Skip to content

March 17th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Fritz Coleman, Kiki Fournier, Ruby Wolff, Shawn O’Grady, Jeffery Ellis, and Conn Abel (Direct & Cross Examination), Part 3 of 3

July 18, 2012

After being asked a few more general questions about her recollection of the events at Neverland in early 2003, Fournier was released, and the next prosecution witness that was called was Ruby Wolf, a detective with the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department who participated in the Neverland raid by searching for evidence and interviewing employees. Det. Wolf found “a card” next to a dresser next to a sink in the master bathroom in Jackson’s bedroom suite.



24 Q. You’re employed by the sheriff’s department.

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. You’re going to have to lean into that.

27 How long have you been employed by the

28 sheriff’s department. 2647

1 A. Six years.

2 Q. And what is your present duty assignment.

3 A. I’m a detective.

4 Q. And where are you assigned in your detective

5 responsibilities.

6 A. Santa Maria station.

7 Q. All right. And back in November 18th of

8 2003, were you assigned to participate in the

9 execution of a search warrant at Neverland Valley

10 Ranch.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And specifically what was your duty

13 assignment at that time.

14 A. I was an interviewer and also a searcher.

15 Q. And during the course of the time that you

16 were a searcher, did you seize anything at the

17 location.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And could you tell the ladies and gentlemen

20 of the jury, where was it that you seized the item.

21 A. It was in the master bathroom in Mr.

22 Jackson’s residence.

23 Q. And specifically what was it that you took.

24 A. It was a card.

25 Q. And where was the card located when you saw

26 it for the first time.

27 A. It was next to a dresser next to a sink in

28 the bathroom. 2648

1 Q. And what did you do with that card after you

2 seized it.

3 A. I took it to Detective Padilla.

4 Q. And he was what we call “the scribe”; is

5 that correct.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. You told him where it was located.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Where you found it.

10 Do you have that exhibit with you.

11 A. Yes, I do.

12 Q. Let me identify it first.

13 No, the bag.

14 Your Honor, I have a brown bag with the

15 number “#310” in the upper right-hand corner in

16 black. And we’ve marked this as People’s 712 for

17 identification purposes.

18 THE COURT: All right.

19 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Now, would you just remove

20 the item that’s inside the bag. 712. And do you

21 recognize that.

22 A. Yes, I do.

23 Q. And was that the item that you seized and

24 gave to Detective Padilla.

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. And is it in the same condition as it was at

27 the time that you seized it.

28 A. Yes, it is. 2649

1 MR. SNEDDON: All right. Move that 712 be

2 admitted into evidence, Your Honor.

3 MR. MESEREAU: May I look at it for one

4 second, Your Honor.


6 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.

7 No objection, Your Honor.

8 THE COURT: All right. It’s admitted.

9 MR. SNEDDON: No further questions, Your

10 Honor.

11 MR. MESEREAU: May I just look at the card,

12 Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: Yes.

14 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.

Mesereau began his cross-examination by questioning Det. Wolff about the card, which was written by Gavin to Jackson, and was addressed as “daddy”:



18 Q. Does — Detective, is that the —

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. Thank you.

21 Detective, you found this card where.

22 A. In the master bathroom.

23 Q. Okay. And the card says, “I miss you, Daddy

24 Michael,” correct.

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. Did you read the card when you found it.

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. And what did you do after you read the card. 2650

1 A. Gave it to Detective Padilla.

2 Q. Okay. Now, this card says the following:

3 “Dear Daddy Michael. How are you. I can’t wait to

4 see you again and play with you at Neverland,

5 because we are going to be best friends and you are

6 my daddy forever,” right.

7 A. Right.

8 Q. It says, “You are the finest grown-up in the

9 world. I love you, Daddy Michael. And tell my

10 little brother and little sister that I love and

11 care about them. Thank you for everything, Daddy

12 Michael. Thank you for being my Daddy Michael.

13 Thank you for helping me be happy and beat cancer.

14 Happy Daddy’s Day, and I love you more. Love, your

15 Doo-Doo Head, Gavin Arvizo,” right.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And then there’s a heart and there’s print

18 inside the heart that says, “I love my Daddy Michael

19 forever,” right.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And then it says, “P.S.: Please give me

22 your new phone numbers, because I miss talking to

23 you.”

24 And then the writing continues, “My phone

25 number is 626-452-1693,” right.

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. Now, this card was in the purple envelope,

28 right. 2651

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And the envelope was addressed to “Daddy

3 Michael, from your son Gavin,” right.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And you see little faces that appear to be

6 sort of written on the envelope, correct.

7 A. Yes.

Mesereau finished off a relatively short cross-examination by asking if other greeting cards from the Arvizos were found, but Det. Wolff denied it:

2 MR. MESEREAU: Last question.

3 Q. Your property report says you retrieved

4 other greeting cards, correct.

5 A. That’s not correct.

6 Q. Is that not correct.

7 A. That’s not correct.

8 Q. Okay. It was only one greeting card.

9 A. Yes.

10 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. No further questions,

11 Your Honor.

12 MR. SNEDDON: Thank you. No further

13 questions.

14 THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down.

15 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

16 MR. SNEDDON: Let’s try O’Grady this time.

17 Detective. Did you walk off with the bag.

18 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. Sorry about that.

19 MR. SNEDDON: Thank you.

20 THE COURT: Come forward. When you get to

21 the witness stand, please remain standing. Face the

22 clerk and raise your right hand.

Deputy Shawn O’Grady was the next prosecution witness. He searched Jackson’s bedroom suite during the Neverland raid, and found a book with “sexually explicit material” in it, among several other items that he was asked to identify by Sneddon.

Under cross examination by Mesereau, Deputy O’Grady was asked if he knew of the book’s origins, and if he knew the name of the character on the cover of the book, to which he replied that he was unaware of the answer to both questions.



11 Q. Mr. O’Grady, you seized a book titled

12 “Bidgood,” and the name is “Taschen” at the bottom;

13 is that correct.

14 A. Yes, that’s correct.

15 Q. And do you know where that book came from.

16 A. No.

17 Q. Do you know that Mr. Taschen is a German

18 photographer who was going to photograph the Jackson

19 family.

20 A. I have no idea, no.

21 Q. Are you aware that Mr. Taschen sent this to

22 Mr. Jackson.

23 A. No, I do not.

24 Q. And that’s Peter Pan on the cover, correct.

25 A. I don’t know. It looks like a person

26 playing a pan flute. Could be like a mythological

27 person or something.

28 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. No further questions. 2665

The book that was seized is called “James Bidgood: Taschen’s 25th Anniversary Special Edition”, which consisted of various photographs taken by Bidgood throughout his career. As you can see from the link, it’s legal and commercially available for sale on Amazon!

The next prosecution witness was Investigator Jeffery Ellis, who participated in the raid of Neverland and seized several pornographic books from Jackson’s bedroom suite.



23 Q. Mr. Ellis, you’re employed by me.

24 A. That’s correct. By the District Attorney’s

25 Office.

26 Q. And how long have you been a detective/

27 investigator with the Santa Barbara District

28 Attorney’s Office. 2666

1 A. For four years.

2 Q. And prior to that, did you have any law

3 enforcement experience.

4 A. I did. I was a police officer in Lompoc for

5 nine years.

6 Q. Now, on November the 18th of 2003, you

7 participated in the execution of a search warrant at

8 Neverland Valley Ranch, correct.

9 A. I did.

10 Q. And during the course of your assignment

11 there, were you involved in doing some searching.

12 A. I did.

13 Q. And during the time that you were searching,

14 did you seize an item.

15 A. I did.

16 Q. And do you recall where that item was that

17 you seized.

18 A. It was in the lower — what I would describe

19 as the lower portion of the bedroom, Michael

20 Jackson’s bedroom, the downstairs.

21 Q. And where downstairs.

22 A. Near the fireplace.

23 Q. And was it on — sitting on something, or on

24 the floor, or do you recall.

25 A. It was in a bag, a B. Dalton book bag on the

26 floor, as I recall.

27 Q. And then when you seized that item, what did

28 you do with it. 2667

1 A. I gave it to the deputy that was logging in

2 evidence.

3 Q. Would that be Detective Padilla.

4 A. Yes, Detective Padilla.

5 Q. All right.

6 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’ve shown counsel

7 the two exhibits I would like to have marked. The

8 first one is a brown paper bag that contains the

9 number “#313” at the top. And it has an evidence

10 tag number 589 for identification purposes.

11 And a photograph, one-page photograph that

12 we’ve had marked as People’s 710 for identification

13 purposes.

14 MR. MESEREAU: No objection, Your Honor.

15 MR. SNEDDON: Well, let me get there first.

16 MR. MESEREAU: All right.

17 MR. SNEDDON: I appreciate the cooperation,

18 but….

19 Q. All right. Detective Ellis, first of all,

20 why don’t you take a look at the book, the Exhibit

21 589. You’re removing the book from the bag,

22 correct.

23 A. That’s correct.

24 Q. Do you recognize that book.

25 A. I do.

26 Q. And was that the book that you seized from

27 Mr. Jackson’s downstairs bedroom area.

28 A. That appears to be the same book. 2668

1 Q. Now, with regard to the exhibit, is it in

2 the same condition as it was at the time you seized

3 it.

4 A. It appears to be.

5 Q. All right. And with regard to the Exhibit

6 710 the photograph, do you see that.

7 A. Yes, I do.

8 Q. Does that photograph accurately depict the

9 front page of the Exhibit 589.

10 A. It does.

11 Q. All right. Thank you. Why don’t you hand

12 me just that.

13 Your Honor, now I’m going to move to admit

14 it into evidence.

15 MR. MESEREAU: No objection.

16 THE COURT: Both items.

17 MR. SNEDDON: Please, Your Honor. 589 and

18 710.

19 THE COURT: They’re admitted.

20 MR. SNEDDON: And we’re going to display the

21 Item 710 on the Elmo, Your Honor.

22 Q. Detective Ellis, that’s the item that you

23 seized in the bag on the floor.

24 A. It is.

25 Q. That’s the front cover of it.

26 A. The front cover, yes.

27 MR. SNEDDON: No further questions, Your

28 Honor. 2669

Under cross examination from Mesereau, Investigator Ellis admitted that the material was not illegal, and could be purchased on Amazon:



8 Q. Is it detective.

9 A. It’s investigator.

10 Q. Investigator, okay. Okay.

11 Investigator, referring you to Item 313 —

12 A. Okay.

13 Q. — which was just in front of you.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Whether you like this kind of material or

16 not, this is not illegal, is it.

17 A. Not as far as I know.

18 Q. Okay. In fact, you can get material like

19 this on, correct.

20 A. I believe you can.

The next prosecution witness was Detective Conn Abel, a 30 year veteran of the sheriff’s department. During the raid, he searched the arcade and wine cellar, and here is how he described it:

18 Q. Now, going back to November 18th of 2003,

19 were you involved in the execution of a search

20 warrant at Neverland Valley Ranch.

21 A. Yes, I was.

22 Q. And were you assigned certain

23 responsibilities in connection with that search.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And was one of the areas you were assigned

26 to search an area known as the arcade.

27 A. Yes, it was.

28 Q. And could you describe just basically to the 2673

1 ladies and gentlemen of the jury what the arcade

2 looked like, as you recall.

3 A. The bottom floor was a multitude of just

4 about every arcade game that you could possibly

5 think of, a photo booth.

6 The back of the arcade towards what I call

7 the north area of the arcade, was a storage room.

8 Outside the back door, there was some showers,

9 dressing rooms.

10 Upstairs in the arcade were a couple more

11 games. I believe there were a couple more games

12 upstairs.

13 And then as you walked through the door

14 up — which I believe was like the north door of the

15 upstairs, there was a library.

16 Q. Is there a room that is called a cellar.

17 A. Yes, there is.

18 Q. And did you go down into the cellar —

19 A. Yes, I did.

20 Q. — as part of your responsibilities.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And in the cellar, can you tell us whether

23 or not you saw any alcoholic beverages down there.

24 A. Yes, there were.

25 Q. Would you tell the jury what you saw and

26 where you saw it.

27 A. On a wall in the back of the — what I call

28 the kitchen area, as you go down into the cellar, 2674

1 you would then make a right turn and go into the

2 main cellar area.

3 If you continued going right, you would then

4 go around another corner, and there was an entryway

5 into a little kitchen area. And in that kitchen

6 area there were bottles of wine on the wall, red and

7 white wine.

8 In a storage cabinet, there were just a

9 multitude of different types of liquor. Vodka,

10 whiskey, liqueurs. And then there were open bottles

11 of wine and liqueurs in the refrigerator.

12 Q. Do you remember the name of any of the

13 vodkas you saw there.

14 A. I do remember Smirnoff, Skyy, Grey Goose. I

15 think there was another one that was listed in the

16 report, Chopin. Maybe Chopin.

17 Q. Don’t look at me. I don’t drink that stuff.

18 A. I remember in the report, it said Chopin.

19 And I remember Skyy, Grey Goose, Smirnoff would be

20 for sure.

21 Q. Okay. Now, during the time that you were in

22 the cellar, did you seize any items of literature —

23 or books.

24 A. Yes, I did.

Det. Abel went on to describe some of the articles of evidence that he found in the arcade, cellar, and library, including some art books. Here is his explanation of why he confiscated the book “Drew and Jimmy”, among others:

26 Q. Actually, I guess I should probably show

27 those books. Might as well do that and get that

28 over with, and then I have only one more question to 2688

1 ask. Why don’t you hand me those.

2 All right. We’re going to just ask you

3 to — from the three books that are in five — it’s

4 an oversized book, but is that the title of the book

5 that you seized.

6 A. Yes, it is.

7 Q. Do you remember why you seized it.

8 A. It depicted male and female nudes. Some, if

9 not — I’m not sure how many, but it would appear

10 that they were adolescent or young in appearance.

11 Q. Okay. And the second book. Doesn’t have a

12 title. But do you remember that book.

13 A. Yes, I do.

14 Q. I’m sorry, I guess it does on the — it’s

15 called “Drew and Jimmy.” Do you recall that.

16 A. Yes, I do.

17 Q. With regard to that book, do you recall why

18 you took that book.

19 A. I recall that it depicted males that were

20 either nude and/or semi-nude.

21 Q. And the last book is called “Room to Play.”

22 Do you recall why you seized that book.

23 A. Because it depicted male and/or female

24 young-appearing individuals that were nude and/or

25 semi-nude.

26 Q. The next one I’m going to show you is from

27 582. It’s in evidence. Do you recall that.

28 A. Yes, I do. 2689

1 Q. And the reason that you took that.

2 A. It depicted males and/or females that looked

3 and/or appeared to be youthful, nude and/or

4 semi-nude.

5 Q. Now, with regard to — do you see the front

6 part of the face on this particular exhibit.

7 A. Yes, I do.

8 Q. 582.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Was that the condition of the book at the

11 time that you seized it.

12 A. Yes, sir.

13 Q. And then the last one that’s in People’s

14 583, which is called Cronos.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. For the court reporter, that’s C-r-o-n-o-s.

17 And do you recognize that item.

18 A. Yes, I do.

19 Q. And why did you take that.

20 A. It has a multitude of pictures in it showing

21 photographs of individuals from a youthful age to an

22 older age, nude and semi-nude.

23 Q. All right. Thank you.

In this excerpt, Det. Abel describes the eavesdropping equipment that he found in Jackson’s closet, near his office. This evidence was used by prosecutors to back up their assertions that Jackson tried to monitor the phone calls of the Arvizos during their “imprisonment”:

26 You told the ladies and gentlemen of the

27 jury that you worked narcotics for a while; is that

28 correct. 2691

1 A. Yes, I did.

2 Q. Quite a while, actually.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And in the course of working narcotics, did

5 you become familiar with surveillance equipment.

6 A. Yes, I did.

7 Q. Did you become familiar with equipment that

8 is used to monitor telephone calls.

9 A. Yes, I did.

10 Q. And with regard to the Exhibit 717 that you

11 found in Mr. Jackson’s closet in Mr. Jackson’s

12 office, with regard to that particular exhibit, when

13 you opened it up, did you recognize what was inside.

14 A. Yes, I did.

15 Q. And tell the ladies and gentlemen of the

16 jury what was inside.

17 A. There was a large tape-recorder capable of

18 accepting multiple headsets. There’s wire packages

19 in there. There’s a suction cup that would be

20 utilized to monitor phone calls. There’s wires that

21 would plug into it that have adapters that go into

22 phone receptors. There’s extendable — not

23 “extendable.” There’s small little, what we’d call,

24 to a degree, pinpoint, pinhole-type microphones that

25 are in there that have adapters or have the fittings

26 on it that fit into that type of recorder.

27 So in my opinion, it was used to monitor

28 activity, conversations on the phone and/or off the 2692

1 phone.

Under cross-examination, Det. Abel was asked by Mesereau if the equipment had been tested to see if it had been used, and if it was commercially available in stores. Det. Abel testified that it had not been tested, and he wasn’t sure if it was commercially available. He also testified that he didn’t know if Jackson had purchased it, or if it was given to him as a gift, among many other pertinent facts:



6 Q. With respect to that equipment you just

7 described —

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 Q. — did you ever determine if it had ever

10 been used.

11 A. It appears to have been, yes.

12 Q. Why do you say that. Did you test it.

13 A. I did not test it, no.

14 Q. Then how do you know it’s been used.

15 A. A lot of the wiring indeed has been

16 re-manipulated. It doesn’t appear to be new

17 condition. It appears to be scratched, appears to

18 be used. Appears to be in an older condition.

19 Q. You didn’t test to see if it’s ever been

20 used, did you.

21 A. No, I did not.

22 Q. Do you know where that came from, that

23 equipment.

24 A. Came from the office area in Mr. Jackson’s

25 office.

26 Q. Do you know where it was purchased.

27 A. I do not.

28 Q. Do you know if it was lawfully purchased. 2695

1 A. I would only assume no.

2 Q. You can buy that equipment, can’t you.

3 A. Law enforcement can, I know.

4 Q. You don’t really know if you can buy that

5 lawfully or not, do you.

6 A. Possibly if I went to the appropriate store

7 I could maybe get some of that stuff.

8 Q. A citizen of the United States can go to a

9 store and buy that stuff, can’t they.

10 A. I — I’m not sure about the microphones.

11 No, sir, I don’t know about that.

12 Q. So what you’re saying is you don’t know,

13 right.

14 A. About —

15 Q. Whether an ordinary citizen can lawfully

16 purchase that equipment or not, right.

17 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, object as

18 argumentative.

19 THE COURT: Overruled.

20 THE WITNESS: You could say that I guess I

21 really don’t know for sure.

22 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And you don’t know how

23 that equipment ever got to Neverland, do you.

24 A. No, sir.

25 Q. You don’t know if it was given to Mr.

26 Jackson or purchased, right.

27 A. There’s prices in there, so I could only

28 assume that it was purchased. 2696

1 Q. Well, if someone gave it to Mr. Jackson,

2 they’d have probably purchased it first, wouldn’t

3 they.

4 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to

5 object. Assumes facts — calls for a conclusion.

6 Speculation.

7 THE COURT: It’s argumentative. Sustained.


9 Q. You don’t know where that originated, do

10 you.

11 MR. SNEDDON: Object; argumentative.

12 THE COURT: Overruled.

13 You may answer.

14 THE WITNESS: If you want — if you wanted me

15 to look inside there, there’s a company in there,

16 and I can tell you the name of the company.

17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Even if you knew the name

18 of the company, you wouldn’t know how that got to

19 Neverland, would you.

20 A. No, sir. But you asked me if I knew where

21 it was originated.

There was a business card included with the equipment, and it was associated with a Private Investigation company, so Mesereau used this information to disprove the prosecution’s theory that Jackson owned the equipment for nefarious reasons.

Det. Abel didn’t call the investigator to confirm that it was his equipment, or any perform any other due diligence, and he stated that it was because it wasn’t part of the scope of his activities. Mesereau sarcastically asked Det. Abel if it was because he wanted to just avoid the issue, but Sneddon objected before the question could be answered. Surprisingly, well actually not surprisingly, Det. Abel never met with any security personnel at Neverland to verify that the eavesdropping equipment was used for the ranch’s complex security system!

22 Q. That equipment appeared to be associated

23 with a private investigator, true.

24 A. I — I didn’t seize it. And when I opened

25 it up and looked at it, I didn’t seize it for that

26 purpose. And I didn’t know at the time it was

27 associated with a private investigator, no, sir.

28 Q. I’m not asking what the purpose was in 2697

1 seizing it. I’m just asking you if — from what you

2 saw when you looked at that equipment, did it appear

3 it could be associated with a private investigator.

4 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to

5 object again. It calls for a conclusion and

6 speculation.

7 THE COURT: Overruled.

8 THE WITNESS: At the time that I seized it,

9 I did not know that it was associated with a private

10 investigator, no, sir.

11 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: My question was different.

12 My question was, based on what you saw when you

13 examined that equipment, did you think you had

14 reason to believe it was associated with a private

15 investigator. Yes or no.

16 A. No.

17 Q. What about the card you just described for

18 the jury. Tell them what was on the card, please.

19 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, there are two

20 questions.

21 THE WITNESS: You asked me two questions,

22 sir.

23 MR. MESEREAU: I did, and I’m sorry.

24 I’ll withdraw it, Your Honor.

25 Q. Please tell the jury what was on that card

26 that you found with the equipment.

27 A. Do you want me to open it up and look at it.

28 I can tell you exactly what’s on it. 2698

1 Q. Sure.

2 A. The exact wording on the card is “General,

3 Special and Electronic Investigations. California

4 License P19356. James A. Lupori, Private

5 Investigator, P.O. Box 4250, Culver City, California

6 90231. Telephone number (310)390-8384.” And “Fax,

7 (310)397-9563.”

8 Q. That was in the material. Is that where you

9 found the card.

10 A. Yes, sir.

11 Q. Okay. And for the jury’s benefit, the card

12 mentions a number on it. And I don’t mean the phone

13 number. It mentions a — what really appears to be

14 a license number, correct.

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. For a licensed investigator, correct.

17 A. Could be, yes.

18 Q. Could be. What did you think it was.

19 A. There’s a license on there. But whether

20 it’s actually a license number for that individual

21 or not, I don’t know, because I didn’t investigate

22 that.

23 Q. Well, putting an investigation aside, you,

24 as an investigating officer, look at a card like

25 that. It gives a name. It mentions investigations.

26 It gives a number.

27 Did it ever occur to you that might be a

28 license number for a California licensed 2699

1 investigator.

2 A. Could be.

3 Q. Did it ever occur to you that it might be.

4 A. It occurred to me that it couldn’t be also.

5 Q. Okay. All right. So basically you didn’t

6 care.

7 A. No, I did care. I just don’t know whether

8 P19356 is actually a license number that would be

9 associated with a private investigator, and/or this

10 individual, sir. That’s what I’m trying to say.

11 Q. Did you ever check out whether the name on

12 the card and the phone number worked.

13 A. No, sir.

14 Q. Okay. Did you think that was part of the

15 scope of your responsibilities.

16 A. No, sir.

17 Q. Okay. Did you prefer to just avoid that

18 issue.

19 MR. SNEDDON: Object as argumentative, Your

20 Honor.

21 THE COURT: Sustained.

22 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever ask to have

23 anybody test the equipment at any stage of this

24 investigation.

25 A. No, sir.

26 Q. Based upon what you knew of Neverland Ranch,

27 did it ever occur to you that security might be a

28 concern to Mr. Jackson. 2700

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Now, let me ask you this: If you’re in your

3 house, and you have a phone system, and you pick up

4 your phone and somebody — you’re upstairs and

5 somebody downstairs is speaking on the phone and you

6 listen, have you committed a crime.

7 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to

8 object. Calls for a legal conclusion. That’s —

9 THE COURT: Sustained.

10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Are there any other

11 documents in that case.

12 A. Yes, there are.

13 Q. Would you please tell the jury what those

14 documents are.

15 A. Sure.

16 The first document has handwritten, “Video

17 Briefcase Surveillance System with Audio.” It says,

18 “Video Briefcase.” It has a description of what

19 would be in a video briefcase. It has handwritten,

20 “$4,995,” tax, UPS, a total of $5,443.59, and the

21 word “Total,” and that is on one sheet.

22 The next sheet looks to be either off a

23 computer and/or a typewriter. It is printed

24 instructions for voice-operated telephone recording,

25 professional ten-hour recorder. It has Items 1

26 through 6 of how to, I believe, operate that type of

27 system.

28 The next one is “Equipment For Law 2701

1 Enforcement Agencies, Professional UHF Transmitters

2 and Receivers, Crystal Controlled.” It has a

3 multitude of — one, two, three, four, five, six,

4 seven — seven separate types of wireless

5 transmitters, and a list of optional equipment that

6 could be purchased.

7 And then it says “Other Equipment Systems

8 for Law Enforcement and Export.” And it talks about

9 vehicle tracking, video transmitters, specialized

10 video and optical systems, thermal imaging, et

11 cetera.

12 Q. Let me ask you this: Do any of those

13 documents appear to relate to a security system.

14 A. No, sir.

15 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor.

16 THE COURT: Yes.

17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Sir, I’m showing you one

18 of the documents. It says, “Remote Room Audio

19 Monitor.” Do you see that.

20 A. Yes, I do.

21 Q. It talks about a phone jack, it talks about

22 an answer relay, it talks about a microphone,

23 correct.

24 A. Yes, it does.

25 Q. It says, “Call answer relay from any

26 telephone anywhere in the world.” Do you see that.

27 A. Yes, I do.

28 Q. You also see another — what appears to be a 2702

1 drawing, correct.

2 A. Yes, I do.

3 Q. Does it say on it “Video Surveillance System

4 with Audio”.

5 A. Yes, it does.

6 Q. Does it talk about how to set a video

7 monitor with three screens.

8 A. Part of it, yes, sir.

9 Q. Does it talk about an infrared light source

10 for a target area for night illumination.

11 A. Yes, sir.

12 Q. Does it refer to a video monitor with a

13 nine-inch screen.

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. Does it refer to an infrared — excuse me.

16 Does it refer to a miniature camera with a

17 transmitter.

18 A. It does, yes.

19 Q. Does it talk about a clock video camera.

20 A. Let me — talks about that. Smoke alarm, et

21 cetera, cameras.

22 Q. Are you telling the jury it never occurred

23 to you that might relate to a security system,

24 Officer.

25 A. I’m not sure that it — in totality, no,

26 it —

27 Q. So you think that had nothing to do with

28 security at Neverland. Is that what you’re telling 2703

1 the jury under oath.

2 A. I don’t know what to tell you. It looks

3 like — I mean, this document here, telephone taping

4 system. I don’t know what to tell you, except I

5 know that that doesn’t relate to security. That

6 relates to the items that are in here for taping

7 telephone calls.

8 Q. The items you just agreed that are described

9 on that document do not relate to a possible

10 security system at Neverland.

11 A. I guess you could say — I could say yes, it

12 could.

13 Q. Okay. You never checked that out, correct.

14 A. No, sir. It wasn’t — it was not in the

15 rooms that I was associated with.

16 Q. Okay. Did you ever go to any security

17 personnel at Neverland, show it to them and say,

18 “Have you seen this before. Do you know why it’s

19 here.”

20 A. No, I did not.

21 Q. Okay. Do you know if anybody ever did.

22 A. I do not know.

23 Q. Now, you certainly know that Neverland is a

24 rather large area, correct.

25 A. Yes, sir.

26 Q. You have a main gate with security personnel

27 when you enter, correct.

28 A. Yes. 2704

1 Q. It’s about a 2800-acre ranch, true.

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. You have got security personnel working

4 throughout Neverland, correct.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Did you ever see any surveillance-type

7 equipment at Neverland while you were there.

8 A. I don’t recall seeing surveillance

9 equipment, sir.

10 Q. Now, obviously you knew when you went there

11 that Michael Jackson is one of the world’s most

12 famous entertainers, right.

13 A. Sure.

14 Q. And you knew that he routinely travels with

15 security personnel to protect him, correct.

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. And did it ever occur to you that security

18 might be a real concern at Neverland.

19 A. Could be.

20 Q. Could be.

21 A. Yes, sir.

22 Q. But you’re not sure.

23 A. Well, he has a lot of people going there.

24 I don’t know exactly what kind of security he may

25 have. He has a multitude of people in and out of

26 there on a regular basis, so I don’t know what kind

27 of security he may have established.

28 Q. Did you ever sit down with any of the 2705

1 government prosecutors and discuss that equipment.

2 A. No.

3 Q. Did you ever talk to Mr. Sneddon about what

4 you were going to say today when you took the

5 witness stand.

6 A. No, I did not.

7 Q. Did you just take the stand without ever

8 discussing your testimony at all with him.

9 A. I don’t think I discussed with him what I

10 was going to testify to, no, sir.

11 Q. Okay. When you found that equipment, what

12 is the first thing you did with it.

13 A. I looked at it, and gave it to the officer

14 to book as evidence.

15 Q. Okay. Which officer was that.

16 A. That was Detective Cooley.

17 Q. Do you know if the equipment was ever

18 fingerprinted.

19 A. No, sir, I do not.

20 Q. Did you ever request that it be

21 fingerprinted.

22 A. I was not in that part of the investigation.

23 Q. Have you ever learned at any point whether

24 or not it was fingerprinted.

25 A. I don’t know.

26 Q. Okay. Now, when you were at Neverland, did

27 you investigate the kinds of security systems in

28 place at Neverland. 2706

1 A. No, sir.

2 Q. Do you know whether or not, for example,

3 there are cameras that might indicate whether or not

4 someone is entering or leaving.

5 A. I do not know that.

6 Q. Do you know whether or not there are cameras

7 that might indicate whether or not someone’s

8 entering or leaving the main residence.

9 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to

10 object. He’s already said he didn’t do anything.

11 Lack of foundation.

12 I object. Immaterial.

13 THE COURT: I’m going home.

14 (Laughter.)

15 See you Monday.

16 (The proceedings adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

To Be Continued:

10 Comments leave one →
  1. Linda permalink
    July 25, 2012 12:18 am

    Linda LOL..Sneddon is truly disturbed.
    How would they think that would help their case?

    It really is quite hilarious Nan, that they even brought up that card. Isn’t it very obvious that Michael didn’t want him to have his number and was hiding from the kid? With all Sneddens experience and expertise, why would he do so many stupid things in this case? It make’s no sense. He knew he had no evidence from the start, and pretty much everybody he called for the prosecution did more to prove MJ’S innocence than guilt.

    He had no case from the start and he had to know that he could not win, yet he went ahead with it. He made a real fool of himself and also the accusers. He made a mockery of the justice system, lied cheated and faked evidence, AND got away with it…so far.

    I’m not sure what Wagener will accomplish, trying to bring him to task, but I really admire him for taking the time and trouble to at least try. Can’t wait to hear what comes from his attempt. But back to the why’s of Snedden. What was his intention, knowing he had a losing case and making such a fool of everyone, including himself?

    My take, he was out to destroy MJ. He knew he wouldn’t win in court, but with the help of the media, he could degrade MJ, and hurt him financially. In that aspect, he did win. Yeah, he could jump up and down in front of the cameras in glee, looking stupid as hell, but he wasn’t stupid. He knew his goal, and in the end he would destroy MJ. What he didn’t know, is how many loyal fans Michael had all over the world that would fight for him, even 3 years after his death. The hater’s are still going strong with nothing to stand on, but the true fans are going stronger bringing out the facts.

    People are listening and watching us. The haters are looking for any weakness in us, hoping for a division or a strife. I think we need to be really careful, not to give them any ammo. Everything we do needs to be done with love, because we are all being scrutinized, so we all need to work together for the common goal. I think we’re winning, we just have to watch out for distractions and not let anything come between us and our common goal, which is to vindicate Michael, and all other’s that are being bullied by the Snedden’s, the press and the public. We will win if we all stand together.


  2. Linda permalink
    July 19, 2012 12:04 am

    ..I also get the sense that Sneddon thinks he is some kind of macho hero..Good vs evil ..How he” doesnt drink that stuff”, meaning vodka..Well I do, and I was a girl scout troop leader

    That’s funny Nan. I am a grandmother, and recently became a great grandmother, a team leader at work, a responsible person and I drink “that stuff” most nights after I get off work. Don’t need it on the weekends, Lol. To me Sneddon came off as holier than thou. He was either very stupid, with so many years of experience, OR he was doing something a lot stronger than Vodka. Hmmm, maybe THAT’S a story the press should look into. Something is definitely amiss here, and it’s not Michael.

    • nannorris permalink
      July 19, 2012 4:29 pm

      Linda LOL..Sneddon is truly disturbed..I really think he was excited that the press was watching him in action..ugh
      I was rereading and maybe is was on something because I am rereading Det Wollf testimony again to try and figure out why he put that person on regarding finding a card, that Mesereau gets up and reads that Gavin called MJ daddy Michael, I love you , your the best grown up ,CAN I PLEASE HAVE YOUR WORKING PHONE NUMBERS, so I can talk to you..
      How would they think that would help their case?
      How does that supposedly show MJ grooming this kid..It shows MJ is the one being groomed by this family..THEY want to stay in contact , not MJ.
      I have to remind myself sometimes , these people arent DEFENSE witnesses..

  3. Susan permalink
    July 18, 2012 2:48 pm

    You know when you read this stuff you really get the nuance of how deliberate the prosecution and their witnesses were in their bias against Michael. I mean this guy Det. Abel is suffering from an acute lack of curiosity. His answer to Mesereau’s question that “security might be a real concern at Neverland” – “Could Be.” Is this guy for real? Celebrities get stalked and harassed all the time, so it figures that the most famous man in the world would have his share, but this doesn’t seem to be an issue for this guy. He’s a 30 year detective and he doesn’t do the basics of checking to confirm the license number of the P.I. on the eavesdropping equipment. We know they didn’t challenge the Arvizos stories. They had their agenda and they were sticking to it. It is just unbelievable to read this stuff. Good God, I wouldn’t want to be issued a parking ticket in Santa Barbara – you might end up in prison. David, you must be shaking your head reading these transcripts. It’s frightening what they did to Michael.

    • nannorris permalink
      July 18, 2012 5:05 pm

      I remember , that Aphrodite Jones was doing a book signing in that town and she was a little apprehensive because they appear to make their own rules and she was challenging them in her book.
      I dont blame her …
      You have an investigator who find the private investigator business card and license number and he doesnt go any further????
      This guy answers that security “could Be” a concern.
      An earlier detective told Sanger when he asked if she was aware his image is sought after all over the world said “no”
      It is a travesty the mainstream media covered these peoples tracks for them ..

    • nannorris permalink
      July 18, 2012 9:33 pm

      she told him? do you mean A Jones told Sneddon how she felt ?, or am I missing your point..
      Btw , I cant wait for your essay on the motions by the prosecutors you were thinking of putting up..I had read some of them and they are so arrogant , totally unprofessional imo

  4. Rodrigo permalink
    July 18, 2012 1:31 pm

    This whole thing is/was shocking. They expected to get Michael’s neck in the noose by pulling every dirty trick in the book…Deliberately disregarding, ignoring, twisting, or covering up anything in Michael’s favour. Thank God for Mesereau having brains, cause the prosecution weren’t counting on that.

    It’s just so shocking, and the way people are STILL blinded to this farce to this day…

    This is why this blog is so important. People need to know the REAL truth about Michael Jackson…they can’t go on believing the ‘truth’ that haters, the media, the prosecution have pulled over their eyes.

  5. nannorris permalink
    July 18, 2012 1:15 pm

    This is incredible..There is no way investigators could be this stupid..They purposely didnt investigate.
    I find it hard to believe that prosecutors didnt think the defense would have a comeback for this stuff.
    Either the prosecutors were dropping acid when they formed this case , or they just thought , because they hated MJ , everybody else did too..And would just vote for conviction, because of tabloid stories..Must have been influenced by DD in their ear..I also get the sense that Sneddon thinks he is some kind of macho hero..Good vs evil ..How he” doesnt drink that stuff”, meaning vodka..Well I do, and I was a girl scout troop leader/ room mother all the while my child was growing up… stupid..
    Another great job David, thanks for all your hard work


  1. 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 « 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: