Skip to content

March 30th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Cynthia Bell (Cross Examination), Dr. Stan Katz, William Dickerman, & Jeff Klapakis (Direct & Cross Examination), Part 2 of 4

October 12, 2012

In this excerpt, Mesereau questioned Dr. Katz about his experience in civil lawsuits from alleged victims of child abuse, of which he has been involved in thousands, including many that targeted the Catholic Church.

19 Q. Okay. Now, you’re aware that — excuse me,

 

20 let me rephrase that.

 

21 You’ve been involved in your career in a

 

22 number of lawsuits involving allegations of child

 

23 abuse, correct?

 

24 A. That’s correct.

 

25 Q. How many lawsuits involving allegations of

 

26 child abuse do you think you’ve been involved in as

 

27 a professional psychologist?

 

28 A. In all venues? Do you mean family law? 4262

 

1 Criminal?

 

2 Q. Sure.

 

3 A. Dependency?

 

4 Q. Sure.

 

5 A. A couple thousand maybe.

 

6 Q. And have you been involved as a professional

 

7 psychologist in any civil lawsuits involving

 

8 allegations of child abuse where people wanted

 

9 monetary damages?

 

10 A. Yes.

 

11 Q. Okay. And were they primarily in Los

 

12 Angeles?

 

13 A. Yes.

 

14 Q. Are you aware that if a child is abused or

 

15 claims they were abused they have until the age of

 

16 approximately 20 to file a lawsuit?

 

17 A. Yes.

 

18 Q. And you’re aware that, what is called a

 

19 statute of limitations, meaning when the time period

 

20 begins to commence —

 

21 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as exceeding

 

22 the witness’s expertise.

 

23 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had any

 

25 experience, Dr. Katz, in the relationship between

 

26 criminal proceedings and civil proceedings when it

 

27 comes to allegations of child abuse?

 

28 A. Well, I’m not sure how to answer that, 4263

 

1 except to say that I’m currently working a number of

 

2 civil cases regarding victims of the Catholic

 

3 church, alleged victims of the Catholic church.

 

4 Those cases, some may end up being criminal, some

 

5 may be civil, depending on the statute of

 

6 limitations, as you pointed out.

 

7 Q. Have some of them concerned criminal

 

8 proceedings?

 

9 A. My work does not concern criminal

 

10 proceedings with those cases.

 

11 Q. Have you ever testified in a criminal case

 

12 before today?

 

13 A. Yes, I have.

 

14 Q. How many criminal cases have you testified

 

15 in before today?

 

16 A. Less than half a dozen.

 

17 Q. Were they primarily in Los Angeles?

 

18 A. Yes, they were.

 

19 Q. In any of those criminal cases, were you

 

20 also involved in a parallel civil proceeding?

 

21 A. No.

 

22 Q. In any of those criminal cases, were you

 

23 involved in a parallel divorce proceeding?

 

24 A. Yes.

 

25 Q. Now, a divorce proceeding is a civil

 

26 proceeding, correct?

 

27 A. Yes, it is.

 

28 Q. And what you’re saying is that you were 4264

 

1 involved as a professional psychologist in both a

 

2 civil divorce proceeding and a parallel criminal

 

3 proceeding involving the same parties and issues,

 

4 correct?

 

5 A. “Parallel” is the problem. Do you mean

 

6 simultaneously, or one after the other? Sometimes

 

7 I’ve worked a family law case and then was called

 

8 into criminal court on the same case six months, a

 

9 year later.

 

10 Q. Okay. And it’s your understanding that if

 

11 you have a conviction in a criminal case, you’ll

 

12 automatically win the civil case?

 

13 MR. ZONEN: I will object. Exceeding the

 

14 scope of his expertise.

 

15 MR. MESEREAU: I didn’t finish my question.

 

16 MR. ZONEN: Well, we know what it is.

 

17 THE COURT: You may finish the question.

 

18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Given your experience in

 

19 the criminal courts and in parallel proceedings in

 

20 the civil courts where the same parties are

 

21 involved —

 

22 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as to parallel

 

23 proceedings in a civil court, as to whether it’s a

 

24 civil or a family law court.

 

25 THE COURT: He hasn’t finished his question.

 

26 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Given your experience,

 

27 Dr. Katz, in criminal actions involving allegations

 

28 of child abuse and parallel civil actions involving 4265

 

1 allegations of child abuse where the same parties

 

2 are involved, you’re aware that if there is a

 

3 criminal conviction, one would automatically win a

 

4 civil suit for damages, true?

 

5 MR. ZONEN: Objection; exceeds the scope of

 

6 his expertise.

 

7 THE COURT: Sustained.

Here’s a very interesting and relevant piece of testimony: Mesereau questioned Dr. Katz about books and articles that he had written over the years about false allegations of child abuse. For example, in 1992 he wrote a book titled “The Codependency Conspiracy”, in which he stated that as many as 40% of child abuse allegations are false, and in 1982 he wrote an article titled “Stop the Witch Hunt for Child Molesters”, in which he argued that there was an epidemic of false child abuse allegations:

8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: The prosecutor asked you

 

9 about your experience in the area of child abuse,

 

10 correct?

 

11 A. Correct.

 

12 Q. You have published articles in that field,

 

13 true?

 

14 A. Yes.

 

15 Q. Do you know approximately how many articles

 

16 you have published in that field?

 

17 A. Well, I think you’re talking about —

 

18 professional articles, I think there’s only one or

 

19 two. If you’re talking about books, there’s three

 

20 books. And there’s probably a number of interviews

 

21 or articles, some of which may be editorials. So

 

22 I’m not sure how to answer the question. But

 

23 certainly a number of publications.

 

24 Q. Let’s just take articles —

 

25 A. Okay.

 

26 Q. — that don’t reach the form of a book. How

 

27 many articles do you think you’ve published in the

 

28 area of child abuse? 4266

 

1 A. Well, I’m not sure. Maybe three or four.

 

2 Q. And you’ve published in the Los Angeles

 

3 Times, correct?

 

4 A. As far as I know, the New York Times, Los

 

5 Angeles Times, they syndicate out to other

 

6 newspapers, so I know some of the articles I wrote

 

7 were way beyond; you know, in other markets also.

 

8 Q. You published an article called “Stop the

 

9 Witch Hunt For Child Molesters,” correct?

 

10 A. That’s correct.

 

11 Q. In that article you dealt with your concern

 

12 about false allegations of child molestation,

 

13 correct?

 

14 A. Absolutely.

 

15 Q. You also published a book called “The

 

16 Codependency Conspiracy,” correct?

 

17 A. That’s correct.

 

18 Q. And you published it with a woman named

 

19 Amiee Liu, correct?

 

20 A. That’s correct.

 

21 Q. And in that book, you talked about false

 

22 allegations of child molestation, true?

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. You said that lawyers have told you as many

 

25 as 40 percent of child molestation allegations are

 

26 false, correct?

 

27 A. I’m not sure what context you’re talking

 

28 about, but certainly, in certain venues, that is 4267

 

1 true.

 

2 Q. You said that lawyers charged with turning

 

3 these allegations into convictions estimate that as

 

4 many as 40 percent of the accusations are

 

5 insubstantive, correct?

 

6 A. I assume you’re reading from my book.

 

7 Q. I am.

8 A. And I’m not sure what precedes it. But if I

 

9 said it in my book, I will stand by it, that’s true.

 

10 Q. You said, “Nowhere is our lack of

 

11 objectivity more evident than in our reactions to

 

12 reports of child molestation,” right?

 

13 A. That’s correct.

 

14 Q. You said, “The nation’s courtrooms are

 

15 inundated with new allegations of abuse every day,”

 

16 right?

 

17 A. Yes.

 

18 Q. You said, “But many of the lawyers who are

 

19 charged with turning these allegations into

 

20 convictions estimate that as many as 40 percent of

 

21 the accusations are insubstantive,” true?

 

22 A. Well, it’s true. I’d have to give a

 

23 context, but it’s certainly true. It may be even

 

24 higher than that in some cases, in some venues.

 

25 Q. And what venues were you talking about?

 

26 A. Particularly family law and divorce cases,

 

27 high-conflict divorce cases, where allegations are

 

28 made that one parent sexually molested a very young 4268

 

1 child under the age of usually four.

Download this PDF file to read the excerpt from Dr. Katz’s book that Mesereau just quoted from: Dr. Stan Katz’s chapter on false child molestation claims from his book The Codependency Conspiracy

 

And here is the article “Stop The Witch Hunt For Child Molesters”, which was published in the New York Times on June , 1984: stop the witch hunt

 

Next, Mesereau questioned Dr. Katz about his involvement in the infamous McMartin Preschool trial, which is one of the best examples of the false child molestation witch hunts that Dr. Katz described in his book! It’s ironic because he was the Director of Training at the agency that interviewed all of the so-called “victims” in that case! In fact, he “assessed” the children who claimed to be abused at that school. Personally, I would be embarrassed to have this on my professional resume!

2 Q. When you were interviewing the Arvizos, did

 

3 you do any background check into their involvement

 

4 in any other litigation?

 

5 A. I did not.

 

6 Q. Did you ever check into any allegations of

 

7 domestic violence in the Arvizo family?

 

8 A. I didn’t check into any of these

 

9 allegations. I did not investigate any of these

 

10 allegations other than — excuse me, other than to

 

11 interview the parties. So I did not do any

 

12 investigation of any allegations.

 

13 Q. In your book, “The Codependency Conspiracy,”

 

14 you talked about a witch hunt mentality with respect

 

15 to false allegations of child abuse, true?

 

16 A. That’s true.

 

17 Q. And you didn’t just talk about divorce

 

18 cases, you talked about the McMartin Preschool case

 

19 in Manhattan Beach, California, true?

 

20 A. Yes, I did.

 

21 Q. And you mentioned that in the context of

 

22 false allegations of child molestation in a criminal

 

23 courtroom, true?

 

24 A. Well, I’m not sure if I said that in the

 

25 book or not. I didn’t memorize it. But I was

 

26 talking about the McMartin case, which ended up

 

27 being not only in the criminal court, it was in

 

28 dependency court because there were children of the 4269

 

1 teachers who were involved in dependency court, and

 

2 I think there were civil suits also.

 

3 Q. Were you involved in that case in any

 

4 professional way?

 

5 A. Yes, I was.

 

6 Q. How were you involved?

 

7 A. I was the director of training and

 

8 professional education at the Children’s Institute

 

9 International, and that’s the agency that initially

 

10 interviewed all the McMartin children.

 

11 Q. And were you involved in that case for a

 

12 number of years?

 

13 A. Well, my involvement was that I was director

 

14 of the program. And Kee McFarland, who was the

 

15 woman who interviewed the children, actually worked

 

16 under me. But I was not — I did not directly

 

17 interview the children’s parents.

 

18 I did interview — my involvement with the

 

19 McMartin case was, I did do assessments. I was

 

20 asked by the Department of Children & Family

 

21 Services to assess the children of the alleged

 

22 perpetrators to see if they had been molested.

 

23 Other than that, I had very little involvement

 

24 directly with the case.

 

25 Q. Is it your understanding that that was

 

26 perhaps the longest and largest criminal case in the

 

27 history of Los Angeles County?

 

28 A. I think it was. 4270

 

1 Q. Going further into your book, you discuss

 

2 cases where you’ve had false allegations of

 

3 molestation where no one ever turned up any physical

 

4 evidence to support the molestation, correct?

 

5 A. That’s correct.

 

6 Q. And you talk about situations where you

 

7 think children, for whatever reason, believed they

 

8 were abused, but really aren’t or haven’t been,

 

9 true?

 

10 A. I talk about young children under the age of

 

11 four who believe they were molested, yes.

 

12 Q. And in your opinion, they had not been,

 

13 correct?

 

14 A. That’s correct.

 

15 Q. You discuss situations where therapists have

 

16 taught children that they were traumatized when, in

 

17 fact, they were not, correct?

 

18 A. Correct.

 

19 Q. And you talk about situations where, despite

 

20 what therapists have said about the existence of

 

21 molestation, courts have gone against them, true?

 

22 A. I’m sorry, where therapists have said they

 

23 believed children were molested and the courts have

 

24 not ruled —

 

25 Q. Yes.

 

26 A. Yes. Yes.

 

27 Q. And has that been your experience as well,

 

28 as an expert? 4271

 

1 A. My experience has been that there are people

 

2 who are falsely accused and who get convicted, and

 

3 there are people who are falsely accused that get

 

4 acquitted, and there are people who get acquitted

 

5 who did the deed. So I’ve had all that experience.

 

6 Q. You talked about children in abuse cases who

 

7 are often scarred for life, not by the abuse,

 

8 because it didn’t occur, they’re scarred by what you

 

9 call the recovery process, true?

 

10 A. Yes.

 

11 Q. And what you were saying was, in situations

 

12 where there has been no abuse, but a child is

 

13 convinced that there has been and is put through a

 

14 process of therapy to deal with the abuse that never

 

15 happened, they can be hurt, true?

 

16 A. That’s correct.

 

17 Q. You talk about situations where children can

 

18 have thoughts essentially given to them by parents

 

19 or therapists that convince them they’ve been abused

 

20 when there is no abuse, right?

 

21 A. Yes. But I was talking about young children

 

22 under the age of four. Pre-verbal children.

 

23 Q. You didn’t limit it to that in your book,

 

24 did you?

 

25 A. I’m not sure what you’re reading, exactly,

 

26 from, but I’m certainly talking about pre-verbal

 

27 children. And I think there’s a — a comment made

 

28 about young children under the age of five or so. 4272

1 Q. Do you know where the comment is?

 

2 A. I haven’t looked at the book in a long time,

 

3 but —

 

4 Q. Okay.

 

5 A. I’ll have to look at it later.

 

6 Q. Okay. You talked about a number of

 

7 situations where parents consistently told their

 

8 children they’ve been abused, and the children

 

9 believed it, and in your opinion there had been no

 

10 abuse at all, right?

 

11 A. And that specifically is regarding young

 

12 children. We’re talking about children under the

 

13 age of five years.

Here is a post that was written about Dr. Katz on our sister blog, Vindicate MJ, which details his involvement in the infamous McMartin preschool trial, and also analyzes his 2005 testimony:

And here’s an excerpt from an interview with one of the children who was coerced into making false child abuse claims during the McMartin preschool case; in 2005, he completely recanted all of his accusations!

McMartin Pre-Schooler: ‘I Lied’

My mother divorced my father when I was 2 and she met my stepfather, who was a police officer in Manhattan Beach. They had five children after me. In addition, my stepfather has three older children. In the combined family, I’m the only one of the nine children he didn’t father. I always remember wanting him to love me. I was always trying excessively hard to please him. I would do anything for him.

