victim on PCP these cops have beaten up in the same category…..

CL: Flo, I’m just saying….

PERRIN: Ladies, ladies – let’s try to get this back on topic.

RON: Yes.

FA: That’s why I said forget Rodney King, I’m going back until this woman….

CL: Well, wait a minute….

RON: Well, wait, let Dr. Lieberman make her point. Okay, go ahead.

CL: Flo, you were the one, both in regard to Michael Jackson’s children and in regard to black men in general, you are the one who are casting aspersions saying that I have something against black people.

FA: You are casting aspersions on yourself, hun. You’ve cast them upon yourself. You’re the one going on television blaspheming this people…..

CL: That’s not true…..

FA: And in return…..

CL: It has nothing to do with them being black and it makes…… 

FA: Oh, let’s see if they were white men….

CL: And it makes absolutely no…..

FA: Woody Allen got accused of child molestation by his own mistress. They didn’t even look in his daggone pocket. Woody Allen by Mia Farrow. The police didn’t even look in his pocket, and he’s now married to his stepdaughter that Mia Farrow rescued off the streets of Korea.

CL: Yes, Flo. And I was very outspoken about that too, against Woody Allen. So it has nothing to do…..I mean….

FA: I’ve never heard you outspoken about him. That must have been on a show that nobody saw.

CL: It was in print. In fact, I think it was in…..one of the things was in the New York Post.

FA: It must have been an article that nobody read on a Saturday when people were out of town.

CL: Really. Well, in any case, the point is…..

FA: I gotta run…I really do.

RON: Okay. Dr. Lieberman, why don’t you go ahead and make the point you were going discussing about the…..

CL: It makes no sense that I……

RON: Thanks, Flo.

CL: It makes no sense that I would be speaking out against rich black men and somehow for poor black men, I mean, I don’t see the thinking that would go behind that. But it has nothing to do with whether somebody is black or white, it’s whether I think that what they are doing is wrong or right and what I base…….it’s not even that, it’s what I am basing it on. It’s the profile that I draw up about a particular person based upon, you know, their history. 

PERRIN: Dr. Lieberman, this is Perrin Brown again. You were talking about that, and I’d just like to ask you a question. You know, recently Steve Irwin, the Crocodile Hunter, put his infant son’s life in danger.

CL: Yes.

PERRIN: Were you just as emphatic?

CL: Was I what?

PERRIN: Were you just as emphatic as…..

CL: Yes, I was. In fact, you can look up an article in the Miami Post, I believe it was…..Miami Herald. I was interviewed about that, and yes, they compared Michael Jackson and the crocodile man, and I was just as outspoken about him.

PERRIN: Well, you know, the mother is American. Would you consider filing some form of complaint, since the mother is American and they have a……

RON: Isn’t she from Los Angeles?

PERRIN: Yes, she is. They constantly come back to the States.

RON: Okay.

PERRIN: Would you consider filing…..

CL: Well, I thought they were living in Australia.

PERRIN: They split their time between Australia and the United States. The children hold dual citizenship.

CL: Well, I mean, I didn’t think about it because I thought they lived in Australia, so it didn’t even occur to me. But the point is, with Michael Jackson, I didn’t file my first complaint just because he was dangling the baby. That was the thing that triggered my again saying I can’t believe nobody is doing something. It wasn’t just because he dangled the baby. It was his whole history. 

RON: What do you mean by the history?

PERRIN: But the dangling was the jump off point, wouldn’t you consider? You said yourself earlier in this interview that someone has to do something, why shouldn’t I because I’m a psychiatrist?

CL: Yes, yes, yes, but that was sort of the time when………I had said that many times before that and then, yes, when I said it after that time it was like, you know, one too many times. Then I started thinking, who am I thinking is going to do something about it and I felt like I should. But it wasn’t just because he dangled the baby. That just happened to be the reason they were interviewing me.

PERRIN: So, if Mr. Jackson didn’t have all of these perceived problems or supposed bizarreness and he had dangled the baby, you would not have filed a complaint? You just based it on cumulative things, is that what you’re saying?

CL: I don’t know the answer to whether I would have filed the complaint if there was absolutely nothing else, but there was. There was a ton of stuff. I mean, I had said this way before he dangled the baby – why isn’t someone doing something to take his children away.

PERRIN: What are some of the other sort of things that, besides his alleged tortuous background?

CL: Well, it started in 1993 when he settled this case when he was accused of molesting a child. It may have actually started before then, but I remember that. And what I remember happened after that was that he went on television. After he settled the case, he went on television with Diane Sawyer and Lisa Marie Presley – remember that interview?

PERRIN: Yes, I do.

RON: Yes, it was 1995. 

CL: He even talked then about how it was okay……..he talked about going to the bathroom with little boys. Do you remember that?

PERRIN: Lisa Marie Presley said these kids would follow him into the bathroom.

CL: That these kids what?

PERRIN: Lisa Marie Presley said that – that these kids would practically follow him to the bathroom.

CL: Well, and Michael didn’t say anything……not practically, it was that they…

PERRIN: It could have been a euphemism.

CL: No, the way…

PERRIN: But I’m not going to argue with you beyond that.

CL: Okay, you know, it stood out in my mind because then when he got his first child, you know, that’s when I was really concerned about…..hey, this man didn’t……what I thought about during the interview was this man didn’t learn anything. He still doesn’t realize….

RON: Well, wait…..

CL: that this is inappropriate.

RON: Are you assuming, you know, no offense, but aren’t you assuming that the allegations are true when, at this point, they really are just allegations?

CL: Which allegations are true, both of them?

RON: Well, the allegations from ten years ago or the allegations from a month ago.

CL: Yes. I’m assuming that they’re true. 

RON: Okay.

PERRIN: Well, then, you earlier said, Dr. Lieberman, that if Michael Jackson sat on your couch, you would have an open mind.

CL: Yes.

PERRIN: But you just stated……..isn’t that an inconsistency?

CL: No, because if someone, you know, Michael Jackson wouldn’t…….we’re talking about years of therapy, not Michael Jackson coming into my office for an hour and having a little chat. But over the period of time, I mean, what I would expect to happen…..well, forget about whether it’s me or anybody, any good therapist……what needs to happen is for him to feel comfortable enough to sort of unburden his soul and to talk about all the things and to cry. Just like he did…..we saw some of that on the documentary when he cried about his father’s physical abuse and about his father telling him that he was ugly and criticizing his nose and all of that, and his pimples. You know, he needs to cry about a lot of thoughts and remember a lot of stuff.

PERRIN: Are we making a biased assessment or assumptions? We don’t know what he’s doing in his private life. We don’t know if he’s in therapy or not. We are making an assumption based on an image that we see on television.

CL: I don’t think he is in therapy, but I’m saying that if……whether or not he is at the moment…….I mean, I don’t think he is because if he were in therapy he wouldn’t be acting the way he’s acting right now, even up to the 60 Minutes interview.

RON: What do you mean by that?

PERRIN: Well, you’re talking about a person who may give poor interviews and you’re basing that on his…….

CL: It’s not a matter of……you know, it’s not a matter of poor interviews. There are things between the words that he says and the body language that he uses. I’m looking at this as a psychiatrist the whole time and putting it all together and it all fits to fit a certain kind of profile. I mean, actually……actually, the most interesting thing about that 60 Minutes interview, it was the first time it was so clear to me was that I think Michael Jackson’s problems, psychiatric problems, are even more severe than was apparent in the previous interviews.

PERRIN: Based on a 30 to 45 minute interview?

CL: Based upon how…..there was evidence of his sort of being dissociated. In other words, it seemed as though he was out of touch with reality at times. And, in fact….

RON: In all fairness, he was in a considerable amount of pain during that interview.

CL: Well….

RON: He made that clear. Maybe very possibly, and I’m not saying that this is fact, but it’s very possible that if he was in pain, he might have been on a pain medication just to….

CL: Yes…

RON: Again, I’m not saying that he’s a drug user or anything like that, I’m just saying that it’s quite possible….

CL: Yes. I think he was clearly on pain medication….

RON: He looked very tired and…

CL: Well, remember when the woman came in, you know, he was saying, what time is it? That was clearly, in my mind, someone who was looking for……you know, is it time for my next pain medication? And there have been family members who have come forward and have said that he is on drugs, and I personally….. 

RON: I’m sorry, Michael Jackson’s family members?

CL: Yes.

RON: Who? Can you state for us who?

CL: Ummmm….I don’t……I’m not sure if it’s….

RON: Is this firsthand information or secondhand information? Because you’ve said that you……

CL: I read it.

RON: Okay.

PERRIN: Read it where?

RON: I guess we missed that issue, Perrin.

CL: I also do have firsthand information from a former employee of his who did tell me personally that when this employee was there, she observed Michael Jackson being addicted to pain medicine.

PERRIN: What year, Dr. Lieberman?

CL: Quite a while…..this goes back…..back quite a ways, but she was still…..back as far as the time of ten years ago….

PERRIN: Well, Dr. Lieberman…..

CL: Wait a minute, but she is still in contact with people who still work for him.

PERRIN: Isn’t that somewhat second and third hand information?

RON: Well, wait….now, let me comment on that. Because Michael Jackson ten years ago admitted that he was addicted to pain killers for his scalp.

CL: For what? 

RON: Well, 20 years ago, when he was filming the Pepsi commercial, in 1983, he burned his scalp……

CL: Yes, I heard that….

RON: and he had pain medication for that and there was a flare up, and this happened right after the 1993 allegations. He was being deposed in Mexico for a copyright infringement case. In which case, he admitted, you know, during that time, that he had been taking pain medication and become addicted to it because of the scalp injury. So it’s very possible that you could be talking about the same thing.

CL: Yes, I heard that.

RON: You know, that he’s already admitted to that and that was a long time ago. That’s why he was in treatment overseas, and so on.

CL: But, this person still has contacts with people who are currently working for him who confirm that it’s only gotten worse.

RON: Well…..

PERRIN: But, Dr. Lieberman, that’s…..you must understand that unless you have firsthand information, it could be any reasonable consideration that this person could be receiving inaccurate information or could be lying or have an ax to grind or be biased?

CL: Well, she could….

RON: Well, just consider the source. Obviously, we haven’t seen it firsthand so we don’t really know. We’ll just give her the benefit that she’s……with the caveat she’s stating we’ll give her that benefit.

CL: Exactly.

RON: Perrin, do you have another question?

PERRIN: Oh, my….well…. 

RON: Well, we only have…..let’s try to wrap this up within 10 minutes, just out of respect for Dr. Lieberman’s time.

PERRIN: Yes, because we’ve covered so many of the questions as it is, Ron. We’ve covered everything, all our questions.

RON: Well, I don’t think so. There’s quite a few here. I can ask one if you’re stumped.

PERRIN: I’m not stumped. I asked most of my questions, actually.

RON: Oh, you did? Okay, Dr. Lieberman, I’m going to ask you the next question, then. May I ask a personal question? Do you have your own children?

CL: Uh….what does….. ummmm….

RON: Well, I have a follow up after I ask that if the answer is yes.

CL: Yes, I do.

RON: Earlier you had called for an investigation after the famous baby dangling incident that happened in Berlin.

CL: Yes.

RON: My question, and again, don’t take this personally, but have you ever done anything, that for lack of a better word, would be considered a bone headed or slight of mind, you know, something to that effect, that you immediately regretted, and if so, do you think that would be adequate justification for your children to be taken away from you? And I do understand, by the way, that you’re basing this on other things, but can you just answer that, specifically?

CL: I have never done anything that endangered my child, period, that was anywhere near in the same ballpark.

RON: Okay. 

PERRIN: Now, is Ms. Anthony still on?

RON: No, she actually left about 5 minutes ago.

PERRIN: Yes, I thought so.

RON: Perrin, did you have another question, or do you want me to…..

PERRIN: No, I don’t have another question.

RON: Okay, let’s wrap this up with this question. Dr. Lieberman, based on the information that you know for sure, not the secondhand and the former employees that worked for him ten years ago and so on, do you honestly think that Michael Jackson would in any way, even unintentionally, abuse or neglect his own children?

CL: What I think is that Michael Jackson does love children, okay. I think, just as he says, he does love children. But, and the reason why he has been……one of the reasons he’s been so compassionate or so generous to children, especially children with cancer or children with problems, is because he identifies with their pain. They have physical pain and he identifies with the emotional pain that he had as a child. But, the problem is that because of how traumatic his childhood was in many different ways, he is not able to treat them in a way that is not…..no, let me put it a different way…..because of what a traumatic childhood he had, it has caused him to have severe psychological problems. And these severe psychological problems interfere, at times, with his being able to treat them in a totally loving way. In other words, at one level, yes, he does love them and, yes, he’s generous towards them, but, at the same time, he is not capable of treating them, of being, in regard to his children, of being a fit father. And some examples are his making them wear these veils, dangling them, putting them in his bed. Actually, I was on Good Morning America, and they happened to have interviewed some teenager who used to be with Michael Jackson and, of course, this was a separate interview – mine was previous, you know, on the same show. And that child said, inadvertently, because he was trying to do good PR for Michael Jackson, that Michael Jackson sleeps with his own children. This person said that, who knows Michael Jackson, so….

RON: Is that a problem? Why would that be a problem?

CL: Yes. Michael Jackson sleeping with his own children? Yes, I do have a problem.

RON: Why?

CL: Because even people…..parents who…..

RON: Have you ever slept with your children? I mean, isn’t that a fair thing for a parent to do with their own children, in general? Or are you talking specific to Michael Jackson?

CL: No….if people….if my patients tell me that they are sleeping with their children, I try to find out why. I look into that. Often there are some very, you know, different kinds of reasons for that. But I always tell them that is not healthy for their children. Always. Before….nothing to do with Michael Jackson.

RON: Not even if they’re having scary nightmares or something like that?

CL: Yes. Every once in a while, absolutely.

RON: Okay.

CL: If they’re having a scary nightmare, if they’re going camping and they have one tent, you know, yes. But on a regular basis, no.

RON: How about staying up late and watching TV and falling asleep, or something like that?

CL: Yes, there can be occasional situations where it doesn’t mean anything sexual is going on but to do this on a regular basis, even if there isn’t something sexual, it is not healthy for the children.

RON: Perrin, are you still there?

 

PERRIN: Yes, I’m still here.

RON: I have one final question – really one final question this time, unless you have anything you want to interject here. Perrin, do you? No?

PERRIN: No.

RON: Okay, Dr. Lieberman, what, if anything, would convince you that Michael Jackson is, in fact, capable of handling his own children and taking care of them, you know, at the present time? Not including any potential therapy that you think he might need, is there anything that would convince you, to basically change your mind, that he is, in fact, sane and capable of handling his own children?

CL: Not until he gets sufficient psychiatric treatment with a good psychiatrist.

RON: Okay, fair enough.

RON: Dr. Lieberman, thank you very much for your time. If people would want to contact you, can you tell us….tell our listeners how they would contact you for more information about who you are and what you do? Do you have a website?

CL: Sure. Yes, you can go to my website, which is http://www.drcarole.com .

RON: Okay, great. Well, thank you very, very much for your time. We know you’re very busy and we really appreciate it.

PERRIN: Thank you, Dr. Lieberman.

CL: Thank you. Bye.

RON: Bye.

To be continued: https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/march-15th-2005-trial-analysis-gavin-arvizo-cross-examination-terry-flaa-jeff-klapakis-and-steve-robel-direct-examination-part-3-of-4/

Advertisements
9 Comments leave one →
  1. August 10, 2012 5:24 pm

    Oh my God, LIEberman got owned, Period. I wonder if she ever had the tenacity (or the sanity) to look into the child-rearing practices of other, non-European (and even European!) countries. Honey, where I come from, in Eastern cultures it’s COMMON PRACTICE for the entire family to huddle into one bed as one big, happy family and for kids to feel a sense of security and love in that manner. And we aren’t exactly a failure of a country, either. lol, that interview was too funny and awesome to be real…and that makes me wonder: How could our dear old shrink have withstood the vaudeville years in Hollywood where the Three Stooges were depicted sleeping in the same bed frequently, or how Charlie Chaplin’s famous movie “The Kid” was awarded by Congress FOR CONTRIBUTING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF CURRENT AMERICAN FAMILY VALUES?!

    So, is her home country in need of her special and gifted services, too?

    Oh, PLEASE! 😀

  2. Forever21 permalink
    July 4, 2012 6:31 am

    I feel so sorry for the Arvizos. They were a good hard-working christian family who’s lives were totally ruined by the evil pedophile Michael Jackson who used his fame and wealth to manipulate and take advantage of them..LMAO give me a break. These grifters were literally laughed out of court with their ridiculous claims. They all fell like dominos under cross examination and couldn’t tell a straight story to save their lives. What a disaster. I’m so glad that those intelligent jurors saw right through their acting and rightfully acquitted MJ of those false accusations.

  3. aldebaranredstar permalink
    June 30, 2012 10:49 pm

    Carol Lieberman is a sick woman who needs extensive psychiatric help immediately! She thinks she knows someone and can diagnose them from what she reads in the media and on that basis can say they need therapy and that their kids should be taken away. She says Debbie ‘hatched’ the kids? That is so insulting. She says it’s wrong for parents to sleep with their own kids? This woman is too crazy. How do these really sick people get on TV and have any influence with their sick fantasy world is beyond me. The fact that she was hired by Taraborelli says it all.

  4. lynande51 permalink*
    June 29, 2012 7:23 pm

    I was noticing how Carol Lieberman kept saying “he got his first child”. This is exactly how the rumor started that the kids were not his.She is the one that needs her head examined if you ask me.
    That rumor started in a British Tabloid when Debbie was pregnant it started a rumor that Michael had asked for a DNA test to prove the baby was his. From there it went to a neighbor of Debbie’s that said that they did have sex . From there after Prince’s birth it went to them crediting Katherine Jackson and other members of the family (Randy) saying and I quote “that baby aint no Jackson”. I know people in other countries won’t realize it but that is probably the most racist thing that was ever written about the Jacksons and it pertained to Michael”s family.. That was an insinuation that they did not or do not use good grammar and I know that everyone here has heard them speak so you will know exactly what I am referencing.
    The tabloids here and in England continued with this story even through Paris’s birth and life.They are not his children according to them because they made the story up in the beginning and they are sticking to it.
    Then lo and behold Blanket is born and the same quote that was used for Prince resurfaces only this time it is Blanket that Katherine Jackson supposedly is talking about. Now does anyone think that the story that the children are not his could possibly be true when you realize the origins of it. Here it is in a nutshell. Michael was not stupid! He was aware of everything that was said about his children. The first article that came out he and Debbie responded to after that they just gave up because it just got worse. It is actually these kinds of articles that hurt Debbie so much that she couldn’t take being married to Michael anymore.
    Again Michael was not stupid! He knew that someone someday would try to take his children from him one way or another. Carol Lieberman is just the mouthpiece.
    Now I will let you in on something that very few people know. If Michael had not been the biological father to his kids he would have lost them whether he was married to Debbie or not at the time of their birth. IF he had not been their biological father following that trial and Debbie would not have confirmed that, she would have been granted custody of them because she was still fighting for custody of them until the day he died. Child Protective Services would have stepped in and taken those kids away from him when this stupid woman asked them to if they were not his children. The children were interviewed in late 2003 early 2004 and CPS found no evidence of abuse to them what so ever. He had to because another woman that heads a high profile child rights organization in LA asked them to investigate him too.It seemed like everyone had their hand in that pie.
    Then along came Arnie Klein with his “I once donated sperm” after Michael’s death. Does anyone know that Klein actually filed for custody of the kids? Yes he did and it was summilarily denied because the judge stated that they are Michael Jacksons children and Debbie Rowe was their mother. She confirmed it in court. He filed for custody because he wanted to be in control of Michael’s money. God help those poor kids and what Klein and his ilk have put them through AFTER their father died.
    I could go on and on but I will save that for later.Hopefully soon I will have time to devote to a few article here to Help bring everyone up to speed. By the way I had all of the articles that can prove the origins of that story on my old computer so it will take sometime before I find them again. It originated once again in one of theUK tabloids if any of our readers want to start looking we can put that horrible rumor to rest once and for all.

    http://www.tmz.com/2009/08/03/michael-jackson-estate-hearing-guardianship-debbie-rowe/

  5. June 29, 2012 4:37 pm

    Carole Liebermann comes across as a toxic, dangerous, misguided busybody disguising herself as an expert on someone she’d never met. People like her should be sued, big time. How refreshing Flo Anthony was in comparison–a no nonsense kind of friend who cuts through BS wherever she finds it, telling it like it is. I only wish she hadn’t gone to answer her door and had stayed on longer.,

  6. BlueLotus permalink
    June 28, 2012 6:18 pm

    One of the ex-teachers of Michael’s children (as late as 2008) had created a blog about her time with Mj and his children….this blog is since closed but the contents can be found here…http://mjackson.com/forums/topic/5666-stories-from-ex-teacher-of-michaels-children/
    I am posting an excerpt
    Mr: Jackson: “So I will now leave you here and children behave okay. ?”

    PPB: “Okay. Love you Daddy.”

    Mr: Jackson : “I love you more.”

    PBB: “Miss you.”

    Mr. Jackson : ” I miss you more.”

    The children were so attached to him. He was the apple of their eyes and you can see the love and respect they have for him. Their eyes twinkled every time they talked about their dad.

    And this woman thought he had deep physiological problems and his children needed to be taken away…but then as this ex-teacher says…
    “It’s funny that the people who didn’t get the chance to be with him have a lot to say. ”

    And then finally, she says about Michael him-self…

    “It’s funny that I never understood why people who went to his concert would cry and faint.

    A person who could draw attention from millions of people all over the world was just amazing.

    He was like a MAGNET attracting the public wherever he went. He was incredible!

    It was only after I got to know his real character and who he really was that I understood people’s enthrallment towards him.

    More than his exceptional and incomparable talent, his pure heart made the people adore and love him immensely. It’s true that I read a couple of those offensive rumors about him but never did I question his morality… not even once.

    I have been a living witness to the inherent goodness and decency of Mr. Jackson. Those horrible tabloid rumors were far from the real person that he really was. It made me wonder over and over again,, Where the hell did they get all those stories from? ”

    The stories came from Prejudice.

    • BlueLotus permalink
      June 28, 2012 6:20 pm

      Oh yes, she said this as well…

      “It was pretty clear to me that he was a great dad with so much love for his children. He could live without anything but not without his children. PPB were his life.

      If there’s one thing that people should not question about … it is how brilliant he was as a father.

Trackbacks

  1. What the HELL is wrong with Wade Robson? Part 1 of 5 | Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0
  2. March 15th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Gavin Arvizo (Cross Examination), Terry Flaa, Jeff Klapakis, and Steve Robel (Direct Examination), Part 1 of 3 « Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: