March 30th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Cynthia Bell (Cross Examination), Dr. Stan Katz, William Dickerman, & Jeff Klapakis (Direct & Cross Examination), Part 1 of 4
Today’s testimony started with Auchincloss’ redirect examination of Bell, in which he questioned her about why she served alcohol to Davellin, who was under-aged at that time. Bell testified that Davellin presented her with a fake ID that stated that she was 21 year old:
1 Q. You mentioned that you served an underage —
2 some underage girls, or an underage girl on this
3 particular flight from Miami to Florida?
4 A. Yes, sir. I was unaware that she was
5 underage. I actually did — I did I.D. her, and I
6 saw a positive identification which reflected that
7 she was 21 years of age.
8 Q. She wasn’t underage?
9 A. It reflected that she was of age, 21 years
10 of age.
11 Q. And were there two girls or one girl?
12 A. There were two girls on that flight.
13 Q. Uh-huh.
14 A. And they maintained that they were best
15 friends and that they were on their way to Neverland
17 Q. Did you card both of them?
18 A. No, I did not.
19 Q. Why not?
20 A. Because I assumed that — because they were
21 maintaining they were best friends that they were
22 both of the same age. There was a younger boy on
23 the flight who —
24 Q. I’m not going to ask about the boy. I’m
25 just concerned about the two girls right now.
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. Why didn’t you card the other girl?
28 A. I was told that they were the same age. 4181
1 Q. Okay. Did she look 21, the other girl?
2 A. They both looked young, and that’s why I
3 I.D.’d them — I I.D.’d the primary person who
4 requested a cocktail.
5 Q. Okay. So you just assumed the other one was
7 A. That’s correct.
8 Q. And did you mention this to Mr. Jackson,
9 that you were serving these young ladies alcohol?
10 A. No, I did not.
11 Q. And how did you — what kind of glass did
12 you serve them in?
13 A. In a tall crystal Waterford glass.
14 Q. Okay. Was it fluted?
15 A. No, sir, it was not.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. It was cut crystal.
In this excerpt, Bell describes the seating arrangements again, and emphasizes that, in general, every one stayed in their seats throughout the flight, and Jackson’s children were with him the entire flight:
2 Q. How — do you have peculiar recollections of
3 this particular flight over others? Is your memory
4 better about this particular flight that we’re
5 talking about in this particular case over other
6 flights that you’ve had?
7 A. Is my memory of the actual flight or —
8 Q. Yes. You’ve testified about a number of
9 details about this flight —
10 A. I’m very clear about the flight. I’m
11 actually very clear about the people that I fly.
12 It’s the locations, typically, that blend together.
13 But — because, you know, you’re in New York a lot,
14 you’re in Florida a lot. I mean, you’re a lot —
15 and it’s typically the same sort of places that we
16 go to.
17 Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned that you didn’t
18 recall if Mr. Jackson was sleeping, but you don’t
19 think he did.
20 A. I’m certain that he was not sleeping.
21 Q. Okay. What time did this flight leave
23 A. I believe it was either a three or four
24 o’clock launch or — yes.
25 Q. Okay. So it would have arrived in Santa
26 Barbara — taking into account five hours, it would
27 arrive around eight or nine o’clock Florida time,
28 true? 4183
1 A. They’re three hours ahead of us. You want
2 Florida time —
3 Q. Yes, I said “Florida time.” Five hours.
4 Three plus five, eight. Eight or nine?
5 A. I can’t do the math.
6 Q. Okay. So was it dark when you arrived in
7 Santa Barbara; do you know?
8 A. I believe it was.
9 Q. And did you happen to notice whether other
10 people slept on that flight, dozed or napped,
11 anything of that nature?
12 A. The medical doctor that was on board did
13 sleep. The child, the youngest child, slept on that
14 flight for —
15 Q. Mr. Jackson’s youngest child?
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. Just your best recollection.
18 A. That’s my best recollection. Thank you.
19 Q. Is it possible that other people napped
20 during the flight?
21 A. I know it was a pretty busy cabin.
22 Q. Did people move around the cabin?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. A little bit, or a lot, or something in
25 between. You tell me.
26 A. I wouldn’t say unusually a lot. But the
27 children were up and down and back and forth and the
28 governesses were back and forth. 4184
1 Q. Did many people change seats?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Did some people change seats?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Do you have specific recollections of who
6 changed seats and what manner the change took place,
7 how that took place?
8 A. Definitely Prince and Paris. They were back
9 and forth in the cabin, interactive with the entire
11 Q. So they would get up and move from their
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And I believe you testified that at one
15 point they were in the banquet area; is that what
16 you —
17 A. In the club seating.
18 Q. Club seating. Yeah. Okay. In the club
19 seating with Mr. Jackson.
20 You also testified that during the entire
21 fright they were around Mr. Jackson, his children
22 were around him?
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. Do you have a specific recollection of that?
25 A. I do.
As a further blow to the prosecution’s case, Bell testified that Jackson was always a private drinker, and he drank from Diet Coke cans and plastic thermals long before the flight with the Arvizo family:
3 Q. All right. Now, Mr. Mesereau asked you
4 about whether or not Mr. Jackson would sometimes
5 have vodka in a Coke can. Do you recall that
6 portion of your testimony?
7 A. Yes, I do. I do.
8 Q. So you would serve Mr. Jackson mixed alcohol
9 drinks in a Diet Coke can?
10 A. Every beverage that was consumed by Mr.
11 Jackson was in a Diet Coke can, that is correct.
12 Q. And I think you testified that that was your
13 idea originally?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. Before you came up with this idea, was Mr.
16 Jackson secretive about his drinking?
17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.
18 THE COURT: Overruled.
19 MR. MESEREAU: Assumes facts not in
21 THE COURT: Overruled.
22 You may answer.
23 THE WITNESS: I — I don’t know. The only
24 time I flew him was with Pacific Jet and —
25 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: That’s what I’m talking
26 about. When you flew with him on Pacific Jet.
27 A. Oh.
28 Q. Was he open about his drinking on Pacific 4196
2 A. No, sir, he was not.
3 Q. What makes you say that?
4 A. Because I served him out of a — I’m sorry,
5 a — a blue — it was almost like a — not a
6 Tupperware thing. I can’t describe it. I mean, it
7 was sort of like — I mean, it was a cup, but it
8 wasn’t transparent. It was sort of a Tupperware —
9 Q. Plastic cup?
10 A. Right.
11 Q. Anything else unusual about that cup?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Did that cup — was that something that was
14 provided with the aircraft or something he brought?
15 A. Actually, that cup I believe was on the
17 Q. And why did you use that cup — well, let me
18 back up.
19 Did — on that particular aircraft, or on
20 that particular charter jet company, did you also
21 use crystal to serve your clients alcoholic
23 A. Yes, sir.
24 Q. Can you tell me why you did not use crystal
25 to serve Mr. Jackson on those flights?
26 A. I don’t remember why, I’m sorry. I don’t
27 remember why I did that that time.
28 Q. But there was something about your serving 4197
1 him those items that made you believe he wanted it
2 served in the plastic cup rather than crystal?
3 A. Can I take a moment to think about this?
4 Q. Sure.
5 A. I really — I mean, I don’t remember why.
6 Because I know I served children usually in plastic.
7 I mean, you know, small children. Or they’re like
8 sippy cups, but I don’t remember why.
9 Q. Was this like a sippy cup?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever object to being served
12 in a plastic cup?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did he ever object to being served in a Diet
15 Coke can?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Did you believe that that’s how he wanted
18 his beverage — his alcoholic beverages served, in
19 Diet Coke cans, and in this plastic cup when you did
21 A. I assumed that’s how he wanted to be served.
22 Q. And did Xtra Jet adopt a policy of having
23 Diet Coke cans of wine available for Mr. Jackson on
24 any flight Mr. Jackson flew on?
25 A. Yes, sir.
26 Q. So even when you weren’t flying, he was
27 always served with a Diet Coke can, as far as you
28 know? 4198
1 A. Yes. I would give that information to our
2 flight attendants.
3 Q. So you shared that with other flight
4 attendants at Xtra Jet?
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. Was this information ever — did this
7 information about serving wine in Diet Coke cans
8 ever appear in writing on any Xtra Jet manifest, or
9 order, or anything like that?
10 A. No, sir. We signed confidentiality
11 agreements, and that would be something that would
12 fall under a confidentiality agreement.
13 Q. Okay. Speaking of that, the reason you gave
14 for doing this was because you believe that Mr.
15 Jackson wanted to keep his drinking a secret from
16 his children?
17 A. Private from his children, yes.
18 Q. He didn’t want his children to know he was
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What makes you say that?
22 A. Because he’s a private person, and — I have
23 a lot of clients that don’t drink in front — don’t
24 present to drink in front of their children.
25 Q. My question is, what makes you think that
26 Mr. Jackson didn’t want his children to know he was
27 drinking, specifically Mr. Jackson?
28 A. I don’t know why he — I don’t know why. 4199
1 Q. Okay. But you believe that was the reason?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did he ever talk to you about it?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Was it ever talked about on the flight, that
6 he was having — that he had alcoholic beverages in
7 his Coke can?
8 A. Was it ever talked to —
9 Q. Talked about openly on the flight, by
10 anybody, that he’s drinking?
11 A. No.
12 Q. That he’s drinking from a Coke can?
13 A. No, sir.
14 Q. So on this particular flight that involved
15 the Arvizo children, was it ever mentioned that he
16 was drinking wine from a Coke can?
17 A. No, sir.
18 Q. Now, I believe you previously stated that he
19 drank wine on this flight, about a bottle, and you
20 opened up another bottle, that’s correct?
21 A. There were three bottles of wine opened.
22 Two white and one red.
23 Q. And do you know how much of the second white
24 bottle — white wine bottle was consumed?
25 A. I do not. I know that it was opened,
In a sign of desperation, Auchincloss tried to get Bell to admit that Jackson was drunk, but Bell denied it, and at the same time admitted that she was so worried about the girls that she stopped serving them alcohol:
8 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: On the flight home from
9 Florida —
10 A. Uh-huh.
11 Q. — did Mr. Jackson become intoxicated?
12 Do you understand the question?
13 A. I don’t — “intoxicated” as in like how —
14 Q. Did he show signs that he was inebriated or
15 signs that — signs of showing that he was somebody
16 who had been drinking? Show any physical signs of
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In what way?
20 A. Well, he’s a very nervous flyer, and he was
21 just a lot more relaxed. By no means was he drunk.
22 I was more worried about the two girls. I actually
23 stopped pouring them alcohol.
24 Q. Okay. But didn’t you testify in the grand
25 jury that he was intoxicated?
26 A. Yes.
Next, Bell went on to describe Gavin’s rude and inappropriate behavior towards her; he started a food fight, treated Bell and the other flight attendants as if they were his maids, and was unusually demanding:
27 Q. All right. And on this flight home, you
28 noticed that this young boy, Gavin we’ve called him, 4202
1 you know who I’m talking about?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. You said that he was acting weird.
4 A. Yes, sir.
5 Q. What — tell me a little bit about that.
6 When was the first time you noticed that he did
7 something that seemed weird to you?
8 A. Well, he was just incredibly rude. And I
9 find that behavior unintelligent, and strange.
10 Q. Okay. My question was, when did you first
11 start noticing that he’s not being —
12 A. From the very beginning, the originating
13 point of the flight.
14 Q. As the flight went on, was — did he
15 become — well, tell me exactly what happened. What
16 was it that made you say that?
17 A. Upon arrive — upon seating himself or
18 situating himself in the cabin, he acted like I was
19 his maid, basically, throwing a book bag at me, and,
20 “I want this here,” and then, “I want this there.”
21 And just very demanding. Just unusually demanding,
22 unusually rude.
23 Q. Did his behavior get better as the flight
24 went on?
25 A. The only time his behavior was acceptable
26 was when he was listening to music.
27 Q. Okay.
28 A. He had a headset with some music that he was 4203
1 listening to.
2 Q. My question is, did his behavior get better,
3 worse, the same? You tell me.
4 A. It stayed pretty much the same throughout
5 the flight.
6 Q. And you said that he was — now, you — did
7 you know this young man from any — in any sense
8 from outside the realm of flying this jet?
9 A. No, sir, I don’t watch T.V. typically, and
10 I —
11 Q. So did you have any means of gauging whether
12 this boy acted this way normally?
13 A. No. I would have no — no way to gauge his
14 behavior outside of on the aircraft.
15 Q. You said something about a food fight?
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. The boy was engaged in a food fight?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. And who was he engaged in that food fight
21 A. Primarily with the medical doctor.
23 Q. And the doctor was fighting back?
24 A. Well, the medical doctor was sleeping at
25 first, when he flung mashed potatoes at him.
27 Q. And then what happened?
28 A. Then – 4204
1 Q. It went back and fork?
2 A. Right. It was like crowd mentality.
3 Everyone sort of joined in.
4 Q. More than just the doctor?
5 A. The girls. And it became a game, basically,
6 on board.
7 Q. So it was playful?
8 A. The — the initial flinging of the mashed
9 potatoes, in my opinion, was not playful. Flinging
10 mashed potatoes at a sleeping man?
Here’s a revealing revelation from Bell, and it gives insight into Gavin’s affinity for Jackson at that time: while describing the watch that Jackson had given him to Bell, he said Jackson was his “best friend”. This was a very important revelation because when Jackson cut off the Arvizo family from his inner circle, Gavin went from being heartbroken to downright angry, and this is what motivated him to make false accusations against Jackson without any remorse.
Another important piece of information from this excerpt is that Bell didn’t believe that Gavin was intoxicated on the flight, contrary to the prosecution’s assertioins:
11 Q. Did you have — you mentioned that he was
12 bragging about a watch. Tell me about that.
13 A. He came into my — into my galley area
14 requesting an orange soda, Sunkist orange soda. And
15 he had two watches on his wrist, and was saying
16 things like, “Look at what Michael bought me.” You
17 know, “These are very expensive watches.” And,
18 “He’s my best friend.” And just —
19 Q. You didn’t like that?
20 A. Well, I — I fly Fortune 500 people. I
21 could care less what your watch costs.
22 Q. You weren’t impressed by his watch?
23 A. He just goes on.
24 Q. Okay. Did he mention anything about where
25 he got that watch from?
26 A. Well, he did say, “Michael bought this watch
27 for me.” And, “He’ll buy me anything.” He was
28 just — just an odd bird. 4205
1 Q. Did you have any reason to believe that that
2 is the way he normally acted or if something was
3 causing him to act that way?
4 A. I have no idea. The only —
5 Q. You have no idea whether he normally acts
6 that way?
7 A. I have no idea.
8 Q. When he was acting up, was Mr. Jackson
9 seated next to him?
10 A. He was in my — he was in my galley.
11 Q. No, in general. You said he was — you
12 know, in general, during this flight, you said he
13 was acting weird. Did this behavior happen in Mr.
14 Jackson’s presence?
15 A. Some of the time.
16 Q. Did Mr. Jackson do anything to stop it?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Miss Bell, was he acting at all like he
19 could have been intoxicated?
20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; asked
21 and answered.
22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I haven’t asked that
24 THE COURT: Overruled.
25 You may answer.
26 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
28 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: In the grand jury, 4206
1 didn’t you say it was possible he was intoxicated?
2 A. Anything’s possible. It could be possible.
3 Q. Did you say that?
4 A. I wouldn’t know how to gauge it, because he
5 acted the same throughout the entire trip.
6 Q. So it could be that he was reacting because
7 he’d been drinking?
8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; and
9 asked and answered.
10 THE COURT: Sustained.
In this last excerpt from Auchincloss’s redirect examination, Bell described how Jackson had his arm around Gavin at times as Gavin listened to music, but it wasn’t anything unusual. She also testified that she found it odd that Jackson didn’t do much to stop Gavin from acting so rude during the flight:
11 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. When Mr.
12 Jackson was seated next to Gavin, was he physically
13 touching him?
14 A. Did they have physical contact?
15 Q. Was he physically touching him in any way?
16 A. Yes, at times.
17 Q. Did Mr. Jackson, at times, cuddle with
19 A. I wouldn’t say “cuddle.” They — he had his
20 arm around him listening to music at times.
21 Q. So how do you define cuddling?
22 A. “Cuddling”? I guess I’d have to show you.
24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: May I approach the
25 witness, Your Honor?
27 Q. Okay. So it didn’t fit your definition of
28 “cuddle,” but he did have his arm around him? 4207
1 A. At times, yes, sir.
2 Q. Did it seem odd to you that Mr. Jackson
3 didn’t do anything to stop this young boy from being
4 what you said was rude?
5 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Calls for
6 speculation; no foundation.
7 THE COURT: Overruled.
8 You may answer. Do you want the question
9 read back?
10 THE WITNESS: Yeah, please.
11 THE COURT: All right.
12 THE WITNESS: It’s just distracting when you
13 guys like —
14 THE COURT: I know it is. That’s why I’m
15 asking you if you want the question read back.
16 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
17 (Record read.)
18 THE WITNESS: Yes. I — because his children
19 are so polite, I wasn’t used to that.
20 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Does he intervene when
21 his children —
22 A. Absolutely. They’re very well disciplined
23 and polite.
24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Thank you.
25 I have no further questions.
26 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
27 THE COURT: Mr. Mesereau?
Under recross-examination, Mesereau asked Bell to describe in further detail Gavin’s rude behavior on the flight, and Janet’s allowance of this behavior. Bell testified that Gavin’s rude behavior started as soon as he boarded the plane, thus defeating the prosecution’s assertion that it started as a result of him being intoxicated:
2 BY MR. MESEREAU:
3 Q. Good morning.
4 A. I’m sorry.
6 A. Okay. What next?
7 Q. Okay. Gavin’s mother was on the plane, was
8 she not?
9 A. Yes, she was.
10 Q. Did you ever see Gavin’s mother try to stop
11 his rude behavior?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Did you find that odd?
14 A. I found that very odd.
15 Q. And you did say that his rude behavior began
16 from the moment he got on that plane, correct?
17 A. That is correct.
18 Q. And from the moment Gavin got on that plane,
19 you never saw his mother ever try to stop his rude
20 behavior, correct?
21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; asked and
23 THE COURT: Sustained.
24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: How soon after Gavin got
25 on that plane did the rude behavior start?
26 A. Immediately.
27 Q. And when you say “immediately,” where was
28 Gavin when the rude behavior began? 4209
1 A. When he came up the stairs to enter the
3 Q. And what was the first rude thing he did?
4 A. He threw his book bag at me and started
5 ordering me around the cabin as to where he wanted
6 placement of his items.
7 Q. And how did you respond to that?
8 A. Polite and efficiently.
9 Q. Was his mother near him when he began the
10 rude behavior?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And if you recall, where was his mother when
13 Gavin began this rude behavior?
14 A. She entered the aircraft behind him.
15 Q. Was it obvious to you that she could see his
16 rude behavior?
17 A. Absolutely.
18 Q. What’s the next rude thing you recall him
19 doing on the plane?
20 A. He was just very demanding throughout the
21 entire flight, with wanting to get his needs met,
22 whether it was, you know, more ice in his orange
23 soda, to no cole slaw on his plate with his chicken,
24 more mashed potatoes. It seemed like nothing — his
25 chicken wasn’t warm. He — you know, “I want a side
26 of cole slaw. I don’t want it on the same plate.”
27 Just unusual things, like just very — like,
28 you can tell that, like, he was a newcomer to these 4210
1 sort of flights.
2 Either you have people who are really polite
3 or lovely, or you have people who are really
4 demanding, and they feel like they need to be that
5 way to make them feel important. I’m not sure why.
6 But he was very demanding throughout the
7 entire flight.
8 Q. Do you recall where his mother was seated
9 during the flight?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. Could you please tell the jury where she was
13 A. She was — if you pull down the diagram, I
14 can show you exactly where she was seated.
15 A. (Indicating.)
16 Q. So roughly how far away was Gavin during the
17 flight when you saw him behaving in a rude manner?
18 A. He was seated here.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. And he also was seated, at times, on the
22 Q. And the divan is where?
23 A. Here.
24 Q. Okay. Did he behave rudely when he sat on
25 the divan?
26 A. He was engaging in conversation with the two
27 girls. They had just gotten back from a shopping
28 trip in, I believe it was New York, they were 4211
1 saying. New York.
2 Q. And these are the girls that were drinking?
3 A. That is correct.
4 Q. So Gavin spent time with the two girls that
5 were drinking?
6 A. Briefly, yes.
7 Q. Did you have your eye on Gavin all the time
8 while he was with the two girls that were drinking?
9 A. It was hard not to. He was so demanding.
10 Q. Did he demand things of you while he was
11 sitting with the girls that were drinking on the
13 A. No, he was engaged in a conversation about
14 their shopping trip. And they were talking about
15 going horseback riding at Neverland Ranch when they
16 landed from the flight. They had had plans to go
17 horseback riding or something.
18 Q. And you saw Gavin talking to them about
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. And you saw Gavin talk to them while they
22 were drinking alcohol, right?
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. Have you told the jury every rude thing you
25 can remember he did?
26 A. Well, there were so many. Let’s see.
27 Basically he was just — I mean, very demanding when
28 it came to customer service. 4212
1 There was also an incident in the lav where
2 we had ran out of passenger napkins, and he made
3 comments about that.
4 Also, when I did my towel service – which
5 you do continually throughout the flight –
6 apparently his hot — well, we do cold towels,
7 because it was hot in Florida. And then when I
8 served the hot towels, he was — I mean, he wasn’t
9 rude, but, “Why isn’t this cold? Shouldn’t it be
10 cold?” It’s like, “No, it’s meant to be hot,
11 because you’re getting ready for your second
12 course.” So, I mean, just things of that nature.
13 Q. And how long was this flight?
14 A. About five hours.
15 Q. Was he the only rude passenger on the
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. So what he did stands out in your mind very
19 vividly, correct?
20 A. It stood out very vividly.
21 Q. Okay. And did you ever have your eye on his
22 mother during the flight?
23 A. Yes, I did.
24 Q. And what do you recall her doing?
25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Beyond the
26 scope; relevance.
27 MR. MESEREAU: I don’t think it’s beyond the
28 scope, Your Honor, at all, given his questions. He 4213
1 actually put this diagram up there.
2 THE COURT: Overruled. But the question is
3 rather vague. “What do you recall her doing” is —
4 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Okay.
5 Q. Do you recall seeing the mother seated in
6 the seat that you’ve identified for the jury?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. And do you recall ever seeing the mother get
9 out of her seat?
10 A. She got out of her seat to use the lav, yes.
11 Q. And do you recall speaking to the mother?
12 A. Yes. She was actually very interactive with
13 the other governesses.
14 Q. So she was talking to the other governesses?
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. And I think you’ve described three of them,
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And did they seem like they were talking to
21 A. Yes, it was a very friendly conversation
22 that they were having.
23 Q. And please tell the jury, if you can, where
24 the governesses were seated.
25 A. One of the governesses was seated — oh, can
26 you — thank you.
27 I had Governess No. 1 here. Governess
28 No. 2 here. The medical doctor. The mom. The head 4214
1 governess was seated most of the time on the divan.
2 Q. Okay. Now, from what you recall, were the
3 governesses in a position to observe Mr. Jackson?
4 A. Yes, sir.
5 Q. Were they in a position to observe Gavin?
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. And were they in a position to observe Mr.
8 Jackson’s children?
9 A. Yes, sir.
Next, Bell once again reiterates that she never observed Jackson as being intoxicated:
16 Q. Okay. Now, the prosecutor for the
17 government tried to get you to say that possibly he
18 could have been intoxicated, correct?
19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative.
20 THE COURT: Sustained.
21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You never saw Mr. Jackson
22 drunk on that flight, right?
23 A. No, sir.
24 Q. When you discussed the possibility of being
25 intoxicated, what you were saying was that he calmed
26 down and didn’t seem as hyper and nervous as he
27 normally would, correct?
28 A. That is correct. 4218
1 Q. To your knowledge, did anyone consume
2 alcohol on the flight other than Mr. Jackson and
3 these women?
4 A. The medical doctor.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. I served the mom a glass of wine. I don’t
7 think she had drank it, though. None of the
8 governesses drank. And of course not the pilots.
9 Yeah, just the two girls — the two girls,
10 the medical doctor, the mom, and Mr. Jackson.
11 Q. And do you know what kind of wine you served
12 the mom?
13 A. Yeah. It was a —
14 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object; relevancy.
15 THE COURT: Overruled.
16 THE WITNESS: It was a Chardonnay, Kendall
17 Jackson, white wine.
Bell went on to describe Gavin’s interactions with his mother, and her refusal to correct his behavior:
18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever see Gavin
19 with his mother?
20 A. Together?
21 Q. Yes.
22 A. They came on the aircraft together, yeah.
23 Q. Did you ever see the mom interacting with
24 Gavin? Excuse me, something in my voice. Pardon
25 me. Did you ever see the mom interacting with Gavin
26 on the flight?
27 A. Briefly.
28 Q. And where — approximately when was that, if 4219
1 you know?
2 A. When she went to the lav. She stood midway,
3 I remember it clearly, because she was blocking my
4 aisle. She — oops. Uh-oh.
5 She came out of the lav and was standing
6 here talking to her son.
7 Q. Did you find it odd that she had very little
8 interaction with her son on the flight?
9 A. I did.
10 Q. Did you say anything about that to anyone?
11 A. I did.
12 Q. Who did you discuss that with?
13 A. Lauren Wallace.
14 Q. And where was Lauren Wallace when you
15 discussed that with her?
16 A. We had a telephone conversation several days
17 after the flight, so that I could brief her as to
18 confidential matters, such as making certain that
19 Mr. Jackson, on his next flight, had wine poured
20 into a Diet Coke can, and just giving her more of a
21 profile briefing on the specific passengers on board
22 so that she could accommodate them on their
23 passenger profile.
24 Q. Did you assist the mom at all during the
26 A. Assist her — yeah, I served her food and
28 Q. Anything else you did for her, that you can 4220
2 A. No, sir.
Summary of Cynthia Bell’s Testimony
1. Cynthia Ann Bell was a flight attendant for XTra Jet International. She served Jackson on three chartered flights throughout the years, including the flight from Miami to Neverland in early February 2003.
2. Bell testified that Jackson was a very private drinker who consumed alcohol to relax him during turbulent flights, and did not want his children (or the general public) to see him consuming alcohol, so it was her idea to serve Jackson alcohol in soda cans! In fact, she served other clients alcohol in soda cans too! Jackson originally began drinking from plastic thermal bottles long before he ever travelled with Bell, and she also told her fellow flight attendants to serve Jackson’s alcohol this way.
3. Bell denied seeing Jackson share alcohol with Gavin, who sat beside him throughout most of the flight from Miami, Florida to Neverland. She also denied seeing Jackson kiss, fondle, or caress Gavin or any other child.
4. Under cross examination, Bell described the extremely rude and disrespectful behavior of Gavin Arvizo, which included throwing food, making unusual requests, and generally just trying to boss her around as if she was his maid.
5. When asked to describe the seating arrangements on the flight, Bell confirmed that Dr. Farschian (Jackson’s physician) sat directly across from Gavin and Jackson throughout the entire flight, which further debunks the prosecution’s assertion that Jackson licked Gavin’s head during the flight, similar to what they claim that he allegedly did to Jordan Chandler in 1993.
6. Under recross-examination, Bell testified that both Jackson and Gavin were not drunk on the flight back to Neverland, and she continued to deny seeing any improper behavior between Jackson and Gavin.
7. Bell testified about Gavin’s ecstatic behavior while describing the watch that Jackson had given him, and he said Jackson was his “best friend”. This was a very important revelation because when Jackson cut off the Arvizo family from his inner circle, Gavin went from being heartbroken to downright angry, and this is what motivated him to make false accusations against Jackson without any remorse.
8. The prosecution argued that Gavin’s rude behavior was a result of him being intoxicated during the flight, but under redirect examination, Bell confirmed to Mesereau that Gavin’s misbehavior started immediately upon boarding the plane.
The next prosecution witness was Dr. Stanley Katz, the licensed psychologist who Gavin and Star were referred to by attorney Larry Feldman, after they were first referred to Feldman by William Dickerman. Here is Dr. Katz’s description of his relationship with Larry Feldman, his interviews with the Arvizo children, and the method in which the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office was notified. Pay attention to the fact that he discussed with them the possibility of filing a lawsuit against Jackson:
26 Q. Now, we were asking about Larry Feldman.
27 Larry Feldman is an attorney in private practice in
28 Los Angeles; is that right? 4241
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And you indicated that you had a couple of
3 other associations with him?
4 A. Yes, two in 18 years. Two others besides
5 this one.
6 Q. And when were the other two cases?
7 A. I understand — the first one was in
8 approximately 1987, although I don’t have a distinct
9 memory of that.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. And the second one was the Jordan Chandler
13 Q. And that was when?
14 A. I don’t have notes on that, but I think ‘93,
16 Q. Okay. All right. In this particular case,
17 were you retained by Larry Feldman to do some
19 A. I was retained by Mr. Feldman to conduct
20 some interviews.
21 Q. Okay. And what type of interview?
22 A. Mr. Feldman came to me and said that —
23 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.
24 THE COURT: Sustained.
25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Tell us what your
26 understanding of what you were supposed to be doing
28 A. My understanding was that I was to interview 4242
1 three children regarding allegations that they have
2 been either mistreated, abused, possibly molested,
3 that they had participated in a television program
4 without their consent, and that there were numerous
5 allegations, and he wanted me help sort it out.
6 Q. All right. Did you conduct interviews?
7 A. I did.
8 Q. And the interviews were with which children?
9 A. With Gavin Arvizo, Star Arvizo, and Davellin
11 Q. How many interviews with each of these
13 A. Two each.
14 Q. When did these interviews —
15 A. Excuse me. Two with Gavin, two with Star,
16 one with Davellin.
17 Q. Did you interview their mother as well?
18 A. I did.
19 Q. When was she interviewed?
20 A. She was interviewed on May 15, 2003, May 16,
21 and June 11, 2003.
22 Q. So you had three separate interviews with
23 their mother?
24 A. I did.
25 Q. And is she Janet Arvizo?
26 A. She is.
27 Q. The interview with the two boys, Star and
28 Gavin, when were those interviews? 4243
1 A. May 29 and June 11, 2003.
2 Q. And how long, approximately, were those
4 A. Each interview is usually approximately an
5 hour, so they were probably an hour each on that
6 day, each day.
7 Q. And you said you had one interview with
8 Davellin Arvizo?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. When was that date?
11 A. May 29, 2003.
12 Q. During the course of those interviews, did
13 you discuss with either of the children the
14 possibility of a lawsuit?
15 A. I did.
16 Q. What was the purpose of that discussion?
17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection, to the extent it
18 calls for hearsay.
19 THE COURT: The question was, “What was the
20 purpose of the discussion,” not what was said. So
21 I’ll overrule the objection.
22 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Go ahead.
23 A. The purpose was, excuse me, to determine
24 what the children’s expectations were for talking to
25 me, and what they thought would happen as a result
26 of talking to me.
27 Q. At the conclusion of all of these
28 interviews, did you contact Child Protective 4244
1 Services or the Department of Child & Family
2 Services in Los Angeles?
3 A. I did not personally contact them. However,
4 I did go to Department of Children & Family Services
5 on June 12th, 2003, and made an oral report to the
6 Department of Children & Family Services social
8 Q. All right. Following that, did you have an
9 interview with Santa Barbara County law enforcement?
10 A. The next day I did.
11 Q. Did they contact you or did you contact
13 A. They contacted me, and left a message, and I
14 returned their call.
15 MR. ZONEN: I have no further questions.
Under cross-examination, Dr. Katz was asked by Mesereau to further elaborate on his relationship with Larry Feldman, and he “couldn’t recall” if there were any other cases that Feldman referred to him (other than the two that he testified to under direct examination):
18 BY MR. MESEREAU:
19 Q. Good morning, Dr. Katz.
20 A. Good morning.
21 Q. We haven’t met, right?
22 A. We’ve never met.
23 Q. My name’s Tom Mesereau and I speak for
24 Michael Jackson.
25 Now, you indicated that you had a — I think
26 the word you used was “association” with Attorney
27 Larry Feldman that involved two cases; is that
28 correct? 4245
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Has Larry Feldman personally ever referred
3 any business to you?
4 A. He referred a total of three cases to me.
5 Q. Has he ever referred any clients or patients
6 to you?
7 A. I don’t think so.
8 Q. Do you know for sure?
9 A. Well, I’ve been in practice 25 years, and
10 people — I’ve seen hundreds of people, but I don’t
11 recall anybody telling me that they were referred by
12 Mr. Feldman.
13 Q. Okay. So your statement is that other than
14 the two legal cases you referred to in response to
15 the prosecutor’s questions, Larry Feldman, to your
16 knowledge, has never referred any patient to you?
17 A. I don’t recall, yes.
18 Q. Do you know whether any firm associated with
19 Larry Feldman has ever referred any patient or
20 potential patient to you?
21 A. I don’t know.
22 Q. You don’t know?
23 A. I don’t know.
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. I don’t know all the firms he’s been
26 associated with.
Dr. Katz earned a pretty penny for his interviews with the Arvizos!
7 Q. Dr. Feldman (sic), when you interviewed the
8 Arvizos, did you bill for your services?
9 A. I did.
10 Q. Who did you bill?
11 A. Mr. Feldman’s office.
12 Q. And how much did you bill for your services?
13 A. A total of $4,800.
14 Q. Did that bill comprise all of the interviews
15 you described to the jury?
16 A. Yes, it did.
17 Q. And what was your hourly rate for those
19 A. $300 per hour.
20 Q. Have you been paid?
21 A. Yes, I have.
22 Q. By Mr. Feldman?
23 A. By his firm at the time.
24 Q. Okay. And what firm was that?
25 A. I don’t recall the name of the firm. He was
26 one of the principals, so Feldman & Something, or
27 Something & Feldman.
Dr. Katz was retained by Feldman in 1993 to work on the Chandler case, and he reiterated to the jury that he rarely spoke with Feldman throughout the ten year period since the Chandler case, and wasn’t a close friend or professional associate:
20 Q. You told the jury that you were retained by
21 Attorney Larry Feldman in the Jordie Chandler case,
23 A. That’s correct.
24 Q. That was a lawsuit that Attorney Larry
25 Feldman filed against Michael Jackson, correct?
26 A. That’s correct.
27 Q. That was in approximately 1992, correct?
28 A. Yes. 4252
1 Q. And you were paid money to work with Mr.
2 Feldman on that case, correct?
3 A. Well, I was paid for my time and services,
4 not to work with Mr. Feldman.
5 Q. But he’s the one that got you involved,
7 A. He’s the one that retained me on the case.
8 Q. Okay. And did he pay you a retainer on that
10 A. I don’t think he paid me a retainer. I
11 think he paid me for the time I spent on the case.
12 Q. Okay. Okay. Okay. You’ve been in contact
13 with him ever since, correct, on a periodic basis?
14 A. I don’t remember talking to Mr. Feldman — I
15 don’t remember talking to him the last ten years.
16 I don’t think I’ve been in contact, but I don’t
18 Q. Well, you certainly — you don’t recall?
19 A. I don’t know if he ever called or I ever ran
20 into him, but I don’t remember doing anything
21 professionally with him for the last ten years.
22 Q. Okay. I’m not asking if you did something
23 professionally with him.
24 A. Contact?
25 Q. I’m asking if you’ve had any contact of
26 any kind with him before he referred the Arvizos to
28 A. Well, I’m trying to explain that. I have no 4253
1 social relationship with him. I don’t go to dinner
2 with him or never been to his house. I don’t have
3 lunch with him, dinner with him.
4 I may have had a phone call about something.
5 I may have talked to him in the ten years. I don’t
6 have any other recollection, though.
Next, Mesereau questioned Dr. Katz about any possible communications between he and Feldman in between his interview with the Arvizos. They had a meeting on June 5th, 2003, and a phone conversation on June 11th, 2003.
7 Q. Now, did he call you about interviewing the
9 A. Yes, he did.
10 Q. And is it because of his phone call that you
11 interviewed the Arvizos?
12 A. Yes, I did.
13 Q. Did you communicate with Attorney Larry
14 Feldman about those interviews?
15 A. Yes, I did.
16 Q. Did you communicate with Attorney Larry
17 Feldman while those interviews were being conducted?
18 A. Are you talking about during the actual
19 interview, you mean like telephonically?
20 Q. Between the first — excuse me, let me
21 rephrase that.
22 Between your first meeting with the Arvizos
23 and your last meeting with the Arvizos, did you
24 discuss with Larry Feldman the content of any of
25 those interviews?
26 A. I did.
27 Q. How many times?
28 A. I had a meeting with him in between the two 4254
1 sets of interviews on June 5, 2003.
2 Q. That’s one meeting?
3 A. One meeting, yes.
4 Q. Did you ever talk to him on the phone before
5 or — or after that meeting about your interviews
6 with the Arvizos?
7 A. I believe I had a brief conversation with
8 him prior to setting up that meeting.
9 Q. After the interviews were finished, did you
10 contact Mr. Feldman and discuss those interviews?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Approximately when was that?
13 A. On the day of June — June 11.
14 Q. Was that a phone conversation?
15 A. Yes, it was.
16 Q. Did you ever have a personal meeting with
17 Attorney Larry Feldman to discuss those interviews?
18 A. Yes, on June the 5th.
19 Q. Did you bill Mr. Feldman for the time you
20 spent in that meeting?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Did you bill Mr. Feldman for the time you
23 spent on the phone?
24 A. I don’t believe so. I think it was a
25 five-minute phone call to set up the meeting.
On June 13th, 2003 Dr. Katz had a telephone call with Detective Paul Zelis about his interviews with the Arvizos, which he did not know was being recorded. It was Dr. Katz’s belief that Feldman was preparing to file a lawsuit against Jackson on behalf of the Arvizos. Prior to testifying, Dr. Katz spoke with Feldman, although Dr. Katz claimed that it wasn’t to discuss the specifics of this current case. (Yeah, whatever.)
26 Q. You indicated you met with authorities in
27 Santa Barbara at some point, correct?
28 A. I never met with them in person. 4255
1 Q. Did you ever talk to them on the phone?
2 A. I did.
3 Q. And was the subject of that phone call your
4 actions with the Arvizos?
5 A. My interviews. The subject was my
6 interviews, yes.
7 Q. And do you recall approximately when that
8 phone call was?
9 A. I think it was June 13, 2003.
10 Q. And who was that phone call with, if you
12 A. Detective Paul Zelis.
13 Q. Did you know whether or not that phone call
14 was being recorded?
15 A. I did not know.
16 Q. At some point you learned it had been
17 recorded, correct?
18 A. That’s correct.
19 Q. How did you learn that?
20 A. I learned that when I saw the transcript of
21 the — of the phone call.
22 Q. And how did you get a copy of the
24 A. Mr. Zonen of the D.A.’s Office gave me the
26 Q. And approximately when was that?
27 A. I do not remember.
28 Q. And you reviewed that transcript before you 4256
1 testified today, correct?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. And you made notations on the transcript,
5 A. Are you asking me if I made notations that
6 are on the transcript right now, the copy you have?
7 Q. Well, I don’t have your copy. You have your
8 copy now, right?
9 A. Yes, I have a copy.
10 There are notations on that transcript that
11 I did not make, and there are some notations I made
12 last night on the transcript for my own edification.
13 But there are notations on the transcript which are
14 not my notations.
15 Q. Whose notations are they?
16 A. I understand Mr. Zonen’s. And when he made
17 the copy of the transcript, he gave me, I think
18 inadvertently, his copy where he had made notations.
19 Q. Did you ever discuss — excuse me, let me
20 rephrase that. Did you ever discuss Prosecutor
21 Zonen’s notations on the transcript with Prosecutor
23 A. Never.
24 Q. Okay. Did you ever tell him you have a copy
25 of a transcript that appears to have his notations?
26 A. No, I did not.
27 Q. Is today the first time, as far as you know,
28 he’s ever heard that you have his transcript with 4257
1 his notations?
2 A. No, because he actually told me, he said,
3 “Those are my” — recently he told me, “Those are my
4 notations in case you’re asked.” And I said, “Oh.”
5 Q. Okay. When you spoke to the Santa Barbara
6 sheriffs, you talked about your discussions with the
7 Arvizos, correct?
8 A. That’s correct.
9 Q. Who was involved in that call besides you?
10 Was it one officer, or more than one, to your
12 A. To my knowledge, it was just Detective Paul
14 Q. Was that an unexpected call, as far as
15 you’re concerned?
16 A. No, it was not.
17 Q. Okay. Was it not unexpected because you had
18 already contacted authorities yourself?
19 A. I had contacted Department of Children &
20 Family Services in this face-to-face meeting. And
21 because I felt obliged to make this report, I told
22 Mr. Feldman that I had to report this to Santa
23 Barbara County authorities. And he told me that he
24 would find out which authority to report this to,
25 because he wanted to be sure it was confidential.
26 And so I then heard from — excuse me, I then heard
27 from Detective Paul Zelis, who called me. And I
28 returned the call. 4258
1 Q. Do you remember telling Detective Zelis that
2 the Arvizos came to you in this lawsuit?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you remember referring to the lawsuit
5 more than once?
6 A. Probably so.
7 Q. You’re not sure?
8 A. Well, I think I referred to it more than
9 once, yes.
10 Q. Okay. Your belief that there was a lawsuit
11 came from Attorney Larry Feldman, true?
12 A. No.
13 Q. He’s the only attorney you had spoken to
14 about the Arvizos at that point, correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You’re not a lawyer, correct?
17 A. That’s correct.
18 Q. It was your belief, when you talked to the
19 Santa Barbara sheriff, that Mr. Feldman was filing a
20 lawsuit for the Arvizos, correct?
21 A. It was my belief that he was thinking about
22 filing a lawsuit, yes.
23 Q. To your knowledge, does Attorney Feldman
24 still advise the Arvizos?
25 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as speculative or
27 THE COURT: Overruled.
28 You may answer. 4259
1 THE WITNESS: I don’t know. I don’t know
3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When did you last talk to
4 Attorney Larry Feldman about this case?
5 A. Yesterday.
6 Q. Did he call you or did you call him?
7 A. He called me.
8 Q. Are you telling the jury that in that call
9 you did not discuss with Attorney Feldman in any
10 shape or form this case?
11 A. I never said that. I said he didn’t tell me
12 that he was advising the Arvizo family.
13 Q. Did —
14 A. I don’t think he’s advising the Arvizo
16 Q. In your phone call with Attorney Feldman
17 yesterday, did you, Dr. Katz, discuss this case?
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 Q. Before yesterday, when was the last time you
20 spoke with Attorney Larry Feldman about this case?
21 A. I don’t have the dates here, but within the
22 last couple weeks, we talked about the schedule,
23 when we were going to both be appearing, and we
24 reviewed our notes together.
25 Q. And you reviewed your notes with Attorney
26 Larry Feldman regarding this case?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. Okay. Would that include the file you have 4260
1 with you today?
2 A. Well, he didn’t review my file. However, we
3 went through the process just so that we both could
4 refresh our memories of things that weren’t written
6 Q. How long was that discussion?
7 A. About a half hour.
8 Q. Where did it take place?
9 A. In his office.
10 Q. Did you go to his office?
11 A. I did.
12 Q. So you both discussed what you were going to
13 testify to in this case, correct?
14 A. No. We both talked about exactly our
15 recollections of how this case progressed, that’s
17 Q. Before that meeting, when was the other —
18 excuse me. Let me rephrase that. You talked to him
19 on the phone yesterday about the case, right?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. You met with him at the meeting you’ve just
22 described about the case?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Did you ever meet with him before that about
25 this case?
26 A. Not since June 5th of 2003.
27 Q. And have you ever talked to him on the phone
28 since June 5th, 2003, about this case? 4261
1 A. Yes, I have.
2 Q. How many times, do you think?
3 A. Two or three.
4 Q. Are you telling the jury you don’t think
5 Mr. Feldman is providing any advice to the Arvizos
6 at the moment?
7 A. I’m telling the jury I don’t know whether he
8 is. He did not tell me he’s providing advice to the
9 Arvizo family.
10 Q. And in your phone calls and meetings with
11 Attorney Feldman, you never asked him?
12 A. No, I did not.
13 Q. Did you ever suspect during those phone
14 calls or in those meetings that he might be
15 representing the Arvizos?
16 A. What I do know, he has told me that he
17 hadn’t spoken, I think, to the family in a while.
18 That’s all he said to me.
Here is article from The Smoking Gun that contains excerpts of Dr. Katz’s telephone call with Det. Zelis, in which they both agree that Jackson doesn’t qualify as a pedophile, but rather as a “regressed 10 year old”! Obviously, by no means did they say this with the intention of believing that Jackson was innocent, but it gives further insight into how they really felt about Jackson.
Pay attention to how Dr. Katz describes to Det. Zelis what Gavin had to say about Jordan Chandler!
Jackson Case: The Psychologist
Doctor who interviewed accuser says Jackson no pedophile; tells cops that teenager invoked name of boy who brought 1993 molestation charges
MARCH 15–Michael Jackson “doesn’t really qualify as a pedophile. He’s really just this regressed 10-year-old.”
That was the surprising evaluation offered to police by Dr. Stanley Katz, the Los Angeles psychologist who interviewed the singer’s teenage accuser and the boy’s brother–and who is expected to soon testify as a government witness at Jackson’s molestation trial.
In a taped June 2003 telephone interview, Katz, 55, gave a Santa Barbara sheriff’s investigator his “off the record” opinion of the 46-year-old entertainer. Jackson, Katz told Det. Paul Zelis, “is a guy that’s like a 10-year-old child. And, you know, he’s doing what a 10-year-old would do with his little buddies. You know, they’re gonna jack off, watch movies, drink wine, you know. And, you know, he doesn’t even really qualify as a pedophile. He’s really just this regressed 10-year-old.”
“Yeah, yeah, I agree,” replied Zelis.
According to Katz, he twice interviewed Jackson’s alleged victim and the teenager’s younger brother in his Beverly Hills office, once on May 29, 2003 and again the following month. During those interviews, the younger boy spoke openly of Jackson’s alleged illicit behavior, while the older boy broke down when Katz asked whether he had ever been molested by the performer.
It was during these sessions that the older boy surprisingly revealed that he was aware that Jackson had faced prior child abuse allegations (a criminal probe evaporated after an eight-figure civil settlement was struck in 1994 with accuser Jordan Chandler and his family).
Katz told Zelis that it took a lot of time to get the older boy to trust him, noting that he was aided by the child’s mother, who “had to really spell out” that the psychologist was “helping us, working for us.” Katz told Zelis that he assured the child he was doing the right thing by relating his experiences at Neverland Ranch. “We talked all about how courageous this was,” Katz told Zelis, “and I said to him, ‘You know, you don’t want Jackson to do these things to kids again, do you?'”
Katz recalled that the boy responded, “Well, Jordy Chandler did not stop him.”
The child’s reference to Jackson’s original accuser will likely be seized upon by defense attorney Thomas Mesereau, who has argued that the current molestation allegations are a sham, part of an extortion scheme that has similarities to the 1993 case (while denying the original allegations, Jackson has said he paid more than $20 million to settle the case because he feared prolonged litigation would affect his career).
A Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department report of Zelis’s June 2003 interview with Katz, which The Smoking Gun has reviewed, does not address how the boy knew of the Chandler case or whether he had discussed the 1993 matter with his mother, whom Mesereau has branded the grifting mastermind of her children’s abuse tales. The woman has claimed that she first learned that her son was molested by Jackson on September 30, 2003, when several investigators, including District Attorney Tom Sneddon, broke the news to her during a meeting at an L.A. hotel.
The lawyer for the current accuser’s family is Larry Feldman, the Century City litigator who represented Chandler and filed a sexual battery lawsuit against Jackson in September 1993. Testifying last year before the Jackson grand jury, Feldman said that he had a “sixth sense” that the older boy wasn’t telling him what “really happened” with Jackson. So, Feldman testified, he sent the boy and his family to Katz, a child abuse specialist, for further interviews. Feldman also testified that he had retained Katz during the 1993 case, but that he never got around to using the psychologist “because the case ultimately settled about four or five months into the litigation.”
While the accuser and his mother have repeatedly denied ever contemplating a lawsuit against Jackson, Katz left a different impression during his debriefing by Zelis. The child psychologist noted that “Mr. Feldman actually referred these kids to me. Because they had come to him in this lawsuit.” After remarking that he was left with the impression that the accuser and his brother were not fabricating their claims, Katz said, “Now there’s a lawsuit that Feldman’s gonna file. And I don’t get the idea that they’re [the brothers] doing this for money. Whether mother’s motive is to do it for money, I can’t tell you. I mean, certainly they’re, they’re kind of a poor family.”
“I don’t think they see the financial motive here because when I sat down with [the accuser],” Katz continued, “I said,’…look, if you go ahead with the civil lawsuit your family will get money if you win.'” When he told the boy that his identity could become public via such a legal proceeding, Katz said, “he sat there and started crying. So I don’t feel like you know, from [the boy]’s point of view at all, this is something he wants to do. I think he feels really caught.”
Katz told Zelis that he found the accuser and his siblings credible, though “it’s a very bizarre story, to be honest with you.”
To be continued: https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/march-30th-2005-trial-analysis-cynthia-bell-cross-examination-dr-stan-katz-william-dickerman-jeff-klapakis-direct-cross-examination-part-2-of-4/