My stepbrothers and stepsisters and a half-brother and half-sister went to McMartin. So did I. I only remember being happy there. I never had any bad feelings about the school—no bad auras or vibes or anything. Even to this day, talking about it or seeing pictures or artwork that I did at McMartin never brings any bad feelings. All my memories are positive. The thing I remember about the case was how it took over the whole city and consumed our whole family. My parents would ask questions: “Did the teachers ever do things to you?” They talked about Ray Buckey, whom I had never met. I don’t even have any recollection of him attending the school when I was going there.

The first time I went to CII [Children’s Institute International, now known as Children’s Institute, Inc., a respected century-old L.A. County child welfare organization where approximately 400 former McMartin children were interviewed and given genital exams, and where many were diagnosed as abuse victims], we drove there, our whole family. I remember waiting … for hours while my brothers and sisters were being interviewed. I don’t remember how many days or if it was just one day, but my memory tells me it was weeks, it seemed so long. It was an ordeal. I remember thinking to myself, “I’m not going to get out of here unless I tell them what they want to hear.”

We were examined by a doctor. I took my clothes off and lay down on the table. They checked my butt, my penis. There was a room with a lot of toys and stuffed animals and dolls. The dolls were pasty white and had hair where the private parts were. They wanted us to take off their clothes. It was just really weird.

I remember them asking extremely uncomfortable questions about whether Ray touched me and about all the teachers and what they did—and I remember telling them nothing happened to me. I remember them almost giggling and laughing, saying, “Oh, we know these things happened to you. Why don’t you just go ahead and tell us? Use these dolls if you’re scared.”

Anytime I would give them an answer that they didn’t like, they would ask again and encourage me to give them the answer they were looking for. It was really obvious what they wanted. I know the types of language they used on me: things like I was smart, or I could help the other kids who were scared.

I felt uncomfortable and a little ashamed that I was being dishonest. But at the same time, being the type of person I was, whatever my parents wanted me to do, I would do. And I thought they wanted me to help protect my little brother and sister who went to McMartin.

http://www.freejesse.net/LATimes/I%20Lied!.htm

Next, Dr. Katz describes his awareness of the motivations for false child abuse claims, and some of the symptoms that real victims of child abuse display:

14 Q. You are aware, that there can be all kinds

 

15 of motivations for false claims of molestation,

 

16 correct?

 

17 A. Certainly there’s a possibility of all kinds

 

18 of claims and reasons.

 

19 Q. You’re aware that alleged victims of

 

20 molestation often sue for millions of dollars in

 

21 civil court, correct?

 

22 A. That is correct.

 

23 Q. You talked about the reactions of victims of

 

24 child sexual abuse, correct, in your book?

 

25 A. If you say so. I don’t remember exactly

 

26 what I talked about in that book, but —

 

27 Q. Well, you essentially said there can be all

 

28 sorts of varying reactions, assuming it really 4273

 

1 occurred, right?

 

2 A. I suppose, yes.

 

3 Q. Well, you said that some experience physical

 

4 or emotional trauma directly related to molestation,

 

5 right?

 

6 A. Okay.

 

7 Q. And some exhibit none of those symptoms,

 

8 correct?

 

9 A. I need to back up. You’re reading

 

10 something. Are you talking about victims who have

 

11 been abused?

 

12 Q. Yes. I’m limiting this question to people

 

13 who actually have been abused, not the people you

 

14 discussed who were the victims of false accusations.

 

15 Okay?

 

16 A. Thank you.

 

17 Q. With limiting my question to people who have

 

18 actually been abused, you indicated some

 

19 experience — appear to experience no real change in

 

20 their behavior, correct? They have no nightmares,

 

21 they have no —

 

22 A. You’re talking here about —

 

23 Q. Let me just finish the question, if I can.

 

24 If I can.

 

25 A. Sorry. Excuse me.

 

26 Q. Okay. You discussed the fact that, in your

 

27 opinion, victims of sexual abuse generally fit into

 

28 one of three categories, true? Do you remember 4274

 

1 that? I could show you the book if you’d like to

 

2 take a look at it.

 

3 A. It would be helpful, since I wrote it about

 

4 12 years ago. It would certainly refresh my memory.

 

5 I could have brought a copy, but —

 

6 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?

 

7 THE COURT: Yes.

 

8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to

 

9 look at your book?

 

10 A. Well, I did for about three seconds.

 

11 Q. And did you have a chance to look at the

 

12 three categories you identified in your book with

 

13 regarding what a real victim of child sexual abuse

 

14 might show?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. Okay. Some will have nightmares, correct?

 

17 A. Yes.

 

18 Q. Some will have no nightmares, right?

 

19 A. Correct.

 

20 Q. Some will act out their version of the

 

21 abuse, correct?

 

22 A. Some act out sexually, yes.

 

23 Q. And some will not act out sexually at all,

 

24 right?

 

25 A. Correct.

 

26 Q. Some will suddenly become aggressive, right?

 

27 A. Yes.

 

28 Q. And some will not be aggressive at all, 4275

 

1 right?

 

2 A. Some will be withdrawn, yes.

 

3 Q. Some will be depressed, correct?

 

4 A. Yes.

 

5 Q. And some won’t be depressed at all, right?

 

6 A. Yes.

 

7 Q. Some will demonstrate an aversion to their

 

8 own body, right?

 

9 A. Some have problems with body image and

 

10 aversion to any of their sexual organs, yes.

 

11 Q. And some don’t have that at all, correct?

 

12 A. Right.

 

13 Q. And you would agree that it’s difficult —

 

14 excuse me, let me rephrase that.

 

15 In this area, it can be difficult to

 

16 determine if certain characteristics really relate

 

17 to sexual abuse or not, correct?

 

18 A. That’s correct.

 

19 Q. If you are examining a child, for example,

 

20 where there’s an allegation of abuse, and you learn,

 

21 through whatever form, that the child is exhibiting

 

22 aggressive behavior, it’s difficult to know if that

 

23 aggressive behavior is really the result of actual

 

24 sexual abuse, right?

 

25 A. That’s correct.

 

26 Q. And in your evaluation of a potential victim

 

27 in a situation like this, one of the things you’d

 

28 want to know would be, did that child exhibit 4276

 

1 aggressive behavior before the alleged abuse

 

2 occurred, correct?

 

3 A. Well, I have to answer that by saying, if I

4 was evaluating forensically this case, I would want

 

5 to know a great deal about this family, about the

 

6 alleged perpetrator, about all the data,

 

7 multi-source data I could get.

 

8 If I was just interviewing the children to

 

9 hear what they had to say so that I could make a

 

10 determination whether or not I’d be obligated to

 

11 make a report, it would be a different issue.

 

12 Q. Right.

 

13 A. I’d be the gatekeeper, the beginning of the

 

14 process, if I felt there was reason to make a

 

15 report, and then further investigation/evaluation

 

16 would have to be conducted by professionals.

 

17 Q. And the quantity of investigation you just

 

18 articulated which you state would be necessary to

 

19 really determine if sexual abuse occurred you didn’t

 

20 do in this case, right?

 

21 A. That’s correct.

 

22 Q. Okay. In your book, you talk about the

 

23 situation where abuse is intertwined with other

 

24 serious family or psychological problems, correct?

 

25 A. Are you talking about interfamilial,

 

26 within-the-family abuse?

 

27 Q. Yes.

 

28 A. I think that’s where you’re going with that. 4277

 

1 Yes.

 

2 Q. And what you said was evaluating and

 

3 understanding real sexual abuse is made more

 

4 difficult if the family you’re investigating has

 

5 other serious family or psychological problems,

 

6 true?

 

7 A. I’m not sure of the context there, Mr.

 

8 Mesereau, because when I — I think I was talking

 

9 about sexual abuse within a family, where the

 

10 alleged perpetrator is a member of the family, you

 

11 have complications from a number of variables.

Mesereau goes on to list some hypothetical scenarios of child abuse perpetrators. Try to take a wild guess about the identity of the family that inspired the hypothetical example that he used!

12 Q. Well, wouldn’t you — excuse me, let me

 

13 rephrase it.

 

14 Let’s suppose the alleged perpetrator is

 

15 outside the family, right? And let’s assume,

 

16 because we’re just dealing with a hypothetical, that

 

17 the family itself is characterized by serious

 

18 emotional and psychological problems dealing with

 

19 domestic violence, divorce, allegations within the

 

20 family of molestation, alleged acts, multiple acts,

 

21 of violence going over years, alleged — unusual

 

22 actions to obtain money so the family can survive, a

 

23 lot of emotional conflict between parents.

 

24 You would agree that all of those issues

 

25 could complicate the question of whether or not a

 

26 child in that family was truly abused by someone

 

27 else? Could complicate it?

 

28 A. It’s possible. 4278

 

1 Q. If you had — excuse me. If, during the

 

2 course of your investigation as a professional

 

3 psychologist and expert in this area, you discover

 

4 that within the family unit, there have, over the

 

5 years, been various allegations of molestation

 

6 within the family unit, that would complicate your

 

7 ability to evaluate whether or not someone had been

 

8 molested by a third party, true?

 

9 A. Well, I don’t know if it would complicate

 

10 it. It would certainly be data I would want to look

 

11 at.

 

12 THE COURT: Counsel, just a moment.

 

13 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor.

 

14 (Brief interruption.)

 

15 THE REPORTER: Thank you, Judge.

 

16 THE COURT: Sorry, Counsel.

 

17 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

 

18 Q. You indicated in your book, Dr. Katz, and we

 

19 were alluding to this before, that if abuse is

 

20 intertwined with other serious family or

 

21 psychological problems, you need to focus on these

 

22 problems separately in treatment, correct?

 

23 A. That makes perfect sense to me. I’m not

 

24 sure I wrote exactly that, or said that, but that

 

25 makes sense.

 

26 Q. I can show you the paragraph.

 

27 A. Well, I believe you.

 

28 Q. Okay. And what you said was, you recognize 4279

 

1 that different problems may have little to do with

 

2 each other, or may have a lot to do with each other,

 

3 right?

 

4 A. Correct.

 

5 Q. And you say the abuse that’s claimed may be

 

6 very insignificant in a situation where you discover

 

7 serious psychological and family problems within the

 

8 family unit, true? May be.

 

9 A. I’m not sure. The first part of the

 

10 question I missed. You said abuse may be

 

11 inconsequence —

 

12 Q. Yeah. You indicated that the abuse

 

13 suffered —

 

14 A. Are you quoting? Because if you quote, then

 

15 it’s easier for me to refer to. I’m not sure if

 

16 you’re paraphrasing or interpreting.

 

17 Q. Let me just read you a paragraph.

 

18 A. Thank you.

 

19 Q. Okay. “If the conflict you feel about your

 

20 abuse is intertwined with other serious family or

 

21 psychological problems, you need to focus on these

 

22 problems separately in treatment, recognizing that

 

23 the different problems may have little to do with

 

24 each other, and that the abuse you suffered may have

 

25 been relatively insignificant.”

 

26 Do you remember reading that?

 

27 A. Writing it.

 

28 Q. Excuse me, writing it. 4280

 

1 A. I do remember writing it, yes.

 

2 Q. Okay. Okay. Correct me if I’m wrong, you

 

3 were suggesting that, in a situation where you have

 

4 an allegation of abuse that sounds quite serious, if

 

5 you, as a therapist, start to investigate the

 

6 domestic situation in that family, and you, as a

 

7 therapist, find all sorts of other psychological

 

8 problems that may not be related to the abuse, there

 

9 are situations where, once you investigate those

 

10 problems and treat those problems, the actual claim

 

11 of abuse may turn out to have been exaggerated,

 

12 correct?

 

13 A. I think that totally misinterprets what I

 

14 was saying.

 

15 Q. Okay.

 

16 A. What I was saying is that people have a

 

17 myriad of complaints in their life, and that many

 

18 adults wish to connect their current problems to a

 

19 past event.

 

20 So, for example, a 40-year-old woman who

 

21 can’t find a relationship, a healthy relationship,

 

22 says she was molested at age five and that’s why she

 

23 can’t find a healthy relationship today, that she

 

24 needs to look at what other things are stopping her

 

25 and preventing her from having a healthy

 

26 relationship today.

 

27 I think that was directed at that kind of

 

28 person, not directed at a therapist and how to 4281

1 evaluate or treat an alleged allegation of sexual

 

2 abuse.

 

3 Q. Well, but you were talking about treating

 

4 sexual abuse when you wrote that paragraph, true?

 

5 A. I think I was talking about what I just

 

6 said; that people like to blame lots of problems on

 

7 traumatic events that happened in their lives. And

 

8 they need to sort out that some of these events have

 

9 nothing to do with actually what they’ve become or

 

10 the problems they have.

 

11 Q. In fact, in many ways, the book that you

 

12 wrote called “The Codependency Conspiracy” was a

 

13 form of self-help book, correct?

 

14 A. It is a self-help book.

 

15 Q. And you talk about people who are perpetual

 

16 victims, correct?

 

17 A. That’s correct.

 

18 Q. And you basically talk about how, as they

 

19 view themselves as a perpetual victim, they are

 

20 essentially saying that they are powerless over

 

21 their problems and don’t have to take responsibility

 

22 for them, right?

 

23 A. That’s correct.

 

24 Q. And you basically were saying that’s not the

 

25 right way to live your life, right?

 

26 A. What I was saying, it’s a debilitating and

 

27 immobilizing way to live.

 

28 Q. Essentially you said that people who are 4282

 

1 perpetual victims are not really —

 

2 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as exceeding

 

3 the scope of the direct examination.

 

4 THE COURT: That’s sustained.

 

5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember, you wrote

 

6 the following: “I do not think that a parent whose

 

7 hand lingers momentarily while diapering his or her

 

8 child belongs in the same category with convicted

 

9 child pornographers or pedophiles, yet many

 

10 therapists and self-help groups lump the victims of

 

11 these different perpetrators together and treat them

 

12 all as if they’ve been equally traumatized”?

 

13 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as exceeding the

 

14 scope of direct examination.

 

15 THE COURT: Sustained.

Next, Mesereau questioned Dr. Katz about his own personal experiences with alleged victims who have made false claims, and Zonen began to nitpick and whine about the fact that Mesereau used the word “prosecutors” instead of “lawyers” when quoting from Katz’s book; Zonen insinuated that Mesereau was being dishonest and trying to imply that all prosecutors are eager to maliciously try and convict innocent people:

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You indicated in response

 

17 to the prosecutor’s questions that you had worked on

 

18 a panel of psychologists, correct?

 

19 A. Yes.

 

20 Q. And was that with dependency court?

 

21 A. First in dependency court and then in family

 

22 law.

 

23 Q. Okay. Now, when you’re on a panel of

 

24 psychologists in dependency court, you are routinely

 

25 appointed to handle a dependency court case,

 

26 correct?

 

27 A. Correct.

 

28 Q. And you’re paid by the county, right? 4283

 

1 A. Correct.

 

2 Q. And how long did you say that you had done

 

3 that?

 

4 A. Over ten years.

 

5 Q. Okay. So over ten years you were on that

 

6 dependency court panel, you never knew when you’d be

 

7 called to work on a dependency court case, right?

 

8 A. I didn’t know exactly, that’s correct.

 

9 Q. Okay. Now, were you doing that at the

 

10 Edelman Courthouse on the 10 freeway?

 

11 A. I started doing it at the old courthouse at

 

12 first, I think criminal, and then it was over on

 

13 Sixth Street before the Edelman Courthouse.

 

14 Q. Okay. Now, would you agree that in

 

15 dependency court, you often find false claims of

 

16 molestation?

 

17 A. Who’s “you”?

 

18 Q. Anybody.

 

19 A. Well, are you talking about did the judges

 

20 find it? Did I find it? Who’s who?

 

21 Q. Well, when you wrote in your book that,

 

22 “Lawyers who prosecute molestation cases tell us

 

23 that approximately 40 percent may be false,” were

 

24 you referring to dependency court?

 

25 A. Well, I’m not exactly sure which lawyers

 

26 you’re referring to or I was referring to at this

 

27 point, but in general, the 40 percent figure comes

 

28 out of research on mostly young children, preschool 4284

 

1 kinds of cases, family law cases.

 

2 It does not come out of the research on

 

3 children who were allegedly molested by a — by

 

4 someone outside the family, and it doesn’t come out

 

5 of research about children over the age of

 

6 approximately five or six.

 

7 Q. Have you done research in that area?

 

8 A. Just clinical experience.

 

9 Q. Okay. Have you had experience with false

 

10 claims of molestation involving children over six?

 

11 A. Well, when you say “experience,” have I

 

12 evaluated cases where someone thought the claims

 

13 were false?

 

14 Q. Yes.

 

15 A. Or where the judge determined they were

 

16 false? Which would you like?

 

17 Q. Let’s start with the first example.

 

18 A. Well, in every case there’s two sides.

 

19 Q. Okay.

 

20 A. So there’s always someone who doesn’t

 

21 believe and someone who does believe. So I’ve been

 

22 involved with many of those cases, in criminal and

 

23 family law and in civil cases. I have been involved

 

24 in cases where people were acquitted in a criminal,

 

25 and they were convicted. And I’ve been involved in

 

26 cases where monetary damages were paid to victims

 

27 and where no monetary damages were paid to victims,

 

28 and family law cases where the judge made a finding 4285

 

1 that molestation did not occur, or the judge made a

 

2 finding that there was inappropriate touching,

 

3 fondling, some kind of sexual abuse.

 

4 Q. When you wrote in your book that 40 percent

 

5 figure, saying prosecutors had told you that 40

 

6 percent of the accusations are insubstantive, you

 

7 never limited it in the book to children who are six

 

8 or younger, did you?

 

9 A. I don’t think so. I have to look at the

 

10 source data. But it’s in the back.

 

11 MR. ZONEN: Could I see the book, please?

 

12 MR. MESEREAU: I can get you a copy.

 

13 THE WITNESS: It’s available at amazon.com.

 

14 (Laughter.)

 

15 MR. ZONEN: Doesn’t say “prosecutors.”

 

16 MR. MESEREAU: It says, “Lawyers who are

 

17 charged with turning these allegations into

 

18 convictions.”

 

19 MR. ZONEN: Judge, I’m going to object as

 

20 misstating —

 

21 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I’ll read it, if

 

22 the Court would like.

 

23 MR. ZONEN: Well, I’m concerned about the

 

24 prior question asked. He used the word

25 “prosecutors.”

 

26 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll restate it. I’ll

 

27 restate the question.

 

28 Q. Dr. Katz? 4286

 

1 A. Yes.

 

2 Q. You know that these prosecutors are all

 

3 lawyers, don’t you?

 

4 MR. ZONEN: Which prosecutors is he

 

5 referring to? Objection. Vague; argumentative.

 

6 THE WITNESS: I have —

 

7 MR. ZONEN: There’s an objection.

 

8 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll withdraw the question.

In this excerpt, Mesereau questioned Dr. Katz about his statement in his book that PROSECUTORS told Dr. Katz that 40% of child abuse cases are false, and this was an attempt to show that prosecutors, whose job it is to get convictions, will maliciously prosecute defendants despite knowing of their complete innocence, as they are currently doing in this case:

9 Q. Dr. Katz, have you met with any of these

 

10 prosecutors at any time?

 

11 A. Yes, I have.

 

12 Q. When did you last meet with any of these

 

13 prosecutors?

 

14 A. I met with Mr. Zonen, yes, sir.

 

15 Q. Are you aware that he is a lawyer?

 

16 A. I’m aware that he is lawyer.

 

17 Q. Are you aware that he’s a lawyer paid by the

 

18 government?

 

19 A. I’m not sure who he’s paid by, but I assume

 

20 he’s paid by the county or someone.

 

21 Q. Have you ever met Mr. Sneddon?

 

22 A. I have.

 

23 Q. Are you aware that he’s a lawyer?

 

24 A. I assume he’s a lawyer if he’s in his

 

25 position.

 

26 Q. Are you aware that he’s a lawyer paid by the

 

27 government?

 

28 A. I assume he’s paid by the county. 4287

 

1 Q. And have you met Mr. Auchincloss, who’s

 

2 directly to my left?

 

3 A. Yes, I have.

 

4 Q. Are you aware that he’s a lawyer?

 

5 A. Yes, I’m aware that he’s a lawyer.

 

6 Q. Are you aware that he’s a lawyer paid by the

 

7 government?

 

8 A. Paid by the government.

 

9 Q. Are you aware their jobs as prosecutors are

 

10 to seek convictions?

 

11 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as

 

12 argumentative.

 

13 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When you said in your

 

15 book, you referred to lawyers who are charged with

 

16 turning these allegations into convictions, you were

 

17 referring to prosecutors?

 

18 A. Well, I actually was referring to cases that

 

19 I already talked about, the young children,

 

20 preschool cases, the family law cases —

 

21 Q. You were —

 

22 MR. ZONEN: The witness ought to be allowed

 

23 to answer the question.

 

24 MR. MESEREAU: Sure. Sure.

 

25 Q. I apologize. Go ahead.

 

26 A. Family law cases where either they were

 

27 trying to get some kind of finding in court, sustain

 

28 a petition or criminal conviction, yes. 4288

 

1 Q. Dr. Katz, you know that you can’t convict

 

2 anyone of anything in a family law court, right?

 

3 A. No, but you can make a finding.

 

4 Q. But you don’t convict in family law court,

 

5 true?

 

6 MR. ZONEN: Objection; argumentative.

 

7 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Based on your experience,

 

9 the only place you get convictions is criminal

 

10 courts, right?

 

11 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Argumentative; and

 

12 beyond his scope of expertise.

 

13 THE COURT: Sustained on argumentative.

 

14 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

 

15 Q. Now, Dr. Katz, you said that 30 percent of

 

16 your work is currently involved with television; is

 

17 that right?

 

18 A. Approximately 30 to 40 percent, yes.

Dr. Katz goes on to explain his interviews and interactions with the Arvizo family, and he once again reiterated that he believed that Feldman was representing the Arvizos (i.e. thinking that a civil lawsuit would be filed) at the time that they reported their concerns to the Department of Children & Family Services.:

11 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You indicated that you

 

12 interviewed the three Arvizo children and the

 

13 mother, right?

 

14 A. Correct.

 

15 Q. Did you ever interview the father?

 

16 A. Never.

 

17 Q. Did you ever investigate anything about the

 

18 father?

 

19 A. No.

 

20 Q. And that’s because you never really

 

21 investigated the family other than the interviews

 

22 you conducted, right?

 

23 A. That’s correct.

 

24 Q. Okay. Now, when were the dates of those

 

25 interviews?

 

26 A. Mom was May 15, May 16, June 11. Gavin and

 

27 Star were May 29, June 11. And Davellin was May 29.

 

28 Q. So the first interview was May 15th, 4291

 

1 correct?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 Q. The last interview was June 11th, correct?

 

4 A. Correct.

 

5 Q. Now, you told the prosecutor for the

 

6 government that at some point you went to the

 

7 Department of Children & Family Services about the

 

8 Arvizos, correct?

 

9 A. Correct.

 

10 Q. And was Mr. Feldman with you?

 

11 A. Yes, he was.

 

12 Q. Was it your belief at the time that Mr.

 

13 Feldman was representing the Arvizos?

 

14 A. Yes, it was.

 

15 Q. When did you and Mr. Feldman visit the

 

16 Department of Children & Family Services for the

 

17 first time to talk about the Arvizos?

 

18 A. June 12th, 2003.

 

19 Q. And you had a meeting at that department,

 

20 correct?

 

21 A. Correct.

 

22 Q. That department is in Los Angeles, right?

 

23 A. Correct.

 

24 Q. Did you ever have a second meeting at that

 

25 department about the Arvizos?

 

26 A. I did not.

 

27 Q. Was that the only meeting you had?

 

28 A. That’s correct. 4292

 

1 Q. Okay. Now, was it just you and Larry

 

2 Feldman at that meeting?

 

3 A. And an associate of his. I don’t recall his

 

4 name right now.

Here is a post from the Vindicate MJ blog which analyzes the Arvizo’s and Larry Feldman’s initial plans to file a frivolous civil lawsuit against Jackson in 2003.

Here is his testimony about his relationship with Larry Feldman, and how they interacted once the Arvizos were referred to him. Notice how when Dr. Katz was asked if he and William Dickerman had discussed the current case, Katz answered “not really”! Even talking about the case with other witnesses in the slightest manner was a violation of the gag order, and the defense would pounce on this information later on in the trial and use this (and a few other examples) as reasons why a mistrial should be declared by Judge Melville:

5 Q. Okay. Now, when you attended that meeting

 

6 with Mr. Feldman, did you know whether or not he was

 

7 a friend of someone named Jamie Masada?

8 A. I’m sorry, who was a friend?

 

9 Q. Mr. Feldman.

 

10 A. I had no idea.

 

11 Q. Do you know Jamie Masada?

 

12 A. Never met him.

 

13 Q. Do you know Attorney Bill Dickerman?

 

14 A. Yes, I do.

 

15 Q. And how do you know Attorney Bill Dickerman?

 

16 A. He was present at the meeting that I had

 

17 with Mr. Feldman on June 5th of 2003.

 

18 Q. Was he the only person at that meeting other

 

19 than you and Mr. Feldman, to your knowledge?

 

20 A. No.

 

21 Q. Who else was at that meeting?

 

22 A. Mr. Feldman’s wife, Jo Kaplan.

 

23 Q. Was anyone else at that meeting?

 

24 A. No.

 

25 Q. Was that the first time you met Attorney

 

26 Bill Dickerman?

 

27 A. Yes.

 

28 Q. Do you know anything about Bill Dickerman’s 4293

 

1 relationship with Jamie Masada?

 

2 A. He told me yesterday in the —

 

3 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as hearsay.

 

4 THE COURT: You may answer the question “yes”

 

5 or “no.”

 

6 THE WITNESS: Would you repeat the question,

 

7 please?

 

8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Yes. Do you have any

 

9 knowledge of Attorney Bill Dickerman’s relationship

 

10 with someone named Jamie Masada?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. And where did your knowledge come from?

 

13 A. Mr. Dickerman.

 

14 Q. And did he tell you that they’re friends?

 

15 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object, Your Honor,

 

16 as hearsay.

 

17 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you say you talked to

 

19 Bill Dickerman yesterday?

 

20 A. Yes.

 

21 Q. And did he call you or did you call him?

 

22 A. No, we sat in the holding area upstairs

 

23 together.

 

24 Q. Did you discuss the case at all with Mr.

 

25 Dickerman?

 

26 A. Not really.

 

27 Q. Not really?

 

28 A. Well, we talked a little bit about times and 4294

 

1 where we were going to stay last night and coming

 

2 back here, and we talked about everything from the

 

3 weather, to soup, to nuts. Not very much about the

 

4 case.

 

5 Q. Okay. Was your meeting with Mr. Dickerman

 

6 and Mr. Feldman the first time you had met Mr.

 

7 Dickerman?

 

8 A. Yes.

 

9 Q. After that meeting, did you have any further

 

10 contact with Mr. Dickerman before yesterday?

 

11 A. No.

 

12 Q. Have you communicated with him by letter at

 

13 any time since that initial meeting?

 

14 A. Never.

 

15 Q. Okay. So the only attorney you’ve ever

 

16 communicated with about this case is Attorney Larry

 

17 Feldman, right?

 

18 A. No. The attorney sitting in front of us

 

19 that we’ve named.

 

20 Q. The attorneys who are paid by the

 

21 government?

 

22 A. Paid by the government, yes.

 

23 Q. Okay. To get convictions. Okay, all right.

 

24 MR. ZONEN: Is that a question?

 

25 MR. MESEREAU: I withdraw that.

 

26 MR. ZONEN: If it is, I’m going to object to

 

27 it as argumentative.

 

28 MR. MESEREAU: I withdraw that. I withdraw 4295

 

1 that.

 

2 THE COURT: Objection’s sustained.

 

3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you have any knowledge

 

4 of Larry Feldman filing any claim against Los

 

5 Angeles County?

 

6 A. I read that, I think, on The Smoking Gun, or

 

7 somewhere on the Internet, but he’s never said that

 

8 to me.

 

9 Q. Okay. Now, after your meeting at the Los

 

10 Angeles Department of Children & Family Services

 

11 that you have described, did you have any other

 

12 meetings with Mr. Feldman about this matter?

 

13 A. Other than what I’ve described?

 

14 Q. Yes.

 

15 A. No.

 

16 Q. Did you and Mr. Feldman ever jointly appear

 

17 with anyone in the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office to

 

18 discuss this case?

 

19 A. No.

 

20 Q. After the meeting you had at the Department

 

21 of Children & Family Services, you spoke to the

 

22 Santa Barbara Sheriffs at some point, correct?

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. And approximately when was that?

 

25 A. I received a call from Detective Paul Zelis

 

26 on June 13, 2003.

 

27 Q. That was the first contact after the DCFS

 

28 meeting you had, right? 4296

 

1 A. That’s correct.

 

2 Q. Okay. Did you have any knowledge of

 

3 Attorney Larry Feldman contacting the Santa Barbara

 

4 Sheriffs at any time after the DCFS meeting?

 

5 A. I have no knowledge of that.

 

6 Q. Did you ever discuss that possibility with

 

7 him?

 

8 A. No.

 

9 Q. Did you ever discuss with Attorney Feldman

 

10 whether or not he had talked to Mr. Sneddon after

 

11 the DCFS interview?

 

12 A. I don’t think we ever talked about that.

 

13 Q. Never?

 

14 A. I don’t have any recollection of that at

 

15 all.

 

16 Q. Okay. So you’ve never heard anything about

 

17 that as you sit here today?

 

18 A. I’m sorry, about Mr. Feldman talking to Mr.

 

19 Sneddon?

 

20 Q. Yes.

 

21 A. Yes, I think that, as I said before, prior

 

22 to the call to — from Detective Zelis, I believe

 

23 that Mr. Feldman called the D.A.’s Office. I don’t

 

24 know if he personally talked to Mr. Sneddon or not.

 

25 Q. Now, your understanding of any contact Mr.

 

26 Feldman had in this case would have come from Mr.

 

27 Feldman, correct?

 

28 MR. ZONEN: Contact with whom? Objection; 4297

 

1 vague.

 

2 MR. MESEREAU: I’m sorry, let me rephrase

 

3 it.

 

4 Q. After the DCFS meeting that you have

 

5 described, you learned at some point that Attorney

6 Feldman spoke to prosecutors in this case, correct?

 

7 MR. ZONEN: Unless this conversation was in

 

8 his presence, I’ll object as hearsay and lack of

 

9 foundation.

 

10 MR. MESEREAU: State of mind, Your Honor.

 

11 THE COURT: I’ll allow the question. “Yes”

 

12 or “no” answer only.

 

13 THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the question?

 

14 THE COURT: Do you want it read back?

 

15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.

 

16 (Record read.)

 

17 THE WITNESS: The only — I’m sorry, but I’m

 

18 not sure which prosecutor or prosecutors or

 

19 assistant. I don’t — I know he called Mr.

 

20 Sneddon’s office. I don’t have a recollection if he

 

21 called directly to him.

 

22 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Do you have any

 

23 knowledge of when the Arvizos first met Attorney

 

24 Larry Feldman?

 

25 A. I vaguely remember. I think it was a month

 

26 or two before I saw them.

 

27 Q. Okay. And correct me if I’m wrong, but

 

28 you’re suggesting to the jury that sometime after 4298

 

1 your last interview on June 11th, the Arvizos in

 

2 some form contacted the police, correct?

 

3 A. I have no idea how that happened.

 

4 Q. Okay. Okay. But based on what you’ve just

 

5 said, and I’m referring exactly to your

 

6 understanding, that the Arvizos had talked to Mr.

 

7 Feldman for a month or two before you got involved,

 

8 right?

 

9 A. And I’m very vague about it. It could be a

 

10 couple weeks, but some period of time before I got

 

11 involved.

 

12 MR. ZONEN: Judge, I’m going to object as

 

13 lack of foundation, unless he was involved in those

 

14 conversations.

 

15 THE COURT: Overruled. Next question.

 

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Clearly, it was your

 

17 understanding that the Arvizos had spoke to Attorney

 

18 Larry Feldman before Mr. Feldman contacted you about

 

19 this case, correct?

 

20 A. Yes.

 

21 Q. And based on what you’ve just told the jury,

 

22 it was approximately a month after your first

 

23 interview with any of the Arvizos that any report

 

24 was made to any agency, true?

 

25 MR. ZONEN: Objection; vague. I’m not sure

 

26 which agency, which report and by whom? By Feldman?

 

27 By the Arvizos? By the police?

 

28 THE COURT: All right. That’s enough. 4299

 

1 The objection is overruled.

 

2 Read the question back to him.

 

3 (Record read.)

 

4 THE WITNESS: The first interview was on

 

5 May 15th with mother. The first interview with the

 

6 children was May 29th. The report was made on June

 

7 12th.

 

8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: That’s the report to DCFS,

 

9 correct?

 

10 A. Correct.

 

11 Q. And it’s your understanding that any contact

 

12 with Santa Barbara, be it sheriffs or prosecutors,

 

13 was after your meeting at DCFS, correct?

 

14 A. That’s my understanding.

 

15 Q. Okay. Clearly, it was always your

 

16 understanding that the Arvizos first went to lawyers

 

17 before they ever went to any police office, correct?

 

18 A. It’s my understanding that they went to

 

19 attorneys before they went to the police department.

 

20 That’s my understanding.

 

21 Q. And was it your understanding that they

 

22 first went to Attorney Dickerman before they went to

 

23 Attorney Feldman?

 

24 A. Yes.

Next, Mesereau questioned Dr. Katz about his work with Feldman in 1993; notice how Dr. Katz mentions that his job was to review the VIDEOTAPES that were made of the interview between Jordan Chandler and Dr. Richard Gardner! Jordan’s uncle Ray Chandler probably made audio recordings based off of those video tapes, and he transcribed the interview on his website in 2004:

25 Q. Now, you have indicated that you were

 

26 retained by Attorney Larry Feldman to work with him

 

27 on his civil suit that he filed against Mr. Jackson

 

28 in 1993, correct? 4300

 

1 A. That’s correct.

 

2 Q. Was it your understanding that Mr. Feldman

 

3 was in contact with Mr. Sneddon in 1993?

 

4 MR. ZONEN: Objection; lack of foundation.

 

5 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

6 THE WITNESS: I have no information about

 

7 that at all. I don’t have any memory of that, any

 

8 information about that.

 

9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Regarding your work on the

 

10 1993 case for Attorney Larry Feldman, when did your

 

11 work cease?

 

12 A. Let me help you out by telling you what my

 

13 work was. My work was to review the videotapes that

 

14 were made between the victim —

 

15 Q. No, I’m — go ahead.

 

16 A. — and Dr. Richard Gardner.

 

17 Q. Okay.

 

18 A. And to review those tapes, those videotapes,

 

19 and to view them and analyze them to give my

 

20 feedback to Mr. Feldman.

 

21 Q. To your knowledge, no criminal case was ever

 

22 filed against Mr. Jackson based on that ‘93 case,

 

23 correct?

 

24 A. That’s my understanding.

Here is the transcript of the interview between Jordan Chandler and Dr. Richard Gardner from October, 1993. It was thoroughly scrutinized and analyzed by MJJ Justice Project, so be sure to read it in order to gain a complete understanding of Jordan’s story.

Here is an excerpt of Bashir’s second “documentary” on Jackson, titled “Michael Jackson’s Secret World”; at the 9:40 mark, Bashir talks with Ray Chandler about Jordan’s interview (read this post for a complete transcript and rebuttal to this trash!)

Under redirect-examination, Zonen tried to get Dr. Katz to clarify why he thought that charges were not brought in 1993 against Jackson, and when Dr. Katz stated that it was because of the settlement, Mesereau immediately objected, and it was sustained by Judge Melville. Next, Zonen asked Dr. Katz to clarify his reference to the 40% of abuse claims that are false, and to state the “difficulties” that young boys face when making claims (Zonen was trying to insinuate that young boys cannot make false claims due to the stigma of being a victim):

16 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

 

17 BY MR. ZONEN:

 

18 Q. Mr. Mesereau asked you if you knew whether

 

19 or not criminal charges had been filed against Mr.

 

20 Jackson as a result of that ‘93 investigation, and

 

21 you said no —

 

22 A. Correct.

 

23 Q. — that they had not been.

 

24 A. That’s my understanding.

 

25 Q. Do you know why not?

 

26 A. I understand a settlement —

 

27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Objection.

 

28 Irrelevant; foundation; beyond the scope. 4302

 

1 THE COURT: Foundation; sustained. And

 

2 relevance.

 

3 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Doctor, you made a reference

 

4 to — or counsel made a reference to 40 percent

 

5 false accusations. What is that in reference to?

 

6 A. I was specifically talking about young

 

7 children. I was referring to the numerous cases

 

8 that were filed in the 1980s in preschools where we

 

9 had infants and toddlers alleging molestation, and I

 

10 was talking about the — the incredible number of

 

11 high-conflict divorce cases where there were

 

12 allegations of molestation with very young children,

 

13 pre-verbal children, under the age of three and

 

14 four.

 

15 I was not talking about extrafamilial sexual

 

16 abuse. I wasn’t talking about older children. I

 

17 was specifically referring to those cases.

 

18 Q. What do you mean by extrafamilial sexual

 

19 abuse?

 

20 A. Outside the family. Where the perpetrator

 

21 is not a member of the family.

 

22 Q. What is your understanding about the

 

23 percentage of false allegations in those types of

 

24 cases involving older children?

 

25 A. My experience, my clinical experience, my

 

26 collegial experience, is that there’s very, very few

 

27 false allegations made with alleged perpetrators

 

28 outside the family by a child over the age of five. 4303

 

1 Q. And involving specifically allegations of

 

2 sexual abuse involving boys, adolescent boys, what

 

3 are the difficulties involved in making a false

 

4 allegation —

 

5 A. Well —

 

6 Q. — or sustaining it?

 

7 A. A pre-adolescent or adolescent boy is

 

8 hypersensitive about his sexuality. It would be

 

9 extremely unusual for a child who’s developmentally

 

10 at a stage where he’s trying to figure out who he

 

11 is, and to actually become a man, to make an

 

12 allegation which would suggest that he’s had

 

13 inappropriate sexual relationships with a male. It

 

14 would be extremely rare because these children are

 

15 so protective and so guilt-ridden and shamed by any

 

16 behavior that’s extraordinary and extra-normal.

 

17 So it would be highly unusual in my

 

18 experience for a 12- or 13-year-old to make false

 

19 allegations regarding a male perpetrator.

 

20 Q. All right. Doctor, based on your experience

 

21 of as many years as you’ve been dealing with this,

 

22 have you had any personal dealings or associations

 

23 with cases where you believed there was a false

 

24 allegation by an adolescent child motivated by

 

25 profit?

 

26 A. Well, I’ve had some experience where I’ve

 

27 had some young girls actually allege molestation by

 

28 stepfathers to get out of the home sometimes, or 4304

 

1 fathers, and they have been recanted fairly quickly

 

2 after investigations began.

 

3 Q. Are there difficulties in a child

 

4 maintaining false allegations, from a practical

 

5 standpoint?

 

6 A. In my experience, a child who is going to

 

7 lie and fabricate cannot be consistent and hold that

 

8 very long, because children are impulsive, they

 

9 can’t delay gratification. You can’t tell a child,

 

10 “Years from now, if you lie, something good will

 

11 happen.” Children are very much living in the now.

 

12 They don’t maintain consistent allegations when they

 

13 start feeling as if the disadvantages of making

 

14 those allegations seriously outweigh any advantages.

 

15 MR. ZONEN: No further questions.

To be continued: https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/march-30th-2005-trial-analysis-cynthia-bell-cross-examination-dr-stan-katz-william-dickerman-jeff-klapakis-direct-cross-examination-part-3-of-4/

Advertisements
7 Comments leave one →
  1. lynande51 permalink*
    October 13, 2012 11:32 pm

    Okay, so we have Janet telling her crazy story on May 15th and 16th THEN the boys come in to reveal everything on May 29th and June 11th? And they like to say they weren’t coached! They had 2 weeks to get their story straight and then they had to change it not once but twice before they got to court.
    First they meet with Feldman for the first time on May 5th and right away he decided to send them to katz to get to the bottom of what happened. If that wasn’t an invitation to sue Michael nothing was.
    Dr. Richard Gardner would have sent Feldman his findings he would have had to because that is WHY Jordan was sent to him. The reason the police never saw a report from him is because he must have determined against the Chandlers.So in order to cover it up out they go and have good old Stan Katz review them and give them a report. Seems to me if they wanted someone to confirm it they should have gone straight to Katz and skipped Gardner altogether.
    Not to mention no one that is investigating would have allowed Janet to go first. That is why they have the kids separated from her. What is the most interesting is how long it takes Robel and Zellis to question Gavin after the report from Katz. I believe that was about 10 days later.Then she tells everyone on the stand that she never knew anything about what happened. Right, sure Janet.

    • October 14, 2012 9:19 am

      So you are saying Jordan saw Gardener first, then Katz? He was sent to both by Feldman? I thought Sneddon sent him.

    • October 14, 2012 10:39 am

      It’s Feldman who sent Jordan to Gardner and then Feldman gave the Gardner tapes to Katz. I don’t think Jordan saw Katz.

    • nannorris permalink
      October 14, 2012 12:41 pm

      I always thought that Feldman sent JC to Gardner so that MJ team could not have used him to interpret what JC accusations were.
      If he went to Katz who is not reputable imo, and then MJ team went to Gardner, and he is supposed to be a leading expert on false allegations,and he gave his interpretation, instead of the other way around Gardner could have shot Feldmans case down.., and anybody reading past the shock value things this kid says , can see there are some real holes in what he is saying….By involving Gardner,first, even if they never asked for his final findings , it may have prevented MJ side from involving him in the case as a conflict of interest, just like people go and retain really good divorce lawyers for one session so the other side cant involve them.
      I think feldman did that because he knew this kid was full of it , so he wanted to knock Gardner out of the game…
      I figured that is why they sent them all the way to NY for a doctor they never really wanted to give his opinion..Feldman is a brilliant strategist , but a souless human being imo

  2. stacy permalink
    October 13, 2012 12:07 pm

    Obviously these psychologists have never done any research on any world famous celebrities. It all starts with the parents. Yes it’s possible for a boy to falsely accuse a man of sexual abuse especially if that man is Michael Jackson who has been accused before and has settled cases for millions of dollars. It’s not farfetched to believe that a parent would use their child as a puppet to scam him especially when that parent is a known grifter with a long history of scamming people. The kind of parents that do this are usually mentally ill and has very little morals.

  3. stacy permalink
    October 13, 2012 12:00 pm

    A boy falsely accusing a man of sexual abuse, is rare, not impossible.

  4. nannorris permalink
    October 13, 2012 12:11 am

    I think it is interesting how Katz goes from teenage boys wouldn’t make accusations due to the nature of the accusations, and then switches off to talking about a child cant maintain the lie and cant wait for gratification, at a later date.
    Jordan Chandler was already sophisticated enough to work on a screenplay and Gavin Arvizo had already been involved in lawsuits..
    People talk about these kids like they are little boys.They arent..
    I would say at 12 or 13, you become more aware of your financial needs and how important money can be to a person..That is why people get babysitting jobs and other after school jobs…
    I also find it amazing that all these witnesses , Palanker calls Masada., Dickerman and Katz are chatting away….all prosecution witnesses..and nothing is done or said about it…..It is just so blatant..

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: