March 17th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Fritz Coleman, Kiki Fournier, Ruby Wolff, Shawn O’Grady, Jeffery Ellis, and Conn Abel (Direct & Cross Examination), Part 2 of 3
Under cross examination by Mesereau, Fournier admitted that she wasn’t knowledgeable about the titles and business relationships that Schaffel, Cascio, and Weisner had with Jackson:
2 Q. Okay. The prosecutor was asking you some
3 questions about titles, and he asked you if Frank
4 Tyson had a title and Dieter had a title.
5 You don’t know of any titles these people
6 ever had, do you.
7 A. No. Not formally, no.
8 Q. And you don’t really know what kind of
9 relationship, in terms of business, Frank Tyson had
10 with Michael Jackson, do you.
11 A. No.
12 Q. And you don’t really know what kind of a
13 business relationship, if any, Marc Schaffel had
14 with Mr. Jackson, do you.
15 A. No, I just knew that he worked for him, and
16 something with the birthday party. That’s all I
17 know. But I don’t know the title name exactly, no.
18 Q. So you knew that Marc Schaffel had something
19 to do with a birthday party for Mr. Jackson, right.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. But you don’t really know if he, in any
22 shape or form, was an actual partner or shareholder
23 or employee or anything with Mr. Jackson, right.
24 A. No, I don’t know that.
25 Q. And you don’t know whether Mr. Tyson had any
26 type of actual business relationship with Mr.
27 Jackson in terms of employment or partnership or
28 business venture together, do you. 2556
1 A. Well, I know that Frank did work for Mr.
2 Jackson and he was out at the ranch for a couple of
3 months.
4 Q. But he would be there for a couple of months
5 and then just disappear for six months, right.
6 A. Yes. But I joked around with him that he
7 was working with the commoners now.
8 Q. Well, was it your understanding that he was
9 trying to get in the music business.
10 A. Yeah. When you mention it, I remember
11 hearing something about that, yes.
12 Q. Was it your understanding that he was trying
13 to present himself as a promoter of music ventures.
14 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Hearsay; no
15 foundation.
16 THE COURT: Overruled.
17 THE WITNESS: I just remember something
18 about music that Frank was trying to do, but I
19 don’t —
20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: But you don’t really know
21 what, in fact, he was doing.
22 A. No.
23 Q. He could have been puffing up his
24 credentials and his importance and there could be
25 nothing there, right.
26 A. True.
27 Q. And he never, ever said to you, “I have this
28 particular business association with Mr. Jackson.” 2557
1 He just demonstrated an interest in music and the
2 life that Michael was leading, right.
3 A. Yes.
Next, Mesereau asked Fournier to confirm that fact that the entire Cascio family were frequent guests at Neverland, including Frank’s younger sister Marie Nichole, who Zonen conveniently omitted from his direct examination:
4 Q. Okay. Now, the prosecutor did not mention
5 Marie Nicole, his sister. Do you remember that.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And Marie Nicole, Frank Tyson’s sister, was
8 a frequent visitor at Neverland, right.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And when you say “Frank Tyson,” that’s Frank
11 Cascio, right. He seemed to use both names,
12 correct.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So his sister Marie Nicole stayed there
15 often, right.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And his brother Aldo stayed there often,
18 right.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And his father Dominick stayed there often,
21 didn’t he.
22 A. Not as much as the kids. But, yes, he was
23 there.
24 Q. The whole family would visit from time to
25 time, right.
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. Okay. How about Frank’s mother.
28 A. She would visit, I would say, a couple times 2558
1 a year. At Christmastime.
2 Q. Did Frank impress you as someone who liked
3 to sort of promote himself or brag about his
4 association with Mr. Jackson.
5 A. I don’t know if he bragged about his
6 association with Mr. Jackson, but he was different.
7 Q. He bragged a lot, right.
8 A. I can’t remember him directly bragging to
9 me. But I know that he liked himself.
10 (Laughter.)
11 Q. Okay. All right. That’s good enough.
12 Okay. And did he impress you as the kind of
13 person that would come back and forth with a very
14 irregular pattern. I mean, you just never knew when
15 he would pop up, and then he would just flat out
16 disappear, right.
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; vague as to
18 time.
19 THE COURT: Overruled.
20 You may answer.
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, he would.
22 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Certainly you could not
23 characterize his being at Neverland as appearing to
24 be some type of pattern where he’d check in or check
25 out, or anything like that, at a particular time
26 like an employee would, right.
27 A. No. But I do know for a while he was an
28 employee, because he told me that. 2559
1 Q. He told you he was an employee.
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. But he didn’t tell you who was paying him,
4 did he.
5 A. No.
6 Q. You don’t know actually what company was
7 paying him, if one was, right.
8 A. No, I don’t know.
Next, Mesereau questioned Fournier about the leeches and hangers-on who routinely tried to attach themselves to Jackson in order to boost their image and get their foot in the door of the entertainment industry:
9 Q. All right. Now, would you agree, in the
10 world of Michael Jackson, all kinds of characters
11 show up claiming they’re his friend, right.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. All kinds of characters are always showing
14 up trying to act like they’re close to Michael
15 Jackson, correct.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And Michael Jackson has made the employees
18 aware at Neverland that all kinds of imposters,
19 kooks, nuts, crazy people show up saying, “I’m his
20 friend,” right.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And they actually try to get in often, don’t
23 they.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And — and all kinds of wild people call up
26 all the time trying to pretend that they are close
27 to Michael, right.
28 A. Yes. They have called. 2560
1 Q. You’ve seen these people come and go for
2 years, right.
3 A. Do you mean breaking in on the property,
4 too.
5 Q. Just trying to get close to Michael Jackson.
6 A. Oh, yes.
7 Q. Some line, some yarn they’re spinning,
8 whatever it is, right.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you’ve seen people show up from time to
11 time and look as if they’re close to him, and then
12 you never see them again suddenly, right.
13 A. Yes.
Next, Fournier was asked to describe the field trips that busloads of disadvantaged inner city children took to Neverland. She testified that Jackson never supervised the kids because they were supervised by the chaperones that accompanied them to the ranch.
25 Q. Now, during the time you’ve worked at
26 Neverland, you’ve seen thousands of children,
27 probably, come to Neverland, right.
28 A. Yes. 2562
1 Q. Neverland appears to be designed for kids,
2 doesn’t it.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You’ve got an amusement park, right.
5 A. Uh-huh.
6 Q. You’ve got a zoo, right.
7 A. (Nods head up and down.)
8 Q. You’ve got fields where kids could play,
9 right.
10 A. (Nods head up and down.)
11 Q. You’ve got a theater where they can go in
12 and get popcorn or ice cream or sodas, right.
13 A. (Nods head up and down.)
14 Q. And there’s a lot of freedom at Neverland
15 regarding what movie you can see, right. Isn’t
16 there some big library where you can get videos and
17 play those —
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. — movies.
20 You’ve got the arcade with all sorts of
21 games, right.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And you’ve seen, during the time you’ve
24 worked there, busloads of kids, impoverished kids
25 from the inner city, for example, coming out to
26 visit Neverland, right.
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. And they can be a little wild from time to 2563
1 time, can’t they.
2 A. Oh, yes.
3 Q. And you’ve seen hundreds of kids come at one
4 time with maybe a couple of adults escorting them
5 around, correct.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And they’ll spend the whole day at
8 Neverland, right.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, were you ever asked to help supervise
11 or organize these busloads of kids that often come
12 out.
13 A. No.
14 Q. Your job was strictly what.
15 A. Cleaning and serving.
16 Q. Okay. Okay. Now, sometimes when these
17 hundreds and hundreds of kids will show up from the
18 inner city or from schools, or wherever they’re
19 from —
20 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object as
21 mischaracterizes the testimony. We’ve gone from 100
22 to hundreds and hundreds.
23 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll rephrase it.
24 Q. You’ve seen, on a given day, literally
25 hundreds of children show up to spend the day,
26 haven’t you.
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. And — bless you. 2564
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And you have also seen this happen quite a
3 bit, haven’t you, where, on a given day, buses or
4 carloads of kids come to spend the day.
5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; compound.
6 THE COURT: Overruled.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes.
8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And typically what will
9 happen is these children will come late morning,
10 spend the whole day, and sometimes into the evening,
11 correct.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, you don’t typically see Michael Jackson
14 supervising these kids, do you.
15 A. No.
16 Q. In fact, you almost never see Michael
17 Jackson supervising these kids, right.
18 A. No.
19 Q. And it’s your understanding that typically
20 when these busloads or carloads of children show up,
21 that they’re with people, adults, who are in charge
22 of them, correct.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you have seen these children from time
25 to time be pretty rambunctious or wild, right.
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. You’ve seen them be a little wild on the
28 rides, right. 2565
1 A. Uh-huh.
2 Q. You’ve seen them go a little crazy when the
3 elephants come walking through the property, right.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You’ve seen sometimes the camel comes
6 walking out with a zookeeper and the children all
7 love that, right.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. You’ve been — have you seen the children go
10 to the zoo and go from area to area to see the
11 alpacas and the giraffes and the tiger and the
12 chimps and all that.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you’ve seen children, at times, get out
15 of line, haven’t you.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. They start throwing things, right.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. You’ve seen kids throw stuff from the rides,
20 right.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Would you agree that it’s to be expected at
23 Neverland that when you have hundreds of children,
24 many of them from impoverished areas, they come to
25 this world of amusement, and zoos, and films, and
26 candy and popcorn and ice cream, and all that stuff,
27 they sometimes go crazy, don’t they.
28 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Calls for a 2566
1 conclusion; argumentative.
2 THE COURT: It’s argumentative. Sustained.
3 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.
4 Q. Is it unusual for young kids, seven, eight,
5 nine, ten, thirteen, whatever they are, to just
6 start going wild at Neverland.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. It’s not unusual, is it.
9 A. No, it’s not unusual.
10 Q. Okay. Is it your impression that these
11 busloads of children that periodically come to
12 Neverland just look like they’ve sort of walked into
13 a fantasy world.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In fact, in the evening at Neverland, you
16 hear Disney music playing, don’t you.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And you have trees with lights that almost
19 look like it’s Christmastime, right.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And you hear Disney-like voices coming from
22 loud speakers, right.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you’ve seen many of these children want
25 to stay there into the evening because of this sort
26 of fantasy-like world at night, right.
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. Okay. Now, would it be accurate to say that 2567
1 these kinds of trips that children make to Neverland
2 happen quite often.
3 A. The busloads.
4 Q. Busloads or carloads, however they get
5 there. You have children visiting Neverland a fair
6 amount, don’t you.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. Is it your impression that Neverland
9 appears to almost be designed as a place for
10 children.
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. You have a train, right, that travels around
13 Neverland.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And it’s almost out of a Walt Disney-type
16 movie, isn’t it.
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object. 352;
18 relevancy; undue consumption of time.
19 THE COURT: Overruled.
20 THE WITNESS: Yes.
21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And you see kids jump on
22 those trains, that train, and travel all around
23 Neverland, don’t you.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You have clocks everywhere, don’t you.
26 A. Yeah.
27 Q. And they’re big clocks that look sort of
28 Walt Disney-like, don’t they. 2568
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. You’ve got a big clock on a hill that’s
3 partly flowers, isn’t it.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And that’s where a train station is, right.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You even have your own little fire station,
8 with a fire truck, right.
9 A. Yes.
In this excerpt, Mesereau questioned Fournier about her impressions on some of Jackson’s inner circle. She testified that she thought Marc Schaffel was an “opportunist”, and one of many who she observed during her employment at Neverland.
10 Q. Now, Mr. Auchincloss mentioned Dieter. And
11 you indicated you had seen him there a few times,
12 right.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. But you never really knew if he had any
15 formal type of business relationship with Mr.
16 Jackson, did you.
17 A. The only thing I remember with Dieter is
18 there was a doll, probably like this high, that was
19 porcelain, that was Mr. Jackson; that he had told me
20 that he was working on making those. Because I
21 offered to glue it back together because it broke,
22 and he said it wasn’t needed because there was many,
23 many more where that came from.
24 Q. So he was telling you he was trying to
25 manufacture dolls.
26 A. Something like that. Porcelain — porcelain
27 figurines.
28 Q. Okay. Did he tell you where they were going 2569
1 to be manufactured.
2 A. No.
3 Q. But if Michael Jackson even knew about this
4 or was involved in it, you don’t really have
5 firsthand knowledge, right.
6 A. I don’t know.
7 Q. Okay. Did Dieter seem like a promoter to
8 you, sort of. Would that be an accurate word.
9 A. I guess, yes. He seemed like a businessman.
10 That’s how I would describe him.
11 Q. Did he seem impressed with himself.
12 A. I guess you could say that. Somebody might
13 say that.
14 Q. Did he talk much.
15 A. No.
16 Q. Okay. If he had any contractual
17 relationship with Mr. Jackson or partnership
18 relation, whatever it could be, you’re not aware of
19 it.
20 A. No.
21 Q. And did he sort of come and then disappear,
22 too.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Let’s talk about Ron. Do you know who I’m
25 talking about.
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. Okay. Konitzer is his name, right.
28 A. Yes. 2570
1 Q. Did you talk to him very much.
2 A. No.
3 Q. Did he seem like a self-promoter also.
4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object as calls for a
5 conclusion. Vague as to “self-promoter.”
6 THE COURT: Sustained.
7 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did Mr. Konitzer seem like
8 he was impressed with himself.
9 A. I never really talked to either of them,
10 so — they seemed — Ron seemed much nicer.
11 Q. Nicer than Dieter.
12 A. Ronald. Yes.
13 Q. But you never really talked to Ron or
14 Dieter.
15 A. No.
16 Q. And I think it goes without saying, if Ron
17 had any type of formal association with Mr. Jackson,
18 you don’t know what it was, right.
19 A. No, I don’t know.
20 Q. And didn’t he sort of show up at unexpected
21 times and then just not be there for many, many
22 months.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. Schaffel would show up once in a
25 while, right.
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. And then he would disappear, right.
28 A. Yes. 2571
1 Q. In fact, there were periods where months
2 would go by, you’d never see Schaffel, right.
3 A. No, you wouldn’t.
4 Q. Did you get the impression that Schaffel was
5 trying to promote himself as someone who knew
6 Michael Jackson.
7 A. I don’t want to sound odd when I say this,
8 but I think he was an opportunist. I —
9 Q. He was one of many opportunists that you
10 bumped into while working at Neverland, right.
11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative.
12 THE COURT: Overruled.
13 You may answer that.
14 THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, what was the
15 question.
16 THE COURT: I can have it read back to you.
17 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.
18 (Record read.)
19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, if Dieter was telling
21 things to Michael Jackson, you don’t know what they
22 were, right.
23 A. No.
24 Q. If Ron was communicating with Michael
25 Jackson about anything specific, you don’t know what
26 that was, right.
27 A. No.
28 Q. And if Frank was communicating anything 2572
1 specific to Michael Jackson, you don’t really know
2 what that was, right.
3 A. No.
4 Q. If Vinnie was communicating anything to
5 Michael Jackson, you don’t know what that was,
6 right.
7 A. No.
8 Q. Same with Schaffel, right.
9 A. Yes. Same.
10 Q. Now, let me ask the question a slightly
11 different way: If Ron was withholding information
12 from Michael Jackson, you wouldn’t know anything
13 about it, right.
14 A. No.
15 Q. If Dieter was withholding information from
16 Michael Jackson, you wouldn’t know anything about
17 that, right.
18 A. No.
19 Q. If Schaffel was withholding information from
20 Mr. Jackson, you don’t know anything about it.
21 A. No.
22 Q. And the same would apply to Frank and
23 Vinnie, right.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So what they were really telling him and
26 what they weren’t telling him, you don’t know.
27 A. No, I don’t know.
28 Q. And would it be accurate to just say, in 2573
1 summary, these characters would show up once in a
2 while, disappear, and you never could predict when
3 they would be there or not be there, right.
4 A. Yes, you never could predict.
In this excerpt, Mesereau threw a wedge in the prosecution’s claim that Jackson was in charge of everything at Neverland, even when he was away, by asking Fournier to describe who she took orders from during the many weeks and months at a time when Jackson was away on business. She testified that Jackson delegates what he wants done to his ranch managers, and they disseminate that information to their subordinates:
16 Q. Now, you mentioned someone named Joe Marcus.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What is his title, if he has one.
19 A. Ranch manager, I think.
20 Q. Okay. And did you typically report to him.
21 A. No, I would report to the house supervisor
22 first.
23 Q. Okay. And was it your understanding the
24 house supervisor would report to Mr. Marcus.
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. And would you often get direction about what
27 you are supposed to do from the house supervisor.
28 A. Yes. 2576
1 Q. Would you ever get it from Mr. Marcus.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. In a typical day where you do your work at
4 Neverland, do you pretty much start the day knowing
5 what your assignments are.
6 A. Yeah, you do. You know, if there’s guests
7 there, your duties change. And if there’s nobody
8 there, you know, it’s just cleaning. But when
9 there’s guests there, it’s serving the guests.
10 Q. Now, the prosecutor for the government tried
11 to suggest that Michael Jackson is on top of all the
12 details at Neverland. Do you remember that.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Isn’t it true that there are months where
15 Michael isn’t even around.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And you don’t get your direction from
18 Michael specifically during those months, do you.
19 A. No. But I believe that he laid it out the
20 way that he wanted it. I mean, he wants us to take
21 care of the house when he goes away and that kind of
22 thing.
23 Q. Well, sure. There are general duties that
24 everybody has that’s employed at Neverland, right.
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. You’ve got a zookeeper who’s told to take
27 care of the zoo, right. You’ve got people in charge
28 of the amusement rides, right. 2577
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. You’ve got someone in charge of the theater,
3 right.
4 A. Not really in charge of the theater. That’s
5 kind of what we did, so —
6 Q. But someone was certainly in charge of
7 making sure it’s cleaned and that kind of thing,
8 right.
9 A. That would be us, yeah.
10 Q. Okay. So the house supervisor would
11 essentially be in charge of what you did at the
12 theater.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. Okay. And you certainly had a
15 general responsibility to make sure that theater was
16 clean, right.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And would it be — would it be, oh, accurate
19 to say that when that theater was filled with kids
20 watching a movie, they might leave and leave things
21 a little messy.
22 A. Absolutely.
23 Q. And would you see popcorn everywhere and
24 things like that.
25 A. Yep.
26 Q. And you were one of the people who had to
27 clean that, right.
28 A. Uh-huh. 2578
1 Q. Okay. Okay. So you’ve got a fairly large
2 staff there, don’t you.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Would it be accurate to say, on average,
5 during the time that you worked at Neverland, there
6 may have been 50 or 60 employees.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Because you’ve got security people also,
9 don’t you.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And would you be in touch with the security
12 people on a regular basis.
13 A. You’d see them throughout the day, so — but
14 we wouldn’t necessarily report anything to them. I
15 mean, unless there was a problem.
16 Q. Right. Let me know if this is an accurate
17 statement: You’ve got an average of 50 to 60
18 employees with different tasks that have been
19 spelled out for them, right.
20 A. Uh-huh.
21 Q. Whether it’s security, the main house, the
22 zoo, whatever it is, right.
23 A. Uh-huh.
24 Q. You’ve got people with various levels of
25 supervisory authority, right.
26 A. Uh-huh.
27 Q. And you’ve got long periods where Michael
28 isn’t even around, right. 2579
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And Neverland seems to run even when Michael
3 isn’t there, right.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Even when Michael is there, there are
6 periods where he seems to be off alone doing
7 whatever he’s doing, right.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. When you said that he’s a detail person, you
10 weren’t trying to suggest that Michael spends 15
11 hours a day supervising everybody’s tasks, did you.
12 A. No.
13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative.
14 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer was “No.”
15 Next question.
16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In fact, most of the
17 discussion about what people are going to do on a
18 daily basis is not with Michael, right.
19 A. No.
20 Q. Now, once in a while, because he’s the
21 owner, he does directly tell someone his wishes,
22 right.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Because that’s where — he lives there and
25 his family lives there, right.
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. But most of the time, wouldn’t you discuss
28 your daily responsibilities and obligations with 2580
1 people other than Michael.
2 A. Yes.
Next, Mesereau questioned Fournier about her interactions with the Arvizo family. In a contrast to what she testified earlier about going into the rooms that children were assigned to sleep in and finding the beds undisturbed in the morning, Fournier describes how the Arvizos completely trashed their room in the guest unit, as well as their outrageous demands of wanting specific meals prepared for them when they were served dinner, crashing Jackson’s go-karts, etc. Fournier had no knowledge of Gavin and Star being caught masturbating in their room, watching pornography, or drinking alcohol, however, but other Neverland employees will testify about what they saw later on in the trial. Fournier also testified briefly that Star pulled a knife on her as they were in the kitchen, sometime in February 2003, but later on in her testimony she will clarify exactly what happened:
4 Q. Okay. The prosecutor for the government
5 asked you a question about children not staying in
6 their assigned rooms. Remember that.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you said something to the effect that
9 sometimes a child would have a room, I imagine in
10 the guest units, right.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And you would see the bed not made, right.
13 A. Do you mean not used or not made.
14 Q. Pardon me, not made. Let me strike that.
15 Wrong choice of words.
16 You would sometimes come in and see a room
17 that just didn’t appear to be used, right.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And I think what the government prosecutor
20 was suggesting was the kids must have been somewhere
21 during the evening, right.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. But I’m curious. You also said that you
24 looked at Gavin’s room and it often was a mess,
25 right.
26 A. Toward the end, yes.
27 Q. Suggesting that Gavin was staying in the
28 room, right. 2582
1 A. I believe it was he and his brother that
2 were staying in there.
3 Q. And they made a real mess out of that room,
4 didn’t they.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Quite often, didn’t they.
7 A. Toward the end, yes.
8 Q. And they were known — they had a reputation
9 at Neverland for having disciplinary issues with the
10 staff, didn’t they.
11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Calls for
12 hearsay and calls for a conclusion; improper
13 characterization of the evidence.
14 THE COURT: Overruled.
15 You may answer.
16 THE WITNESS: Not really with me. I mean,
17 Gavin was always respectful with me. Always. Star
18 could be a little bit ornery. And Davellin, we’d
19 talk every once in a while. But I never experienced
20 any problems.
21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: But you knew other
22 employees did, didn’t you.
23 A. Well, I knew that they were becoming
24 demanding, yeah, but I don’t really remember a
25 specific incident.
26 Q. Now, when you say you learned that they were
27 becoming demanding, could you tell the jury what you
28 mean. 2583
1 A. Well, every night we’d make dinner, and he
2 always wanted something other than what was made for
3 dinner.
4 Q. Who was this, now.
5 A. Star.
6 Q. Would make demands on you personally.
7 A. Yeah. They’d want certain kinds of foods
8 made at certain times. And usually it was chicken
9 noodle soup, which wasn’t that difficult, but —
10 Q. Would you get upset at those demands.
11 A. Honestly, I got irritated sometimes because
12 of the demand. There was so much to do. There was
13 so much to do, and I — when the kids got a little
14 ornery, it was — it was a lot. It really was. It
15 was — and I felt like there was no respect.
16 Q. And they seemed to sort of get very spoiled
17 there at some point, didn’t they.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And weren’t there complaints about their
20 throwing candy.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. There were complaints about their throwing
23 objects from the amusement rides.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. There were complaints from other employees
26 that they were almost acting like they owned the
27 place.
28 A. I don’t remember that one, but I know that 2584
1 they were getting a little ornery.
2 Q. Do you remember their crashing carts.
3 A. All of them crashed the carts. I don’t
4 remember specifically if they did or not.
5 Q. Okay. Okay. Now, did you ever learn that
6 they were caught with adult material.
7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: 403 ruling.
8 MR. MESEREAU: I think the Court said I
9 could ask.
10 THE COURT: Overruled.
11 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever learn that.
12 A. No, I don’t remember that.
13 Q. Did you ever learn that they were caught
14 masturbating in the unit.
15 A. No.
16 Q. Okay. Okay. You never had any discussion
17 with anyone about that.
18 A. No.
19 Q. Okay. Okay. Do you recall learning that
20 they had driven off the property at one point into
21 town.
22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection.
23 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever hear about
24 that.
25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; foundation.
26 THE COURT: Overruled.
27 You may answer.
28 THE WITNESS: I know that they left with 2585
1 Chris Carter one time.
2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You don’t have any
3 knowledge of their going into town on their own, do
4 you.
5 A. No.
6 Q. Okay. Did you ever see the Arvizo family
7 riding around in a limousine.
8 A. I know that they were taken in the —
9 Mr. Jackson’s vehicles sometimes, so —
10 Q. And when you say “Mr. Jackson’s vehicles,”
11 please tell the jury what kind of vehicles you’re
12 talking about.
13 A. A lot.
14 Q. Okay. No, what — describe the vehicles, if
15 you would.
16 A. Rolls Royces. I know that he owns a
17 limousine. There’s a black Navigator. So just
18 different cars.
19 Q. And it was — was it your understanding that
20 these kids would demand that they be taken places in
21 those vehicles.
22 A. I didn’t know about that.
23 Q. Okay. Did you see their mother very much.
24 A. No, not that much. She pretty much stayed
25 in her guest unit.
26 Q. Did you ever see her walking on the
27 premises.
28 A. Not really, no. 2586
1 Q. Ever see her at the theater.
2 A. Can’t remember if I’ve seen her at the
3 theater or not.
4 Q. How about in the main house.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. You’ve seen her in the main house a lot,
7 right.
8 A. Yeah, she would come in there and eat dinner
9 in there sometimes.
10 Q. And she’d be in there in the morning also,
11 wasn’t she.
12 A. Usually I wasn’t there that much in the
13 morning.
14 Q. Okay. Now, you’ve indicated, I think –
15 correct me if I’m wrong – that there were times you
16 cooked for the Arvizo family, right.
17 A. Did I cook for them. I don’t remember.
18 Q. Do you remember Star pulling a knife on you
19 in the kitchen.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Approximately when did Star pull a knife on
22 you in the kitchen.
23 A. Do you mean about what month it was.
24 Q. Month or year, if you remember.
25 A. Well, it was during that time period
26 between — I want to say it’s, like, February. I
27 think.
28 Q. And when Star pulled a knife on you in the 2587
1 kitchen, were you preparing food.
2 A. I was doing the dishes.
3 Q. Okay. And was he trying to cook in the
4 kitchen.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. That was against the rules, wasn’t it.
7 A. Well, it’s just not really wise to have a
8 child in there cooking with everybody, because it’s
9 kind of — plus, you know, you’ve got things that
10 you have to do, so you have to work also.
Here’s another important piece of exculpatory testimony for Jackson: Fournier testified that the wine cellar was oftentimes unlocked and open during her tenure at Neverland, which would explain why Gavin and Star were able access the alcohol that they consumed during their “imprisonment”:
13 Q. Now, the prosecutor for the government asked
14 you questions about where the key to the wine cellar
15 was supposed to be, right.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And I believe you indicated it was supposed
18 to be in a safe.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. But you don’t know if there were periods of
21 time when it was out of that safe, do you.
22 A. No.
23 Q. Were you often in the wine cellar.
24 A. Not often, but I’ve been down there.
25 Q. Okay. And could you please describe for the
26 jury what the wine cellar looks like.
27 A. It’s kind of like a cave in some ways, I
28 want to say. It’s got rock walls. And it’s kind of 2588
1 like walking into, like, a basement or a cellar.
2 And it’s got a main room, and there used to be a
3 table in there. And they have — there’s wine on
4 the wall. And there’s like another area with, like,
5 a little sink and a refrigerator and a freezer in
6 there, too. And there’s hard liquor in the cabinet
7 in the wine cellar where the kitchen is.
8 Q. Sometimes that wine cellar was open, wasn’t
9 it.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You found it open, didn’t you.
12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; vague as to
13 time.
14 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll rephrase, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: All right.
16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: During the time you worked
17 at Neverland, you sometimes found that wine cellar
18 open, didn’t you.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, it wasn’t your responsibility to keep
21 it locked, was it.
22 A. No.
23 Q. Okay. And isn’t alcohol kept in the
24 kitchen.
25 A. Yes. But on the wine cellar, it wasn’t our
26 responsibility to keep it locked. But when we left,
27 you know, we locked it. We didn’t leave it open, I
28 mean, if we went down there for a purpose. 2589
1 Q. But there certainly were many times, for
2 whatever reason you happened to be in that area, and
3 saw that it was open, right.
4 A. Yes. If you went down there and checked the
5 door, yeah.
In this excerpt, Fournier describes how Gavin and Star trashed their guest room during their last two weeks at Neverland, and this made her so concerned that she notified the house manager Jesus Salas. Fournier and the other staff noticed that there was broken glass, spilled liquids, the refrigerator was trashed, and other malicious signs of abuse and neglect:
6 Q. Yes. Okay. Were you at — excuse me. Let
7 me rephrase that.
8 Were you working at Neverland during the
9 period of, say, February 1st, 2003, to March 12th,
10 2003.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Were you working full time.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Were you going to college then.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And during that period of time how often
17 would you go to college.
18 A. I think it was three days a week.
19 Q. So would you be following the schedule that
20 you defined a little earlier in our questioning.
21 A. The radical schedule. Yeah, I would come in
22 later. I would come in late because that way I
23 could get my kids off to school and sleep a little
24 bit, too, so that way I could do the late shift
25 again.
26 Q. And it was a 45-minute drive into town to go
27 to school.
28 A. Uh-huh. 2590
1 Q. And a couple hours at school and then 45
2 minutes back, right.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. And then you would do your homework
5 during the schedule you talked about earlier, right.
6 A. Yeah, here and there.
7 Q. Okay. Okay. You have people at Neverland
8 who were in charge of security, right.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And about how many people are employed at
11 Neverland who are involved in security.
12 A. There used to be a lot more. But I don’t
13 know. Like when I left, I want to say like seven,
14 eight, something like that.
15 Q. Okay. Now, at one point you said that
16 towards the end of their stay at Neverland — excuse
17 me, let me rephrase that.
18 Toward the end of the Arvizos’ stay at
19 Neverland, you noticed that Gavin and Star’s room
20 was consistently messy, right.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And that’s the room in the guest quarters,
23 right.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. When you say “towards the end,” what do you
26 mean.
27 A. Before they didn’t come back, really.
28 Q. Would that have been, say, a week before 2591
1 they didn’t come back. Two weeks.
2 A. Two weeks probably.
3 Q. So approximately two weeks before the
4 Arvizos left for good, you noticed that Gavin and
5 Star’s room was consistently messy, right.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And that indicated to you that they were
8 staying in that room, right.
9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; calls for a
10 conclusion.
11 THE COURT: Overruled.
12 You may answer.
13 THE WITNESS: I thought they were. But I
14 don’t know if they were or not.
15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: But there was a period
16 where you would often not see their rooms a mess,
17 right.
18 A. Yes. I mean, they were sloppy. But towards
19 the end, their room was just — things were broken
20 and it was — it was a mess.
21 Q. Now, during this last couple of weeks that
22 they were at Neverland, when you say their room was
23 a mess, what did you do when you discovered this.
24 A. I was with Maria one time and — when we
25 discovered it, and we decided to talk to the house
26 manager and let him know, because it was getting
27 really bad.
28 Q. And during those last two weeks that the 2592
1 Arvizos were at Neverland, what specifically did you
2 notice about Gavin and Star’s room.
3 A. That it was just torn apart.
4 Q. They really trashed it.
5 A. Yeah.
6 Q. Please tell the jury how they trashed it, if
7 you know.
8 A. I can’t say for sure what had happened, but
9 there was things spilled. There was glasses broken.
10 The refrigerator was a mess, too. Every unit has
11 its own refrigerator, and it was — it just looked
12 like somebody had just gone in there like a tornado
13 and — like a whirlwind.
14 Q. Did you ever talk to Gavin or Star about
15 that.
16 A. No, I don’t think I did.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. Because it wasn’t my place to.
19 Q. Was it your responsibility simply to clean
20 it.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And you said you made a complaint to
23 somebody.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Who did you make a complaint to.
26 A. The house manager.
27 Q. And who was that.
28 A. Jesus Salas. 2593
1 Q. Okay. Did you tell Jesus Salas that they
2 had broken things in the guest unit.
3 A. Maria was with me, and I think he even came
4 in and saw the mess. I can’t remember for sure.
5 But I know that he — somehow he knew about it.
6 Q. And was their bedroom a complete mess.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Was the bed a mess.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What was broken.
11 A. There was some glasses in the rooms that
12 they have. Every room has a couple of glasses in
13 it, and some wine glasses and that kind of thing,
14 and the glasses were broken.
15 So I don’t remember which glass in specific
16 it was, but there was broken glass, and there was no
17 attempt to clean up the mess.
18 Q. Was anything else wrong with their room
19 during those last two weeks the Arvizos were at
20 Neverland.
21 A. Not anything else that I can think of. Just
22 about how — how it was just — there was no care as
23 to how the room was kept. It was like that.
24 Q. So the bed was a mess, right.
25 A. I remember — if memory serves me correct,
26 yes.
27 Q. The chairs were a mess.
28 A. The furniture was moved, yes. 2594
1 Q. Was there garbage around.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Broken glass around.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did it look like furniture had been damaged
6 to you.
7 A. I don’t know if it had been damaged, but it
8 had been moved.
9 Q. Was there food around.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did it look like they’d spilled drinks
12 around.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. How about the bathroom. Did they make a
15 mess out of the bathroom.
16 A. I think the door was shut.
17 Q. Okay. All right. Did you ever mention any
18 of this to their mother Janet.
19 A. No.
20 Q. All right.
21 A. It wasn’t my place.
22 Q. Okay. So you didn’t think it was your
23 responsibility to talk to them about this, right.
24 A. No.
25 Q. You just felt it was your responsibility to
26 clean it, and report it, right.
27 A. I just thought it might be good for somebody
28 to know what was happening. 2595
1 Q. Okay. And you didn’t ever directly report
2 this to Michael Jackson, right.
3 A. No.
4 Q. You just reported it to the person in the
5 chain of employment that you were supposed to report
6 to.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. Did you discuss it with anyone else
9 besides Jesus Salas.
10 A. Maria.
11 Q. And who is Maria.
12 A. Maria Gomez, another housekeeper.
13 Q. And do you know if she did anything about
14 it.
15 A. Well, like I said, I think that it was she
16 and I together that went and told Jesus.
17 Q. Okay. Together you did that.
18 A. Yeah, I believe it was together, because I
19 remember being in the room with her also when — I
20 think we went to go clean it together.
21 Q. Okay. Was your complaint an oral complaint,
22 or was it in writing.
23 A. No, it was verbal.
24 Q. Okay. To your knowledge, did Jesus Salas do
25 anything about it.
26 A. I don’t know what he did.
27 Q. Okay. Did you just make one complaint.
28 A. Yes. 2596
Next, Mesereau asked Fournier about why there was such a need for security at Neverland, and she testified that it was to protect Jackson against his “sicko fans”; of course, she didn’t consider all of Jackson’s fans to be “sicko”, but there were a few that certainly were deserving of that title! For example, Fournier described one “unstable” fan that successfully made his way unto the property, but before she could describe this fan and how he was able to impregnate Neverland’s security forces, Auchincloss objected, and Judge Melvill sustained it. This particular incident was one of many reasons why Jackson installed the alarms outside of his bedroom:
1 Q. All right. Now, I mentioned security at
2 Neverland. There was a lot of concern about
3 security at Neverland, wasn’t there.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You yourself, for example, were worried
6 about Michael Jackson’s fans, right.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You told the sheriffs you were worried about
9 his sicko fans coming onto the property and being a
10 threat to people, right.
11 A. Only some of them.
12 Q. Only some of them.
13 A. Yes. Not all fans are sicko.
14 Q. No, I didn’t mean that.
15 (Laughter.)
16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: But you were worried about
17 the fact that Mr. Jackson is so popular around the
18 world that, as you described it, sicko fans could
19 provide a security threat, right.
20 A. Well, yeah, there was one incident that
21 stood out in my mind about a fan that was quite
22 unstable, would seem to me. And people like that
23 don’t really make me feel comfortable.
24 Q. And did this person try to get on the
25 property.
26 A. Many of them have, yes. Actually, one of
27 them did. A couple of them did.
28 Q. And what happened. 2597
1 A. Well —
2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object as to
3 relevancy and time.
4 THE COURT: Sustained.
Since Fournier was unable to tell her story, I’ll tell it for her! The fan that she was going to describe was also described by Kit Culkin (Macaulay’s father) in his 2005 book “Lost Boy” in this excerpt from page48:
What the child molestation charges of 1993 did, perhaps above all else, were to insist that Michael forever thereafter, as to everything that he would ever do in life, be viewed solely through a lens of pedophilia. I’ll give but a single “for instance”; one that goes to the well-reported on alarm system just outside Michael’s bedroom and the so-called “secret room” actually in that bedroom. Michael, remember, is a Scardey-Cat, which isn’t to say that there weren’t times when perhaps he had just cause to be so. Take the helicopters that would buzz Neverland on a daily basis (indeed, often several times a day). One could hear their approach over and above the crackling speech on security walkie-talkies, which always attempted to give their positions (“Moving Northeast. Eleven O’Clock. Two Hundred Feet. Copy.”); this before their actual arrival, which could be perfectly deafening. It always gave one the sense that an invasion was taking place. So bad and so frequent did these visits become as to cause Michael at one point to make in-depth inquiries regarding the purchase of the air space directly above this property (such as Manhattan real-estate tycoons are allowed); solicitations which only led to his being told that local zoning laws did not allow for this. Many of these helicopters contained (none-too-surprisingly) “ladies and gentlemen of the press”, who (we should all well know) have an absolute license under the First Article of the Bill of Rights (also known as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution), to do pretty much as they please, no matter how much it may infringe upon an individual’s right to the pursuit of happiness in the privacy of his or her own home. American freedom, after all, depends on it (the media themselves will tell you this); and it is a license that, when it is not our own personal pursuit and our own personal privacy that is at risk, we all perfectly relish! But, be this as it shamefully may, others of these whirly-bird attack squads were not made up of such “girls and boys”, but rather of the merely curious; folks who would gladly pay for a helicopter rid who’s tour included as its centerpiece the buzzing of Michael’s home. To Michael the Scardey-Cat they all represented the specter of hooded terrorists, dressed as perfect ninjas, skidding down ropes onto the property, the better to commit “The Kidnapping of the Century”; and even though (in perfect hindsight) none of this ever did occur, there were other times when no less benign incidents would only go to feed this fear. Take the morning when Michael arose and walked into his private garden, there to find a fan crouched in the bushes; a fan “fanatical” enough (for so comes the word) to enter the property and scale the wall and spend the night there (Can anyone yet remember the just who and the just where of John Lennon’s murder?!). That Michael would respond to such as this by actually outfitting his bedroom with a relatively conspicuous store-bought beam alarm system (one that the entire cleaning staff knew existed and that could be simply stepped over), as well as with a so-called “secret room” (really a closet) to which he could run in times of such emergency should not surprise anyone; indeed, these are things that under like circumstances most any of us would do. But when viewed through the lens of pedophilia, the existence of these could only have a far more sinister purpose. And that (and all like unto it) was Michael’s problem in a nutshell, and here was little that Michael could thereafter ever do about it. It was the bell that couldn’t be un-rung. It was the genie who wouldn’t return to the bottle.
And here is a short excerpt from Dr. Karen Moriarty’s “Defending A King”, page 52:
Not that anything was really considered “routine” by his security team. They remained ever-vigilant to every sound and car headlight during their assigned shifts. They knew that at any time the elaborate electronic surveillance equipment, a determined, skilled individual could successfully climb over the eight-foot perimeter wall and forcibly gain entrance to the house, especially if undetected for a span of minutes.
Years before a crazed fan had somehow gotten into Michael Jackson’s Neverland home, hiding out in a closet for four days, coming out only at night to use a restroom and raid the refrigerator. She was caught and removed, but her successful home invasion served as a message that the best security program can be breached.
After a court recess, Mesereau questioned Fournier about statements she made in her interviews with sheriff’s detectives about the implausibility of the Arvizo family being held hostage at Neverland, and she confirmed and reiterated those sentiments on the witness stand. She testified that if they wanted to leave Neverland, they could have literally walked away anytime:
3 Q. Okay. You were interviewed by the Santa
4 Barbara sheriffs a couple of times, right.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And they asked you if you were aware of the
7 Arvizos feeling that they were confined at Neverland
8 and couldn’t leave. Do you remember that
9 discussion.
10 A. Yes.
11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.
12 THE COURT: I don’t remember that discussion.
13 You asked her, but — I’ll sustain the objection.
14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you recall, in your
15 interview with the Santa Barbara Sheriffs,
16 discussing the question of whether or not the
17 Arvizos were free to leave Neverland.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. But you basically laughed at the idea,
20 didn’t you.
21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Calls for a
22 conclusion; no foundation
23 THE COURT: Argumentative. It’s sustained.
24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Didn’t you tell the
25 sheriffs, “How hard is it to leave. Just walk”.
26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. It’s
27 argumentative; calls for a conclusion.
28 THE COURT: Overruled. 2604
1 You may answer. Do you want that question
2 read back.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, please.
4 (Record read.)
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, something along those
6 lines.
7 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. And in your
8 opinion, the idea that they would be confined,
9 confined at Neverland, is ridiculous, right.
10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Argumentative;
11 calls for a conclusion; no foundation.
12 THE COURT: Sustained.
13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In your police interview,
14 or, excuse me, one of them — actually, it’s the
15 sheriffs. In your sheriffs’ interview, you
16 described the Arvizo children as destructive, didn’t
17 you.
18 A. Yes.
Next, Fournier was asked to clarify Jackson’s relationships with the families of the “young boys” that prosecutors alleged that Jackson had intimate relationships with to the exclusion of their parents. She confirmed that Jackson was friends with not only the young boys, but their entire families, and many celebrities also visited the ranch with their children:
19 Q. You were asked questions about Mr. Jackson’s
20 relationship with the Cascio family in your
21 sheriffs’ interview, right.
22 A. I can’t remember, but I’m sure you’ll tell
23 me if I did.
24 Q. And you indicated that Michael was a close
25 friend of the entire family, right.
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. Including the parents and the children, the
28 boys and the girl, right. 2605
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. Now, the prosecutor for the
3 government asked you some questions about other
4 young boys, as he put it, that Mr. Jackson knew
5 through the years, right.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And would you agree that, like most people,
8 Mr. Jackson sometimes became a closer friend of some
9 families rather than others, correct.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And the so-called “young boys” the
12 prosecutor referred to would come with their
13 families, correct.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In fact, Jimmy Safechuck was married at
16 Neverland, wasn’t he. Do you remember that.
17 A. I didn’t even know he was married.
18 Q. Okay. McCaulay Culkin’s family would come,
19 right.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did it seem — let me rephrase that.
22 You’ve said that during the time you’ve
23 worked at Neverland, thousands of children have
24 visited, right.
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. But certainly there are families that
27 Michael Jackson, in your opinion, was closer to —
28 A. Yes. 2606
1 Q. — than others, right.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. There are friendships he’s developed through
4 the years which seem to have lasted for many years,
5 correct.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And like any other human being, some
8 families would visit periodically, rather than
9 others, right.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. There would be many celebrity-type visitors
12 to Neverland from time to time, right.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You would see the Brandos.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Who else would you see.
17 A. Elizabeth Taylor. Chris Tucker. I think
18 Chris Rock was there. I don’t know the names of the
19 basketball players.
In this post from the MJJ-777 blog, Kobe Bryant spoke of the times that he hung out at Neverland with Jackson in this interview, and there were many other basketball players who spent time at Neverland as well (most likely from the Los Angeles Lakers and Clippers)
Next, Mesereau questioned Fournier about what she thought of the fact that Jackson oftentimes let guest tour the main house, and she replied that she felt that he could be too nice at times:
27 Q. And would you agree that most people who
28 visit Neverland like to walk through the main house, 2608
1 don’t they.
2 A. Walk through the main house.
3 Q. If they can.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. They like to see all the artwork and the
6 antiques and the way Michael Jackson has decorated
7 his home, correct.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And isn’t it typical that visitors will make
10 a request, “Can we see the main house.”
11 A. Sometimes they have, yes.
12 Q. And is it your understanding that quite
13 often Mr. Jackson will allow someone to take them
14 through.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. He allows that a lot, doesn’t he.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Sounds like you don’t think he should,
19 right.
20 A. No.
21 Q. Do you think he’s too nice to a lot of
22 people who visit Neverland.
23 A. Sometimes, yes, I — sometimes I got a
24 little concerned, but it’s not my place.
25 Q. Okay. You thought he was being too generous
26 and nice to visitors, right.
27 A. Yes. And sometimes — yes.
In this excerpt, Fournier reiterated that alcohol was often left unlocked in the kitchen, thus making it easily accessible to the Arvizo boys:
28 Q. Okay. When did you notice the Arvizo 2609
1 children becoming so destructive.
2 A. Towards the end of their stay, in the
3 beginning of 2003.
4 Q. The beginning of 2003.
5 A. Yeah, towards the end of their stay in the
6 beginning, 2003.
7 Q. Did you make any complaints other than the
8 one you just described.
9 A. Not that I can remember, no.
10 Q. Okay. Okay. Now, I was asking you a
11 question, and I think I got sidetracked a little
12 bit. It had to do with the availability of alcohol
13 in the kitchen. Remember that question.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And isn’t alcohol found in the kitchen from
16 time to time.
17 A. Yeah, I think by the sink to the left, there
18 was a cabinet that did have some alcohol in it.
19 Q. And that generally wasn’t locked, right.
20 A. No.
21 Q. Would you find alcohol once in a while in
22 the refrigerator unit, you know, with the
23 see-through glass.
24 A. Yes. We would put that in there.
In this excerpt, Mesereau asked Fournier to clarify her earlier statements to Zonen that she saw children intoxicated with Jackson at a dinner table in September 2003. Fournier stated that she never saw Jackson offer alcohol to any child, but when Mesereau attempted to ask her about Jackson’s physical ailments that required drugs prescribed by his doctor, Auchincloss objected, and it was sustained by Judge Melville. Mesereau wanted Fournier to describe Jackson’s treatments in order to explain to the jury why Jackson appeared to be “intoxicated”; it was a result of the prescription drugs that he was taking!
10 Q. And when you said that you saw three kids at
11 the table one time that you were concerned might be
12 intoxicated, you never saw Mr. Jackson give them
13 anything.
14 A. No.
15 Q. Now, are you aware — excuse me. Let me
16 just limit this to a time period. Let’s say 2002,
17 2003. You were aware that Mr. Jackson had some
18 medical problems from time to time, correct.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And you would see his doctor, for example,
21 come to Neverland once in a while, right.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And you were aware that he needed
24 injections.
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. And he would, at times, have a reaction to
27 those injections; do you remember that.
28 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; foundation. 2611
1 THE COURT: Sustained.
Next, Fournier explained that when she testified earlier that kids at Neverland needed more supervision, she wasn’t trying to imply that Jackson needed to supervise them (“How could he supervise that many children?” she asked.), but rather that the Neverland employees and the parents themselves should have taken a more active role at times. Notice how Fournier says that the busloads of disadvantaged kids were not the problem, as they were supervised by their chaperones:
2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When you said — you used
3 the term “Pinnochio’s Pleasure Island” in response
4 to the government prosecutor. Were you suggesting
5 that you thought Michael Jackson himself should
6 supervise kids more personally.
7 A. No, I don’t think that he should. I mean,
8 how could he supervise that many children. There
9 needed to be more people to supervise them, or their
10 parents.
11 Q. So were you — excuse me. Let me rephrase
12 it. Were you meaning to be a little more critical
13 of their parents when you talked about kids being
14 out of control.
15 A. Well, yes, that too. Because some kids —
16 I mean, well, some parents won’t discipline even
17 their own children, so sometimes the parents didn’t
18 even help. But I think it’s just sometimes the
19 character of the person, too, because some of them
20 were just crazy.
21 Q. Yeah. Did you ever voice your concerns that
22 parents should be paying more attention to their
23 kids at Neverland.
24 A. I might have, over the years, to some of my
25 co-workers. But I can’t think of anything right
26 now.
27 The thing that really worried me that I can
28 say that I thought about, too, is that there’s a 2612
1 lake there. And I worried more about the lake than
2 I did about the pool. If you leave these children
3 unsupervised, I mean, they could fall in the lake.
4 And that’s just always what concerned me more.
5 Q. And you would see lots of children that you
6 thought should be better supervised at Neverland
7 during periods when Michael wasn’t even there,
8 right.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And your understanding was he had allowed
11 people to bring children to Neverland, enjoy the
12 premises, and when he wasn’t even around, right.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. When that would happen, was it your
15 understanding that Mr. Jackson was relying on the
16 Neverland personnel to try and supervise or keep
17 control.
18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Foundation.
19 Personal knowledge as to what Mr. Jackson knew.
20 THE COURT: Overruled.
21 You may answer.
22 THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, could you say that
23 again.
24 MR. MESEREAU: Yes.
25 Q. When large numbers of children would visit
26 Neverland with whoever came with them —
27 A. Uh-huh.
28 Q. — and Mr. Jackson was not there, was it 2613
1 your understanding that Neverland staff or employees
2 were supposed to supervise.
3 A. Yes, to some degree. And sometimes there
4 was some children that got really out of control.
5 Like, for instance, I think sometimes we would put
6 the golf carts away or put the quads away, because
7 some of them just — they would probably have been a
8 danger to themselves. So in that way, we did take a
9 little bit more authority, probably, than we should
10 have sometimes, but —
11 Q. When you say you would take authority, do
12 you mean that you would sort of, in your mind,
13 substitute for a parent almost.
14 A. Yeah. Sometimes, I think, yes.
15 Q. And are you talking about situations where,
16 say, a lot of kids would come on buses, say, from
17 the inner city, and in your opinion there would be
18 too few adults taking care of them.
19 A. Typically those seemed to be better
20 supervised than the kids that were left at Neverland
21 without their parents.
22 Q. Right.
23 A. Because if Mr. Jackson wasn’t there and
24 their parents weren’t there, it kind of would fall
25 on us, and —
26 Q. Okay. Were there rules and procedures in
27 effect at Neverland.
28 A. Somewhat, yes. 2614
1 Q. And were they written up, to your knowledge.
2 A. As far as — well, there was an employee
3 handbook.
4 Q. And to your knowledge, did the employee
5 handbook discuss what to do in situations where you
6 had visitors.
7 A. I can’t remember. Sorry.
8 Q. When is the last time you looked at that
9 handbook.
10 A. Probably ‘92, ‘93.
11 Q. Okay. That was quite a while ago. All
12 right.
When questioned by Mesereau if she ever saw or thought that the Arvizos were intoxicated, Fournier testified that she didn’t, and that she didn’t know what motivated Star to pull a knife on her in the kitchen:
10 Q. Okay. You never saw the Arvizo kids look
11 like they were intoxicated, did you.
12 A. No. I don’t remember them specifically
13 being intoxicated. I don’t.
14 Q. You don’t remember you looking at their
15 behavior and saying to yourself, “They look
16 intoxicated to me,” right.
17 A. Yeah, no, they —
18 Q. That never happened, right.
19 A. No, I didn’t really ever pay attention.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. So I don’t know.
22 Q. But just based on the times you were there,
23 and the work you did and what you saw, you don’t
24 recall ever seeing Gavin Arvizo, Star Arvizo, or
25 Davellin Arvizo intoxicated, right.
26 A. Well, like when Star put the knife in my
27 back, I mean, was he intoxicated. I don’t know.
28 Was he just playing around. I don’t know. So — 2616
1 Q. Let me just rephrase it, then.
2 To the best of your knowledge, during the
3 time you observed the Arvizo children at Neverland,
4 you never thought they were intoxicated, right.
5 A. I didn’t think so, no.
6 Q. Okay. Did you ever, in your mind, smell
7 alcohol on the Arvizo kids.
8 A. No. I never paid attention.
Mesereau continued to question Fournier about her interactions with the Arvizo family at Neverland, and her experiences in general at Neverland, with no new bombshell revelations, he quickly ended his cross-examination.
Under redirect-examination, Auchincloss took the opportunity to have Fournier elaborate on the time when she claimed to have seen Jackson and a group of children sitting at the dinner table, intoxicated. In an attempt to prejudice the jury, Auchincloss resorted to an ad hominen attack on Jackson by asking Fournier if she would allow her own children to be at Neverland, to which Mesereau immediately objected, and Judge Melville sustained his objection:
20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
21 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:
22 Q. Miss Fournier, did you ever deliver food to
23 Mr. Jackson at the ranch house.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. On how many occasions.
26 A. Well, I don’t know if he was there. I know
27 that Joey was there, and he called to get some food
28 to be delivered to the ranch house. 2632
1 Q. Okay. Did you take the call.
2 A. I don’t remember if I took the call or not,
3 but — or somebody told me, but I brought the basket
4 of food down there.
5 Q. Do you know — what were your instructions
6 as far as this basket of food goes.
7 A. To take some munchies down to the ranch
8 house.
9 Q. On that day that you took some munchies to
10 the ranch house, did you see Mr. Jackson in the
11 presence of children after that period.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did any of those children appear to be
14 intoxicated.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you remember which — what their names
17 were.
18 A. I think Joey was there at the table.
19 Q. What’s — do you know Joey’s last name.
20 A. No.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. And there was — I don’t remember their
23 names right now.
24 Q. Okay. Were any of these children local
25 children from the local community.
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. Do you know what town they’re from.
28 A. I think Los Olivos. 2633
1 Q. Do you remember any of their names.
2 A. I can’t think of any of them right now.
3 Q. All right. You talked about the fact that
4 there were certain — there was a certain amount of
5 excess at Neverland with children.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. How long did that go on during your period
8 of employment. How long was it that you felt that
9 children were allowed — didn’t have boundaries.
10 A. Well, the first day that I got there, there
11 was silly string all over the inside of the house,
12 so I don’t know if you would consider that, but —
13 no boundaries, but just something like that.
14 Q. Have you ever seen Mr. Jackson intoxicated.
15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.
16 THE COURT: Overruled.
17 You may answer.
18 THE WITNESS: I don’t know if he was
19 intoxicated or he was under a doctor’s orders taking
20 medication. I don’t know.
21 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. My question
22 goes to intoxicated by any substance, regardless of
23 what. Did he ever appear to be under the influence
24 of some substance.
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. Did you ever see him where he appeared
27 intoxicated in the presence of children who appeared
28 intoxicated. 2634
1 A. I can’t say for sure on that one.
2 Q. If you have an opinion, I’d like to know it.
3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; asked and
4 answered.
5 THE COURT: Sustained.
6 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You said you can’t say
7 for sure. Why is that.
8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; asked and
9 answered.
10 THE COURT: Overruled.
11 You may answer that.
12 THE WITNESS: Well, that one time at the
13 table, I remember him appearing like he might be
14 intoxicated when I was serving.
15 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. When the
16 other children were also intoxicated.
17 A. I believe some of them were, yes.
18 Q. Yes. The three children that you mentioned.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Did Janet Arvizo ever have food delivered in
21 her room.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. When the Cascio children were there, did
24 they spend time with the Arvizo children.
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. Would the Cascio and Arvizo children spend
27 time together with the defendant.
28 A. Yes. 2635
1 Q. Do you believe that Neverland is a healthy
2 place for children.
3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; improper opinion.
4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Based on every — well, I
5 can finish the question, add a little to the
6 question.
7 THE COURT: You may finish your question.
8 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.
9 Q. Based on everything you’ve seen there —
10 you’ve talked somewhat extensively on cross and
11 direct about these boundaries, and about children
12 misbehaving, and authority, that kind of thing.
13 Based on everything you’ve seen and know
14 about Neverland during your period of employment
15 there, do you believe this is a healthy place for
16 children, healthy environment.
17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Improper opinion;
18 no foundation; relevance; 352.
19 THE COURT: Sustained.
20 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Would you allow your
21 own children to stay at Neverland.
22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance;
23 improper opinion; 352; foundation.
24 THE COURT: Relevance; sustained.
In this excerpt, Fournier makes a clear distinction between the busloads of kids that would take field trips to Neverland and the children of Jackson’s guests:
11 Q. You said that busloads of kids would come to
12 visit Mr. Jackson at Neverland, or visit Neverland,
13 I should say.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Was Mr. Jackson there typically, when the
16 busloads of kids would be there.
17 A. Not typically, but sometimes he was.
18 Q. Would those children spend the night.
19 A. Not the busloads of kids, no.
20 Q. Okay. So was there a difference between the
21 kids that would be guests and children who would
22 just come up in a busload.
23 A. Somewhat, yes.
24 Q. Was there a difference in the behavior of
25 the children who were guests of Mr. Jackson than the
26 behavior of the kids in the busloads.
27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague.
28 THE COURT: Sustained. 2641
Fournier was then questioned about the incident in the kitchen when Star pulled a knife on her, but she explained that she didn’t feel threatened by it at all, and took it as a big joke, much to the chagrin of the defense:
10 Q. You said that Star Arvizo pulled a knife on
11 you in the kitchen.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. All right. Did you feel threatened.
14 A. No.
15 Q. You’re smiling.
16 A. Well, I mean, I didn’t feel comfortable
17 about it. Who wants a knife in your back, you know,
18 but —
19 Q. Was it your impression that Star was joking
20 with you.
21 A. Yes. I thought he was joking and trying to
22 assert some sort of authority.
23 Q. All right. He didn’t hurt you with the
24 knife.
25 A. No.
26 Q. And didn’t — what did you say in response
27 to him.
28 A. “You’re going to have to catch me first.” 2643
1 Q. So did you feel like you were joking back to
2 him when you said that.
3 A. Yeah, I was —
4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.
5 THE COURT: You may answer the question. You
6 started to answer it. Go ahead.
7 THE WITNESS: Okay. Well, I didn’t like it,
8 so —
9 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: When you said that, did
10 you feel like you were joking back.
11 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading;
12 mischaracterizes the testimony.
13 THE COURT: Well, it’s asked and answered.
14 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Well, did you run
15 afterwards. That’s the —
16 A. No.
17 Q. So you weren’t serious when you said that.
18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.
19 THE COURT: Sustained.
20 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Were you serious when
21 you said that.
22 A. Well, if he would have chased me, yes.
23 Q. But did he chase you.
24 A. No.
After being asked a few more general questions about her recollection of the events at Neverland in early 2003, Auchincloss and Mesereau ended their questioning, and Fournier was released.
Let’s look at how the media spun Fournier’s testimony in favor of the prosecution:
Neverland housekeeper: Kids drank, slept with Jackson
Michael Jackson’s former housekeeper described Neverland Ranch on Thursday as a place where children “became wild” during long stays without their parents, drank alcohol in Jackson’s presence and often slept with the pop star, instead of in their assigned guest rooms.
But under cross-examination, the woman testified that she never saw Jackson serve alcohol to minors. Additionally, she said she believed the accuser and his brother were staying in guest rooms — not Jackson’s room — during the time the boy says he was molested.
Testifying in Jackson’s child molestation trial, Kiki Fournier said Jackson would focus his attention on particular children — all of whom were boys between 10 and 15.
She said the string of boys included movie star Macaulay Culkin; the accuser in the current case and his younger brother; a boy whose family reached a multimillion-dollar settlement with Jackson in 1993 after alleging molestation; and Frank Tyson, a Jackson associate now in his early 20s, who has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the current case.
The indictment against Jackson alleges that he paid Tyson $1 million on March 31, 2003 — about two weeks after the accuser and his family left Neverland for the final time.
Fournier worked at the Jackson home for about 12 years before leaving in September 2003.
Also Thursday, one of the investigators who searched Neverland, Sgt. Konn Able of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department, testified that he found books with nude and semi-nude photos of adolescents in the restroom of Jackson’s office, and the office also contained surveillance equipment that could be used to monitor phone calls.
However, under defense cross-examination, he said he could not say for sure whether it had ever been used and did not know if the equipment could be bought legally. He also conceded it could have been used as part of the security system at the ranch.
The prosecution alleged in its indictment of Jackson that the singer monitored the phone calls of his accuser’s mother as part of a conspiracy to intimidate and control the family.
Summary of the Testimony of Kiki Fournier
1. Kiki Fournier was a former housekeeper at Neverland ranch who worked there from September 1991 through September 2003, and quit on her own volition. Her duties included cleaning the main residence, guest quarters, and the theater. Fournier asked that she not be forced to testify because she “didn’t want to be at the center of attention”, but nevertheless her subpoena was served.
2. Auchincloss wanted Fournier to describe if and how Jackson would terminate employees so that he could show how much influence Jackson exerted over them. The prosecution argued that Neverland was run by Jackson in almost a mobster-type atmosphere, where employees worked in fear because they could be fired by Jackson at a moment’s notice based on any perceived disciplinary violation. She testified that she knew that she could be fired at any moment, and that she had witnessed other employees being fired, but Jackson had others deliver the bad news; he never fired anyone personally.
3. After describing her work at Neverland and her interactions with Jackson and his inner circle, Fournier was asked by Auchincloss to describe to the court Jackson’s interactions with children (primarily when he was alone with them), whether or not their parents were with them at the ranch when they spent the night (they were, for the most part, although “there were quite a bit without their parents”). According to Fournier, there generally weren’t any rules or regulations at Neverland, and they could stay up as late as they want, eat as much junk food as they want, etc.
4. When Auchincloss questioned Fournier on arguably the most controversial aspect of Neverland – “Where did the children sleep at night?” – Fournier testified that they generally would stay in Jackson’s room. Most of the time, children were assigned guest units with their parents, and but sometimes they would get permission to sleep in Jackson’s bedroom.
5. Fournier testified that the behavior of children changed while they were at Neverland. She described Neverland as “Pinocchio’s Pleasure Island” because children became wild and rambunctious outside the presence of their parents. This was part of the prosecutions’ attempt to give the jury the impression that Gavin and Star’s behavior changed as a result of the abuse that they suffered and witnessed, respectively, but Fournier described their change as going from polite to trashing their guest suite. However, there were other employees who also testified that they saw Gavin and Star engaging in rampant misbehavior even BEFORE the alleged acts of abuse started, and that was indicative of their destructive and disobedient nature.
6. In an attempt to prejudice the jury into thinking that Jackson was a serial child predator, Auchincloss asked Fournier about the “special relationships” that Jackson allegedly had with Macaulay Culkin, Jordan Chandler, Brett Barnes, Frank Cascio, and others. Mesereau objected based on the court’s 1108 Prior Bad Acts ruling (which was still pending at this time). Judge Melville sustained Mesereau’s objection, so Zonen instead asked Fournier to describe any “similar characteristics” that these young boys had, in order to paint Jackson as someone who had a certain “type”. This was such an egregious violation of the court’s order to not mention any of the prior victims that the defense used this incident as grounds for a mistrial!
7. After grilling Fournier about Jackson’s relationships with his young friends, Auchincloss next questioned her about Jackson’s consumption of alcohol. In an absolutely bombshell revelation, Fournier testified that she had seen children intoxicated “three to four times”, but when asked if she had ever seen them intoxicated in Jackson’s presence, she couldn’t ascertain it. She gave an example of a time when Jackson and four or five children were at the dinner table in September 2003, with no other adults around, and “at least three” of the children appeared to be intoxicated. Prior to being at the table, they were at the ranch house, but when Zonen asked Fournier if Jackson was with them at the ranch house, she said she thought so, but Mesereau objected and Judge Melville sustained it and admonished the jury to disregard her answer. Zonen was trying to establish to the jury that Jackson gave the children alcohol while they were all at the ranch house, and then brought them to the main house to eat dinner Auchincloss ‘s direct examination ended after this series of quests on Jackson’s alcohol consumption.
8. Under cross examination, Mesereau asked Fournier to confirm that fact that the entire Cascio family were frequent guests at Neverland, including Frank’s younger sister Marie Nichole, who Auchincloss conveniently omitted from his direct examination.
9. Fournier was asked to describe the field trips that busloads of disadvantaged inner city children took to Neverland. She testified that Jackson never supervised the kids because they were supervised by the chaperones that accompanied them to the ranch.
10. Mesereau questioned Fournier about her impressions on some of Jackson’s inner circle. She testified that she thought Marc Schaffel was an “opportunist”, and one of many who she observed during her employment at Neverland.
11. Mesereau threw a wedge in the prosecution’s claim that Jackson was in charge of everything at Neverland, even when he was away, by asking Fournier to describe who she took orders from during the many weeks and months at a time when Jackson was away on business. She testified that Jackson delegates what he wants done to his ranch managers, and they disseminate that information to their subordinates.
12. Mesereau questioned Fournier about her interactions with the Arvizo family. In a contrast to what she testified earlier about going into the rooms that children were assigned to sleep in and finding the beds undisturbed in the morning, Fournier describes how the Arvizos completely trashed their room in the guest unit, as well as their outrageous demands of wanting specific meals prepared for them when they were served dinner, crashing Jackson’s go-karts, etc. Fournier had no knowledge of Gavin and Star being caught masturbating in their room, watching pornography, or drinking alcohol, however, but other Neverland employees will testify about what they saw later on in the trial. Fournier also testified that Star pulled a knife on her as they were in the kitchen, sometime in February 2003.
13. Fournier testified that the wine cellar was oftentimes unlocked and open during her tenure at Neverland, which would explain why Gavin and Star were able access the alcohol that they consumed during their “imprisonment”.
14. Fournier describes how Gavin and Star trashed their guest room during their last two weeks at Neverland, and this made her so concerned that she notified the house manager Jesus Salas. Fournier and the other staff noticed that there was broken glass, spilled liquids, the refrigerator was trashed, and other malicious signs of abuse and neglect.
15. Mesereau asked Fournier about why there was such a need for security at Neverland, and she testified that it was to protect Jackson against his “sicko fans”; of course, she didn’t consider all of Jackson’s fans to be “sicko”, but there were a few that certainly were deserving of that title! For example, Fournier described one “unstable” fan that successfully made his way unto the property, but before she could describe this fan and how he was able to impregnate Neverland’s security forces, Auchincloss objected, and Judge Melvill sustained it. This particular incident was one of many reasons why Jackson installed the alarms outside of his bedroom.
16. Mesereau questioned Fournier about statements she made in her interviews with sheriff’s detectives about the implausibility of the Arvizo family being held hostage at Neverland, and she confirmed and reiterated those sentiments on the witness stand. She testified that if they wanted to leave Neverland, they could have literally walked away anytime.
17. Fournier was asked to clarify Jackson’s relationships with the families of the “young boys” that prosecutors alleged that Jackson had intimate relationships with to the exclusion of their parents. She confirmed that Jackson was friends with not only the young boys, but their entire families, and many celebrities also visited the ranch with their children.
18. Mesereau asked Fournier to clarify her earlier statements to Zonen that she saw children intoxicated with Jackson at a dinner table in September 2003. Fournier stated that she never saw Jackson offer alcohol to any child, but when Mesereau attempted to ask her about Jackson’s physical ailments that required drugs prescribed by his doctor, Auchincloss objected, and it was sustained by Judge Melville. Mesereau wanted Fournier to describe Jackson’s treatments in order to explain to the jury why Jackson appeared to be “intoxicated”; it was a result of the prescription drugs that he was taking!
19. Fournier explained that when she testified earlier that kids at Neverland needed more supervision, she wasn’t trying to imply that Jackson needed to supervise them (“How could he supervise that many children?” she asked.), but rather that the Neverland employees and the parents themselves should have taken a more active role at times.
20. When questioned by Mesereau if she ever saw or thought that the Arvizos were intoxicated, Fournier testified that she didn’t, and that she didn’t know what motivated Star to pull a knife on her in the kitchen. However, later on during redirect examination, Fournier explained that she didn’t feel threatened by it at all, and took it as a big joke, much to the chagrin of the defense.
21. Under redirect-examination, Auchincloss took the opportunity to have Fournier elaborate on the time when she claimed to have seen Jackson and a group of children sitting at the dinner table, intoxicated. In an attempt to prejudice the jury, Auchincloss resorted to an ad hominen attack on Jackson by asking Fournier if she would allow her own children to be at Neverland, to which Mesereau immediately objected, and Judge Melville sustained his objection.
22. After being asked a few more general questions about her recollection of the events at Neverland in early 2003, Auchincloss and Mesereau ended their questioning, and Fournier was released.
lynande51
sanemjfan
thetis7
Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0 
i think he really gave kids alcohol
he and the kids appeared intoxicated it couldn’t be a coincidence
why would kiki lie
+ or allowed him to do so
the maid knew they were intoxicated and he didn’t
not logical at all
and we all know that children take all the risks including alcohol
but he made alcohol available in neverland