Skip to content

April 12th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Jay Jackson (Direct and Cross Examination), Part 1 of 3

January 22, 2013

Jay Jackson

The next prosecution witness was Jay Jackson, the husband of Janet Arvizo. He testified that he met Janet Arvizo in July 2002 when she brought her children to the Sea Cadet Command. Their first date was on the same day as Gavin and Star’s graduation from the program, and they married on May 29th, 2004, and have a child together:

4 DIRECT EXAMINATION

 

5 BY MR. ZONEN:

 

6 Q. Sir, what is your current occupation?

 

7 A. I am in the — I’m on active duty with the

 

8 Army reserve.

 

9 Q. How long have you been in the Army reserve?

 

10 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Speak right in here,

 

11 please.

 

12 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

 

13 I’ve been in the Army reserve for 23 years,

 

14 some of that active duty, some of that reserved part

 

15 time.

 

16 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Most recently you’ve been on

 

17 active duty for what period?

 

18 A. About five years.

 

19 Q. All right. Were you in Desert Storm?

 

20 A. The first one, yes, sir, I was.

 

21 Q. And what position did you hold at that time?

 

22 A. I ran a prisoner of war camp processing

 

23 area. We ran enemy prison of war through the

 

24 prisoner of war camp.

 

25 Q. In which country?

 

26 A. In Saudi Arabia.

 

27 Q. Your current rank with the Army reserves is

 

28 what? 5775

 

1 A. Major.

 

2 Q. And what are your responsibilities?

 

3 A. Currently I’m working in a command where we

 

4 do mobilizations, we mobilize soldiers to go to war.

 

5 Q. Are you currently married to Janet Ventura

 

6 Jackson?

 

7 A. Yes, sir, I am.

 

8 Q. She has taken your name after your marriage;

 

9 is that correct?

 

10 A. That is correct.

 

11 Q. Do you have children together?

 

12 A. We do. We have one. A little boy.

 

13 Q. And do you have other children living in

 

14 your household?

 

15 A. Yes, sir, we do. Three additional children.

 

16 Q. And they are who?

 

17 A. Gavin, Star and Davellin.

 

18 Q. When did you first meet Janet Arvizo?

 

19 A. Back in July of 2002.

 

20 Q. How did you meet her?

 

21 A. I was working one Saturday, and she came —

 

22 she knocked on the door, and I — it’s a secured

 

23 facility, and I let her in. She had Star with her.

 

24 Q. All right. What were the children involved

 

25 in at that time, the boys?

 

26 A. There’s a Sea Cadet Command right there that

 

27 is for children between the ages of, say, 11 and 18

 

28 years old. And she was bringing her children there 5776

 

1 for that program.

 

2 Q. And both of them were involved, Star and

 

3 Gavin?

 

4 A. Yes, they were.

 

5 Q. All right. Then that’s how you met her?

 

6 A. That is how I met them.

 

7 Q. And began dating after that?

 

8 A. We talked. I met her. She said — I was

 

9 sitting in the hallway and walked by her, and got

 

10 into a conversation, and then — I got her phone

 

11 number, I think. And then about a month later, we

 

12 talked on the phone for about a month.

 

13 And then a month later she was telling me

 

14 that Gavin and Star were graduating from the Sea

 

15 Cadet program, a little two-week training or

 

16 one-week training. And so we decided that our first

 

17 date we would go down there for that graduation, and

 

18 we did.

 

19 Q. And you’ve been married how long now?

 

20 A. Oh, goodness. May 29th will be one year.

Here is Jay’s recollection of the living arrangements of him and Janet Arvizo during their dating; he enrolled Gavin and Star at a school closer to his apartment because the school they were attending was very bad, and they were being pressured into joining a street gang:

21 Q. I’d like to direct your attention back to

 

22 February of ‘03, 2003.

 

23 A. Okay.

 

24 Q. Will you tell us in what neighborhood you

 

25 were living at that time?

 

26 A. The mid-Wilshire district, also known as

 

27 Korea Town.

 

28 Q. And the street that you were living on was 5777

 

1 what?

 

2 A. St. Andrews Place.

 

3 Q. Was Janet Arvizo living with you at that

 

4 time?

 

5 A. She was.

 

6 Q. Was she living with you full time at that

 

7 time?

 

8 A. No, she wasn’t. She had a place over on

 

9 Soto Street in East L.A.

 

10 Q. And the boys, where were they living?

 

11 A. The same place. Both places.

 

12 Q. All right. Do you remember or do you recall

 

13 where they were attending school at that time?

 

14 A. Well, I don’t know the name of the school,

 

15 but it was in East L.A. And then because there was

 

16 a lot of problems at that school – they were, you

 

17 know, being pushed into getting into gangs, and

 

18 there was some altercations – we thought it was a

 

19 good idea if we enrolled them in John Burroughs,

20 which is a real good school in the mid-Wilshire

 

21 district.

 

22 Q. And that was closer to your home; is that

 

23 right?

 

24 A. Yes, sir, it was. Very close.

 

25 Q. And did you do that?

 

26 A. Sir?

 

27 Q. Did you do that, enroll them at John

 

28 Burroughs? 5778

 

1 A. Yes, sir, we did.

 

2 Q. That is John Burroughs Middle School?

 

3 A. That is John Burroughs Middle School.

 

4 Q. Was your address, then, on St. Andrews Place

 

5 the address that was used?

 

6 A. That is correct, yes, sir.

 

7 Q. Did Janet Arvizo maintain the Soto Street

 

8 address?

 

9 A. She did, sir.

 

10 Q. For what period of time?

 

11 A. Through about November of ‘04, I believe.

Jay Jackson went to Neverland in November 2002 with Gavin and Star to attend a birthday party for Chris Tucker’s son, but Michael Jackson wasn’t in attendance. They left that evening after the party:

12 Q. Had you ever gone to Neverland?

 

13 A. I’ve been to Neverland one time.

 

14 Q. And when was that; do you recall?

 

15 A. It was in — it was before November of ‘02,

 

16 so it was in the summer, I believe, of ‘02. I was

 

17 still living in West L.A., and we were invited by

 

18 Chris Tucker and his girlfriend; that they were

 

19 having a little-baby birthday party.

 

20 Q. Were you the only ones invited to Neverland

 

21 for that occasion?

 

22 A. Oh, no, sir. There was two busfuls of

 

23 people.

 

24 Q. You met the bus where; do you recall?

 

25 A. It was — you know, I think it was the

 

26 Beverly Hills Hilton or something like that. It was

 

27 one of the hotels in the local area.

 

28 Q. Did you spend the day at Neverland? 5779

 

1 A. Yes, sir, we did.

 

2 Q. Did you spend the night at Neverland?

 

3 A. We left in the evening, late in the evening.

 

4 Q. And then returned back to Los Angeles?

 

5 A. That is correct.

 

6 Q. How many people, approximately, to your

 

7 recollection, attended that party?

 

8 A. 40 or 50, maybe.

 

9 Q. Did you see Michael Jackson at any time

 

10 during that occasion?

 

11 A. No, sir, I did not.

 

12 Q. Had you ever met Michael Jackson?

 

13 A. No, sir, not until today.

Next, Jay Jackson was asked about the trip that Janet and the kids took to Miami; pay close attention to the fact that the Arvizos had no complaints about Michael Jackson prior to that trip. In fact, they rarely even spoke about him!

14 Q. At some point in early February of 2003, did

 

15 you become aware of the fact that a documentary was

 

16 being shown on television?

 

17 A. I’m not sure if I knew at that moment, but I

 

18 know that Janet received a call from either Michael

 

19 or somebody in his entourage asking him to go to

 

20 Miami — asking her to go to Miami, and with the

 

21 kids.

 

22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive;

 

23 move to strike.

 

24 THE COURT: I’ll strike after the word

 

25 “moment. “

 

26 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did Janet Arvizo and the

 

27 children go to Miami?

 

28 A. Yes, they did. 5780

 

1 Q. Do you know what prompted that?

 

2 A. Um —

 

3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation and

 

4 hearsay.

 

5 MR. ZONEN: Yes or no; does he know.

 

6 THE COURT: I sustained the objection. I’m

 

7 sorry.

 

8 MR. ZONEN: Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t hear.

 

9 Q. Do you know on what day they left for Miami?

 

10 A. I just know approximately it was early

 

11 February.

 

12 Q. Had there been any discussion in the

 

13 household about Michael Jackson prior to going to

 

14 Miami?

 

15 A. No, sir, not really.

 

16 Q. Had there been any problems in the household

 

17 that dealt in some fashion with either Neverland or

 

18 Michael Jackson prior to Janet Arvizo going to

 

19 Miami?

 

20 A. No, sir, not at all.

 

21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague.

 

22 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer was, “No,

 

23 sir, not at all.” Next question.

 

24 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Had there been any discussion

 

25 about Michael Jackson prior to her going to Miami in

 

26 your household, say, within a week or two prior to

 

27 their departure?

 

28 A. No, sir. 5781

 

25 Q. Did you know in advance that Janet Arvizo

 

26 and her children were going to be going to Miami?

 

27 A. No, sir, I didn’t. I received — excuse me

 

28 one second. 5782

 

1 Q. Go ahead.

 

2 A. Janet just told me that she was going to

 

3 my —

 

4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive;

5 move to strike.

 

6 THE COURT: I’ll strike after “I didn’t.”

 

7 MR. ZONEN: I’m sorry, I don’t have the

 

8 ability to read it. I’m not hearing everything

 

9 you’re saying at the moment.

 

10 THE COURT: I’m sorry. The question was,

 

11 “Did you know in advance that Janet Arvizo and her

 

12 children were going to be going to Miami?” “No,

 

13 sir, I didn’t.” Then after that I struck his

 

14 answer.

 

15 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: When did you first learn that

 

16 they were going to Miami?

 

17 A. I believe Janet told me right before they

 

18 were ready to leave that they were going.

 

19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive;

 

20 hearsay; move to strike.

 

21 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

22 MR. ZONEN: And the answer’s in?

 

23 THE COURT: The answer’s in.

 

24 THE WITNESS: Janet — should I —

 

25 THE COURT: No.

 

26 THE WITNESS: No? Thank you.

 

27 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: We’ll move on to the next

 

28 question. 5783

 

1 And did they, in fact, leave that day?

 

2 A. That day or the next day, yes, sir. Within

 

3 a day or two, yes.

 

4 Q. Did you have conversations — without

 

5 getting into the content of them, did you have

 

6 conversations with Janet Arvizo while she was in

 

7 Miami?

 

8 A. I believe she called me, yes, sir.

 

9 Q. Did you have conversations with any of the

 

10 kids while they were in Miami?

 

11 A. No. No, sir.

 

12 Q. Without getting into the content, did you

 

13 know the purpose of the trip to Miami?

 

14 A. I knew that they were going to be going

 

15 there to do a press conference.

 

16 Q. Did you know — again, without getting into

 

17 the content, did you know what the purpose of the

 

18 press conference was?

 

19 A. I’m not sure that I knew exactly at that

 

20 time, but I knew very shortly thereafter what was

 

21 going on with the documentary.

 

22 Q. Did you understand that it had something to

 

23 do with the documentary?

 

24 A. I believe I may have known, but I didn’t

 

25 know the specifics.

 

26 Q. All right. Was there, in fact, a

 

27 documentary about Michael Jackson shown on

 

28 television that you saw within a few days 5784

 

1 thereafter?

 

2 A. Yes, sir, I did.

 

3 Q. And how did you know that it was going to be

 

4 on television?

 

5 A. I believe I saw something on T.V. that said

 

6 it was coming on.

 

7 Q. Did you know in advance that that

 

8 documentary would feature any of Janet Arvizo’s

 

9 children?

 

10 A. I believe that there was some indication

 

11 that — yes, that the children were going to be on

 

12 there.

 

13 Q. Did you watch the documentary in its

 

14 entirety?

 

15 A. Yes, sir, I did.

 

16 Q. Did it, in fact, feature Janet Arvizo’s

 

17 children?

 

18 A. It did, yes, sir.

 

19 Q. At the time you watched that documentary,

 

20 was Janet Arvizo and her children in Miami? Were

 

21 they in Miami?

 

22 A. Yes, sir, they were in Miami.

Jay Jackson spoke with several British tabloid reporters in the aftermath of the Bashir documentary. They showed up unexpectedly at Janet’s doorstep and requested an interview and photos of the family, and when Jay Jackson inquired about the compensation, they offered to pay up to $500 dollars, but Jay Jackson rejected the offer. Jay Jackson was very vocal about the fact that the Arvizo family didn’t have any “dirt” to spill against Jackson, and they thought very highly of him at that time. (In fact, Janet praised Jackson in an interview with the Daily Mail that was granted before the trip to Miami, and it was published in England and Australia on February 8th and 9th, 2003, respectively. I will go into further detail about this interview in a later post, but in the meantime you can read this post for more information.) The badgered him for info, but the interview didn’t take place, and instead he gave them his phone number, and they contacted him the next day.

23 Q. At some point in time were you contacted by

 

24 reporters from any news agency, presumably reporters

 

25 from the news agency?

 

26 A. I wasn’t contacted by them. But I did talk

 

27 to several — two reporters, British reporters, at

 

28 Janet’s Soto Street apartment. 5785

 

1 Q. Do you remember when that was?

 

2 A. It was right — I guess right after — it

 

3 was right before the documentary aired in the United

 

4 States.

 

5 Q. All right. And what did they want to do

 

6 with you?

 

7 A. They — well, when I was — I took Janet and

 

8 the kids back to that Soto Street apartment. And

 

9 Davellin was at the apartment, and she said that —

 

10 either two journalists or two guys had just knocked

 

11 on the door asking for Janet.

 

12 I saw them at the end of the hall. I walked

 

13 down to ask them what they were — who they were

 

14 with, and what they wanted.

 

15 Q. All right. What did they tell you?

 

16 A. They said that they were with a British

 

17 tabloid, and that they wanted to do a story on the

 

18 family as it pertained to Michael Jackson.

 

19 Q. All right. Did they actually use the word

20 “tabloid”?

 

21 A. I’m not sure if they did. I think I found

 

22 that out later.

 

23 Q. That may have been your conclusion?

 

24 A. It may have been, yes, sir.

 

25 Q. I can’t imagine a reporter saying they’re

 

26 with a tabloid.

 

27 A. Right.

 

28 Q. Did they say to you what it was exactly that 5786

 

1 they wanted to talk to you about?

 

2 A. They didn’t say specifically, no. They just

 

3 said that they wanted to have a conversation, they

 

4 wanted to do an interview with the family, and they

 

5 wanted to take some photographs of the family.

 

6 Q. And did you understand this to relate to

 

7 Michael Jackson in some fashion?

 

8 A. Yes, sir.

 

9 Q. Did they tell you that that’s what they

 

10 wanted to do?

 

11 A. Yes, sir, they did.

 

12 Q. Now, I believe you said this was prior to

 

13 the screening of the documentary “Living With” —

 

14 A. Yes, sir, it was.

 

15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; misstates the

 

16 evidence.

 

17 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

18 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Was this prior to the

 

19 screening of the documentary —

 

20 A. Yes, sir, it was.

 

21 Q. — that you saw?

 

22 The documentary we’re talking about, can you

 

23 tell us the name of it, if you recall?

 

24 A. “Living with Michael Jackson.”

 

25 Q. Was it a documentary that featured a man by

 

26 the name of Martin Bashir?

 

27 A. Yes, sir, it did.

 

28 Q. At the time you talked to these two 5787

 

1 reporters, did you have a sense of what was going on

 

2 at that point?

 

3 A. No, sir, I did not.

 

4 Q. Did you either request payment for an

 

5 interview or did they offer you payment for an

 

6 interview?

 

7 A. Well, I said — again, we have to put it in

 

8 context. They —

 

9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection.

 

10 MR. ZONEN: Let me withdraw the question.

 

11 THE WITNESS: Okay.

 

12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Tell us what the discussion

 

13 was with regards to payment.

 

14 A. The discussion was — I asked them what was

 

15 it that they were going — how they were going to

 

16 compensate the family —

 

17 Q. Okay.

 

18 A. — for doing this. And he said — he said,

 

19 “We can probably give them four to five hundred

 

20 dollars.”

 

21 Q. What did you say?

 

22 A. I said, “I don’t think that’s going to

 

23 happen.”

 

24 Q. What did you understand — what did you

 

25 think that they wanted to ask this family?

 

26 A. I don’t think I really knew. I believe that

 

27 they were looking for something negative on Michael

 

28 Jackson as it related to the children. 5788

 

1 Q. Did you know anything negative about Michael

 

2 Jackson at that time?

 

3 A. No, sir, we did not. I did not.

 

4 Q. Had Janet Arvizo or her children at any time

 

5 expressed any kind of negative comment to you about

 

6 Michael Jackson up to that point?

 

7 A. None.

 

8 Q. Were you aware as to whether or not the

 

9 children had visited Neverland prior to that date?

 

10 A. I knew they had a relationship with Michael

 

11 Jackson.

 

12 Q. Did you have any reason to believe that

 

13 relationship was anything but positive?

 

14 A. That’s all I believed it was.

 

15 Q. Did you tell those two reporters that?

 

16 A. I did.

 

17 Q. All right. And was that before or after or

 

18 during the conversation about payment?

 

19 A. I’m not real clear. It was a back-and-forth

 

20 about that. But I said, you know, “If you’re

 

21 looking for dirt,” you know, “This” — “I don’t

 

22 believe there’s anything negative to say.” And they

 

23 continued to ask for it. And they said, “Let me get

 

24 back with my boss and we’ll get back to you

 

25 tomorrow.”

 

26 And I don’t know if I gave him my phone

 

27 number, or whether he got it, or — I probably gave

 

28 it to him. Although some reporters tend to be able 5789

 

1 to find your phone number.

 

2 Q. All right. Did you ask for more money than

 

3 three or four hundred dollars?

 

4 A. No, I just said that wasn’t going to be

 

5 acceptable.

 

6 Q. And what did you mean by that?

 

7 A. Well, I think I was — you know, I was

 

8 intrigued by it. I have never had anybody come up

 

9 asking to pay for any kind of story of any kind.

 

10 And maybe I was — I was the one that initially

 

11 asked, you know, “Is there any compensation for the

12 family?” But I think that I just thought that was

 

13 the standard in the industry. I meant no malice by

 

14 it.

 

15 Q. Did they tell you at any time during this

 

16 initial interview that it had something to do with

 

17 the documentary that featured in England?

 

18 A. That featured what, sir?

 

19 Q. That was shown in England, that was aired on

 

20 television in England.

 

21 A. They mentioned something about a documentary

 

22 in England, but they really were vague.

 

23 Q. And did you have any other independent

 

24 information about it at that time?

 

25 A. I did not.

 

26 Q. Did you have a follow-up conversation with

 

27 them?

 

28 A. I did. 5790

 

1 Q. And when was the follow-up conversation?

 

2 A. I believe it was the next day, or the day

 

3 after that.

 

4 Q. Was this before or after Janet Arvizo and

 

5 her children went to Miami?

 

6 A. They had not left yet.

 

7 Q. Okay. Had you told Janet Arvizo about your

 

8 initial conversation with these two reporters?

 

9 A. I mean, while Janet and the family were in

 

10 the apartment. But no, I did not talk to them

 

11 specifically about any conversation I was having

 

12 with the British reporters.

After Jay Jackson initially denied their offer of $500 dollars to interview the Arvizos, the reporters increased the amount of their offer to a whopping $15,000 dollars, but that offer was also declined. However, later on in his testimony you’ll see that when it came to Michael Jackson, Jay Jackson was more than willing to demand and accept exorbitant amounts of money! And pay attention to Judge Melville’s admonishment of Zonen’s gratuitous remarks about the $15,000 dollar offer!

13 Q. All right. Do you know the name of the

 

14 reporter or reporters who you talked to on this

 

15 first occasion?

 

16 A. David Gardner, Garner or Gardner, and Alec

 

17 Byrne.

 

18 Q. And then you said there was a follow-up

 

19 conversation over the telephone?

 

20 A. Right.

 

21 Q. Perhaps a day or two later?

 

22 A. Perhaps — yes, it was a day or two later.

 

23 Q. Do you recall with which person this

 

24 conversation took place?

 

25 A. I’m sorry, sir?

 

26 Q. With which person did you have this —

 

27 A. My conversations were with David Gardner.

 

28 Q. Did Mr. Gardner talk more about wanting to 5791

 

1 have an interview with the family?

 

2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

 

3 MR. ZONEN: I’ll withdraw the question.

 

4 Q. What did Mr. Gardner say?

 

5 A. He continued to say he wanted to have an

 

6 interview with the family and that he was going to

 

7 offer additional money; that his boss, I guess, had

 

8 allowed something like $15,000, and that he wanted

 

9 to bring them to a hotel or somewhere and do a full

 

10 spread with them. And I declined that.

 

11 Q. You declined $15,000?

 

12 A. I did.

 

13 Q. To say nice things about Michael Jackson?

 

14 A. Well, you know, at that time I — I

 

15 really — wasn’t really in a position to make that

 

16 decision. I knew Janet wouldn’t do that.

 

17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; move to strike.

 

18 MR. ZONEN: Well —

 

19 MR. MESEREAU: Nonresponsive.

 

20 THE COURT: That’s stricken. After the word

 

21 “decision,” that’s stricken, the last sentence.

 

22 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Why did you say no?

 

23 A. The more I thought about it, the less I

 

24 liked the idea.

 

25 Q. Why? What was it that didn’t appeal to you?

 

26 $15,000 seems like a lot of money.

 

27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Admonish the

 

28 prosecutor not to make gratuitous remarks. 5792

 

1 THE COURT: Don’t make gratuitous remarks.

 

2 (Laughter.)

 

3 MR. ZONEN: I’m admonished.

 

4 THE COURT: And that goes for all of you.

 

5 (Laughter.)

 

6 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What about $15,000 didn’t you

 

7 want to have?

 

8 A. Sir, I don’t think — you know, at that time

 

9 I remember going through the thought process of, you

 

10 know, this would be — we could use this money.

 

11 But, you know, the more I thought about it, these

 

12 children were going to be on television, and it

 

13 wasn’t — it just wasn’t going to be an appropriate

 

14 thing to do to this family.

Jay Jackson explains to Zonen that he rejected the offers because he didn’t want to put the family on TV (as they were already on TV due to the negative media coverage) and how he was contacted at work on his military phone line after Neverland was raided and practically threatened into giving an interview! He also stated that he never told Janet about the $15,000 dollar offer, and I’m sure that if he had, she would have insisted that they accept the offer without hesitation.

15 Q. All right. Now, in the course of this

 

16 conversation, this was also prior to your viewing

 

17 “Living with Michael Jackson”?

 

18 A. That is correct, sir.

 

19 Q. Was it prior to your knowing about “Living

 

20 with Michael Jackson”?

 

21 A. Yes, sir.

 

22 Q. All right. Did you ever communicate with

 

23 Janet Arvizo this particular offer?

 

24 A. I did not.

 

25 Q. All right. Did you ever make any kind of a

 

26 counteroffer for more money?

27 A. No, I did not.

 

28 Q. Were there any other discussions with this 5793

 

1 reporter after this phone call?

 

2 A. Yes, he — you know, after they left for

 

3 Miami, I received a phone call from him. And I

 

4 said — you know, he continued to want to have a

 

5 conversation about doing an interview. And I told

 

6 him, “Sir, I can’t” — you know, “The family is not

 

7 even in the area now. There’s nothing that I can

 

8 do.”

 

9 He continued to call. He called again.

 

10 Several months later, he says, “Well, I’d just like

 

11 to have a cup of coffee with you.” I said, “I’m not

 

12 interested in that.”

 

13 And then when the raid on Neverland

 

14 occurred, again he called me back, and in some ways

 

15 made a threat. He said, you know, “I haven’t given

 

16 your information to any other organizations.” And I

 

17 said, “Sir, this is a military phone line. Please

 

18 do not call here again.” That was the last

 

19 consideration I had with him.

 

20 Q. Have you had a conversation with any other

 

21 reporters attempting to get a story from you?

 

22 A. I have not had any detailed conversations.

 

23 I have had a number of reporters contact me. How

 

24 they get my number I do not know. But they called

 

25 my office primarily. And they have shown up at

 

26 various — at various locations like my apartment.

 

27 Q. Have you accepted money from anybody?

 

28 A. Zero. We have not accepted a penny. 5794

 

1 Q. For any kind of a story?

 

2 A. For anything.

 

3 Q. Have you given a story to anybody?

 

4 A. No, sir, I have not.

 

5 Q. Have you promised a story to anybody?

 

6 A. No, sir.

 

7 Q. Have you made arrangements to accept money

 

8 in the future in exchange for a story?

 

9 A. No, sir.

 

10 Q. Do you have any intention of giving a story

 

11 in the future?

 

12 A. No, sir.

 

13 Q. Do you have any intention of accepting money

 

14 for a story in the future?

 

15 A. No, sir.

Mesereau is going to prove later on that Jay Jackson was surely ready to accept money from Michael Jackson!

Next, Jay Jackson was questioned about the Arvizo’s trip to Miami and their subsequent return to Neverland. Janet called him from Neverland several times over the course of a few days and sounded “distressed” to him, but Jay Jackson wasn’t allowed to say why due to Judge Melville’s sustainment of Mesereau’s objection.

16 Q. Now, when they left for Miami, “they” being

 

17 Janet Arvizo and here children, when did you expect

 

18 them to return?

 

19 A. I didn’t have a specific date, you know.

 

20 They were — they knew Michael, and if that’s what

 

21 they were going to do, I wasn’t going to get

 

22 involved with all of that. But I didn’t anticipate

 

23 them being gone more than three or four days.

 

24 Q. When you saw “Living with Michael Jackson,”

 

25 did any part of that documentary disturb you?

 

26 A. Yes, absolutely. The —

 

27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; move

 

28 to strike; and leading. 5795

 

1 THE COURT: Leading is overruled. Relevancy

 

2 is sustained.

 

3 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. Where did they

 

4 go? Did they return to Los Angeles after their trip

 

5 to Miami?

 

6 A. Yes, sir. They came back from Miami and I

 

7 believe went straight to Neverland.

 

8 Q. All right. So they didn’t come to Los

 

9 Angeles?

 

10 A. No, sir.

 

11 Q. Did —

 

12 A. Not that I’m aware of.

 

13 Q. Were you contacted by Janet Arvizo?

 

14 A. I was contacted by her on a couple of

 

15 occasions.

 

16 Q. Now, during the course of the conversations

 

17 that you had from her, can you tell us approximately

 

18 how many phone calls you had from her while she was

 

19 at Neverland?

 

20 A. During this period of time?

 

21 Q. Yes.

 

22 A. I can’t tell you the specific number. But

 

23 it was — it was several phone calls that I received

 

24 from her over a two- or three- or four-day period.

 

25 Q. Okay. How did she sound to you?

 

26 A. She was distressed.

 

27 Q. Had she been distressed prior to going to

 

28 Miami? 5796

 

1 A. No, not at all.

 

2 Q. Had there been any noticeable problems in

 

3 your family prior to her going to Miami?

 

4 A. No, sir.

 

5 Q. Were the kids healthy?

 

6 A. Yes, sir.

 

7 Q. Were the kids in school?

 

8 A. The kids were in school.

 

9 Q. In the course of her conversations with you

 

10 over the telephone, did she tell you why she was

 

11 distressed?

 

12 A. She did not.

 

13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

14 MR. ZONEN: That would be state of mind.

 

15 MR. MESEREAU: And foundation.

16 THE COURT: I think I’ll allow the “yes” or

 

17 “no” answer to whether or not she told him. That

 

18 doesn’t get to the real issue.

 

19 MR. ZONEN: Yes.

 

20 Q. Was that a yes or no?

 

21 A. Could you repeat the question, please?

 

22 Q. Did she tell you — well, maybe the court

 

23 reporter should repeat the question.

 

24 (Record read.)

 

25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Yes or no.

 

26 A. Yes. Yes.

 

27 Q. What did she tell you was the reason for her

 

28 distress? 5797

 

1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay;

 

2 relevance; foundation; relevance.

 

3 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

4 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: During the period of time

 

5 that you had conversations with her, did she appear

 

6 to you to be any less stressed as time went on?

 

7 A. Yes, sir.

 

8 Q. At some point in time, did she return to Los

 

9 Angeles?

 

10 A. Yes, sir, she did.

 

11 Q. With her children?

 

12 A. Yes, sir, with her children.

 

13 Q. Did they go to your home or some other

 

14 location?

 

15 A. They went to El Monte. They went to her

 

16 mother’s house.

 

17 Q. And did you visit them soon thereafter?

 

18 A. I picked them up. Yes, sir, I did.

 

19 Q. How long did they stay in the Los Angeles

 

20 area?

 

21 A. Several days, probably three or four days.

 

22 You’re talking about at my apartment or at her

 

23 mother’s?

 

24 Q. At —

 

25 A. Total?

 

26 Q. At her mother’s and at your apartment.

 

27 A. I would say three to four days, but that’s

 

28 speculation. 5798

Frank Cascio called Janet several times during her first “escape” from Neverland, and he spoke to Jay Jackson on several occasions. Here is Jay Jackson’s recollection of his phone conversation with Cascio:

1 Q. During that period of time, were you getting

 

2 any telephone calls at your apartment?

 

3 A. She — Janet was talking to me — oh, okay.

 

4 What happened was that I went and picked her up from

 

5 El Monte, brought her back to the house, and then I

 

6 started receiving phone calls from a gentleman by

 

7 the name of Frank.

 

8 Q. All right. Did Frank have a last name?

 

9 A. Tyson, I believe. But at the time I think I

 

10 only knew “Frank.” I don’t think I knew his last

 

11 name.

 

12 Q. How many conversations did you have with

 

13 Frank Tyson?

 

14 A. During that time, I didn’t have many

 

15 conversations with Frank. I might have picked up

 

16 the phone and passed it to Janet. I believe that

 

17 there was one — one phone call maybe that I

 

18 actually talked to him in any detail.

 

19 Q. And the phone — excuse me, I’m sorry.

 

20 In that detailed conversation that you had,

 

21 do you remember the content of that conversation?

 

22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

23 MR. ZONEN: It would be a statement in

 

24 furtherance, Your Honor.

 

25 THE COURT: All right. I’ll admit it for the

 

26 limited purposes that we discussed earlier on the

 

27 conspiracy charges, the statement in furtherance of

 

28 the conspiracy. 5799

 

1 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: The question was, do you

 

2 recall the content of that conversation?

 

3 A. The content of the conversation was, is that

 

4 Frank wanted to know what kind of car I drove.

 

5 Q. All right.

 

6 A. And I asked him why he wanted to know what

 

7 kind of car I drove. And he said his girlfriend in

 

8 New York was doing some kind of survey on what

 

9 people drove in Los Angeles.

 

10 I thought it was quite strange. But at this

 

11 point I didn’t really understand what was happening,

 

12 so I gave him that information.

 

13 Q. All right. And you told him what kind of a

 

14 car you drove; is that correct?

 

15 A. Yes, sir, I did.

 

16 Q. Did you ultimately have an opportunity to

 

17 view surveillance tapes?

 

18 A. Yes, sir, I did.

 

19 Q. And were they surveillance tapes of you?

 

20 A. Yes, sir, they were.

 

21 Q. And were they surveillance tapes of you in

 

22 the car that you described?

 

23 A. Yes, sir, they were.

 

24 Q. Can you tell us how many phone calls were

 

25 coming from Frank during the time that Janet Arvizo

 

26 was staying at your house after her first return

 

27 from Neverland?

 

28 A. She was receiving phone calls continuously. 5800

 

1 Q. What does that mean, “continuously”?

 

2 A. Every 15 to 20 to 30 minutes.

 

3 Q. Throughout the day?

 

4 A. Yes, sir.

 

5 Q. Were they always from Frank?

6 A. They seemed to be from Frank.

 

7 Q. Were you able to hear any portion of the

 

8 conversation?

 

9 A. Janet was —

 

10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

11 THE WITNESS: — somewhat emotional.

 

12 THE COURT: Nonresponsive. Sustained.

 

13 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Were you able to hear any

 

14 portion of the conversation? Yes or no.

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. All right. Do you know if those

 

17 conversations went on for long periods of time?

 

18 A. They did.

 

19 Q. Without getting into the content of her end

 

20 of the conversation, tell us what her mood was like,

 

21 what her manner or her demeanor was like.

 

22 A. She was emotional. She was crying. And she

 

23 was sitting in the closet having these conversations

 

24 with Frank and — I mean, I can tell you what I

 

25 heard, but —

 

26 Q. Let’s not go into that at the moment. You

 

27 said she was sitting in the closet?

 

28 A. She was — it’s a long closet in the bedroom 5801

 

1 back in the back of the room. And she would sit in

 

2 the closet. She was — she would be — she was very

 

3 distressed.

 

4 Q. All right.

 

5 A. She was crying.

 

6 Q. Were you able to hear her end of the

 

7 conversation?

 

8 A. I only heard bits and pieces, but, yes, sir.

 

9 Q. What could you hear her saying?

 

10 A. She at that —

 

11 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

12 MR. ZONEN: As to her state of mind.

 

13 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection.

 

14 THE COURT: Let’s see, she’s — all right.

 

15 I’ll overrule the objection and allow her statement

 

16 in for her state of mind.

 

17 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What did you hear, her

 

18 comments?

 

19 A. I heard her comments that she was very

 

20 disturbed about two gentlemen’s treatment of her,

 

21 one being a gentleman named Ronald and another being

 

22 a gentleman by the name of Dieter.

 

23 Q. Did she, in fact, return back to Neverland?

 

24 A. She did, sir.

Next, Jay Jackson was asked to describe his encounter with Bradley Miller, who came to his home to interview the Arvizo family about their time at Neverland.

25 Q. Do you recall if a person — do you know a

 

26 person named Brad Miller?

 

27 A. Yes, sir, I met him one time.

 

28 Q. Can you tell us who Brad will Miller is? 5802

 

1 A. As far as I understood, Brad Miller’s a

 

2 security detail for Michael Jackson.

 

3 Q. When and where did you meet Brad Miller?

 

4 A. Brad Miller showed up at the house one

 

5 evening during this period of time when Janet and

 

6 the children were there. And I asked Janet who he

 

7 was, and she said he was a security detail for

 

8 Michael Jackson. He came in and did an audiotaped

 

9 interview of the family.

 

10 Q. Do you have a sense of when that was? If

 

11 you don’t know the date, say so.

 

12 A. Yeah, I don’t know the date.

 

13 Q. Do you know how many days Janet Arvizo and

 

14 her children were back in Los Angeles by the time

 

15 Brad Miller came by?

 

16 A. Probably two or three days.

 

17 Q. Which residence was it that he came to?

 

18 A. My residence on St. Andrews Place.

 

19 Q. Did you have a conversation with Brad Miller

 

20 prior to his arrival at the apartment?

 

21 A. No, sir, I did not.

 

22 Q. Did you know in advance that he was going to

 

23 be coming to the apartment?

 

24 A. No, sir, I did not.

 

25 Q. Did you know in advance the purpose of his

 

26 visit to the apartment?

 

27 A. No, sir, I did not.

 

28 Q. When he came to the apartment, did you talk 5803

 

1 with him?

 

2 A. I was cordial, offered him a drink. But no,

 

3 sir, not other than that.

 

4 Q. Did he explain to you his presence in the

 

5 apartment?

 

6 A. No, I don’t think so.

 

7 Q. Tell us what happened with Brad Miller when

 

8 he was at the apartment.

 

9 A. He showed up at the apartment. Janet seemed

 

10 to be anticipating his arrival. I asked what he was

 

11 coming for. She said — I guess they were going to

 

12 do an interview of some type, an audio interview.

 

13 I’m not even sure if that was said.

 

14 But he showed up and there was a phone call.

 

15 There was a phone call between him and, I guess

 

16 Frank, because he passed the phone to Janet, and

 

17 Janet talked to him, to Frank. And then they came

 

18 in, and they sat down around the table. It’s a

 

19 coffee table in the living room. And they all

 

20 circled around it, and they had an interview.

 

21 Q. Was that interview tape-recorded, to your

 

22 knowledge?

 

23 A. Yes, sir, it was.

 

24 Q. Did you see the tape-recording?

 

25 A. Yes, sir.

 

26 Q. Who did you believe Brad Miller worked for?

 

27 A. Michael Jackson.

 

28 Q. Did you have a sense of the purpose of that 5804

 

1 interview?

 

2 A. I did not.

 

3 Q. Did you listen to any part of the interview?

 

4 A. I was up and down throughout the entire

 

5 time, so I really did not. I think — I assume it

 

6 was in relation to the “Living with Michael

 

7 Jackson,” and that it was just to buffet his story

 

8 that nothing had happened.

 

9 Q. All right. Did you at any time ask him any

 

10 questions about what was going on?

 

11 A. No, sir, I did not.

 

12 Q. Did you ask him any questions about the two

 

13 men that Janet had expressed concern about?

 

14 A. No, sir, I did not.

 

15 Q. Were you expecting that Janet Arvizo and the

 

16 children would be returning to Neverland?

 

17 A. You know what? At this point I’m not even

 

18 sure I knew that. You know what? Janet had this

 

19 relationship with Michael —

 

20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; nonresponsive.

 

21 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: The answer was you didn’t

 

22 know?

 

23 A. No, sir, I did not know.

 

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

 

25 Go ahead.

 

26 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: At the time that you were in

 

27 the apartment during this interview, did you not

 

28 know whether they would be returning? 5805

 

1 A. No, sir, I did not.

 

2 Q. How long did that interview go for?

 

3 A. Probably two hours, two hours and 15

 

4 minutes, something like that.

 

5 Q. Do you have a recollection of any part of

 

6 that interview, the content of that interview at

 

7 all?

 

8 A. Not really, sir, I don’t.

 

9 Q. Did Janet Arvizo and her children return to

 

10 Neverland after that interview?

 

11 A. Yes, sir, they did. I believe it was like

 

12 the next day.

 

13 Q. Your apartment on St. Andrews Place was how

 

14 large?

 

15 A. It’s about 1100 square foot, one bedroom.

 

16 Q. One bedroom and a living room?

 

17 A. Yes, sir.

 

18 Q. And at times all of you were staying there

 

19 at that apartment?

 

20 A. Yes, sir.

 

21 Q. When they went back to Neverland, did you

 

22 know in advance that they were going?

 

23 A. I mean, at the last minute, I believe I knew

 

24 that they were going.

 

25 Q. Do you know how they got to Neverland?

 

26 A. Sure. Someone came and picked them up.

 

27 Q. You said, “At the last minute.” What does

 

28 that mean? 5806

 

1 A. It means that I — you know, she wasn’t

 

2 telling me specifically what was happening. And I

 

3 wasn’t asking. So I think she might have told me

 

4 that they were leaving, but I really — I’m not

 

5 clear that they were leaving.

 

6 Q. All right. When they went back to

 

7 Neverland, do you know if they went back during the

 

8 day or in the evening?

 

9 A. Seems to me that they went in the afternoon.

Next, Jay Jackson was asked if he had seen Janet Arvizo after her first “escape” from Neverland, and he did testified that she returned to his apartment without her kids, and she was very “emotional” and didn’t want to talk about what happened at Neverland. As soon as she was returned to Neverland after giving an interview with Bradley Miller, she demanded to leave again because Ronald Konitzer and Dieter Weisner were there. Star, Gavin, and Davellin stayed at the ranch.

10 Q. And when was the next time you saw Janet

 

11 Arvizo or her children?

 

12 A. That same night Janet came back. Late at

 

13 night.

 

14 Q. Without her children?

 

15 A. Without her children.

 

16 Q. All right. What was her mood or her affect

 

17 at that time?

 

18 A. She was very emotional.

 

19 Q. Did you ask her where the children were?

 

20 A. I assumed that they were still at the ranch.

 

21 Q. Did you talk about what had happened?

 

22 A. She didn’t want to talk about it.

 

23 Q. Do you know what day it was that she

 

24 returned? Do you have a sense of it?

 

25 A. Early February, but I really don’t have a

 

26 date.

 

27 Q. Do you know how much time had gone by since

 

28 the Miami trip at this point that she came back? 5807

 

1 A. Maybe a week.

 

2 Q. Now, when she came back, how long was it

 

3 before you saw the kids next?

 

4 A. At that point, I didn’t see them for

 

5 probably three weeks. I don’t know. It was a long

 

6 time.

 

7 Q. Was there a meeting at your house involving

 

8 the department of —

 

9 A. I stand corrected, sir. Can I go back on

 

10 the last statement?

 

11 Q. Yes. Go ahead.

 

12 A. They — they apparently did a CPS — a

 

13 Department of Child & Family Services interview

 

14 after Janet left to go do the video that night. The

 

15 next morning they all showed back up, and I did see

 

16 the children but it was briefly.

In order to try to prove to the jury that Frank Cascio was “harassing” Janet to get her to return to Neverland (thus reinforcing the prosecution’s conspiracy charges), Zonen questioned Jay Jackson about the multiple phone calls that Frank placed to Janet to get her to shoot the rebuttal video and return to Neverland. Janet did not want to do the rebuttal video initially, but later changed her mind:

17 Q. Now, you mentioned a couple of things we’re

 

18 going to talk about in order.

 

19 A. Okay.

 

20 Q. First is the video.

 

21 A. Okay.

 

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

 

23 of the fact that Janet was — Janet Arvizo was going

 

24 to be doing a video?

 

25 A. I did.

 

26 Q. When did you learn about that?

 

27 A. Well, when Janet came back by herself, she

 

28 was very emotional. And then the next day Frank 5808

 

1 started calling again, just continuously.

 

2 Q. Let me stop you for one second. The same

 

3 Frank who was calling the first time?

 

4 A. Yes, sir, the same Frank.

 

5 Q. The person you mentioned as Frank Tyson?

 

6 A. Frank Tyson.

 

7 Q. And you said before he was calling

 

8 continuously?

 

9 A. That is correct.

 

10 Q. Was he calling more continuously, less

 

11 continuously, or about —

 

12 A. I would say now it’s more continuously.

 

13 Q. And what does that mean in terms of actually

 

14 how many phone calls he was making?

 

15 A. You know, I can’t tell you a number of phone

 

16 calls, but I can say he was calling every 15 or 20

 

17 minutes. I mean, I even told him — I would tell

 

18 him certain times, “She’s not available. Call back

19 later today,” or, “I’ll have her call you.” Fifteen

 

20 minutes later he calls again.

 

21 Q. Did he tell you who he was in any of these

 

22 phone calls?

 

23 A. I don’t think he did specifically. I knew

 

24 he worked with Michael Jackson.

 

25 Q. Did he tell you why he was calling?

 

26 A. Well, he always wanted to speak —

 

27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

28 MR. ZONEN: It would be in furtherance of. 5809

 

1 THE COURT: First he has to answer the

 

2 question. It was nonresponsive.

 

3 I’ll have the court reporter read back

 

4 the question.

 

5 MR. ZONEN: The question actually is “yes”

 

6 or “no.”

 

7 (Record read.)

 

8 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: That would be “yes” or “no.”

 

9 A. Yes.

 

10 Q. What did he say?

 

11 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

12 MR. ZONEN: Statement in furtherance of.

 

13 THE COURT: I’m going to admit the statement

 

14 with the same limited purpose for the last one.

 

15 THE WITNESS: Okay.

 

16 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What did he say?

 

17 A. He at one point asked me, “How can I get

 

18 Janet to come back up to the ranch?”

 

19 And another time he asked me, he said, “We

 

20 need her to sign a contract to do this video.” And

 

21 he said, “We really have got to hurry on this,

 

22 because it’s going to air tomorrow. It’s got to be

 

23 in to be finalized by tomorrow.

 

24 So he was really pushing that issue, and so

 

25 I had a conversation with him about that.

 

26 Q. Had you — prior to that conversation, had

 

27 you had a conversation with Janet Arvizo about a

 

28 video? 5810

 

1 A. No, I had overheard her talking to Frank on

 

2 the phone about it. I mean, at one point she was

 

3 asking them to bring her children home.

 

4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

5 MR. ZONEN: Reflects her state of mind.

 

6 THE COURT: Just a moment.

 

7 The question was, “Had you — prior to that

 

8 conversation, had you had a conversation with Janet

 

9 Arvizo about the video?” Answer, “No.” He then

 

10 proceeded to not answer, so I’ll strike that after,

 

11 “No.” You may ask another question.

 

12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: But you had some knowledge

 

13 about what this video was about?

 

14 A. Yes, sir, I believe I did.

 

15 Q. And did that knowledge — from what source

 

16 was that knowledge?

 

17 A. I believe mostly from Frank.

 

18 Q. And did Janet Arvizo speak with you about

 

19 that video at all?

 

20 A. No, sir.

 

21 Q. Did you overhear any conversation between

 

22 Janet Arvizo and presumably Frank on the telephone?

 

23 A. Yes, sir, I did.

 

24 Q. And did you overhear a conversation that

 

25 specifically addressed the video?

 

26 A. Yes, sir. She said she didn’t want to do

 

27 it.

 

28 Q. I’m sorry, she what? 5811

 

1 A. She said she did not want to do it.

 

2 MR. MESEREAU: Move to strike;

 

3 nonresponsive; and hearsay.

 

4 THE COURT: Stricken after, “Yes, sir.”

 

5 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. When you had a

 

6 conversation with Frank about this video, did you

 

7 ask him any questions about it?

 

8 A. Yes. I said — he said he wanted to do —

 

9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; nonresponsive.

 

10 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

11 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Some of these questions

 

12 really call for a “yes” or “no.”

 

13 A. Okay, sir.

 

14 Q. And then we can get into content thereafter.

 

15 A. Okay.

 

16 Q. I believe the question was, did you have a

 

17 conversation with Frank about this video?

 

18 A. Yes, sir, I did.

 

19 Q. All right. Did Frank tell you what the

 

20 video was about?

 

21 A. Yeah, I believe he did, sir.

 

22 Q. What did he tell you?

 

23 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

24 MR. ZONEN: Statement in furtherance of.

 

25 THE COURT: All right. I’ll admit this for

 

26 the limited purposes of the conspiracy.

 

27 You may answer.

 

28 THE WITNESS: I’m not clear exactly. I know 5812

 

1 Frank said some things to me about the fact that we

 

2 needed to have this — they needed to do this prior

 

3 to it going to the editor or something, to get it

 

4 out there, and it was a rush to get it done. And

 

5 that’s really what I would say.

Jay Jackson spoke to Frank Cascio about the rebuttal tape and was under the impression that it would be televised, which whet his appetite for a big payday from Michael Jackson. He made a pretty lame excuse for rejecting Frank Cascio’s offer of college tuition and a house by saying that “they didn’t’ need a house” and the kids “were in eighth grade”.  Frank Cascio also offered “protection” for the family, according to Jay Jackson, and that aroused his suspicions and corroborated the prosecutions’ assertion that Michael Jackson and his inner circle were trying to intimidate the Arvizos into returning to and staying at Neverland:

6 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did he tell you or did you

 

7 understand that this video would go on television?

 

8 A. I did, yes, sir.

 

9 Q. Did you talk to him about this contract that

 

10 he wanted Janet Arvizo to sign?

 

11 A. Yes, sir, I did.

 

12 Q. What did you say to him?

 

13 A. “What is this contract?”

 

14 Q. I’m sorry?

 

15 A. I said, “What is this contract? What is in

 

16 this contract?”

 

17 Q. And what did he say?

 

18 A. He —

 

19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

20 MR. ZONEN: Same response.

 

21 THE COURT: You know, the last time you told

 

22 me that, the response wasn’t what you represented,

 

23 so —

 

24 MR. ZONEN: Actually, I would refer the

 

25 Court to Overt Acts 11, 12 and 13, and I believe it

 

26 does refer to those overt acts.

 

27 THE COURT: Depends on what he says in his

 

28 answer, doesn’t it? That’s the problem. Not your 5813

 

1 question, Counsel.

 

2 MR. ZONEN: Let me withdraw that last

 

3 question.

 

4 THE COURT: No, let’s have a discussion for a

 

5 moment.

 

6 MR. ZONEN: Okay.

 

7 THE COURT: I just want to give you an

 

8 example here.

 

9 “Did Frank tell you what the video was

 

10 about?

 

11 “Yes, I believe he did.

 

12 “What did he tell you?

 

13 “Objection; hearsay.

14 “Statement in furtherance of conspiracy.

 

15 “The Court: All right. I’ll admit it for a

 

16 limited purpose.

 

17 “A. I’m not clear exactly.”

 

18 And then he went on to say something else.

 

19 If you’re going to offer a statement in

 

20 furtherance of the conspiracy, then you need to know

 

21 what statement he’s going to make when you ask the

 

22 question. Do you understand what I’m saying?

 

23 MR. ZONEN: Yes.

 

24 THE COURT: I’m not going to agree in advance

 

25 to that kind of response.

 

26 MR. ZONEN: I think the best thing we need

 

27 to do is to withdraw the last question and proceed

 

28 to another question. 5814

 

1 THE COURT: All right.

 

2 MR. ZONEN: I will do that.

 

3 Q. Did you have a conversation — did you ask

 

4 for a copy of the contract?

 

5 A. I did, yes, sir.

 

6 Q. All right. Did he send you a copy of the

 

7 contract?

 

8 A. No, sir, he did not.

 

9 Q. Did he agree to send you a copy of the

 

10 contract?

 

11 A. No, he did not.

 

12 Q. Did you have a conversation with Frank about

 

13 payment for this video?

 

14 A. Yes, sir.

 

15 Q. What did you say to him?

 

16 A. Well, after I asked him to send the contract

 

17 to me by e-mail, and he kind of changed the subject,

 

18 I asked him, “What are you offering this family to

 

19 do this?” I had seen on T.V. that they were making

 

20 money on this — this video, and I felt that they

 

21 were taking advantage of this family. So I said,

 

22 “What are you offering them?” He said, “Well, we’re

 

23 offering them protection.”

 

24 And that struck —

 

25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Objection;

 

26 nonresponsive.

 

27 MR. ZONEN: And I believe that statement —

 

28 MR. MESEREAU: And hearsay. 5815

 

1 THE COURT: That’s overruled.

 

2 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: He said something to you

 

3 about protection?

 

4 A. Yes, sir, he did.

 

5 Q. What did he tell you about offering the

 

6 family protection?

 

7 A. He said he was offering the family

 

8 protection. And I said, “Frank, the family doesn’t

 

9 need any protection. Who are you protecting them

 

10 against?”

 

11 Q. Did he answer that question?

 

12 A. He did not. He moved on to the next point.

 

13 Q. At any point in time during this

 

14 conversation, did he tell you who the family needed

 

15 protection from?

 

16 A. No, sir, he did not.

 

17 Q. Did he tell you what kind of danger the

 

18 family was in?

 

19 A. No, sir, he did not.

 

20 Q. Did he tell you who were posing threats to

 

21 the family?

 

22 A. No, sir.

 

23 Q. And did you ask him those questions?

 

24 A. I did.

 

25 Q. All right. Then you said he moved to the

 

26 next subject?

 

27 A. Yes, sir.

 

28 Q. Now, again, you had asked him for 5816

 

1 compensation for the family?

 

2 A. Well, I — yes, I did. And he said he was

 

3 going to give them a tutor. Well, we found out they

 

4 didn’t ever get any kind of schooling.

 

5 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive;

 

6 hearsay; move to strike.

 

7 THE COURT: After “Yes, sir, I did,” I’ll

 

8 strike the rest of the answer.

 

9 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did Frank offer you or Janet

 

10 Arvizo or her children anything in exchange for this

 

11 video?

 

12 A. He said he was going to offer a college

 

13 education, and a house. Well, they didn’t need a

 

14 house. And they’re in eighth grade. They didn’t

 

15 need a college education.

 

16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; move to strike.

 

17 THE COURT: The last sentence is stricken.

 

18 Let me —

 

19 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What did you say to Frank in

 

20 response to that offer?

 

21 A. I said, “That’s fine, Frank. What are you

 

22 offering them monetarily?” I was very suspicious of

 

23 him at this point.

 

24 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive;

 

25 move to strike.

 

26 THE COURT: That’s — that last remark is

 

27 stricken. And the last answer, I’m striking the

 

28 last three sentences, not the last one sentence. 5817

 

1 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. He had made you

 

2 an offer of a house?

 

3 A. Yes, sir.

 

4 Q. All right. And you said no?

 

5 A. Basically said no.

 

6 Q. Okay. Did you ask him for any monetary

 

7 payment in exchange for that video?

 

8 A. I asked him what he was offering financially

 

9 or monetarily.

 

10 Q. And did he answer to that specific question?

 

11 A. No, sir, he did not.

To be continued: https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/april-12th-2005-trial-analysis-jay-jackson-direct-and-cross-examination-part-2-of-3/

Advertisements
12 Comments leave one →
  1. Jan permalink
    June 16, 2013 6:22 am

    let them watch this:

  2. January 26, 2013 6:46 pm

    When we get to the telephone testimony you will find out that the telephone calls were not every 15 to 30 minutes it was an exaggeration. The reason that Sneddon took the case to the grand jury instead of a preliminary hearing in open court in front of a judge was to get rid of the tapes that they seized from Brad Millers office. Mark Geragos claimed attorney client priviledge with those tapes so the prosecution could not hear them. Geragos met with Sneddon in LA on Dec. 8th 2003 and told him that those tapes were going to be used as impeachment when they were cross examining Janet and the kids. In order to get this to trial he had to get rid of the tapes because they were exculpatory evidence. To do that he asked for a continuance and then took it to the grand jury and added the charge of conspiracy. When he had the consp[iracy charge against Michael and the 5 named unindicted co conspirators they also claimed that Brad Miller, Mark Geragos, Johnny Majetec and Asaf Villichek were un named unindicted co conspirators. The tapes then became evidence of the crime of conspiracy. He in effect falsified that evidence when he did that.He also used that tape to say that Frank had taped them ilegally but in fact Frank was in New Jersey and the law in New Jersey says that the other party does not have to be made aware of the taping.

    • nannorris permalink
      January 26, 2013 7:43 pm

      what a piece of sh@t
      Sneddon is..Was this ever brought up in television by the media?
      So he decided to ask for a continuance, during the preliminary hearing, to conceal the tapes , in the meantime, brought a grand jury and called them evidence of a conspiracy? have i got that right
      He belongs in jail

  3. aldebaranredstar permalink
    January 26, 2013 5:04 pm

    Why was Frank calling every 15-30 minutes? Isn’t that overkill? The fact he said ‘protection’ (if he said it), open the whole can of worms re the conspircy charges. I agree Janet most likely have kept the Soto apt for scamming welfare.

    • nannorris permalink
      January 26, 2013 5:49 pm

      Well I thought the premise for the Arvizo going to Miami was because they were being harassed by tabloid reporters , which is why they call Chris Tucker …could be what Frank was referring to., not physical harm like they wanted to infer …after they dreamed this scam up…
      Protection from media,…..
      How many times have we seen people say they were afraid of fans and yet we can easily go online and see these same people yucking it up on fb or youtube.
      Murray killed the man and walked around like a celebrity .
      Nobody laid a finger on him or cursed him out in public.

      That was their excuse for them hanging at Neverland ..They were in fear, when , the way I understand it , they started seeing lawyers and were trying to get close to MJ, to set him up,

      Janet Arvizo is an unstable person .
      If she is crying in the closet it is due to her mental illness..and paranoia.

      Jay Jackson obviously saw that this was an opportunity for the family to make a large sum of money , in order to be partners in the damage control.
      They just wanted more then Frank offered.
      and Janet had already been taped.
      It should have died there, but Larry Feldman was going back to the trough and he had a willing pig in Tom Sneddon to lead him to it..

      If Jay Jackson doesnt realize she is mental as well as greedy , he should soon.
      Interesting how she seemed to seek him out also, not the other way around ., and manages to end up with herself and her kids in his apartment..

    • nannorris permalink
      January 26, 2013 5:55 pm

      While still holding onto the Soto st apartment, I might add

  4. lynande51 permalink*
    January 23, 2013 9:22 pm

    David Gardner was on the defense witness list but he was never called to testify. I think if he had we would have found out that the $15K was a figure from Jay Jackson and when they got the interview she was paid $4K for it if I remember what Roger Friedman wrote.
    You know these people should have known that someday someone was going to find that article and prove that they were talking about Michael and trying to sell their story.

  5. nannorris permalink
    January 23, 2013 6:46 pm

    This question Zonen asked Jay Jackson..:
    ———————————
    19 Q. And you’ve been married how long now?

    20 A. Oh, goodness. May 29th will be one year.
    ———————–
    so that would mean they married may of 2004
    Then he is asked:
    Q. Did Janet Arvizo maintain the Soto Street

    8 address?

    9 A. She did, sir.

    10 Q. For what period of time?

    11 A. Through about November of ‘04, I believe.

    ———–

    So if they married in May, and the kids were already enrolled in school near Jay Jacksons apartment, for quite some time…. what did she still need the east L A apartment for, even after they married …………….. unless she was still scamming welfare or other people..

  6. stacy2 permalink
    January 23, 2013 8:28 am

    Gavin claimed that MJ had called him and his family and told them that their lives were in danger because of the bashir documentary and that they had to fly out with him to Miami to do a press conference. This story was later contradicted by Chris tucker who testified that he had received a phone call from gavin complaining to him that the media was hounding he and his family and that they wanted to know where michael was. chris later found out that michael was in miami and decided to get his private jet and fly out with the family to miami to see michael and stay with him for a few days. If chris was telling the truth then that means that the story that gavin and his family told under oath about the press conference was a flat out lie.

Trackbacks

  1. April 11th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Bob Jones, Stacy Brown, June Chandler, and Dwayne Swingler, Part 4 of 4 « Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0

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: