Skip to content

April 13th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Jay Jackson (Cross Examination) and Janet Arvizo (Direct Examination), Part 3 of 5

April 16, 2013

On April 11th, 2005 the prosecution submitted “PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM RE: COMMENT ON JANET ARVIZO’S ASSERTION OF HER PRIVILEGE UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT”, in which he argued that Janet Arvizo should be allowed to plead the Fifth regarding her welfare fraud outside the presence of the jury because pleading it in their presence would lead the jury to draw negative inferences from it (i.e. they would question her character, and subsequently question her credibility regarding her accusations against Jackson.) Mesereau replied in his pleading titled “MR. JACKSON’S RESPONSE TO DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S MEMORANDUM RE: COMMENT ON JANET ARVIZO’S ASSERTION OF HER PRIVILEGE UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT”, in which he argued that Jackson’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to confront his accuser in court would be compromised by Janet’s pleading of the Fifth on the relevant issues regarding her history and credibility.  Mesereau’s argument was so eloquent and succinct that it would be impossible for me to accurately summarize it, so I recommend that everyone read the entire 6 page document to get a clear comprehension of what he said.

On April 12, 2005 Mesereau submitted “SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE: DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S MEMORANDUM RE: COMMENT ON JANET ARVIZO’S ASSERTION OF HER PRIVILEGE UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT”, where he argued for Janet to be precluded from testifying at all, rather than selectively choosing in advance what topics she would and would not testify about. On that same day, Sneddon replied with “PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM RE: COMMENT ON JANET ARVIZO’S ASSERTION OF HER FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE”, in which he continues to be an apologist for Janet’s past behavior, and argues that she arrived at the decision to plead the Fifth with the assistance of her counsel.

Before starting her direct examination, the jury was asked to leave the courtroom while the attorneys worked out some important issues with Judge Melville. Janet exercised her Fifth Amendment right to not testify about the welfare fraud that she committed when she withheld her complete financial status from her welfare application, and for receiving benefits she didn’t deserve from October 2001 to March 2003, subject to Judge Melville’s approval after hearing arguments from the defense and prosecution.

19 THE COURT: (To the jury) The next witness


20 that is going to be called is Janet Arvizo, and it’s


21 necessary that I have a hearing outside of the


22 presence of the jury before she starts her


23 testimony.


24 So I’m going to ask you to step out and


25 we’ll call you back in shortly. We will take our


26 normal break as it occurs. So I suspect you’ll have


27 over half an hour here.


28 // 5941


1 (The following proceedings were held in


2 open court outside the presence and hearing of the


3 jury:)




5 MR. ZONEN: Did you want the witness in the


6 courtroom?




8 Come to the front of the courtroom, please.


9 When you get to the witness stand, please remain


10 standing. Face the clerk and raise your right hand.






13 Having been sworn, testified as follows:






16 THE CLERK: Please be seated. State and


17 spell your name for the record.


18 THE WITNESS: My name is Janet Jackson.


19 Spelled J-a-n-e-t, J-a-c-k-s-o-n.


20 THE CLERK: Thank you.








24 Q. Mrs. Jackson, are you formerly known as


25 Janet Ventura and then Janet Arvizo?


26 A. Yes, sir.


27 Q. And you currently go by “Mrs. Jackson”?


28 A. Yes. 5942


1 Q. And you are married to Jay Jackson?


2 A. Yes.


3 Q. Based on advice of counsel, have you advised


4 the District Attorney’s Office that you will be


5 asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege as to any


6 question asked of you about welfare recipience or


7 applications for welfare during the period of time


8 that you were on welfare?


9 A. Yes.


10 Q. Up until the time that you discontinued


11 welfare?


12 A. Yes.


13 MR. ZONEN: No further questions.


14 THE COURT: Have you consulted an attorney


15 regarding your claim of privilege here?


16 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.


17 THE COURT: Is your attorney going to be here


18 today?


19 THE WITNESS: No, sir.


20 THE COURT: Did you discuss the claim of


21 privilege at length with him?


22 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.


23 THE COURT: Do you believe you have


24 sufficient knowledge to make the claim?


25 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.


26 THE COURT: Do you feel you need any other


27 legal advice concerning your claim of privilege?


28 THE WITNESS: Pardon me? 5943


1 THE COURT: Do you need any other legal


2 advice?




4 THE COURT: What’s the District Attorney’s


5 intention as to how to deal with this?


6 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, my understanding is


7 that this witness will answer all questions put to


8 her other than questions of her welfare application,


9 questions that she answered in her welfare


10 application or in receipt of welfare benefits.


11 We intend on proceeding with our direct


12 examination. We’re not going to ask her any


13 questions about welfare recipience. And I’m


14 assuming that the assertion of the Fifth will be


15 done at this time. And I don’t believe that —


16 well, our position is stated thereafter in our


17 pleadings.


18 THE COURT: All right. Do you, in fact,


19 make a claim under the Fifth Amendment of the United


20 States Constitution against self-incrimination?


21 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.


22 THE COURT: And to what areas do you relate


23 that claim, are you making that claim?


24 THE WITNESS: To what he said.


25 THE COURT: I’d like to hear it from you.


26 THE WITNESS: Of everything to do with the


27 welfare; the application, the process.


28 THE COURT: During what time period? 5944


1 THE WITNESS: The period of when I began


2 till I ended.


3 THE COURT: But when was that?


4 THE WITNESS: Oh, I’m sorry. That was


5 approximately October — approximately October 2001


6 to November 2000 — no, apologize. March 2003.


7 THE COURT: So the claim would involve — the


8 claim of privilege would involve claims made between


9 October of 2001 and March — through March of 2003?


10 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.


11 THE COURT: Has the District Attorney


12 considered giving this witness immunity on that


13 issue?


14 MR. ZONEN: We have — we’re not terribly


15 interested in giving a grant of immunity.


16 THE COURT: All right. We have — points and


17 authorities have been filed. And my thought is


18 there’s no reason for you to ask her any questions.


19 But if you think there is, tell me why.


20 MR. SANGER: I don’t believe — Mr. Mesereau


21 will be handling the witness, but I’m handling this


22 legal issue, if we can bifurcate that, Your Honor.


23 As far as the questions right now, I don’t


24 think there’s any point in asking additional


25 questions. The factual issue is set out.


26 THE COURT: All right. What I’m going to ask


27 you to do is to step down from the witness stand,


28 and just sit behind counsel while we have argument 5945


1 on this issue.

Next, the defense made their argument as to why Janet shouldn’t be allowed to plead the Fifth. Sanger eloquently stated that if Janet is allowed to plead the Fifth, then she shouldn’t be called to testify at all, because witnesses cannot pick and choose what questions they can answer under cross-examination.

During the time period of October 2001 through March 2003, Janet received welfare, food stamps, disability, and unemployment, all the while denying that she had any bank accounts, which was an obvious lie because her settlement from J.C. Penney was deposited in her account. The reason her welfare fraud was so important to the defense is because she was filling out applications, receiving and depositing welfare checks, and eventually she faxed a letter cancelling her welfare benefits (the defense believed that she did this because she knew she was about to extort money from Jackson), among other things. Ultimately, the key to attacking her credibility was to show that she had a penchant for lying to get money, and Jackson was just another target for her.   

Ironically, during his opening statement Sneddon proclaimed to the jury that Janet would confess to and take responsibility for her welfare fraud, but he obviously had a change of heart!

5 THE COURT: Mr. Sanger?


6 MR. SANGER: Yes, sir. I think the best


7 place to look for the organization, such as it is,


8 of our argument is in our supplemental brief that we


9 filed yesterday that goes through the analysis,


10 really, of the remedies, because that’s the problem

11 that we have.


12 The first — the first issue, I think, is


13 pretty clear, but a witness cannot take the Fifth on


14 a material issue and have their testimony considered


15 by the jury. I think the law is very clear on that.


16 So if the People call someone and they say, “We want


17 to get out A, B and C,” and then after we get that


18 information out, the defense is not going to be


19 allowed to confront and cross-examine on D, E and F,


20 the entire testimony would be stricken.


21 Quite often this comes up when the witness


22 takes the stand, testifies, and in the middle of


23 cross-examination wants to take the Fifth, and the


24 Court at that time has no choice but to strike the


25 entire testimony, because you can’t allow a witness


26 to pick and choose what he or she is going to be


27 subject to on cross-examination. If that’s the


28 case, then obviously the remedy at this point is to 5953


1 not allow the witness to be called at all.


2 The question of materiality, which we


3 briefly — I’ll address a little more fully just


4 because, obviously, we didn’t have a lot of time to


5 file things on either side, obviously, the welfare


6 applications in this case are extensive, and they


7 cover in detail the particular issues that relate to


8 things that have come out through Major Jackson’s


9 testimony and pertain to the precise time period


10 that we’re talking about here, the time period


11 during which Miss Arvizo and her children were


12 importuning Mr. Jackson to assist them through 2000


13 and 2001, on into 2002, and of course during the


14 critical periods in 2003, from early February to mid


15 March.


16 During this period of time, Miss Arvizo was


17 not only accepting welfare, food stamps, disability


18 unemployment, but she was also making applications


19 to the Family Law Court. In her extensive statement


20 under oath and specific questions under oath, she in


21 essence denies that she has any bank accounts,


22 whereas we know she had bank accounts as a result of


23 a substantial settlement from J.C. Penney’s; that


24 she has any money, and for the same reason, that’s


25 false; that she’s received any money from anyone,


26 and we know that’s false from other testimony we


27 have so far; that she is living with anyone, and we


28 know that’s false, based on the testimony of Major 5954

1 Jackson that she’s receiving any assistance in that


2 regard; that she has a vehicle to drive, whether or


3 not she owns it.


4 And there are extensive questions that are


5 answered in a way that is clear that it is perjury,


6 and that is a felony. It is also fraud. And as a


7 matter of constitutional right, a defendant is


8 allowed to confront and cross-examine and is


9 entitled to confront and cross-examine a witness who


10 seeks to testify against him.


11 This witness seeks to make all sorts of


12 allegations, as we understand it, against Mr.


13 Jackson. He has a right, through his counsel, to


14 vigorously cross-examine this witness and show that


15 she has committed acts of perjury and acts of fraud,


16 to show that she is not credible, number one. And


17 number two, to show she is doing this during the


18 very same period that she is making allegations in


19 this case against Mr. Jackson.


20 In addition to that, there are a number of


21 very specific factual tie-ins beyond the fraud and


22 the perjury and the credibility. There are factual


23 tie-ins that we would not be allowed to explore,


24 were the District Attorney to get his wish and allow


25 her to just testify unscathed.


26 Factual tie-ins include allegations that she


27 could not — that she was imprisoned somehow, and at


28 the same time she is making applications, she is 5955


1 receiving welfare checks. She’s able to deposit


2 them. She is able to fax a letter telling the


3 welfare department that she no longer wishes to


4 receive welfare, which we maintain is tied to her


5 belief that she is going to be making money and


6 having security based on what she’s trying to


7 establish with Mr. Jackson. All of those things,


8 were the District Attorney to get their wish, would


9 be excluded and we would not be allowed to confront


10 and cross-examine her on these inconsistent acts


11 that are inconsistent with her allegations.


12 We also have some acts, such as the paying


13 of rent on the Soto Street apartment, and the Court


14 has already heard Major Jackson’s somewhat, I’d say,


15 incredible, but, I mean, certainly it didn’t make


16 sense to me, remarks about needing to have the two


17 residences. Additional information comes out about


18 that and will come out that, in fact, she got Brad


19 Miller to pay her rent, she got Jay Jackson to pay


20 her rent, and she got the Trujillos, who own the


21 place, to forgive her rent, based on her claims that


22 she was not able to afford the rent because of


23 Gavin’s illness.


24 So those acts of multiple fraud with regard


25 to that location presumably would come within this


26 same ambit, at least portions of it. Even if we’re


27 allowed to ask part of that, a good portion of that


28 cross-examination would be precluded. 5956


1 Having said that, and without belaboring


2 that any further, unless the Court has questions,


3 that’s the materiality. There’s just no question


4 these are material issues, particularly in a


5 criminal case where you have a constitutional right


6 to confront and cross-examine.


7 THE COURT: But you wouldn’t be precluded


8 from proving those items through other witnesses.


9 You would only be precluded from asking her those


10 questions that relate to the welfare fraud.


11 MR. SANGER: Right. And we’ve addressed


12 that issue briefly —


13 THE COURT: I know.


14 MR. SANGER: — in here.


15 And the answer to that, I think, is that,


16 you know, the right to confront and cross-examine is


17 extremely important because of a variety of things.


18 Number one, it comes at this stage of the


19 proceedings. If the prosecution’s position were


20 adopted, and we were not allowed to inquire, and the


21 jury is not allowed to know about any of this, they


22 would see a witness get up there, be relatively


23 unscathed as to a major part of the — of the issue


24 with regard to her credibility and as to major


25 issues with regard to activities that she engaged in


26 during this period of time. We would then be denied


27 the right to confront and cross-examine.


28 There’s a great quote that we presented to 5957


1 the Court to the effect that that’s a very effective


2 part of the process, the legal process in general,


3 and it is a constitutional part of the criminal


4 legal process to vigorously cross-examine. That is


5 one of the aspects of our system that helps us try


6 to obtain the truth and get to the bottom of things.


7 If we were not allowed to do that,


8 timing-wise, we would not be able to even present


9 this until after the People rested. So, we would be


10 in a position where this jury is going to hear this,


11 they would not be allowed to hear anything to the


12 contrary, she would leave the stand unscathed, and


13 then eventually, through laboriously presenting


14 custodians of records and presenting other evidence


15 from other sources, we would eventually build the


16 case that we have to show that she, in fact,


17 committed welfare fraud.


18 It comes, you know, certainly a day late or


19 a month or two months or three months late in the


20 proceedings. And I believe constitutionally, we’re


21 deprived of that very important right, and that’s


22 why that right exists. We don’t have to wait until


23 two or three months later to put on evidence


24 incrementally. We’re allowed to confront her right


25 off the bat and say, “Isn’t it a fact that this


26 happened?”


27 Now, in addition to that, Mr. Sneddon, in


28 his opening statement, got up and told the Court, 5958


1 and told the jury, that she was going to take


2 responsibility for her welfare fraud, and that it


3 wasn’t that big a deal anyway, but she would take


4 responsibility. She’s done things that were wrong


5 or that she was not proud of, “But,” you know,


6 “ladies and gentlemen, don’t worry about that,


7 because she’s going to take responsibility and tell


8 you honestly what happened here.”


9 Well, if the People were to get their way,


10 the prosecution was going to get its way in this


11 case, she would not do that, and that would not


12 happen.


13 What’s more harmful to our situation, from


14 the — from Mr. Jackson’s standpoint, is that based


15 on those statements made by the prosecution in

16 opening, Mr. Mesereau, on behalf of the defense and


17 Mr. Jackson, got up and made a substantial


18 statement, a series of statements in his opening


19 statement to the effect that we were going to prove


20 X, Y and Z, and that is going to be now swept under


21 the rug, as it were, if the prosecution were to get


22 its way, until such time as we could then present


23 this incrementally during the defense. So it would


24 be extremely prejudicial and it would — it would be


25 a denial of confrontation.


26 So that is why I believe that we get past


27 that point. I believe that based on the case law


28 and the Constitution, we just can’t carve out safe 5959


1 harbors for a witness and allow that witness to


2 testify to what the prosecution wants and not


3 testify to other relevant matters, some of which


4 have already started to come in through Mr. Jackson,


5 or Major Jackson.


6 Now, that takes us to the next point: What


7 does the Court do? And I think that the only remedy


8 at this point is to strike her — or not strike her


9 testimony, but to disallow it. You can’t have a


10 half cross-examined witness in a criminal case.


11 If the Court does that, we then get to the


12 next problem, which is what do we do with this trial


13 as it stands now?


14 And we’ve suggested that the only remedy is


15 to declare a mistrial, because the prosecution has


16 said they were going to present this. We have spent


17 a good deal of time in opening focusing on Janet


18 Arvizo as a witness and her lack of credibility.


19 She is also the kingpin of what they claim was going


20 to be their case for conspiracy. She is the basis


21 for a lot of what they are claiming will be tied up


22 later to establish co-conspirators for the purpose


23 of all the conditional admissions of testimony that


24 the Court has allowed.


25 Can we unring this bell if she doesn’t


26 testify? Even were the Court to grant an 1118.1


27 motion at the end of the prosecution’s case on


28 conspiracy, it would contaminate the entire trial. 5960


1 So I think that the remedy, if the Court


2 excludes her testimony, which it has to do, is to


3 then grant a mistrial.

Sanger proposed letting Janet plead the Fifth in front of the jury (who had already left to courtroom earlier under the Judge’s orders), but not for the purpose of embarrassing her (yeah, right!), but because she isn’t a litigant in the case and it wouldn’t affect her one way or another. If that wasn’t possible, then a mistrial should be considered by the Judge.

4 Now, the reason I raise that at this point


5 is that we have suggested that if the Court were


6 going to deny a mistrial — this is convoluted, but


7 I think we have to go full circle and come back. If


8 the Court were to deny a mistrial, there might be a


9 way to handle this. We’re not prepared to concede


10 that it’s going to do the trick and that it’s


11 constitutionally adequate. But if the Court were to


12 deny a mistrial, one way to handle this would be to


13 allow the witness to testify and to take the Fifth


14 in front of the jury.


15 Now, it’s not for the purpose of


16 embarrassing Miss Arvizo. But more importantly, she


17 is not a stakeholder. She has no stake in whether


18 or not the jury hears that she’s taking the Fifth.


19 If she were a litigant in the case and a stakeholder


20 in the case itself, the Court might say, “Well,


21 that’s unfair,” in the context of requiring her to


22 either take the Fifth or, as in the Pacers case, for


23 instance, lose the ability to litigate a civil case.


24 Under — the Court’s familiar with Pacers.


25 I mean, the balancing was, you can’t make somebody


26 lose their civil case or choose to waive their Fifth


27 Amendment right to win it. But that’s where the


28 person who was facing that issue is a stakeholder in 5961


1 the litigation.


2 Miss Arvizo is not a stakeholder in this


3 litigation. Therefore, asserting the Fifth, as


4 she’s just done in public, in front of the world, is


5 no different than asserting the Fifth in front of


6 the jury, for her. It does not affect her. She is


7 not a stakeholder in the litigation.


8 What it does is some sort of rough justice


9 which would allow the jury to understand that the


10 promises made by Mr. Mesereau at the time of his


11 opening statement are promises that we intend to


12 keep. And that while we are not permitted to go


13 into this now, because she’s asserting the Fifth,


14 we — it is a clear message to the jury that this is


15 an issue that’s still alive, and to keep an open


16 mind, and we will be presenting evidence at a later


17 time.


18 There was, of course — and I don’t want to


19 comment on the content of stipulations, but I


20 understand that Mr. Mesereau indicated that there


21 might be some way to stipulate around this. And I


22 just throw that out, not — we’re not trying to


23 force the prosecution to stipulate. But just as a


24 possible remedy, another remedy would be to enter


25 into some kind of a stipulation, if the prosecution


26 were willing to do it.


27 Absent those remedies, it seems that


28 following the law and looking at the Constitution on 5962


1 confrontation, the only choice that the Court has


2 to — the only choice the Court can make at this


3 point is to exclude her entire testimony, and then


4 the chips fall where they may, either a motion for a


5 mistrial is made, and granted or denied, and then we


6 go on to the next step.


7 The reason I address the motion for mistrial


8 issue is because I think it’s only fair to look at


9 the horizon and see what happens, which might prompt


10 everybody to resolve this some other way, whether


11 it’s by the Court’s order or by stipulation.


12 Unless the Court has questions, I’ll respond


13 to the prosecution.


14 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Zonen?

In his rebuttal, Zonen argued that whether or not Janet testified, the defense could still expose her alleged fraud by questioning other prosecution and defense witnesses, and that having Janet plead the Fifth in front of the jury would prejudice them against her. Janet’s alleged welfare fraud was not relevant to the case, and the defense only wanted to use it to attack her credibility, according to the prosecution, and allowing a mistrial due to this issue was not necessary and shouldn’t be approved.  

15 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, we’ve very


16 thoroughly briefed this issue and I’m going to be


17 very brief in my argument.


18 There’s nothing that they’re seeking to do


19 in the course of this trial for purposes of


20 impeaching her testimony by way of bringing in this


21 information that they cannot do even in the absence


22 of Miss Arvizo or Mrs. Jackson testifying to these


23 matters. They have all the documentation necessary


24 to be able to present the information that Mr.


25 Mesereau said in his opening statement that they


26 would be presenting, and all of this information can


27 be adequately presented to the jury and in a very


28 thorough way. 5963


1 She has a right, constitutional right, not


2 to answer questions that would incriminate her. To


3 a large extent, to some extent certainly, this is a


4 problem of their own creation. Prior to the


5 commencement of this trial, the defendant hired an


6 attorney to present to the Los Angeles District


7 Attorney’s Office a compilation of material, along


8 with a demand letter that she immediately be


9 prosecuted for this matter. So the fact that she’s


10 now asserting the Fifth is certainly — and they’re


11 denying that they did it, even though we have now


12 shown that that same lawyer has filed writs to the


13 California State Supreme Court on behalf of


14 defendant as well.


15 It’s certainly a right that she has to


16 assert the Fifth as to any question that could tend


17 to incriminate her. There’s little question but


18 that issues dealing with this matter could tend to


19 incriminate her. Certainly the matter is currently


20 before the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office.


21 She has a right to do that. She has a right to do


22 that outside the presence of the jury. The only


23 reason that it would be done in front of the jury


24 would be to prejudice her in her assertion of a


25 constitutional right, and case law clearly states


26 that that is not to be done.


27 This is a collateral matter entirely, has


28 nothing to do with any activity that took place in 5964


1 Neverland, has nothing to do with any activity that


2 took place at any other location involving the


3 defendant, such as Miami. It has all to do entirely


4 with credibility issues. And to that extent, since


5 it is entirely with credibility issues, it is out of


6 the gamut of any of those cases that talk in terms


7 of court-imposed immunity.


8 And finally, the issue of a mistrial should


9 be, of course, denied. There is no issue that


10 cannot be presented to this jury in some other


11 fashion. And so that would not be an appropriate


12 remedy.


13 We’ll submit it on our pleadings.


14 MR. SANGER: May I respond, briefly?


15 THE COURT: Let me ask him a question first.

16 MR. SANGER: Mr. Zonen or myself?


17 THE COURT: Mr. Zonen.


18 MR. SANGER: Okay.

Sanger countered that witnesses don’t have a right to not assert their Fifth Amendment protections in front of a jury, and that because she wasn’t  stakeholder in the current case, she should be forced to assert it in front of the jury. He referenced the same case that Howard Weitzman and Bert Fields cited in their motion to have Jackson’s criminal trial precede his possible civil trial in 1993, Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court, in which the court ruled that a defendant in parallel civil and criminal trials can have an order staying discover during the investigative phase of a civil trial until the expiration of the criminal statute of limitations so that the prosecution in the criminal case cannot use evidence and testimony disclosed during a civil case in their criminal case. (Read Paragraph IV for more information on this ruling.)

19 THE COURT: The one issue is, if I deny the


20 defendant’s request to prevent her from testifying,


21 should she be required to claim the privilege in


22 front of the jury?


23 MR. ZONEN: I believe there’s adequate cases


24 that say that is not an obligation for a witness.


25 And the motive in this case purely is for the jury


26 to be able to surmise some negative connotation to


27 asserting a constitutional protection. And I think


28 that the case law is pretty clear that that is just 5965


1 not the implication that they’re supposed to be


2 given from the assertion of a constitutional right.


3 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Sanger?


4 MR. SANGER: I was going to respond to that


5 precise remark that Mr. Zonen made, and therefore to


6 the Court’s question, which is Mr. Zonen said


7 it’s — she has a right to assert the Fifth


8 Amendment. There’s absolutely no question about


9 that. We all believe in the Fifth Amendment. And


10 that’s the law of this country.


11 She does not have a right not to assert it


12 in front of the jury. That is not her right. That


13 is a judicially created rule that is not hard and


14 fast, but it was created to not allow unfairness in


15 front of the jury. It has nothing to do with the


16 witness, again, unless the witness is a stakeholder,


17 which she’s not. That would come under the Pacers


18 kind of analysis.


19 So she does not have a right not to say it


20 in front of the jury. She said it in front of the


21 entire world here on the stand.


22 So the question is, can the Court fashion a


23 remedy that may work? And we believe that that is


24 at least a possibility, depending on how the Court


25 does it. You know, we’re not in a position to


26 concede it.


27 And the only other thing I’d say, quickly,


28 is that with regard to this being reported to the 5966


1 L.A. D.A., it was reported to the L.A. D.A. by


2 somebody who’s not a member of this particular


3 defense team, and that’s what we said. We didn’t


4 mean to imply anything else. However, Mr. Sneddon


5 got up and said it was a crime. Certainly people


6 are prosecuted for much less in Santa Barbara than


7 what this person has done by way of welfare fraud,


8 and it’s reasonable for anybody to report it if they


9 want to. I think that’s a red herring.


10 The real issue comes down to what is the


11 Court going to do about it? Just exclude her


12 testimony entirely? Which leaves us with a can of


13 worms and possibly a mistrial. Or can we find some


14 other way around it? And that’s where we are. And


15 I submit it to the Court for a decision.

Upon the completion of the defense and prosecution’s arguments for and against having Janet’s testimony stricken and a mistrial declared, respectively, Judge Melville cited a 1990 case where the judge ruled that a witnesses’ testimony should not have been stricken, and having that witness plead the Fifth in front of the jury (and allowing them to draw negative inferences from it) would have sufficed, and Judge Melville used that as a precedent for his decision to allow Janet to testify, and to deny the defense’s motion for a mistrial. Before allowing her to testify, however, Judge Melville stated that he would read a few important rules precluding the jury from using Janet’s pleading of the Fifth Amendment against her, and that Janet would not have to make that claim in front of the jury (instead, they would be notified that she made it prior to her testimony).

16 THE COURT: Thank you, Counsel.


17 Neither of you cited People vs. Hecker,


18 219 Cal.App.3d 1238, which is a 1990 case, where an


19 appellate court reviewed a striking of testimony


20 where a witness claimed the Fifth Amendment and


21 indicated that that was, you know, too drastic of a


22 solution for the problem.


23 The appellate court in that case observed


24 that it might have been appropriate for the Court to


25 have permitted the witness to testify, allow the


26 jury to draw negative inferences from his invocation


27 of the Fifth Amendment. And I think the


28 instructions in the Hecker case are powerful 5967


1 instructions to this Court.


2 Therefore, the Court will deny the defense


3 motion to prevent her from testifying, which also


4 leads us to the — takes us right on past the motion


5 for a mistrial, which is denied also.


6 The next question becomes should she be


7 required to claim the Fifth Amendment in front of


8 the jury, and I have a suggestion here.


9 I’d like one member of each team to come


10 forward and pick up my suggested jury instruction,


11 and what — the total intent of this instruction is


12 to advise the jury of the problem that has arisen in


13 this case because of the assertion of the Fifth


14 Amendment.


15 So looking at the suggested instruction on


16 top — and you’ll notice there’s two instructions.


17 Immediately behind that is CALJIC 2.25, which what I


18 would intend to do is blend these instructions,


19 so —


20 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, your intention


21 would be to read this instruction before she


22 testifies?


23 THE COURT: Right.


24 MR. SANGER: Okay.


25 THE COURT: What I would intend to do, if you


26 will follow me and follow along, and we’ll read it


27 right now out loud, because I’m going to interject


28 CALJIC 2.25 in here, so I would tell the jury, “In a 5968


1 hearing held outside your presence, the Court has


2 determined that the Rules of Evidence preclude the


3 parties in this case from examination or


4 cross-examination of Janet Arvizo on the subject of


5 possible welfare fraud.”


6 Then I would interject 2.25, “When a witness


7 refuses to testify in any matter relying on their


8 constitutional privilege against self-incrimination,


9 you must not draw from the exercise of this


10 privilege any inference as to the believability of


11 the witness or any other matter at issue in this


12 trial.”


13 Then going back to this instruction, “This


14 is a ruling that was not anticipated when the


15 attorneys made their opening statements to you.


16 Those statements, however, are not evidence. You


17 should not consider the failure of the prosecution


18 or the defense to cover this subject area in the


19 examination or cross-examination of this witness as


20 having any evidentiary significance or any


21 importance in your ultimate decision on the case,


22 nor should you speculate as to the possible reasons


23 for the Court’s decision.


24 “Evidence of possible welfare fraud may


25 still at some point be presented in this case, but


26 it will not be introduced through the testimony of


27 this witness.”


28 So that’s what I would propose. So, in 5969


1 essence, I’m not — she’s not required to make the


2 claim in front of the jury, but I tell the jury that


3 she’s made that claim, and the same effect, and I


4 explain to them why.


5 And, you know, I have a deep concern that


6 both sides, but primarily — well, I shouldn’t say


7 “primarily.” Be careful how I say this. But both


8 sides were relying on the fact that evidence of


9 possible welfare fraud was going to come in and both


10 made pretty strong statements in their opening


11 statement about it, and I don’t want to gloss over


12 that with the jury. I think it needs to be brought


13 to their attention so that — and here’s where I


14 feel the more strong side is, so the defense — so


15 they’re not wondering why the defense isn’t


16 producing the evidence that Mr. Mesereau stated he


17 would produce in his opening statement.


18 So that’s my proposal.


19 MR. SANGER: Could I be heard on just a


20 couple of technical issues?


21 THE COURT: Yes.

Sanger and Mesereau had a few issues they wanted to address with Judge Melville. First, Sanger asked if the wording of Judge Melville’s statement to the jury about Janet’s charges be changed from “possible welfare fraud” to “possible fraud and perjury”, as the latter description was far more specific and indicative of the true nature of Janet’s crime.

Mesereau wanted to know if he would be permitted to ask questions to Janet to destroy the prosecution’s assertion that she’s never hustled anyone for money before, and Judge Melville stated that he would cover that issue when it was brought up during Janet’s testimony.

In a twisted act of irony, Janet requested to be addressed as “Mrs. Jackson” during her testimony!

22 MR. SANGER: I don’t know how technical they


23 are, but —


24 THE COURT: Probably pretty technical.


25 MR. SANGER: Well, it’s actually fairly


26 substantial in one sense. But the proposed


27 instruction says “possible welfare fraud,” and the


28 other thing that we specifically talked about was 5970


1 perjury. And we’d ask the Court to add “perjury”


2 to — “welfare fraud and perjury.” There’s probably


3 other things, but at the very least that covers the


4 broad areas.


5 The other suggestion that I would have is


6 that the Court — that the first sentence in the


7 suggested instruction – and we’ve had all of a


8 minute and a half to consider this, okay? – but the

9 first sentence that the Court suggests before


10 reading the refusal of a witness to testify doesn’t


11 really indicate that the witness has refused to


12 testify. It says, “The Court’s determined that


13 evidence” — “the rules of evidence preclude the


14 parties….”


15 Now, understanding that our prior motions


16 were denied, and so this is without conceding that,


17 we would ask that the Court indicate that the


18 witness has refused to answer certain questions and


19 the Court has granted the witness that privilege.


20 And then that moves into your 2.25, which explains


21 what the refusal and the privilege is, and that the


22 actual exercise of the privilege cannot be


23 considered.


24 And the reason I suggest that is that


25 otherwise – well, I understand what the Court was


26 doing with this – otherwise, it appears — it may


27 appear to the jury that they’re not to consider this


28 whole area for some reason, and what you’re really 5971


1 saying is they can’t consider the refusal and the


2 assertion of a privilege.


3 THE COURT: Right.


4 MR. SANGER: I’d just ask that that be


5 clarified in that first sentence.


6 Thank you.


7 THE COURT: Did you want to say anything in


8 response?


9 MR. ZONEN: I have no objection to the


10 inclusion of the word “perjury,” but — I have no


11 objection to the inclusion of the word “perjury,”


12 but as to the balance of it, I think the content of


13 the instruction as drafted is adequate.


14 THE COURT: Okay. I think this is how I


15 would like to do it. I think it solves the problem


16 not exactly the way you wanted me to, but taking the


17 suggested instruction paragraph starting with “In a


18 hearing…,” I’m going to add a sentence before that


19 sentence.


20 So the first sentence would read: “The


21 witness, Janet Arvizo, has made a claim of privilege


22 under the Fifth Amendment of the United States


23 Constitution.” Then I go into, “In a hearing held


24 outside your presence, the Court has determined that


25 the rules of evidence preclude the parties….”


26 And then the next sentence is, “When a witness


27 refuses to testify to any matter relying on a


28 constitutional privilege…,” so it all comes 5972


1 together there.


2 Okay?


3 MR. ZONEN: Yes.


4 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor?


5 THE COURT: Yes, sir.


6 MR. MESEREAU: I would be cross-examining


7 the witness, and could I just ask a question? If


8 the prosecution tries to —


9 THE COURT: They can’t hear you in the back.


10 MR. MESEREAU: Sure. I’ll go up there.


11 Your Honor, I’ll be cross-examining the


12 witness, and I suspect the prosecution is going to


13 try to ask questions to create the impression that


14 she’s never asked anybody for money, which we can


15 prove is not true. The — that raises the question


16 of, if they open that door, if they try and create


17 that impression, the question then becomes what can


18 we do to counteract it through proper use of


19 cross-examination? They’ve already suggested in


20 their calling other witnesses that this woman is


21 pristine pure and it’s all her husband who was only


22 asking for money.


23 MR. ZONEN: Judge, we’ve gone beyond the


24 argument in this matter. And I’m going to object to


25 the use of dual counsel as to this motion as well.


26 THE COURT: I think that’s good. I’m glad


27 you did.


28 I think we’ll just deal with that – 5973




2 THE COURT: — when we get to it.


3 MR. MESEREAU: If we could have the


4 opportunity to approach sidebar, if necessary, on


5 that, I would ask the Court’s indulgence in that


6 regard. Because I think an issue might come up and


7 we do have to defend our client, Mr. Jackson,


8 vigorously and professionally, and it does raise a


9 thorny issue.


10 THE COURT: I’ll deal with that as it comes


11 up.


12 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.


13 THE COURT: In a sense, what Mr. Mesereau was


14 saying is that, you know, the claim of privilege is


15 binding on everybody, and the prosecution as well as


16 the defense have to stay away from those areas that


17 would cause her to have to make continual claims in


18 front of the jury. That’s what this is about. Both


19 sides are restricted in their questioning to areas


20 outside of the alleged welfare fraud and resultant


21 possible perjury.


22 And that’s how I take your remarks, Mr.


23 Mesereau. If they don’t respect those lines, then


24 what do you do? And we’ll deal with that as it


25 arises.


26 All right. What we’re going to do is we’re


27 not going to recess. I’m going to step off the


28 bench. We’ll have the jury brought in immediately, 5974


1 and then we’ll start.


2 I don’t want the witness in the witness


3 stand, because I’m going to instruct the jury from


4 the witness chair. The witness has already been


5 sworn. I’ll advise the jury of that.


6 Since she is now known as Mrs. Jackson, are


7 we going to refer to her mainly, for the most part,


8 as “Mrs. Arvizo” for the purposes of the


9 examination, or —


10 MR. ZONEN: She’s requesting that I address


11 her as “Mrs. Jackson.”


12 THE COURT: Well, that’s fine. I didn’t ask


13 you what she wanted.


14 (Laughter.)


15 THE COURT: I said, are we going to address


16 her as “Miss Arvizo,” “Mrs. Arvizo”?


17 MR. MESEREAU: We would request that, Your


18 Honor.


19 THE COURT: The reason being, there’s so many


20 documents, tapes and things, and I’m concerned about


21 the confusion to the jury of the names. That’s all.


22 MR. ZONEN: Whatever is the Court’s


23 direction.


24 THE COURT: I’ll allow you to address the


25 issue with the witness in front of the jury, so that


26 they understand that I’m not going to require that


27 people address her as “Mrs. Jackson” in the trial,


28 because I don’t want to have that problem of 5975


1 confusion over names. All right?


2 MR. ZONEN: Okay.


3 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.


4 THE COURT: Bring in the jury.

Here are Judge Melville’s instructions to the jury regarding Janet’s pleading of the Fifth:

6 (The following proceedings were held in


7 open court in the presence and hearing of the

8 jury:)




10 THE COURT: (To the jury) Here I am again.


11 (Laughter.)


12 THE COURT: I’m going to read you again some


13 instructions, and remind you that at the end of the


14 case, I will fully instruct you on all of the law


15 involved in the case, but I’m instructing you at


16 this time to specifically deal with a specific


17 problem that’s arisen in the evidence of the case.


18 So I’d like you to listen carefully to this.


19 The witness, Janet Arvizo, has made a claim


20 of privilege under the Fifth Amendment of the United


21 States Constitution. In a hearing held outside your


22 presence, the Court has determined that the rules of


23 evidence preclude the parties in this case from


24 examination or cross-examination of Janet Arvizo on


25 the subject of possible welfare fraud.


26 When a witness refuses to testify to any


27 matter relying on the constitutional privilege


28 against self-incrimination, you must not draw from 5976


1 the exercise of this privilege any inference as to


2 the believability of the witness or any other matter


3 at issue in this trial.


4 This is a ruling that was not anticipated


5 when the attorneys made their opening statements to


6 you. Those statements, however, are not evidence.


7 You should not consider the failure of the


8 prosecution or the defense to cover this subject


9 area in the examination or cross-examination of this


10 witness as having any evidentiary significance or


11 any importance in your ultimate decision on the


12 case, nor should you speculate as to the possible


13 reasons for the Court’s decision. Evidence of


14 possible welfare fraud and perjury may still at some

15 point be presented in this case, but it will not be


16 introduced through the testimony of this witness.


17 You may call your witness to the stand.


18 MR. ZONEN: We’ll call Janet Arvizo Jackson


19 to the stand, please.

Here we go! Finally! Here is Janet’s description of her background, and her recollection of how she met Jackson:





6 Q. The name that you’re currently going by is


7 what name, please?


8 A. Janet Jackson.


9 Q. And you were previously Janet Arvizo; is


10 that correct?


11 A. Yes.


12 Q. And your maiden name is Janet Ventura; is


13 that right?


14 A. Yes. Correct.


15 Q. To the extent that you may, at different


16 times in this proceeding, be referred to by any of


17 those three names, that would be you; is that


18 correct?


19 A. Yes.


20 Q. And you understand that there are documents


21 that will be admitted and shown to you under the


22 name “Janet Arvizo”?


23 A. Yes.


24 Q. And you understand that you’ll be addressed


25 as “Janet Arvizo” at different times during this


26 proceeding as well?


27 A. Yes.


28 Q. You are currently married to whom? 5978


1 A. Jay Jackson.


2 Q. And what does Jay Jackson do?


3 A. He’s a major in the Army.


4 Q. And with whom do you reside at this time?


5 A. With my husband and my four children.


6 Q. And your four children include the three who


7 have already testified in this proceeding?


8 A. Yes, sir.


9 Q. Star, Gavin and Davellin?


10 A. Yes.


11 Q. And you have a baby at home; is that right?


12 A. Yes.


13 Q. And how old is he?


14 A. He’s eight months.


15 Q. I’d like to direct your attention, please,


16 back to the year 2000, as best I can. Can you tell


17 me if, during that period of time, you were first


18 introduced to Michael Jackson?


19 A. I’m sorry, say that again.


20 Q. When did you first meet Mr. Jackson?


21 A. In August of 2000.


22 Q. All right. And is Michael Jackson here in


23 the courtroom at this time?


24 A. Yeah.


25 Q. And is he the man with the long dark hair?


26 A. Uh-huh.


27 Q. Sitting to my right?


28 A. Yes. 5979


1 Q. What were the circumstances of your


2 introduction to Mr. Jackson?


3 A. My son’s illness.


4 Q. Your son was suffering from what illness at


5 the time?


6 A. Cancer.


7 Q. How is it that you happened to meet Mr.


8 Jackson?


9 A. It was either two — one of two people. I


10 never knew who.


11 Q. Somebody arranged an introduction?


12 A. Yes.


13 Q. Was your son actively ill at that time?


14 A. Yes.


15 Q. What type of treatment was he receiving?


16 A. Chemotherapy.


17 Q. Was there a time that you and other members


18 of your family were taken to Neverland?


19 A. Yes.


20 Q. And Neverland is a ranch in Santa Barbara


21 County, is it not?


22 A. Yes.


23 Q. All right. Do you remember when that was,


24 what month, what year?


25 A. August 2000.


26 Q. Did somebody take you there?


27 A. We were picked up, yes.


28 Q. Do you know who that person was? 5980


1 A. His limo.


2 Q. All right. And who among your family


3 members went to Neverland back then?


4 A. My ex-husband David and my three children.


5 Q. And the three children are the ones we’ve


6 already identified?


7 A. Yes.


8 Q. Okay. How old was Gavin at that time?


9 A. Gavin was ten.


10 Q. Had he already undergone surgery for his


11 cancer?


12 A. Yes.


13 Q. And was he going through chemotherapy at the


14 time?


15 A. Yes.


16 Q. Can you describe his condition at the time


17 of that first visit to Neverland? How was he doing


18 at that time?


19 A. He was at that point where walking was kind


20 of difficult for him. He would walk, I don’t know,


21 when you — kind of like a toddler walk.


22 Q. All right.


23 A. And he would tire easy.


24 Q. Was he taking medication at the time?


25 A. Yes.


26 Q. And —


27 A. The chemotherapy.


28 Q. And as a consequence of the surgery, has he 5981


1 since been taking medication?


2 A. Yes.


3 Q. What’s the nature of the medication that he


4 takes?


5 A. His — one of his kidneys is malfunctioning,


6 and so that — he takes one medicine for that so he


7 doesn’t end up losing that kidney. He sees a


8 specialist for that, but there’s a possibility that


9 he could lose his kidney.


10 Q. Okay. What’s the other medication?


11 A. The other one is in replacement of his


12 spleen, and that’s for — it’s — it’s a medical


13 word, but I really don’t know what it means. They


14 call it prophylactic, and that’s so — because


15 there’s certain bacteria that, if Gavin is exposed


16 to those bacterias, it’s certain death.


17 Q. It’s an antibiotic of sorts?


18 A. Yes.


19 Q. It’s for his immune system?


20 A. This is what they’ve explained to me. I


21 don’t know.

Here is her recollection of her first trip to Neverland in August 2000; during this excerpt, Janet said the first of what will be many, and I mean MANY inconsistencies between her testimony, and those of her family! She stated that her children never stayed in the guest units at Neverland during their first visit:

22 Q. During that first visit, do you recall how


23 many days you stayed at Neverland?


24 A. No, I couldn’t tell you.


25 Q. Do you know if it was more than one night?


26 A. Oh, yes.


27 Q. Can you tell us if it was as long as a week?


28 A. No. Definitely no. 5982


1 Q. And where did you stay during that first


2 visit at Neverland?


3 A. Me and David stood in one room. And my


4 children were supposed to stay in another room


5 together, but it ended up just being Davellin.


6 Q. You and your husband then, David?


7 A. Yeah.


8 Q. And Davellin in one room?


9 A. Yes.


10 Q. And where did the boys stay?


11 A. With Michael.


12 Q. In his house?


13 A. Yes.


14 Q. Do you know where in his house that he


15 stayed?


16 A. I know —


17 Q. Let me ask the question more specifically.


18 A. Sure.


19 Q. Do you know from personal observation — in


20 other words, did you see where they stayed? Not


21 from what anybody told you, but did you see where


22 they stayed?


23 A. No.


24 Q. During that first visit, did you ever go


25 into Mr. Jackson’s residence?


26 A. His residence — there’s an area where


27 there’s a — like a kitchen area where everybody can


28 go into, but the — but — it’s — it’s open, you 5983

1 know, to that area, eating area.


2 Q. And that’s the area you went into?


3 A. Yes.


4 Q. Did you go into his personal residence, his


5 bedroom or his bedroom suite?


6 A. No.


7 Q. Have you ever been to —


8 A. No.


9 Q. — his residence, his personal residence,


10 meaning his bedroom suite?


11 A. That’s right.


12 Q. And the answer is no, you had not been?


13 A. No.


14 Q. All right. During the period of time that


15 you were there, did your sons ever stay in the guest


16 cottage?


17 A. No.


18 Q. To your knowledge? To your recollection?


19 A. No.


20 Q. Did you then return, at the conclusion of


21 that visit, back to your home?


22 A. Yes.

However, here is Gavin’s testimony from March 14th, 2005 about sleeping in the guest units during his first trip to Neverland:


28 Q. And is it your testimony that that first 1915

1 visit, you had dinner in the main house with your

2 family and Michael Jackson.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And during that dinner, was there a

5 discussion about whether or not you and Star could

6 sleep in Michael Jackson’s room.

7 A. The first day.

8 Q. Yes.

9 A. Yeah. Like, we were in Michael’s office and

10 then we were talking about stuff, and then Michael

11 told me to ask if I could go sleep in his room so we

12 can watch, like, movies and stuff.

13 Q. Was there a discussion at the dinner table

14 that evening with your parents and Michael Jackson

15 about whether or not you could stay in his room.

16 A. Yes. Michael told me to ask my parents in

17 front of him and my parents.

18 Q. Did you ask your parents in front of Mr.

19 Jackson at the dinner table that evening.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Did your parents both approve you and your

22 brother staying in Michael Jackson’s room.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And that’s the night you say Michael and

25 Frank slept on the floor, right.

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. Did you ever ask either of your parents

28 after that whether you could stay in Michael 1916

1 Jackson’s room.

2 A. I don’t think so.

3 Q. You don’t think you ever asked them that

4 question again.

5 A. I think it was like we only stood there that

6 one night, and then after that, we stood in our

7 units or something. Because I think that’s the only

8 night I slept in his room, the first night.

9 Q. Okay. You said after that, you had stayed

10 in the guest units.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And are the guest units where your mother

13 was staying.

14 A. Well, there’s a lot of guest units, so I

15 think me and my brother had a room. Me and my

16 brother and my sister had a room, and my mom and my

17 dad had another room.

18 Q. Okay. And you and your brother would stay

19 in those guest units, right.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And approximately how many of those trips to

22 Neverland do you think you and your brother stayed

23 in the guest units.

24 A. After that first night we would stay in

25 there every night we would go there, every time, or

26 sometimes we would go to the train house and sleep

27 up there.


Next, Janet described Gavin’s chemotherapy treatments, and his need to live in the sterile room at his grandmother’s apartment. Notice how Janet was chastised for not listening to the entire question before answering; this is the first of many reprimands that she received about this!

23 Q. Where was your home at that time?


24 A. Okay. It’s — can I explain to them?


25 Q. Well, try to focus on the question as best


26 you can.


27 A. Okay.


28 Q. Did you have a residence at that time? 5984


1 A. Yes.


2 Q. Did you have actually more than one place


3 where you or other members of your family were


4 staying?


5 A. Me and the children, when Gavin — right


6 after he would have —


7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; nonresponsive.


8 MR. ZONEN: You have to listen to the


9 question.




11 MR. ZONEN: Does the Court want to rule?


12 THE COURT: I thought you were going to take


13 care of it.


14 MR. ZONEN: I was.


15 THE COURT: Well, go ahead.


16 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Listen to the question as


17 specifically as possible, okay?


18 Was there more than one residence that you


19 and your family were staying in during this period


20 of time?


21 A. I don’t know how to answer that without


22 explaining it.


23 Q. Did you have a residence that you were


24 paying rent on?


25 A. Yes.


26 Q. Where was that?


27 A. In East L.A.


28 Q. Was there another residence that any member 5985


1 of your family was staying in?


2 A. At my mom’s.


3 Q. Where was your mom’s residence?


4 A. In El Monte.


5 Q. And who was staying at your mom’s residence?


6 A. Gavin and David.


7 Q. Okay. And why was Gavin — why were Gavin


8 and David staying at your mother’s residence in El


9 Monte?


10 A. Because Davellin and Star were still going


11 to school. I got three kids, you know. Only


12 because Gavin has cancer doesn’t mean the other


13 ones, they’re off. They got to go to school.


14 Q. All right. But —


15 A. And so —


16 Q. — why was Gavin staying at your mother’s?


17 A. Sterile room.


18 Q. Tell us —


19 A. Because in my bachelor apartment, there’s no


20 divided rooms, bedrooms.


21 Q. All right. So what did Gavin — what


22 special needs did Gavin require that necessitated


23 him staying at your mother’s?


24 A. A sterile room after chemotherapy.


25 Q. Could he or was he being exposed to your


26 other two children?


27 A. Yes, my other two kids were still going to


28 school, so they had to be separated for that moment, 5986


1 because the children could have picked up some other


2 germs, which at the time Star was nine, and —


3 Q. So your then husband David and Gavin stayed


4 at your mother’s?


5 A. Yes.


6 Q. And the rest of you stayed at where?


7 A. East L.A.


8 Q. And the East L.A. was the Soto Street


9 residence that —


10 A. Yes.


11 Q. — we’ve heard something about; is that


12 correct?


13 A. Yes.


14 Q. Describe that residence for us.


15 A. I’ve lived there for about five years.


16 Q. Tell us what it looked like, the residence.


17 A. Um —


18 Q. How many rooms?


19 A. It was my home.


20 Q. All right. But how many rooms? Was there a


21 bedroom?


22 A. No.


23 Q. Was there a living room?


24 A. No. It was just a room and a wall to divide


25 the kitchen.


26 Q. Okay. So there’s a kitchen and one room?


27 A. Yeah.


28 Q. It’s a studio; is that right? 5987


1 A. Yeah.


2 Q. And all of you lived in that residence?


3 A. Yes. And it had a rest room, too.


4 Q. And it had a bathroom?


5 A. Yes.


6 Q. And a kitchen?


7 A. Yeah.


8 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Could you lean forward so


9 we can hear?


10 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: We’re not picking on you. We


11 need to have everybody, all of the witnesses, speak


12 directly into the microphone so you can be heard.


13 A. Yeah.


14 Q. And for what period of time was this your


15 residence? From when to when?


16 A. For five years. From 1998 to 2003.


17 Q. Okay. There’s some Kleenex up there, if you


18 need some, as well, I believe, in front of you.


19 Now, during the period of time that Gavin


20 was ill, did he stay at that residence on Soto


21 Street at all?


22 A. No.


23 Q. Was he going to school during that year that


24 he was ill?


25 A. He — the whole entire time while he had


26 cancer he did not attend school one single day.


27 Q. Was he either at your mother’s residence or


28 at the hospital? 5988


1 A. Yes.


2 Q. And did he periodically return to the

3 hospital for treatment?


4 A. Yes.


5 Q. Can you tell us approximately within, say, a


6 30-day period how much of that time he would have


7 spent at the hospital, how often of that time he


8 would have spent at your mother’s residence?


9 A. He didn’t just stay for the chemotherapy.


10 He was hospitalized — sometimes because he had


11 fevers, he had to get hospitalized. Any — any


12 fragility in his health, he had to be hospitalized.


13 Q. So give us a sense. Of the 30-day period,


14 what percentage of that might he have spent in a


15 hospital?


16 A. Sometimes. Sometimes more than half.


17 Q. All right.


18 A. Sometimes.


19 Q. How long did the chemotherapy go on?


20 A. Almost a year, but quite not a year.


21 Q. Was there a point in time where doctors


22 determined that he was in remission?


23 A. Yes.


24 Q. And approximately when was that?


25 A. It was about in May, but for sure — yeah.


26 Q. In May of when?


27 A. In May of 2001.


28 Q. May of 2001? 5989


1 A. Yes.


2 Q. Was there some kind of demarcation, a test


3 or something that they did?


4 A. Yes.


5 Q. And what was that?


6 A. They did a full checkup, and they concluded


7 that it was not — it was in remission.


8 Q. Okay.


9 A. And then that’s when — he had to have a


10 little thing going through his heart, his main


11 artery, because he was receiving such strong


12 dosages, so he had to have the strongest artery.


13 Q. And that was removed?


14 A. Yes, that was removed.


15 Q. All right. Is he in remission today?


16 A. Yes, he is.


17 Q. Is he healthy today?


18 A. Outside the — the two specialists that see


19 him continuously, his oncologist, his nephrologist,


20 he’s a healthy boy, but he’s got medical concerns.


21 Q. And still sees a doctor?


22 A. Yes.


23 Q. And still takes medication?


24 A. Yes. And then the scare we just had where


25 he had a very serious test.


26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; nonresponsive.


27 MR. ZONEN: Hold on.


28 No objection to that. 5990


1 THE COURT: I’ll allow the “Yes” and strike


2 the rest of the sentence.

Zonen questioned Janet again about her trips to Neverland in 2000 and 2002. She testified that she didn’t go back to Neverland during her son’s second visit there in 2000 because of the fight she got into with ex-husband David during her first visit:

3 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. Now, you


4 described that first visit to Neverland back in


5 August of 2000; is that correct?


6 A. Yes.


7 Q. All right. When was the next time you went


8 to Neverland?


9 A. Me?


10 Q. Yes.


11 A. Oh, let me see. Um — um — September 2002,


12 because Chris had invited me, Chris and Aja.


13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; nonresponsive.


14 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: The answer (sic) simply is


15 when was the next time you went?


16 A. Oh. September of 2002.


17 Q. Did your son or both of your sons or your


18 two sons and daughter return to Neverland at an


19 earlier time than that?


20 A. Yes.


21 Q. Excuse me.


22 When was the next time — when was the next


23 time that they went back to Neverland, to your


24 recollection?


25 A. Okay. The boys?


26 Q. Yes.


27 A. The boys went right after the initial visit


28 in August of 2000. But Davellin didn’t go. Neither 5991


1 did I.


2 Q. Did your then husband David go?


3 A. Yes, with David.


4 Q. And were they transported there?


5 A. Yes.


6 Q. And why didn’t you go?


7 A. I felt it was more important for Davellin to


8 focus on her school. She was already starting high


9 school, ninth grade.


10 Q. So you stayed home with Davellin?


11 A. Yes.


12 Q. And were there any other visits —


13 A. And because of the little incident that Dave


14 did over there.


15 Q. You’ve had problems with David over the


16 years of your marriage; is that correct?


17 A. Yeah.


18 Q. Do you know how many visits your children


19 had to Neverland after the initial visit, and


20 approximately when they were?


21 A. Okay. The first initial visit in August,


22 and these are all approximate, August of 2000. Then


23 the boys, when they returned with David, right after


24 that. Then in the spring of 2002, with Chris. And


25 then Michael invited them immediately back up. And


26 then with Chris’s — the family birthday party that


27 Chris had, Chris and Aja. And then the filming of


28 this stuff – 5992


1 Q. All right.


2 A. — in September.


3 Q. All right. You’re not — all right. Let’s


4 see if we can work this out a little bit.


5 We have the initial visit August of 2000.


6 A. Yes.


7 Q. And then you said they returned, your


8 husband David and the two boys, soon thereafter?


9 A. Yes.


10 Q. And by “soon,” are we talking about within a


11 week or two?


12 A. Oh, yes.


13 Q. Okay. And do you know for what period of


14 the visit they stayed, for how long?


15 A. And this is approximate, okay?


16 Q. Sure. Sure.


17 A. Pardon me?


18 Q. Approximately how long they stayed for the


19 second visit.


20 A. Oh, I couldn’t tell you.


21 Q. Would you know —


22 A. Just days.


23 Q. — if it was more than one night?


24 A. Oh, definitely, yes.


25 Q. Was it less than a week?


26 A. Yes.


27 Q. And you were at home with Davellin?


28 A. Yes. 5993


1 Q. And was “home” at that time the Soto Street


2 address?


3 A. Yes.


4 Q. Now, were there any other visits in that


5 year, the year of 2000, to either Neverland or a


6 visit with Michael Jackson at someplace other than


7 Neverland?


8 A. Yes. Michael had invited Gavin and David to


9 go to the Universal Hilton in Studio City, and


10 that’s — and in this time it was only Gavin in the


11 hotel.


12 Q. Okay. Gavin and only Gavin, or Gavin and


13 his father?


14 A. Only Gavin and David.


15 Q. So his father went, but not his brother or


16 his sister?


17 A. No.


18 Q. And you didn’t go?


19 A. No. No.


20 Q. Was that an overnight visit?


21 A. No, it was a day visit.


22 Q. And they returned that same day?


23 A. Yes.


24 Q. All right. Was there any other visit in


25 2000 that you’re aware of?


26 A. No.


27 Q. Was there any visit in 2001 that you were


28 aware of? 5994


1 A. Zero.


2 Q. No visits to Neverland during that time?


3 A. No.

Janet testified that after the third visit to Neverland in 2000, she didn’t allow her kids to visit anymore because she felt “a little bit uneasy”, and that she stopped all communications between Gavin and Jackson. This is an absolute lie because Gavin and Star were sending Jackson cards in the mail, and were still trying to reach him even as he recorded “Invincible” in New York City during that time!

4 Q. All right. Now, during that initial period


5 when your son met Michael Jackson, did you have any


6 telephone calls with Mr. Jackson at all?


7 A. Me?


8 Q. Yes.


9 A. In 2000?


10 Q. Yes. In 2000.


11 A. No.


12 Q. Do you know if Mr. Jackson was having


13 conversations with your son over the telephone?


14 A. Yes.


15 Q. Do you know where those conversations took


16 place? And I mean your son’s end of the


17 conversation, where he was at the time of those


18 conversations?


19 A. Sometime in the hospital, but mostly at my


20 mom’s house. Gavin had his own room. And he had


21 his own telephone line, his own — his own answering


22 machine, because usually they — the doctor had


23 suggested that sometimes when we use a phone, we can


24 easily pass viruses or anything on the telephone.


25 Q. So he had a telephone that only he used?


26 A. Yes.


27 Q. That was at your mom’s house?


28 A. Yes. 5995


1 Q. Now, did you ever — were you ever present


2 during any of these conversations?


3 A. Sometimes. Sometimes, but not — they’d go


4 on forever, so I’d — you know, I have to go do


5 other things.


6 Q. Approximately how long were these telephone


7 conversations?


8 A. Hours.


9 Q. Literally hours?


10 A. Yes.


11 Q. And how frequent were they? In other words,


12 how many conversations would they have in, say, a


13 week period of time?


14 A. They were frequent. I couldn’t — I


15 couldn’t be able to tell you. But I know that after


16 he met him, it was more.


17 Q. And did these phone calls go on for a length


18 of time?


19 A. Yes.


20 Q. In other words, over weeks?


21 A. Yes.


22 Q. Approximately how many?


23 A. I can’t remember.


24 Q. Now, you said that after that third visit at


25 the hotel, there were no other visits —


26 A. Uh-huh.


27 Q. — that either or any of your children had


28 with Michael Jackson during the balance of 2000 or 5996


1 2001?


2 A. Correct.


3 Q. Do you know why that was?


4 A. Well —


5 MR. MESEREAU: Objection.


6 THE WITNESS: Because me.


7 MR. MESEREAU: Calls for speculation;


8 foundation; and hearsay.


9 THE COURT: Overruled.


10 You may answer.


11 THE WITNESS: Okay. What was the question?


12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Do you know why that was?


13 A. Because I just felt a little bit uneasy.


14 That’s all. He didn’t do nothing, you know. You


15 know, it just felt — it just felt uneasy.


16 Q. Did you do something to stop communication


17 between your son and Michael Jackson?


18 A. Um — um, yeah, I just expressed I was


19 uneasy about it.


20 Q. Okay. And you said no visits in the year


21 2001 as well?


22 A. That’s right.

Next, Zonen questioned Janet about the relationships she had with other celebrities who were there for her during Gavin’s illness. Notice how Janet said that Chris Tucker and his then girlfriend Aja Pryor had built up a lot of “credibility” with her!

23 Q. When was the first visit in 2002?


24 A. That was with Chris Tucker and Aja. They


25 had built so much credibility with me, they took


26 my — it was like everything was — like doing


27 family activities together, and so when Chris had


28 asked me that he wanted to take the children to 5997


1 Neverland, I felt it was okay, because Chris — you


2 know, they’re decent people, Chris and Aja.


3 Q. Chris Tucker is somebody who befriended your


4 son —


5 A. Yes.


6 Q. — during the time he was ill?


7 A. Yes.


8 Q. Did he actually know him prior to that?


9 A. No.


10 Q. There were a number of celebrities that did


11 know your children —


12 A. Yes.


13 Q. — prior to your son Gavin becoming ill.


14 A. Yes.


15 Q. And who were they?


16 A. Well, let me see. I don’t know if you call


17 them famous or something, but they’re famous to me.


18 Q. People who had befriended your child —


19 A. Yes.


20 Q. — or children prior to Gavin becoming ill?


21 A. For example, Wheezy. Her name is Louise


22 Palanker. To me, she’s famous.


23 Q. Who else?


24 A. Jamie, George Lopez, Fritz. And then Jamie


25 had — Jamie had, like, guests, comics that came,


26 and celebrities, and so they would — they met them


27 there.


28 Q. The introduction to Chris Tucker was by 5998


1 whom?


2 A. By Jamie.


3 Q. Was that during the time that your son was


4 ill?


5 A. Yes.


6 Q. And did Jamie Masada often visit your son at


7 the hospital?


8 A. Oh, yes. Yes. Almost daily. My son


9 even — my — Jamie would try to — there came a


10 point where Gavin wasn’t eating because he was


11 vomiting blood, because he was a very sick boy. And


12 so Jamie was trying to get him to eat, and he’d —


13 Gavin had vomited on him, and that didn’t keep him


14 away. He still kept coming.

Janet was then questioned about her relationship with her ex-husband David, including his abuse of her and the children, and the restraining order that she had taken out on him:

15 Q. Okay. Now, the visit to Neverland in 2002


16 with Mr. Tucker, do you know who arranged that?


17 A. Chris.


18 Q. And did he in fact take the kids there?


19 A. Yes.


20 Q. All right. How many kids went on that


21 visit?


22 A. On the baby boy’s birthday party?


23 Q. The first visit in 2002.


24 A. Oh, I see. The best I can remember,


25 Chris — this is another thing, too. Chris was


26 working on a movie that he was trying to put


27 together called “The President.” And he took his


28 writer, Kelly. And he took the kids because he says 5999


1 they’re funny and they give him ideas, you know, by


2 them joking around with him.


3 Q. Okay.


4 A. So —


5 Q. When do you think that first visit was?


6 A. The return, with Chris?


7 Q. The first visit in 2002 with Chris Tucker.


8 A. That was in spring.


9 Q. In spring?


10 A. Yes.


11 Q. All right. Now, the next visit to Neverland


12 was approximately when?


13 A. Michael had invited the kids right after.


14 Q. Did he call the house?


15 A. Yes. Evvy did.


16 Q. Evvy called. Did she speak with you?


17 A. No.


18 Q. Who did she — with whom did she speak?


19 A. Gavin.


20 Q. Do you know approximately how long that was


21 after that first visit with Chris Tucker?


22 A. I can’t remember right now, but — I think


23 it was Michael, too, but — unless I know for a


24 fact, I’ll tell you, but that’s the best I can


25 remember.


26 Q. And did the kids in fact go at that time?


27 A. Yes.


28 Q. This is now still spring of 2002? 6000


1 A. Yes. Right after they were there with


2 Chris.


3 Q. Was your husband still in the picture at


4 that time, David?


5 A. No.


6 Q. Had you already separated?

7 A. Yes. I’d been separated from David since


8 May of 2001.


9 Q. From the time of that separation, has David


10 had contact with your children?


11 A. No.


12 Q. Was there an order that prohibited him from


13 doing so?


14 A. Okay. During the summer, even though he


15 was — he had done the things he had done, during


16 the summer I still tried — I thought it was my


17 fault, so I tried to encourage. I figured — I


18 figured he — he can have some kind of — start


19 becoming or having a father relationship with them


20 in the summer. But that ended when those criminal


21 things —


22 Q. Was there a criminal prosecution of David?


23 A. Yes.


24 Q. Did — was there actually more than one?


25 A. Yes.


26 Q. All right. One involving you, and one


27 involving Davellin?


28 A. Yes, two different years. 6001


1 Q. Following those prosecutions, was there any


2 contact between David Arvizo and your children?


3 A. No, except for that one time that he had


4 violated the restraining order with Davellin.


5 Q. And you were in court?


6 A. Yes.


7 Q. Other than being in court —


8 A. Yes.


9 Q. — was there any contact?


10 A. And then that violation of the restraining


11 order with Davellin.

Here is how Janet met Jay Jackson in July 2002, and a description of the Sea Cadet Program that Star and Gavin were enrolled in, during which Janet met Jay Jackson for the first time. She also described the white Ford Bronco that was loaned to her by Jackson so that the family would have a vehicle to bring Gavin to and from the hospital:

23 Q. Now, at some point around this period of


24 time, you meet Jay Jackson; is that correct?


25 A. Yes.


26 Q. When did you meet Jay Jackson?


27 A. I met him — I met Jay in July of 2002, but


28 just met. You know, the children were attending 6004


1 this Sea Cadet program in his base. I don’t know if


2 you call it “base,” but it’s — it’s — I don’t know


3 the appropriate — correct thing. I used to do


4 something. It’s disrespectful, but it’s funny. I


5 would tell him that’s the Sea Cadet Headquarters,


6 but it was actually an Army base.


7 Q. The base was where, now?


8 A. In West L.A.


9 Q. Would you take the children there?


10 A. Yes, I did.


11 Q. The “children” were just the two boys?


12 A. Yes, just the two boys. But I was —


13 Davellin was involved with the LAPD Explorer


14 program, but I was trying to see if Davellin would


15 be interested in that, too.


16 Q. And is Davellin still involved in LAPD


17 Explorers?


18 A. Yes. Well, to this day, no. Right now


19 she’s pretty busy. She’s going to work and going to


20 school.


21 Q. But she was with the LAPD Explorers?


22 A. Yes.


23 Q. For some period of time?


24 A. Yes.


25 Q. Now, this program, the Navy Sea Cadets, how


26 is it that the boys became involved in that?


27 A. Okay. Someone had gone to their school and


28 kind of explained what this program was. And then I 6005


1 got interested, because in the packet it said a lot


2 of interesting things to do to help them with


3 hopefully becoming a better person, so — and


4 leadership skills, so —


5 Q. Was there a charge for it?


6 A. There was a cost, depending on — depending


7 on your — if you wanted to volunteer/no volunteer.


8 Not volunteer for everything, but — you know, in


9 the little thing.


10 Q. But there wasn’t a mandatory fee requirement


11 for this?


12 A. As far as I know, there wasn’t.


13 Q. Now, you would bring the boys to that


14 location?


15 A. Yes.


16 Q. And how often did they go?


17 A. They went — well, Gavin — Gavin and Star


18 volunteered for just about everything possible.


19 Q. Okay. But how often do you think you would


20 take them there?


21 A. Okay. Twice a month, but because the boys


22 were volunteering just about for everything, it


23 would be more than twice a month.


24 Q. All right. And the location where you took


25 them was where?


26 A. In West L.A.


27 Q. Did you have a car during this period of


28 time? 6006


1 A. No, I didn’t.


2 Q. From the time of your separation from David


3 Arvizo, did you ever have a car during that time?


4 A. From like when — let me see. About the end


5 of spring or the beginning of summer of 2001, they


6 had — the car that they had given Gavin they took


7 back.


8 Q. There was a vehicle — actually, my question


9 was after your separation with David Arvizo.


10 A. Yeah. It still stood for about one more


11 month, about.


12 Q. So you had that car for about a month after


13 your separation?


14 A. Yeah, probably less than a month, but I’m


15 approximating.


16 Q. What kind of a vehicle was this?


17 A. It looked just like O.J. Simpson’s car. It


18 was the white — I mean —


19 Q. A white Bronco?


20 A. Yeah. Yeah.


21 Q. All right.


22 A. Exactly. I mean, even to almost the year,


23 but I’m not — you know, it may be off, the years.


24 Q. And where did this vehicle come from?


25 A. From him.


26 Q. Was it brought back by David Arvizo?


27 A. What do you mean?


28 Q. Did he return in this vehicle from 6007


1 Neverland?


2 A. No, no. It was delivered to my mom’s house.


3 Q. And then at some point in time, was the


4 vehicle returned?


5 A. Yes.


6 Q. Why was it returned?


7 A. Well, the — the little thing when you turn


8 it on and off wouldn’t work. Sometimes it would


9 work, and sometimes it wouldn’t. And where I live,


10 you can’t leave a car too long, because different


11 streets are assigned parking things and they would


12 tow the car away. And Michael had said if anything


13 ever got broken, to send it back and he’ll have it


14 repaired. But it never came back.


15 Q. Did something break?


16 A. Yes. I had taken it to a place on Valley


17 Boulevard and they had told me that the — an


18 alternator was — I don’t know what it is, but they


19 said an alternator.


20 Q. Okay. Some cars have those, I understand.


21 The car was then returned to Mr. Jackson?


22 A. Yes, sir.


23 Q. And did you ever see that vehicle again?


24 A. Never seen it again.

In this excerpt, Janet described the invitation that Gavin received from Jackson to return to Neverland in September 2002.  She thought that Chris Tucker communicated to Jackson that Gavin’s biopsy was favorable and his cancer was in remission, but in fact Gavin was invited by Jackson to participate in the Bashir documentary:

21 Q. Up until your return to Neverland with Chris


22 Tucker in the spring of 2002, did you ever have a


23 conversation —


24 A. I didn’t go to the spring 2002.


25 Q. You didn’t go on that one?


26 A. Yeah. It was just my kids.


27 Q. When was the next one that you went to?


28 A. Me? To Chris and Aja’s baby boy’s birthday 6009


1 party.


2 Q. And we were actually in the process of going


3 chronologically through the different visits. Is


4 that, in fact, the last one, Chris and Aja’s


5 birthday party?


6 A. Yes.


7 Q. And this was for their son?


8 A. Yes.


9 Q. What year birthday?


10 A. I can’t remember, but he was little.


11 Q. He was a baby?


12 A. Well, not a baby, but little.


13 Q. All right. Who went to that?

14 A. Preschool age.


15 Q. Preschool, all right.


16 A. Yes.


17 Q. Who went to that?


18 A. The baby boy birthday party?


19 Q. Okay.


20 A. Just about all of Chris’s family. His mom


21 and his dad. Everybody. All his family,


22 practically. He flew them in from Atlanta.


23 Q. And among your family, who went?


24 A. Me, my three kids, and Jay had also came.


25 Q. Now, were you at this time in a relationship


26 with Major Jackson?


27 A. Not really.


28 Q. Were you dating? 6010


1 A. I was kind of a little bit, you know,


2 hesitant.


3 Q. Okay.


4 A. I met him in July. But all we did was have


5 phone conversations. It wasn’t our first — he


6 considered it our first date. I really considered


7 it just a ride to the boys’ graduation from Sea


8 Cadet.


9 Q. Okay. He did tell us that, and we won’t


10 tell him that you told us otherwise.


11 All right. Now, this visit to Neverland,


12 was it overnight?


13 A. No.


14 Q. Did you return that same day?


15 A. Yes, and Chris had taken us on two of his


16 buses.


17 Q. And the buses came and left from where?


18 A. From — he had — he had asked us all to


19 meet outside this hotel, and then that’s where we


20 had left.


21 Q. Was Michael Jackson there during that


22 birthday party?


23 A. No. No.


24 Q. You didn’t see him at all?


25 A. No.


26 Q. When was the next time that your children


27 went to Neverland after that?


28 A. For the filming. But make it very clear, I 6011


1 wasn’t — now I know.


2 Q. The question was when was the next time?


3 A. It’s still in September.


4 Q. It was in September of 2002?


5 A. Yes.


6 Q. How did they happen to go to Neverland?


7 A. Because Evvy and Michael had called them


8 over. And right before that, Gavin had — had done


9 a biopsy. So, you know, I thought — I thought he


10 was inviting him because of the biopsy.


11 Q. The biopsy result was favorable?


12 A. Yes.


13 Q. And all of you were rejoicing in his


14 remission?


15 A. Yes. Yes.


16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.


17 THE COURT: Sustained.


18 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Now, from whom did you


19 receive a telephone call?


20 A. From — from Evvy.


21 Q. And do you know if Michael —


22 A. But I didn’t talk to them. Evvy — they


23 hardly talked to me. It was always Gavin.


24 Q. So there was a phone call that came from


25 Evvy?


26 A. Yes.


27 Q. How did you become aware of the fact that


28 they were being invited back? 6012


1 A. Because Gavin had said that Evvy and Michael


2 had invited them over to go have a day of fun.


3 Q. Okay.


4 A. And I figured — I figured that Chris had


5 communicated to Michael that he had — you know,


6 about his biopsy.


7 Q. Okay.


8 A. Because Chris and Aja were very involved


9 with my kids.


10 Q. Was this a topic of discussion in the


11 household at the time, the biopsy?


12 A. Yes. Yes.


13 Q. Now —


14 A. Because we were very fearful at that time


15 that Gavin might lose his kidney.


16 Q. Okay. Now, you said “a day of fun.”


17 A. Yes.


18 Q. Was it anticipated that this would only be


19 for one day?


20 A. Yes, but they ended up sleeping there.


21 Q. Were they there longer than one night?


22 A. No, just one night.


23 Q. Overnight?


24 A. So they actually ended up staying two days


25 and one night.


26 Q. And you did not go?


27 A. No, I did not go.


28 Q. And did you have any telephone communication 6013


1 with Michael Jackson personally with regard to that


2 trip?


3 A. No.


4 Q. Did you have any telephone communication


5 with Evvy during that trip?


6 A. No.


7 Q. Do you know her last name, incidentally?


8 A. Yes, Tavasci.


9 Q. Tavasci, all right. Did the children come


10 home at the end of that second day?


11 A. Yes.


12 Q. Now, when did you learn that there was a


13 film crew that had been at Neverland?


14 A. Until he made me aware.


15 Q. “He” being Mr. Jackson?


16 A. Yes. Way in February.


17 Q. All right. So your children didn’t discuss


18 with you that?


19 A. No.


20 Q. And you didn’t know about it?


21 A. No.


22 Q. Now, prior to your children going to


23 Neverland on that particular visit, did either Mr.


24 Jackson or Evvy or anybody else from Neverland


25 notify you personally that there was going to be a


26 film crew there?


27 A. No.


28 Q. Did anybody ask you to sign any 6014


1 documentation with regards to your children


2 appearing in a film?


3 A. No.


4 Q. Did you know anything about it at all?


5 A. No.


6 Q. Now —


7 A. But I know now.


8 Q. Okay. That was during the — I think you


9 said the fall, September.


10 A. Yes. September.


11 Q. Am I right about that? I want to make sure


12 I am.


13 A. Yes, 2002.


14 Q. And when was the next visit after that one,


15 if you recall?


16 A. Of 2002?


17 Q. Yes.


18 A. The filming. When he called me up.


19 Q. All right. So there was no — there were no


20 more visits in 2002?


21 A. No. Zero.

To be continued:





8 Comments leave one →
  1. elizabeth pamela walker permalink
    April 17, 2020 6:04 am


  2. April 26, 2013 11:48 pm

    – She claims here she knew Gavin and Star were not in the guest units and slept with MJ, in either the police report or the Grand Jury she claimed she had no idea that the kids had slept in his room “until now.” This is despite the fact she would previously claim in the Bashir outtakes and the DCFS and other interviews that Gavin and Star slept in his room and MJ slept on the floor.

    – in her original police report she says MJ had asked to only have Gavin come visit him alone sometime in mid 2001 and this made her uncomfortable, I think she said this a few times (obviously total BS). Now she actually specifies it was nothing MJ had done to make her uncomfortable, she just was.

  3. lynande51 permalink*
    April 20, 2013 10:55 pm

    And they are still scamming WHEEZY and RON!!!! I wonder if they know that?

    • nannorris permalink
      April 20, 2013 11:58 pm

      I think WHEEZY and RON know they have them over a barrell. These kids are low lifes , but they arent stupid.and neither is ZONEN, although the jury is still out on WEEZY imo..
      They know Zonen, is more concerned with saving his own reputation, and these kids go back to scanning people, then it would look bad for him .
      He is stuck with them for life.
      If you read the questions Sneddon asks about Gavin illness, he always skirts around that this family hooked onto people , because they said he was dying and it wasnt true.
      Gavin says right in , I think it is cross exam , that the doctors told him he need a certain amount of chemo and he would be in remission.I think Mesereau wanted to make sure the jury got , that, his mother exaggerated his diagnosis , to get close to celebrities.
      Poor MJ thinks a dying child wants to meet him , and he has weeks to live and wants to hang around in his bedroom ..He thinks it is a dying wish, not his mother setting up a a situation , where she could possibly put him in a compromising position..
      Gavin was put through alot , but he was never dying , and yet you see the mother calling it some “Unknown kind of cancer” , Davelin says on Bashirs tape that the doctors told the parents to make his funeral plans..It is all baloney.
      I remember when I started looking for transcripts , I asked Randy T if Gavins doctor had testified, because I thought for sure , Sneddon would bring him in , to say how he was dying and it was terrible to give him wine etc, just to put another nail in MJ coffin, so Sneddon ddint bring him in , because he knew they were lying..
      Same as when Star Arvizo is saying they were on the plane from Miami, making funny phone calls.
      You know Sneddon had unlimited time and resources , so if it was true, he would contacted the people who got the funny phone calls and brought them in to testify.He never did , because he knew there was no phone calls ,and this family was lying again..

  4. lynande51 permalink*
    April 20, 2013 9:38 pm

    I don’t believe the gullibility of these prosecutors when they talked to Janet. They tried hand over fist to make it look like Gavin was always so close to death! I want to know what they biopsied! In order for a biopsy to be done there has to be something on the other kidney for them to biopsy, some kind of abnormal cell growth. You don’t biopsy a healthy organ to see if there is still cancer in the body. That is done with blood tests and scans. These people were hopeless liars when it came to his cancer.I now know more than ever that what he had was a Wilms Tumor and they knew all along that he would get better.
    Then what was that about the years that they had that apartment on Soto street? From 1998-2003? What did they get an apartment for 2 years before Gavin had cancer? Tom Mesereau was right.They had that apartment just to scam people.They were scamming George Lopez and the others from the Laugh Factory long before they met Michael.

  5. nannorris permalink
    April 18, 2013 12:48 am

    this part

    11 THE COURT: Has the District Attorney

    12 considered giving this witness immunity on that

    13 issue?

    14 MR. ZONEN: We have — we’re not terribly

    15 interested in giving a grant of immunity.

    Must be nice to have the entire DA office and your civil attys working together , like the Arvizos are their clients,also… ,
    why give immunity when she can claim the 5th amendment so she doesnt have to answer defense questions.regarding welfare fraud and perjury…
    They arent going to prosecute her anyway..,
    It is so obvious and yet they are so arrogant about it.BLANTANT
    And the way they respond to Mesereaus motions is unbelievable, they seem to be threatening to come after him next.., regarding his remark about prosecution misconduct..
    They know they are untouchable..
    The Geragos book was pretty enlightening , because I thought that the way Sneddon handled this case was an isolated vendetta,by an abusive prosecutor, but he says the power of the prosecutors has become so out of kilter , with the power of the defense , that not much can be done with it, and it is almost unheard of , for a prosecutor to be called out and sanctioned for malicious prosecution, hiding exculpatory evidence or abusing the power of their office , because there is no recourse.
    Sneddon had been getting away with this for years, this was just his personality on steroids.
    Mesereau was right that his hatred of MJ poisoned his entire office.
    According to Geragos, the judges also cave in to the prosecutors because they are elected and if they are perceived as being soft on crime, the prosecutors will run someone in their own office against them, because everything is about politics in the court system now…

    great job David..very informative


  1. April 25th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Kassim Abdool, Jeff Klapakis, Craig Bonner, & Victor Alvarez, Part 1 of 4 | Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0
  2. April 13th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Jay Jackson (Cross Examination) and Janet Arvizo (Direct Examination), Part 2 of 5 | Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: