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 3 of 4

July 1, 2012

The next prosecution witness was Lieutenant Jeff Klapakis of the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s office, who was in charge of the Criminal Investigations Bureau with in the North County of Santa Barbara. Lt. Klapakis received the referrals, and he assigned the referral about the Arvizo family to Officer Flaa.



9 Q. Sir, what is your current occupation.

10 A. I’m a lieutenant with the Santa Barbara

11 Sheriff’s Office.

12 Q. What is your responsibilities, your current

13 assignment.

14 A. I am in charge of the Criminal

15 Investigations Bureau within the North County of

16 Santa Barbara.

17 Q. We have to admonish everybody that that

18 microphone has to be pretty close to your mouth to

19 be heard anywhere, if you would, please.

20 A. Okay.

21 Q. What does that mean. What are your actual

22 assignments and responsibilities. What do you do as

23 part of your job.

24 A. Any reports of criminal activity are sent to

25 my bureau, and they are sent out to detectives to

26 further investigate them.

27 Q. And who works under you. Who do you

28 supervise. 2121

1 A. I supervise sergeants, who then supervise

2 other detectives.

3 Q. All right. Were you involved in any of the

4 decisions regarding the referrals that came in back

5 in February 2003 regarding Mr. Jackson, specifically

6 involving children of the Arvizo family, as well as

7 the second referral involving his own children.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. What was your involvement in that.

10 A. I received the referrals and contacted our

11 local office of the Child Protective Services, in

12 hopes of making contact with the Los Angeles office

13 of Child Protective Services, which I believe is

14 called DCFS.

15 Q. All right. Was this assigned to an

16 investigator.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And who was the investigator.

19 A. Detective Flaa.

20 Q. Do you know when that investigation took

21 place.

22 A. Yes. It was around the second or third week

23 of February. I believe it was February 18th or the

24 20th, somewhere in there.

In this excerpt, Lt. Klapakis describes why he told the DCFS not to interview the Arvizos:

22 Q. All right. Did you contact Child Protective

23 Services in Los Angeles at all. Did you have any

24 communication with them.

25 A. Yes, I believe I did. Sometime after the

26 20th.

27 Q. Did you at any time instruct them that they

28 should not interview the Arvizo children. 2123

1 A. I actually made that call to Lompoc CPS and

2 hoped — because I had not gotten a phone number for

3 L.A. at that point in time. We’re talking about a

4 period of a couple of days.

5 Q. Okay.

6 A. And I was — I believe that was on February

7 20th.

8 Q. All right.

9 A. At about eleven o’clock.

10 Q. All right. So the question specifically is,

11 did you tell somebody in some child protective

12 organization not to interview the children.

13 A. Yes, I did.

14 Q. Who was the organization.

15 A. Lompoc.

16 Q. Why did you instruct them accordingly.

17 A. At that point in time, I had discussed it

18 with Detective Flaa and then Sergeant LeGault, and

19 we felt it would be more prudent for us to go down

20 and conduct the interview ourself.

21 Q. All right. It was in deference to your

22 doing the interview or you having one of your

23 detectives doing the interview.

24 A. Right.

Next, Zonen asked Lt. Klapakis if he was able to obtain the results of the DCFS interview, and Lt. Klapakis replied that he had read the transcript of the tape recorded phone call where Officer Flaa was given the results. However, the investigation was reactivated when he received a phone call from Attorney Larry Feldman in June 2003 stating that Sneddon had referred Gavin Arvizo to him as a victim of abuse:

25 Q. At some point in time, did you make the

26 determination or did somebody from your office make

27 the determination not to do an interview at all.

28 A. Yes, I did. 2124

1 Q. And when was that decision made.

2 A. After Detective Flaa had contacted the Los

3 Angeles office of the DCFS and was able to extract

4 their information on their investigation, that they

5 had closed their investigation.

6 Q. Were you familiar, or were you made familiar

7 with the information that was furnished to Detective

8 Flaa by the Child Protective Services agency in Los

9 Angeles.

10 A. Yes, I was.

11 Q. Did he actually tape-record that

12 conversation.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Did you listen to that tape-recording.

15 A. I read the transcript, I believe.

16 Q. A transcript was prepared at that time.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. All right. Are we still talking back in

19 February and March of 2003.

20 A. It was March 2003.

21 Q. All right. So you became aware of that

22 interview in its entirety, the interview between

23 Detective Flaa and Brenda Blackburn of the

24 Department of Child Family Services in Los Angeles.

25 A. That’s correct.

26 Q. The two different names has plagued us from

27 the beginning of this case, hasn’t it.

28 A. Right. 2125

1 Q. When was it that you made the

2 determination — strike that.

3 Were you the one who made the determination

4 not to pursue an investigation any further.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. All right. When was that decision made.

7 A. After we had talked with Miss Blackburn, and

8 also after I instructed Detective Flaa to contact

9 the estranged father of the boy.

10 Q. And his name is.

11 A. David Arvizo.

12 Q. All right. At some point in time was this

13 investigation reactivated.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. All right. Without getting into the detail

16 of the conversations, what was the event that caused

17 it to be reactivated.

18 A. I received a phone call from Larry Feldman.

19 Q. All right. And did that cause you to pursue

20 other investigation at that point.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Was an investigative team assembled at that

23 time.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And who was the lead investigator selected

26 at that time.

27 A. Sergeant Steve Robel.

28 Q. When was that done, do you recall. The 2126

1 conversation with Larry Feldman.

2 A. I believe it was late June or early July

3 2003.

4 Q. Did Mr. Feldman tell you why he was

5 contacting you.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And what did he say.

8 A. He indicated that the young boy and his

9 brother had talked to a Dr. Katz in Los Angeles, and

10 that they had made some —

11 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object to a

12 narrative, and it’s calling for hearsay.

13 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to withdraw the

14 question and rephrase it.

15 THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection and

16 strike the answer.

17 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

18 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you refer him at any time

19 to Child Protective Services – Mr. Feldman.

20 A. I don’t believe so.

21 Q. Did he indicate to you that he had contacted

22 Child Protective Services.

23 MR. SANGER: That would call for hearsay.

24 THE COURT: Sustained.

25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did he tell you who referred

26 you to him — who referred him to you.

27 A. Mr. Sneddon.

28 MR. ZONEN: Thank you. 2127

1 I have no further questions.

2 THE COURT: Cross-examine.

Sanger started off his cross-examination of Lt. Klapakis by asking him if he was aware of the background of Carole Lieberman, who filed the first complaint, which led to the first referral.



6 Q. Lieutenant, how are you.

7 A. Fine, sir.

8 Q. You originally — let me withdraw that.

9 You said you had called the Lompoc CPS,

10 Child Protective Services, right.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And is that the Child Protective Services

13 office that would have jurisdiction over the Santa

14 Ynez Valley.

15 A. I believe so.

16 Q. Okay. Mr. Jackson, Michael Jackson, my

17 client, has a ranch in Santa Ynez Valley; is that

18 correct.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And you were aware of that at the time; is

21 that right.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Okay. Did you discuss with the CPS people

24 in Lompoc doing an investigation of either of the

25 suspected child abuse reports that came from Los

26 Angeles.

27 A. Yes, I believe we did discuss the referrals.

28 Q. So there were two referrals, right. 2128

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. We’re going to refer to the first one. Not

3 that they have any priority, I suppose. But the

4 first one was a referral in which the reporting

5 party was Carol Lieberman; is that correct.

6 A. I believe that was the first one.

7 Q. And you are aware that Carol Lieberman was a

8 psychologist who was getting a lot of time on

9 television around that time; is that correct.

10 A. I wasn’t aware of her prior to receiving the

11 referral.

12 Q. After you received the referral, did you

13 make that determination, that she had been becoming

14 a television personality over complaints about

15 Michael Jackson.

16 A. Well, I believe the referral indicated that

17 she planned to have a news conference.

18 Q. In fact, she did.

19 A. I’m unaware of that.

20 Q. She was even alerting everybody that she was

21 going to have — on a particular date – I think it

22 was a day or two after – she was going to have a

23 news conference, right.

24 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as assuming

25 facts not in evidence and lack of foundation.

26 MR. SANGER: I’ll withdraw it. We can look

27 at the report if that would help.

28 Q. Okay. The report indicated that actually 2129

1 Miss Lieberman, the next day, the following day, the

2 day following her report, intended to have a press

3 conference; is that correct.

4 A. I believe that’s what it indicates. I’m not

5 looking at it right now.

6 Q. Okay. You’re welcome to do that. I can

7 show you a copy of that.

8 A. I believe I have one.

9 Q. Do you have it.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Please take a look.

12 A. Yes, it does say the next day.

Next, after asking Lt. Klapakis about his credentials and experience, Sanger asked him if he was aware the second referral contained a reference to Gloria Allred, and if he was aware of her not having any personal knowledge of MJ, and Lt. Klapakis answered in the affirmative for both. Sanger then asked Lt. Klapakis how did he and his colleagues come to the conclusion that no further investigation of Jackson was needed, and  he stated that it was based on three factors: the results of the DCFS investigation that they received from the supervisor of the three social workers who interviewed the Arvizos, their assumptions of the investigation, and their interview with David Arvizo, Janet’s ex-husband:

13 Q. All right. All right. And how long have

14 you been a sheriff.

15 A. 25 years.

16 Q. All right. And without going into all the

17 detail, you went to the academy.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Which academy.

20 A. Allan Hancock.

21 Q. All right. You got a good education there;

22 is that right.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And you’ve had a lot of inservice training

25 since then; is that correct.

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. And you’ve investigated suspected child

28 abuse reports on many occasions in your career as a 2130

1 deputy sheriff and as a detective and eventually on

2 up the ladder; is that correct.

3 A. Primary aspects of it, yes.

4 Q. And you’re well aware that the nature of the

5 report, including the who the reporting party is, is

6 a significant factor to evaluate in a suspected

7 child abuse case; is that correct.

8 A. I believe you take the totality of any

9 circumstances.

10 Q. But specifically the RP, an RP can have an

11 agenda, right.

12 A. Yes, they can.

13 Q. Okay. And in the second report, there’s

14 also reference to Gloria Allred; is that correct.

15 A. That same report.

16 Q. The second suspected child abuse report from

17 L.A. DCFS.

18 A. Are you referring to the one that the

19 reporting party was a Mr. Tash.

20 Q. That’s correct.

21 A. Yes. She’s — she’s mentioned in that.

22 Q. All right. And you’re aware that Gloria

23 Allred is an L.A. lawyer who spends a lot of time on

24 television, correct.

25 A. Yes, I’m aware of Miss Allred.

26 Q. And from your understanding of these

27 reports, none of the reporting parties had any

28 personal knowledge of Michael Jackson or his 2131

1 involvement with his own children or other children;

2 is that correct.

3 A. Personal knowledge, no.

4 Q. Okay. Now, do you know if Santa Barbara

5 Child Protective Services, that being evidently the

6 Lompoc CPS office, do you know if they did anything

7 to follow up on an investigation of either one of

8 these reports.

9 A. I believe that when they received the

10 referral, and I believe it was the first one, they

11 sent it to L.A. DCFS, because the — the boy lived

12 in Los Angeles.

13 Q. All right. Now, the first referral, though,

14 was with regard to — from Carol Lieberman was with

15 regard to Mr. Jackson and his own children; is that

16 correct.

17 A. I’m sorry, maybe I have that mistaken.

18 It’s — one of them, I think that they made contact

19 with — with L.A. because — probably after the

20 second one.

21 Q. So the first report — just based on what

22 you were telling Mr. Zonen, the first report would

23 be within their jurisdiction if there was anything

24 there to investigate; is that correct.

25 A. Santa Barbara County.

26 Q. Yes.

27 A. Yes, it would, based on where Mr. Jackson

28 lives. 2132

1 Q. All right. And if there was any criminal

2 activity related to that first report, that would be

3 within the jurisdiction of the Santa Barbara

4 Sheriff’s Department, particularly your office in

5 Santa Maria for the North County; is that correct.

6 A. That’s correct.

7 Q. All right. Now, I do want to try to clear

8 up one point here.

9 I think you said that you asked the Lompoc

10 CPS office not to interview Star and Gavin Arvizo.

11 A. My recollection is, is that I made contact

12 with Lompoc to either give me a number to contact

13 Los Angeles or to pass the request to Los Angeles.

14 But I was advised that I was too late.

15 Q. Okay. Do you recall speaking directly with

16 Miss Blackburn in Los Angeles and asking her not to

17 interview the children.

18 A. I’m not — it’s possible that I did talk to

19 Miss Blackburn in person, yes.

20 Q. Do you recall her telling you, “It’s too

21 late. We already interviewed them”.

22 A. I am — I did receive that information. Who

23 I received it from, I can’t tell you right now.

24 Q. Okay. All right. Now, in your experience

25 as a — an investigator or detective and eventually,

26 can we say, an administrator, or is that not a good

27 thing to say.

28 A. That’s fair. 2133

1 Q. So in your experience as a lieutenant and

2 everywhere on the way up, you understood this to be

3 a sensitive case; is that correct.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And you understood — you understood it to

6 be potentially a big case, significant case,

7 correct.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. When — when Detective Flaa concluded his

10 investigation, did he inform you that it was his

11 opinion that no further investigation was necessary.

12 A. I believe that we collaborated on it,

13 discussing it, yes.

14 Q. So you talked with him.

15 A. And Sergeant LeGault.

16 Q. And Sergeant LeGault.

17 A. Right.

18 Q. So basically all three of you agreed that no

19 further investigation was necessary in this case.

20 A. Based on the information that we had

21 received from Miss Blackburn, our assumption of that

22 investigation and as well as our interview of David

23 Arvizo, that was the decision I made, yes.

Sanger then asked Lt. Klapakis to describe the details of how the investigation was reactivated in June 2003, the background of psychologist Dr. Stanley Katz (who Gavin first disclosed his alleged abuse to in May 2003), and the replacement of some of the detectives who worked on the initial investigation with new ones. Once this line of questioning was completed, Sanger ended his cross examination.

9 Q. All right. Well, let’s go back a little

10 bit, because if I understand your testimony, after

11 this was closed, this case was closed on April the

12 16th, there’s a report, is that correct, April 16th,

13 two thousand —

14 A. I don’t have that report with me, but that’s

15 about right.

16 Q. Okay. And the case was closed, as far as

17 you were concerned, that was it; is that right.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. All right. The same case with the same case

20 number was reopened —

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. — in June; is that correct.

23 A. I believe it was around that time period,

24 right.

25 Q. And that’s the time that you got a call from

26 Tom Sneddon, Mr. Sneddon, correct.

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. And he told you he had received a telephone 2135

1 call from Attorney Larry Feldman; is that correct.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Did you speak directly with Attorney Larry

4 Feldman yourself.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Now, at that time in June, and if you need

7 something to refresh your recollection, but I

8 believe it was about June 13th — does that sound

9 right, or do you need — or is there something you

10 could look at.

11 A. I believe that’s possibly correct.

12 Q. Okay. Sometime around that — in any event,

13 in June of 2003, can we agree to that.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. All right. June of 2003, you received a

16 call from Mr. Sneddon, eventually talked to Attorney

17 Larry Feldman, and then you reopened the

18 investigation, correct.

19 A. After speaking with Mr. Feldman, no, I made

20 another phone call before I —

21 Q. To.

22 A. Dr. Katz.

23 Q. To Dr. Katz, okay. So you talked to — and

24 you were aware that Dr. Katz was a forensic

25 psychologist, correct.

26 A. A child psychologist, I believe. But —

27 Q. Were you aware —

28 A. A psychologist. 2136

1 Q. Were you aware he’s a forensic psychologist.

2 A. I believe that — yes, I believe he was a

3 psychologist, and I believe he specializes in

4 interviewing children, but that’s — it’s been a

5 long time since I’ve talked to Dr. Katz.

6 Q. Well, you know what a forensic psychologist

7 is, correct.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Somebody who testifies in court; somebody

10 who helps prepare cases.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Were you aware that he was a forensic

13 psychologist.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And you were aware that he had worked with

16 Attorney Feldman in the past, or not.

17 A. I don’t believe I was aware of that when I

18 talked to Dr. Katz initially. I know that now.

19 Q. Eventually you found that out, all right.

20 So Attorney Feldman, Dr. Katz, Mr. Sneddon,

21 not in that order, but you have those phone calls,

22 and then you reopen your investigation; is that

23 correct.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And you use the same case number, correct.

26 A. I believe we did.

27 Q. Now, why didn’t you just call Detective Flaa

28 and tell him, “Your case is reopened. New things 2137

1 have come up. Let’s investigate”.

2 A. Detective Flaa was no longer working for us.

3 He had left our agency.

4 Q. You believe he left your agency at that

5 time.

6 A. Well, excuse me. I’m sorry. He had left my

7 bureau and went to work for special operations.

8 Q. Now, it’s very common when somebody leaves a

9 particular bureau or assignment, if a big case

10 they’re working on reopens, it’s very common to

11 bring that officer back or that detective back to

12 continue with the investigation, is it not.

13 A. Well, it depends on how — how much

14 investigation had occurred up to that point.

15 Q. Is it common or not, sir. It’s common,

16 isn’t it.

17 A. Well, no.

18 Q. Never happens. Sometimes happens.

19 A. Sometimes happens.

20 Q. All right. And Sergeant LeGault was

21 replaced by Sergeant Robel; is that correct.

22 A. On this investigation.

23 Q. Yes. When you reopened it.

24 A. Well, he wasn’t — he was made the lead

25 investigator of this agency, of this — Sergeant

26 Koopmanns was — basically had replaced Sergeant

27 LeGault.

28 Q. So you brought a Sergeant in, Sergeant 2138

1 Robel.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Okay. The prior line-up was you, Sergeant

4 LeGault and Detective Flaa, right.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And now the line-up was you, Sergeant

7 Koopmanns —

8 A. Sergeant Koopmanns was not involved in this

9 case.

10 Q. I’m sorry. He replaced LeGault or he

11 didn’t.

12 A. He replaced LeGault.

13 Q. Okay. But he didn’t end up — other than

14 having his name on some things where you signed over

15 it, he really didn’t get involved in it; is that

16 right.

17 A. That’s correct. Sometimes there’s an

18 innocuous reason why they’ll put — I had

19 investigators working for me out of different

20 offices at times, and sometimes they will just put

21 their Sergeant’s name as the person reviewing it,

22 even though in our department any superior can

23 review a report.

24 Q. Okay. But Koopmann — I don’t want to spend

25 lot of time on this, but Koopmanns’ name was

26 actually in there as a sergeant reviewing the

27 report, and then you would sign your name over it.

28 A. If I signed my name over it, it doesn’t mean 2139

1 that Sergeant Koopmanns reviewed the report.

2 Q. Does that mean you reviewed the report.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. There you go. In any event, now we have

5 you; we still have Sergeant LeGault, or not.

6 A. No.

7 Q. No.

8 A. Are — you’re talking July ‘03, right.

9 Q. Yeah, June, July ‘03.

10 A. No.

11 Q. Okay. So we had you; then Sergeant Robel.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And then you had Paul Zelis.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And Paul Zelis was the detective who really

16 took over Detective Flaa’s role in this, did he not.

17 A. No, actually I believe Sergeant Robel took

18 over that role.

19 Q. All right. And Detective Zelis was not as

20 experienced a detective as some of the other people

21 you had working under you was.

22 A. That’s an accurate description.

23 Q. He had been a deputy marshal; is that right.

24 A. He had been a deputy marshal before, yes.

25 Q. Deputy marshals were the bailiffs for the

26 Municipal Court when we used to have Municipal

27 Courts here.

28 A. Yes. 2140

1 Q. And then when we consolidated the courts

2 into Superior Court, the marshals, many of them,

3 became sheriffs; is that correct.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And that’s how he became a sheriff.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. All right. And Detective Zelis was the one

8 who — we don’t want to go into a lot of detail

9 here, but Detective Zelis was the detective who did

10 a lot of the interviews, is that correct, in this

11 case.

12 A. He participated in those interviews with

13 Sergeant Robel.

14 Q. And he’s the one who is the declarant, or

15 the affiant, for the search warrants. He did a big,

16 long, 80-page affidavit to get search warrants.

17 A. He is the affiant of the search warrant. Of

18 the primary search warrant, I should say.

19 Q. He was at the search at Neverland.

20 A. He was one of many, yes.

21 MR. SANGER: All right. I have no further

22 questions.

23 MR. ZONEN: Nor do I, Your Honor.

24 THE COURT: You may step down.

25 Call your next witness.

26 MR. SNEDDON: Sergeant Robel, would you take

27 the stand, please.

28 THE COURT: Sergeant Robel, you’re already 2141

1 under oath, so when you get to the witness stand,

2 you may be seated.

3 SERGEANT ROBEL: Thank you.

Summary of the testimony of Lieutenant Jeff Klapakis

1. Lt. Klapakis stated that the reason he asked the DCFS not to conduct an interview with the DCFS is because he thought it would be more “prudent” for him and his detectives to do it. He was able to read the transcript of the tape recorded phone call between Officer Flaa and the supervisor of the social workers who conducted the interview, and determined that an additional interview with the Arvizos would not be necessary.

2.  After Lt. Klapakis received a call from Larry Feldman in June 2003, in which he referred Gavin Arvizo to him as a victim of abuse, the investigation was reopened.

3. Under cross examination, Sanger questioned Lt. Klapakis about his knowledge the news conference that Carole Lieberman planned calling to discuss her “concern” for Jackson’s children the day after her report was issued to the police, and Klapakis wasn’t aware of it.  Sanger then asked him if he was aware the second referral contained a reference to Gloria Allred, and if he was aware of her not having any personal knowledge of MJ, and Lt. Klapakis answered in the affirmative for both.

4. Sanger then asked Lt. Klapakis how did he and his colleagues come to the conclusion that no further investigation of Jackson was needed, and  he stated that it was based on three factors: the results of the DCFS investigation that they received from the supervisor of the three social workers who interviewed the Arvizos, their assumptions of the investigation, and their interview with David Arvizo, Janet’s ex-husband.

Sgt. Steve Robel was a 22 year veteran of the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office, and he specialized in sexual assault and child abuse cases. As he began to recite his experience and credentials to Sneddon, Sgt. Robel reached for his notes, and Sanger objected on the grounds that he had not been given the opportunity to read Sgt. Robel’s notes prior to his testimony.



11 Q. Sergeant Robel, you’ve been previously

12 sworn, and you understand you’re still under oath.

13 A. Yes, I do.

14 Q. Okay. Now, first of all, let’s go back a

15 little bit, because we’re going to broaden the scope

16 of your testimony just a little bit.

17 Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of

18 the jury a little bit about your background and

19 preparation for becoming a deputy sheriff.

20 A. Sure. Approximately 22 years ago, I went to

21 the Ventura academy.

22 Q. I’m sorry, but we’re going to have to tell

23 you what we did all the other kids in the case.

24 Speak into it, please.

25 A. Approximately 22 ago I went to the police

26 academy down in Ventura. And it was approximately

27 14, 15 weeks long. I was then placed in Solvang,

28 Santa Ynez, where I was — I worked as a deputy on 2142

1 patrol and worked my way up. I was the DARE officer

2 and school resource officer. And then I went on

3 into detectives. And during that time in

4 detectives, I was specializing in sexual assault and

5 child abuse cases.

6 Q. All right. Let’s stop there for just a

7 second.

8 How long did you actually work in the

9 specialty of child abuse and sexual assault cases

10 for children.

11 A. Approximately five years.

12 Q. Now, did you have any special training or

13 preparation for that role as a detective on those

14 kinds of sensitive cases.

15 A. Yes, I have.

16 Q. All right. Would you explain that to the

17 ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please.

18 A. Yes, I’ve had numerous hours of education

19 through forensic interviewing, which was

20 approximately 80 hours. Child abuse and recognition

21 training, which was approximately 40 hours. I ended

22 up actually giving some training courses in forensic

23 interviewing classes, assisting other agencies in

24 that respect.

25 I’ve also — excuse me just for a second. I

26 got to refer to my notes here.

27 Interviewing — child abuse interviewing

28 techniques with children. And also an 80-hour 2143

1 sexual assault investigation course.

2 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I’m going to object

3 for a moment to the witness interviewing (sic) his

4 notes, and — I don’t think there was a basis for

5 it, but also I don’t believe I’ve seen those notes.

6 If I could have an opportunity to look at them, I

7 would appreciate it.

8 THE COURT: All right. You may approach the

9 witness.

10 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

11 MR. SNEDDON: Okay.

12 MR. SANGER: Thank you, Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: Your objection was he was looking

14 at notes without —

15 MR. SANGER: Without an adequate foundation.

16 THE COURT: Without a foundation. Is that

17 objection still being made after looking at the

18 notes.

19 MR. SANGER: Well, I’ll withdraw it as to

20 that question, but I would in the future make the

21 same objection.

22 THE COURT: All right. Did we finish that

23 question.

24 MR. SNEDDON: I believe I did.

In June 2003, Sgt. Robel was assigned as the lead investigator in the investigation of Jackson, and he worked under Lt. Klapakis, and supervised Det. Paul Zelis. On July 7th, 2003 Sgt. Robel interviewed the Arvizo family for the first time:

28 Q. Okay. Sergeant Robel, at some point in time 2144

1 were you assigned as the lead investigator into the

2 case against the defendant in this case, Michael

3 Jackson.

4 A. Yes, I was.

5 Q. And approximately, if you recall, what time

6 was it that you were assigned that particular

7 responsibility.

8 A. I want to say I believe it was around the

9 middle — around the 20th or so of June of 2003.

10 Q. Now, at that time, who was the person that

11 you were reporting directly to.

12 A. That was Lieutenant Jeff Klapakis.

13 Q. The previous witness.

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. And was Paul Zelis, Detective Zelis, a part

16 of that particular investigative team.

17 A. Yes, he was.

18 Q. And did he work under your supervision.

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. Now, at some point did you participate in an

21 interview of the members of the Arvizo family.

22 A. Yes, I did.

23 Q. Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of

24 the jury, when was the first occasion that you

25 interviewed the Arvizo family.

26 A. I believe it was on July 7th of 2003.

27 Q. Now, when I said “members of the Arvizo

28 family,” what — what individuals within that family 2145

1 do you recall having interviews with.

2 A. Janet Arvizo, Star Arvizo, Gavin Arvizo, and

3 Davellin Arvizo.

Prior to his interview with the family, Sgt. Robel was already familiar with the results of the DCFS interview, and Det. Zelis’s phone conversation with Dr. Katz (during which Dr. Katz disclosed Gavin’s alleged abuse by Jackson). After confirming that the interview was taped and transcribed, Sgt. Robel described what Star told him about the third time that he allegedly saw Jackson abusing his brother (which Star admitted to Mesereau that he “forgot” to tell Dr. Katz during his interview in May 2003):

4 Q. Now, the ladies and gentlemen of the jury

5 have heard testimony previously this morning –

6 actually, I guess you have too, most of the time you

7 were here – about the fact that there was a report

8 that Detective Flaa had obtained about the interview

9 between the Los Angeles social workers and the

10 Arvizo family. Do you recall that.

11 A. Yes, I do.

12 Q. Now, prior to the time that you interviewed

13 the family in July of 2003, were you familiar with

14 the contents of that report.

15 A. I was familiar with Detective Flaa’s report.

16 I read that. And also Detective Zelis’s phone

17 review of Dr. Katz.

18 Q. So you were familiar with both of those

19 before you actually interviewed the family.

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. And were you familiar with the fact that as

22 a result of the interview with the Los Angeles

23 social workers back on February 20th of 2003, that

24 your department had conducted an initial

25 investigation.

26 A. Yes. After reading the report, I did

27 conclude that, yes.

28 Q. And that it had been closed. 2146

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. Now, did you conduct an interview with — or

3 when did you conduct the first interview that you

4 had with Star Arvizo. Do you recall exactly what

5 date that was.

6 A. I believe it was Monday, July 7th.

7 Q. Do you recall where that was.

8 A. 2003. That was conducted in Santa Barbara

9 County, at our common interview place in Santa

10 Barbara.

11 Q. So would that be in the south part of the

12 county.

13 A. That is correct.

14 Q. Was that interview tape-recorded, or

15 videotape-recorded.

16 A. Yes, it was.

17 Q. And was a transcription of that

18 tape-recording made.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And you’ve had a chance to review both of

21 those.

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. Now, with regard to Star Arvizo’s

24 interview – okay. —

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. — during the course of that interview, how

27 many incidents did Star tell you in which he was

28 standing on the stairs that he saw Michael Jackson 2147

1 molest his brother Gavin.

2 A. Two.

3 Q. During that interview on July 7th of 2003,

4 did Star make statements to you about describing a

5 third incident that he had seen involving the

6 defendant, Michael Jackson, and his brother Gavin.

7 A. Yes, he did.

8 Q. And what did he say in that connection.

9 A. He told me —

10 MR. SANGER: Objection. Objection; hearsay.

11 THE COURT: Sustained.

12 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, it’s a prior

13 consistent statement. It’s admissible under the

14 Evidence Code. Counsel has — I won’t say anything

15 else, but I —

16 THE COURT: Let me think for a moment.

17 MR. SNEDDON: Yeah.

18 THE COURT: Counsel approach, please.

19 (Discussion held off the record at sidebar.)

20 THE COURT: All right. The objection is

21 overruled. You may —

22 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Okay. Let’s go back just a

23 second, Sergeant Robel.

24 You had a videotaped conversation with Star

25 Arvizo on July 7th of 2003, correct.

26 A. Correct.

27 Q. And in that conversation, Star Arvizo

28 indicated to you that he had seen two incidents 2148

1 while standing on the stairwell where he saw the

2 defendant, Michael Jackson, molest his brother

3 Gavin, correct.

4 A. That’s correct.

5 Q. Now, during the course of that conversation,

6 did Star Arvizo relate to you a third incident in

7 which he had seen the defendant in this case,

8 Michael Jackson, touch his brother inappropriately.

9 A. Yes, he did.

10 Q. All right. Would you tell the ladies and

11 gentlemen of the jury what he told you.

12 A. Star told me that when he was up in

13 Michael’s bedroom, he was lying on what he described

14 as a couch-type setting, possibly a futon, and he

15 was — pretended like he was sleeping.

16 And Michael came up into the bedroom and

17 crawled into bed where his brother Gavin was

18 sleeping. And when he got into bed, he scooted up

19 next to him, Mr. Jackson did, to Gavin, and started

20 moving back and forth.

21 And Star observed that, and he basically

22 pretended like he was sleeping at that time.

Here is an excerpt from Star’s cross examination from March 9th, 2005 where he claimed that the reason that he didn’t tell Dr. Katz about the third alleged incident is that he “forgot”:

Q. Now, you’ve indicated the first time you

ever discussed any alleged inappropriate touching by

Michael Jackson was with Psychologist Stanley Katz,


A. Yes.

Q. And you have admitted that you gave Stanley

Katz a different description than you’ve given in

this courtroom, right?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact, you never mentioned the third event 1476

that you’ve described today to Stanley Katz?

A. Because I might have forgot about it.

MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.

Next, Sneddon asked Sgt. Robel to give details of his interview with Gavin, and Sgt. Robel stated that Gavin alleged that he was abused “towards the end” of his time at Neverland. Gavin was interviewed a second time on August 13th, 2003, and once again stated that he was abused “towards the end” of his time at Neverland :

23 Q. Now, during the time that you were doing

24 these interviews, did you also have an interview

25 with Gavin Arvizo.

26 A. Yes, I did.

27 Q. And what date did that occur.

28 A. That was — that would also have been on 2149

1 Monday, July 7th, 2003.

2 Q. And would that have been at the same

3 location.

4 A. Yes, it was.

5 Q. And during this conversation, who else was

6 present besides you and Gavin.

7 A. It would have been Detective Zelis.

8 Q. And with regard to the previous interview

9 with Star, was Detective Zelis present then also.

10 A. That is correct.

11 Q. Now, in the conversation that you had with

12 Gavin Arvizo on the 7th of July of 2003, did

13 Gavin — excuse me. Sorry, Counsel.

14 MR. SANGER: That’s all right.

15 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Did Gavin Arvizo indicate

16 to you the time frame as to when he thought that he

17 had been molested by the defendant in this case, Mr.

18 Jackson.

19 A. Yes, he did.

20 Q. And what did he tell you.

21 A. He told me it was towards the end of his

22 stay at Neverland.

23 Q. Now, after that interview on July 7, did you

24 have another interview with Gavin Arvizo.

25 A. Yes, I did.

26 Q. And when did that occur.

27 A. I believe that was August 13th of 2003.

28 Q. And in that interview, did the subject of 2150

1 the timing of when Mr. Jackson molested him come up.

2 A. Yes, it did.

3 Q. And what did he indicate to you on that

4 occasion.

5 A. Again, he stated that it was towards the end

6 of his stay at Neverland.

However, under cross examination by Mesereau, Gavin was caught wavering between being abused “in the last few weeks” and being abused “in the last few days at Neverland:

22 Q. Okay. Do you remember last Thursday I asked

23 you when these alleged acts of masturbation by

24 Michael Jackson occurred. Do you remember that.

25 A. Uh-huh.

26 Q. And within an approximately 20-minute period

27 you first said a couple of days before you left with

28 Jose Salas, right. 1804

1 A. What do you mean.

2 Q. Jesus Salas, excuse me.

3 A. Couple days before I left with Jose Salas.

4 Q. Yes. You said a couple of days before you

5 left Neverland with Jose Salas the masturbation

6 occurred. Do you remember that.

7 A. No, I did not say that.

8 Q. You didn’t say that.

9 A. No, I said that it happened approximately

10 the last two weeks of when we left Neverland for

11 good.

12 Q. Well, first you said a few days, and then

13 you said a week, and then you said a couple of

14 weeks, right.

15 A. Maybe you said that it was a few days.

16 Q. Did you discuss over the weekend these facts

17 with anybody.

18 A. No.


Sgt. Robel was a part of the raid of Neverland in November 2003, and as the lead investigator, he oversaw the preparation of the affidavit in support of the search warrant. His initial request for the length of time to be authorized to execute the search warrant was two to three days, but Sneddon denied it, and eventually the judge authorized a time limit of 24 hours to conduct the search of Neverland. As a result of this reduced timeframe, a decision was made to increase the number of officers to conduct the raid.

7 Q. All right. Let’s shift gears here for a

8 second. I need to grab some water.

9 Okay. In November of 2003, you were part of

10 a number of people who executed a search warrant on

11 Neverland Valley Ranch, correct.

12 A. That is correct.

13 Q. And do you remember what date that was.

14 A. I believe it was November 18th, 2003.

15 Q. And were you, as the lead investigator,

16 involved in overseeing the preparation of the

17 affidavit in support of the search warrant that was

18 eventually submitted to the Judge to get

19 authorization for that search warrant.

20 A. Yes, I was.

21 Q. And in that connection, did you have a

22 recommendation or a desire with regard to how long

23 you thought the search of the ranch would take.

24 A. Yes, I did.

25 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object; relevance.

26 His state of mind.

27 THE COURT: Well, the objection’s sustained,

28 because you said “recommendation or a desire.” 2151

1 MR. SNEDDON: Okay. I’ll rephrase it. It’s

2 compound.

3 Q. With regard to the length of the time that

4 you thought that the search would take at Neverland

5 Valley Ranch, what was your desire with regard to

6 requesting judicial authorization as to the time

7 frame.

8 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object again.

9 Relevance.

10 THE COURT: Overruled.

11 I’m going to — you know, “desire” is the

12 word that bothers me here. If you had a

13 recommendation, that’s what I would like to hear, as

14 opposed to his private desires.

15 MR. SNEDDON: Well, okay. It’s probably a

16 bad choice of words, then.

17 Q. In your conversations — let me ask you

18 this: Who was the attorney you were dealing with in

19 the preparation of the affidavit for the search

20 warrant.

21 A. It would have been Tom Sneddon.

22 Q. Me.

23 A. Yeah.

24 Q. Okay. And in the course of working with me

25 on that document, the affidavit in support of the

26 search warrant, did you have a recommendation that

27 you made with regard to the length of time that you

28 wanted to be on the ranch to execute that warrant. 2152

1 MR. SANGER: Objection. Calls for hearsay

2 and relevance.

3 THE COURT: Well, what is the relevance,

4 Counsel.

5 MR. SNEDDON: Judge, the relevance is the

6 amount of people that it took to do it, because —

7 THE COURT: All right. I’ll overrule the

8 objection.

9 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: What was your — what was

10 your request and recommendation.

11 A. I was requesting that we have authorization

12 to be on the ranch for two to three days.

13 Q. And was that request granted.

14 A. No, it was not.

15 Q. Who denied it.

16 A. You did.

17 Q. And what did I tell you in that connection.

18 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I’m going to object

19 to that. That calls for hearsay. And I’m going to

20 move to strike the prior questions and answers on

21 the ground that this is not relevant.

22 THE COURT: The objection as to hearsay is

23 sustained.

24 MR. SNEDDON: All right.

25 Q. In any case, when the warrant went to the

26 Judge for signature, the warrant provided for how

27 long that you could be on the property.

28 A. I believe it was approximately 24 hours or 2153

1 till midnight, I believe, of that day.

2 Q. Midnight of the day you executed it.

3 A. Correct. I believe it was midnight we had

4 to be out.

5 Q. What was the impact of the shorter time

6 frame than you requested on the decisions of how the

7 execution — how the warrant was executed on the

8 ranch that day.

9 A. Well, it caused us to reevaluate our initial

10 plan and how many personnel that we were going to

11 take onto the ranch, which in turn caused us to

12 bring more personnel in order to get the job done

13 within the parameters of time that we were

14 designated.

15 Q. Now, do you know an attorney by the name of

16 Jerry Franklin.

17 A. Yes, I do.

18 Q. Who’s Mr. Franklin.

19 A. He’s a Senior Deputy D.A. with Santa Barbara

20 County.

21 Q. Was Mr. Franklin on the ranch that day, the

22 day that the warrant was executed.

23 A. Yes, he was.

24 Q. And did you, in your capacity as the lead

25 investigator, have some interactions with Mr.

26 Franklin that day.

27 A. Yes, I did.

28 Q. And in what connection was that. 2154

1 A. On two separate occasions, he assisted me in

2 doing an addendum to a search warrant in the Los

3 Angeles area, and also he assisted — I had him

4 assist Detective Zelis on doing an addendum for a

5 search on a certain or particular item on the ranch.

6 Q. Do you know how long Mr. Franklin was there

7 that day.

8 A. I want to say he was approximately there

9 maybe four or five hours, somewhere along that line.

10 Q. Now, it’s been indicated in the beginning of

11 your testimony that I was on the ranch that day; is

12 that correct.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Do you recall how long I was there or when I

15 left.

16 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object. Lack of

17 foundation.

18 THE COURT: The answer — the objection is

19 overruled. But answer “yes” or “no.” Do you recall

20 how long he was there.


22 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: How long.

23 A. I think you left probably around 1:30 or

24 2:00 in the afternoon.

25 THE COURT: All right. Let’s take our break.

26 (Recess taken.)

After returning from recess, Judge Melville introduced some levity into the courtroom to break the monotony of the trial, and then Sneddon resumed his direct examination by asking Sgt. Robel about the evidence that he seized from Jackson’s upstairs portion of his two story bedroom, and how it was logged for entry.

27 THE COURT: I don’t know if everybody knows,

28 but we had a little longer break this morning, 2155

1 because the Olive Garden read a CNN report that

2 basically said the jurors were starving to death.

3 (Laughter.)

4 THE COURT: And they have to thank CNN

5 because Olive Garden sent over a bunch of pizzas, so

6 the jury has been — they sent out an attack

7 squadron and threatened my life if I wouldn’t let

8 them eat the pizzas, so they’re — they’ve —

9 they’re all full, and —

10 A JUROR: Oh, yeah.

11 THE COURT: Let me tell you the danger here

12 now. Having been a Judge for many years, this is

13 the best advice I can give anybody on a jury, and

14 that is: Don’t eat too much at lunch.

15 But today it’s okay.

16 Counsel.

17 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Okay. Sergeant Robel, I

18 think we were at the point that you’re at the ranch,

19 and you’re executing a search warrant on November

20 the 18th, 2003. Okay.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Okay. Now, during the course of the

23 execution of that search warrant, did you personally

24 seize any items that were booked into evidence.

25 A. Yes, I did.

26 Q. And in what room was that that you did that.

27 A. It was in Mr. Jackson’s.

28 Q. Michael Jackson’s. 2156

1 A. That’s correct.

2 Q. And what room.

3 A. His master bedroom.

4 Q. Would that be downstairs or upstairs.

5 A. It would be upstairs.

6 Q. Now, could you just describe to the ladies

7 and gentlemen of the jury what process that you used

8 in seizing the evidence and then making sure that it

9 got booked appropriately.

10 A. We had a designated person downstairs with a

11 laptop computer that was the person that was

12 documenting the items on a property form and giving

13 it an item number, a sheriff’s department item

14 number.

15 As seizers, we would seize stuff and then we

16 would actually hand-carry it down to him, and then

17 he would actually go on ahead and it would be

18 packaged up and entered into the computer and given

19 an item number.

Sneddon then began to ask Sgt. Robel to identify articles of evidence (including pornography) that was seized from Neverland in November 2003 and subsequently, and during this line of questioning Sgt. Robel identified fingerprint samples that he took of Star and Gavin Arvizo. They were fingerprinted on May 5th and September 14th, 2004, respectively, well over a year after they left Neverland for the last time on March 12th of 2003:

23 Q. All right. With regard to 281, do you

24 recognize that.

25 A. Yes. Yes, I do.

26 Q. All right. What is 281.

27 A. It is Star Arvizo’s fingerprints and palm

28 prints. 2170

1 Q. And when and where was the first time you

2 saw those prints.

3 A. I took those prints on 5-5 of ‘04.

4 Q. When you say you took those prints, would

5 you describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the

6 jury what you did.

7 A. I met with Star, and I proceeded to go on

8 ahead and fingerprint him with all ten fingers, and

9 also his palm prints.

10 Q. And were you — were you the one that

11 oversaw and directed him in obtaining those prints.

12 A. Yes, I was.

13 Q. All right. With regard to 282, do you

14 recognize that item.

15 A. Yes, I do.

16 Q. And what is that.

17 A. These are Gavin Arvizo’s finger and palm

18 prints.

19 Q. And with regard to those particular prints,

20 did you have a role in obtaining those.

21 A. Yes, I did.

22 Q. What role was that.

23 A. I proceeded to do the same thing with Gavin

24 Arvizo as I did with Star and rolled his

25 fingerprints and his palm prints.

26 Q. Was that done on a different occasion or on

27 the same day.

28 A. No, that was done on a separate occasion. 2171

1 Q. What was the date when you obtained Gavin’s.

2 A. That was on 9-14 of ‘04.

After having Sgt. Robel identify various articles of evidence, Sneddon ended his direct examination, and Sanger began his cross examination by asking Sgt. Robel if he was trained as a certified fingerprint examiner, to which Sgt. Robel declined (this was an obvious attack on his credibility):



7 Q. Well, let’s start at the end and work

8 backwards. How would that be.

9 First of all, you roll the prints of Star

10 and Gavin Arvizo, which is what you just told us,

11 right.

12 A. Yes, I did.

13 Q. And that’s Exhibit 281, 282, correct.

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. Are you a certified fingerprint examiner.

16 A. No, I’m not.

17 Q. So you’ve learned to roll prints as a police

18 officer, as a sheriff; is that correct.

19 A. Correct.

Sanger then began to question Sgt. Robel about the evidence that was seized, and in this excerpt he asked Sgt. Robel if the pornographic magazines that were confiscated were illegal, and Sgt. Robel answered “no”. The reason for this line of questioning is because the defense wanted to impress upon the jury that the pornographic magazines that had been displayed by Sneddon were not child pornography, which is in and of itself illegal to possess or distribute. Sanger also had Sgt. Robel confirm that the Arvizos never claimed to have been shown by Jackson any of the items that he just finished describing to the jury:

6 Q. All right. Now, as the investigator in this

7 case, the lead investigator in this case, you are

8 not aware of any witness who said that they

9 specifically saw any one of these particular items,

10 that being 283, 284 and 84; is that correct.

11 A. At this present time, no.

12 Q. Okay. So I just asked one of those bad

13 questions. I said, “Is this correct.” Let me try

14 not to do that.

15 Based on your investigation, did anybody,

16 any witness, specifically say that they saw any of

17 these items, other than you as the searching

18 officer.

19 A. To the best of my knowledge, no.

20 Q. Thank you. Okay. Now, none of these

21 items — and by “items,” I’m referring 284, 283 and

22 84. None of these items are per se illegal to

23 possess, are they.

24 I’ll just put them up quickly.

25 They’re not contraband.

26 A. No, those are not illegal to possess,

27 correct.

28 Q. So when they say “teenaged,” these are 2177

1 magazines that show models or people who are over —

2 who are 18 or over. However young they may look,

3 that’s — they’re 18 or over, as far as you can

4 tell, correct.

5 A. They’re supposed to be, yes.

6 Q. And those are commercially available. You

7 can go to a store and buy them, correct.

8 A. As far as I know, yes.

9 Q. All right. Now, 283 — I hate to just keep

10 putting these up, but — but 283 is a collector’s

11 item of some sort, is it not.

12 A. I really don’t know.

13 Q. Did you find some nudist magazines when you

14 were looking around that were from the 1930s.

15 A. Inside that box.

16 Q. Anywhere.

17 A. I believe some other people, some other

18 searchers found that.

19 Q. And you had no witness — there was no

20 witness that said they were shown that book or saw

21 that book, as far as you know, right.

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. All right. Now I’m going to put up 284.

24 You seized that because it appeared to be a

25 book that came within some concept of adult

26 material; is that right.

27 A. Correct.

28 Q. Do you know who Bruce Weber is. 2178

1 A. I do not.

2 Q. Now, when you were going through Mr.

3 Jackson’s home, did you see a number of items from

4 notable people that were just lying around, or

5 hanging on the wall, or sitting on a — I’ll give

6 you some examples if you want. Did you see, for

7 instance, a letter from Steven Spielberg that was

8 just sitting on a table.

9 A. I did not see that, no.

10 Q. All right. Did you see a letter from

11 President Bush.

12 A. I believe I saw that, yes.

13 Q. Did you see some correspondence from Ronald

14 Reagan.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Did you see other correspondence from other

17 notable celebrities and politicians and other

18 people.

19 A. I don’t recall exactly who they were, but he

20 had a lot of various things framed from those

21 particular people, yes.

22 Q. And some things that weren’t framed, right.

23 A. The items that I found, that I saw.

24 Q. That you saw.

25 A. They were framed.

In this excerpt, Sanger wanted to impress upon the jury the fact that the percentage of books and magazines that Jackson owned that would be considered pornographic was extremely low, and that Jackson owned thousands of books. Sgt. Robel stated that he definitely saw hundreds of books, although he obviously could not give a firm estimate of the exact amount:

11 Q. Taking into account the areas that you went

12 through — let’s back up. What areas did you go

13 through.

14 A. That I particularly searched.

15 Q. No, that you went through. You walked

16 through all the areas that were eventually going to

17 be searched; is that correct.

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. All right. And so you went through the main

20 house.

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. Went through Mr. Jackson’s office.

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. You went upstairs from his office into the

25 video library.

26 A. Correct.

27 Q. And some other little rooms associated with

28 that, correct. 2180

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. You went into the arcade building, correct.

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. All right. Any other locations that you

5 went through.

6 A. The security.

7 Q. The security office at the end of the

8 office — or the building that had Mr. Jackson’s

9 office in it, correct.

10 A. The one clear at the end, yes.

11 Q. Okay. So, as you went through these various

12 locations, there were over 10,000 books, were there

13 not.

14 A. That’s going to be kind of difficult for me

15 to say over 10,000. I would say that there were

16 definitely several hundred, but 10,000, I really

17 couldn’t say that for sure. There were quite a few,

18 yes.

19 Q. Okay. You remember the library.

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. And the library had, for the most part,

22 leather-bound books and sets and that sort of thing,

23 correct.

24 A. Yes, it did.

25 Q. There were hundreds of books just in that

26 library, were there not.

27 A. That’s correct.

28 Q. And then the hallway leading to Mr. 2181

1 Jackson’s quarters, where he had the first floor and

2 the bedroom upstairs, that hallway had books,

3 bookcases lining one side of the hallway, correct.

4 A. That is correct.

5 Q. And there were hundreds of books there, were

6 there not.

7 A. There were quite a few, yes.

8 Q. And then when you went into Mr. Jackson’s

9 private quarters and you went down the steps into

10 that — the big living room area, whatever it is,

11 with the big screen T.V., there were quite a number

12 of books stacked up on the floor there, were there

13 not.

14 A. There were.

15 Q. And then there was — there was another

16 bookcase full of books; is that correct.

17 A. I believe that, yes, you’re right.

18 Q. Okay. And then there were books lying

19 around stacked up in various places, in the bathroom

20 and his — his bedroom upstairs, quite a number of

21 books stacked up.

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. And then upstairs in the house, in between

24 the craft room and Prince Michael’s bedroom, Mr.

25 Jackson’s son’s bedroom, there’s a little cove with

26 children’s books; is that right.

27 A. There were books there, yes. I’m not sure

28 if they were children’s books, but you’re correct. 2182

1 Q. Quite a number of books there.

2 A. Right.

3 Q. Okay. And then in Mr. Jackson’s office,

4 there were books stacked up, for the most part, in

5 various parts of his office; is that correct.

6 A. Yeah. Mainly around his desk area, yes.

7 Q. And there was actually a separate room as

8 you would go into the office, into the front office.

9 You turn left, there’s a little hallway, left again,

10 there was a little room that had shelves with

11 hundreds of books; is that correct.

12 A. Is that where the bathroom is. Is that what

13 you’re referring to.

14 Q. Just before the bathroom, yes. Talking

15 about his office.

16 A. Right.

17 Q. Turn left, a closet, a big closet area with

18 shelves in it with hundreds of books.

19 A. Correct. Correct.

20 Q. Okay. And then in the arcade, there was

21 a — a room with a low door on the second floor,

22 correct.

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. And in there, there were thousands of books

25 in bookshelves like a bookstore, right.

26 A. Yeah. It looked like a library, yes.

27 Q. And there were boxes of books still in

28 boxes, correct. 2183

1 A. Correct.

Here is what Mesereau had to say during the first day of his opening statement about the voluminous number of books that Jackson owned:

10 Michael is a voracious reader. He loves to

11 read books and all subject matters. He has close to

12 a million books at Neverland.

On the second day of his opening statement, Mesereau clarified his previous remarks:

12 I did mention yesterday that Mr. Jackson

13 owns approximately a million book. He does, but I

14 think I may have suggested that they were all in his

15 house. Actually, a lot of them are in storage. So

16 I want to make sure that’s clear. But he is a

17 voracious reader and book collector.

To be continued:

5 Comments leave one →
  1. stacy2 permalink
    July 5, 2012 9:44 am

    quick question..Was Janet Arvizo’s husband Jay Jackson in on the scam? or did he really believe that his step-son had been molested and was supporting them?

    • sanemjfan permalink
      July 5, 2012 2:33 pm

      Well, I can only speculate of how much firsthand knowledge he had of Janet’s scam, but he did reject Frank Cascio’s offer of a house and free college tuition in exchange for shooting the rebuttal video, and instead demanded millions of dollars! Personally, I don’t think it was his idea to falsely accuse MJ, but he surely didn’t do anything to stop it either! I’ll get to his testimony in a few weeks!

  2. July 4, 2012 10:10 pm

    Thank you for all your hard work. I share your work, because it is neccesary that people must know the really conspiracy against Michael Jackson. You, with your work, make that possible. Big Hugs. Marcela

  3. nannorris permalink
    July 2, 2012 7:52 pm

    Thank you for doing all this hard work David..It is pretty clear that Sanger is showing the connection from the very beginning between Sneddon and Feldman , and Feldmans lap dog ..Stanley Katz,
    I love that Sanger specifically pointed on he is a forensic psychologist..someone used specifically for building court cases, so I guess that is why Feldman ,had JC speak to Gardner , but Katz interpret the session..
    Sneddon using his clout to get people who disagreed with him removed from the case.
    Larry Feldman must have felt pretty emboldened by all this ..
    No wonder MJ feared for mankind…


  1. March 15th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Gavin Arvizo (Cross Examination), Terry Flaa, Jeff Klapakis, and Steve Robel (Direct Examination), Part 2 of 4 « Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: