Skip to content

April 1st, 2005 Trial Analysis: Jeff Klapakis (Cross Examination), Jack Green, Larry Feldman, and Jesus Salas (Direct Examination), Part 1 of 4

October 30, 2012

Mesereau’s cross examination of Lt. Klapakis continued today, and in this excerpt Lt. Klapakis was asked to explain why there was such a delay in the commencement of the fingerprint testing of the magazines, and why there were no forensic tests conducted on the bottles of alcohol, the various boxes, the mannequins, and other items that were found at Neverland in Jackson’s bedroom. Lt. Klapakis confirmed that the Arvizos DNA and hair fibers were never found on Jackson’s bedding:





18 Q. Mr. Klapakis, did you suggest last week that


19 because of your discussions with the FBI you delayed


20 fingerprint analysis for a year?


21 A. “Last week,” do you mean Wednesday?


22 Q. Oh, that’s right. That’s right. You’re


23 right. How about Wednesday, did you suggest that


24 the FBI — your discussions with the FBI had


25 something to do with a one-year delay in analyzing


26 fingerprints?


27 A. No, my discussion with the FBI had to do


28 with basically doing background investigations for 4415


1 us as well as computer work for us.


2 Q. Did you suggest that the Department of


3 Justice and the State of California does not do


4 fingerprint analysis?


5 A. What I suggested was that their priorities


6 are for other agencies, and we can do fingerprints


7 ourselves.


8 Q. But they do do fingerprint analysis,


9 correct?


10 A. Yes.


11 Q. And at times your office will use the


12 Department of Justice to do fingerprint analysis,


13 correct?


14 A. I believe that we have, but it’s very rare.


15 We do it ourselves.


16 Q. Do you know somebody named George Levine of


17 the Department of Justice?


18 A. Yes, I do.


19 Q. Who is George Levine?


20 A. He’s an examiner with the Department of


21 Justice.


22 Q. And what does he do, to your knowledge?


23 A. Well, he does a lot of things, but I believe


24 fingerprints is one of them.


25 Q. And how long have you known him?


26 A. Oh, I think George has been with the agency


27 longer than I have been with the sheriff’s


28 department. So over 20 years. 4416


1 Q. Have you worked with him on fingerprint


2 analysis before?


3 A. Yes, I believe we have.


4 Q. Now, did you suggest to the jury that


5 because it took so long to separate pages out of


6 magazines that fingerprint analysis in this case


7 needed to be delayed for a year?


8 A. That’s not what I suggested.


9 Q. What did you suggest when you told the jury


10 about the laborious process of removing pages from


11 magazines?


12 A. Well, that it was a multi-phase process, and


13 that we wanted to — there were several things that


14 we had to do. We wanted to maintain control over


15 the evidence, and not piecemeal it out. And because


16 portions of the magazines were in different


17 locations, we had to do those phases at different


18 times.


19 Q. And are you saying that contributed to a


20 delay in analyzing fingerprints?


21 A. Yes, it did.


22 Q. Okay. And how long was the delay in


23 analyzing fingerprints that you would attribute to


24 separating out pages from magazines?


25 A. I’m not quite sure I understand the


26 question.


27 Q. You’ve said that separating pages out from


28 magazines caused a delay in analyzing fingerprints, 4417


1 correct?


2 A. Yes.


3 Q. The delay was approximately one year,


4 correct?


5 A. Approximately.


6 Q. Are you attributing that delay exclusively


7 to your need to separate out pages from magazines?


8 A. No.


9 Q. Okay. Now, as the head of the search of Mr.


10 Jackson’s residence, you were in charge of


11 determining what forensic tests would be done of


12 anything found in the residence, true?


13 A. I was part of that process, yes.


14 Q. Did you ask for any forensic tests on any


15 bottles that seemed to contain alcoholic beverages?


16 A. No.


17 Q. Do you know if any forensic tests were done


18 on bottles that seemed to contain alcoholic


19 beverages found at Mr. Jackson’s residence?


20 A. I don’t believe we did.


21 Q. You saw bottles that seemed to contain


22 alcoholic beverages in the wine cellar, correct?


23 A. I believe some of the investigators did,


24 yes.


25 Q. And you found bottles that seemed to contain


26 alcoholic beverages in the kitchen, correct?


27 A. Yes.


28 Q. And they appeared to be in unlocked areas, 4418


1 correct?


2 A. Correct.


3 Q. You found bottles that seemed to contain


4 alcoholic beverages in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom, true?


5 A. Yes, there was a bottle of alcohol in his


6 bedroom.


7 Q. Do you know if any forensic tests were ever


8 done on any bottles that seemed to contain alcoholic


9 beverages in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom?


10 A. Not to my knowledge.


11 Q. Did it ever occur to you that trying to


12 determine whose fingerprints were on bottles of that


13 sort might have merit in the investigation?


14 A. Well, it would — my belief is, is that we


15 were talking about something that occurred eight


16 months prior to the service of the search warrant,


17 so the answer would be no.


18 Q. How long do fingerprints tend to last on


19 surfaces, based upon your experience as a police


20 officer?


21 A. They can last that long, at least.


22 Q. They can last many years, correct?


23 A. Yes.


24 Q. Given what you had heard about potential


25 charges, did it ever occur to you that trying to see


26 whose fingerprints were on glasses or bottles,


27 glasses that seemed to have contained or are used to


28 contain alcoholic beverages or bottles that seem to 4419


1 contain alcoholic beverages, might be relevant?


2 A. We didn’t at the time.


3 Q. Okay. Did you do it at any time?


4 A. No.


5 Q. When the search went on in Michael Jackson’s


6 home, did you have a particular location where you


7 had either a desk or a chair?


8 A. Did I?


9 Q. Yes.


10 A. I believe — I’m not quite sure I

11 understand. Did I have a desk or a chair?


12 Q. Did you — as head of the search, did you


13 have a central location in the residence of Mr.


14 Jackson where people came back and forth to report


15 to you?


16 A. No. I don’t believe I had a central


17 location, no.


18 Q. So were you essentially walking around the


19 residence during the entire search?


20 A. I was moving about the estate, yes.


21 Q. Okay. And were you supervising what people


22 who reported to you were doing?


23 A. I along with others.


24 Q. Okay. Was your function primarily a


25 supervisory function?


26 A. Yes.


27 Q. Did you ever ask for any fingerprint


28 analysis of items of furniture in Mr. Jackson’s 4420


1 bedroom?


2 A. No.


3 Q. Did you ever ask for any fingerprint


4 analysis of various boxes you saw in Mr. Jackson’s


5 bedroom?


6 A. No.


7 Q. Did you ever ask for a fingerprint analysis


8 of a lot of the mannequin-type toys you found in Mr.


9 Jackson’s bedroom?


10 A. No.


11 Q. Did you ever ask for a fingerprint analysis


12 of anything you saw on the floor in Mr. Jackson’s


13 bedroom?


14 A. If some magazine material was found on the


15 floor, yes, we would have, but —


16 Q. Was the fingerprint analysis you requested


17 only directed at magazines?


18 A. I believe so, yes.


19 Q. Did you ever request any fingerprint


20 analysis of anything you saw hanging on the wall?


21 A. No.


22 Q. How about the railing on the stairs going


23 into Mr. Jackson’s bedroom?


24 A. No.


25 Q. How about any of the doors you have to go


26 through to enter Mr. Jackson’s bedroom?


27 A. No.


28 Q. Now, other than fingerprints and DNA 4421

1 analysis, is there any other type of forensic test


2 you wanted done during the day of that search?


3 A. During the day of the search, no.


4 Q. Were the forensic tests that you asked to be


5 done limited to looking for DNA and looking for


6 fingerprints?


7 A. Well, we — I also believe that photography


8 is part of forensic work, and so we photographed the


9 different rooms of the estate and different things


10 of that nature, but limiting it to that, yes.


11 Q. Was any effort ever made to see if you could


12 find fibers, hair or material, in Mr. Jackson’s


13 bedroom that you could link to any of the Arvizos?


14 A. Well, when we took the bedding from Mr.


15 Jackson’s bed, I wasn’t limiting it to biological


16 fluids. I was limiting — basically, I wanted a


17 complete analysis of anything that they found out


18 there. So, we took the — all the bedding and left


19 it to the examiners to determine what evidence might


20 be on that bed.


21 Q. And clearly, you never found any of the


22 Arvizos’ DNA in that bedding, correct?


23 A. That’s correct.


24 Q. And you never found their hair or fibers in


25 that bedding, correct?


26 A. That’s correct.


27 Q. And you never found any of their prints on


28 any furniture linked to Mr. Jackson’s bed, correct? 4422


1 A. That’s correct.


2 MR. MESEREAU: I have no further questions


3 at this time.


4 THE COURT: Redirect?

The computer testing that Klapakis referred to is the FBI’s testing of Jackson’s computers to determine if they contained any child pornography. After a Freedom Of Information Request in 2009, the FBI released several hundred pages of redacted files on their findings during the Jackson investigation. They searched 18 computers that were seized from Neverland, and none of them had any trace of child porn!

Recently, journalist Charles Thomson (one of the people who submitted the Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI) conducted an extensive interview with the Dancing With The Elephant blog on the subject of FBI’s Jackson files, and here is an brief excerpt:

Joie:  Oh, I don’t know how anyone could make an argument for the prosecution here.


So Charles, you were involved in requesting the FBI files on Michael Jackson under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). I’m curious, what prompted you to request them and what exactly were you hoping to find in those files?


Charles:  I wasn’t sure what I would find in those files, or even if he would have a file. I made the Freedom of Information request on the off-chance.


Freedom of Information is a brilliant piece of legislation that allows citizens to demand hidden information possessed by government agencies. You can demand to know how much your local government spends every year on biscuits for the staff room, or obtain information on how many accusations of police brutality were made at your local police station last year, or demand correspondence between government departments regarding controversial issues.


I had used it with the FBI a few times before. I had acquired James Brown’s file, for instance. In there, I found an eye-opening account of the supposed police chase for which he was arrested and imprisoned in the 1980s, which related events in a very different way to the police’s story from the time. In other celebrities’ files, there are memos about the FBI monitoring them during the 60s because they thought the were communists.


Had Michael Jackson been monitored by the FBI because of the power he could be perceived as having had over his audience? Had they investigated the so-called financial ‘conspiracy’ against him, proof of which Raymone Bain said was being sent to the Attorney General in around 2006/7? Had they been involved in the child molestation investigations? These were the kind of questions I was asking myself.


I wasn’t very happy about the way the FBI handled the release, as I made clear in my blogs about the subject and in the passage I wrote about the files for J. Randy Taraborrelli’s book. Instead of releasing the files directly to those who had requested them – I don’t know how many others had requested them – the FBI announced that it would upload the files to its website at a particular time for anybody and everybody to read.


Joie:  Yes, that is surprising. You wouldn’t expect the FBI to operate in this fashion.


Charles:  What this essentially provoked was a free-for-all, with news organizations around the world all scrambling to download, skim-read and report on the files faster than anybody else. This led to some extremely shoddy reporting on the files’ contents. I wrote about the media’s shambolic coverage of the documents on my blog.


I also wrote a blog about how the files revealed that Tom Sneddon, the DA pursuing Jackson, tried to get the FBI to prosecute Jackson under the Mann Act. The Mann Act is an inherently racist law which was widely used after its introduction to punish black men who consorted with white women. The notion of interracial relationships was at that time considered ‘immoral’. As such, any black men caught traveling with white girlfriends could find themselves prosecuted under the Mann Act for ‘transporting a female over the state line for immoral purposes’.


The phenomenal book, Unforgivable Blackness: The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson, tells how Johnson, the first ever black Heavyweight Boxing Champion of the World, was one of the motivations behind the law’s introduction. The government didn’t like the way in which Johnson ‘flaunted his wealth’ (read: bought cars) and dated white women. He was arrested under the act for traveling with a white lover. The law was also used to prosecute Chuck Berry for allegedly consorting with a 14-year-old girl, in the same year  that Elvis Presley began dating Priscilla Beaulieu – his future wife. She was 14 at the time. Elvis was not prosecuted.

You can read the rest of Charles Thomson’s interview in its entirety here.

Sneddon began his redirect examination by getting Lt. Klapakis to explain that the reason why 69 police officers were needed to raid Neverland was due to its enormous size, and the 12 hour deadline that they had to execute the search warrant was for the convenience of the police department and the Neverland employees (i.e., it was more efficient to search Neverland for 12 hours instead of spreading it out across multiple days):





8 Q. Let’s go back to some of the things you were


9 talking about last Wednesday that Mr. Mesereau was


10 asking you about, and specifically the execution of


11 the search warrant.


12 You were asked by Mr. Mesereau about what


13 you typically do in a typical murder case. Not that


14 there’s really a typical murder case. But with


15 regard to a murder case that occurs in a residence,


16 all right? When you have a murder case that occurs


17 in a residence, what are you legally required to do


18 in order to process the crime scene?


19 A. We have to obtain a search warrant.


20 Q. And when you obtain a search warrant from a


21 judge to allow you to process the crime scene of a


22 residence, are there ordinarily any time limitations


23 placed upon you in terms of how long you can remain


24 at the residence to complete the process of the


25 crime scene?


26 A. No. We could — it could take a day, it


27 could take a week. Whatever it takes to process the


28 scene. 4423


1 Q. And have there been cases involving your


2 agency in which crime scenes have been secured and


3 processed over the — over days and weeks?


4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Have you ever, in your experience, and to


6 your knowledge with the sheriff’s department, had a


7 residence and a ranch of the size of Mr. Jackson’s


8 that you’ve had to ever search?


9 A. No.


10 Q. And just so the jury’s clear on this, there


11 was more than one building searched that day,


12 correct?


13 A. There were several.


14 Q. In addition to his residence?


15 A. Yes.


16 Q. Would you consider the residence a typical


17 search by your department?


18 A. No.


19 Q. Why?


20 A. Well, it involved a very large main house on


21 the estate. It also involved different buildings on


22 the estate. It — the estate, the house, was packed


23 with a lot of things that we had to go through. We


24 had to make sure that we were very careful with


25 them. And the search also conducted was in


26 different locations within the estate.


27 Q. Did you know at the time that you executed


28 the search warrant on November the 18th, 2003, 4424


1 whether or not Mr. Jackson was present on the ranch?


2 A. We were not aware that he was on the ranch.


3 Q. Now, with regard to the time constraints


4 given to you with the execution of the search


5 warrant on Mr. Jackson’s ranch, what time


6 constraints were you given on that?


7 A. I was told that I had to be done within a


8 day.


9 Q. And how did that come about?


10 A. Well, I had asked you if we could write in


11 the search warrant that we could take a couple of


12 days or more to conduct this search, because of the


13 size of the estate, plus the other things involved


14 in this investigation, other searches. And through


15 that discussion, it was decided that we were going


16 to have to do it within one day, so as not to burden


17 the ranch and its employees with our presence longer


18 than that.


19 Q. And was there some relationship between the


20 amount of time and the number of personnel that you


21 needed to do it within the time constraints that you


22 were given?


23 A. Well, based on the size of the estate, we


24 felt that in order to get it done within that time


25 frame, we had to have an abundance of personnel. It


26 wasn’t just the search.

Next, Sneddon questioned Lt. Klapakis about the reason that certain fingerprints and DNA were not tested on the items found at Neverland, and he testified that was due to the nine month gap between the dates that the alleged abuse took place, and the raid on Neverland on November 18th, 2003:

26 Q. Okay. Now, before you executed the search


27 warrant or before the search warrant was executed on


28 November 18th, were you aware of the interviews that 4427


1 had been conducted with the Arvizo children?


2 A. Yes.


3 Q. And were you aware of the information that


4 they had provided about the interior of Mr.


5 Jackson’s bedroom suite area?


6 A. Yes.


7 Q. At the time that you were executing your


8 search warrant on November the 18th of 2003, how


9 much time had elapsed between the time that you had


10 information that the crimes were committed and the


11 time you were executing the warrant?


12 A. Nine months. Eight, nine months.


13 Q. Now, at that time, Mr. Mesereau asked you


14 whether or not you took any prints off the balcony


15 or whether you looked for hair or fibers or anything


16 else. Was there a reason that wasn’t really an


17 important part of the investigation at that


18 particular stage in time?


19 A. It just didn’t enter into the investigation


20 at that particular time.


21 Q. Why?


22 A. Well, we were — we had certain information


23 regarding the crimes. We went in to the search


24 looking for those things. Our search was limited in


25 time, and we were doing several other things,


26 interviews, other searches in other locations.


27 The — this investigation was atypical because it


28 entered into other — other crimes, other overt acts 4428


1 in which we had to investigate.


2 Q. With regard to the presence of the Arvizo


3 children in Mr. Jackson’s master bedroom and in the


4 suite itself, at the time you were executing the


5 search warrant, can you tell us whether or not there


6 was any doubt in the investigators’ minds that they


7 had actually been in those rooms?


8 A. No, they described it uniquely, and it — we


9 actually knew where we were going when we —


10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Calls for hearsay


11 and speculation. And also it’s improper.


12 THE COURT: Sustained.


13 MR. SNEDDON: Judge, what’s the basis?


14 Because I may be able to cure it. Because I didn’t


15 think it was hearsay.


16 THE COURT: Well, you’re talking about what


17 was in the other investigators’ minds.


18 MR. SNEDDON: I’m sorry, then I can cure it.


19 Q. With regard to what was in your mind as the


20 lead investigator during the course of the execution


21 of this search warrant, were you aware of the


22 information that the Arvizo children had provided to


23 you?


24 A. Yes.


25 Q. And with regard to that information, did


26 that have an impact on you with regard to trying to


27 prove whether or not they were ever in those rooms?


28 A. No, they had described it. And when we 4429


1 entered the room, it fit their description.

Sneddon ended his redirect examination by asking Lt. Klapikis to elaborate upon the delay in the testing of the fingerprint evidence:

2 Q. All right. Mr. Mesereau asked you one


3 other — another question with regard to whether —


4 you were trying to explain what — he uses the word


5 “delay” in the processing of the print. And you


6 answered the question, “No.” Why was there no —


7 you didn’t consider that to be a delay of over a


8 year?


9 A. As Mr. Mesereau stated, latents can stay on


10 an object for a long time. We were protecting the


11 items of evidence. They were in different


12 locations. We were conducting our processes as we


13 were able to. And ultimately we were able to


14 develop and stabilize the latents that we felt were


15 on the items of evidence.


16 Q. Were there other items that were taken that


17 you believe could have been processed for forensic


18 evidence?


19 A. Sure. We could have fingerprinted some


20 alcohol bottles or other things like that, but we


21 didn’t.


22 Q. With regard to this particular case, there


23 are a number of books that are in evidence.


24 A. Yes.


25 Q. You’re aware of that?


26 A. Yes.


27 Q. Was there a conscious decision made with

28 regard to those particular books and processing them 4430


1 for the latent prints?


2 A. Right. The — the books, in a discussion


3 with Mr. Zonen, was — we determined not to conduct


4 a latent fingerprint examination on them, because


5 the process to do so would have, one, destroyed the


6 book and made the pages toxic. Mr. Zonen preferred


7 to keep the book in its original condition, and so


8 the decision was made not to attempt the latent


9 search on them.


10 MR. SNEDDON: Thank you. Nothing further.


11 MR. MESEREAU: May I just take one second,


12 Your Honor?


13 THE COURT: Yes.


14 (Off-the-record discussion held at counsel


15 table.)

Mesereau had a few more questions for Lt. Klapakis under recross-examination regarding the exclusion of pertinent information from his case timeline that was attached to the operations plan that was used in the Jackson investigation. Lt. Klapakis didn’t include any information about his work on the case from February through April 2003 (prior to being contacted by Larry Feldman in June 2003), and he certainly didn’t include the fact that in February 2003 he called the DCFS and asked them not to interview the Arvizo family, but they had already done so by then! Sneddon objected to this question and it was sustained by Judge Melville.





19 Q. Your investigation, I’m talking about you


20 personally, Lieutenant, began approximately June


21 13th, 2003, when you were contacted by Attorney


22 Larry Feldman, true?


23 A. No. I started this in February.


24 Q. Okay.


25 A. If that’s — I began in February 2003.


26 Q. Okay. But in the operations plan that was


27 developed and typed up for the search that you were


28 in charge of, you attached a case timeline, correct? 4431


1 A. The sergeant who developed the ops plan did,


2 yes.


3 Q. And that was Sergeant Eric Koopmans,


4 correct?


5 A. Koopmans, yes.


6 Q. Did he develop that plan with your


7 assistance?


8 A. Certainly mine. Sergeant Roble’s.


9 Q. With respect to that search, you talk about


10 you being contacted by Attorney Larry Feldman on


11 Friday, June 13th, 2003, correct?


12 A. I believe that was the date.


13 Q. Okay. Do you know why that timeline doesn’t


14 include the investigation you were doing much


15 earlier?


16 A. The ops plan is basically the synopsis, a


17 brief synopsis, of giving the investigators some


18 background on our investigation. I can’t tell you


19 why it didn’t have the February information.


20 Q. And the timeline associated with the


21 operations plan doesn’t include the fact that you


22 personally called the Department of Children &


23 Family Services and asked them not to interview the


24 Arvizos, correct?


25 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, this is beyond the


26 scope of the redirect. I object.


27 THE COURT: Sustained.


28 MR. MESEREAU: I have no further questions, 4432


1 Your Honor.


2 MR. SNEDDON: Nothing further, Your Honor.


3 THE COURT: You may step down.


4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Your Honor, we’ll call as


5 our next witness Jack Green.


6 THE COURT: When you get to the witness


7 stand, please remain standing. Face the clerk and


8 raise your right hand.

The next prosecution witness was Jack Green, the president of Affordable Telephone Systems. Here is his background:





24 Q. Good morning, Mr. Green.


25 A. Good morning.


26 Q. How are you employed?


27 A. I’m the president of Affordable Telephone


28 Systems in Ventura, California. 4433


1 Q. And what is Affordable Telephone Systems?


2 A. We’re an AT&T equipment dealer.


3 Q. And what do you do for Affordable Telephone


4 Systems as the president?


5 A. Run the operation.


6 Q. All right. Do you actually go out to sites


7 and perform services in relation to telephones


8 themselves?


9 A. I do. Uh-huh.


10 Q. And how long have you been doing this?


11 A. 20 years.


12 Q. Do you have a background in — do you have


13 any training in the area of telephone systems?


14 A. I do.


15 Q. Could you describe that for me, please?


16 A. I was trained by AT&T Corporation.


17 Q. All right. How long ago?


18 A. In 1984 to 1990.


19 Q. What kind of training did you receive?


20 A. Technical training on their systems from


21 their corporate trainers.


22 Q. And how long did this training take place,


23 over what period of time?


24 A. Over the course of ten years.


25 Q. All right. And I take it you’ve had some


26 hands-on experience with this subject matter?


27 A. Correct.


28 Q. Over the 20 years you have performed 4434


1 services for telephone systems?


2 A. Yes, I have.


3 Q. On — you know, could you even estimate how


4 many times?


5 A. Oh, geez, thousands.

Green worked with the police on the December 3rd, 2004 raid at Neverland; his job was to inspect the telephone system, and provide police with information about how it was configured and programmed. Here are the details:

6 Q. Okay. On December 3rd, 2004, did you visit


7 Neverland Ranch in Los Olivos, California?


8 A. I did.


9 Q. And did you have an assignment when you went


10 out to the ranch that day?


11 A. I did.


12 Q. What was your assignment?


13 A. To inspect the telephone system at the


14 ranch. And to give information on how the phone


15 system was configured, programmed and would operate.


16 Q. Were you accompanied by law enforcement


17 officers on that date?


18 A. I was.


19 Q. And did you perform that task?


20 A. I did.


21 Q. First of all, tell me, what type of system


22 does Neverland Ranch have, what type of telephone


23 system?


24 A. It’s manufactured by AT&T. It’s called a


25 Merlin II system is the model. It’s a — we call it


26 a key system, a hybrid key system.


27 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the Merlin II


28 system from AT&T? 4435


1 A. I am.


2 Q. Have you serviced that system before?


3 A. I have.


4 Q. So tell me what you did. How did you go


5 about inspecting the system?


6 A. We — we inspected and looked at how many


7 telephone lines that were — from the telephone

8 company on the property, were installed in the


9 system. We logged and inventoried all of the


10 telephones at each location on the system on the


11 property, and looked at how the system was


12 programmed in terms of how you could make a call


13 out, how you could receive a call. You know, the


14 typical aspects of how the system would work.


15 Q. And how many lines did you find that system


16 included, how many different telephone lines?


17 A. On the property, there’s a total of 24


18 telephone lines or numbers, telephone numbers that


19 come onto the property. Of those 24 lines, there


20 are eight lines that’s connected to the Merlin II


21 system.


22 Q. Okay. And the remaining 24 — I guess we


23 have 16 lines remaining.


24 A. Correct.


25 Q. Tell me about those.


26 A. There’s one — there was one line that was


27 not — that was not on the system of the eight.


28 There were 15 lines that were connected to modems or 4436


1 computers or, you know, other things.


2 Q. Okay. Were all of those 15 lines being


3 used?


4 A. They had dial tone. I don’t know if they


5 were being used. There was dial tone at what we


6 call the demarc. Some of them might have been used;


7 some of them might not have been used.


8 Q. What did you say, the demarc, or the —


9 A. The demarcation point from Verizon.


10 Q. I see. And where is that located?


11 A. That’s located in the garage, where the


12 telephone equipment was at.


13 Q. Did you have access to the entire property?


14 A. Yes.


15 Q. Did you visit the various outbuildings as


16 well as the main residence?


17 A. Yes.


18 Q. Did you inspect the phones at each of


19 those —


20 A. Yes.


21 Q. — locations?


22 A. Uh-huh.


23 Q. And did you inspect a phone that was located


24 in what’s known as Mr. Jackson’s personal bedroom?


25 A. Yes, sir.

Next, Auchincloss asked Green to explain how the phones work regarding the placement of calls, and their ability to surreptitiously listen to calls already in progress. This was consistent with the prosecution’s claims that Jackson and his entourage intimidated the Arvizo family from making phone calls to the authorities because they were afraid that their calls were tapped:

19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Thank you.


20 Q. All right. Mr. Green, can you just briefly


21 describe for the jury how this telephone works?


22 A. Sure. This telephone — okay. All right.


23 You have — if you lift the handset and you


24 want to make a call out, this system is programmed,


25 what we call in the phone industry, pooled. What I


26 mean by that is all eight lines on the phone system,


27 on all the other phones on the property, they —


28 they are a ten-button phone, except this phone. On 4438


1 this phone, you have your telephone lines that are


2 on each button here. Each of the eight lines.


3 So, if I — from this telephone, I can


4 manually push this black button right here, or any


5 of these black buttons, and I can manually select


6 any one of the eight lines that I want to make a


7 call out on.


8 On the — I don’t know if I’m jumping ahead,


9 but on the other telephone sets, they don’t have the


10 lines that appear individually on a button. You


11 just — you just press a pooled button, and the


12 telephone system selects at random a line that


13 you’re going to call out on. And you enter an


14 account code and then you get a dial tone and you


15 make that outside call, and you can — from the


16 ranch.


17 Q. All right. So the other phones on the


18 ranch — well, let me start with, was there another


19 phone that had similar capabilities on the ranch?


20 A. Yes. There were two phones — yes, there


21 are two phones on the ranch that you could select a


22 line to call out on, or — or listen in to a


23 telephone conversation on. That other telephone set


24 was in the — I would call it the administrative


25 office on the ranch. It’s a larger console, larger


26 than this.


27 Q. Okay. And was that in a separate building


28 from the main house? 4439


1 A. Yes. Yes, it was.


2 Q. Can you tell me — approximate its location


3 in relation to the main house?


4 A. Yeah. It was in what I call the big


5 administrative office. It wasn’t a security office.


6 It was up the hill. It was the — it was the


7 administrative office, the best I know it.


8 Q. All right. Now, if I understand correctly,


9 the other phones on the property, you could not


10 select which line you were going to use?


11 A. Correct. The other phones on the property


12 looked just like this phone, except this row and


13 this row of buttons were not there. It’s a


14 ten-button phone. So it looked exactly like this,


15 minus — if I could just draw down here, exit that


16 off.


17 Q. You’re indicating the right-hand portion of


18 the phone, those buttons were gone?


19 A. Correct.


20 Q. Now, but you still could not — you have


21 these eight buttons, or it looks like —


22 A. The line buttons.


23 Q. Yeah, two lines of buttons on the left.


24 They had those buttons?


25 A. Yes.


26 Q. Would that allow that person on a — let’s


27 say in the guest room, would that allow that person


28 to select a particular line? 4440


1 A. No. No, all you could do is lift the


2 handset, press the pooled button, and the phone


3 system would select a line.


4 Q. Okay.


5 A. The phone cabinet, I’ll call it a CPU.


6 Q. You also mentioned that in order to get an


7 outside line you needed to enter a code. What did


8 you mean by that?


9 A. An account code.


10 Q. All right.


11 A. The phone system was restricted to where you


12 couldn’t just pick it up, have dial tone and place a


13 call. You had to enter an account code.


14 Q. So if an individual did not have the account


15 code, then it would be impossible for them to talk


16 to an outside party off the ranch?


17 A. That’s — yes, to my knowledge. Uh-huh.


18 Q. All right. Now, can you tell me what the


19 term “barging” means?


20 A. Yes, we referred to it in telephone — it’s


21 our term that I want to — I want to join a


22 conversation that’s in place or I want to listen to


23 a conversation in place.


24 Or in business, since this is a business

25 phone system, it was transferred for office business


26 use, if I was on line 1, and I wanted you to join me


27 in that conversation, you could press the line 1


28 button, and you could join the conversation. 4441


1 Q. Okay. So in a business setting, that would


2 let a secretary barge in a conversation; would that


3 be a reasonable use —


4 A. Yes, or —


5 Q. — in business?


6 A. Sure. Or join the conversation.


7 Q. All right. Did this phone have barging


8 capabilities?


9 A. Yes.


10 Q. Could you listen to this phone


11 surreptitiously, and I mean secretly without letting


12 the parties know that you were a third party


13 listening in on that conversation?


14 A. Yes.


15 Q. And how would you do that?


16 A. Well, from this telephone, if I saw that


17 somebody — if a telephone (sic) on the property was


18 on the phone, I would see — on one of these line


19 buttons, I would see it lit. There would be a red


20 light lit. And so if I wanted to listen in on that


21 conversation, all I’d have to do is press this black


22 button, lift the handset, press this black button,


23 and I could listen to the conversation, because I’ve


24 got what we call line access. I can select the line


25 I want to listen in on on this. Or I could press


26 the speakerphone button, and mute it, mute the


27 microphone, and press the line I wanted to listen in


28 on. 4442


1 Q. All right. And if you — well, let me


2 strike that. Does that phone have instructions on


3 how to do that?


4 A. This phone right here?


5 Q. Yeah.


6 A. No. Not on the telephone it doesn’t.


7 Q. All right. So if you didn’t know how to do


8 that, you wouldn’t be able to barge in without the


9 other people’s knowledge, is that fair to say, if


10 you didn’t have some kind of idea about how this


11 phone worked?


12 A. True.


13 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object. That


14 calls for speculation.


15 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer was,


16 “True.” Next question.


17 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And would it be any


18 difficulty — would there be any difficulty in


19 connecting a recording device to this phone?


20 MR. SANGER: Objection; that calls for


21 speculation.


22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I think he’s an expert in


23 this area.


24 MR. SANGER: Then it’s vague as phrased.


25 THE COURT: Overruled.


26 You may answer.


27 THE WITNESS: You could do that, yes.


28 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And I believe you said 4443


1 one of the ways you could listen in was on the


2 speakerphone?


3 A. Yes. If you didn’t want to hold the


4 handset, all you had to do is just press the


5 speakerphone, and then press the “line” button, and


6 you could sit there and listen to the conversation


7 without — hands-free without lifting the handset.


8 Q. Would you also want to hit the “mute”


9 button?


10 A. You could also hit the “mute” button so that


11 it mutes the microphone on this telephone, so the


12 caller that you are listening in on wouldn’t hear


13 any background noise.


14 Q. So they couldn’t hear you breathing, or


15 talking, or anything like that?


16 A. Correct. Correct.

During his testimony, Green was asked to write down Jackson’s private phone numbers on a display that was being used by the prosecution, and Judge Melville requested a meeting with the attorneys at the sidebar to discuss the issue of Jackson’s privacy, and subsequently stated the following to the court at the conclusion of the meeting:

22 THE COURT: You know, I don’t like to have


23 conferences, but I need — I don’t know what the


24 problem with this record is that’s causing all this


25 difficulty. So would you come up here and tell me?




27 (Discussion held off the record at sidebar.)


28 THE COURT: It’s amazing what a little 4450


1 conference will do occasionally here. The problem,


2 which I didn’t get, maybe you got, was that those


3 are all Mr. Jackson’s private phone numbers, and he


4 doesn’t want to receive all of those telephone


5 calls. So that was the only problem. And so we’re


6 going to work with this as best we can, as long as


7 we can, without revealing his personal phone


8 numbers. And I don’t know if we’ll succeed in doing


9 that, but that’s what we’re going to try to do here.


10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And that’s fine, Your


11 Honor.


12 The People would seek — ask to admit at


13 this time Exhibit No. 298.


14 MR. SANGER: And I don’t have an objection


15 to the foundation being laid for 298, but I’d ask


16 the Court just procedurally to delay receiving it


17 until we work this out.


18 THE COURT: They’re having trouble in the


19 back hearing you.


20 MR. SANGER: I’m sorry, the thing’s turned


21 off.


22 Yes, Your Honor, I was just saying I don’t


23 have any objection to the foundation for 298 based


24 on this witness’s testimony at this point. I’d just


25 ask the Court to delay receiving it in evidence


26 until we work out the details.


27 THE COURT: Okay.


28 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And that’s fine. 4451


1 THE COURT: I’ll make that ruling; that the


2 parties agree that the foundation is laid, and we’ll


3 not admit it at this point until we can do something


4 with the phone numbers.


5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: That’s fine. Thank you,


6 Your Honor. No further questions.


7 MR. SANGER: May I proceed, Your Honor?




9 MR. SANGER: Okay.

Under cross examination, Green admitted that the type of telephone lines used at Neverland were typical of businesses and large residences, and there was nothing out of the ordinary or nefarious about Jackson’s use of that type of phone system.





13 Q. Mr. Green, how are you?


14 A. Good. Pretty good.


15 Q. All right. Let’s just clear up a couple


16 things right off the bat here. First of all, this


17 phone system, this Merlin phone system that you saw


18 at Neverland Ranch, is a fairly standard business


19 kind of phone system, correct?


20 A. That’s correct.


21 Q. And the Merlin phone system that you saw,


22 that particular configuration, was really one that


23 was developed and used primarily in the 1980s; is


24 that correct?


25 A. That’s correct.

26 Q. Phone systems have actually progressed quite


27 a bit farther than what you see there, right?


28 A. That’s correct. 4452


1 Q. And that’s the kind of phone system that in


2 the late ‘80s you might have found in executive


3 offices, insurance companies, lawyers, and so on; is


4 that correct?


5 A. That’s correct.


6 Q. All right.


7 A. It was designed for business use.


8 Q. And in your experience with Affordable


9 Telephone Systems in Ventura, have you had occasion


10 over the last 20 years to install phone systems on


11 large estates?


12 A. Yes. Yes, I have.


13 Q. Have you ever installed a phone system on an


14 estate as large as Mr. Jackson’s?


15 A. No.


16 Q. Okay. Have you installed a phone system on


17 an estate that involved a working ranch?


18 A. I probably have. I don’t recall at this


19 point.


20 Q. Okay. What I’m getting at is, where you


21 have a number of operations going on besides a


22 residence, is there anything unusual about seeing a


23 business kind of telephone system on a working


24 ranch?


25 A. Oh, no. Not at all. It’s — no.


26 Q. Okay. And what you might do, I think you’re


27 doing okay, but try to talk real close to the


28 microphone there. 4453


1 A. Okay.


2 Q. Because it is hard for everybody to hear.


3 All right. And particularly with regard to


4 the Merlin system, it would not be unusual to see a


5 Merlin system like that installed in a working ranch


6 somewhere in the 1980s, correct?


7 A. No, not at all.


8 Q. And the fact that this phone system has not


9 been switched out for a brand-new system is also not


10 unusual; is that correct?


11 A. Not at all.


12 Q. All right. So you would expect at working


13 ranches and other business locations that there are


14 probably some Merlin systems still around; is that


15 correct?


16 A. Oh, sure. Hundreds, thousands.

Next, Green admitted that he did not see any recording devices on the telephones that he inspected at the ranch:

17 Q. All right. Now, you mentioned that — you


18 were asked, is it possible to attach a recording


19 device to this telephone system, correct?


20 A. Yes.


21 Q. Did you see a recording device attached to


22 this telephone system?


23 A. No.


24 Q. All right. And in fact, it’s possible to


25 attach a recording device to just about any


26 telephone system, correct?


27 A. That’s correct.


28 Q. All right. So there’s nothing in particular 4454


1 that makes this phone system any more susceptible to


2 being attached to a recording device than any other,


3 correct?


4 A. No.


5 Q. Now, another thing we talked about here was


6 being able to pick up a line that’s either in use or


7 not in use on this particular phone, correct?


8 A. Correct.


9 Q. In a typical telephone installation in a


10 home, where you have more than one extension, is it


11 usually possible to pick up a line that’s in use in


12 the system?


13 A. Yes.


14 Q. So people who have two or three extension


15 phones in their home generally have just exactly


16 that system. You pick it up — if it’s in use in


17 the kitchen and you pick it up in the bedroom, you


18 can listen in, right?


19 A. Yes.


20 Q. Home systems that have more than one line


21 often have that same capability. You can pick up


22 line 1 — let’s say you have two lines. You can


23 pick up line 1 or line 2 if it’s in use, correct?


24 A. Correct.

Next, Sanger wanted to emphasize to the jury that the Arvizo family very well could have called authorities if they wanted to by having Green describe the process of making external phone calls on the phones that he inspected. Pay attention to the hypothetical situation that Sanger used about someone calling their boyfriend in Los Angeles from Neverland; that was a direct reference to Davellin Arvizo!

6 Q. BY MR. SANGER: So based on your analysis of


7 this system, there could have been one number that


8 would allow anybody on this Merlin phone system,


9 wherever the extensions were throughout the ranch,


10 it would allow somebody to hit the number, and get


11 an outside line, correct?


12 A. That’s correct.


13 Q. All right. Did you determine — let me


14 withdraw that. So if somebody were able to make a


15 phone call to an outside number, for instance,


16 somebody were able to call their, let’s say,


17 boyfriend in Los Angeles from this phone, if they


18 did it unassisted, they would have to have the code,


19 whatever it was, to get that outside line, correct?


20 A. Not from this phone. But from all the other


21 phones, yes.


22 Q. Okay. Okay. Good point. Thank you. I’m


23 talking about the extension phones, and I guess I’m


24 pointing to that one.


25 A. Yes.


26 Q. But this phone, you can just pick up an


27 outside line, correct?


28 A. Uh-huh. 4463


1 Q. And we’ll come back to that. But as far as


2 the extension phones are concerned, the ones that —


3 other than the administration building and this


4 phone, if you want to get an outside line, you put


5 in whatever the code is —


6 A. Correct.


7 Q. — one number, or two numbers, or whatever


8 it is?


9 A. Correct.


10 Q. You get the outside line and then you can


11 call wherever you want, right?


12 A. That’s correct.


13 Q. All right. So if somebody were, say, on an


14 extension phone at someplace on the ranch and they


15 were able to call, as I say, for instance, their


16 boyfriend in Los Angeles, you would expect that they


17 would know how to enter that code to get the outside


18 line, correct?


19 A. Yes.


20 Q. And if somebody could enter that code and


21 get an outside line to call their boyfriend in Los


22 Angeles, they could enter that code, get an outside


23 line, and call 9-1-1, correct?


24 A. Yes.


25 Q. There’s no restriction on calling 9-1-1 from


26 any phone in this phone system other than simply


27 knowing the code to call out, correct?


28 A. Yes. 4464

The next prosecution witness was attorney Larry Feldman, who represented Evan Chandler in 1993 after he fired Gloria Allred for refusing to sue Jackson first before prosecuting him. (Read this post for more details on Allred’s termination.) Here is Feldman’s description of his background:





27 Q. Good morning, Mr. Feldman.


28 A. Good morning. 4487


1 Q. You’re an attorney licensed —


2 A. Right.


3 Q. — to practice law in California?


4 A. I am.


5 Q. And how long have you been an attorney?


6 A. Since 1969.


7 Q. And would you share with the ladies and


8 gentlemen of the jury your academic preparation to


9 become a lawyer. Spare us the high school part.


10 Just —


11 A. I went to — ultimately graduated from


12 Cal-State Northridge, where I’m proud to say I’m


13 getting the Alumni of the Year Award this year.


14 And thereafter I went to Loyola University


15 in Los Angeles, where I graduated in 1969 as the


16 editor-in-chief for The Law Review and No. 1 in my


17 class.


18 Q. All right. And I assume you took and passed


19 the bar?


20 A. I took and passed the bar.


21 Q. And in your practice, where are you


22 currently employed?


23 A. Currently, I am at a law firm called Kaye,


24 Scholer. K-a-y-e, S-c-h-o-l-e-r. It is in Century


25 City in Los Angeles.


26 Q. And does it have offices in other locations?


27 A. It does. All over the world. Its main


28 office is in New York, but it has offices in 4488


1 Shanghai, and Washington D.C., Chicago, Los Angeles.


2 I’m probably forgetting some.


3 Q. What is the lawyer size of the firm?


4 A. About 600 lawyers.


5 Q. Now, prior to the time that you — how long


6 have you been with Kaye, Scholer?


7 A. Since January of 2004.


8 Q. And prior to that, what firm were you


9 associated with?


10 A. Prior to that, I had my own law firm, which


11 had different names from the time I joined it right


12 out of law school. But ultimately when — as of


13 January 2004, it was Fogel, Feldman, Ostrov,


14 Ringler & Clemens.


15 Q. And were you the senior partner of that firm


16 at that time?


17 A. I was the head of that law firm.


18 Q. Just give the ladies and gentlemen of the


19 jury some idea of the type of practice of law that


20 you’re involved in.


21 A. I have been a trial lawyer all of my life.


22 I started in this firm that I ultimately was the


23 senior partner of right out of law school. I


24 started trying primarily cases for injured federal


25 workers, railroad workers and seamen. It was called


26 The Federal Employers Liability Act, and The Jones


27 Act. And I did other kinds of, like, automobile


28 cases, but very rarely. 4489


1 It was — primarily I practiced a lot in


2 federal court, some in state court, and tried a lot


3 of cases in those years. And then slowly but surely


4 my practice developed. I started doing a much


5 broader array of cases, from representing labor


6 unions, to representing people involved in wrongful


7 discharge cases, African-Americans who had been


8 discriminated against big companies. Currently,


9 right now, representing a class action in Washington


10 D.C., the largest class action of African-Americans


11 who have not been promoted appropriately.


12 I represent — on the other side of the


13 coin, I represent the Oakland Raiders in their many


14 courtroom battles. I represent — I have


15 represented a lot of entertainment people suing


16 studios. I have defended studios. I have


17 represented individual people who have legal


18 malpractice claims against lawyers. And I have


19 defended lawyers who have been accused of


20 malpractice. I have sued rock groups and defended


21 rock groups.


22 And so my practice really has grown from


23 what it once was into an array of cases, from really


24 getting, at this stage of my life, some wonderful


25 cases to handle as a lawyer.


26 Q. And did you, at one time, represent the late


27 Johnnie Cochran?


28 A. I did represent Johnnie Cochran for ten 4490


1 years in a legal matter from the day, or


2 thereabouts, when he became involved in O.J. Simpson


3 till the end of that. Till 2000 and — January 2004


4 I represented Johnnie.


5 Q. What professional organizations have you


6 been associated with and participated in?


7 A. I was the president of the Los Angeles


8 County Bar Association. I was the president of the


9 Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association. I was an


10 officer in the American Board of Trial Advocates,


11 which is an organization that you have to be invited


12 into and have to have a certain skill level in


13 trials and in representing people.


14 I am what they call a Fellow of the American


15 College of Trial Lawyers, which is limited to


16 1 percent of the lawyers in the United States.


17 Another organization that you have to be invited


18 into to get into.


19 The International Academy of Trial Lawyers,


20 where I am — which is limited to the top 500


21 lawyers, theoretically, in the world.


22 I mean, I don’t know who’s making these


23 judgments, but that’s sort of —


24 Q. It’s nice to be invited, even though you


25 don’t understand the standards.


26 A. It’s one club you want to be invited into.


27 But I’m sure there’s somebody else who deserves to


28 be in this club who for some reason doesn’t get in. 4491

In this excerpt, he recounts his representation of Evan Chandler in 1993, and makes a startling statement; Feldman testified that he obtained a “confession of judgment” against Jackson in 1994, which is tantamount to a guilty (AKA liable) verdict in a civil trial (thus insinuating that Jackson would have been found liable for Jordan Chandler’s claims had the case gone to trial) :

18 Q. Let’s turn to a specific case, if we can,


19 and I’d like to focus your attention to the year


20 1993 and ‘94, if we can.


21 Are you familiar with a then young boy by


22 the name of Jordan Chandler?


23 A. I am.


24 Q. And how did you become involved — by the


25 way, did you know — when you first met Jordan


26 Chandler, do you recall how old he was?


27 A. He was 13, as I recall.


28 Q. And how did you become involved with Jordan 4493


1 Chandler? Tell us.


2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection to the extent it


3 calls for hearsay.


4 THE COURT: Calls for a narrative, sustained.


5 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Well, describe to us, then,


6 the first contact you had with regard to Jordan


7 Chandler.


8 A. A lawyer —


9 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection. To the

10 extent it calls for hearsay, I’m going to object.


11 THE COURT: Overruled.


12 You may answer.


13 THE WITNESS: A lawyer in the community


14 referred his — the parents, and — are we using his


15 name?


16 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Yeah.


17 A. We’re using his name?


18 Q. Jordan Chandler, yeah.


19 A. Okay. Who used Jordie — who brought Jordie


20 to me, a lawyer who was representing the father of


21 Jordie at the time. If I recall, Jordie was being


22 represented at the time, for like 20 minutes or so,


23 by Gloria Allred. They wanted to switch lawyers.


24 And he asked me to interview the family, and I did.


25 Q. And as a result of the interviews and what


26 other actions you also took, did you eventually end


27 up filing a lawsuit against the defendant in this


28 case, Michael Jackson? 4494


1 A. I did.


2 Q. On behalf of Jordan Chandler?


3 A. I did file a lawsuit.


4 Q. On behalf of the family also, members of the


5 family?


6 A. You know, without seeing the lawsuit, the


7 mother and father, if I recall correctly — I could


8 be wrong about this, without seeing the lawsuit. I


9 thought the mother and father were just the


10 guardians and didn’t have their own claims that we


11 asserted. I don’t think we ever asserted any claims


12 on behalf of the mother and mother. We just


13 asserted them on behalf of Jordie.


14 And the parents in the Chandler case were


15 divorced, and there was a lot of acrimony between


16 mom and dad, and in order to keep peace between mom


17 and dad, I came up with the idea that there should


18 be a joint guardianship, and I think we took —


19 that’s what we did.


20 Q. All right. With regard to that particular


21 case, which would have been, I guess, Chandler


22 versus Jackson, correct?


23 A. It was.


24 Q. That would have been the heading? You did


25 file a formal lawsuit?


26 A. I did.


27 Q. And what jurisdiction was that lawsuit


28 filed? 4495


1 A. Los Angeles Superior Court.


2 Q. And in that particular lawsuit, do you


3 remember how many causes of action you alleged?


4 A. I think seven, roughly seven causes of


5 action.


6 MR. MESEREAU: Relevance, Your Honor.


7 THE COURT: Overruled.


8 You may proceed.


9 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: And with regard to the


10 causes of action, what was the nature of the causes


11 of action alleged against the defendant Mr. Jackson?


12 A. The sexual molestation of Jordie Chandler.


13 Q. Now, did that particular case, the case of


14 Chandler versus Jackson, eventually result in a


15 settlement?


16 A. There was.


17 Q. And with regard to that particular


18 settlement, was there a particular form that the


19 settlement took?


20 A. “Form” meaning a contract?


21 Q. Well, a contract or some other document


22 to —


23 A. Yeah, there was a lot of documents that


24 surrounded that settlement.


25 Q. And with regard to the settlement, was it —


26 you’ve heard – I’m sure you’re familiar more than I


27 am – the term “confession of judgment”?


28 A. Yes. 4496


1 Q. Was that particular form of document used in


2 the settlement of the Chandler versus Jackson


3 lawsuit?


4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; relevance.


5 THE COURT: What’s the relevance, Counsel?


6 MR. SNEDDON: The form of the settlement in


7 terms — I mean, the form of the settlement — do


8 you want me to go ahead and speak out, or do you


9 want to approach the bench?


10 THE COURT: I asked you the question.


11 MR. SNEDDON: All right. Then as I


12 understand it, there are settlements that are done


13 by way of contract, and there are settlements that


14 are done by way of confession of judgment.


15 THE COURT: What’s the relevancy?


16 MR. SNEDDON: The legal effect of the


17 judgment, plus the —


18 THE COURT: All right. You may ask the


19 question.


20 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. I’m — you’re


21 far more capable than I am of delineating the


22 differences, but is there a difference between a


23 civil settlement that results from a contract and


24 one that results from a confession of judgment?


25 A. Yes.


26 Q. All right. Would you explain to the jury


27 what the difference is and what the legal effect is?


28 A. Yes. In a confession of judgment, it is as 4497


1 though we went to trial and had a lawsuit and the


2 jury came back with a verdict and we had a judgment,


3 or the Judge came back with a finding.


4 And when the Judge says somebody’s at fault,


5 and “Here’s your damages,” you put it into a


6 judgment. And when you have a judgment, you can


7 file that judgment in the county and then you can


8 execute on that judgment, so that if — and just as


9 an example, and I’ll just make this number up, let’s


10 say you had it for one dollar, a judgment for a


11 dollar. Well, if you have a judgment, you could


12 just go and take somebody’s house or take somebody’s


13 car, or go to their bank account and literally take


14 that dollar out to satisfy the judgment.


15 If you just have a release or a contract,


16 then you — all you get left with, if the person


17 doesn’t pay you the dollar, is a something that


18 says, “I promise to pay you a dollar.” And then you


19 got to start all over and prove that person breached


20 that contract.


21 So in the Michael Jackson case, because


22 there were payments going to take place —


23 Q. Let’s stay away from all that area, okay?


24 Just tell us about —


25 A. All right. Well, that’s the best I can tell


26 you the difference.


27 Q. All right. So — but in the Michael Jackson


28 case, you got a confession of judgment? 4498


1 A. I got a confession of judgment.


2 Q. Now, with regard to the case of Chandler


3 versus Jackson, all right —


4 A. Yes.


5 Q. — you told us the causes of action involved


6 child molestation, correct?


7 A. Correct.

8 Q. Had you handled other child molestation


9 cases prior to the Chandler versus Jackson case?


10 A. The answer is, to the best of my


11 recollection, I had never handled a — what I would


12 call a civil child molestation case sexually.


13 If what you’re asking — I don’t want to —


14 I did handle, on the defense side, a family that was


15 accused of abuse of a child.


16 Q. Physical abuse.


17 A. It wasn’t sexual abuse. So, if the question


18 is sexual molestation, to the best of my


19 recollection, I have never handled a sexual


20 molestation case before Michael Jackson and since


21 Michael Jackson.


22 Q. Now, at the time that you were representing


23 Jordan Chandler back in 1993 and ‘94, were you


24 aware, your own personal knowledge, whether or not


25 the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office


26 was involved in investigating the sexual abuse


27 allegations against Mr. Jackson?


28 A. I do, and they were. 4499


1 Q. And of your own personal knowledge, were you


2 aware of the fact that at some point in time later,


3 that the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s


4 Office joined that investigation?


5 A. Yes.


6 Q. During the time that you were representing


7 Mr. Chandler, the child Chandler, not the father


8 Chandler, the child, Jordan Chandler, during the


9 time that you were representing him, were either —


10 let’s just go one at a time so we don’t get a


11 compound problem. But was the Los Angeles District


12 Attorney’s Office given an opportunity to talk to


13 your client?


14 A. The Los Angeles County District Attorneys,


15 they talked to my client, they certainly did. They


16 talked to him all they wanted.


17 Q. And then later, when the Santa Barbara


18 District Attorney’s Office joined in the


19 investigation, were they allowed access to your


20 client for interview purposes?


21 A. I mean, you know, I could be wrong. I think


22 you were. Or I don’t know about you, but I thought


23 you were. I thought, but I don’t remember that,


24 frankly, whether you were or you weren’t. I know


25 when the police wanted to talk to Jordie during that


26 period of time, they had access to him, so which


27 ones I can’t recall.


28 Q. Was there a time in which there was a 4500


1 request for your client, Jordan Chandler, to appear


2 before the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury?


3 A. Gee, I can’t remember that really. There


4 may have been. I just don’t remember.


5 Q. To your knowledge, did your client appear


6 before the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury?


7 A. I don’t think so.


8 Q. Was there some point in time where your


9 client decided that he did not want to participate


10 in an investigation by —


11 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance;


12 foundation; and calls for speculation.


13 THE COURT: Sustained.


14 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Are you aware, as a


15 practicing lawyer in the State of California, that a


16 juvenile who has been the alleged victim of a child


17 molestation cannot be forced to testify —


18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; and


19 relevancy; and mis — and misstates the law.


20 MR. SNEDDON: No, it doesn’t mis — I’m


21 asking his professional legal opinion, Your Honor.


22 MR. MESEREAU: Calls for a legal conclusion.


23 THE COURT: I’ll allow the question, but I’m


24 going to have you rephrase it because of the — of


25 the way you asked it. I’ll allow this subject


26 matter to be questioned.


27 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: With regard to your


28 practice of law and in your civil litigation, and 4501


1 with regard to your representation of Jordan


2 Chandler in the Chandler versus Jackson lawsuit,


3 okay —


4 A. Yeah.


5 Q. — were you aware or did you become aware of


6 the fact that there is a code section dealing with


7 the — with a minor’s right to refuse to testify in


8 a criminal prosecution?


9 A. I was aware of one in ‘93.


10 Q. And you were aware of that while you were


11 representing Jordan Chandler?


12 A. I was.


13 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Speak more into the


14 microphone.


15 THE WITNESS: What do you want me to do?


16 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Speak more into the


17 microphone.




19 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Now, I guess the last


20 question I have, and I’m probably taking it too much


21 for granted, but with regard to the lawsuit


22 involving Chandler versus Jackson, was that resolved


23 in Chandler’s favor?


24 MR. MESEREAU: Objection.


25 THE WITNESS: It was — oop.


26 MR. MESEREAU: Move to strike. Vague; no


27 foundation; calls for speculation.


28 THE COURT: Overruled. 4502


1 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: You may answer.


2 A. It was absolutely resolved in Mr. — in


3 Jordie Chandler’s favor.

In that excerpt, Feldman mentioned how he and Evan Chandler fired Gloria Allred; it was due to her refusal to sue Jackson in civil court before prosecuting him in criminal court. Here is a copy of the actual termination letter that was sent to Allred in September 1993:





And here is an excerpt from the book that Evan Chandler ghost-wrote, “All That Glitters”; this where his brother Ray literally admits in plain English that the decision to fire Allred was based on her refusal to sue Jackson first. From page 167:

“By the conclusion of the meeting, June and Dave, like Evan before them, had no doubts about switching from Gloria Allred to Larry Feldman. The choice came down to either waging an all-out media campaign to pressure the DA to seek a Grand Jury indictment, or conducting subtle, behind-the-scenes negotiations toward a quick, quiet and highly profitable settlement. Avoiding the trauma that a lengthy criminal or civil lawsuit would bring to the entire family, especially Jordie, was a no-brainer.”

Feldman gave a very misleading definition of the legal term “confession of judgment” against Jackson in 1994; it had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Jackson’s guilt or innocence! In fact, the leaked settlement agreement CLEARLY and CONSPICUOUSLY states that both parties agreed to the settlement, and Jackson and the Chandlers were NOT “forced” in to settling or accepting the settlement, respectively! This issue will be discussed in further detail later on during Mesereau’s cross examination. For more information on the 1993 settlement, read this post.

To be continued:

3 Comments leave one →
  1. shellywebstere permalink
    November 2, 2012 5:47 pm

    Speaking about adult materials, I really wonder why a book like the one from Weber was even admitted: it’s not porn, nobody claimed they saw it and it can be find in lots of book stores;

  2. November 2, 2012 7:57 am

    What is profoundly misleading in his testimony is the fact that Evan and June are included in that settlement. It reads that they are claiming damages or injury due to Michael’s negligence as well.
    He deliberately omitted the fact that all a confession of judement does is allow them to collect the money without goin back to court. It should be thought of as a quick claim to the settlement.All a confession of judgement means is if Michael or his insurance company did not pay they could go to court and lay claim to an item of property of equal value or go to Michael’s bank account and just get the money without going to court to get it.
    It did not silence anyone. What it did was forbid them from making any money on the story. People really need to reread that document for understanding so they actually get the meaning of everything in it.
    They were not to disclose the amounts of the payments.That is a rock solid requirement of any insurance claim settlment and I mean all of them because insurance companies do not want everyone out there to know what they will pay for specific damages.
    The Chandler’s and Michael were not to profit from the story,That is why all those types of medium were listed in it.
    It was settled on the claim of negligence and not on 6 claims of child abuse.They are clearly an plainly dropped from that lawsuit.
    The biggest problem that people have when they try to interpret the settlement is that they listened to Diane Dimond too long. I used to think she did what she did out of a lack of understanding about the legal terms in the paper but no that is not it. She understand what it means all too well because if she didn’t she never would have been able to spin it the way she has.
    Finally I will say one other thing. It has the total amount listed there. It says total and it means total.That includes all of Feldmans attorney fees and everything else because an insurance company would never allow it to mean anything else.Total means total.


  1. What the HELL is wrong with Wade Robson? Part 4 of 4: Summary and Analysis of Joy Robson’s Testimony from the 2005 Trial | Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: