Skip to content

April 15th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Janet Arvizo (Direct and Cross Examination), Part 2 of 3

June 3, 2013

Next, Janet claimed that she only agreed with what Frank was telling her because she was trying to be well mannered. When she initially tried to give this answer, she offered another rambling, self-serving answer that Mesereau had stricken, and when you read it below you’ll see why!

6 (Whereupon, a portion of a CD, Plaintiff’s

 

7 Exhibit 809, was played for the Court and jury.)

 

8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, Frank says there are

 

9 evil people out there, and you agree with him,

 

10 correct?

 

11 A. Yes, I believed him.

 

12 Q. Okay. And he talks about making some

 

13 arrangements because you’re not safe, right?

 

14 A. That’s correct.

 

15 Q. And you thank him, correct?

 

16 A. Let me see. I’m just being appropriate.

 

17 Q. You’re just being —

 

18 A. I have manners.

 

19 Q. You’re just being well-mannered?

 

20 A. I’m just having manners, because as you can

 

21 recall, I had left — I believed what he had said.

 

22 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, can I move to

 

23 strike her comments?

 

24 THE WITNESS: So I went to Jay Jackson’s

 

25 house instead of going back.

 

26 THE COURT: Just a moment.

 

27 All right. I’ll strike after she said, “I’m

 

28 just having manners.” 6452

 

1 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When you agreed with Frank

 

2 that he should make arrangements because you weren’t

 

3 safe, you were just being well-mannered, correct?

 

4 A. At this point, I’m being only well-mannered,

 

5 and I didn’t agree. I was — he was convincing me.

 

6 Q. I see. Okay. All right.

In this excerpt, Mesereau made Janet admit that she never mentioned anything about death threats to Frank Cascio during their phone call, despite claiming that she received them to police. And yet another one of her ridiculous answers was stricken from the record!

7 (Whereupon, a portion of a CD, Plaintiff’s

 

8 Exhibit 809, was played for the Court and jury.)

 

9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, you get back on the

 

10 line with Frank and he says, “How can I get in touch

 

11 with you, because I know sometimes your lines are

 

12 always busy.”

 

13 And you say, “Yeah, it’s like people are

 

14 calling like crazy, you know?”

 

15 Who are you referring to?

 

16 A. This is correct. A lot of people were

 

17 calling. They were interested in my son Gavin.

 

18 Q. And you were complaining to Frank about

 

19 that, correct?

 

20 A. No, I’m not complaining. This is in the

 

21 midst of a conversation. I didn’t call him. He

 

22 called me. Many times.

 

23 Q. Did you ever complain to Frank that people

 

24 were calling you like crazy?

 

25 A. I stated to him — the word here is, “Yeah,

 

26 it’s like people are like calling crazy, you know.”

 

27 MR. MESEREAU: Let’s keep going.

 

28 (Whereupon, a portion of a CD, Plaintiff’s 6453

 

1 Exhibit 809, was played for the Court and jury.)

 

2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, Frank says to you,

 

3 “I’m going need to get through to you and talk to

 

4 you, because I want to get you out of there.

 

5 It’s — I don’t think — I don’t want you — I don’t

 

6 think it’s safe.”

 

7 And Miss Arvizo, you respond, “It’s not.

 

8 It’s like it’s crazy. Can I read you one of the

 

9 letters? It’s like there are all kinds of things,

 

10 and it’s of no interest to me, because family never

 

11 leaves family behind.”

 

12 Do you see where you said that?

 

13 A. Yes, I do.

 

14 Q. You don’t refer to any death threats at all,

 

15 do you?

 

16 A. No, I don’t.

 

17 Q. You say it’s not safe, and you talk about

 

18 all the letters you’re getting. No reference to one

 

19 single death threat —

 

20 A. That’s because —

 

21 Q. — is that correct, Miss Arvizo?

 

22 Just please answer my question, if you can.

 

23 A. Yes, that’s correct.

 

24 Q. Okay.

 

25 A. You don’t have to raise your voice. I’m

 

26 here listening.

 

27 Q. I’m sorry. I’m sorry.

 

28 And then you say, “Family never leaves 6454

 

1 family behind, you know,” right?

 

2 A. That’s correct.

 

3 Q. You still consider Michael to be your

 

4 family, right?

 

5 A. That’s because of the initial meeting where

 

6 he said —

 

7 Q. Yes or no?

 

8 A. — “Family never leaves family behind.”

 

9 Q. You still considered Michael —

 

10 A. At this point?

 

11 Q. — to be part of your family?

 

12 A. He called himself family, and it —

 

13 basically, like I said, people 50 or over have a

 

14 tender spot in my heart. Sometimes —

 

15 MR. MESEREAU: May I object to the colloquy?

 

16 Move to strike.

 

17 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

18 Do you want to read the question back? Read

 

19 the question to her.

 

20 (Record read.)

 

21 THE WITNESS: I considered him to be like

 

22 family.

 

23 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

In this excerpt, Janet got pretty testy with Mesereau yet again, and he had to ask Judge Melville to instruct her to simply answer his questions without adding anything else to her answers.

24 (Whereupon, a portion of a CD, Plaintiff’s

 

25 Exhibit 809, was played for the Court and jury.)

 

26 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Frank says to you, Ms.

 

27 Arvizo, “For your safety, and if we were to put a

 

28 secur — maybe have somebody 24 hours outside your 6455

 

1 house, protecting your house from people, would you

 

2 mind if we do that?” And your answer is, “No.”

 

3 Right?

 

4 A. My answer is, “No,” I don’t want that.

 

5 MR. MESEREAU: Keep going.

 

6 (Whereupon, a portion of a CD, Plaintiff’s

 

7 Exhibit 809, was played for the Court and jury.)

 

8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, Ms. Arvizo, after

 

9 Frank says, “Maybe have somebody 24 hours outside

 

10 your house, protecting your house from people, would

 

11 you mind if you do that?” And you say, “No,” you

 

12 then talk about how your children’s school is

 

13 bombarded; correct?

 

14 A. Yes, this is because Michael and the Germans

 

15 had told me that.

 

16 Q. Well, you didn’t say that now, did you?

 

17 A. I did say that.

 

18 Q. You’re in Los Angeles when you make this

 

19 comment, aren’t you?

 

20 A. No, it’s correct. I’m telling you — you

 

21 want to know the information. You weren’t there; I

 

22 was. Michael and the Germans had told me that.

 

23 MR. MESEREAU: May I ask — would the Court

 

24 instruct the witness just to respond to my question?

 

25 THE WITNESS: I am responding.

 

26 THE COURT: You must listen to the question

 

27 and answer the question, and not try to advance

 

28 beyond the question. 6456

 

1 THE WITNESS: Okay.

 

2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You say to Frank, “So I

 

3 have my kids here, and the school is completely

 

4 cooperating with giving, like, me to work.” He

 

5 says, “Okay.” And you say, “My children’s school is

 

6 like bombarded,” correct?

 

7 A. This is correct.

 

8 Q. Frank goes, “I know,” right?

 

9 A. That’s correct.

 

10 Q. Then you say, “I didn’t go to the other

 

11 apartment. It’s like crazy over there,” correct?

 

12 A. This is correct.

 

13 MR. MESEREAU: Let’s keep going.

One thing that we can ascertain from Janet’s testimony is that she tried to be a good Catholic! She vehemently asserted to the court that she never missed Ash Wednesday church services until she was trapped at Neverland! As you can imagine, that comment was stricken from the record. It’s too bad that she chose to ignore that little thing about not bearing false witness against thy neighbors…..

14 (Whereupon, a portion of a CD, Plaintiff’s

 

15 Exhibit 809, was played for the Court and jury.)

 

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You then tell Frank about

 

17 the apartment in East Los Angeles, correct?

 

18 A. This is correct.

 

19 Q. You tell him it’s on North Soto Street,

 

20 right?

 

21 A. That’s right.

 

22 Q. And after telling him that your children’s

 

23 school is, like, bombarded, and that the other

 

24 apartment, it’s like crazy over there, you tell him

 

25 that you didn’t go to Soto Street. You went

 

26 straight to your mom’s house, true?

 

27 A. This is — this is correct. I told him I

 

28 came straight here to my mom’s house from Neverland, 6457

 

1 to my mom’s house, because I believed what the

 

2 Germans and Michael had said.

 

3 Q. Okay.

 

4 A. And I’m repeating what they said —

 

5 Q. I see.

 

6 A. — to Frank.

 

7 Q. That’s your explanation for those comments,

 

8 correct?

 

9 A. This is — this is accurate information.

 

10 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Let’s keep going.

 

11 (Whereupon, a portion of a CD, Plaintiff’s

 

12 Exhibit 809, was played for the Court and jury.)

 

13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, Miss Arvizo, after

14 talking about how your children’s school is

 

15 bombarded, and it’s crazy over at Soto Street, and

 

16 that you’ve gone to your mom’s house and didn’t go

 

17 to Soto Street, Frank says to you, “What if we were

 

18 to take you to a church up there? Because it’s just

 

19 really important. You’re going to have to have

 

20 somebody stay outside your house and watch you, your

 

21 house, protect and make sure nobody comes to your

 

22 house. Oh, I want to take you up to the ranch just

 

23 for your safety and your family.”

 

24 And your response to that statement is, “Do

 

25 you have a cell number, Frank?” And he says, “Yes.”

 

26 At no time do you say you don’t want any of

 

27 that protection, do you?

 

28 A. At no time does it say a “Yes.” 6458

 

1 Q. Your response to his statement about giving

 

2 you protection is, “Can I have your cell number?”

 

3 Right?

 

4 A. I just said, “Do you have” — and prior to

 

5 that, you said something about church. I have never

 

6 missed Ash Wednesday. Never.

 

7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; move to strike.

 

8 THE WITNESS: And when I was in Neverland,

 

9 they didn’t take me to church. I missed Ash

 

10 Wednesday.

 

11 THE COURT: Just a moment.

 

12 I will strike that, those remarks. But,

 

13 Counsel, your question was so long and lengthy, one

 

14 wonders what one should comment on in it.

 

15 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

 

16 THE COURT: And I’ll ask you to refrain from

 

17 that type of question. It’s causing problems here.

 

18 MR. MESEREAU: Yes. I’ll rephrase it, Your

 

19 Honor.

 

20 Q. Miss Arvizo, referring you to Frank Cascio’s

 

21 statement, it begins with “What if we were…,” do

 

22 you see that?

 

23 A. Okay.

 

24 Q. He says to you, “What if we were to take you

 

25 to a church up there,” right?

 

26 A. That’s correct.

 

27 Q. “Because it’s just really important,” right?

 

28 A. Uh-huh. 6459

 

1 Q. And it says — it says, “Inaudible,” right?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 Q. And then he says, “You’re going to have to

 

4 take somebody” — excuse me. “You’re going to have

 

5 to have somebody stay outside your house and watch

 

6 you,” right?

 

7 A. Correct.

 

8 Q. He says, “Your house,” right?

 

9 A. Uh-huh.

 

10 Q. Then he says, “Protect and make sure nobody

 

11 comes to your house,” right?

 

12 A. Correct.

 

13 Q. “Oh, I want to take you up to the ranch just

 

14 for your safety and your family.” Do you see that?

 

15 A. Correct.

 

16 Q. And your response to that is, “Do you have a

 

17 cell number, Frank?” Right?

 

18 A. That’s it.

 

19 Q. And he says, “Yes.”

 

20 A. And it’s not —

 

21 Q. Right?

 

22 A. And it’s not a “yes” from me.

 

23 Q. And it’s not a “no” either, is it?

 

24 MR. ZONEN: It’s argumentative; objection.

 

25 THE WITNESS: He’s convincing me.

 

26 THE COURT: Excuse me, Counsel?

 

27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; argumentative.

 

28 THE COURT: Sustained. 6460

 

1 MR. MESEREAU: Let’s keep going.

Mesereau made an error and probably got caught up in the moment when he momentarily allowed one of Janet’s ridiculous and irrelevant answers to slip by him, and when he realized what she really said, it was too late to have the answer stricken.

2 (Whereupon, a portion of a CD, Plaintiff’s

 

3 Exhibit 809, was played for the Court and jury.)

 

4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Going further into this

 

5 taped phone conversation —

 

6 A. And notifying that there’s also numerous

 

7 tape breaks.

 

8 Q. I understand.

 

9 You say to Frank, “Is there a way I can get

 

10 back to you, Frank?” Do you see that?

 

11 A. Yes, I see that. I’m being polite.

 

12 Q. I understand.

 

13 And Frank —

 

14 A. Because I not once – and when you see those

 

15 subpoenaed phone records – called him back during

 

16 this period.

 

17 Q. And you say, “Call you” —

 

18 Your Honor, may I move to strike the

 

19 witness’s comments?

 

20 THE COURT: I’m not going to strike it. The

 

21 last question listed is you just saying, “I

 

22 understand,” and then she starts talking. So there

 

23 was no question and —

 

24 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

 

25 Q. Miss Arvizo, you say to Frank, “Is there a

 

26 way I can get back to you, Frank?” Correct?

 

27 A. Correct.

 

28 Q. Frank says, “Call you if there is an 6461

 

1 emergency,” right?

 

2 A. Correct. And there’s also a tape break.

 

3 Q. Yes. And then you say, “Okay, I have no

 

4 control (another phone is heard ringing) Frank.

 

5 People call and call. So when they call, it sounds

 

6 busy to whoever else. “ Do you see that?

 

7 A. This is correct.

 

8 Q. Frank says, “Okay.” And then you say, “This

 

9 is my mom’s number.”

 

10 A. Yes, I was at my mother’s house.

 

11 Q. You gave Frank your mom’s phone number,

 

12 true?

 

13 A. I gave Frank my mom’s phone number? No.

 

14 Q. All right.

 

15 A. He himself had it.

 

16 Q. Okay.

In this excerpt, Janet acknowledged that she gave her parent’s phone number to Frank, and insisted that “the Germans” told her that she was “a nobody” who didn’t need the protection that Frank offered her, and (once again) she was admonished by Judge Melville for making gratuitous remarks.

17 (Whereupon, a portion of a CD, Plaintiff’s

 

18 Exhibit 809, was played for the Court and jury.)

 

19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You said to Frank, “Don’t

 

20 worry, Frank, we’re a family, okay?” Do you see

 

21 that?

 

22 A. Oh, I see it right here.

 

23 Q. Frank says, “Okay.” Do you see that?

 

24 A. Yes.

 

25 Q. You say, “Michael’s family to me.” Then

 

26 it’s inaudible. “My kids call him Daddy Michael.”

 

27 Do you see that?

 

28 A. That’s correct. This is correct. 6462

 

1 Q. Then he says, “But — but Janet, you

 

2 understand like how we have to protect you and

 

3 Michael, Gavin and your kids. That’s why I’m so

 

4 concerned.” Do you see that?

 

5 A. Yes.

 

6 Q. And then you respond to Frank, “That’s why

 

7 the German people said, ‘You need no protection.

 

8 You’re nobody’ —

 

9 A. Yes.

 

10 Q. — “you know?”

 

11 And you say — and Frank says, “No, that’s

 

12 not true,” correct?

 

13 A. Correct. Do you want me —

 

14 Q. I’d like to ask you just some questions, if

 

15 I can, all right?

 

16 A. Okay. Sure.

 

17 Q. You complain to Frank that the German people

 

18 said you didn’t need protection, because you’re a

 

19 nobody, right?

 

20 A. No. It’s — it says, “That’s why the German

 

21 people say, “I need no protection. You’re nobody,’

 

22 you know?”

 

23 Q. And then Frank then responds, “No, that’s

 

24 not true,” correct?

 

25 A. Correct. Correct. But do you want

 

26 information on this statement?

 

27 Q. Did the German people tell you you don’t

 

28 need protection, you’re a nobody? 6463

 

1 A. Yes, they sure did.

 

2 Q. We’ll move further on.

 

3 A. When they had me sign the paper —

 

4 Q. Correct?

 

5 A. Oh, then he doesn’t want you to know.

 

6 THE COURT: Just a moment. Just a moment.

 

7 Listen to the question and answer it. You’re going

 

8 beyond the question. I’ve asked you not to do that.

 

9 THE WITNESS: Okay. This is just so hard,

 

10 Judge. For two years I’ve been waiting.

 

11 THE COURT: I’ll strike that remark.

 

12 Go ahead, Counsel.

 

13 MR. MESEREAU: Let’s go.

There were so many of Janet’s answers that were stricken from the record that Judge Melville took a moment to explain to the jury exactly what the ramifications were of having testimony stricken from the record:

14 (Whereupon, a portion of a CD, Plaintiff’s

15 Exhibit 809, was played for the Court and jury.)

 

16 THE COURT: Counsel? I’m sorry to break your

 

17 concentration, but I want to explain something to

 

18 the jury.

 

19 MR. MESEREAU: Sure.

 

20 THE COURT: If you need to start over on

 

21 that, you can.

 

22 (To the jury) During the course of this

 

23 trial, quite often I have said, “I’ll strike that.”

 

24 The purpose in doing that is twofold: One is to

 

25 tell you you’re not to consider that, whether it’s

 

26 testimony, whether it’s remarks by an attorney,

 

27 whether it’s remarks by a witness. And it also is

 

28 reflected in the record. 6464

 

1 Later, when you’re deciding this case and

 

2 you’re in the jury room, you may want to have

 

3 testimony read back. And when testimony is read

 

4 back to you, you don’t — that’s not there. It is

 

5 stricken at that time, so the court reporter reads

 

6 it to you, she sees that it’s stricken, she doesn’t

 

7 read all of that to you.

 

8 So it may seem strange that I just say

 

9 “Strike that.” But what it really means always is,

 

10 if I say “strike it,” don’t consider it. Don’t

 

11 discuss it in your deliberations. It’s sort of like

 

12 asking you to unring a bell that you’ve heard ring,

 

13 but as intellects, we are — you know, we are

 

14 capable of deciding the case on information that’s

 

15 admissible and not on information that’s not

 

16 admissible, right?

 

17 Everybody on the jury understand that?

 

18 THE JURY: (In unison) (Nods head up and

 

19 down.)

 

20 THE COURT: All right.

 

21 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

 

22 THE COURT: Did you want to — since I

 

23 interrupted you, did you want to play that section

 

24 back, or are you okay?

 

25 MR. MESEREAU: I think we’re okay, Your

 

26 Honor. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Once Judge Melville’s statement to the jury was finished, Mesereau forced Janet to admit that she told Frank Cascio to tell Jackson that he’s “her family”, and the reason that Mesereau focused so much on these effusive statements during this portion of the testimony is because he wanted to emphasize to the jury that Janet grew attached to Jackson, and not the other way around, and her assertion that she was “forced” to say good things about Jackson during the rebuttal video was absolutely preposterous.

27 Q. Miss Arvizo, you constantly complain about

 

28 the German people in this conversation, right? 6465

 

1 A. This is correct.

 

2 Q. And going back to the portion that we just

 

3 played, Frank tells you the following: “No, don’t.

 

4 Listen, ah, you don’t have to talk to them. Just

 

5 talk to me, talk to Michael, and I’m going to

 

6 arrange everything. But it’s either we’re going to

 

7 have to have somebody at your house this weekend or

 

8 we’re going to have to take you to the ranch. This

 

9 way Michael — Michael wants to see you. He’s — he

 

10 was almost — he didn’t know what happened. He

 

11 thought he did something and he was trying to get in

 

12 touch with you. And I said, ‘Don’t worry, I’ll take

 

13 care of this.’ So –”

 

14 And your response to that statement is,

 

15 “Tell him he’s our family,” right?

 

16 A. That is correct.

 

17 Q. You never object to having security at your

 

18 house, as Frank proposes, right?

 

19 A. I didn’t — I never said “Yes.”

 

20 Q. Okay.

 

21 (Whereupon, a portion of a CD, Plaintiff’s

 

22 Exhibit 809, was played for the Court and jury.)

 

23 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Going further, you keep

 

24 complaining about the German people.

 

25 A. Uh-huh.

 

26 Q. Frank says to you, “You don’t have to talk

 

27 to them,” right?

 

28 A. Correct. 6466

 

1 Q. You say, “I thought like everything, my

 

2 family was in jeopardy,” correct?

 

3 A. This is correct.

 

4 Q. Frank responds, “No,” right?

 

5 A. Yes.

 

6 Q. And your response to that is, “Meaning us

 

7 being with Michael and Michael being with us,

 

8 correct?

 

9 A. Yes.

 

10 Q. What you said to Frank was you were

 

11 concerned about your family not being with Michael

 

12 and Michael being with your family, true?

 

13 A. I said, “I thought like everything, my

 

14 family, was in jeopardy.”

 

15 Q. And then you say, “Meaning us being with

 

16 Michael and Michael being with us”?

 

17 A. Yes. I will never say no to love.

 

18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Objection to

 

19 her — move to strike the remarks.

 

20 THE COURT: I’m sorry, I don’t understand the

 

21 question or the answer.

 

22 Would you just ask another question?

 

23 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll ask another question,

 

24 yes, Your Honor.

 

25 Q. Frank says, “You don’t have to talk to the

 

26 German people,” and you say to him, “I thought like

 

27 everything, my family, was in jeopardy,” right?

 

28 A. Yes. 6467

 

1 Q. And then you say, “Meaning us being with

 

2 Michael and Michael being with us,” correct?

 

3 A. This is correct.

 

4 Q. After your escape with Jesus, you still want

 

5 Michael to be with your family, and your family to

 

6 be with him, true?

 

7 A. Yes. I thought it was all —

 

8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection, Your Honor.

 

9 THE WITNESS: I believed what he said in

 

10 Miami.

 

11 THE COURT: Just a moment.

 

12 All right. Go ahead with your next

 

13 question.

 

14 (Whereupon, a portion of a CD, Plaintiff’s

 

15 Exhibit 809, was played for the Court and jury.)

 

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Going further into this

 

17 tape, okay?

 

18 A. With the numerous tape breaks.

 

19 Q. I understand. Now, Frank says, “We need to

 

20 protect you and your family, so I’ll call you in one

 

21 hour to see if you’re okay,” right?

 

22 A. Okay. Did you go farther up, higher, or —

 

23 Q. Well, let’s see, the pages aren’t numbered.

 

24 So it starts at — the top of the page starts with,

 

25 “…to do in a couple of hours….” Do you see

 

26 that?

 

27 A. Okay, this is from this previous page.

 

28 Q. Do you see that? 6468

 

1 A. And then on top. Okay. Okay.

 

2 Q. Yes. The first full quote from Frank Cascio

 

3 on that page, okay?

 

4 A. Okay.

 

5 Q. Frank says, “I’m going to call you just to

 

6 see how you’re doing, because we need to protect you

 

7 and your family. So I’ll call you in one hour to

 

8 see if you’re okay.” And you say, “Okay,” right?

 

9 A. Uh-huh. This is correct, being polite.

 

10 Q. At no time do you disagree with the

 

11 continually repeated idea that your family needs

 

12 some protection, right?

 

13 A. And at no time do I request it.

Next, Janet testified that she was referring to David Arvizo and his family when she spoke about being “neglected” and “spit on” during the rebuttal video, which is a total lie because she was referring to society as a whole, whom she obviously felt had an obligation to help her family financially.

14 (Whereupon, a portion of a CD, Plaintiff’s

 

15 Exhibit 809, was played for the Court and jury.)

 

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You tell Frank you’re at

 

17 your mom’s house. He says to you, “This is the

 

18 number to your mom’s house,” question mark, and you

 

19 say “Yeah,” correct?

 

20 A. This is correct.

 

21 Q. Are you still telling the jury you never

 

22 wanted Frank to have the number to your mom’s house?

 

23 A. He’s calling at my mom’s house. He asked

 

24 me, “Is this your mom’s house?” I never gave it to

 

25 him. He already had it.

 

26 Q. Okay.

 

27 A. I’m at my mom’s house.

 

28 Q. And you have no idea how Frank got the 6469

 

1 number to your mom’s house, true?

 

2 A. That’s correct.

 

3 Q. Okay. Now, going back a little bit —

 

4 A. Oh, yeah, now I know how.

 

5 Q. I understand.

 

6 Going back a little bit, “I told them when

 

7 people neglected us, rejected us, they don’t

 

8 know…,” and then there’s a tape break. It says,

 

9 “Um, Baby Rubba.”

 

10 What were you referring to when you said,

 

11 “People neglected us and rejected us”?

 

12 A. My husband, my ex-husband David Arvizo, with

 

13 his family.

 

14 Q. Were you referring to anyone else?

 

15 A. No. Nobody else.

16 Q. Do you remember in the rebuttal video where

 

17 you accused the Department of Children & Family

 

18 Services of neglecting your family?

 

19 A. Maybe it was — maybe it was put in another

 

20 context, but that’s what I meant. My ex in-laws.

 

21 Q. They’re the only people you’re referring to,

 

22 right?

 

23 A. That’s exactly right.

 

24 Q. Okay. Now, in that rebuttal tape, you also

 

25 talk about your family being spit on and

 

26 discriminated against and things like that, correct?

 

27 A. Yes. Yes.

 

28 Q. And are you only referring to David’s family 6470

 

1 when you say that?

 

2 A. Part of it is David’s family. And David.

 

3 Mostly David.

 

4 Q. And who’s the rest of it?

 

5 A. Mostly David, his family. And just

 

6 different things like that. Different experiences.

 

7 Q. But in that tape you talk about more people

 

8 than David and his family.

 

9 A. Are we talking about this tape or —

 

10 Q. I’m asking about the rebuttal tape now,

 

11 okay?

 

12 A. Okay.

 

13 Q. You talk about — excuse me, in that tape,

 

14 you say words to the effect, “We’ve been spit on,

 

15 we’ve been fried, we’ve been rejected because of our

 

16 race,” and a whole bunch of things, right? You’re

 

17 not referring to David’s family when you say that?

 

18 A. Are you missing the point that it was all

 

19 scripted?

 

20 Q. I’m asking you a question, Miss Arvizo.

 

21 Could you please answer it?

 

22 A. Okay. Remember in the initial meeting in

 

23 Miami how I was just telling everything about — to

 

24 the Germans? Well, obviously they were in the works

 

25 in doing the script since back then.

 

26 Q. So when you say words to that effect in this

 

27 conversation —

 

28 A. This conversation. 6471

 

1 Q. — the Brad Miller interview and the

 

2 rebuttal video, you’re only referring to David’s

 

3 family?

 

4 A. Brad Miller audiotape and this is referring

 

5 to David’s — David mostly, with his family. But in

 

6 the rebuttal, like I said, it was all scripted. All

 

7 of it. It was the information that they had

 

8 extracted from me and my children. And it’s pretty

 

9 obvious that it’s very ingrained, the experiences

 

10 that I have felt and gone through with my ex family,

 

11 which is David’s family.

 

12 Q. Okay.

 

13 A. And they put it in with their little script.

 

14 Q. Okay.

 

15 (Whereupon, a portion of a CD, Plaintiff’s

 

16 Exhibit 809, was played for the Court and jury to

 

17 its conclusion.)

 

18 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I think that

 

19 completes the recording of the phone conversation.

 

20 THE COURT: Okay.

Whew! Now that the tape recorded conversation is complete, it’s time to get to the fun stuff! Mesereau is now unleashed! Mesereau went straight into Janet’s divorce and history of domestic abuse with David Arvizo, and this was an attempt to show the jury just how dysfunctional her family really is.

For example, on December 18th, 2000, Janet gave a sworn deposition for her J.C. Penney lawsuit, and in it she claimed that all of her injuries were sustained from the security guards, when in fact they were from her husband David, who abused her for 17 years. Under oath in that deposition, Janet denied ever being struck by David, or having any marital problems, but under cross examination she denied that she made that statement.

21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, Miss Arvizo, you

 

22 filed for divorce from David approximately five days

 

23 after you settled the J.C. Penney case, correct?

 

24 A. I filed for divorce after David was arrested

 

25 for domestic violence.

 

26 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, may I ask the

 

27 Court to instruct the witness to answer the

 

28 question? 6472

 

1 THE WITNESS: Well, your question was

 

2 about —

 

3 THE COURT: Just a moment.

 

4 Would you read the question back to the

 

5 witness?

 

6 (Record read.)

 

7 THE WITNESS: I don’t know about that. He

 

8 wanted a history as far as when, and I’m telling

 

9 you, I filed for divorce the day after — not the

 

10 day after, but after David finally was arrested for

 

11 domestic violence.

 

12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In your case against David

 

13 for domestic violence, you told the Los Angeles

 

14 Police Department that he had been abusing you for

 

15 many years, true?

 

16 A. This is correct.

 

17 Q. You told the Los Angeles Police Department

 

18 that he had been abusing you since you were married,

 

19 correct?

 

20 A. This is correct.

 

21 Q. Had David been abusing you from the time you

 

22 were married?

 

23 A. This is correct.

 

24 Q. You told the Los Angeles Police Department

 

25 that for approximately 17 years, he had been

 

26 physically and emotionally abusing you, right?

 

27 A. This is correct.

 

28 Q. You also said he had been abusing your 6473

 

1 children for the entire marriage, correct?

 

2 A. This is correct.

 

3 Q. But in the J.C. Penney case, when you wanted

 

4 money, you said the opposite about David, didn’t

 

5 you?

 

6 A. That’s incorrect. When David was arrested,

 

7 I went to Rothstein’s office, who was in charge of

 

8 the civil — civil proceedings, of the civil J.C.

 

9 Penney’s lawsuit, and I told him David has finally

 

10 been arrested. I want to correct this statement

 

11 that me and my children were unable to say because

 

12 he was still part of our life.

 

13 And I went to their office, and they told me

 

14 that they would take care of it. And that’s why

 

15 when the police asked me to waive this information

 

16 of my civil lawsuit, I did happily. And yet these

 

17 Rothstein people did not do that. I told them to

 

18 inform J.C. Penney’s and Tower Records that that

 

19 information was incorrect right after David was

 

20 arrested. I finally was liberated to say what

 

21 actually had been going on for years.

 

22 Q. Miss Arvizo —

 

23 A. So you’re inaccurate.

 

24 Q. Well, Miss Arvizo, do you remember having

 

25 your sworn deposition taken in the J.C. Penney case?

 

26 A. Yes.

 

27 Q. And that was a case that you had filed

 

28 claiming you were sexually abused by J.C. Penney by 6474

 

1 the security guards in a public parking lot,

 

2 correct?

 

3 A. I gave the civil lawyers the information

 

4 about what happened, just as I told the police

 

5 department, the West Covina Police Department.

 

6 Now, how they write their statement, how

 

7 they do these paperworks, I don’t know. But it’s

 

8 only one story. And it’s been repeated over and

 

9 over. How they put it in this paperwork, I don’t

 

10 know. I wasn’t the attorney.

 

11 Q. Miss Arvizo, you gave a sworn deposition in

 

12 that case where you were placed under oath, correct?

 

13 A. This is correct.

 

14 Q. And you filed a claim for monetary damages

 

15 against J.C. Penney, correct?

 

16 A. This is correct.

 

17 Q. You were claiming that you had suffered

 

18 physical injury because of what J.C. Penney security

 

19 guards did to you, correct?

 

20 A. Tower Records.

 

21 Q. Correct?

 

22 A. This is correct.

 

23 Q. And to prove your claim for monetary

 

24 damages, you had to explain that your physical

 

25 injuries were solely the result of what J.C. Penney

 

26 and Tower Records had done to you, correct?

 

27 A. This is correct. And they had me explain,

 

28 to the millisecond, of the process while I was being 6475

 

1 hurt.

 

2 Q. Your deposition was taken on December 18th,

 

3 the year 2000, correct?

 

4 A. Yes, while I was still married and David was

 

5 with me and my children. Yes, that’s correct.

 

6 Q. And what year did you file for divorce from

 

7 David?

 

8 A. Approximately in 2001. When David was

 

9 arrested.

 

10 Q. And on December 18th, the year 2000, you

 

11 were asked under oath, “Has David Arvizo ever struck

 

12 you,” and you said, “No.”

 

13 A. This is correct.

 

14 Q. You were asked under oath, “Has David ever

 

15 struck your children?” You said, “No. We goof

 

16 around a lot, though, play.” Correct?

17 A. Yes. This is correct.

 

18 Q. You were not telling the truth under oath

 

19 when you made those statements, correct?

 

20 A. But prior to settlement, I had went to

 

21 the — to Rothstein’s office and I requested that

 

22 they fix that, after David was arrested, because I

 

23 finally could open my mouth. And this — I want you

 

24 to have a picture of this.

 

25 MR. MESEREAU: Move to strike, Your Honor.

 

26 THE WITNESS: This is when Gavin is going

 

27 through chemotherapy.

 

28 THE COURT: Just a moment. Just a moment. 6476

 

1 I’ll strike her answer to that.

 

2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Further in that

 

3 deposition —

 

4 THE COURT: Just a moment.

 

5 MR. MESEREAU: Oh, I’m sorry. Pardon me.

 

6 THE COURT: Do you want to go back to the

 

7 question you asked? The answer has been stricken.

 

8 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, if we could have it read

 

9 back, Your Honor, I’d appreciate it.

 

10 (Record read.)

 

11 THE WITNESS: This is correct.

 

12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Further, in that

 

13 deposition, you were asked, “Have you had any

 

14 marital problems at all other than related to this

 

15 incident at J.C. Penney?” And you said “No.”

 

16 Right?

 

17 A. This is correct. I was — by the time that

 

18 David had gotten arrested, I was never going to tell

 

19 anything that he had done to me or my kids. Never.

 

20 Q. You lied under oath to increase the amount

 

21 of money you could get from what you claimed J.C.

 

22 Penney and Tower had done to you, right?

 

23 MR. ZONEN: Objection; argumentative.

 

24 THE COURT: Sustained.

In this excerpt, Janet showed a sense of humility by refusing to take credit for the fact that she filed her civil lawsuit against J.C. Penney just prior to the deadline; she gave all of the credit to her civil attorneys who advised her. How nice of her! She also, once again, stated that she wanted “justice”, and not money from Jackson.

25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, in that deposition,

 

26 you were asked when you decided to file a lawsuit,

 

27 correct?

 

28 A. Correct. 6477

 

1 Q. You said you decided to file a lawsuit

 

2 against J.C. Penney and Tower Records two weeks

 

3 or two or three weeks prior to the expiration date.

 

4 Remember that?

 

5 A. I don’t understand what your question is.

 

6 Q. Well, I’m just going to ask you about your

 

7 answer. And I can show you the page, if you want to

 

8 see it.

 

9 A. No, I just don’t understand your question.

 

10 I don’t know whether you’re making a statement or an

 

11 actual question.

 

12 Q. Then that’s my mistake. I’ll rephrase it.

 

13 A. Okay. That’s okay.

 

14 Q. In your deposition under oath, in the J.C.

 

15 Penney case, you were asked the question, “When did

 

16 you decide to file a lawsuit?” Do you remember

 

17 that?

 

18 A. Yes. Yes.

 

19 Q. And your answer was, “Two weeks or two or

 

20 three weeks prior to the expiration date.”

 

21 A. This is correct. If it’s on there, it is

 

22 correct.

 

23 Q. Then you were asked, “Was that before or

 

24 after the criminal charges had been dropped?”

 

25 Remember that?

 

26 A. Yes.

 

27 Q. And you said, “Way after,” correct?

 

28 A. Yes. 6478

 

1 Q. When you used the words “expiration date,”

 

2 you were referring to the deadline that you had to

 

3 file charges — excuse me, file a lawsuit before,

 

4 correct?

 

5 A. That’s what I was explained.

 

6 Q. You would lose your right to file a civil

 

7 suit if you didn’t file it by a certain date,

 

8 correct?

 

9 A. That’s what I was explained by the civil

 

10 attorneys.

 

11 Q. And —

 

12 A. If there’s anything that sounds worth —

 

13 worth of any intelligence there, that’s what I was

 

14 informed. No credit to me. Only to the civil

 

15 attorneys.

 

16 Q. Well, you knew enough to say under oath that

 

17 you filed your civil case before the deadline,

 

18 right?

 

19 A. Because of attorneys had made me aware of

 

20 that.

 

21 Q. Are you aware of the deadlines that you or

 

22 your children have to file claims against Mr.

 

23 Jackson?

 

24 A. We will never file a claim against Mr.

 

25 Jackson. I want justice here.

 

26 Q. Are you aware, Ms. Arvizo, of the deadlines

 

27 you have to file a civil claim against Mr. Jackson?

 

28 Yes or no. 6479

 

1 A. I think so. I’m not interested, so I don’t

 

2 ask.

 

3 Q. I understand. And in this case you weren’t

 

4 interested until after the criminal investigation

 

5 was over, correct?

 

6 A. I wanted an apology.

 

7 MR. ZONEN: Which case is counsel referring

 

8 to? Vague.

 

9 MR. MESEREAU: I will rephrase it. The

 

10 prosecutor is correct.

 

11 Q. In the J.C. Penney case, you waited till

 

12 after a criminal investigation was over to file your

 

13 civil claims, true?

 

14 A. I wanted an apology.

 

15 Q. You wanted over $100,000, didn’t you?

 

16 A. I didn’t get over $100,000.

 

17 Q. You got 152,000 in the settlement, Miss

 

18 Arvizo, didn’t you?

 

19 A. In — in my hand, I did not get $150,000.

 

20 MR. MESEREAU: May I ask the witness be

 

21 instructed —

 

22 MR. ZONEN: I think she just answered.

 

23 THE WITNESS: I answered.

 

24 THE COURT: It was — your question, your

 

25 last question, was basically whether she got a

 

26 certain amount, and she’s trying to answer that.

 

27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: The settlement to you

 

28 and – 6480

 

1 THE COURT: Just a minute. Let her finish

 

2 the answer.

 

3 THE WITNESS: In my hand, I received only

 

4 $32,000. That’s it. In my hand. And that’s my

 

5 best approximation.

 

6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Miss Arvizo, what did

 

7 Gavin get in his hand from that settlement?

 

8 A. I don’t remember, because it’s been put away

 

9 where it’s to be untouched by me.

 

10 Q. What did Star get in his hand in that

 

11 settlement?

 

12 A. Still nothing. I don’t know, because

 

13 it’s — it’s something that’s untouched by me. It’s

 

14 for them.

 

15 Q. What did David get in his hand from that

 

16 settlement?

 

17 A. That’s — you’re going to have to ask David,

 

18 and yet he was not injured whatsoever.

 

19 Q. The total was over $152,000 that your family

 

20 was given in the settlement, true?

 

21 A. That you have to ask my civil attorneys.

 

22 And I think his statement may be correct.

Janet continued to evade Mesereau’s questions by bobbing and weaving, and giving long and rambling answers about the fact that she lied about not ever being abused by David prior to the J.C. Penney incident:

23 Q. Okay. You claimed in that case that you had

 

24 bruises from what the security guards did to you,

 

25 right?

 

26 A. It is correct.

 

27 Q. After you had resolved that case and

 

28 obtained money, you claimed that you were bruised by 6481

 

1 David, true?

 

2 A. I had always been bruised by David for

 

3 years. But I never told anyone until after David

 

4 was arrested. That was the pivotal point in my

 

5 life. Not until David was arrested did I say

 

6 anything about bruises in my whole entire life, and

 

7 that was only with people of authority. That’s it.

 

8 Q. When you were seeking money from J.C. Penney

 

9 and Tower Records, you testified under oath on

 

10 December 18th, the year 2000, that you never had any

 

11 black and blue marks prior to the incident at J.C.

 

12 Penney, correct?

 

13 A. Yes, this is correct. I was too embarrassed

 

14 to ever tell anyone.

 

15 Q. You made that statement because you wanted

 

16 any injury you ever had to be attributed to J.C.

 

17 Penney and Tower Records, right?

 

18 A. Incorrect. What J.C. Penney’s and Tower

19 Records did to me was one day, one situation, one

 

20 incident. That’s it.

 

21 Q. If you had testified truthfully under oath

 

22 and said that your bruises were from David, the

 

23 amount of monetary damages you could get from J.C.

 

24 Penney would have been lowered, true?

 

25 A. This is incorrect. I would have never told

 

26 anyone until David got arrested that I — that David

 

27 was giving me these bruises. Never. People would

 

28 see me with bruises and I would never, never, never 6482

 

1 tell them.

 

2 Q. Did you lie under oath in your deposition in

 

3 the J.C. Penney case?

 

4 A. I tried to remedy that when I had gone to

 

5 my — after David was arrested, I went to

 

6 Rothstein’s office. And I requested that they

 

7 inform Tower Records and J.C. Penney’s that I would

 

8 like to make that correct statement because the

 

9 statements that were there were incorrect. But

 

10 finally me and my kids could finally say what was

 

11 really happening for many, many years.

 

12 Q. Mrs. Arvizo, the problem you had was that

 

13 when you made allegations later on against David

 

14 that he had abused you for 17 years, there was a

 

15 deposition that had previously been taken where you

 

16 said the opposite under oath, right?

 

17 A. You’re — it’s too long. There’s a yes and

 

18 no and yes and no, and now I don’t know.

 

19 THE COURT: Let’s take a break.

 

20 (Recess taken.)

 

21 THE COURT: Mr. Mesereau?

 

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

 

23 Q. Miss Arvizo —

 

24 THE BAILIFF: You need to turn your

 

25 microphone on, please.

 

26 MR. MESEREAU: Oh, thank you.

 

27 THE COURT: You missed a good show of hands

 

28 there. 6483

 

1 Give it to him again, would you?

 

2 Look, look, look.

 

3 (Laughter.)

 

4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Miss Arvizo, did you tell

 

5 the jury that David was not honest in the J.C.

 

6 Penney case?

 

7 A. Me?

 

8 Q. Yes.

 

9 A. Okay. Ask the question again.

 

10 Q. I’ll rephrase it. Did you tell the jury

 

11 words to the effect that your ex-husband David did

 

12 not tell the truth in the J.C. Penney case?

 

13 A. Are we talking about the grand jury or the

 

14 civil lawsuit?

 

15 Q. The civil lawsuit.

 

16 A. Did I tell a jury?

 

17 Q. Did you tell this jury today that David did

 

18 not tell the truth in the J.C. Penney civil suit?

 

19 A. We weren’t talking about David. I was

 

20 telling you what I — David had done to me and the

 

21 children.

 

22 Q. David sued J.C. Penney with you, correct?

 

23 A. This is correct.

 

24 Q. David claimed he was injured in that parking

 

25 lot with you and your children, correct?

 

26 A. To my — what I was aware of is that he

 

27 wasn’t injured. And that’s it.

 

28 Q. But he was suing, with you, for monetary 6484

 

1 damages for being injured, right?

 

2 A. I came afterwards. David — when I walked

 

3 up to the situation, he was being hit by these

 

4 people. So I don’t know what happened prior to me

 

5 arriving there. So I’m unaware.

 

6 Q. During the time you had your deposition

 

7 taken in the J.C. Penney lawsuit —

 

8 A. Yes.

 

9 Q. — did you consider David to be an honest

 

10 person?

 

11 A. No.

 

12 Q. Do you remember testifying under oath in the

 

13 J.C. Penney lawsuit that, “David is extremely

 

14 honest. He’s too honest”?

 

15 A. If that’s on there, then that’s correct.

 

16 Whatever’s on the deposition is correct.

 

17 Q. Do you remember saying that under oath?

 

18 A. If it’s on there, then it is.

 

19 Q. Would it refresh if I just show it to you?

 

20 A. I’m just asking, if it is on there, it’s

 

21 correct.

 

22 Q. Okay. I have to get a response from you as

 

23 to whether you said that or not, okay?

 

24 A. If it’s on there, it’s correct. And it

 

25 would be a yes, if it’s on there.

 

26 Q. Would it refresh your recollection just to

 

27 show it to you first? Would that help?

 

28 A. It’s a yes. 6485

 

1 Q. Your answer is “yes”?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 Q. You did say under oath that, “David is

 

4 extremely honest. He’s too honest”?

 

5 A. Yes.

 

6 Q. And you weren’t telling the truth when you

 

7 made that statement under oath, correct?

 

8 A. Anything to do with David, no. That’s why I

 

9 went to the civil attorneys, to try to correct that

 

10 after he was arrested.

 

11 Q. Let me get this straight, now. You went to

 

12 the civil attorneys to try and change your testimony

 

13 after you collected a settlement?

 

14 A. Incorrect. The settlement still had not

 

15 been corrected, accepted or settled. Anything like

 

16 that. It was still prior.

When asked to describe the type of abuse she allegedly suffered at the hands of the security guards, Janet testified that she was told that the security guards were doing belly flops on top of her body! But she probably didn’t even notice it for herself since she couldn’t breathe and her nipples were squeezed between 10 to 25 times! How she could keep count of each nipple squeeze is beyond me!

And the icing on the cake is when Janet admitted that she testified to all of this in order to get money! How honest of her!

17 Q. Now, you claimed you were assaulted in a

 

18 public parking lot by J.C. Penney security guards,

 

19 correct?

 

20 A. Plus Tower Records.

 

21 Q. And Tower Records, right?

 

22 A. That’s right.

 

23 Q. You said you thought you were going to die,

 

24 correct?

 

25 A. Yes.

 

26 Q. Did you think you were going to die in a

 

27 public parking lot when you were assaulted by these

 

28 security guards? 6486

 

1 A. Yes, I did, because it came to a point where

 

2 I couldn’t breathe.

 

3 Q. Okay. You testified the security guards

 

4 were doing belly flops on top of your body, right?

 

5 A. That’s what I was told.

 

6 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as beyond the scope

 

7 of the 402 hearing.

 

8 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.

 

9 Do you want to read the question back to

 

10 her?

 

11 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, please, Your Honor.

 

12 Thank you.

 

13 (Record read.)

 

14 THE WITNESS: This is correct.

 

15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And you also claimed that

 

16 security guards in a public parking lot pulled your

 

17 breasts out of your blouse and squeezed your nipple

 

18 between 10 to 25 times, correct?

 

19 A. No, they didn’t pull my breasts out.

 

20 Q. What did you claim happened?

 

21 A. In the course of me getting beat up, I was

 

22 laying flat on the floor. My breasts had came out

 

23 of my bra.

 

24 Q. Did you testify under oath that your nipple

 

25 was squeezed by one of the guards 10 to 25 times?

 

26 A. At this moment, the attorney, who was the

 

27 defense attorney, wanted me to describe everything

 

28 by the millisecond, even though, in my depositions, 6487

 

1 I keep saying, over and over, “It was like this. It

 

2 was like this.” And instead, he wanted me to go

 

3 millisecond per millisecond, so I described it the

 

4 best I could as it was happening. But if you

 

5 fast-forward, that would have been fast.

 

6 Q. And how did you describe the sexual assault?

 

7 A. Like I said, the wording as far as how the

 

8 civil attorneys did, that was their choice of words.

 

9 There was only one, how I described it, and that’s

 

10 how they put it in.

 

11 Q. Please tell the jury how you were sexually

 

12 assaulted.

 

13 A. Well, to me – me – I feel that my breast

 

14 area and anything to do with my — with down there,

 

15 my private area, is considered my sexual organs.

 

16 That’s how I see it and how I feel about it. So if

 

17 you place your hands on me in that area, I’m going

 

18 to say that.

 

19 Q. And please tell the jury how you were

 

20 sexually assaulted in that public parking lot.

21 A. Okay. When I was laying on the floor, while

 

22 they’re beating on me, one of the Tower Records

 

23 guys, who incidentally — this can be verified. I

 

24 think he was also fired for doing this to some other

 

25 people after this, so — but this person, while I

 

26 was laying on the floor getting beat up, he had his

 

27 hand over and over on my breast and on the front

 

28 area of my private area. My pants were on. There 6488

 

1 was no intercourse, no rape, no nothing like that.

 

2 I was just trying to describe that his hands were on

 

3 my breasts, which I think I repeatedly kept saying I

 

4 just wanted his hands off of me, and that’s it.

 

5 Q. Do you remember testifying your nipple was

 

6 squeezed 10 to 25 times?

 

7 A. Yes. Again, it was he wanted me — to

 

8 humiliate me, like he’s trying to do at this moment,

 

9 and making me to say it millisecond per millisecond.

 

10 Q. You testified to these facts to get money,

 

11 true?

 

12 A. It was a civil lawsuit, yes, it was.

Next, Janet confirmed that she claimed in her lawsuit that Gavin’s cancer actually got worse due to his treatment at the hands of the security guards! She also denied telling paralegal Mary Holzer after she received her settlement that she lied during her deposition and had a brother in the Mexican mafia who would come after her if she snitched. Pay attention to how Janet tried to discredit Holzer by describing her as a “giant Michael Jackson fan”. Holzer will testify later on in this trial and confirm what she was told by Janet:

13 Q. Now, you claim in that lawsuit that Gavin’s

 

14 cancer was made worse by the security guards, true?

 

15 A. I don’t think so. I think — I think I said

 

16 something that Gavin was having the chemotherapy at

 

17 this time when they wanted the deposition to occur.

 

18 Q. You also claim that Star’s cyst was made

 

19 worse by the security guards, correct?

 

20 A. Incorrect.

 

21 Q. Did you ever make such a claim?

 

22 A. Incorrect.

 

23 Q. What did you say about Star in that

 

24 situation?

 

25 A. I think — and this is the best I can

 

26 remember, and we’re talking 1998 here when this

 

27 happened. This is the best I can try to remember.

 

28 He’s got a big, giant book right there, and I have 6489

 

1 nothing in front of me.

 

2 And, let me see, I think what happened was

 

3 when we went to the doctors, they did — they put

 

4 him in this tube, and when it came out, they ended

 

5 up telling me that Star has a cyst on his brain, but

 

6 this is something that is — that Star has. That’s

 

7 it. Has nothing to do with J.C. Penney’s lawsuit.

 

8 I’m — of course, getting hit on the head doesn’t

 

9 help if you’ve got a cyst on your brain.

 

10 Q. Do you know someone named Mary Holzer?

 

11 A. Yes, I do.

 

12 Q. Please tell the jury who Mary Holzer is.

 

13 A. Mary Holzer is a giant Michael Jackson fan.

 

14 And she’s also a — an office manager. This is my

 

15 understanding. She told me she was an office

 

16 manager for Rothstein civil law — civil law firm.

 

17 Q. And who is the Rothstein civil law firm?

 

18 A. The Rothstein civil law firm is a firm that

 

19 was responsible for the lawsuit.

 

20 Q. Do you remember, after you had settled that

 

21 case, telling Mary Holzer that you lied in the case?

 

22 A. That is inaccurate.

 

23 Q. Okay. Do you remember telling Mary Holzer

 

24 that David’s brother is in the Mexican mafia?

 

25 A. That’s incorrect.

 

26 Q. And that he sells drugs here and in Las

 

27 Vegas?

 

28 A. That’s incorrect. 6490

 

1 Q. You said, “He’s going to come after you and

 

2 your daughter if you ever tell anyone what I’m

 

3 revealing to you”?

 

4 A. Incorrect.

 

5 Q. Okay. So that never happened, right?

 

6 A. That never happened.

 

7 Q. And if Mary Holzer comes into court and says

 

8 that, she’d be lying; is that correct?

 

9 MR. ZONEN: Objection; argumentative.

 

10 THE WITNESS: Yes, she would. Yes, she

 

11 would.

 

12 THE COURT: Just a moment.

 

13 The objection to the question is sustained.

 

14 The question and answer are stricken.

Janet denied lying under oath, but instead she blamed it on her law firm. Mesereau was once again admonished by Judge Melville after he made yet another sarcastic remark to Janet, and Zonen was also admonished for not following the proper procedures for calling an objection. Judge Melville was so angry that he asked Mesereau if he wanted the trial to be shut down! Whoa!

Zonen implied that there was a civil case against Von’s Supermarket, much to Mesereau’s surprise!

15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: How many lies under oath

 

16 do you think you told in your depositions in the

 

17 J.C. Penney case?

 

18 A. Like I said, I tried — after David was

 

19 arrested, I went to the Rothstein office and I

 

20 pointed out to them, prior to a settlement

 

21 agreement, that I would like to correct the

 

22 statements that were inaccurate, because finally

 

23 David was arrested. Finally, we and my children

 

24 could speak. And Rothstein, including with Mary

 

25 Holzer, said, “Don’t worry. We’ll take care of it.”

 

26 And they didn’t. So I considered their firm

 

27 a — liars.

 

28 Q. But not you, right? 6491

 

1 A. That’s correct.

 

2 MR. ZONEN: Objection; argumentative.

 

3 THE COURT: Sustained. The remark’s

 

4 stricken.

 

5 You’re admonished not to make those remarks.

 

6 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor.

 

7 Q. You testified in that deposition in the J.C.

 

8 Penney case that you had worked as an undercover

 

9 agent. Do you remember that?

 

10 A. Me?

 

11 Q. Yes.

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. Where did you —

 

14 A. I don’t think the way you’re using it is

 

15 correct.

 

16 Q. Remember you said you had worked in internal

 

17 security?

 

18 A. What he’s trying to say, he’s trying to make

 

19 it bigger than it is. I used to be a loss

 

20 prevention agent way back in — I think it was 1990.

 

21 We’re talking about 15 years ago. That’s my best

 

22 estimate. I used to work at Von’s. Just, you know,

 

23 people that took an orange, took a banana, things

 

24 like that.

 

25 Q. Remember you were asked the question, “And

 

26 you were an undercover type of agent?” And you

 

27 answered, “Yes”?

 

28 A. Yes. That’s what they called it. It was 6492

 

1 loss prevention agent. You wore plain clothes and

 

2 you stopped people when they take items without

 

3 purchasing them from the market, from Von’s market.

 

4 A grocery store.

 

5 Q. How long did you work in that capacity?

 

6 A. I think I worked there for — my best

 

7 estimate, best estimate, maybe – this was about 15

 

8 years ago – maybe about one year. Maybe. My best

 

9 estimate. This is having to recall 15 years ago.

 

10 Please, this is an approximation of dates.

 

11 Q. You testified in that case that security

 

12 agents in the public parking lot punched you,

 

13 correct?

 

14 MR. ZONEN: Which case are we talking about?

 

15 Von’s?

 

16 THE WITNESS: Yes.

 

17 MR. MESEREAU: J.C. Penney case. Was there

 

18 a case against Von’s?

 

19 I haven’t have said that, Your Honor.

 

20 THE COURT: You’re right, you shouldn’t

 

21 have.

 

22 The District Attorney, you’re admonished to

 

23 object according to the legal standards for

 

24 objections.

 

25 MR. ZONEN: The objection is vague, then,

 

26 Your Honor.

 

27 THE COURT: It’s a little late.

 

28 I’m not going to allow you to engage in that 6493

 

1 type of conversation with each other or with the

 

2 witness.

 

3 MR. MESEREAU: I apologize.

 

4 THE COURT: Do you want me to shut the trial

 

5 down this afternoon?

 

6 MR. MESEREAU: No, Your Honor, I don’t.

 

7 THE COURT: Then let’s start taking this

 

8 seriously and act correctly.

 

9 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor.

 

10 THE COURT: Go ahead.

Janet went on to answer more questions about her alleged abuse by the JC Penney security guards. She felt that Mesereau had an unfair advantage against her because of the “big, giant book” that he used for his notes during his cross examination. Mesereau obviously used that “big, giant book” to help him “mix up the facts purposely”, as Janet accused him of doing!

To no one’s surprise, Janet denied knowing the lawyer who represented her in the JC Penney case, even though Mesereau showed her legal documents that proved otherwise.

11 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In the J.C. Penney case,

 

12 you claimed under oath that you were punched with

 

13 closed fists in the parking lot of J.C. Penney,

 

14 correct?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. You also claim that you were punched with

17 handcuffs, like they were brass knuckles, correct?

 

18 A. Read — what are you talking about? If I

 

19 said that I was beat up, that includes everything

 

20 they did.

 

21 You know, he wants me to recall something

 

22 that happened in 1998 and break it down while he’s

 

23 got a big, giant book right here.

 

24 Q. In the J.C. Penney case, did you claim under

 

25 oath that you were punched with handcuffs as if they

 

26 were brass knuckles?

 

27 A. I remember — I remember seeing the female

 

28 having the handcuffs inside her fingers like this. 6494

 

1 That’s what I remember seeing.

 

2 Q. And after being punched all these times in

 

3 the parking lot, you said you thought you were going

 

4 to die and it was like you were in a cave in a

 

5 tunnel. Do you remember that?

 

6 A. Yes, it did feel that way. It did feel that

 

7 way.

 

8 Q. You said security guards were punching Gavin

 

9 and Star, correct?

 

10 A. Can you please read — bring me that where

 

11 it says that?

 

12 Q. Okay.

 

13 A. Because my son — both of my sons were hurt.

 

14 Q. Were they hurt by security guards?

 

15 A. No, bring me —

 

16 Q. Were they hurt by security guards?

 

17 A. Yes, they were.

 

18 Q. Okay. You said Gavin didn’t get up. He

 

19 just laid on the floor, right?

 

20 A. I think — he’s being general. My son was

 

21 pushed and — by one of them, causing his elbow to

 

22 fracture. He ended up having a fracture, so —

 

23 Q. And you said Gavin had cancer in both his

 

24 lungs, right?

 

25 A. Now, are we going at that time?

 

26 Q. Yes, at that time.

 

27 A. Okay. He’s mixing up the facts purposely.

 

28 When my son was deposed in 2000, he had 6495

 

1 cancer. And they had — progressively it went to

 

2 both of his lungs. At that time when both my

 

3 boys — the summer of first grade when this happened

 

4 with J.C. Penney’s, no, he did not have cancer. But

 

5 when he was deposed, yes, he did.

 

6 Q. And he had cancer in both of his lungs at

 

7 that point, right?

 

8 A. Yes.

 

9 Q. Okay.

 

10 A. Stage IV.

 

11 Q. Do you know an attorney named George Owen

 

12 Feldman?

 

13 A. No, I don’t know him.

 

14 Q. Has George Owen Feldman ever represented

 

15 you, to your knowledge?

 

16 A. Never.

 

17 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just

 

18 showed you a document you signed with his name on

 

19 it?

 

20 A. Sure. Go ahead.

 

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

 

22 THE COURT: Yes.

 

23 THE WITNESS: Okay. And I think that’s

 

24 something that your office, Mr. — Mr. Sneddon’s

 

25 office —

 

26 THE COURT: Just a minute. There’s no

 

27 question pending.

 

28 THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. I was ready to – 6496

 

1 THE COURT: Just a moment.

 

2 THE WITNESS: Okay.

 

3 THE COURT: Go ahead, Counsel.

 

4 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

 

5 Q. Have you had a chance to look at that

 

6 document?

 

7 A. Yes, I have.

 

8 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about who

 

9 George Owen Feldman is?

 

10 A. I’ve never been represented by George Owen

 

11 Feldman, but I understand what he’s trying to say,

 

12 the paperwork.

 

13 Q. So you never have been represented by that

 

14 lawyer, right?

 

15 A. Never.

 

16 MR. ZONEN: Objection; asked and answered.

 

17 THE WITNESS: Never.

 

18 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember testifying

 

20 under oath in the J.C. Penney deposition that you

 

21 weren’t interested in suing?

 

22 A. I wanted an apology.

 

23 Q. Did you ever withdraw your suit for money?

 

24 A. No.

 

25 Q. Are you telling the jury that you blame your

 

26 descriptions of what happened to you on your

 

27 attorneys?

 

28 A. What? 6497

 

1 Q. Are you telling this jury that you blame the

 

2 way you describe your injuries in that case on your

 

3 lawyers?

 

4 A. No. Like — I’m going to try to make out

 

5 what he’s trying to say. However I spoke to them

 

6 and however they communicated to the court, that’s

 

7 how it was.

 

8 Q. Did you testify under oath the way your

 

9 lawyers told you to? Is that what you’re saying?

 

10 A. What?

 

11 Q. Did you testify under oath in that

 

12 deposition the way your lawyers told you to?

 

13 A. No.

 

14 Q. Are you blaming your descriptions about what

 

15 happened to you in the parking lot on your lawyers?

 

16 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Vague as to

 

17 “descriptions.”

 

18 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

19 You may answer.

 

20 THE WITNESS: Okay. I’m going to try — I’m

 

21 trying to feel for what he’s asking.

 

22 How I communicate — communicated to him, to

 

23 them, is once. As I told the police, I told them.

 

24 Now, what they — how they put it on paper,

 

25 I have no control of that. He was not — I wasn’t

 

26 one of the knights of the round table sitting there

 

27 and coming up with proper words what to say.

 

28 That’s it. One story. That’s it. The same one I 6498

 

1 told to the police.

Mesereau finally moved on from J.C. Penney to Janet’s meeting with law enforcement on December 18th, 2003, during which she signed a sworn document that stated that she had investigated Jackson from the time period of January 1st, 2000 to December 18th, 2003 due to his “interactions with her children at Neverland Ranch”. However, Janet didn’t even meet Jackson until August 2000, so Mesereau inquired how could she sign and affirm that document, and Janet answered that it was for a “general time period”, and some other hogwash. Judge Melville had the document admitted into evidence and would rule on it later on in the case:

2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When did you meet Michael

 

3 Jackson?

 

4 A. I think it was, my best estimate, August of

 

5 2000.

 

6 Q. Do you remember signing a document prepared

 

7 by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department on

 

8 December 18th, 2003?

 

9 A. Okay, I think — is it the paper you just

 

10 showed me?

 

11 Q. Yes. But I have a —

 

12 A. I can’t answer unless you tell me exactly.

 

13 You know, there was a lot of paperwork.

 

14 Q. Would you like to see it?

 

15 A. Well, I’m asking you, please, is it the same

 

16 one that you just came up here and showed me?

 

17 Q. It is.

 

18 A. Okay. Then, yes. I’ve signed many

 

19 paperworks of theirs.

 

20 Q. Let me ask you the question again.

 

21 A. Okay.

 

22 Q. Do you recall signing a document prepared by

 

23 the Sheriff’s Department of Santa Barbara County on

 

24 December 18th, 2003?

 

25 A. I think so.

 

26 Q. Would it refresh your recollection just to

 

27 look at the date and your signature?

 

28 A. No. That’s — is that the one that you just 6499

 

1 showed me?

 

2 Q. It is.

 

3 A. Then — then, yes.

 

4 Q. You did sign that document —

 

5 A. Yes.

 

6 Q. — on December 18th —

 

7 A. Yes.

 

8 Q. — 2003?

 

9 A. Yes.

 

10 Q. All right. Now, do you remember signing a

 

11 document prepared by the sheriff’s department that

 

12 said the following: “From time to time, between

 

13 January 1st, 2000, and the present date, I consulted

 

14 one or more of those lawyers concerning Michael

 

15 Jackson’s interaction with me and my children at

 

16 Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara County and

 

17 elsewhere, in this and other states, and concerning

18 the return of some furniture stored by or in the

 

19 name of Brad Miller at Dino’s Storage in North

 

20 Hollywood, Los Angeles County.”

 

21 Do you remember signing a document that had

 

22 those words?

 

23 A. Do you want me to have the document, like —

 

24 we’ve had this discussion over since August.

 

25 MR. MESEREAU: Object, Your Honor.

 

26 THE WITNESS: Since August, the same

 

27 thing —

 

28 THE COURT: Just a moment. I want you to 6500

 

1 answer the question. The question is, do you

 

2 remember signing that document?

 

3 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes.

 

4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And the document said that

 

5 you had started investigating Michael Jackson

 

6 sometime between January 1st, 2000, and the date you

 

7 signed the document, which is December 18th, 2003,

 

8 right?

 

9 A. Yes. If that’s — those words are on there.

 

10 Q. Why would you start investigating Michael

 

11 Jackson around January 1st, 2000, if you didn’t meet

 

12 him till August 2000?

 

13 A. Okay. Let me explain something to you. And

 

14 this has already been discussed, and he knows the

 

15 answers. This was discussed at the end of

 

16 September.

 

17 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object to this part

 

18 of the answer as nonresponsive.

 

19 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

20 THE WITNESS: This — when the sheriffs were

 

21 doing their investigation, they wanted to know every

 

22 single detail about me. George Owen Feldman is — I

 

23 think he’s associated in the same law firm of

 

24 Rothstein.

 

25 So the — the police department did an

 

26 extensive, extensive search on me as a person, and

 

27 so they want — they put everything in a general

 

28 form so they can have access to everything about me 6501

 

1 and my past, because they wanted to verify and make

 

2 sure that what they were going to do towards this

 

3 goliath was going to be accurate and truthful. And

 

4 that’s why this — this paper was made in such a

 

5 general way.

 

6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Are you now telling the

 

7 jury that George Owen Feldman did represent you?

 

8 A. No, he didn’t represent me.

 

9 Q. At any time?

 

10 A. No, he didn’t represent me. He is one of

 

11 the people inside the civil law firm. But my

 

12 understanding — my understanding was that it was

 

13 only the Rothstein — Rothstein and another attorney

 

14 named Adler, another attorney named Ramieri. That

 

15 was my understanding, and it still is today.

 

16 Q. Let me try and ask the question again –

 

17 okay? – in a clearer form, because perhaps I was not

 

18 clear. And I apologize if I wasn’t.

 

19 You signed a document that said from time to

 

20 time between January 1st, 2000, and the date you

 

21 signed the document, you were investigating Michael

 

22 Jackson through various lawyers, correct?

 

23 A. Okay. There’s more information on that

 

24 paperwork which he purposely has taken out of

 

25 context. It’s — certain events are attached to

 

26 specific attorneys. Certain situations are attached

 

27 to certain attorneys.

 

28 Like I said, the police wanted to do an 6502

 

1 extensive, thorough investigation on me prior to

 

2 doing it on him. So they wanted everything about

 

3 me. So they made it in a general form. But he

 

4 keeps taking it out of context.

 

5 MR. MESEREAU: I don’t want to offend the

 

6 Court, Your Honor. I don’t think I actually got an

 

7 answer to that, but I will leave it to the Court’s

 

8 discretion.

 

9 THE COURT: Ask your next question.

 

10 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor.

 

11 Q. You did sign this document, correct?

 

12 A. Yes, I did.

 

13 MR. MESEREAU: I would move it into

 

14 evidence, Your Honor.

 

15 THE COURT: It’s admitted.

 

16 MR. ZONEN: I will object, given the prior

 

17 ruling dealing with confidentiality of the —

 

18 MR. MESEREAU: It’s redacted.

 

19 MR. ZONEN: Perhaps we could argue this at

 

20 the next break or the conclusion of the proceedings.

 

21 THE COURT: All right. I’ll withhold ruling

 

22 on it, on its admissibility, till —

 

23 MR. MESEREAU: Shall I submit it to your

 

24 clerk, Your Honor?

 

25 THE COURT: Have you numbered it?

 

26 MR. MESEREAU: I have not.

 

27 THE COURT: Will you do that now, so we have

 

28 a record of what you’re talking about? 6503

 

1 THE CLERK: 5007.

 

2 THE COURT: 5-0 —

 

3 THE CLERK: 5007.

 

4 THE COURT: All right. I’ll withhold ruling

 

5 until we hear from the District Attorney.

 

6 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor, at this time

 

7 we’d like to play the rebuttal tape.

 

8 MR. SANGER: Exhibit 340.

 

9 THE COURT: 340.

 

10 Are you ready?

To be continued: https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2013/06/09/april-15th-2005-trial-analysis-janet-arvizo-direct-and-cross-examination-part-3-of-3/ 

Advertisements
No comments yet

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: