Skip to content

April 13th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Jay Jackson (Cross Examination) and Janet Arvizo (Direct Examination), Part 1 of 5

February 2, 2013

Mesereau’s cross examination continued today on the subject of Jay Jackson’s meeting with Janet and Gavin Arvizo at  a beauty salon a few blocks from where he worked, as well as the time period when Janet started living with him in November 2002 (and STILL kept her Soto St. studio apartment!), and the financial assistance that he provided her:

16 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued)

 

17 BY MR. MESEREAU:

 

18 Q. Major Jackson, you testified that at one

 

19 point you met Janet at a salon in Brentwood,

 

20 correct?

 

21 A. Yes, sir.

 

22 Q. Were you in uniform?

 

23 A. Yes, sir, I was.

 

24 Q. Were you on active duty at that point?

 

25 A. Yes, sir.

 

26 Q. And were you working during the time period

 

27 that you visited Janet at the salon in uniform?

 

28 A. I had just left my job for the day. 5894

 

1 Q. Okay. Now, Janet began to live with you on

 

2 a regular basis during what month and year?

 

3 A. Regular basis would have been sometime after

 

4 November of ‘0 — let’s see here. ‘02, I believe.

 

5 Q. And she certainly was living with you from

 

6 January through June of 2003, correct?

 

7 A. That is correct, less the period of time

 

8 between February and March where she was gone to

 

9 Neverland.

 

10 Q. Okay. But when she wasn’t visiting

 

11 Neverland, it was your belief that Janet and the

 

12 children were living with you, correct?

 

13 A. They were living between my house — my

 

14 apartment and the Soto Street apartment.

 

15 Q. And most of the week, I believe you said

 

16 approximately five days, they would live with you,

 

17 correct?

 

18 A. Three to five days. It depended.

 

19 Q. Okay. And did you ever tell any

 

20 interviewing sheriff in this case that you were

 

21 supporting Janet and the children during that period

 

22 of time?

 

23 A. I don’t recollect that. You’d have to —

 

24 Q. Were you doing that?

 

25 A. There was probably in some ways I was.

 

26 Q. In what way were you supporting Janet and

 

27 the children during the period from January through

 

28 June of 2003? 5895

 

1 A. Well, of course they were sometimes staying

 

2 in my house, my apartment. There was food. And she

 

3 used my car sometimes. That’s — you know, that’s

 

4 the best I can think.

 

5 Q. Did you ever pay her rent?

 

6 A. I did pay her rent for her based on the

 

7 money that she received.

 

8 Q. And the money that she received was through

 

9 welfare, correct?

 

10 A. I believe — assistance of some form.

Jay Jackson allowed Janet to become a signatory on his bank account, he endorsed and deposited her welfare checks into his bank account, despite the fact that he was giving her substantial financial assistance from his $8 thousand dollar a month salary! He tried to play a game in semantics by asserting the fact that one of the checks Janet received wasn’t a welfare check, but rather a disability check, as if there’s a material difference between the two! And then he tried to say that it was child support!

11 Q. And you were allowing her to deposit her

 

12 public assistance checks into your bank account at

 

13 Bank of America, correct?

 

14 A. Two times that occurred, I believe.

 

15 Q. It actually occurred more than two, did it

 

16 not?

 

17 A. Two is what I remember. But if you say it

 

18 was three, okay, fine, I’m not — you know, I’m not

 

19 going to argue with that.

 

20 Q. Now, she received a welfare check from the

 

21 County of Los Angeles in the amount of $769 on

 

22 January 2nd, 2003. Do you remember that?

 

23 A. I remember a couple of welfare checks. I

 

24 don’t remember the dates, sir.

 

25 Q. Would it refresh your recollection to just

 

26 see that check?

 

27 A. Sure.

 

28 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor? 5896

 

1 THE COURT: Yes.

 

2 THE WITNESS: And that was the deposit.

 

3 It shows it being a deposit, correct? Not just

 

4 cashing?

 

5 MR. MESEREAU: I’m not allowed to talk.

 

6 THE WITNESS: Okay. I see it went into the

 

7 Bank of America.

 

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

 

9 look at the documents I just showed you?

 

10 A. Yes, sir.

 

11 Q. And did you see a check from the County of

 

12 Los Angeles addressed to Janet Arvizo dated January

 

13 2nd, 2003, in the amount of $769?

 

14 A. Yes, sir.

 

15 Q. And isn’t it true that you took that check,

 

16 endorsed it, and deposited it into your Bank of

 

17 America account? Right?

 

18 A. Yes, sir.

 

19 Q. Now, your Bank of America account lists your

 

20 home address at 450 South St. Andrews Place, No.

 

21 307, in Los Angeles, correct?

 

22 A. That would be correct.

 

23 Q. And that was the address that you described

 

24 as being in Korea Town area of Los Angeles, true?

 

25 A. That is correct.

 

26 Q. The welfare checks going to Janet Arvizo

 

27 were addressed to her address at 802 North Soto

 

28 Street, correct? 5897

 

1 A. Correct.

 

2 Q. Okay. So you did that in January. You also

 

3 did that — excuse me. Let me rephrase.

 

4 She received a welfare check in — on

 

5 February 15th, 2003, that you also endorsed and

 

6 deposited into your Bank of America account,

 

7 correct?

 

8 A. Yes, sir.

 

9 Q. And that check was in the amount of $769,

 

10 true?

 

11 A. Excuse me, yes, sir.

 

12 Q. That check also was addressed to Janet

 

13 Arvizo at 807 — excuse me, I said 802 before —

 

14 807 North Soto Street, Los Angeles, true?

 

15 A. Yes, sir.

 

16 Q. Now, at some point, Janet became a signatory

 

17 to your bank account, correct?

 

18 A. Yes, sir.

 

19 Q. She wasn’t a signatory to your bank account

 

20 in January and February of 2003, right?

 

21 A. I don’t believe she was. I’m really not

 

22 sure when she actually did become a signatory. I

 

23 know she did.

 

24 Q. Now, in January and February the account was

 

25 strictly in your name, true?

 

26 A. That would — I believe that would be

 

27 correct, yes, sir.

 

28 Q. Okay. Now, on May 19th of 2003, Janet 5898

 

1 received a welfare check in the amount of $528.61

 

2 that you also appear to have deposited into your

 

3 account. Do you remember that?

 

4 A. I don’t.

 

5 Q. Okay. Would it refresh your recollection

 

6 just to see that check?

 

7 A. Sure.

 

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

 

9 THE COURT: Yes.

 

10 MR. ZONEN: May I see that, please?

 

11 THE WITNESS: Okay.

 

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

 

13 look at that document?

 

14 A. Yes, I have.

 

15 Q. And that is a check addressed to Janet

 

16 Arvizo by the County of Los Angeles dated May 19th,

 

17 2003, correct?

 

18 A. That is correct.

 

19 Q. And you appear to have endorsed that check,

 

20 correct?

 

21 A. Yes, sir.

 

22 Q. And on that check, Janet Arvizo’s address is

 

23 12643 Raymer Street, El Monte, California 91723. Do

 

24 you see that?

 

25 A. Yes, sir. I would believe that that’s not a

 

26 welfare check. I believe it’s maybe some type of

 

27 public assistance. But I don’t believe it’s

 

28 welfare. 5899

 

1 Q. Was it a disability check?

 

2 A. I don’t know. But I don’t believe that was

 

3 welfare. I believe she cut that off after the

 

4 Jackson people closed her apartment.

 

5 Q. Okay. Now, approximately — let’s see.

 

6 Well, on May 5th, 2003, she also got a check from

 

7 the County of Los Angeles for $203.54. Do you

 

8 remember that?

 

9 A. No, I don’t. It may be — it may be child

 

10 support. I’m not sure.

 

11 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show

 

12 it to you?

 

13 A. Sure.

 

14 Yes, sir. I believe that’s child support.

 

15 Q. You’ve had a chance to look at that

 

16 document, correct?

 

17 A. Yes, sir.

 

18 Q. The document is — it’s a check from the

 

19 County of Los Angeles in the amount of $203.54,

 

20 right?

 

21 A. That’s correct.

 

22 Q. It’s addressed to Janet Arvizo at 12643

 

23 Raymer Street in El Monte, correct?

 

24 A. That would be correct.

 

25 Q. And you did endorse that check as well?

 

26 A. Yes, sir.

 

27 Q. Okay. On May 5th, 2003, Janet Arvizo

 

28 received a check in the amount of $268.48. Are you 5900

 

1 aware of that?

 

2 A. I’m sure it is, if you’ve got it there. I’m

 

3 sure it’s child support.

 

4 Q. And you endorsed that check as well —

 

5 A. Okay, sir.

 

6 Q. — true?

Here is some very interesting testimony that reveals a lot about how clueless Jay Jackson was about Janet’s finances: he claimed that he didn’t know if Janet had her own bank account, and he suggested that she deposit her checks in his account so that she wouldn’t have to use the local check cashing businesses, which typically charge a fee of 10% to cash checks. His lack of knowledge of any of Janet’s bank accounts is indicative of the fact that he also did not have any knowledge of the JC Penney settlement either! He didn’t hear about it until he saw the media coverage of Janet after Michael Jackson’s arrest!

7 Okay. Now, at some point did you learn that

 

8 Janet Arvizo wrote to the Los Angeles County welfare

 

9 authorities and said, “Stop sending me welfare”?

 

10 A. I believe she did, yes.

 

11 Q. Did you actually see the note she wrote?

 

12 A. No, I don’t think I did. But I believe that

 

13 she did. I think she told me she did.

 

14 Q. Now, you would agree that you were providing

 

15 some financial support during January and February

 

16 of 2003 to Janet and the family, correct?

 

17 A. You know what? She was depositing those

 

18 checks into my account and that was probably what

 

19 she was using for support.

 

20 Q. Okay. You were paying utility bills also

 

21 for Janet, were you not?

 

22 A. Was I paying utility bills?

 

23 Q. Yes.

 

24 A. I may have paid a utility bill.

 

25 Q. Did you help the family out financially

 

26 during — excuse me, let me rephrase. During

 

27 January and February of 2003, were you providing any

 

28 financial assistance to Janet Arvizo and her 5901

 

1 children?

 

2 A. If I provided support to them during that

 

3 period, it would have been from that welfare check.

 

4 Q. So let me get this straight. You know Janet

 

5 had a bank account at that point, didn’t she?

 

6 A. No, sir, I did not.

 

7 Q. Did she have an account anywhere, to your

 

8 knowledge?

 

9 A. Not that I’m aware of. In fact, she was

 

10 cashing her checks that she was receiving at one of

 

11 these check cashing — and that’s the reason it

 

12 costs 6 or 8 or 10 percent to cash it.

 

13 So I asked her, I said, “Let’s cash it

 

14 through my account and that way you don’t lose that

 

15 money.”

 

16 Q. Okay. Okay. Do you recall writing any

 

17 checks on your own to Janet during those first two

 

18 months?

 

19 A. I don’t, sir.

 

20 Q. Do you know — do you recall writing checks

 

21 to Janet at all during the early part of 2003?

 

22 A. I don’t.

 

23 Q. Okay. Did you ever provide any financial

 

24 assistance to the children during January, February

 

25 or March of 2003?

 

26 A. I don’t recall. If I did, I would have

 

27 thought it was from the welfare money.

 

28 Q. So your position is that the only money you 5902

 

1 gave Janet during January and February of 2003 was

 

2 welfare money she had given you?

 

3 A. That would be my impression. I was not — I

 

4 don’t know any rules with regards to welfare. I

 

5 wasn’t concerned about that. She was my girlfriend,

 

6 they were her children. If I gave them any money it

 

7 was because it was out of the goodness of my heart.

 

8 Q. I understand that. My question to you is,

 

9 Janet deposited welfare checks and then child

 

10 support checks into your bank account at Bank of

 

11 America in Los Angeles, correct?

 

12 A. Correct.

 

13 Q. And this was starting in approximately

 

14 January of 2003, true?

 

15 A. That would probably be true.

 

16 Q. And are you saying under oath, Major

 

17 Jackson, that the only money you took out of that

 

18 account and ever gave to Janet and the children was

 

19 Janet’s own money?

 

20 A. Could you restate the question, please, a

 

21 different way?

 

22 Q. Sure. If it’s not clear, I’ll —

 

23 A. Please.

 

24 Q. — rephrase it.

 

25 Are you saying under oath that between

 

26 January 2003 and May of 2003, the only money you

 

27 gave Janet Arvizo out of your bank account was money

 

28 she had put into your account? 5903

 

1 A. Sir, I think I answered that, and that is,

 

2 is that I don’t know that answer. And that if I did

 

3 give her money that would have been above and beyond

 

4 what she was receiving, that would have been coming

 

 

 

5 from me out of the goodness of my heart. Because

 

 

 

6 she was my girlfriend and I did love her children.

 

 

 

7 Q. Okay. And did she tell you at some point,

 

 

 

8 “I want to deposit welfare checks into you, Major

 

 

 

9 Jay Jackson’s back account”?

 

 

 

10 A. No, sir. I’m the one that said, “Why don’t

 

 

 

11 we put it into my account because it’s — it will

 

 

 

12 save you a little bit of money, from what little bit

 

 

 

13 of money you do get.”

 

 

 

14 Q. Okay. Did you ever look at any of Janet

 

 

 

15 Arvizo’s welfare applications to Los Angeles County?

 

 

 

16 A. No, sir.

 

 

 

17 Q. Did she ever ask you to prepare one of those

 

 

 

18 applications?

 

 

 

19 A. No, sir.

 

 

 

20 Q. Do you know whether or not she was honest on

 

 

 

21 any application she sent to Los Angeles County

 

 

 

22 involving requests for public assistance?

 

 

 

23 A. Janet’s pretty honest, but I don’t know that

 

 

 

24 to be a fact.

 

 

 

25 Q. Okay. Now, during —

 

 

 

26 May I take just one second, Your Honor, to

 

 

 

27 look through —

 

 

 

28 THE COURT: Yes. 5904

 

 

 

1 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: During the time that Janet

 

 

 

2 Arvizo was living at your home —

 

 

 

3 A. My apartment.

 

 

 

4 Q. Your apartment. That was your home, right?

 

 

 

5 A. It’s where I lived.

 

 

 

6 Q. Okay. And we’re talking about the period

 

 

 

7 starting in January of 2003, you were being paid by

 

 

 

8 the United States Government, correct?

 

 

 

9 A. That would be correct.

 

 

 

10 Q. And your base pay was $5,310.60, correct?

 

 

 

11 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as irrelevant.

 

 

 

12 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

 

 

13 THE WITNESS: Sir, I don’t have that in

 

 

 

14 front of me. But if that’s what my LES says, then

 

 

 

15 that’s correct.

 

 

 

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Would it refresh your

 

 

 

17 recollection if I just show you the document we

 

 

 

18 subpoenaed from the Army?

 

 

 

19 A. Sure.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

21 THE COURT: Yes.

 

 

 

22 THE WITNESS: Yes. Okay.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

24 look at that document?

 

 

 

25 A. Yes, sir.

 

 

 

26 Q. Have you seen that document before?

 

 

 

27 A. I see my LES monthly.

 

 

 

28 Q. Okay. And let me restate the amount. The 5905

 

 

 

1 amount went up.

 

 

 

2 Well, the amount of base pay you were

 

 

 

3 receiving effective January of 2003 was $5,528.40

 

 

 

4 per month, correct?

 

 

 

5 A. That would be correct.

 

 

 

6 Q. Okay. The amount of base pay you received

 

 

 

7 in February of 2003 from the United States

 

 

 

8 Government was also $5,528.40 per month, correct?

 

 

 

9 A. Yes, sir.

 

 

 

10 Q. And the amount of base pay you received from

 

 

 

11 the United States Government in March of 2003 was

 

 

 

12 $5,528.40 per month, correct?

 

 

 

13 A. Yes, sir.

 

 

 

14 Q. And the amount of base pay you received in

 

 

 

15 April of 2003 from the United States Government was

 

 

 

16 $5,528.40 per month, correct?

 

 

 

17 A. Yes, sir.

 

 

 

18 Q. Okay. Do you recall whether or not you ever

 

 

 

19 requested any type of housing allowance or

 

 

 

20 assistance from the United States Government because

 

 

 

21 Janet Arvizo and her three children were living with

 

 

 

22 you?

 

 

 

23 A. It would not matter. I could not request

 

 

 

24 assistance from the government unless I married her.

 

 

 

25 Q. Okay.

 

 

 

26 A. So that would have occurred in May of ‘04.

 

 

 

27 Q. Okay. So you didn’t do it anytime in 2003?

 

 

 

28 A. No, sir, I wouldn’t have been able to. It 5906

 

 

 

1 wouldn’t have mattered if I did it, and I wouldn’t

 

 

 

2 have done it.

 

 

 

3 Q. Okay. Okay. Was it your understanding

 

 

 

4 Janet Arvizo had no other bank accounts on her

 

 

 

5 own — excuse me, that’s a poor question. Let me

 

 

 

6 rephrase.

 

 

 

7 Was it your understanding, Major Jackson,

 

 

 

8 that in the months of January, February, March and

 

 

 

9 April of 2003, Janet Arvizo did not have any bank

 

 

 

10 account?

 

 

 

11 A. Yes, sir. That would be my recollection.

 

 

 

12 Q. Okay. Do you know if she ever had an

 

 

 

13 account at a bank called Providian?

 

 

 

14 A. No, sir.

 

 

 

15 Q. Okay. Did you ever discuss with Janet

 

 

 

16 Arvizo whether or not she had ever obtained any

 

 

 

17 money from a J.C. Penney settlement?

 

 

 

18 A. She — no, sir, she did not talk about it.

 

 

 

19 I started learning about it through the news.

 

 

 

20 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not, during

 

 

 

21 January, February, March or April of 2003, Janet

 

 

 

22 Arvizo was making any deposits in her mother’s

 

 

 

23 account at Sanwa Bank?

 

 

 

24 A. I’m not aware of that, sir.

 

 

 

25 Q. Were you ever aware of any account that

 

 

 

26 Janet Arvizo had set up at any bank involving moneys

 

 

 

27 she had obtained for the benefit of Gavin?

 

 

 

28 A. No, sir. 5907

 

 

 

1 Q. Okay. And were you ever involved in any

 

 

 

2 fund-raising efforts for Gavin?

 

 

 

3 A. No, sir.

 

 

 

4 Q. Okay. Now, are you saying that the money

 

 

 

5 you received every month during January, February,

 

 

 

6 March or April was not used for the benefit of Janet

 

 

 

7 or the children?

 

 

 

8 MR. ZONEN: Objection; vague. His paycheck?

 

 

 

9 MR. MESEREAU: Yes.

 

 

 

10 I’ll rephrase it. Counsel’s correct.

 

 

 

11 THE WITNESS: Please.

 

 

 

12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: The base pay you earned

 

 

 

13 from the United States Government in January,

 

 

 

14 February, March and April of 2003 was never used

 

 

 

15 directly or indirectly for the benefit of Janet or

 

 

 

16 the children, correct?

 

 

 

17 A. Cannot answer that question with accuracy.

 

Jay Jackson disclosed that Janet didn’t cancel her welfare payments until Michael Jackson’s assistants put her furniture in storage, and he couldn’t answer with a straight “yes or no” whether or not the checks he wrote to Janet’s landlord came directly from her welfare checks when he was asked if he knew whether or not Janet disclosed to the Los Angeles welfare authorities his rental payments on behalf of her:

 

18 Q. Okay. You testified yesterday that at one

 

 

 

19 point Janet Arvizo went to court in downtown Los

 

 

 

20 Angeles to deal with her domestic issues involving

 

 

 

21 her ex-husband David, correct?

 

 

 

22 A. Yes, sir.

 

 

 

23 Q. Do you know approximately when that was?

 

 

 

24 A. That would have been right around the time

 

 

 

25 of — it would have been in the middle of March.

 

 

 

26 Q. Okay. Would that be March of 2003?

 

 

 

27 A. Yes, sir.

 

28 Q. Did you know — excuse me. Did you know 5908

 

1 whether or not Janet Arvizo filed an income and

 

2 expense declaration in that court case that you’ve

 

3 just described?

 

4 A. No, sir, I do not.

 

5 Q. Okay.

 

6 A. I did not. I’m not even sure what that is.

 

7 Q. Was any of the welfare money or child

 

8 support money that was deposited into your bank

 

9 account during January, February, March, April of

 

10 2003 ever used for your benefit?

 

11 A. No, sir.

 

12 Q. Okay. And do you know whether or not Janet

 

13 Arvizo ever disclosed to welfare authorities and the

 

14 County of Los Angeles that you were helping her pay

 

15 rent?

 

16 A. I do not know. I just know that when the

 

17 apartment got taken away from her by Michael

 

18 Jackson’s assistants, she apparently at that time

 

19 wrote a letter to them and just cancelled her

 

20 welfare.

 

21 Q. That’s not really answering my question,

 

22 now, is it? That’s something that you just wanted

 

23 to tell the jury, correct?

 

24 A. Okay.

 

25 MR. ZONEN: Objection; argumentative.

 

26 THE COURT: Counsel —

 

27 MR. MESEREAU: I withdraw it.

 

28 Q. Let’s talk about the checks you wrote to 5909

 

1 Mr. Trujillo when you were paying her rent at her

 

2 apartment.

 

3 A. All right.

 

4 Q. Do you know whether or not Janet Arvizo ever

 

5 disclosed the rental payments you were making on her

 

6 behalf to welfare authorities in Los Angeles?

 

7 A. Sir, I believe that those checks that I

 

8 wrote to Mr. Trujillo for her apartment on Soto

 

9 Street were in relations to the welfare checks that

 

10 she was receiving in the January, February time

 

11 frame.

 

12 Q. So what you’re saying, Major Jackson, under

 

13 oath to this jury, is that you can guarantee that

 

14 the rent checks you wrote to Mr. Trujillo on behalf

 

15 of Janet Arvizo to pay rent came directly from her

 

16 welfare checks; is that true?

 

17 A. I remember — you need a “yes” or “no”?

 

18 Q. Yes.

 

19 A. Okay. I can’t answer that “yes” or “no.”

 

20 Q. Okay. All right. Do you know whether Janet

 

21 Arvizo ever disclosed the financial assistance you

 

22 were giving her on her income and expense

 

23 declaration that she filed in her domestic case —

 

24 domestic relations case with David?

 

25 A. Did I not answer that already, sir? I said

 

26 I don’t even know what that document is, so I did

 

27 not know that.

 

28 Q. Okay. And you didn’t help her ever prepare 5910

 

1 a document like that, correct?

 

2 A. No, sir, I did not.

 

3 Q. Okay. Do you recall during January,

 

4 February, and March of 2003 whether or not Janet

 

5 Arvizo was depositing any checks into your account

 

6 other than welfare and child support?

 

7 A. Well, she probably — the child support

 

8 began at some point after that, but I’m not sure.

 

9 I’m not clear when that started, so I don’t want to

 

10 say it started in March. But it was soon

 

11 thereafter, I think.

 

12 Q. Do you recall, during January, February,

 

13 March and April of 2003, endorsing for deposit any

 

14 checks written to Janet Arvizo that were other than

 

15 welfare and child support?

 

16 A. Not that I’m aware of.

 

17 Q. Okay. During January, February, March and

 

18 April of 2003, were you aware of any bank account

 

19 Janet had set up at a bank called Washington Mutual

 

20 in Los Angeles?

 

21 A. No, sir.

 

22 Q. During January, February, March and April of

 

23 2003, to your knowledge, was Janet Arvizo driving an

 

24 automobile?

 

25 A. No, sir, she was not.

 

26 Q. Did you ever learn at some point that she

 

27 had purchased an automobile?

 

28 A. I — I believe at some point she later told 5911

 

1 me that she had put some money down on a car and

 

2 then opted out of it.

 

3 Q. Do you know when that was?

 

4 A. I don’t.

 

5 Q. Okay. During January, February, March and

 

6 April of 2003, to your knowledge, did Janet Arvizo

 

7 ever obtain any disability assistance from the

 

8 state?

 

9 A. Not that I’m aware of.

 

10 Q. Okay. And during January, February, March

 

11 and April of 2003, to your knowledge, did Janet

 

12 Arvizo ever obtain any food stamp assistance?

 

13 A. I did see food stamps, yes, sir.

 

14 Q. Okay. And was that during the time she was

 

15 living with you?

 

16 A. That was the time that she was visiting me

 

17 at Bundy, and that was prior to November of ‘02.

 

18 And I’m not sure exactly when that stopped.

 

19 Q. Okay. Were you — excuse me. Did you know

 

20 Janet Arvizo in November of 2001?

 

21 A. No, sir, I did not.

 

22 Q. Okay. When did you first meet her?

 

23 A. July of 2002.

Mesereau ended his cross-examination by questioning Jay Jackson on his knowledge of whether or not Janet listed his income on her welfare and disability applications, whether or not he discussed his financial assistance of her with the prosecutors, and Janet’s desire to keep the Soto St. studio apartment. Jay testified that he never wondered why someone on welfare would want two residences. Seriously!

24 Q. Now, in January, February, March and April

 

25 of 2003, were Davellin, Gavin and Star living at

 

26 your apartment at least part of the week?

 

27 A. Well, during — of course in February and

 

28 March they were gone almost the entire time. At 5912

 

1 least through the middle of March. But January,

 

2 some of February and March, Davellin was not living

 

3 with us, and Star and Gavin were living with us when

 

4 they were — when Janet was there.

 

5 Q. Okay. All right. And what I think you’ve

 

6 told the jury is that Janet wanted to keep the Soto

 

7 Street apartment but Mr. Jackson’s people prevented

 

8 that; is that what you’re saying?

 

9 A. I know that — I believed that we wanted to

 

10 keep the apartment, so that is what I say, is that

 

11 before she was whisked off to Miami, our intention

 

12 was for her to keep the Soto Street apartment.

 

13 Q. Okay. When the Soto Street apartment was no

 

14 longer rented by Janet, did she and the children

 

15 live with you full time?

 

16 A. When the Jackson people shut down the

 

17 apartment, she moved into my apartment after she

 

18 left Neverland.

 

19 Q. Okay. Did you ever wonder why someone on

 

20 welfare wanted two residences?

 

21 A. No, sir.

 

22 Q. Did you ever discuss with any prosecutor

 

23 before you testified in this trial your having

 

24 deposited Janet’s welfare checks into your account

 

25 at Bank of America?

 

26 A. No, sir. It wouldn’t have been an issue.

 

27 Q. How do you know?

 

28 A. It’s not an issue. 5913

 

1 MR. ZONEN: Objection; argumentative.

 

2 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

3 THE WITNESS: What does that have to do with

 

4 anything?

 

5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you ever discussed

 

6 with any prosecutor before you testified in this

 

7 trial anything about Janet’s obtaining welfare

 

8 assistance while she lived with you?

 

9 A. Wasn’t my concern, sir.

 

10 Q. Has any prosecutor or sheriff ever showed

 

11 you before you testified in this trial any documents

 

12 relating to any kind of public assistance Janet

 

13 Arvizo was receiving at any time from the County of

 

14 Los Angeles?

 

15 A. No, sir, not that I recall.

 

16 Q. And has anyone associated with any

 

17 prosecutor ever spoke to you on the phone about

 

18 Janet Arvizo’s receiving public assistance while

 

19 associated with you?

 

20 A. Not that I can remember, no.

 

21 Q. Okay. To your knowledge, was Janet Arvizo

 

22 receiving any welfare checks in the year 2002?

 

23 A. I don’t know, sir.

 

24 Q. Do you recall depositing any of Janet

 

25 Arvizo’s welfare checks into your bank account

 

26 during the year 2002?

 

27 A. If you have that, then I guess I did. I

 

28 just don’t remember. 5914

 

1 Q. Okay. Did you have any discussion with

 

2 Janet at any time about why welfare checks were

 

3 going through your sole account?

 

4 A. Please restate the question.

 

5 Q. Sure. Did you ever have any discussions

 

6 with Janet Arvizo at any time as to why welfare

 

7 checks were being deposited into your sole account?

 

8 A. Any check that would have been deposited in

 

9 my account would have been to save her money from

 

10 putting it through one of those check cashing places

 

11 that charge 6 to 8 to 10 percent.

 

12 Q. Did you ever wonder why Janet didn’t have

 

13 her own bank account, to your knowledge?

 

14 A. No, sir, I didn’t.

 

15 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions at this

 

16 time.

Under redirect-examination, Zonen questioned Jay Jackson about the financial assistance he provided to Janet . He claimed that her welfare checks of over $700 per month were enough to cover her rent of $425, and utilities:

19 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

 

20 BY MR. ZONEN:

 

21 Q. Mr. Jackson, Major Jackson, good morning.

 

22 A. Good morning, Mr. Zonen.

 

23 Q. Do you recall the phone number that you had

 

24 when you were living at the St. Andrews apartment?

 

25 This is a challenge, isn’t it?

 

26 A. Yes, it is.

 

27 Q. Would it help you to recall that phone

 

28 number if I were to show you a phone bill? 5915

 

1 A. Yes, sir, it would.

 

2 MR. ZONEN: May I approach the witness?

 

3 I’m just going to show you something.

 

4 THE WITNESS: Okay. Yes, sir. That is.

 

5 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Tell us what that phone

 

6 number is.

 

7 A. Oh, great. (213) — (213) 739-9279.

 

8 Q. You now remember that?

 

9 A. Yes, sir, I do. But don’t walk away and ask

 

10 me again.

 

11 Q. Mr. Mesereau had asked you questions about

 

12 checks that you deposited into your account. Do you

 

13 know where your wife, then your girlfriend, Janet

 

14 Arvizo, was depositing checks that she was receiving

 

15 for public assistance at that time?

 

16 A. She wasn’t. She wasn’t depositing them, as

 

17 far as I know. She was cashing them at check

 

18 cashing places.

 

19 Q. Do you know which places she was going to?

 

20 A. Not always. Sometimes we’d be going down

 

21 the road and we’d stop at one of them on the side of

 

22 the road.

 

23 Q. Did you have a discussion with her about the

 

24 cost of doing that?

 

25 A. Yes, I did. That was the whole issue. I

 

26 said, “They’re charging you 6 or 8 percent to do

 

27 that. Why don’t you just deposit it into my account

 

28 and I’ll either write the check for your bills or 5916

 

1 I’ll give you the money.” I’m not sure which one I

 

2 did.

 

3 Q. Mr. Mesereau asked you about paying her

 

4 rent.

 

5 A. Yes, sir.

 

6 Q. How were you doing that? Where was the

 

7 money coming from that you were writing checks?

 

8 A. From my Bank of America account.

 

9 Q. All right. And then the money that was

 

10 coming into your account from the welfare check?

 

11 A. Yes, sir.

 

12 Q. Was that covering it?

 

13 A. Yes, sir. I believe the check was like 425.

 

14 Q. Give us a sense. The rent was about how

 

15 much per month?

 

16 A. 425.

 

17 Q. And the public assistance check was about

 

18 how much?

 

19 A. 700-some.

 

20 Q. And then did you write checks for utilities

 

21 as well?

 

22 A. I believe I did. But I’m not absolutely

 

23 positive.

 

24 Q. Was that covered as well by the amount of

 

25 the welfare checks?

 

26 A. Yes, sir, it was.

 

27 Q. Do you know how she was paying her utility

 

28 bills before? 5917

 

1 A. I don’t.

 

2 Q. Did you ever see a checking account in her

 

3 name?

 

4 A. No, sir, I did not.

 

5 Q. Did you ever see her sit down and write a

 

6 check?

 

7 A. No, sir, I didn’t.

 

8 Q. Did you ever see her with her own car during

 

9 the time that you were dating her?

 

10 A. No, sir.

 

11 Q. Do you know how she was getting back and

 

12 forth?

 

13 A. Bus.

 

14 Q. When you met her — you met her at a — one

 

15 of the kid’s military events, is that correct?

 

16 A. That’s correct. Where I worked.

 

17 Q. And where you were working at that time was

 

18 where?

 

19 A. It’s at 311 COS-COM in Los Angeles, West Los

 

20 Angeles, in the Sea Cadet Command and located within

 

21 the building.

 

22 Q. And what would be involved in taking a bus

 

23 from where she was living at that location?

 

24 A. You know what? I don’t know how long it

 

25 would take. But it was quite a long distance, so

 

26 probably several hours to get there.

 

27 Q. At any time during the time that you were

 

28 dating, did you see her drive her own car? 5918

 

1 A. No, sir, she never had her own car.

Next, Zonen questioned Jay Jackson about the welfare application that Janet filled out, the child support payments she received, and an error that Mesereau made when he inadvertently asked if the Arvizo children attended school on a weekend (he stated the dates, but didn’t know it was a weekend). Ironically, Jay Jackson stated that they both wanted to keep the Soto St. studio apartment so that Janet would have someplace to go when visiting her mother:

2 Q. You said that both of you wanted to maintain

 

3 the Soto Street apartment in East Los Angeles?

 

4 A. That is correct.

 

5 Q. Tell us why.

 

6 A. Primarily it gave her a good place to go to

 

7 when she was visiting her mother. She had some

 

8 stuff that she had in the apartment that she was

 

9 storing. And basically she just didn’t want to give

 

10 that apartment up because she really didn’t feel

 

11 that she was living with me. She was living there.

 

12 But she was visiting me.

 

13 Q. Do you know when it was that she sent a

 

14 letter that discontinued her welfare?

 

15 A. I don’t, sir. I don’t know exactly. I just

 

16 heard about it.

 

17 Q. If I were to show you a copy of that letter,

 

18 would that refresh your recollection?

 

19 A. It may. I’m not sure.

 

20 MR. ZONEN: May I approach the witness?

 

21 THE COURT: Yes.

 

22 THE WITNESS: Actually, I have seen that

 

23 letter.

 

24 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Does that letter refresh your

 

25 recollection?

 

26 A. Yes, sir.

 

27 Q. And what is your recollection?

 

28 A. You know, just — I remember the letter, but 5919

 

1 I’m not even sure when I saw it.

 

2 Q. Do you remember when you stopped depositing

 

3 welfare checks into your account?

 

4 A. I don’t know exactly when I stopped, because

 

5 there were — the child support payments coming in,

 

6 so I was not concerned about it. I didn’t know

 

7 there was an issue with a welfare check versus a

 

8 child support check versus anything else.

 

9 Q. Were the child support checks of a different

 

10 amount than the welfare check?

 

11 A. Yes, sir, they were.

 

12 Q. Was the welfare check pretty consistently in

 

13 the seven hundred —

 

14 THE COURT: They’re not hearing you, Counsel.

 

15 MR. ZONEN: I’m sorry.

 

16 Q. The question previously was —

 

17 THE BAILIFF: Is your microphone on?

 

18 THE COURT: He had his book on it.

 

19 MR. ZONEN: I had the book on it, I’m sorry.

 

20 I apologize.

 

21 Q. The welfare check, was that a fairly

 

22 consistent amount every month?

 

23 A. Yes, sir. I believe it was 700-something

 

24 dollars a month.

 

25 Q. The child support check, would that vary or

 

26 was that consistent as well?

 

27 A. That varied. Always low.

 

28 Q. The amount — the check that Mr. Mesereau 5920

 

1 showed you that was in May —

 

2 A. Yes, sir.

 

3 Q. — did you believe that was a child support

 

4 check?

 

5 A. I’m sure it’s a child support check.

 

6 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, I’m going to ask

 

7 the Court take judicial notice of the fact that

 

8 February 15, 2003, is a Saturday, February 16, 2003,

 

9 is a Sunday. And I have a copy of the calendar to

 

10 furnish the Court.

 

11 MR. MESEREAU: Sure. Sure.

 

12 THE COURT: No objection?

 

13 MR. MESEREAU: No objection, Your Honor.

 

14 THE COURT: All right. I’ll take judicial

 

15 notice of those dates and days.

 

16 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: You were asked yesterday by

 

17 Mr. Mesereau whether or not the children went to

 

18 school on February 15 and February 16 of 2003. Did

 

19 the children traditionally attend school on Saturday

 

20 and Sunday?

 

21 A. No, sir.

Next, Jay Jackson testified that the reason that he turned down Frank Cascio offer of a house and college tuition is because he had not been shown a contract by Cascio, and he really didn’t believe him.

22 Q. I’d like to ask you questions about your

 

23 discussion with Frank, wherein he offered you a

 

24 house, and he offered you children’s education,

 

25 subsequently then asked if you were still waiting

 

26 for a house.

 

27 A. Right.

 

28 Q. Tell me about your view of that offering of 5921

 

1 a house. How did you take it at the time he offered

 

2 it?

 

3 A. The time — the way I took it was, he wasn’t

 

4 offering to show me the contract. The bottom line

 

5 was I really did not believe him. I did not believe

 

6 that he was going to give us a house. I did not

 

7 believe that he was going to give a college

 

8 education. All of this was just — just talk.

 

9 That’s the way I felt about it at the time.

 

10 Q. Why did you want to see the contract?

 

11 A. I wanted to see what it is — what it was

 

12 that the family was being required to do, and what

 

13 rights they were signing away.

Here is Jay Jackson’s recollections (again!) of the Bradley Miller interview, and the only thing he really remembered about the interview were the vehement denials of any abuse at the hands of Jackson by the Arvizos:

14 Q. You had the opportunity to listen to the

 

15 tape of the Miller interview, that interview that

 

16 took place in your home on presumably the 16th of

 

17 February?

 

18 A. Yes, sir.

 

19 Q. At the very beginning everybody introduced

 

20 themselves and you were not one of them; is that

 

21 correct?

 

22 A. That’s correct.

 

23 Q. Were you a witness to that particular event?

 

24 A. I did watch parts of it.

 

25 Q. Were you not asked to introduce yourself?

 

26 A. No, sir, I was not.

 

27 Q. Were you still in the room at that time?

 

28 A. Yes, sir, I was in the room. 5922

 

1 Q. Did you leave the room at different times?

 

2 A. I did, sir.

 

3 Q. At one point you were asked by Mr. Mesereau

 

4 whether or not you stated to the grand jury that you

 

5 watched the entire proceedings?

 

6 A. Correct.

 

7 Q. At another time he said, “Did you state to

 

8 the grand jury whether you had listened to the

 

9 entire proceedings?”

 

10 A. Correct.

 

11 Q. Did you listen to the entire proceedings?

 

12 A. No, sir. In fact, when they played, I

 

13 didn’t really know much of anything was on there.

 

14 I don’t recall.

 

15 Q. I’m sorry. Is there anything that you heard

 

16 on that tape that you do recall?

 

17 A. The only thing that I do recall is

 

18 something — they were praising Michael Jackson,

 

19 saying he didn’t touch them, something to that

 

20 effect.

 

In this excerpt, Jay Jackson described how he called the police after speaking to Janet (who had called him from Neverland and sounded like she was under duress), and initially the police didn’t believe his story. But they returned his call the next day, and because Janet had returned home already, he told the police that everything was alright.

21 Q. At any time did you make an attempt to

 

22 discuss with Janet Arvizo at the time, during this

 

23 February and March period when she was at Neverland,

 

24 what was going on?

 

25 A. Janet did not talk much. She would not

 

26 explain to me why she was emotional, why she was

 

27 crying. She wouldn’t tell me what was going on

 

28 during this period. 5923

 

1 Q. Did you make an attempt to contact police

 

2 during that time?

 

3 A. Yes, sir, I did.

 

4 Q. Who did you call?

 

5 A. After a short phone call with Janet where

 

6 she appeared to be under duress, I made a phone call

 

7 to the Santa Barbara Police Department. It was late

 

8 at night. And they transferred me to the Santa

 

9 Barbara Sheriff’s Department.

 

10 Q. And did you talk with a deputy at the

 

11 sheriff’s department?

 

12 A. I talked to a sergeant.

 

13 Q. Do you know his name?

 

14 A. McCadden, I think. McCadden or something

 

15 like that.

 

16 Q. Did you tell him about what was going on?

 

17 A. I was confused. I did not know what was

 

18 happening. I talked to him. I initially tried to

 

19 explain to him that I had a family that was at

 

20 Neverland, and they appeared to be under duress.

 

21 He didn’t want to believe — you know, “Is

 

22 this a crank phone call? What was going on?” You

 

23 know, I tried to say, “Look, I’m in the military.

 

24 I’m not playing. This is” — “They are” — “They

 

25 were on T.V.”

 

26 Basically he finally said, “Well, why didn’t

 

27 she call 9-1-1?” And I said, “Well, I don’t know

 

28 why she didn’t call 9-1-1, because she kind of hung 5924

 

1 up on me, and she made some kind of statement like,

 

2 ‘Oh, my gosh, here he comes,’ and she hangs up on

 

3 me.”

 

4 Q. Major Jackson, the next day, did they call

 

5 you back, from the sheriff’s office?

 

6 A. Yes, sir, they did.

 

7 Q. And was Janet home at that point?

 

8 A. Janet was back in El Monte.

 

9 Q. And did you indicate to him that everything

 

10 was under control?

 

11 A. I did. He said, “Is she back?” I said,

 

12 “Yes, she is.” And that ended the conversation.

Finally, Zonen ended his redirect examination on the subject of Jay Jackson’s knowledge of when he began sharing his account with Janet; he couldn’t “remember” exactly when she became a signatory on his account:

13 Q. On a couple of occasions Mr. Mesereau

 

14 referred to your house in West Los Angeles?

 

15 A. Correct.

 

16 Q. Did you have a house in West L.A.?

 

17 A. No, sir. I had a two-bedroom apartment.

 

18 Q. Was this an apartment that you lived in with

 

19 Janet Arvizo?

 

20 A. Yes, sir, I did.

 

21 Q. And how many of her children?

 

22 A. Two of her children. Gavin and Star.

 

23 Q. And where was Davellin living at that time?

 

24 A. She was living with her grandmother.

 

25 Q. Did she visit?

 

26 A. Yes, she did. Pretty much every weekend.

 

27 Q. So she was there for the weekend?

 

28 A. Yes, sir. 5925

 

1 Q. You indicated just now that — or earlier

 

2 this morning, that at some point, Janet Arvizo

 

3 became a signatory to your account?

 

4 A. Yes, sir.

 

5 Q. Do you know when that was? Were you already

 

6 married?

 

7 A. You know, I’m not clear on that. It may

 

8 have been after we got married. But I’m just not

 

9 sure.

 

10 Q. Mr. Mesereau asked you about amounts of

 

11 money that you were making and described it as base

 

12 pay. What does that mean, base pay?

 

13 A. Base pay is — in the military, you’re given

 

14 base pay, which is your — basically your salary,

 

15 which is taxable. And then you’re given a housing

 

16 allowance, which is nontaxable. And you’re also

 

17 given a food allowance, which is nontaxable.

 

18 Q. The base pay that was described, was that

 

19 the amount of money that you received before or

 

20 after taxes?

 

21 A. Before taxes.

 

22 Q. So taxes are deducted from that amount of

 

23 money?

 

24 A. Yes, sir.

 

25 Q. Mr. Mesereau asked you about a Washington

 

26 Mutual account established in 2003. Are you aware

 

27 of any such account?

 

28 A. No, sir. 5926

 

1 Q. Did Janet ever mention to you a Washington

 

2 Mutual account?

 

3 A. No, sir.

 

4 Q. Did she ever write a check on it in your

 

5 presence?

 

6 A. No, sir. I never saw a checkbook.

 

7 Q. I’m sorry?

 

8 A. I never saw a checkbook.

 

9 Q. You never saw a checkbook.

 

10 A. So I know nothing about it.

 

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

 

12 questions.

As you can imagine, Mesereau’s recross-examination began with him getting Jay Jackson to explain and clarify his earlier testimony about calling the police and complaining that the Arvizos were trapped at Neverland. Jay Jackson admitted Janet had unfettered access to the phone while at Neverland, and she wanted the police to intercept the vehicle that she would be driven home to, but they could not do it.  Jay Jackson also flatly denied telling the police that he didn’t think Janet was in any danger, despite the fact that it was listed in the police report that he said it!

14 RECROSS-EXAMINATION

 

15 BY MR. MESEREAU:

 

16 Q. Major Jackson, you called the police on

 

17 Tuesday, February 11th, 2003, correct?

 

18 A. I don’t have the specific date in front of

 

19 me, but I believe it was right around that time,

 

20 yes, sir.

 

21 Q. You told the police your girlfriend had

 

22 flown to Florida with her children, right?

 

23 A. Miami, correct.

 

24 Q. Okay. You told the police that you’d

 

25 received several telephone calls from her during the

 

26 last few days, right?

 

27 A. Correct.

 

28 Q. Okay. And you were concerned about her 5927

 

1 welfare, correct?

 

2 A. That is correct.

 

3 Q. You then — after discussing the situation

 

4 with the police, you and the police officer

 

5 concluded that Janet appeared to have unfettered

 

6 access to a phone, true?

 

7 A. That she had called me, absolutely, yes,

 

8 sir.

 

9 Q. Okay. And after your initial call, you

 

10 received a call back from the police, true?

 

11 A. After talking to the police, Janet called me

 

12 back and I told the police officer to call me back.

 

13 Q. Okay. And a police officer called you back,

 

14 correct?

 

15 A. He did.

 

16 Q. You told the police officer in that

 

17 conversation that Janet didn’t think a 9-1-1 call

 

18 was needed, true?

 

19 A. I did not tell him that.

 

20 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show

 

21 you a copy of the police report?

 

22 A. I’ve seen the police report.

 

23 Q. You’re aware of what the police officer says

 

24 you said, correct?

 

25 A. I am.

 

26 Q. And you’re saying you never told the police

 

27 officer, “Ventura does not think a 9-1-1 call is

 

28 needed at this time”? 5928

 

1 A. I told the police officer that Janet said

 

2 she was going to be leaving the property in a

 

3 vehicle at twelve o’clock, and that could the police

 

4 intercept the vehicle. And his response was, is,

 

5 “We cannot intercept a vehicle.”

 

6 Q. Do you remember telling the police officer

 

7 in that second conversation, “Jackson said he did

 

8 not think Ventura was in any danger”?

 

9 A. No, sir, I don’t.

 

10 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show

 

11 you the police report?

 

12 A. I’ve seen — I’ve seen the police report.

 

13 Q. You’ve seen the words he wrote about what

 

14 you told him?

 

15 A. Yes, sir.

 

16 Q. So you know the police officer claims you

 

17 said, “Ventura is not in any danger,” correct?

 

18 A. Correct.

 

19 Q. And you’re denying saying that, true?

 

20 A. I’m denying saying that.

Jay Jackson then goes in to more detail about the phone call he received from Janet that night, and the number of times that Janet and her kids returned to Neverland after their “escapes” (she left and returned 3 times):

21 Q. Okay. Now, you told the jury at one point

 

22 Janet left the property, correct?

 

23 A. Please repeat the question.

 

24 Q. Yes. At one point, after your call to the

 

25 police, Janet left the property, right?

 

26 A. That is correct.

 

27 Q. And when was that?

 

28 A. She called me early in the morning, so it 5929

 

1 was sometime that night.

 

2 Q. Okay. And is that the night of the day you

 

3 made the phone call?

 

4 A. I made the phone call late at night, so it

 

5 was early that morning.

 

6 Q. And — okay. So early that morning, she

 

7 left Neverland?

 

8 A. She left Neverland.

 

9 Q. And how did she leave Neverland; do you

 

10 know?

 

11 A. I don’t know for sure. I know she went to

 

12 El Monte.

 

13 Q. And you also learned that shortly after

 

14 that, she went back to Neverland, right?

 

15 A. After that she came back to my apartment.

 

16 Q. And did she then go back to Neverland again?

 

17 A. She received a bunch of phone calls from

 

18 Frank.

 

19 Q. Please answer my question, Major.

 

20 A. Yes, sir, she did go back to Neverland.

 

21 Q. Okay. And approximately when did she go

 

22 back to Neverland again?

 

23 A. It was probably a couple of days. I don’t

 

24 have a specific — it was probably two days.

 

25 Q. Okay. So you call the police. They don’t

 

26 do anything?

 

27 A. Correct.

 

28 Q. You deny what they claim you said to them, 5930

 

1 that she wasn’t in danger, correct?

 

2 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Argumentative and

 

3 asked and answered.

 

4 THE COURT: Sustained; asked and answered.

 

5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: She leaves the next day

 

6 from Neverland, right?

 

7 A. She leaves in the middle of the night.

 

8 Q. Okay. And goes to El Monte?

 

9 A. Correct.

 

10 Q. And then to your place, right?

 

11 A. Not that day, the next day.

 

12 Q. And then goes back to Neverland, right?

 

13 A. Bunch of phone calls, and she —

 

14 Q. Goes back?

 

15 A. Goes back to Neverland.

 

16 Q. And then when does she leave Neverland

 

17 again, to your knowledge?

 

18 A. She leaves Neverland that same day, same

 

19 night. She comes back late at night, by herself.

 

20 Q. And does she ever go back to Neverland

 

21 again?

 

22 A. After some phone calls, about every 15

 

23 minutes getting phone calls from Frank —

 

24 Q. I’m just asking you the question, Major, did

 

25 she ever go back to Neverland again?

 

26 A. Yes, sir, she did.

 

27 Q. After your calls to the police, she leaves

 

28 Neverland and goes back three times; is that 5931

 

1 correct?

 

2 A. She left Neverland — I’d have to count it

 

3 up.

 

4 Q. Sound like three times to you?

 

5 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Asked and answered;

 

6 argumentative.

 

7 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

8 You may answer.

 

9 THE WITNESS: Okay. I believe it was two

 

10 times. One time she returned with her family. The

 

11 same night she showed back up, and then she returned

 

12 again to Neverland.

 

13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: How many times after your

 

14 call to the police do you believe Janet left

 

15 Neverland?

 

16 A. The night that she — that I made the phone

 

17 call to the police, she left that night. Came back

 

18 to my apartment. Went back to Neverland, and came

 

19 back again that night, so there was two times.

 

20 Q. Did she ever go back a third time, to your

 

21 knowledge?

 

22 A. She did go back.

 

23 Q. So then she then left a third time?

 

24 A. You’re giving me the numbers here. Let’s

 

25 see. She — she came back, she left Neverland, went

 

26 to El Monte. All right. So that’s leaving

 

27 Neverland once.

 

28 Q. Right. 5932

 

1 A. She came to my apartment.

 

2 Q. Right.

 

3 A. Lots of phone calls. Went back to

 

4 Neverland. Came back that night. Okay. Again,

 

5 bunch of phone calls, and she returned back to

 

6 Neverland. So that would be three times, yes.

 

7 Q. Okay. And every time she left Neverland,

 

8 how was she transported? Do you have any idea?

 

9 A. How she left Neverland?

 

10 Q. Yes.

 

11 A. I don’t have any idea, no, sir.

 

12 Q. Do you know who drove her every time she

 

13 left Neverland?

 

14 A. I think I learned this after the fact, but I

 

15 think Chris Carter brought her to my apartment when

 

16 she came by herself.

 

17 Q. Every time she left Neverland someone

 

18 employed by Mr. Jackson drove her, correct?

 

19 A. I — I’m not clear on that, but I think

 

20 that’s probably true.

 

21 MR. ZONEN: Objection; speculative.

 

22 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. No further questions.

 

23 MR. ZONEN: I’d ask to reopen on an area that

 

24 is beyond the scope of the redirect examination,

 

25 very briefly.

 

26 THE COURT: All right.

Zonen decided to pull out all the stops to show the jury that Jackson’s “goons” were harassing the Arvizo family by asking Jay Jackson about his interactions with “Johnny”, who he thought was a bodyguard for Michael Jackson. Jay Jackson and Johnny had a heated, yet brief exchange when Johnny showed up to check on the Arvizos to see if they were OK, and the children were so afraid that they hid in the kitchen and held knives (according to Jay Jackson). There was another incident when Jay Jackson  and Janet drove to pick the kids up from school, and Janet noticed that Johnny was there, so Jay Jackson told a guidance counselor that his kids were being “stalked” by Johnny, and then he approached Johnny’s car and pretended to take photos of him in order to intimidate him.

1 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

 

2 BY MR. ZONEN:

 

3 Q. Major Jackson, following Janet’s return to

 

4 your home on the final occasion —

 

5 A. Yes, sir.

 

6 Q. — in March at this point, were you witness

 

7 to any contacts from anybody by the name of Johnny?

 

8 A. Johnny, yes, sir, I was.

 

9 Q. All right. And who do you understand Johnny

 

10 to be?

 

11 A. Johnny was supposedly either a security

 

12 detail for Michael Jackson or somebody — somebody

 

13 that worked for Michael Jackson.

 

14 Q. And where did you see him?

 

15 A. I saw him on several occasions.

 

16 Q. And where was the first one?

 

17 A. The first time, I believe, is once the

 

18 family returned back to my apartment on St. Andrews

 

19 Place, Johnny apparently was showing up at the

 

20 apartment and banging on the door, and the family

 

21 was scared.

 

22 She — Janet called me at work. And I

 

23 rushed home, and I got into the apartment and — I

 

24 mean, the kids were holding knives. They were

 

25 scared to death. And then all of a sudden we get a

 

26 knock on the door and I opened the door, it’s

 

27 Johnny. So I slammed the door behind us, because I

 

28 was concerned what he may do. And him and I were 5934

 

1 standing right nose to nose looking at each other,

 

2 and I’m like, “What do you want?” And he said, “I

 

3 just want to know how the children are.” I said,

 

4 “Well, the children are fine. Get off the

 

5 property.”

 

6 So he kind of looked at me and just walked

 

7 away, so he left that day.

 

8 Q. When’s the next time you saw him?

 

9 A. Again, my wife called me from — at work,

 

10 and at that time I guess she was my girlfriend, and

 

11 said, “Johnny is back.”

 

12 So I came back home. Came home again, and

 

13 this was early evening. It was dusk. I pulled into

 

14 the — into the carport, and the — and the garage

 

15 door closes. It’s like a chain-link fence. And I

 

16 look out, and across the street is this guy trying

 

17 to hide behind a car. And from a distance, it looks

 

18 like Johnny. So of course —

 

19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive and

 

20 narrative.

 

21 THE COURT: Narrative; sustained.

 

22 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you go out to look at the

 

23 person behind the car?

 

24 A. Yes, sir, I did. I walked out towards him

 

25 and he immediately took off.

 

26 Q. Were you able to see him?

 

27 A. He had the same makeup and build of Johnny,

 

28 but I cannot say for a fact it was Johnny. 5935

 

1 Q. Did you see what kind of car he was driving?

 

2 A. No, sir, I did not. He ran behind a

 

3 building and took off.

 

4 Q. When was the next time you saw him?

 

5 A. The next time was, Janet was concerned about

 

6 the children going back to school because the

 

7 Jackson folks had her passports for the children.

 

8 So she did not want — let me back up. She went to

 

9 the school. She was scared the children would be

 

10 taken.

 

11 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Objection; move

 

12 to strike.

 

13 THE COURT: Stricken.

 

14 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Tell us the next time you saw

 

15 Johnny.

 

16 A. I saw Johnny at John Burroughs Middle

 

17 School.

 

18 Q. About how long was this after Janet and the

 

19 children returned to your home?

 

20 A. Two or three days.

 

21 Q. Where did you see him at the school?

 

22 A. I pulled in with Janet, we parked. I walked

 

23 up to the breezeway where the children come out,

 

24 because we didn’t want them to be snatched, and —

 

25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Move to strike;

 

26 nonresponsive.

 

27 THE COURT: Sustained. The last part’s

 

28 stricken. 5936

 

1 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: You walked up to the

 

2 breezeway. What did you see?

 

3 A. Okay. I was standing there waiting for the

 

4 children. Janet came running up to me and she said,

 

5 “Johnny is here.” So I immediately ran out back to

 

6 the car, grabbed a camera out of the car, because I

 

7 wanted to get some kind of documentation that this

 

8 guy was stalking this family.

 

9 And I ran up to his car, and he was in an

 

10 old 280Z or 280ZX. And I was — I was kind of — my

 

11 adrenaline was flowing, so I didn’t turn the camera

 

12 on, but I ran up to him and I acted like I was

 

13 taking pictures of him.

 

14 And, you know, John Burroughs, it’s a very

 

15 tight situation there. Once you get in, you can

 

16 hardly get out, and so he’s slinging the gears back

 

17 and forth, trying to get away, but he can’t get out,

 

18 because it’s all blocked up.

 

19 So I continued to take pictures of him, then

 

20 I ran back over to the school, and I saw one of the

 

21 counselors by the name of Mr. Davies. And I said,

 

22 “Mr. Davies, there is a guy out here who is stalking

 

23 Gavin and Star.” And I don’t know whether he saw

 

24 that guy or not.

 

25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive;

 

26 narrative.

 

27 THE COURT: As to the last sentence, I’ll

 

28 strike it. 5937

 

1 THE WITNESS: Okay. So —

 

2 THE COURT: Ask the next question.

 

3 MR. ZONEN: Yes.

 

4 Q. Did you point out Johnny to Mr. Davies?

 

5 A. Yes, sir, I did.

 

6 Q. Were you actually in a position where you

 

7 could see Johnny at that time?

 

8 A. Let me back up. I did not point him out. I

 

9 said, “There is a guy out in the parking lot driving

 

10 a 280Z that is stalking the children.”

 

11 Q. Okay. Did you give him a description of

 

12 that vehicle?

 

13 A. Yes, I did.

 

14 Q. Okay. Including the color of the vehicle?

 

15 A. And — I’m sure I did. I can’t remember now

 

16 in my mind. And maybe it was a dirty gray or blue,

 

17 but that’s speculation at this point. I don’t

 

18 remember the color.

 

19 Q. Did you give him a description of Johnny at

 

20 all?

 

21 A. Yes, sir, I did.

 

22 Q. All right. Did you see Johnny again

 

23 thereafter?

 

24 A. I don’t think I saw Johnny again.

 

25 Q. Were you or Janet Arvizo receiving phone

 

26 calls during that period of time after the kids

 

27 finally and ultimately returned home?

 

28 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading. 5938

 

1 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

2 You may answer.

 

3 THE WITNESS: I know Janet was receiving some

 

4 phone calls.

 

5 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. At which

 

6 residence?

 

7 A. At the St. Andrews apartment.

 

8 Q. That was your residence at the time?

 

9 A. That’s correct, sir.

 

10 Q. Were you answering any of those calls?

 

11 A. No, sir, I was not.

 

12 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, if I could approach

 

13 the witness.

 

14 THE COURT: All right.

 

15 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: I’d like to show you Exhibit

 

16 No. 26 for identification not yet in evidence. Can

 

17 you tell us who this person is?

 

18 A. That looks like Johnny.

 

19 Q. Do you know his last name?

 

20 A. I don’t.

 

21 Q. How do you know his first name is “Johnny”?

 

22 A. Janet and the children said there’s this

 

23 guy, “That’s Johnny out there.”

 

24 Q. Is that, in fact, him?

 

25 A. That is.

 

26 Q. Does that photograph accurately depict the

 

27 subject matter contained — in other words, is this

 

28 an accurate, although not terribly complimentary, 5939

 

1 photo of Johnny?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 MR. ZONEN: Move 26 into evidence, please.

 

4 MR. MESEREAU: No objection.

 

5 THE COURT: It’s admitted.

 

6 MR. ZONEN: I have no further questions.

 

7 THE COURT: Mr. Mesereau?

 

8 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, thank you, Your Honor.

Johnny’s true identity and motives were revealed by Mesereau, who asked Jay Jackson to confirm whether or not he knew that Johnny was an investigator hired by Mark Geragos to see if the Arvizos were trying to extort Michael Jackson (which Jay Jackson denied). Interestingly, but not surprisingly, Jay Jackson did not call the police on Johnny at any time. After this line of questioning, Mesereau had no further questions, and neither did Zonen.

10 FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION

 

11 BY MR. MESEREAU:

 

12 Q. Mr. Jackson, at some point you learned that

 

13 Johnny was an investigator hired by Attorney Mark

 

14 Geragos to see if your family and a bunch of lawyers

 

15 were trying to extort Michael Jackson, true?

 

16 A. That would be incorrect.

 

17 Q. You never called the police on Johnny, true?

 

18 A. No, sir, I did not.

 

19 Q. And how many times do you think you’ve seen

 

20 Johnny?

 

21 A. I have probably seen Johnny three times.

 

22 Q. When was the first time?

 

23 A. The first time would have been the night

 

24 that he showed up at the apartment and I confronted

 

25 him out in front of my apartment door.

 

26 Q. Okay. And then you say he took off?

 

27 A. He just walked away.

 

28 Q. Okay. 5940

 

1 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.

 

2 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

 

3 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, could I publish that

 

4 photograph, No. 26?

 

5 THE COURT: Yes.

 

6 THE BAILIFF: “Input 4,” please.

 

7 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: If you could turn around and

 

8 look behind you. Is that, in fact, Exhibit No. 26,

 

9 the person you identified as Johnny?

 

10 A. Yes, sir.

 

11 MR. ZONEN: Thank you. No further

 

12 questions.

 

13 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions, Your

 

14 Honor.

 

15 THE COURT: You may step down.

 

16 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.

 

17 THE COURT: Is your next witness —

 

18 MR. ZONEN: Yes, it is.

 

 

Summary of Jay Jackson’s testimony:

1. Jay Jackson was a Major in the US Army; 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. During their courtship, Janet and her kids split their time living at both Jay’s apartment, and their own apartment. Jay eventually 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.

2. 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.

3. When asked about the Arvizo’s trip to Miami in February 2003, right before the documentary aired in the USA, Jay Jackson stated that he was told that they were going there to do a rebuttal press conference, and that he spoke to Janet while she was there, but not to any of the kids.

4. 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. The badgered him for info, but the interview didn’t take place, instead he gave them his phone number, and they contacted him the next day.

5. 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!

6. Jay Jackson explained 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.

7. Jay Jackson overheard portions of Janet Arvizo’s phone conversations with Frank Cascio, and he described her as very stressed and emotional, and complaining about “the Germans” (Ronald Konitzer and Dieter Weisner) treatment of her. She eventually caved in to Cascio’s requests, and returned to Neverland. He was also present during Brad Miller’s taped interview with Janet Arvizo.

8. When Jay Jackson was asked if he had seen Janet Arvizo after her first “escape” from Neverland, he 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.

9. 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. 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.

10. 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. 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.

11. Zonen brought up the subject of 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?

12. 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!

13. Mesereau began a withering cross examination by starting off with Gavin’s history of misbehavior at school, which Jay Jackson was completely unaware of! 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.

14. 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!

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. Mesereau moved on from that incident to the beauty parlor rendezvous that Janet had with Jay Jackson in early March 2003. This is where Jay Jackson claimed that he first noticed the change in Gavin’s behavior. The beauty parlor was only a few blocks away from where Jay Jackson worked, so it raises the question as to why Janet and Gavin didn’t attempt to get help and leave with Jay Jackson if they were truly being “held against their will”. Mesereau wanted the jury to think about this, and he continued to pound the message home by asking Jay Jackson about Janet’s appearance at Family Court the next day, where she was surrounded by law enforcement that she could have reported her situation to, but didn’t.

18. Next, Mesereau questioned Jay Jackson about his conversations with Frank Cascio, who he spoke to over the telephone twice. Cascio asked Jay Jackson if the Arvizos were trying to blackmail Michael Jackson, and of course Jay Jackson denied it vehemently. He claimed that he only wanted the Arvizo family to be properly compensated for their participation in the rebuttal video, especially in light of the fact that they were not compensated for their inclusion in Bashir’s documentary.

Pay attention to how Mesereau sarcastically asked Jay Jackson about his thoughts about how, in the middle of all of the media scrutiny of Michael Jackson following the airing of Bashir’s documentary, all of a sudden the Arvizos claim that Gavin was molested during this period of time! And try to keep a straight face as Jay Jackson states that he hasn’t talked about the current case with any of the Arvizos!

19. Jay Jackson allowed Janet to become a signatory on his bank account, he endorsed and deposited her welfare checks into his bank account, despite the fact that he was giving her substantial financial assistance from his $8 thousand dollar a month salary! He tried to play a game in semantics by asserting the fact that one of the checks Janet received wasn’t a welfare check, but rather a disability check, as if there’s a material difference between the two! And then he tried to say that it was child support!

20. Jay Jackson was utterly clueless about Janet’s finances: he claimed that he didn’t know if Janet had her own bank account, and he suggested that she deposit her checks in his account so that she wouldn’t have to use the local check cashing businesses, which typically charge a fee of 10% to cash checks. His lack of knowledge of any of Janet’s bank accounts is indicative of the fact that he also did not have any knowledge of the JC Penney settlement either! He didn’t hear about it until he saw the media coverage of Janet after Michael Jackson’s arrest!

21. Jay Jackson disclosed that Janet didn’t cancel her welfare payments until Michael Jackson’s assistants put her furniture in storage, and he couldn’t answer with a straight “yes or no” whether or not the checks he wrote to Janet’s landlord came directly from her welfare checks when he was asked if he knew whether or not Janet disclosed to the Los Angeles welfare authorities his rental payments on behalf of her.

22. Mesereau ended his cross-examination by questioning Jay Jackson on his knowledge of whether or not Janet listed his income on her welfare and disability applications, whether or not he discussed his financial assistance of her with the prosecutors, and Janet’s desire to keep the Soto St. studio apartment. Jay testified that he never wondered why someone on welfare would want two residences. Seriously!

23. Under redirect-examination, Zonen questioned Jay Jackson about the financial assistance he provided to Janet . He claimed that her welfare checks of over $700 per month were enough to cover her rent of $425, and utilities. Zonen also questioned Jay Jackson about the welfare application that Janet filled out, the child support payments she received, and an error that Mesereau made when he inadvertently asked if the Arvizo children attended school on a weekend (he stated the dates, but didn’t know it was a weekend). Ironically, Jay Jackson stated that they both wanted to keep the Soto St. studio apartment so that Janet would have someplace to go when visiting her mother.

24. Next, Jay Jackson testified that the reason that he turned down Frank Cascio offer of a house and college tuition is because he had not been shown a contract by Cascio, and he really didn’t believe him. He was also asked about his recollections of the Arvizos’ interview with Brad Miller at his apartment, and the only thing he remembered were their vehement denials of abuse at the hands of Jackson.

25. Jay Jackson described how he called the police after speaking to Janet (who had called him from Neverland and sounded like she was under duress), and initially the police didn’t believe his story. But they returned his call the next day, and because Janet had returned home already, he told the police that everything was alright.

26. Finally, Zonen ended his redirect examination on the subject of Jay Jackson’s knowledge of when he began sharing his account with Janet; he couldn’t “remember” exactly when she became a signatory on his account.

27. Mesereau’s recross-examination began with him getting Jay Jackson to explain and clarify his earlier testimony about calling the police and complaining that the Arvizos were trapped at Neverland. Jay Jackson admitted Janet had unfettered access to the phone while at Neverland, and she wanted the police to intercept the vehicle that she would be driven home to, but they could not do it.  Jay Jackson also flatly denied telling the police that he didn’t think Janet was in any danger, despite the fact that it was listed in the police report that he said it!

28. Jay Jackson then went into more detail about the phone call he received from Janet that night, and the number of times that Janet and her kids returned to Neverland after their “escapes” (she left and returned 3 times).

29. Zonen decided to pull out all the stops to show the jury that Jackson’s “goons” were harassing the Arvizo family by asking Jay Jackson about his interactions with “Johnny”, who he thought was a bodyguard for Michael Jackson. Jay Jackson and Johnny had a heated, yet brief exchange when Johnny showed up to check on the Arvizos to see if they were OK, and the children were so afraid that they hid in the kitchen and held knives (according to Jay Jackson). There was another incident when Jay Jackson  and Janet drove to pick the kids up from school, and Janet noticed that Johnny was there, so Jay Jackson told a guidance counselor that his kids were being “stalked” by Johnny, and then he approached Johnny’s car and pretended to take photos of him in order to intimidate him.

30. Johnny’s true identity and motives were revealed by Mesereau, who asked Jay Jackson to confirm whether or not he knew that Johnny was an investigator hired by Mark Geragos to see if the Arvizos were trying to extort Michael Jackson (which Jay Jackson denied). Interestingly, but not surprisingly, Jay Jackson did not call the police on Johnny at any time. After this line of questioning, Mesereau had no further questions, and neither did Zonen.

My summary of Janet Arvizo’s testimony will begin in the next post! To be continued….

 

Advertisements
8 Comments leave one →
  1. sanemjfan permalink
    March 13, 2013 9:58 am

    Guys, here’s a quick update:

    I’m still incredibly busy, but I’ve made some progress with Janet Arvizo’s testimony summary, and I truly hope to get it posted within the next week or two. Trust me, there is nobody who is more anxious to get this posted than me! For the last 6 months or so, I’ve been able to publish 3 or 4 updates per week, so this current hiatus has been very frustrating to me, so I’m very anxious to get back in the swing of things once my hectic schedule dies down.

    Thanks for your patience!

  2. sanemjfan permalink
    February 10, 2013 7:13 pm

    Guys, I’m sorry for all the delays! I’ve been terribly busy lately, and I have a lot of legal documents to read through before I get to Janet Arvizo’s testimony. I want to give readers the complete story of her background, and show how the prosecution tried to cover for her on multiple occasions. My goal is to get Part 1 of her testimony up by next Friday or Saturday.

    She testified for 4 or 5 days, and it’ll take a while to get through it all, but the good thing is that it’s all downhill after her testimony, and I hope to return to posting 3 or 4 new posts each week as I did before. Once I do, I’ll be on pace to finish the trial by late summer or early fall.

    Thanks for your patience!

  3. lynande51 permalink*
    February 3, 2013 8:57 pm

    So none of his timeline on that apartment works either. How long did he say they kept it? Until November of 2004? Then supposedly the “Jackson people” closed it on March 1st,2003? And they were married in May of 2004? Then their son was born on July 17 or 27th I can’t remember which it is of 2004. She was 7 months pregnant before he married her.
    He denies saying something from a police report? He still wants the house even when that video that they were supposedly forced into making wasn’t even used. The reason it wasn’t used is because they wouldn’t sign the release for it until it was too late to send it to production.
    He was as much in on it as she was.

  4. nannorris permalink
    February 2, 2013 10:06 pm

    this part
    Ironically, Jay Jackson stated that they both wanted to keep the Soto St. studio apartment so that Janet would have someplace to go when visiting her mother.

    Incredible, that he would admit they wanted to hold onto the place so Janet would have a place to crash when visiting her mother, which indicates she is living at his place and collecting welfare
    And they are making JOINT decisions regarding the residence she is getting welfare for…
    And he refers to her children as his kids, even ,intervening at the school and everything.
    They are a family unit,,,Of course he knew she was committing welfare fraud.
    I also think the fact that he knew nothing about the JCPenny case , in which his new love interest , had been brutally attacked and her children supposedly witnessed all the horror,and not one member of the Arvizo family mentioned such a traumatic event to him, just helps the defense all the more.
    Can you imagine being on this jury FOR MONTHS listening to this lame case ? unbelievable

    • lynande51 permalink*
      February 6, 2013 10:08 am

      And it isn’t even fiscally responsible to keep an apartment that for her to stay when she visited her mother ( which is ridiculous because she was staying with her mother). That has to be one of the most convoluted stories in the whole trial.

    • nannorris permalink
      February 6, 2013 9:53 pm

      Thats what I mean , they make it sound like they decided to keep it on a whim..It is ridiculous.
      Nobody holds onto an apartment like that , unless it is serving another purpose
      Frankly the idea of a one room apartment , where everyone supposedly sleeps in one bed ,as I believe Gavin had stated , sounds ridiculous to me also, considering the father was a member of the teamsters union, with the very best benefits.
      The kids were all in public schools, great health benefits Where is your paycheck going?.
      And I guess, since Jay Jackson didnt know about the JC Penny case, he supposedly didnt know his future wife was sitting on a pile of money., either??
      None of this is believable .

Trackbacks

  1. Update on the Personal Life of Gavin Arvizo!! | Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0
  2. April 12th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Jay Jackson (Direct and Cross Examination), Part 3 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: