Skip to content

March 29th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Robert Spinner (Cross Examination), Jamie Masada, Cynthia Bell (Direct & Cross Examination), Part 2 of 3

September 27, 2012

In this excerpt, Masada describes how he was told that Gavin wanted to meet Jackson after seeing him on TV:

2 Q. At some point in time, did you become aware


3 of the fact that the Arvizo — or any members of the


4 Arvizo family were visiting Neverland, Michael


5 Jackson’s ranch?


6 A. Yes, I did.


7 Q. Were you involved in some way in introducing


8 Gavin to Michael Jackson, to your knowledge?


9 A. To my knowledge, I don’t know if it was me


10 doing or so many — I was in the hospital. The kid


11 was — you know, he needed help. And his wish


12 was — looking at a T.V. on the — in the hospital,


13 he saw Michael Jackson on the T.V., and he said he


14 wanted to meet Michael Jackson. I didn’t know


15 Michael Jackson. I never met Michael Jackson. And


16 I want to bring his wish through like Make a Wish.


17 So I say, “Okay, if you eat, I do anything


18 you want. You want to meet Adam Sandler, all those


19 guys you told me, I’ll introduce him to.”


20 I didn’t know Michael Jackson, but at that


21 point I made several phone calls to different


22 places. I called Paul Mooney, David Salzman. I


23 called Quincy Jones’ office. I called anybody I


24 could to get some kind of number. Somebody say call


25 some — some — some studio in Vine Street, called


26 The Studio on Vine Street. I was doing that in the


27 hospital, call The Studio on Vine Street. I tried


28 to call — they gave me number, they said it’s 4033


1 Neverland. I don’t know if it was Neverland.


2 So I left a message for everybody I could,


3 “Hey, if anybody get this message, please tell


4 Michael to watch this ABC show and this thing, and


5 if he can watch it, please call him tomorrow.


6 There’s this kid dying.”


7 And I left a message. I don’t know if my


8 message got to him or he called next day by chance,


9 by will of God. I have no idea.


10 Q. But in any event, you became aware that


11 Gavin had started having conversations with Mr.


12 Jackson?


13 A. Yes.


14 Q. Did Gavin ever talk about that when you


15 visited him at the hospital?


16 A. Yes. The next day when he was so impressed


17 and so grateful and so happy to hear from Michael.


18 Michael call him. And he said, “Do you have


19 anything?” I said, “I don’t know.” I made a few


20 phone call. I don’t know if anything came from me.


21 Maybe somebody else call him. I have no idea.


22 But at that point, he was very happy, and he


23 was very excited about it. And you could see his


24 face, he was cheered up a little bit.


25 And what else?


26 Q. Are you aware of whether or not he ever


27 visited Michael Jackson at Neverland Ranch?


28 A. Yes. Father told me Michael invite them to 4034


1 go to Neverland. And they were going to go to


2 Neverland. So I said, “Oh, great. Wonderful. Have


3 a good time.”


4 And father said, “Do you want to go?” And I


5 said, “I got three other kids dying. I got to go


6 take care. I wish I could go. I can’t go to


7 Neverland. I wish I could. But go ahead. You guys


8 enjoy.”

Masada is then questioned by Zonen about when he was first informed by Janet that Gavin would be in the Bashir documentary:

9 Q. At some point in time, did you view or watch


10 the television documentary entitled “Living with


11 Michael Jackson”? Did you ever see that?


12 A. Yes, I did. The second time they showed it.


13 Q. In the United States?


14 A. In United States, yeah.


15 Q. Were you aware that Gavin was going to be


16 featured in that documentary prior to your viewing


17 it?


18 A. I was aware of it because Janet called me


19 about that.


20 Q. All right. When Janet called you, do you


21 remember when that was?


22 A. No idea. The date — I’m very bad with


23 date. I’m telling you now, don’t go to the date.


24 Q. Was Gavin — was Gavin already well at that


25 point?


26 A. Gavin was not well, but he was — you know,


27 I mean, still have a problem with the kidney,


28 because, you remember now, he had one kidney, and he 4035


1 have no spleen, and he got to take medication for


2 his spleen, because he goes through any room that


3 have a germ, he could get sick immediately. And he


4 had one kidney. And at the time he have one kidney,


5 you know, he got to go for his blood being, you


6 know, changed or dialysis, or whatever it is. Once


7 in a while he got to do that, all kinds of stuff


8 like that. So he’s not still well.


9 Q. When Janet called you, was she upset?


10 A. She said — yes, she was upset.


11 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.


12 MR. ZONEN: I was just asking whether —


13 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. And


14 the answer was, “Yes.” Next question.


15 MR. ZONEN: All right.


16 Q. You then viewed the documentary “Living with


17 Michael Jackson”; is that right?


18 A. Yes, I did.


19 Q. And you watched Gavin in that film?


20 A. Yes, I did.


21 Q. Were you aware of whether or not that film


22 itself caused Gavin some problems?


23 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay;


24 foundation.


25 MR. ZONEN: The question is whether he knew.


26 THE COURT: I’ll allow the question, but you


27 can only answer it “yes” or “no.” And I’ll have it


28 read back to you. 4036


1 THE WITNESS: Okay. Please.


2 (Record read.)


3 THE WITNESS: Yes, it did.


4 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What were the nature of those


5 problems, to your understanding?


6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.


7 THE COURT: Sustained.


8 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Were you told by anybody the


9 nature of those problems?


10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.


11 MR. ZONEN: State of mind. Not for the


12 truth of the matter.


13 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.


14 MR. ZONEN: All right.

Here is Masada’s description of his participation in the Jackson rebuttal documentary “The Footage You Were Never Meant To See”:

15 Q. Did you do a presentation of any kind or


16 were you filmed in any way on behalf of Michael


17 Jackson?


18 A. Yes, I did.


19 Q. All right. Tell us about that. When did


20 that happen?


21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.


22 THE COURT: Overruled.


23 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: When did that happen? Go


24 ahead.


25 A. It was — I don’t know, again, the day. It


26 was sometime that — after Martin Bashir show, that


27 film. And the people, they called — Janet called


28 and said they needed to do – 4037


1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.


2 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Just tell us what you did.


3 A. What I did. They came in my club and they


4 ask me if I can talk on the T.V. And they talked to


5 me if I can talk about Martin Bashir. I start


6 talking about Martin Bashir, that Martin Bashir —


7 what I thought, that he did something wrong, because

8 showing a kid, underage kid, on his T.V — on a T.V.


9 for — he make millions of dollar, and he put this


10 poor kid on a tape, and he didn’t even digitize his


11 face, and people in the school, they call him


12 “faggot” by it. And I — I felt terrible for him.


13 I really felt horrible about it.


14 Q. Who was it who asked to you do something on


15 tape on behalf of Michael Jackson? Do you know who


16 the person was?


17 A. I think, if I’m not mistaken — I’m not


18 hundred percent sure, maybe I shouldn’t answer it,


19 but I think it started with Janet.


20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for


21 speculation.


22 THE WITNESS: Oh, don’t answer it?


23 THE COURT: Don’t answer.


24 THE WITNESS: I don’t recall.


25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did that person —


26 (Laughter.)


27 MR. ZONEN: Well, that was a more concise


28 answer. 4038


1 THE WITNESS: Well, that was bad?


2 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: No, no, no.


3 How many people showed up?


4 A. They showed up about, oh, God, three, four


5 people, five people.


6 Q. Cameramen included?


7 A. Cameramen.


8 Q. Where did they do the filming?


9 A. In Laugh Factory in Los Angeles.


10 Q. All right. Were any of them introduced to


11 you?


12 A. I’m sure they were.


13 Q. Do you remember any of their names?


14 A. None.


15 Q. How long was the filming?


16 A. The filming, they said they going to do


17 about two, three minutes, just talk about Martin


18 Bashir. But afterwards, they — I understood that


19 my mike was on, and they kept on talking to me about


20 Michael. They talked to me about different stuff.


21 I don’t know if they tape all of that. I’m not


22 sure. But they said, “I want to pick up the spot I


23 talk about Martin Bashir, what he did was wrong.”


24 Q. All right. Did you ever see the production


25 that was done that featured you, among other people?


26 A. No, I did not.


27 Q. Do you know if it was ever shown on


28 television? 4039


1 A. I think it was, because people told me it


2 was on T.V.


3 Q. To this day, have you ever seen it?


4 A. No, I got a tape of it, but I never got a


5 chance. I wish I had time to go see it. I have a


6 tape of it. And I know — I’m — I don’t look at


7 myself too much.


8 Q. But you’ve never looked — you’ve never


9 viewed it in its entirety?


10 A. No.


11 Q. And you’ve never viewed the portion that you


12 recited?


13 A. No.


14 Q. And you don’t know if it contains the part


15 that was filmed after you thought you were done, or


16 during the part?


17 A. I have no idea, but the people, they told me


18 what they said. I says, “Well, that’s the press.


19 Let it go.” I didn’t even —


20 Q. Did somebody tell you what to say?


21 A. The people that were there, they were


22 encourage me to talk about Michael. If Michael


23 helped the kid, what my thought was. Who else


24 helped the kid, if Adam Sandler helped the kid, if


25 anybody helped the kid. And I was very open. I was


26 talking about it.


27 Q. What did you understand to be Mr. Jackson’s


28 assistance to this child at the time that you did 4040


1 this video?


2 A. I thought Michael, Adam Sandler, everybody


3 really — they helped the kid. That’s my belief.


4 Everybody, they did help the kid. At that point I


5 believed that.


6 Q. Did you have any personal information at


7 that time on what Mr. Jackson did on behalf of Gavin


8 Arvizo at the time you did this video?


9 A. What — I’m sorry.


10 Q. Did you have — when you made statements on


11 behalf of —


12 A. Yeah.


13 Q. — Michael Jackson and other people —


14 A. Yeah.


15 Q. — did you have a sense of what it was that


16 Michael Jackson did on behalf of Gavin Arvizo?


17 A. I’m not still clear. I’m sorry.


18 Q. Were you encouraged to say good things about


19 Michael Jackson?


20 A. Yeah. The people ask me, “Hey,” you know,


21 “Can you say that?” And I say, “Yeah.” I believed


22 it. I said it, yeah.


23 Q. Did you believe the reason for your presence


24 on that video was to say something about Martin


25 Bashir?


26 A. Yes, that’s what I believed.

Next, Masada was asked to describe the phone call that he received from Janet during her “imprisonment” at Neverland. Unfortunately, just as Masada was about to testify about what Janet said when he suggested to her that she call the police, Judge Melville stopped him and told Zonen to move on to the next question:

27 Q. At some point in time did you get a phone


28 call from Janet Arvizo calling from Neverland? 4041


1 A. Yes, I did.


2 Q. Did she sound upset to you?


3 A. Uh —


4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.


5 THE COURT: Overruled.


6 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did she sound upset to you?


7 MR. MESEREAU: And leading.


8 THE COURT: Overruled.


9 You may answer “yes” or “no.”




11 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. What did she tell


12 you?


13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.


14 MR. ZONEN: State of mind and spontaneous


15 declaration and excitable utterance, the last being


16 the exception to the hearsay.


17 MR. MESEREAU: No foundation for that


18 justification.


19 THE WITNESS: What do I do?


20 THE COURT: That’s true for the spontaneous


21 declaration and the excitable utterance. There is


22 no foundation. The state of mind, I think that


23 would depend on a further foundation also, so I’ll


24 sustain the foundation objection.


25 MR. ZONEN: All right.


26 Q. You said she was upset. Describe that to


27 me. You’ve had other conversations with her prior


28 to that. 4042


1 A. I had many conversations with her. She was


2 kind of like in a state of, you know, like crying,


3 “Oh, my God.” You know, her voice, you could see

4 like — “Oh, my God, they hold” — “They are holding


5 me here.”


6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Objection.


7 Hearsay; move to strike.


8 THE COURT: The — I’ll strike that.


9 The foundation I was looking for was time


10 frame foundation, because her state of mind is only


11 relevant at a certain time, so I think you missed —


12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Can you tell us approximately


13 when that call was taking place? If you can’t tell


14 us a date, then in comparison to other events.


15 A. It was — in my recollection, it was


16 sometime later after Martin Bashir type of stuff.


17 Q. Can you tell us approximately how long after


18 Martin Bashir?


19 A. I have no idea.


20 Q. I mean, would it be measured in weeks or


21 measured in months?


22 A. Few weeks maybe.


23 Q. All right. All right. And then you


24 described her as crying; is that correct?


25 A. Yes.


26 Q. All right. And you’ve heard her crying


27 before?


28 A. Yes. 4043


1 Q. At the time she had that conversation with


2 you about her child being ill?


3 A. The time he was ill, a couple of different


4 times I heard her crying. It was in the hospital I


5 saw her crying, and her voice.


6 Q. And describe her emotional state as you


7 talked to her on that telephone call after the


8 Martin Bashir screening. Describe her emotional


9 state in comparison to those other occasions.


10 A. She was upset. She was crying, the same way


11 was before. Her voice was the same as like her


12 child was sick.


13 Q. And what did she tell you?


14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.


15 THE COURT: I’m going to admit this for the


16 state of mind only.


17 MR. ZONEN: Thank you.


18 Q. What did she tell you?


19 THE COURT: That means that it’s not — I’m


20 going to let you answer in a minute.




22 THE COURT: (To the jury) That means that


23 I’ve limited the use of this testimony not for the


24 truth of the matter asserted, not for the truth of


25 the matter of what she says, but to show her frame


26 of mind.


27 All right. You may answer the question. Do


28 you want it reread? 4044


1 THE WITNESS: Please.


2 THE COURT: Okay.


3 (Record read.)


4 THE WITNESS: I mean, depends what


5 conversation. I mean, now I have several


6 conversations.


7 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: This first one.


8 A. Oh, God, I don’t know which one was first.


9 Q. As best you can recall.


10 A. Which one was first, which one was second.


11 Four, five years ago. I have no idea. But I could


12 say what conversation I had. I don’t know which one


13 was what.


14 Q. The one that you most remember where she was


15 crying. That one.


16 A. She was — that one was from Neverland. She


17 said, “They are holding me here with my kid against


18 my will. I need to get out of here. Please do


19 something.”


20 I said, “Why don’t you call the police?” We


21 talked about all kind of stuff like that.


22 You want to —


23 THE COURT: Hold it. Hold it. Next


24 question.

Masada goes on to describe how he advised Janet to see a lawyer named William Dickerman, who will testify later on in this trial.

25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. Did you make an


26 effort to introduce her to a lawyer?


27 A. Yes, I did.


28 Q. And who was the lawyer that you introduced 4045


1 her to?


2 A. Bill Dickerman.


3 Q. All right. Do you remember what that was?


4 A. It was after the Martin Bashir taping was


5 going on. The people, they were calling Gavin all


6 kind of bad names. And I took her to — and the kid


7 to — to Bill Dickerman to stop, if they can stop.


8 ABC was running it. VH-1 was showing his picture,


9 MTV. All of them. The way I understood, everybody


10 was showing his picture. And the people, they


11 recognize him, and they would call him bad names.


12 And he was really upset. And we were going


13 to try to see if — if Bill Dickerman could write a


14 letter to those people, tell them stop using the


15 tape of — showing his face.


16 Q. All right. Were you the one, then, who took


17 her to Bill Dickerman?


18 A. Yes, I did.


19 Q. And was the purpose for that to get her


20 child off television?


21 A. Yes.


22 Q. Was there any other reason that you took her


23 to Bill Dickerman?


24 A. No, that was the reason we took her, because


25 didn’t want to be — her child be called “fag,” or


26 whatever was calling.


27 Q. Were you present during any of those


28 conversations? 4046


1 A. I —


2 Q. By “those conversations,” I mean between


3 Janet Arvizo and Bill Dickerman, Attorney Dickerman.


4 A. Yes, I was, on four occasion. I remember


5 four occasion I remember I was present.


6 Q. Okay. And did you participate in the


7 conversations?


8 A. First one, participate.


9 Q. I’m not asking you the content. I’m just


10 asking if you were actually contributing in some


11 fashion to these conversations.


12 A. Yes.


13 Q. All right. What — where did the


14 conversations take place? Were they at multiple


15 locations?


16 A. Yes, sir.


17 Q. What were the multiple locations?


18 A. One time was in my office. No, no, it was


19 in the Bill Dickerman — I took them Bill Dickerman


20 office. And it was in Bill Dickerman office. They


21 talk to the — to Bill Dickerman.


22 And second time it was in my club. And I


23 believe third time it was in my club.


24 Fourth time it was — I was present with


25 Bill Dickerman. We took them to — we took — we


26 took the kids and the mother, they were going with


27 Jay, they were going to play baseball, and we took


28 them to baseball, and I was going watch the kids to 4047

1 play baseball. So those four times I was present.


2 Q. All right. There was one meeting at The


3 Laugh Factory; is that right?


4 A. Two meetings at Laugh Factory, sir.


5 Q. Do you know if Janet was accompanied by


6 anybody from Neverland?


7 A. I understood that’s what she told me. I was


8 inside the club. She said we — came in, and she —


9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.


10 THE COURT: Sustained.

Zonen then questions Masada about the money that he offered to Janet, and another mysterious person who was prepared to give her a “substantial” amount of money. Mesereau’s objection to this testimony was sustained by Judge Melville, however, so Masada was unable to divulge the identity of the person who made this offer to Janet (although he eventually was allowed to discuss Janet’s rejection of this offer):

11 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. Did you ever


12 offer money to Janet Arvizo?


13 A. Did I ever offer money to Janet Arvizo?


14 Q. Uh-huh.


15 A. Yes.


16 Q. Okay. Did you ever tell her that there was


17 somebody prepared to give her a substantial amount


18 of money?


19 A. Yes, I know where you’re going now. Yes.


20 Q. You’re troubled by something, are you not?


21 A. Yes. Yeah.


22 Q. The person —


23 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; move to


24 strike the comments.


25 THE COURT: Sustained; stricken.


26 MR. ZONEN: All right.


27 Q. The person — there is a person who was —


28 let me back off a little bit. 4048


1 The conversation that you had with Janet


2 Arvizo about somebody having money for her —


3 A. Yeah.


4 Q. All right. Tell us what you told Janet


5 Arvizo.


6 A. It was after Martin Bashir and all of that


7 stuff happened. And I told Janet, I said, “Janet,


8 particular person wants to give you — actually,


9 offered to give me a check, as much as amount of


10 money you want, and wants you to just take care of


11 your kid and family, and feels bad for all of that


12 stuff. And if you need money, whatever money you


13 need, I know this particular person he would give


14 you whatever money you need,” you know. “You need


15 to buy a house, whatever you need, he would get you


16 the money. Whatever money you need, he would give


17 it to you.”


18 Q. What did she say?


19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.


20 MR. ZONEN: State of mind. Particularly


21 given counsel’s opening statement.


22 THE COURT: All right. The objection is


23 sustained.


24 MR. ZONEN: Could we approach sidebar?


25 THE COURT: All right.


26 (Off-the-record discussion held at counsel


27 table.)

After their off the record discussion was concluded, Judge Melville issued the following instructions to the jury:

28 THE COURT: All right. Would — excuse me. 4049


1 (To the jury) What I’m going to do is,


2 again, I’m going to change the ruling that I made a


3 moment ago, and I’m going to allow the answer to


4 this question.


5 But again, I’m going to give you the


6 cautionary instruction that this answer that is


7 about to be given to this question is — is offered


8 for a limited purpose, which is Mrs. Arvizo’s state


9 of mind only. So that would be Janet’s state of


10 mind only, not for the truth of the matter asserted.


11 And I’ll have the question reread to the


12 witness, and then he may answer.


13 (Record read.)

Here is the question that Judge Melville changed his ruling on and allowed to be answered for the aforementioned reason:

14 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: With regards to your


15 conveying that comment about a person prepared to


16 give her money, what did she say?


17 A. She said, “No, tell them all I need friend.


18 I don’t need money. I just need pray. And I don’t


19 need money. Thank you very much, but tell them we


20 need a friend. That’s all we need.”


21 And I say, “You sure you don’t want money?


22 If you need any money, you know, let me know.”


23 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; nonresponsive.


24 THE COURT: I’ll strike the last sentence.


25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: When did this conversation


26 take place? I know your difficulties with dates,


27 but in comparison to some other time.


28 A. After Martin Bashir. 4050


1 Q. Do you know if Janet Arvizo was still with


2 David Arvizo at the time of that conversation?


3 A. No. Martin Bashir happened, David — they


4 were separated. No, they were not together.

Zonen ended his direct examination of Masada after asking him to describe any bruises or injuries that he noticed on Janet’s body, which were caused by David Arvizo, although Janet lied at that time and said they were caused by the JC Penney security guards:

5 Q. Did you ever see Janet Arvizo with bruises


6 on her?


7 A. Yes, I did.


8 Q. Do you know where those bruises were on her


9 body?


10 A. One time I saw bruises upper — like nearby


11 by her neck, near upper chest, like somebody tried


12 to — what they call — I don’t know what was it.


13 Looked like somebody tried to choke her or


14 something. And there was make-up on it, and the


15 make-up was coming off. And I said, “What’s this?”


16 She’d hide it. She didn’t want to let me know —


17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; nonresponsive.


18 THE COURT: I’ll strike after he — “And


19 there was make-up on it,” from there on, I’ll


20 strike.


21 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you see bruises on any


22 other occasion on her?


23 A. Yes, I did.


24 Q. How many occasions do you think?


25 A. Another time I saw bruises was — it was


26 on — one side of her face was swollen and her eyes


27 were swollen. It was like black and blue. Again,


28 make-up was on it. 4051


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


2 questions.

Mesereau began his cross examination of Masada by questioning him on statements that he made to police, which he didn’t know were recorded, and (of course!) he misstated to police; he told the police that the “parents” wanted money from him, but on the witness stand he stated that he meant to say “the father”:





6 Q. Good morning.


7 A. Good morning, sir.


8 Q. Mr. Masada, we haven’t met. My name is Tom


9 Mesereau. I speak for Michael Jackson.


10 A. All right, sir.


11 Q. Mr. Masada, do you remember receiving a


12 phone call from an investigator for the Santa


13 Barbara District Attorney’s Office in December of


14 2003? He said his name was Tim Rooney. Do you


15 remember that?


16 A. I don’t recall it, but if he said he did, I


17 did.


18 Q. Do you remember talking to someone in


19 December, around December 9th, 2003, from the Santa


20 Barbara District Attorney’s Office?

21 A. No, I don’t recall.


22 Q. Do you remember telling this person that


23 Gavin’s parents came to you and wanted financial


24 help? He repeated, “Who asked you that?” You said,


25 “The parents”?


26 A. I meant “husband.” I never said “mother.”


27 Q. Would it refresh your recollection to show


28 you a police transcript of your – 4052


1 A. I don’t need to see the police —


2 Q. You didn’t know the phone call was being


3 recorded?


4 MR. ZONEN: May the witness be allowed to


5 answer the question in its entirety before counsel


6 steps in with his next question?




8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You didn’t know your phone


9 call —


10 MR. ZONEN: He hasn’t answered the question.


11 THE COURT: He started to answer it. He’s


12 allowed to finish it.


13 THE WITNESS: What was the question again?


14 MR. MESEREAU: I’m not sure even I know at


15 this point.


16 THE COURT: The question was whether it would


17 refresh your recollection to show you a police


18 transcript, and you said, “I don’t need to see it,”


19 and you were interrupted.


20 THE WITNESS: Yeah, because it is “parents.”


21 I meant “father.”


22 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Well, you didn’t


23 know your phone call was being recorded, correct?


24 A. I don’t know any of my phone call was


25 record.


26 Q. No one has ever told you that that phone


27 conversation was recorded by the District Attorney’s


28 Office of Santa Barbara, correct? 4053


1 A. I don’t know if they did. I’m not — they


2 never told me anything.


3 Q. You did tell them that the parents wanted


4 financial help. You were then asked, “Who asked you


5 that?” And you replied, “The parents,” right?


6 A. Yeah. “The parents” means “father.” Let me


7 correct it.


8 Q. Oh, I see.

Next, Mesereau questioned Masada about the money that he loaned the Arvizos to pay for karate school in order for Gavin to be able to protect himself from bullies after the airing of the Bashir documentary:

17 Q. Jay and Janet asked you to pay for judo and


18 karate school, correct?


19 A. No, they didn’t ask me to do it. I


20 volunteer to do it, sir.


21 Q. After they told you they couldn’t pay for


22 it, correct?


23 A. No, they were telling — no, don’t put words


24 in my mouth. Let me say — if you want to know the


25 truth, let me tell you the truth, what happened.


26 Q. I would like to know the truth for sure.


27 A. That’s what I’m going to tell you. That’s


28 what I’m going to tell you. If you want me to say 4058


1 it, I say it.


2 They were suggesting that they were going to


3 take the kid, because the kid was bothering — all


4 of the kids, they were bothering him. And they want


5 to take him to put him on other school. They said


6 they — Jay said, “We don’t have enough money.” And


7 I said, “How much you guys short?” They said,


8 “$400.” I said, “I could help that.” I said, “I


9 will have no problem to write the check for $400.”


10 That’s what I did.


11 And the other occasion about judo you ask.


12 Judo — I went to their house. I went up there, and


13 the kids were talking about they wanted protection.


14 I suggested — I said, “Can I go” — “You guys


15 should go to judo or something.”


16 And Jay and Janet was up there. They said,


17 “Oh, thank you very much. God bless you. You’re


18 helping us out.”



Judge Melville gave the jurors an extra-long break so that he could  discuss some issues regarding the testimonies of Dr. Stan Katz and Bradley Miller. On March 24th, 2005, the defense submitted a pleading titled “MR. JACKSON’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE PSYCHOLOGIST KATZ’S USE OF ULTIMATE FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS”, in which they argued that Dr. Stan Katz (who Gavin and Star first admitted their alleged abuse at the hands of Jackson to) should not be allowed to testify because they were worried that his testimony would mirror what he said in his Grand Jury testimony from March 29th, 2004. There were two areas of concern for the defense: Dr. Katz testified that the Arvizos had credibility, and prosecution improperly argued that Dr. Katz was there to establish credibility for the Arvizo’s allegatioins.

In their pleading, the defense argued that Dr. Katz made repeated inadmissible assertions about the credibility of the Arvzos, and due to his status as a psychologist, it would have a prejudicial effect on Jackson’s right to a fair trial. An expert witness is not allowed to give an opinion on the ultimate question of whether a witness is telling the truth; that is up to the jury to decide.

In their pleading from July 23rd, 2004 titled “PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE INDICTMENT”, (which the defense referred to in their pleading), the prosecution literally argued that Dr. Katz testified to corroborate and lend credibility to the Arvizo’s allegations because the defense had already attacked them when they demanded that the grand jury be shown exculpatory evidence during the proceedings. The defense believed that Dr. Katz’s testimony was critical in helping the prosecution achieve an indictment of Jackson.

Based on those two aforementioned reasons, the defense requested that Dr. Katz should not be allowed to testify during the criminal trial. However, Judge Melville ruled that Dr. Katz may testify for the prosecution, but he could not give his opinion on the Arvizos’ credibility, or whether or not he believes that the abuse actually occurred. (That is an important distinction that the defense made because, hypothetically, Dr. Katz could have testified that the Arvizos are not credible, based on their litigious background, but he believed that the abuse did occur based on Jackson’s previous abuse allegations from 1993.)

The prosecution claimed that they had no intentions of asking Dr. Katz about his opinion on the Arvizo’s credibility or if he believed their allegations were true, but I find that hard to believe based on their defense of his grand jury testimony!

20 THE COURT: Okay. We’re going to take a


21 break.


22 Let me tell the jury what we’re going to do.


23 I’m going to give a little longer break to you


24 because we need to address a couple of issues


25 outside of your presence, so we’re going to take our


26 regular break for 15 minutes. And then we’ll come


27 back, and it will be about another 10 or 15 minutes


28 longer than our normal break at this time, just so 4059


1 you know. So you probably won’t be back in until


2 12:00.


3 THE JURY: (In unison) Okay.


4 THE WITNESS: Am I excused?


5 THE COURT: I want to see everybody here at


6 the end of the regular break.


7 MR. ZONEN: Quarter to?


8 THE COURT: Yeah.


9 (Recess taken.)




11 (The following proceedings were held in


12 open court outside the presence and hearing of the


13 jury:)




15 THE COURT: Yes, I just want to take up a


16 couple of the issues.


17 I was told earlier that Dr. Katz was going


18 to be the next witness, so I thought I better clean


19 this up before we start with him. I’ve been told


20 now that that may not be the case, but we’ve set the


21 time aside, so let’s just do this.


22 The first issue that’s before me on Dr.


23 Katz’s testimony was a motion by Mr. Mesereau


24 that Mr. Oxman actually wrote, which seeks to limit


25 the psychologist from being able to testify to the


26 ultimate fact, the credibility of the children,


27 pointing out that that was done in the grand jury


28 hearing. 4060


1 And my ruling on that is that, in accord


2 with the request, he is not to give his opinion as


3 to their credibility.


4 I think that covers that, doesn’t it, Mr.


5 Oxman?


6 MR. OXMAN: Yes, sir. And I think it also


7 reflects —


8 THE BAILIFF: You have to speak up.


9 MR. OXMAN: It also — it also reflects to


10 ultimate facts, Your Honor, as to whether or not it


11 occurred.


12 THE COURT: Turn on your mike.

13 MR. OXMAN: Also reflects the ultimate facts


14 as to whether or not the incident occurred.


15 THE COURT: Yes. So he’s not allowed to give


16 his opinion as to credibility or his opinion as to


17 whether the actual things happened.


18 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, we have no intention


19 of asking either of those questions about his view


20 of the credibility —


21 THE COURT: I don’t think your mike’s on. Is


22 it?


23 Can you hear back there?


24 MR. ZONEN: All right. We have no intention


25 on asking either of those questions, nor will we.

Another issue that was addressed regarding Dr. Katz’s upcoming testimony was a limited waiver of confidentiality signed by Bradley Miller and submitted by Mesereau (which, unfortunately, isn’t available on the Remote Electronic Access site, where all of the other court pleadings are stored). The purpose of this waiver would be to allow Mesereau to ask Dr. Katz specific questions about his professional relationship with Bradley Miller, who was the private investigator for Mark Geragos, and interviewed the Arvizo family, and was also a patient of Dr. Katz at one time.

Mesereau was told by Bradley Miller that Dr. Katz had a financial motivation to become a “celebrity psychologist” in the same ilk as HLN’s “Dr.” Drew Pinsky (read this post for a detailed summary of Dr. Drew’s quackery). In fact, he was part of a team of “life coaches” on the reality show “Starting Over”, which ran from 2003 through 2006. Mesereau argued that this financial motivation played a significant role in Dr. Katz’s decision to “believe” the Arvizo’s allegations, because a high profile trial involving Michael Jackson would bring about an unprecedented level of media coverage, which Dr. Katz could exploit to his advantage by testifying as an “expert” witness.

Judge Melville ruled that, at that point in time, he thought there was a possibility of a limited waiver, and he would accept it at that time, although he still had some doubts about its relevancy:

26 THE COURT: All right. The next issue is


27 the — Mr. Mesereau has submitted a limited waiver.


28 I saw a copy of the limited waiver of 4061

1 confidentiality signed by Bradley Miller. Have you


2 seen that?


3 MR. ZONEN: Yes, I have it in front of me.


4 THE COURT: And do you wish to speak to that?


5 MR. ZONEN: Yes.


6 THE COURT: All right.


7 MR. ZONEN: I don’t believe you can have a


8 limited waiver of a nature like this to be able to


9 ask a therapist two questions about a person who is


10 presumably his patient. And, of course, Dr. Katz


11 has never acknowledged that this person —


12 THE COURT: I never let him. It cost Mr.


13 Oxman a thousand dollars, as I recall.


14 (Laughter.)


15 MR. ZONEN: Now, let’s assume —


16 THE COURT: You don’t have to say anything.


17 MR. ZONEN: Not without a lawyer at his


18 side.


19 THE COURT: But so your issue is the — he


20 now has a waiver, Mr. Mesereau, Mr. Oxman, they have


21 a waiver as to the very issue that I was saying they


22 couldn’t address, which is whether or not he was a


23 patient.


24 MR. ZONEN: Well, actually, it doesn’t do


25 that. It specifically is a waiver to a conversation


26 involving two questions. I don’t know that Dr. Katz


27 would be comfortable even acknowledging that he’s a


28 patient, given the limited nature of this waiver. I 4062


1 don’t believe that — that’s one objection I have to


2 it.


3 But the principal objection I have to it is


4 that unless there is a more extensive waiver that


5 would cover any related conversations — let’s


6 assume that this conversation did take place. And I


7 think you’re going to find out it didn’t, but let’s


8 assume that something similar took place to it.


9 Would I be entitled to ask Dr. Katz questions about


10 the nature of that communication and other


11 communications relevant to it? And let me give you


12 an example.


13 Let’s assume Dr. Katz was treating Brad


14 Miller, assuming he was his patient, for some malady


15 that involved honesty. Let’s assume that he was


16 treating him for some malady that involved his


17 workplace relationship with his employer, Mark


18 Geragos, in which case this could be in the context


19 of much greater conversations, conversations between


20 Dr. Katz and Brad Miller, and even conversations


21 between Brad Miller and Mark Geragos over a much


22 greater period of time. How does Dr. Katz


23 necessarily defend himself from these two statements


24 without talking about the other conversations that


25 may be directly related to this issue?


26 I also know of no authority for a partial


27 waiver, and they haven’t cited any.


28 THE COURT: You can look at Brett vs. 4063


1 Superior Court, 1978 case, 20 Cal.3d 844.


2 I guess the problem I’m having — I think


3 I’ve got past the partial waiver problem.


4 MR. ZONEN: May I add one more thing to it?


5 And that is relevance.


6 THE COURT: That’s where I’m having the


7 problem is the relevance.


8 What is the possible relevance, Mr.


9 Mesereau?


10 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll be examining Dr. Katz,


11 Your Honor.


12 There’s definite relevance, because Dr. Katz


13 has been — has had a financial motivation to be a


14 celebrity psychologist. In fact, he finally got a


15 T.V. show recently. It’s a reality show on one of


16 the networks. Dr. Katz wants to be in a celebrity


17 case. Dr. Katz found a way to be in a celebrity


18 case, this one.


19 And according to his former patient, who has


20 waived the privilege, this man kept telling him, “I


21 want to meet celebrities. I want to be in a


22 celebrity case.” That would suggest a motivation to


23 want to see this thing go forward.


24 THE COURT: Let me see your copy of the —


25 MR. MESEREAU: The waiver?


26 THE COURT: What I’m going to do at this


27 point is to agree that there is a possibility of a


28 limited waiver and I’ll accept the limited waiver. 4064


1 I’m still not convinced of the relevancy based on


2 what you represent — well, excuse me, what Bradley


3 Miller represents is that Dr. Katz said he wanted to


4 be a celebrity therapist. I’m not sure that the —


5 I have to think about the inference you want to have


6 made from that.


7 MR. MESEREAU: It would suggest financial


8 motivation, Your Honor. And the scope of


9 cross-examination for financial motive is very


10 broad. You’re talking about a Beverly Hills


11 psychologist who has desperately wanted to be


12 involved with celebrities for a long time. And he


13 was very clear with his patient, Brad Miller, that


14 he wanted to meet celebrities and get involved in


15 celebrity cases. That’s what it really comes down


16 to.


17 THE COURT: All right. I’ll give a little


18 more thought on that.


19 MR. ZONEN: Is there an offer of proof that


20 Bradley Miller will be testifying as a witness for


21 the defense?


22 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, there is. He will be


23 testifying for the defense.


24 THE COURT: In the — the limited waiver, as


25 I see it, as far as the District Attorney’s


26 concerned, you were giving some hypotheticals, and


27 before you could address that type of thing, before


28 you could go beyond the cross-examination limited to 4065


1 that conversation, you’d have to have my permission.


2 You’d have to be able to make the same sort of —


3 have a witness make a declaration, and I’m going

4 to — if I allow it in, it will be narrowly


5 construed as to any conversations. This is a really


6 important privilege that’s being protected here.


7 So, I’m not saying you can’t do it, but you


8 were just giving me hypotheticals; what if this, and


9 what if that, and that’s not where we are.


10 MR. ZONEN: I, of course, don’t know,


11 because —


12 THE COURT: I’m just saying, to go beyond —


13 there’s cross-examination here that you can clearly


14 make about this, you know, what was really said, and


15 get the whole conversation out on that issue.


16 Obviously you’re not limited to the two statements


17 that are represented here. But to go into why he’s


18 in treatment or any of that, you can’t touch that.


19 MR. ZONEN: I understand that, but here’s my


20 concern. If it’s true that Bradley Miller is Dr.


21 Katz’s patient, and assuming for this argument that


22 he is, if it’s true that Mark Geragos is Bradley


23 Miller’s employer, and Dr. Katz is a psychologist


24 treating Bradley Miller, I would assume that among


25 their discussions, perhaps multiple discussions, is


26 his workplace relationship with his employer.


27 THE COURT: Well, you would assume that, but


28 we don’t know that. That’s why I’m saying, whatever 4066


1 else you want to go into, you’re going to have to


2 provide me with some sort of statement signed, as —


3 as they did with Bradley Miller. Although, this is


4 not a statement under penalty of perjury, but it


5 gives me the information that I need to know whether


6 I’m going to let you go into it. That’s all I’m


7 telling you. Okay?


8 MR. ZONEN: Okay.


9 THE COURT: All right. At the — I think


10 what you’ll have to do is to file the waiver when —


11 the original waiver when you’re ready.


12 I’ll give it back. I’ve got a copy of it.


13 I just didn’t have an original.


14 MR. MESEREAU: I only have an e-mailed


15 waiver. That’s all I have at the present.


16 MS. YU: It’s been faxed.


17 MR. MESEREAU: A faxed waiver.


18 MS. YU: We’ll get the original.


19 MR. MESEREAU: We will get the original,


20 Your Honor.


21 THE COURT: All right. I think we’re ready,


22 then, to go forward with the testimony.


23 Do you want to bring in the jury, please?




25 (The following proceedings were held in


26 open court in the presence and hearing of the


27 jury:)


28 // 4067

Upon completion of the court break, Mesereau continued his cross examination by questioning Masada of his knowledge of the finances of Jay Jackson; Masada didn’t know that Jay Jackson was earning $8,000 dollars a month in salary from the U.S. Army! I’m sure he would have thought twice before loaning them all of that money had he known so!

2 THE COURT: All right. You may proceed.


3 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.


4 Q. Mr. Masada, when Jay Jackson and Janet


5 Arvizo called you and —


6 MR. ZONEN: Objection; vague.


7 MR. MESEREAU: He’s only testified to one


8 call, Your Honor. Your Honor —


9 MR. ZONEN: And two people placing it?


10 MR. MESEREAU: — I’ll rephrase it.


11 Q. Mr. Masada, approximately when did Jay


12 Jackson and Janet Arvizo call you and discuss the


13 issue of the judo club or karate club, if you know?


14 A. I don’t recall.


15 Q. Okay. Obviously it was your impression that


16 Janet Arvizo was involved with Mr. Jay Jackson at


17 that point, right?


18 A. Yes, sir.


19 Q. Did you know that Jay Jackson was making


20 $8,000 a month?


21 A. No, I didn’t.


22 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Assumes facts not in


23 evidence; hearsay.


24 THE COURT: Sustained.


25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you know whether or


26 not Janet was collecting welfare at that point and


27 giving it to Jay?


28 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Assuming facts not 4068


1 in evidence, and hearsay.


2 THE COURT: Sustained.

Next, Masada was questioned about his knowledge of the J.C. Penney lawsuit, and he replied that he initially heard about it on the news “a couple of months ago”, which means that he probably heard about it after Jackson was arrested and the media reported on the background of the Arvizo family.

3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did Janet ever discuss the


4 J.C. Penney lawsuit with you?


5 MR. ZONEN: Objection, irrelevant and


6 hearsay.


7 THE COURT: Overruled.


8 You may answer.




10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And when did you have a


11 conversation with Janet about the J.C. Penney


12 lawsuit?


13 A. After I heard it on the news.


14 Q. And when did you hear about it on the news?


15 A. I don’t recall.


16 Q. Was it recently?


17 A. No, it was a couple, few months ago. I


18 don’t know how many months ago it was. It was in


19 the news.


20 Q. So you’re in touch with Janet these days,


21 right?


22 A. Yes, sometimes I am.


23 Q. When did you last talk to her?


24 A. Before Christmas.


15 Q. Now, when you had a discussion with Janet


16 Arvizo about the J.C. Penney case —


17 A. Yes.


18 Q. — without telling me what she said, did


19 you learn approximately when that case was resolved?


20 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Irrelevant; hearsay;


21 lack of foundation.


22 THE COURT: Sustained.


23 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know whether or not


24 the J.C. Penney case was ever resolved?


25 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Irrelevant and


26 hearsay; lack of foundation.


27 THE COURT: Sustained.


28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had discussions 4070


1 with Janet Arvizo about this case?


2 A. About this case, not really.


3 Q. And what do you mean by “not really”?


4 A. I mean, the only thing she — at one time —


5 Q. I’m not asking you what she said. I’m just


6 asking you if you’ve discussed this case with Janet.


7 A. Yeah, maybe. Yeah, maybe I did one time.


8 Q. Maybe one time?


9 A. Yes. Yes, I did.

Next, Mesereau questions Masada about what he and Janet have discussed regarding the current case:

10 Q. And when was that maybe one time?


11 A. Maybe one time about — God, I don’t know


12 when it’s about. The case was on the sheriffs and


13 the District Attorney and everybody else. Was maybe


14 about six, seven months, eight months ago.


15 Q. Okay. When did you last see Janet?


16 A. I guess, approximately, maybe about seven,


17 eight — six months, seven months ago.

18 Q. Months ago?


19 A. I don’t know exact — I’m very bad with


20 time, so don’t corner me on that.


21 Q. And where did you see her?


22 A. I saw her in her apartment.


23 Q. And where was that?


24 A. It was in West L.A. somewhere.


25 Q. Okay.


26 A. It was Jay’s apartment, or their apartment,


27 or whatever.


28 Q. So you visited Janet and Jay in their 4071


1 apartment in West Los Angeles, correct?


2 A. Yes, I did.


3 Q. I’m not asking you the address. I don’t


4 think that’s relevant. But West Los Angeles is very


5 different from East Los Angeles, isn’t it?


6 A. Yes, it is.


7 Q. Much more affluent, correct?


8 A. Some of the places. Some of the places.


9 Q. But generally, as an area of Los Angeles,


10 it’s one of the most affluent areas of Los Angeles,


11 isn’t it?


12 A. Yes. They have poor places and rich places,


13 yes.


14 Q. It is considered one of the most affluent


15 parts of L.A., correct?


16 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Irrelevant and lack


17 of foundation. He’s not a —


18 THE COURT: Asked and answered.


19 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. All right.


20 Q. And who arranged for you to meet with Janet


21 Arvizo and Jay Jackson at an apartment in West Los


22 Angeles?


23 A. Nobody arranged it.


24 Q. Somebody must have, right?


25 A. No. I mean, I call up —


26 Q. You just ended up there?


27 A. Do you want me to tell you how I did? I


28 called. I wanted to find out how Gavin — how he’s 4072


1 doing. So I want to see his physical — how his


2 face, everything is okay. I said, “I’ll come and


3 drop by. I have time to drop by and come see you.”


4 Q. Without saying what anybody told you, did


5 you discuss this case in Jay Jackson’s apartment


6 with Jay and Janet?


7 A. No.


8 Q. This topic never came up?


9 A. No.


10 Q. How did you know where to call to arrange


11 the meeting?


12 A. I have Janet’s cell number, and I have Jay’s


13 number.

 In this excerpt, Masada testified that it was Gavin’s idea to meet Jackson after seeing him on TV during his hospital stay.

22 Q. It was your idea —


23 A. Yes.


24 Q. — to introduce the Arvizos to Michael


25 Jackson, correct?


26 A. No, it wasn’t my idea.


27 Q. Was it Gavin’s idea?


28 A. It was Gavin’s idea. 4082


1 Q. Okay. And because Gavin asked you, you


2 called Neverland, correct?


3 A. Gavin was — I was encouraging him to eat.


4 Q. Yes.


5 A. And he asked me — he was watching T.V. He


6 said, “Michael is my idol. How can I meet him? Can


7 you arrange it?”


8 And I want — at that point I want to say,


9 “I’ll make a wish come true. Yeah, I could do


10 anything. You want me to help, I’ll help.”


11 And I want to encourage him, “Eat, eat,


12 eat.” I say, “Yeah, I’ll go do it, I’ll go do it.”


13 Q. And you told the Santa Barbara Sheriffs in


14 your telephone — excuse me. You told the District


15 Attorney investigator in December of 2003 that you


16 did it because Michael does good stuff for kids,


17 right?


18 A. I believe so. Did I say that? If I said


19 it, I believe him.


20 Q. I can show you the transcript.


21 A. No, I’m sure I did.


22 Q. Okay. Okay. And was it your understanding


23 that you were the first person to make any contact


24 between the Arvizos and Michael Jackson?


25 A. No way. I do not know was the first person.


26 God knows who did. Maybe Michael just watched the


27 T.V. and felt good in his heart. He call him. I


28 have no idea. 4083


1 Q. To this day, you have never met Michael


2 Jackson?


3 A. No. This is the first time I’ve seen him.


4 (To the defendant) How are you?


5 THE DEFENDANT: (Indicating).

This is a very interesting exchange: Mesereau questioned Masada about how much money he gave the Arvizos, and why he gave it to them, and he did this to reinforce the fact that Janet never told him about the JC Penney settlement, or about Jay Jackson’s $8k monthly salary, which gave Masada the impression that they were poor:

3 Q. Now, at some point, you paid for the Arvizo


4 rent on their home, correct?


5 A. Yes. Not Arvizo home, David’s home, yeah.


6 Q. Well, David was married to Janet at the


7 time, correct?


8 A. Yes, sir.


9 Q. So why do you want to single out David and


10 not Janet if you’re paying both of their rent?


11 A. I don’t single out. Because Janet wasn’t


12 asking me. David asked me for rent.


13 Q. David asked you; said they didn’t have rent


14 money?


15 A. Yes, sir.


16 Q. And you paid rent for Janet, David and the


17 children, correct?


18 A. Yes, sir.


19 Q. Okay. How many times did you do that?


20 A. A couple of times — a couple of times I


21 think I gave him cash. I don’t recall. I’m not


22 sure. A couple of times.


23 Q. In total, how much cash do you think you


24 gave the Arvizos?


25 MR. ZONEN: Objection; “the Arvizos.”


26 MR. MESEREAU: Well, Your Honor —


27 MR. ZONEN: Vague.


28 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll withdraw. I’ll lay a 4088


1 better foundation.


2 Q. During the time that Janet and David were


3 married and living together —


4 A. Yeah.


5 Q. — and during the approximate time that you


6 paid their rent, for Janet, David and the children,


7 how much money in total do you think you gave the


8 Arvizo family?


9 MR. ZONEN: Objection; “Arvizo family.”


10 It’s who he gave the money to.


11 THE COURT: Overruled. He asked for a total


12 of all of them.


13 THE WITNESS: I very openly — I don’t do


14 charity for tax write-offs so I have a count of how


15 much to give. I give money from my heart. I never


16 write them as a tax write-off.


17 So I don’t know how much I gave him. I gave


18 him money whenever they ask me. It’s not a tax

19 write-off. I do it from my heart. Some people,


20 they know how much they give to this, how much they


21 give to that. I have no idea.


22 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Can you estimate in total


23 how much you gave the Arvizo family?


24 A. I have no idea. You know, I mean the time


25 they come in the office, “I need money for my gas, I


26 need money for food, I need this,” and you give them


27 50, 20, 30, 40, 50. Whatever you have in your


28 pocket, you give to them. You don’t sit down, “How 4089


1 much was that? How much was that?” I don’t count


2 that. I go out there, I give to another person the


3 same thing.


4 Q. Obviously you were generous with them quite


5 often.


6 A. Yes, I was.


7 MR. ZONEN: Objection as to “them” as vague.


8 THE COURT: Sustained.


9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Obviously you were very


10 generous to the Arvizo family.


11 MR. ZONEN: Objection to “the Arvizo family”


12 as vague.


13 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, with all due


14 respect, they’re married and are living together.


15 MR. ZONEN: That assumes facts not in


16 evidence.


17 THE COURT: There has been an issue drawn in


18 this case about who asked for money and who gets


19 money. And that’s why we have the objection. And I


20 will sustain the objection, have you ask


21 specifically who.


22 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When you paid for the


23 Arvizo rent, who did you give the money to?


24 A. Always to David.


25 Q. When you paid for the karate and judo


26 school, who were you helping out?


27 A. Gavin and Star.


28 Q. And that was as a result of a phone call 4090


1 from Jay Jackson and Janet Arvizo, correct?


2 A. It was — yes, a conversation with Jay


3 Jackson, yes.


4 Q. And Janet Arvizo, as you’ve already


5 testified, was in the phone call, right?


6 A. Yes.


7 Q. David Arvizo was not in that phone call,


8 correct?


9 A. No, he was not.


10 Q. Okay. Now, you did testify that David often


11 asked you for money, right?


12 A. Yes, sir.


13 Q. And how many times, if you know, do you


14 think he asked you for money?


15 A. I have no idea.


16 Q. Was it a lot?


17 A. He would come in — you know, I mean — you


18 know, the people didn’t know — you got to picture


19 something here. The kid — the family out of work.


20 The kid is sick. You know, and they react. They


21 don’t have no money, they have no mean of living,


22 and you try to help. You don’t ask how many. I


23 mean, if you give them — you’ve been in that


24 situation, the same as me, you help out, whatever it


25 is. You don’t count them, how many time, how many


26 year, how many this. You give help to people and


27 that’s what it’s about.


28 Q. All right. And if they obtained a large sum 4091


1 of money from any civil settlement, you didn’t know


2 about it, right?


3 A. No, I did not.


4 Q. Okay. The only message you were getting was


5 these people are poor, right?


6 A. That’s what I got, yes, sir.

Next, Masada denies encouraging Janet to see a lawyer to get money from the Bashir documentary; instead, he insisted that it was to get the networks to stop airing the Bashir documentary because it wasn’t fair that Gavin was getting teased everywhere he went, and he wanted it to stop:

14 Q. You testified that you thought someone had


15 made millions of dollars on the Bashir documentary,


16 but that the Arvizo family had gotten nothing,


17 right?


18 A. Yes, I did.


19 Q. And you didn’t think that was right,


20 correct?


21 A. That was right?


22 Q. You didn’t think that was right?


23 A. No, my whole thing was, I saw they


24 exploiting some underprivileged, underaged people


25 that people in the media made a fortune out of that


26 documentary. That was my personal belief. And they


27 show this poor kid’s face on that documentary, and


28 the kids in the school calling him “fag,” “faggot,” 4093


1 I thought that was unfair.


2 Q. Right.


3 A. That was not fair there.


4 Q. You thought that Bashir did an injustice?


5 A. I thought that Bashir did injustice.


6 Q. Right. And you told Janet —


7 A. Yeah.


8 Q. — that she should go to a lawyer because


9 “They’re making millions and your family is getting


10 nothing”?


11 A. No.


12 Q. Well, that’s certainly what you suggested


13 earlier, wasn’t it?


14 A. No. You got to listen to me or read it back


15 what I said, okay?


16 Q. Okay.


17 A. What I said, I want to stop the people


18 calling him names.


19 Q. Uh-huh.


20 A. I did not say anything about money or


21 anything. Don’t bring that up. We were talking


22 about what was unjustice was done. He used that and


23 showed his picture on the T.V, every newspaper,


24 every print media, from electronic to, you know,


25 print media, they all have his picture.


26 I said that was very unfair. I want to stop


27 that, because I didn’t want the kid go to gas


28 station, the guy in gas station say, “Here is that 4094


1 faggot. He slept with Michael.” I did not want


2 that happen to any of my kid, and I think that’s


3 unjustice.


4 Q. Do you remember telling a District Attorney


5 investigator that Martin Bashir made millions and


6 these underprivileged kids didn’t get a cent?


7 A. Yeah, I did. I still say it.


8 Q. And one of the reasons you referred Janet to


9 Attorney Bill Dickerman was you learned she had


10 signed some document relating to the Bashir


11 documentary, correct?


12 A. It was — maybe was later on. Don’t mix it


13 up. Maybe it was later on that she said she


14 signed — the first time we went to Bill Dickerman,


15 it was all about that kid show the picture on the


16 documentary was unjustice. I wanted to stop


17 newspaper, everywhere it is, we — “Can we stop


18 that?”


19 Q. Now, did you learn at some point that


20 Michael Jackson and Janet Arvizo had sued the


21 British company that did the documentary in England?


22 A. I did not know that.

23 Q. And did you ever learn that Michael Jackson


24 had sued for a number of reasons, including they put


25 his children on the documentary?


26 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as lack of


27 foundation, and hearsay, and relevance.


28 THE COURT: Sustained. 4095


1 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did Janet ever inform you


2 that she was involved in a lawsuit with Michael


3 Jackson against a British production company?


4 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Hearsay, lack of


5 foundation, relevance.


6 THE COURT: Sustained.


7 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember telling a


8 District Attorney investigator they made money and


9 they didn’t give anything to the Arvizos?


10 MR. ZONEN: Objection; hearsay.


11 THE COURT: Overruled.


12 THE WITNESS: Again, you got to question


13 again.


14 MR. MESEREAU: Sure.


15 Q. Do you remember telling a District Attorney


16 investigator in 2003 that with respect to Bashir’s


17 company, they made money, and didn’t give the


18 Arvizos anything?


19 A. How could I make that comment? I’m still


20 making that comment, too. How could I?


21 Q. And you felt that Bashir and his company had


22 taken advantage of an underprivileged kid, right?


23 MR. ZONEN: Objection; asked and answered.


24 THE COURT: Overruled.


25 You may answer.


26 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.


27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. How many meetings


28 with Janet and Attorney Bill Dickerman did you 4096


1 attend?


2 A. Hmm, God. I think maybe about four or —


3 maybe four, five, or three. Four. I think I


4 remember four of them.


5 Q. And when did you first meet Attorney Bill


6 Dickerman?


7 A. When did I ever met him?


8 Q. Yes.


9 A. He became my attorney a long time ago. He


10 represent me, and I thought he did a very good job.


11 Q. And how many years had he represented you


12 before you introduced the Arvizos to him?


13 A. I would say over five, six, seven, eight.


14 Q. Had he represented you in various lawsuits?


15 A. Yes, sir.


16 Q. How many lawsuits?


17 MR. ZONEN: Objection; irrelevant.


18 THE COURT: Sustained.

Next, Mesereau attempted to show that Masada has a pattern of giving inconsistent testimonies by asking him questions about his prior litigations, in which he couldn’t remember basic facts about himself, but Zonen’s objections were sustained:

23 Q. Do you remember a case where you sued


24 someone named Roy Kavin?


25 A. Yes, I did.


26 Q. And approximately when was that?


27 A. God, that was my neighbor in my club, who


28 came in, he did something to my club. I don’t know. 4097


1 I can’t remember the date.


2 Q. You testified under oath in a deposition in


3 that case, correct?


4 A. Yes, I did.


5 Q. Do you remember you were asked questions


6 about when you became an American citizen?


7 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as


8 irrelevant.


9 THE COURT: Sustained.


10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember your not


11 recalling when you went to high school?


12 MR. ZONEN: Objection; irrelevant.


13 THE COURT: Sustained.


14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember your not


15 knowing where you worked?


16 MR. ZONEN: Objection; irrelevant.


17 THE COURT: Sustained.


18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember testifying


19 under oath you didn’t know when you became a


20 comedian?


21 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object to the


22 content of this deposition in total. Irrelevant.


23 THE COURT: Sustained. No further questions


24 unless you make an offer of proof to the Court.


25 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I can prove that


26 this witness —


27 THE COURT: Outside the presence of the jury.


28 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Okay. 4098

As another indication of how clueless Masada was about the financial situation of the Arvizo family, here’s his testimony of how he offered to give them money to enroll Star and Gavin in private school after the airing of the Bashir documentary:

18 Q. By the way, you’ve testified about your


19 concern that Gavin was being made fun of by


20 schoolmates after the Bashir documentary, right?


21 A. Yeah.


22 Q. And do you remember telling a District


23 Attorney investigator that, as a result of that,


24 Janet wanted her kids to go to a private school, and


25 you told her you would help send them?


26 A. They were thinking about to send him, the


27 kid, to a school that they would not make fun of


28 him. And they were — they did — they were 4099


1 deciding to do it. And I said, “What’s holding you


2 guys back? If you guys need any money for private


3 school, I volunteer, give you whatever you need.”


4 Q. Okay. But Janet at that point wanted her


5 kids in a private school, correct?


6 A. Didn’t want a private school. Want him to


7 be somewhere, the people, they don’t make fun of her


8 son, calling him “faggot.”


9 Q. But you told the D.A. investigator that


10 Janet wanted her kids in a private school, told you


11 about it, and you said you would help send them,


12 correct?


13 MR. ZONEN: Objection; asked and answered.


14 THE COURT: Sustained.


15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever help send the


16 Arvizo children to a private school?


17 A. Yes, I did.


18 Q. When was that?


19 A. I have no idea. After Martin Bashir, and


20 the kids, they call him “faggot.”


21 Q. Was that when she was in a relationship with


22 Major Jay Jackson, to your knowledge?


23 A. Yes. Yes.


24 Q. Did you know what his income was at that


25 point?


26 MR. ZONEN: Objection; asked and answered.


27 THE COURT: Overruled.


28 THE WITNESS: No idea. 4100


1 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever ask Major Jay


2 Jackson, “How much do you make?”


3 A. No, it is not my business —


4 Q. Okay.


5 A. — how much he makes.


6 Q. How long did you help with the private


7 school?


8 A. I just wrote him one check. It was very


9 little money. Very, very little money. I just give


10 them one check.


11 Q. And again, that was after the Bashir

12 documentary, right?


13 A. Yeah. Yes.


14 Q. And would it be safe to say that was in the


15 year 2003?


16 A. If that’s what’s — the year it happened,


17 yes.

To be continued:

3 Comments leave one →
  1. stacyi permalink
    September 30, 2012 9:29 am

    I don’t believe that it was Gavin’s idea to meet Michael Jackson. I think it was his mother’s idea. I read somewhere that this woman had consulted with a civil lawyer about suing Michael Jackson for child molestation before she even met him.

  2. stacy permalink
    September 30, 2012 3:19 am

    I do feel bad for Gavin and how he was thrust into the public spotlight without notice and how all the kids at school were saying cruel things about him. Martin Bashir wanted to make Michael Jackson look very bad by ensnaring him with a child so that it could cause a firestorm and get him the highest ratings in tv history. He didn’t stop to think about Gavin and what effect it might have on him. He is an unethical, lying little twerp who’s not man enough to admit that the piece of crap he produced is what led to all of this.

  3. nannorris permalink
    September 28, 2012 11:55 am

    It is amazing to me that these people say one thing , when they dont think they are being recorded and then they try to back out of it.
    Frankly, I find Jamie Masada to lack creditably.And it always seem that on cross., none of the prosecution witnesses can remember anything……..He knows he will be testifying in this case but never bothered to watch the tape he supposedly did on behalf of MJ or speak to the Arvizo kid about this case..And you really think you are showing up at Dickermans office all those times just to stop the play of the Bashir tape on tv..?? of course it was about money..pft
    BTW here is Stan katz youtube channel with his tv show, if you want to get a feel for this guy.
    Leave it to Larry Feldman to find a dr who is a ham for the camera….and wants to be famous..

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: