Skip to content

April 12th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Jay Jackson (Direct and Cross Examination), Part 2 of 3

January 26, 2013

Next, Jay Jackson described how Cascio allegedly asked him if he (Jay) was trying to blackmail him (Cascio), and Jay vehemently denied it. Jay Jackson explained that he felt that since Michael Jackson and his camp were going to make millions of dollars, and the Arvizo family would be all over TV again, that they were entitled to their fair share of the profits.

12 Q. Did he tell you whether or not they were

 

13 going to be paid?

 

14 A. No, he actually said, “Are you trying to

 

15 blackmail us?”

 

16 Q. Had you made any demands from him?

 

17 A. No, sir.

 

18 Q. Were you personally familiar with any

 

19 information that could be used for blackmail?

 

20 A. No, sir.

 

21 Q. What did you tell him when he said that?

 

22 A. “Why are you saying that? That makes no

 

23 sense. It has nothing to do with what we’re talking

 

24 about here.”

 

25 Q. Did you tell him that you believed they were

 

26 going to be profiting from this?

 

27 A. I did. I said, “You’re going” — you know,

 

28 “It’s being blasted all over the T.V. that they’re 5818

 

1 going to be doing this Take Two video, a response to

 

2 the Martin Bashir ‘Living with Michael Jackson.’

 

3 And they’re advertising that the family’s going to

 

4 be on there, and you want her to sign this contract,

 

5 but you won’t show me the contract. And you” — he

 

6 wanted me to have her —

 

7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive;

 

8 move to strike.

 

9 THE COURT: Okay. After “there,” where he

 

10 started, “You want me to sign the contract,” I’ll

 

11 strike that. That’s the last sentence.

 

12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did he ever send you a copy

 

13 of the contract?

 

14 A. No, sir, he did not.

 

15 Q. Did he ever read you a copy of the contract?

 

16 A. No, sir, he did not.

 

17 Q. Did you ever have a discussion with Janet

 

18 Arvizo about the video?

 

19 A. No, sir, I did not.

 

20 Q. At some point in time, do you know if she

 

21 actually did the video with or without her children?

 

22 A. Yes, sir, I believe she did.

 

23 Q. And was that after this discussion with

 

24 Frank?

 

25 A. Yes, sir.

 

26 Q. Do you know how long after this discussion

 

27 with Frank?

 

28 A. He continued to call, and at some point 5819

 

1 Janet accepted it or moved —

 

2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive;

 

3 move to strike.

 

4 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: The question was how long

 

5 after, if you know?

 

6 A. Within a day.

 

7 Q. Did the phone calls from Frank continue

 

8 during that —

 

9 THE COURT: The ruling on that is I will

 

10 strike the answer as requested. Go ahead.

 

11 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Okay. During that period of

 

12 time, that day that followed your conversation with

 

13 Frank, did he continue to call the apartment?

 

14 A. Yes, he did.

 

15 Q. And the calls we’re talking about were to

 

16 your apartment on St. Andrews?

 

17 A. That’s correct.

 

18 Q. Was there anybody else calling other than

 

19 Frank?

 

20 A. Not that I’m aware of.

 

21 Q. Do you know where the children were during

 

22 this time?

 

23 A. I believe they were at Neverland.

Jay Jackson was next questioned on his involvement with the DCFS interview; he did not participate in the interview and left the apartment before it was completed, and when he returned the Arvizos were already on their way back to Neverland.

24 Q. Now, you had mentioned that you did see them

 

25 during the course of an interview with the

 

26 Department of Child & Family Services; is that

 

27 correct?

 

28 A. That is correct. 5820

 

1 Q. All right. Can you tell us where that

 

2 interview took place?

 

3 A. It took place in my apartment.

 

4 Q. Were you there at any time during that

 

5 interview?

 

6 A. No, sir, I wasn’t.

 

7 Q. Did you greet any of the people as they

 

8 came?

 

9 A. No, sir.

 

10 Q. Were you there earlier at the time that

 

11 Janet Arvizo and the children arrived?

 

12 A. About the time I was getting up to go to

 

13 work, they arrived at the apartment. I was there a

 

14 short period of time and went on to work.

 

15 Q. Do you know approximately what time that was

 

16 that they arrived?

 

17 A. Well, I get up probably about six o’clock in

 

18 the morning, so that’s my guess.

 

19 Q. So they were just arriving at six o’clock?

 

20 A. That — it might have been a little earlier,

 

21 but I’m not positive on that. Depends on what I had

 

22 to do at work that day.

 

23 Q. Now, was Janet Arvizo arriving with them or

 

24 had she already been at your apartment?

 

25 A. No, she was arriving with them.

 

26 Q. Do you know when it was that she had left

 

27 your apartment prior —

 

28 A. The night before. 5821

 

1 Q. The night before?

 

2 A. Late at night. I don’t know. Around eleven

 

3 o’clock, twelve o’clock.

 

4 Q. Do you know if she drove herself or if

 

5 someone came to get her?

 

6 A. Someone came and got her.

 

7 Q. Do you know who that was?

 

8 A. I don’t. I’m not sure. I think I went

 

9 outside — I know I went outside to help her get in

 

10 the car, but I don’t know who the driver was at this

 

11 time. I can’t put my finger on who it was.

 

12 Q. Were you there at the time that any of the

 

13 people from the Department of Child & Family

 

14 Services arrived?

 

15 A. No, sir.

 

16 Q. Were you gone that entire day?

 

17 A. I was gone the entire day.

 

18 Q. When you got back, who was present at your

 

19 apartment?

 

20 A. No one.

 

21 Q. Not even Janet Arvizo?

 

22 A. Janet, I believe, may have been there.

 

23 Q. Did Janet Arvizo remain that night?

 

24 A. I believe she stayed that night, and then

 

25 either — yeah, I believe she left the next morning.

 

26 Q. Were the kids gone already?

 

27 A. They were already gone.

 

28 Q. By the time you got home that day? 5822

 

1 A. Yes, sir.

After returning to Neverland, Janet called Jay Jackson and was “distressed” and “concerned” because she was “not being able to see her children”, and she was being “followed” every time she went off of Neverland for her shopping sprees:

2 Q. That night, what was her mood like?

 

3 A. I don’t really remember.

 

4 Q. Did Janet Arvizo say anything to you about

 

5 Brazil?

 

6 A. Yes, sir, she did.

 

7 Q. What did she say?

 

8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

9 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

10 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you know if there was a

 

11 trip to Brazil in the planning?

 

12 A. Yes, sir, I did.

 

13 Q. Was Janet Arvizo enthusiastic about going to

 

14 Brazil?

 

15 A. No, sir.

 

16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

17 MR. ZONEN: State of mind.

 

18 THE COURT: Calls for a conclusion.

 

19 Sustained.

 

20 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did she say to you that she

 

21 was enthusiastic about going to Brazil?

 

22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

23 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

24 MR. MESEREAU: And leading.

 

25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: How long were they gone after

 

26 they left, after this meeting with the Department of

 

27 Child & Family Services?

 

28 A. About three weeks. 5823

 

1 Q. A long period of time?

 

2 A. Yes, sir, a long period of time.

 

3 Q. Did you know in advance they were going to

 

4 be gone that long?

 

5 A. No, sir, I did not.

 

6 Q. Did you have conversations with Janet during

 

7 that period of time?

 

8 A. Yes, sir, I did.

 

9 Q. Over the telephone?

 

10 A. Yes, sir.

 

11 Q. What was her mood like over the telephone?

 

12 A. Distressed. Disturbed.

 

13 Q. When was the next time that you saw her?

 

14 A. The next time that I saw her was at a nail

 

15 salon.

 

16 Q. All right. Explain that to us.

 

17 A. Well, over that period of time Janet had

 

18 been calling, and she was hanging up on me, and very

 

19 short conversations, and very disturbed.

 

20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive;

 

21 move to strike.

 

22 THE COURT: It’s responsive, but it calls for

 

23 a narrative, so I’ll sustain the objection.

 

24 MR. ZONEN: Okay.

 

25 Q. During the course of your conversations,

 

26 would you describe the nature of the conversations

 

27 you had with her? Without getting into the content

 

28 of them, just the nature of them. 5824

 

1 A. The nature of the conversations was, is —

 

2 Q. Go ahead.

 

3 A. I can tell you how she was — appeared, how

 

4 she felt. She was —

 

5 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; nonresponsive.

 

6 THE WITNESS: I’m not sure I understand the

 

7 question.

 

8 MR. ZONEN: Let me withdraw the question.

 

9 THE WITNESS: Yeah.

 

10 MR. ZONEN: Because I think the question

 

11 might be difficult to answer.

 

12 Q. Did she sound concerned over the telephone?

 

13 A. Yes.

 

14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

 

15 THE COURT: Overruled. Next question.

 

16 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Were they long conversations?

 

17 A. Not normally, no.

 

18 Q. Did she express concerns to you in the

 

19 course of these conversations?

 

20 A. Yes, sir.

 

21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading and asked

 

22 and answered.

 

23 MR. ZONEN: Overruled. Next question.

 

24 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What did she say to you that

 

25 she was concerned about?

 

26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

27 MR. ZONEN: Her state of mind.

 

28 THE COURT: I’ll admit it for that purpose. 5825

 

1 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What did she say to you that

 

2 she was concerned about?

 

3 A. Well, she said that she was not being able

 

4 to see her children; that they were following her

 

5 around wherever she went off Neverland; that she

 

6 was — either had a chaperone or that somebody was

 

7 following her.

 

8 At one time when she was in a hotel —

 

9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Narrative;

 

10 nonresponsive.

 

11 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

12 I’m going to instruct the jury that that

 

13 statement that was admitted just now was not

 

14 admitted for the truth of the matter asserted by

 

15 Janet, but for her state of mind as she related to

 

16 him.

 

17 Next question.

Zonen pivoted to Jay’s interactions with Janet during her “escape” from Neverland; she called him from a beauty parlor and he left work to meet her. Vinnie Amen and Gavin eventually arrived, and Jay Jackson was told by Vinnie that he could not allow him (Jay) to bring Janet back home without getting permission, which he eventually received, and Janet went home with Jay Jackson. Gavin returned to Neverland with Vinnie.

Jay Jackson also stated that he noticed that Gavin was acting “cocky” at the beauty parlor, and that he had noticed this change in behavior for the last few months. It’s funny because most victims of child abuse don’t all of a sudden start acting “cocky” after they’ve been abused! None of Sandusky’s victims started acting “cocky” after their abuse ended!

Notice how Jay Jackson recounted that Gavin acted like he didn’t want to see him; this is very interesting because Jay Jackson inadvertently shot a hole in the prosecution’s case because if the Arvizo family was being held against their will, wouldn’t Gavin be happy to see Jay? Wouldn’t Gavin take the opportunity to leave with him? Wouldn’t Gavin vehemently oppose going back to Neverland, instead of going back there with Vinnie without putting up a fight?

18 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Do you know if during this

 

19 period of time Gavin was seeing a doctor on a

 

20 regular basis?

 

21 A. Yes, he was.

 

22 Q. How often was he seeing his doctors?

 

23 A. I’m not clear. I think probably every month

 

24 or so.

 

25 Q. Do you know when his appointments were

 

26 around that time?

 

27 A. I don’t really. I know that he was having

 

28 them scheduled, but I wasn’t sure when he had to go. 5826

 

1 Q. All right. And I think you said the next

 

2 time you saw her was at a beauty parlor; is that

 

3 right?

 

4 A. That is correct.

 

5 Q. How did you happen to see her at a beauty

 

6 parlor?

 

7 A. She called me at work and — I hadn’t

 

8 talked — I hadn’t actually seen her in a long time,

 

9 and she called me at work and said —

 

10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

11 THE WITNESS: (To a juror) Bless you.

 

12 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

13 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did she notify you where

 

14 you — where she was?

 

15 A. She called me at work.

 

16 Q. Did you go to that location?

 

17 A. Yes, sir, I did.

 

18 Q. Was anybody else there — was she there at

 

19 the location?

 

20 A. Yes, she was.

 

21 Q. Was anybody else at that location?

 

22 A. When I came in, she was sitting there by

 

23 herself.

 

24 Q. All right. At some point — without getting

 

25 into the content, did you have a conversation with

 

26 her?

 

27 A. Yes, sir.

 

28 Q. Is this the first time that you’d seen her 5827

 

1 in a few weeks?

 

2 A. Yes, sir.

 

3 Q. Was any — and then I think you said

 

4 somebody else came. Who came?

 

5 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; misstates the

 

6 evidence.

 

7 MR. ZONEN: Withdraw the question.

 

8 Q. Who did you see then?

 

9 A. I saw Vinnie and Gavin come in the back door

 

10 of the nail salon.

 

11 Q. Is Vinnie somebody you knew prior to that

 

12 day?

 

13 A. No, sir.

 

14 Q. Were you introduced to him at that time?

 

15 A. I was either introduced or he introduced

16 himself. I’m not positive. I’m not clear.

 

17 Q. Can you describe Vinnie to us?

 

18 A. He would be a white male.

 

19 Q. About how old?

 

20 A. Young. Younger.

 

21 Q. How old is “younger”?

 

22 A. 25. I don’t — that’s just speculation.

 

23 Q. Did he tell you who he was, Vinnie?

 

24 A. I’m not sure.

 

25 Q. Was there a discussion with Vinnie about

 

26 Janet Arvizo returning to Neverland?

 

27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

28 MR. ZONEN: Statement in furtherance of. 5828

 

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

 

2 limited purpose in furtherance of the conspiracy.

 

3 THE WITNESS: Could you ask me the question

 

4 again, please?

 

5 THE COURT: Go ahead, the court reporter.

 

6 (Record read.)

 

7 THE WITNESS: Yes.

 

8 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: And what did Vinnie say about

 

9 that?

 

10 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection.

 

11 THE COURT: Okay. Same ruling, then.

 

12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Go ahead.

 

13 A. He said that — he said, “No, you can’t do

 

14 that.” And I said, “Are you saying that I cannot

 

15 take her out of here?” And he said, “I got to check

 

16 on that.” And he walked outside and immediately got

 

17 on his cell phone, followed by Gavin.

 

18 Q. Gavin followed him?

 

19 A. Correct.

 

20 Q. What was Gavin’s behavior like at that time?

 

21 A. Cocky.

 

22 Q. Cocky?

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. Explain that, please.

 

25 A. I don’t know. He was — it’s hard to

 

26 explain. He was — just walked in. He strutted in

 

27 with Vinnie. And it wasn’t the sweet, loving Gavin

 

28 that I knew. 5829

 

1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive;

 

2 move to strike.

 

3 THE COURT: Just a moment.

 

4 Overruled. The answer is —

 

5 Hold on just a moment, here, if you would,

 

6 please.

 

7 Go ahead. Thank you.

 

8 MR. ZONEN: May I proceed?

 

9 THE COURT: Yes.

 

10 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. You described

 

11 Gavin’s response. Was Gavin behaving differently

 

12 than he had been prior to — well, prior to — the

 

13 early part of February when they went to Miami?

 

14 A. Yes, he was.

 

15 Q. In what way was he behaving differently at

 

16 this point?

 

17 A. Again, he was acting very cocky. He — kind

 

18 of rude, actually.

 

19 Q. Did he greet you at all when he saw you?

 

20 A. I don’t think he wanted to see me. I don’t

 

21 think that he — he was very surprised when he saw

 

22 me there. And he may have greeted me, but he was

 

23 certainly not a loving — it was almost like, “What

 

24 are you doing here?”

 

25 Q. Your relationship with him prior to Miami,

 

26 how would you describe that relationship?

 

27 A. Father-like.

 

28 Q. You had a good relationship with him? 5830

 

1 A. Very good relationship.

 

2 Q. Now, we were talking about Vinnie and his

 

3 comments. He said that he had to go out and call

 

4 somebody. Did he call somebody?

 

5 A. Yes, sir, he did.

 

6 Q. Did he continue to have a conversation with

 

7 you while he was on the phone with that person?

 

8 A. Yes, sir. I asked him — I asked him, you

 

9 know, “Is there a problem here?” And he said, “Oh,

 

10 no, there’s no problem. I’m working on that right

 

11 now.”

 

12 Q. Did he say anything about where Janet Arvizo

 

13 or Gavin would be going?

 

14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

 

15 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

16 You may answer.

 

17 THE WITNESS: Did he say where she was going

 

18 to go?

 

19 THE COURT: Read the question back.

 

20 MR. ZONEN: Let me redo that question, if I

 

21 can.

 

22 THE WITNESS: Please.

 

23 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did he say anything to you

 

24 about where he wanted Janet Arvizo or Gavin to go?

 

25 A. He didn’t.

 

26 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection.

 

27 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you say anything to —

 

28 THE COURT: Just a moment. 5831

 

1 The objection was overruled. The answer

 

2 was, “He didn’t.” Next question.

 

3 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Was there a discussion

 

4 involving Vinnie about where everybody would be

 

5 going?

 

6 A. It wasn’t Vinnie. It was — Gavin came in

 

7 after that and said something to me.

 

8 Q. All right. In Vinnie’s presence?

 

9 A. No, Vinnie was still outside.

 

10 Q. Okay. Where finally did Janet go?

 

11 A. Janet left with me.

 

12 Q. And where did Gavin go?

 

13 A. Gavin left with Vinnie.

 

14 Q. To your understanding, where?

 

15 A. Back to Neverland.

 

16 Q. The other two children, were they there?

 

17 A. They were still at Neverland, no, sir.

 

18 Q. And did you go home with Janet?

 

19 A. Yes, sir, I did.

 

20 Q. And “home” is the St. Andrews residence?

 

21 A. Yes, sir, it was.

 

22 Q. What was Janet Arvizo’s mood like when you

 

23 were back at the house at St. Andrews?

 

24 A. She was distressed. She was saying there

 

25 was a problem.

 

26 Q. All right. Did you make an effort at some

 

27 time to find out —

 

28 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Objection. 5832

 

1 Nonresponsive; move to strike.

 

2 THE COURT: Sustained. I’ll strike the last

 

3 sentence of what she said.

Finally, Zonen ended his direct examination on the subject of how and when the Arvizos left Neverland for the last time. Jay Jackson described Gavin as a “brainwashed” person whose personality was like “night and day” compared to before he went to Miami in February 2003.  The Arvizos were out of school for almost two months, so they had to be enrolled in a tutoring program to get back up to speed. 

Jay Jackson also attempted to describe how he tried to get the Arvizos out of Neverland by calling her father, but Mesereau objected.

Pay attention to Jay Jackson’s recollection of what Gavin told him: Gavin claimed to have been told that if he saw Jay Jackson, he wouldn’t be allowed to return to Neverland to see Michael!

4 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you make an effort with

 

5 Janet Arvizo to get the children back from

 

6 Neverland?

 

7 A. Yes, sir.

 

8 Q. What did you do?

 

9 A. Well, at one point I called her father, and

10 said, “I want to go to Neverland and get these

 

11 children out of there.” And then at — and he —

 

12 well, I don’t believe that he was —

 

13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

14 MR. ZONEN: Tending to explain their

 

15 actions.

 

16 THE COURT: The question was what did he do.

 

17 So I will overrule the objection and strike the last

 

18 sentence.

 

19 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. Ultimately was

 

20 there a decision made to make a phone call by

 

21 somebody in the family to Neverland?

 

22 A. Yes, Janet called someone. Either Frank or

 

23 Vinnie.

 

24 Q. All right. And what did she represent to

 

25 them?

 

26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

27 MR. ZONEN: Explaining the conduct.

 

28 THE COURT: Explaining what conduct? 5833

 

1 MR. ZONEN: Hers.

 

2 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

3 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Were the children returned to

 

4 either your house or some other location? When did

 

5 you —

 

6 A. I’m drawing a blank. I’m not sure I

 

7 understand what’s going back and forth here.

 

8 Q. When was the next time you saw the children?

 

9 A. The next time I saw them was the next night

 

10 at her — Janet’s parents’ house.

 

11 Q. Were you present at the time any phone calls

 

12 were made to Neverland by either Janet or her

 

13 parents?

 

14 A. No, sir.

 

15 Q. Who brought the children to her parents’

 

16 house?

 

17 A. I don’t — I do not know, because we waited

 

18 for them to arrive before we went to her parents’

 

19 house.

 

20 Q. When you got there, were they still there,

 

21 the people from Neverland?

 

22 A. No, sir, they were not.

 

23 Q. Whoever had brought them there had left by

 

24 that time?

 

25 A. That is correct.

 

26 Q. Describe Gavin’s behavior at the time that

 

27 you got there.

 

28 A. Gavin didn’t want to see me. He stayed back 5834

 

1 in the back room. There was some crying coming from

 

2 the back room.

 

3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive;

 

4 hearsay; move to strike.

 

5 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

6 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Who was crying in the back

 

7 room?

 

8 A. I believe it was Davellin.

 

9 Q. Did you talk with Gavin at all?

 

10 A. No, I did not.

 

11 Q. Was he friendly to you?

 

12 A. No, sir.

 

13 Q. Did he talk with you at all during that day?

 

14 A. No. No, sir.

 

15 Q. Was there any discussion about returning to

 

16 Neverland?

 

17 A. No, sir.

 

18 Q. Did any of the kids ask to be returned to

 

19 Neverland?

 

20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading and asked

 

21 and answered.

 

22 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

23 You may answer.

 

24 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Go ahead.

 

25 A. I’m sorry?

 

26 THE COURT: Court reporter.

 

27 (Record read.)

 

28 THE WITNESS: The only thing I remember is 5835

 

1 they said that Michael — I mean Gavin couldn’t see

 

2 me, because if he did, he couldn’t return to

 

3 Neverland to see Michael.

 

4 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Gavin said that?

 

5 A. Yes, sir, he did.

 

6 Q. How would you contrast Gavin’s behavior at

 

7 that time as against his behavior prior to the Miami

 

8 trip?

 

9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Improper opinion;

 

10 vague.

 

11 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

12 You may answer.

 

13 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Go ahead.

 

14 A. Night and day. It appeared to me he’d been

 

15 brainwashed in some way.

 

16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection.

 

17 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Just tell us what his

 

18 behavior was.

 

19 A. He was vague, he was angry.

 

20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection.

 

21 THE COURT: Just a moment. Just a moment.

 

22 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

 

23 THE COURT: The last response is stricken.

 

24 The jury’s admonished to disregard it. Ask him

 

25 another question.

 

26 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Just tell us what his

 

27 behavior was like at this time.

 

28 A. Angry. 5836

1 Q. In what way?

 

2 A. He was just mean. He was yelling.

 

3 Are we talking about the night that he was

 

4 at —

 

5 Q. That night and even beyond.

 

6 A. Even beyond. He became mean. He was using

 

7 curse words.

 

8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague.

 

9 THE WITNESS: He had never done before.

 

10 THE COURT: Just a moment.

 

11 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

 

12 MR. MESEREAU: Vague and nonresponsive.

 

13 THE COURT: I’m going to strike the last

 

14 sentence again.

 

15 The problem here is that you’re required to

 

16 listen to the question and just answer it. And

 

17 every answer you give, you add something to it,

 

18 which causes counsel to object, and me to rule,

 

19 which is causing a great disturbance in your

 

20 testimony. If you want to keep doing it, you can.

 

21 But you can’t imagine how it sounds to everybody

 

22 else.

 

23 So I’m going to admonish you to pay

 

24 attention to what the question is, and then just

 

25 answer the question. Nothing further. All right?

 

26 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

 

27 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Was he saying things or using

 

28 speech different from the type of speech he used 5837

 

1 prior to the Miami trip?

 

2 A. Yes, sir.

 

3 Q. In what way?

 

4 A. He was using curse words.

 

5 Q. He had not used curse words before in the

 

6 house?

 

7 A. No, sir.

8 Q. Was this in the presence of his grandmother?

 

9 A. I don’t remember if it was that night. But

 

10 he did over the next few days period of time.

 

11 Q. Did his behavior in time return to what you

 

12 considered to be normal, what it was prior to the

 

13 Miami trip?

 

14 A. Over several months, yes, sir.

 

15 Q. Did you and Janet Arvizo put the boys into

 

16 some kind of tutoring?

 

17 A. Yes, sir, we did.

 

18 Q. What tutoring program was that?

 

19 A. It’s called JEI Learning Center. We

 

20 immediately put them in after they got back from

 

21 Neverland.

 

22 Q. Was that a private school?

 

23 A. No, it’s not a private school. It’s just to

 

24 assist children who — who need additional

 

25 assistance getting their level up in a certain area.

 

26 Q. What was the purpose for doing so, putting

 

27 them into JEI?

 

28 A. Because they had been out of school for 5838

 

1 almost two months and we wanted to bring their

 

2 skills back up to the level they should have been.

 

3 Q. And did they attend JEI tutoring?

 

4 A. Yes, sir.

 

5 Q. Did the boys resume their activities with

 

6 military scouting?

 

7 A. With the Sea Cadets, yes, sir.

 

8 Q. When did that resume?

 

9 A. Almost immediately.

 

10 Q. Are they still active in military scouting?

 

11 A. Yes, sir, they are.

 

12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; relevance.

 

13 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer was,

 

14 “Yes.”

 

15 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, they are.

 

16 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: And that involves attendance

 

17 at military camps how frequently?

 

18 A. They go every week, about every Sunday. And

 

19 then they have field exercises that they attend

 

20 probably every month or two months. They’re over

 

21 the weekends.

 

22 Q. Are all three children living with you

 

23 today?

 

24 A. Yes, sir, they are.

 

25 Q. Would you describe Gavin’s behavior today?

 

26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; relevance.

 

27 THE COURT: Asked and answered, I believe.

 

28 Sustained. 5839

 

1 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Is he still involved in

 

2 scouting today?

 

3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; relevance.

 

4 MR. ZONEN: Could we approach sidebar?

 

5 THE COURT: The —

 

6 MR. ZONEN: Is that a “Yes”?

 

7 THE COURT: No. I’m trying to — I’ll

 

8 overrule the objection. I think that was asked and

 

9 answered. But rather than waste time looking, go

 

10 ahead.

 

11 MR. ZONEN: All right.

 

12 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. They’re still

 

13 involved with it, with that.

 

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

 

15 questions.

 

16 THE COURT: All right. We’ll take our break

 

17 two minutes early. Give me time to recover.

 

18 (Laughter.)

 

19 (Recess taken.)

Once the court returned from recess, Mesereau began a withering cross examination by starting off with Gavin’s history of misbehavior at school, which Jay Jackson was completely unaware of:

4 CROSS-EXAMINATION

 

5 BY MR. MESEREAU:

 

6 Q. Good morning.

 

7 A. Good morning, Mr. Mesereau.

 

8 Q. You indicated that you saw behavioral

 

9 changes in Gavin from when you knew him initially to

 

10 when he left Neverland for the last time, correct?

 

11 A. Yes, sir.

 

12 Q. Did you know anything about his school

 

13 history?

 

14 A. I didn’t. I don’t think I knew a lot about

 

15 it, no, sir.

 

16 Q. Did you know anything about his disciplinary

 

17 record in various schools with various teachers?

 

18 A. I know that when he was with me that he had

 

19 some problems at John Burroughs.

 

20 Q. Did you know anything about his history

 

21 before?

 

22 A. Not that I’m aware of, no, sir.

Next, Jay Jackson tried to rationalize his request to Frank Tyson for financial compensation for the Arvizo family for their participation in the rebuttal video in lieu of a house and college tuition:

23 Q. All right. Now, you indicated in response

 

24 to the prosecutor’s questions that you knew about a

 

25 Miami trip that Janet and the children took,

 

26 correct?

 

27 A. That is correct.

 

28 Q. And that was approximately when, to your 5845

 

1 knowledge?

 

2 A. Early February.

 

3 Q. I believe you said that while Janet and the

 

4 children were on that trip to Miami you had these

 

5 discussions with some people who purported to be

 

6 representatives of a British tabloid, correct?

 

7 A. That would have been prior to her leaving.

 

8 Q. Okay.

 

9 A. Although, sir, they did call me back after

 

10 she left, but I was not talking to them.

 

11 Q. But they contacted you on a number of

 

12 occasions, you say, right?

 

13 A. That is correct.

 

14 Q. Okay. Now, at one point you indicated that

 

15 you spoke to Frank Tyson and wanted to know what the

 

16 family was going to get out of the rebuttal video,

 

17 right?

 

18 A. Yes, sir.

 

19 Q. And you actually mentioned at one point to

 

20 Tyson that, “You’re making millions out of this.

 

21 What is this family going to get?” Right?

 

22 A. In — in essence, I did say that.

 

23 Q. And I believe you said that Mr. Tyson

 

24 offered a house and a college education; is that

 

25 correct?

 

26 A. First he offered protection. Then he said

 

27 he was going to offer a tutor. Then he was going to

 

28 offer a house and a college education. 5846

 

1 Q. And you, in effect, said to Mr. Tyson,

 

2 “That’s not enough,” right?

 

3 A. That would be incorrect.

 

4 Q. First you said, “You guys are making

 

5 millions and this family’s not getting anything,”

 

6 right? Right?

 

7 A. Are you asking me the question now to

 

8 answer?

 

9 Q. Yes.

 

10 A. Okay. I said basically that, “I understand

 

11 that they’re making four to five million dollars on

 

12 this documentary. In my perception, that you should

 

13 compensate this family for helping out in this

 

14 video.”

15 Q. And at the end of that conversation, you in

 

16 effect communicated to Frank a house is not enough,

 

17 right?

 

18 A. That was not the way it came across, no,

 

19 sir.

 

20 Q. Okay. Did you accept the house?

 

21 A. I still don’t have it, no. I don’t see the

 

22 house yet.

 

23 Q. Are you still looking for it?

 

24 A. I’m not even looking for it.

 

25 Q. Okay. And are you telling the jury that

 

26 there was no response to your comment that, in

 

27 effect, somebody’s making four to five million

 

28 dollars and the family’s not getting any money? 5847

 

1 A. His response was, “Well, how about” — “I’m

 

2 going to protect the family. We’re going to protect

 

3 the family.”

 

4 Q. Right.

 

5 A. “We’re going to give them a house. We’re

 

6 going to give them a college education.”

 

7 And I said, “Frank, but what are you going

 

8 to do financially or monetarily for this family?”

 

9 Q. Right.

 

10 A. They had already been taken advantage of in

 

11 the first documentary and received nothing.

 

12 Q. Okay. And you never really got a response

 

13 to that question except discussion about a house,

 

14 correct?

 

15 A. Again, sir, what I’ve said, yes.

Next, Mesereau questioned Jay Jackson about the exculpatory statements that Janet Arvizo said about Jackson before going to Miami; she said that she thought that Michael Jackson was innocent (obviously a reference to the 1993 case), and about his statement that he was upset that Bashir was slandering Michael Jackson with that documentary (those statements can be read in more detail in this post). Pay attention to Mesereau’s sarcastic question to Jay Jackson about his desire to still get a house after realizing that the rebuttal video wasn’t included in the Take Two documentary!

16 Q. Okay. You told the jury that it was your

 

17 understanding that Janet and the family went to

 

18 Miami to do a press conference, right?

 

19 A. That is correct.

 

20 Q. Do you remember your first interview with

 

21 any sheriff’s department representative in this

 

22 case?

 

23 A. Yes, sir, I do.

 

24 Q. Do you remember it was approximately on

 

25 November 25th, 2003?

 

26 A. Yes, sir.

 

27 Q. It was with a sheriff named Zelis, correct?

 

28 A. Paul Zelis. 5848

 

1 Q. Do you remember you told him that it was

 

2 your understanding that the purpose of the Miami

 

3 trip was to do a rebuttal video?

 

4 A. I did write that, yes. I mean, I did see

 

5 that, yes.

 

6 Q. When did you last read that transcript?

 

7 A. I’ve read the transcripts over the last

 

8 several days.

 

9 Q. You told Mr. Zelis they were going to film

 

10 some kind of rebuttal for Michael, and when she

 

11 returned she said no rebuttal had ever been done,

 

12 right?

 

13 A. That is correct.

 

14 Q. And you said that Janet believed Michael

 

15 Jackson is innocent, right?

 

16 A. At what point, sir?

 

17 Q. At that point.

 

18 MR. ZONEN: I’m not sure what point that is.

 

19 I’ll object as vague.

 

20 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When — excuse me. You

 

22 told Sheriff Zelis —

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. — that when Janet and the children went to

 

25 Miami – okay? —

 

26 A. Yes, sir.

 

27 Q. — your understanding was they were going to

 

28 film some kind of rebuttal for Michael Jackson – 5849

 

1 A. Or press conference, right.

 

2 Q. — Right? No, you said rebuttal.

 

3 A. I said rebuttal, but it’s the same thing.

 

4 It was going to be a press conference that they were

 

5 going to do to rebut what was being done — what had

 

6 been — what was going to be said in the “Living

 

7 with Michael Jackson.”

 

8 Q. You said they were going to film a rebuttal,

 

9 right?

 

10 A. Yes, sir.

 

11 Q. And you said at that time Janet believed

 

12 Michael Jackson was innocent, correct?

 

13 A. That is correct, sir.

 

14 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as to vague. What

 

15 time?

 

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: The time of the Miami

 

17 trip, right?

 

18 A. Before they left for Miami, yes, sir, they

 

19 did.

 

20 Q. Okay. Okay. And you told Mr. Zelis that

 

21 the family was upset that they never did a rebuttal

 

22 in Miami, right?

 

23 A. I don’t recall that. You would have to show

 

24 it to me.

 

25 Q. Okay. Did you ever say anything to that

 

26 effect?

 

27 A. I don’t remember that, sir. You could show

 

28 it to me and refresh my memory. 5850

 

1 Q. Do you recall the attitude of the family

 

2 when they returned from Miami?

 

3 A. I didn’t see the family when they

 

4 immediately returned from Miami.

 

5 Q. When did you next see them?

 

6 A. I saw them when the family came home about a

 

7 week later from Neverland.

 

8 Q. Was it your understanding that any rebuttal

 

9 was done in Florida?

 

10 A. It was my understanding nothing was done in

 

11 Florida.

 

12 Q. They just sort of flew there for a day and

 

13 flew back?

 

14 A. They flew there, were there several days, I

 

15 guess, and then came back, yes.

 

16 Q. And you indicated to Mr. Zelis that you had

 

17 seen both television documentaries, the Bashir

 

18 documentary and a rebuttal documentary, correct?

 

19 A. No, I don’t believe I said that. I told him

 

20 that I had seen the “Living with Michael Jackson.”

 

21 Q. Do you remember telling Mr. Zelis you saw

 

22 both of them?

 

23 A. I don’t.

 

24 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just

 

25 show you the transcript?

 

26 A. Sure. Yes.

 

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

 

28 THE COURT: Yes. 5851

 

1 MR. ZONEN: What page, Counsel?

 

2 MR. MESEREAU: 9 of 37.

 

3 MR. ZONEN: Thank you.

 

4 THE WITNESS: Okay. Where are we at?

 

5 Okay. Yes, sir.

 

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

 

7 look at the transcript?

 

8 A. I saw that one sentence, yes.

 

9 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what

10 you told Mr. Zelis?

 

11 A. Not overly, no. No, sir, it doesn’t. I saw

 

12 the sentence that said I said I saw both. That’s

 

13 all I saw.

 

14 Q. Do you recall that that’s what you told

 

15 them?

 

16 A. I’m really — really unsure.

 

17 Q. Did you see both of them?

 

18 A. Yes, sir, I did.

 

19 Q. Now, you told Mr. Zelis that because Janet

 

20 and the children were taped in the middle of the

 

21 night, that they couldn’t get it in time to put it

 

22 on the show, correct?

 

23 A. That is correct. And I may have heard that

 

24 from T.V. I’m not sure where I heard that because

 

25 they were supposed to be on that show according to

 

26 the previous advertisements for the Take 2 video.

 

27 Q. And they never were on it?

 

28 A. And they were not on it. 5852

 

1 Q. But you’re still waiting for a house?

 

2 MR. ZONEN: Objection; argumentative.

 

3 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You said you thought

 

5 Bashir was slandering Michael Jackson, correct?

 

6 A. At that time, I think so, yes, sir.

 

7 Q. Okay. You’ve said you were really upset

 

8 about that, right?

 

9 A. Yes, sir.

 

10 Q. You had not met Michael Jackson then?

 

11 A. No, sir, I had not.

 

12 Q. And as you said, you’ve never met him?

 

13 A. Never met him.

 

14 Q. Until you see him today, correct?

 

15 A. Correct.

 

16 Q. Did you meet Chris Tucker?

 

17 A. I did.

 

18 Q. And when did you meet him?

 

19 A. When we went to Neverland.

 

20 Q. Did he ever contact you?

 

21 A. No, sir, he contacted Janet.

 

22 Q. Did you meet him the first time on the

 

23 Neverland property?

 

24 A. The first time I saw him was on the bus

 

25 prior to arriving — leaving for Neverland.

 

26 Q. And was it your understanding that Janet and

 

27 the family went to Miami on his plane?

 

28 A. That was my understanding. 5853

 

1 Q. Okay. To your knowledge, were Janet and the

 

2 children in contact with Chris Tucker on a regular

 

3 basis during this time period?

 

4 A. While they were in Miami, I have no idea.

 

5 Q. How about before Miami?

 

6 A. Prior to Miami, yes, they had a very good

 

7 friendship.

 

8 Q. Do you know when Janet last talked with

 

9 Chris Tucker?

 

10 A. I do not specifically.

Next, Jay Jackson was asked about the multiple discussions that he had over the course of several months with David Gardner, a “journalist” for the British tabloid The Daily Mail who he could never reach an agreement with when it came to how much he would be compensated for selling an interview to the tabloid.

When Jay Jackson refused to let the family be interviewed after the Neverland raid, Gardner insinuated that he would give Jay Jackson’s phone number to other tabloids, which angered Jay Jackson and prompted him to tell Gardner not to call him again:

11 Q. Okay. Now, I believe you said the British

 

12 reporters talked to you before the Bashir

 

13 documentary aired in the United States?

 

14 A. That is correct.

 

15 Q. To your knowledge, was that after the Bashir

 

16 documentary aired in England?

 

17 A. I think so.

 

18 Q. Okay. And how many discussions do you think

 

19 you had with them?

 

20 A. I cannot tell you that for sure. Depends on

 

21 if you’re taking it from the beginning all the way

 

22 through the raid of Neverland. Three or four.

 

23 Q. Three or four discussions with these same

 

24 British reporters?

 

25 A. And then that’s speculation. It may have

 

26 been five or six.

 

27 Q. Okay. Five or six discussions with the same

 

28 British reporter, right? 5854

 

1 A. One gentleman. David Gardner.

 

2 Q. Okay. And who does David Gardner work for,

 

3 if you know?

 

4 A. I think it’s The Daily Mail or something. I

 

5 believe that’s correct.

 

6 Q. Now, in these five or so discussions, have

 

7 you ever discussed Mr. Jackson?

 

8 A. I’m sure his name was brought up.

 

9 Q. Have you ever given them information about

 

10 Mr. Jackson?

 

11 A. No, I wouldn’t have known information about

 

12 Mr. Jackson.

 

13 Q. Well, you could have gotten something from

 

14 Janet, couldn’t you?

 

15 A. Other than that he was a nice guy.

 

16 Q. Well, are you saying you’ve had five

 

17 conversations with this fellow, but never gave them

 

18 any information and never talked about getting

 

19 money?

 

20 A. There was conversation about money.

 

21 Q. You went back and forth with him a little

 

22 bit on money, did you not?

 

23 A. That would be true.

 

24 Q. And never could reach an agreement, correct?

 

25 A. That is correct.

 

26 Q. When was the last time you talked to

 

27 Gardner?

 

28 A. Gardner called me right after the Neverland 5855

 

1 raid, and wanted to see if he could get an interview

 

2 with the family again. And I just said no. He

 

3 said, “Well, I have it” — he said, you know, “I

 

4 haven’t given your phone number to any other

 

5 organizations yet,” as if he was implying that he

 

6 would if I didn’t work with him.

 

7 Q. Who else have you been contacted — excuse

 

8 me. What other media representative or alleged

 

9 media representative has contacted you about this

 

10 case?

 

11 A. Roger Friedman has called my office. People

 

12 Magazine has called my office. People Magazine

 

13 showed up at the gates of my job. There’s been a

 

14 number of them.

 

15 Q. Have you talked to any representative of the

 

16 media besides Mr. Gardner?

 

17 A. No, sir.

Jay Jackson was never shown any contract by Frank Cascio, and to his knowledge Janet Arvizo didn’t sign a contract to film the rebuttal video (although eventually she did sign one):

18 Q. Now, you mentioned that Frank talked about a

 

19 contract, right?

 

20 A. That is correct.

 

21 Q. And you wanted to see the contract, correct?

 

22 A. Absolutely.

 

23 Q. To your knowledge, did Janet ever sign a

 

24 contract?

 

25 A. I have no idea.

 

26 Q. Did you ever talk to her about it?

 

27 A. I did not.

 

28 Q. To this day you’ve never asked Janet – 5856

 

1 A. I did not, sir.

 

2 Q. Did you sign any agreement?

 

3 A. No, sir.

4 Q. You learned at some point she and the

 

5 children had filmed a rebuttal video, true?

 

6 A. That is correct.

 

7 Q. And when did you learn that?

 

8 A. I’m not sure.

 

9 Q. Do you have any idea at all?

 

10 A. I really don’t. I’m unsure when I learned

 

11 that.

 

12 Q. You indicated in response to the

 

13 prosecutor’s questions that the CPS interview —

 

14 A. Correct.

 

15 Q. — the Child Protective Services interview

 

16 was the morning after Janet and the children filmed

 

17 footage for a rebuttal video, right?

 

18 A. That is correct.

 

19 Q. And you saw Janet that morning, correct?

 

20 A. I did.

 

21 Q. Would it be reasonable to say that when you

 

22 saw her that morning, you learned she and the kids

 

23 had filmed a rebuttal video?

 

24 A. I don’t know that we — I don’t think we

 

25 talked about it. In fact, I’m pretty sure we did

 

26 not.

 

27 Q. Well, you told the prosecutor you knew what

 

28 time approximately they left the night before, 5857

 

1 right?

 

2 A. I knew what time Janet left, which was late

 

3 at night, yes, sir, I did.

 

4 Q. And you were with her when she left, true?

 

5 A. And you know what? Maybe I did know that

 

6 she was heading to do that, but I’m not really clear

 

7 right now.

 

8 Q. Okay.

 

9 A. I’m not trying to be evasive. I just — I’m

 

10 not clear.

 

11 Q. Yet, when you think back to Janet leaving

 

12 that evening —

 

13 A. Right.

 

14 Q. — you don’t remember if she told you why

 

15 she was leaving at that time?

 

16 A. She may have. Like I say, I’m really

 

17 unclear.

 

18 Q. Okay. And then you saw her come back the

 

19 next morning?

 

20 A. That is correct.

 

21 Q. You must have asked her where she’d been,

 

22 true?

 

23 A. I don’t think so.

 

24 Q. Did she spend the next evening at your home,

 

25 to your knowledge?

 

26 A. She did.

 

27 Q. Do you remember seeing her that evening?

 

28 A. I — this is — I worked very late that 5858

 

1 night. I was in Command and General Staff College

 

2 and I had a paper or something I had to do. I

 

3 stayed late at night. I got home fairly much — I

 

4 believe I went to bed. The next morning I got up,

 

5 and I guess she left.

 

6 Q. Okay. But to this day you’ve never asked

 

7 her, “Did they have you sign a document before you

 

8 and the kids filmed the rebuttal video?”

 

9 A. No, sir.

Next, Jay Jackson was questioned about the interview that he and his family gave to Brad Miller, and portions of it the tape were played, and Jay Jackson was asked to comment on what was said (similar to how Gavin, Star, and Davellin were forced to answer questions about the rebuttal video earlier in the trial).

10 Q. Now, you’ve had a number of discussions with

 

11 representatives of the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s

 

12 Department, right?

 

13 A. Correct.

 

14 Q. And you’ve had a number of discussions with

 

15 representatives of the District Attorney’s Office,

 

16 right?

 

17 A. Yes, sir.

 

18 Q. And you’ve met with Mr. Zonen, the

 

19 government prosecutor, on a number of occasions,

 

20 right?

 

21 A. That would be correct.

 

22 Q. And in those discussions, you have spoken

 

23 about your desire to see any contract before Janet

 

24 or the kids signed anything, right?

 

25 A. That is correct.

 

26 Q. Have you ever discussed your interviews with

 

27 any sheriff, representative of the sheriff’s

 

28 department, any prosecutor or representative of the 5859

 

1 prosecutor’s agency with Janet?

 

2 A. No, sir.

 

3 Q. You indicated that at some point, you were

 

4 present for an interview conducted by Brad Miller;

 

5 is that correct?

 

6 A. That is correct.

 

7 Q. And you indicated that — actually, you

 

8 indicated a couple of times to the jury that it was

 

9 your understanding that Brad Miller worked for Mr.

 

10 Jackson —

 

11 A. That is correct.

 

12 Q. — correct?

 

13 Did you ever learn in that interview that

 

14 Brad Miller worked for an attorney named Mark

 

15 Geragos?

 

16 A. No, sir.

After a brief tit-for-tat with Mesereau, Jay Jackson admitted that he unintentionally gave the Grand Jury an incorrect statement under oath in regards to his whereabouts during the taping of the interview; he told them he watched it from his couch through its entirety, but in reality he got up and walked around throughout the interview.

5 (Whereupon, a portion of an audio CD,

 

6 Defendant’s Exhibit No. 5000, was played to its

 

7 conclusion for the Court and jury.)

 

8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Major Jackson, you heard

 

9 the date that Mr. Miller articulated as February

 

10 16th, 2003, correct?

 

11 A. That is correct.

 

12 Q. And do you note that at the beginning of the

 

13 interview and at the end of the interview, Mr.

 

14 Miller said he was a private investigator working

 

15 for Attorney Mark Geragos, correct?

 

16 A. I did.

 

17 Q. And you said Attorney Mark Geragos was an

 

18 attorney for Mr. Jackson, correct?

 

19 A. You’re right.

 

20 Q. Does that refresh your recollection that Mr.

 

21 Miller told you he worked for Mr. Geragos at that

 

22 interview?

 

23 A. No, sir, it doesn’t.

 

24 Q. You don’t recall hearing that at all?

 

25 A. I don’t. And it wouldn’t have mattered to

 

26 me or meant anything to me if I had heard.

 

27 Q. I’m not asking you what it meant to you.

 

28 I’m just asking you – 5863

 

1 MR. ZONEN: That is argumentative, and I’ll

 

2 object.

 

3 THE COURT: Overruled. Next question.

 

4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You sat there for the

 

5 entirety of that interview, did you not?

 

6 A. I was in the apartment, yes, I was.

 

7 Q. You sat there for the entirety of the

 

8 interview, right?

 

9 A. Incorrect.

 

10 Q. Do you remember testifying to a grand jury

 

11 in Santa Barbara County in this case?

 

12 A. I do.

 

13 Q. Do you remember being asked, “The interview

 

14 that Brad Miller did, was that an interview that you

15 were able to watch in its entirety? Were you

 

16 there?”

 

17 “A. Yes, sir, I was. I sat on the couch,

 

18 yes, sir.”

 

19 Do you remember answering?

 

20 A. Yes, sir, I do.

 

21 Q. Are you now changing that?

 

22 A. It’s not an issue of changing. I mean, I

 

23 was in the apartment, sir.

 

24 Q. Did you tell the Santa Barbara jury that you

 

25 listened to that interview in its entirety?

 

26 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Misstatement of

 

27 evidence. The statement was “watch.”

 

28 THE COURT: Overruled. 5864

 

1 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you recall telling that

 

2 to the Santa Barbara Grand Jury?

 

3 MR. ZONEN: Which page, please?

 

4 MR. MESEREAU: 889.

 

5 THE WITNESS: Sir, you’d have to show me.

 

6 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach the witness,

 

7 Your Honor?

 

8 THE COURT: Yes.

 

9 THE WITNESS: Okay.

 

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

 

11 look at that page of transcript?

 

12 A. I have.

 

13 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what

 

14 you told the Santa Barbara Grand Jury under oath on

 

15 that issue?

 

16 A. Correct. Sure.

 

17 Q. Did you tell them that you watched it in its

 

18 entirety?

 

19 A. I didn’t see that. You have to show me

 

20 again.

 

21 Q. Pardon me? Oh. May I?

 

22 A. Yes, sir. I see where I said I sat on the

 

23 couch, yes, sir.

 

24 Q. Okay. Let me just go through this again.

 

25 Have you had a chance to read that question?

 

26 A. I have.

 

27 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what

 

28 you told the Santa Barbara Grand Jury? 5865

 

1 A. Yes, sir.

 

2 Q. Did you tell the Santa Barbara Grand Jury in

 

3 response to the question, “The interview that Brad

 

4 Miller did, was that an interview that you were able

 

5 to watch in its entirety? Were you there?

 

6 “A. Yes, sir, I was. I sat on the couch,

 

7 yes, sir.”

 

8 A. Yes, sir, but I was not sitting on the couch

 

9 the entire time. It was a play on words. I said

 

10 it, but you know what? I wasn’t sitting there the

 

11 entire time. I was throughout the apartment. I sat

 

12 at my desk in the bedroom on many occasions.

 

13 Q. So what you told the grand jury is

 

14 incorrect?

 

15 A. It was not that I was trying to lie.

 

16 Q. I didn’t ask you that. Is what you told the

 

17 Santa Barbara Grand Jury under oath incorrect?

 

18 A. It would be incorrect.

 

19 Q. Okay. Now, you were also asked by the

 

20 prosecutor if you saw any prompting by Mr. Miller

 

21 regarding what to say or what answers to give. Do

 

22 you remember that?

 

23 A. Yes, sir.

 

24 Q. You said you didn’t know of any prompting.

 

25 You didn’t know of any effort to tell Janet or the

 

26 kids what answers to give, correct?

 

27 A. I agree, yes.

 

28 Q. Now, you’re aware that the rebuttal video 5866

 

1 was filmed February 20th?

 

2 A. I don’t remember the specific date.

 

3 Q. Okay. But you do remember the Miller

 

4 interview being on the 16th, correct?

 

5 A. Because you told me, yes, sir.

 

6 Q. And I believe you said that Janet — well,

 

7 actually, let me rephrase that.

 

8 Obviously, Janet and the children are at

 

9 your apartment for that interview, right?

 

10 A. That is correct.

 

11 Q. Were they there the night before?

 

12 A. Yes, sir, they were. I believe they were.

 

13 Q. Were they there on the evening of the 16th,

 

14 to your knowledge?

 

15 A. The night that they did the interview?

 

16 Q. Yes.

 

17 A. Yes, sir, they were.

 

18 Q. Do you know if they were there at your place

 

19 the next day?

 

20 A. Seems to me they left the next day.

 

21 Q. And do you know where they went?

 

22 A. I believe they went back to Neverland.

 

23 Q. Okay. Now, did you know on the 20th that

 

24 there was going to be an interview with Child

 

25 Protective Services at your apartment?

 

26 A. I believe I did.

 

27 Q. And how did you learn that?

 

28 A. I’m not sure how I figured that out, other 5867

 

1 than maybe hearing Janet saying it on the telephone

 

2 to Frank.

 

3 Q. Well, Janet returns home that morning and

 

4 sees you, correct?

 

5 A. That’s correct.

 

6 Q. You’re on the way out to work, right?

 

7 A. Right.

 

8 Q. Do you recall her telling you, “We’re going

 

9 to be interviewed by Child Protective Services”?

 

10 A. No, I don’t.

 

11 Q. Do you know why the interview with Child

 

12 Protective Services was at your apartment?

 

13 A. No, I don’t.

 

14 Q. At the time of the interview with Child

 

15 Protective Services, were Janet and the children

 

16 living with you?

 

17 A. They were living with me, between there and

 

18 Soto.

 

19 Q. Okay. And approximately how much of the

 

20 time were they living with you?

 

21 A. Three, four days. It could have been as

 

22 many as five days.

 

23 Q. Okay. And the rest of the days would be

 

24 either at Soto or —

 

25 A. Or their grandmother’s house.

 

26 Q. Okay. Or they could be at Neverland,

 

27 correct?

 

28 A. Well, no, they actually didn’t go to 5868

 

1 Neverland, other than during this period right here,

 

2 that I’m aware of.

Jay’s testimony will be continued in the next post, but I’d like to call your attention to some recent photos that Star Arvizo posted on his PUBLIC facebook profile:

Here’s a photo of Star and Gavin standing together:

Recent Photo of Star and Gavin Arvizo from December 2012

Here’s a photo of Gavin and what appears to be Davellin at one of Star’s rugby games (he plays for the Georgia State University rugby team):

Gavin cheering for Star at his rugby game in Oct. 2012

And here’s a photo of Jay Jackson, Star, Gavin, and what appears to be Davellin. Although the photo is very blurry, I know that it’s Jay Jackson because the jacket he is wearing is official workout gear from the U.S. Army:

Jay Jackson with Gavin and Star

 

The jacket that Jay is wearing is the official U.S. Army training gear:

US Army PT gear

To be continued…

Advertisements
4 Comments leave one →
  1. nannorris permalink
    January 27, 2013 12:49 am

    Did you notice in the picture of Gavin and Star .Louise Palanker commented “MY GUYS” ugh
    Thanks David , great job

  2. stacy2 permalink
    January 26, 2013 8:51 pm

    SMDH..It really makes me cringe whenever I see a photo of these people..They’re all alive and living their lives to the fullest while MJ is lying cold in some crypt at Forest Lawn. They are the ones that put him there with their horrible lies. If it wasn’t for that trial, he would still be alive today living at Neverland with his children..I hate to say this, but i wish he never helped that kid. He should have just let him succumb to his cancer.

    • nannorris permalink
      January 27, 2013 1:00 am

      Stacy2,,that kid wasnt going to succumb to cancer because it was a treatable cancer..He needed surgery and several rounds of chemo , but it was never some mystery cancer that they didnt know what to do with .
      They even exaggerated this kids diagnosis to get closer to celebrities.
      It makes me sick.
      ‘Even calling Jay Leno to say he was his idol, of course Jay Leno has been around the block and knew something was up.
      MJ unfortunately just saw an ill child that needed his help.He didnt even notice when this kid said MJ was his idol, but yet he had never heard of Neverland, said he thought it was some dude ranch.
      scum
      They arent the only ones living their lives as if this was just a bump in the road..
      Jason enters his cycling competitions and pretends he made his money in stock investments as well.
      JC is just living in the lap of luxury , in one of his several condos , I believe June has latched onto him , now that Evan is dead , and is also living in the manner she felt she always deserved as well
      I have seen where he lives.He will never willingly give that lifestyle up to clear MJ name..He is just living way too rich.And he is only in his 30s , so he isnt thinking about mortality or the possibility of a judgement day.
      He is just living like a king…

      I wonder if Mesereau was driving him the point of Miller working for Geragos , so that it would be obvious that Sneddon knew it as well, …

Trackbacks

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