Skip to content

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

June 9, 2013

Next, Mesereau played the rebuttal tape to Janet and had her answer questions about the statements that she made, similar to the way he asked Star, Gavin, and Davellin earlier in the trial. First of all, Janet testified that her laughter during the rebuttal video was scripted, and everything that was said was memorized from the script. She also stated, once again, that she was a “poor actress”, and she made an absolutely ridiculous comparison to Halle Berry and her awful movie “Catwoman”:

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

 

12 Exhibit 340, Disk 1, was played for the Court and

 

13 jury.)

 

14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, Miss Arvizo, you are

 

15 laughing at various times during this tape. Was

 

16 that something that you scripted in advance?

 

17 A. I was nervous. Brad Miller was standing

 

18 right next to the camera, right in front of me.

 

19 Q. Was the laughing something that you scripted

 

20 in advance?

 

21 A. Yes. Also, Dieter wanted that included.

 

22 Q. Is everything that your son is saying

 

23 memorized?

 

24 A. Everything — they took all the information

 

25 from us, information that did exist, back from

 

26 Miami, and information that they had already, they

 

27 studied us and got background information —

 

28 MR. MESEREAU: Move to strike, Your Honor. 6504

 

1 THE WITNESS: — and then they put it all

 

2 together.

 

3 THE COURT: Just a moment.

 

4 THE WITNESS: I answered your question.

 

5 THE COURT: I think that could be answered

 

6 “yes” or “no.” The question is, “Is everything that

 

7 your son is saying memorized?”

 

8 THE WITNESS: Everything is — is going

 

9 according to what Dieter had scripted.

 

10 THE COURT: Go ahead.

 

11 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Is it memorized?

 

12 A. I think so.

 

13 Q. Okay.

 

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

 

15 Exhibit 340, Disk 1, was played for the Court and

 

16 jury.)

 

17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Ms. Arvizo, were the words

 

18 you just articulated on that tape all memorized?

 

19 A. Yes.

 

20 Q. Were you lying on this tape?

 

21 A. No. I’m a poor actress. That’s why they

 

22 started the proceeding to go do the passport and the

 

23 visa. That’s what Vinnie had communicated to me;

 

24 that what I did was inadequate.

 

25 Q. You were not lying on this tape?

 

26 A. Acting.

 

27 Q. Let me rephrase the question.

 

28 The jury just heard the words you expressed 6505

 

1 on the tape, right?

 

2 A. Correct.

 

3 Q. Were they lies?

 

4 A. Acting.

 

5 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, may I request

 

6 that the witness be instructed to answer the

 

7 question?

 

8 THE COURT: Well, the question was, “Were

 

9 they lies?” And she said, “Acting.”

 

10 MR. MESEREAU: I can rephrase it, Your

 

11 Honor.

 

12 Q. When you said what the jury just heard you

 

13 say on this tape, were you telling the truth?

 

14 A. I was acting. I don’t know how you want me

 

15 to define it. I mean, you’re not going to call

 

16 Halle Berry and say, “Are you Catwoman?” She’s

 

17 going to tell you she’s acting. She’s just acting.

 

18 She’s not a liar.

 

19 I was acting. That’s it.

 

20 Q. Are the words you said on that tape the

 

21 truth?

 

22 MR. ZONEN: Objection; asked and answered.

 

23 THE COURT: Sustained.

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

 

25 Exhibit 340, Disk 1, was played for the Court and

 

26 jury.)

 

27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Ms. Arvizo, was what you

 

28 just said about Michael Jackson being fatherly the 6506

1 truth?

 

2 A. Everything on here was choreographed by

 

3 Dieter and Ronald, specifically Dieter, and it’s all

 

4 acting. And I failed at that.

 

5 Q. Are the words you spoke true or false?

 

6 A. The words I spoke were part of a script.

 

7 Q. Were you telling the truth or not?

 

8 A. I was acting.

 

9 Q. Was Gavin telling the truth or not, as far

 

10 as you were concerned?

 

11 A. As far as —

 

12 MR. ZONEN: I think that’s speculative.

 

13 I’ll object.

 

14 THE COURT: It’s overly broad. I’ll sustain

 

15 the objection.

 

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Was it your belief that

 

17 Gavin was acting in this tape?

 

18 A. Yes, because I had seen Dieter work with my

 

19 children prior to Jesus taking us back to my mom’s

 

20 house. I had seen Dieter work with me and my

 

21 children.

 

22 Q. Did you believe that what Gavin was saying

 

23 was true or false?

 

24 A. I believe, like I told you, Dieter had

 

25 worked with us continuously on this script.

 

26 Q. Did you believe what Gavin said was the

 

27 truth or not?

 

28 A. I believe what he was saying was keeping to 6507

 

1 the script.

 

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

 

3 Exhibit 340, Disk 1, was played for the Court and

 

4 jury.)

 

5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, Ms. Arvizo, you said

 

6 that you and your children were neglected and spit

 

7 on, right?

 

8 A. Yes.

 

9 Q. And who were you referring to?

 

10 A. They took elements of my life and my

 

11 children’s life which were truthful and incorporated

 

12 it into their script. And this happened in the

 

13 initial meeting in Miami. They already had — they

 

14 were already in the works on this. It took me a

 

15 while to find out. And it’s taken many other people

 

16 to find out later, too.

 

17 Q. Who neglected your family?

 

18 A. In this script, everything is scripted. But

 

19 if you’re making a general question, you already

 

20 have the specifics on that.

 

21 Q. When you said your family was spit on, who

 

22 were you referring to?

 

23 A. On this rebuttal thing, everything is

 

24 scripted. They took elements of mine and my

 

25 children’s life which were true and incorporated in

 

26 here.

 

27 Q. When you said, “Everybody tossed us aside,”

 

28 who were you referring to? 6508

 

1 A. This is all scripted here.

 

2 Q. When you said, “We weren’t in the right zip

 

3 code, and we weren’t the right race,” what were you

 

4 referring to?

 

5 A. This was all scripted.

 

6 For those answers, you need to ask Dieter.

 

7 Q. But wouldn’t you agree that on numerous

 

8 other occasions you said exactly the same thing?

 

9 A. That’s correct.

 

10 Q. You even said words to that effect on that

 

11 phone call you had with Frank when you didn’t know

 

12 you were being recorded.

 

13 A. That’s correct.

 

14 Q. And your answers weren’t scripted there,

 

15 were they?

 

16 A. No, they weren’t. They — like I said, they

 

17 took elements of mine and my life — mine and my

 

18 children’s life and put it into this script.

 

19 Q. Well, not referring to what you say on this

 

20 tape, but referring to what you said on other

 

21 occasions when you didn’t know you were being

 

22 recorded, what did you mean when you said, “Our

 

23 family has been neglected and spit upon,” et cetera?

 

24 What were you talking about?

 

25 A. Outside this rebuttal, we’re talking about

 

26 David.

 

27 Q. Okay.

28 (Whereupon, a portion of a DVD, Plaintiff’s 6509

 

1 Exhibit 340, Disk 1, was played for the Court and

 

2 jury.)

 

3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, Ms. Arvizo, you had

 

4 been very critical of David for not defending you

 

5 and your children like a father should, correct?

 

6 A. He would have to defend us from his own

 

7 self.

 

8 Q. Were you critical of David for not defending

 

9 you in the J.C. Penney case the way you thought he

 

10 should?

 

11 A. I was not critical.

 

12 Q. Never were?

 

13 A. No, I was just — he just stood there.

 

14 Q. Didn’t you say that you had — excuse me.

 

15 Let me rephrase the question.

 

16 Didn’t you say on one occasion that you

 

17 would forgive David for not acting like a man in

 

18 that parking lot?

 

19 A. I don’t remember clearly, but I can — I can

 

20 try to recall for you.

 

21 I’m getting beat up on the floor. And the

 

22 history is David had always been beating me up. And

 

23 this one moment that he could have done something

 

24 for me, he allowed these people to beat on me while

 

25 I was laying flat on the floor, while he stood like

 

26 a coward on — it was like a little sidewalk.

 

27 That’s where he stood.

 

28 If that’s what you want – 6510

 

1 Q. Okay.

 

2 A. — that’s the best I can recall.

 

3 Q. Now, you say in this tape about — excuse

 

4 me. Davellin says in this tape, about Michael, “The

 

5 fact that he stood up and defended us, that’s a

 

6 father.” Was that just scripted?

 

7 A. Okay. All this on the video, plus the

 

8 outtakes, everything is scripted. Michael, when we

 

9 arrived in Miami, he had like a 45-minute

 

10 lovey-dovey meeting with us.

 

11 Q. Okay. And they started scripting it in

 

12 Miami?

 

13 A. They must have. They must have started all

 

14 this stuff way before I was even called up — up to

 

15 Miami. They must have.

 

16 Q. So they were scripting you in Miami, but you

 

17 didn’t know what they were doing, right?

 

18 A. Like I said, we’re going to have to call

 

19 Ronald, Dieter, all of them in here to find out what

 

20 they were up to. Or Michael, he could come up here.

 

21 Q. Were you being scripted in Miami without

 

22 knowing it?

 

23 A. I don’t know. I don’t know.

 

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

 

25 Exhibit 340, Disk 1, was played for the Court and

 

26 jury.)

 

27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Miss Arvizo, is what you

 

28 just said memorized? 6511

 

1 A. Yes. And — yeah.

 

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

 

3 Exhibit 340, Disk 1, was played for the Court and

 

4 jury.)

 

5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: As far as you were

 

6 concerned, was everything Gavin just said memorized?

 

7 A. As far as I’m concerned. Like I say, I

 

8 pointed out, Dieter had worked on us, with us. And

 

9 also, I would like to maybe help you remember, this

 

10 was —

 

11 MR. MESEREAU: Could I get a “yes” or “no”

 

12 answer, Your Honor?

 

13 THE COURT: Yes. Do you want the question

 

14 read back?

 

15 THE WITNESS: Sure, please.

 

16 (Record read.)

 

17 THE WITNESS: Yes.

 

18 (Whereupon, a portion of a DVD, Plaintiff’s

 

19 Exhibit 340, Disk 1, was played for the Court and

 

20 jury.)

 

21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, Ms. Arvizo, you say

 

22 that because you’re with Michael, you don’t have

 

23 money problems, correct?

 

24 A. Scripted. And remember, this is being

 

25 filmed at 3 a.m., right before the CPS meeting.

Janet double downed and stood by her previous assertion that everything she and her family said in the rebuttal tape was “scripted” and “memorized”, and she also described how she went “off script” and was criticized by Jackson’s associates:

 

26 Q. Now, you say that everything the jury has

 

27 just watched and heard on this videotape was

 

28 memorized and rehearsed, right? 6512

 

1 A. Yes. And while I was over here, in Jay

 

2 Jackson’s apartment they had their claws in my three

 

3 kids.

 

4 Q. How long did it take all of you to memorize

 

5 all the words that the jury just heard you say?

 

6 A. Well, they worked — Dieter — while I was

 

7 there, in my presence, Dieter worked, well, with us

 

8 daily, and about on the average of ten times a day.

 

9 And then when I came over here, and the children

 

10 were over there, who knows how many times. That you

 

11 would have to get from my children.

 

12 Q. Let’s talk about you only. You said you sat

 

13 down with Dieter ten times a day, correct?

 

14 A. My best estimate.

 

15 Q. And where did you do that?

 

16 A. In one of the guesthouses, the one that

 

17 looked like the little boy’s room. That one.

 

18 Q. This is the first time, after numerous

 

19 police interviews and after going to the grand jury,

 

20 that you’ve ever said, “I met with Dieter ten times

 

21 a day to memorize my words,” right?

 

22 A. No, I said, “Many times daily.”

 

23 Q. Okay.

 

24 A. That’s my words, but you want specific

 

25 answers.

 

26 Q. So you said everything the jury just heard

 

27 was memorized, and I’m just asking you how long it

 

28 took you to memorize all of it. 6513

 

1 A. How long?

 

2 Q. Do you think.

 

3 A. Well, I didn’t do a good job.

 

4 Q. How long do you think it took you to

 

5 memorize all of this?

 

6 A. I couldn’t give you an answer.

 

7 Q. Was it all memorized word for word?

 

8 A. I did my best.

 

9 Q. And was it all written out in advance?

 

10 A. Yes, it was.

 

11 Q. So how — how many pages were in this

 

12 script, if you know?

 

13 A. Well, at the end of the video right here,

 

14 you can see Christian have the script himself. And

 

15 probably Bradley Miller also had it, because he was

 

16 standing right next to the cameraman right in front

 

17 of us. Brad Miller’s job was to report to Dieter if

 

18 we did everything we were supposed to do.

 

19 Q. Was everything written out word for word in

 

20 advance?

 

21 A. Yes.

 

22 Q. Okay.

 

23 A. They’re very detailed.

 

24 Q. And you just memorized every page, true?

 

25 A. I did my best.

 

26 Q. Okay.

 

27 A. And I failed.

 

28 MR. SANGER: That was the end of that first 6514

 

1 disk. We have the second disk.

 

2 THE COURT: I understand.

 

3 You ready?

 

4 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor.

 

5 MR. SANGER: Oh, we’ve got to — just a

 

6 second.

 

7 THE COURT: Do you want me to put it on

 

8 “Black”?

 

9 MR. SANGER: Oh, you can leave it on. I

 

10 just wanted to squelch the high-pitched tone that

 

11 would be otherwise heard.

 

12 THE COURT: That was pretty good of you to

 

13 remember that.

 

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

 

15 Exhibit No. 340, Disk 2, was played for the Court

 

16 and jury.)

 

17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Miss Arvizo, was what you

 

18 just said memorized word for word?

 

19 A. Yes, I tried to do my best.

 

20 MR. MESEREAU: Do you want to take a break

 

21 at this point, Your Honor?

 

22 THE COURT: That would be good. Thank you.

 

23 (Recess taken.)

 

24 THE COURT: Mr. Mesereau?

 

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

 

26 Q. Miss Arvizo, before we continue with the

 

27 tape, I’d like to clarify something. Did you tell

 

28 the jury earlier that even the outtakes were 6515

 

1 scripted?

 

2 A. Yes. Everything. The whole entire — from

3 the moment we got to Hamid’s house, Brad Miller

 

4 there — was there, Michael’s P.I.

 

5 Q. So when you said about Gavin, “He was doing

 

6 gang signs. That was what he was doing. He’s —

 

7 he shot out to his friends on the west side,” was

 

8 that all scripted?

 

9 A. Everything; everything was scripted.

 

10 Q. Okay. We can continue.

 

11 THE BAILIFF: You need to push the “DVD”

 

12 button.

 

13 MR. SANGER: I pushed “DVD.” I’m going to

 

14 pause for a second. Shall we just pick up? We

 

15 missed ten seconds, but I’ll just go ahead.

 

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, Miss Arvizo, this is

 

17 the portion of the videotape where you refer to the

 

18 Department of Child Social Services, right?

 

19 A. Yes.

 

20 Q. And you told the jury that you were

 

21 criticized for referring to them in the videotape,

 

22 right?

 

23 A. As I told you before, I got in trouble by —

 

24 because I mentioned — I went off the script with

 

25 God, cancer, and the Child Welfare Services, those

 

26 three things —

 

27 Q. Okay.

 

28 A. — specifically, Vinnie told me. 6516

 

1 Q. So now you’re off the script —

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 Q. — when you criticize the Department of

 

4 Child Social Services, right?

 

5 A. Yes.

 

6 Q. You were speaking of your own free will when

 

7 you said that, correct?

 

8 A. Yes.

 

9 Q. And when you said, “So where are all these

 

10 people that — that have all of a sudden this care

 

11 and concern throwing the child advocacy group on me,

 

12 the Department of Child Social Services,” you were

 

13 telling the truth, correct?

 

14 A. At that point where I went off, God, the

 

15 Child Welfare Services, and the cancer, so that one

 

16 word.

 

17 Q. Were you criticizing the Department of Child

 

18 Social Services?

 

19 A. No. That one word I went off the script,

 

20 and so I got in trouble for it.

 

21 Q. Were you criticizing the Department of Child

 

22 Social Services?

 

23 A. No. That was part of the script, the child

 

24 advocacy.

 

25 Q. That was part of the script?

 

26 A. Yes. I added the — the Child Welfare

 

27 Services in a way that was off the script.

 

28 Q. And why were you criticizing that agency? 6517

 

1 A. Well, I had the Child Welfare Services

 

2 meeting that morning, and it blurted out, so I got

 

3 in trouble for it.

 

4 Q. Were you worried about the meeting?

 

5 A. No — yeah, I was worried about the meeting,

 

6 so I got in trouble for that.

 

7 Q. So you were being critical of DCFS, correct?

 

8 A. No, no, I wasn’t. That came out.

 

9 Q. It came out, but you were —

 

10 A. No, the word, the one word, “Child”….

 

11 MR. MESEREAU: We can move on. /

 

12 (Whereupon, a portion of a DVD, Plaintiff’s

 

13 Exhibit 340, Disk 2, was played for the Court and

 

14 jury.)

 

15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Ms. Arvizo, everything

 

16 said in this interview was memorized, correct?

 

17 A. Everything was except for what I got in

 

18 trouble for. Those are the three things. I was

 

19 supposed to say that Michael healed Gavin —

 

20 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, could I — could

 

21 the Court admonish the witness to just answer the

 

22 question?

 

23 THE COURT: Yes.

 

24 Just answer the question.

 

25 THE WITNESS: I thought I was answering it.

 

26 THE COURT: Yes, go ahead.

 

27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Everything was memorized

 

28 word for word, right? 6518

 

1 A. Yes, except when I blurted out the little

 

2 meeting that I was going to have in a matter of

 

3 hours. I wasn’t supposed to blurt that out. And I

 

4 did. I failed.

 

In this excerpt, Mesereau challenges Janet about why she did not call the police when she was held “hostage”, and of course she claimed that it was because “nobody would believe her”. Janet denied being in contact with a certain officer, and declined Mesereau’s offer to show her a transcript of a police interview in which she mentioned that she had been in touch with him during her ordeal:

5 Q. Now, you told the jury yesterday that during

 

6 this period of time where you claim your family was

 

7 falsely imprisoned, that you never reported it to

 

8 the police, correct?

 

9 A. Correct.

 

10 Q. And you told them that you didn’t report it

 

11 to the police because you thought no police officer

 

12 in Los Angeles would believe you, correct?

 

13 A. That’s correct.

 

14 Q. And because you thought no police officer

 

15 would ever believe you, you never talked about being

 

16 held against your will, right?

 

17 A. Is that a question?

 

18 MR. ZONEN: Objection; vague. To whom?

 

19 MR. MESEREAU: Let me rephrase it.

 

20 Q. What is the period of time that you claim

 

21 you and your family were held against your will by

 

22 people associated with Mr. Jackson?

 

23 A. From — approximately from February to

 

24 March.

 

25 Q. And —

 

26 A. That’s my best estimate.

 

27 Q. And what date was this rebuttal video, if

 

28 you know? 6519

 

1 A. This was — the best I can remember is being

 

2 taken there on the 19th about 11 p.m. at night,

 

3 approximately. And then it went into the morning of

 

4 the 20th, was filmed at about 3 a.m. And that

 

5 morning, about nine o’clock, was the meeting.

 

6 Q. During the time you claim your family was

 

7 held against their will, were you in contact with

 

8 any police officers?

 

9 A. No.

 

10 Q. Do you know a Los Angeles police officer

 

11 named Andrew Lassak?

 

12 A. Officer Lassak, yes, I do.

 

13 Q. Who is Officer Lassak?

 

14 A. Officer Lassak is a friend.

 

15 Q. How long has he been your friend?

 

16 A. He’s been my friend since I think

 

17 approximately — let me see. Oh, you know, after

 

18 David was arrested from domestic violence. That

 

19 period of, I think, about 2001.

 

20 Q. And during the period of time you claim you

 

21 were being held against your will, you were

 

22 communicating with Andrew Lassak, correct?

 

23 A. No, that’s incorrect.

 

24 Q. Well, do you remember an interview you had

 

25 with the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department where

 

26 you mentioned Andrew Lassak?

 

27 A. Yes.

 

28 Q. Remember while you were discussing what 6520

 

1 Vinnie was doing, you told the interviewer, “He’s

 

2 one of the LAPD officers that I had told him about

 

3 things that were happening?” Do you remember that?

 

4 A. I don’t think you’re saying it correctly.

 

5 You’re leaving things out from the beginning and in

 

6 front of that.

 

7 Q. Would it refresh your recollection to see

 

8 what you told the Santa Barbara sheriffs when you

 

9 were interviewed?

 

10 A. No. You don’t need to — I’m saying to you,

 

11 you’re not saying it completely to the jurors.

 

12 What he’s trying to say is I was — after I

 

13 met with Mr. Dickerman and Mr. — in the process of

 

14 that, of the attorneys, I tried to reach Officer

 

15 Lassak. And in between that was when I had

 

16 contacted him in order to get help to let him know

 

17 what was going on.

 

18 And then in the midst of that, that’s when

 

19 the sheriffs, the Santa Barbara sheriffs got

 

20 involved, and the Santa Barbara sheriffs, which is

 

21 on my police report, stated that he didn’t need to

 

22 get involved, that it happened over here, so

 

23 therefore they’re the ones that are going to take

 

24 over the investigation.

 

25 Q. During the time you claim you were falsely

 

26 imprisoned, you had phone conversations with Andrew

 

27 Lassak, correct?

 

28 A. Incorrect. 6521

 

1 Q. Okay.

 

2 A. But during the police interview, yes.

 

3 Q. He is with the Hollenbeck Division, correct?

 

4 A. That is correct.

5 Q. The Hollenbeck Division of the Los Angeles

 

6 Police Department is the division where your Soto

 

7 Street address is, right?

 

8 A. That is correct.

 

9 Q. Okay. And you’re saying you never told

 

10 anyone from the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department

 

11 that you were in communication with Andrew Lassak

 

12 during that period of time?

 

13 A. When we were having a police interview,

 

14 Officer Lassak happened to call because I was trying

 

15 to put in a call, like I said, between the attorneys

 

16 and the Santa Barbara sheriffs. This period was

 

17 Officer Lassak, way after Neverland, because finally

 

18 I was able to make contact with him.

 

19 Q. Do you remember telling Officer Lassak,

 

20 “Something big is happening. I can’t talk about it.

 

21 I have lawyers”?

 

22 A. I never said something like that.

 

23 Q. So if he said you said that, that wouldn’t

 

24 be true?

 

25 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Argumentative;

 

26 speculative.

 

27 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you know an LAPD 6522

 

1 officer named Patrick Metoyer?

 

2 A. Yes, I did.

 

3 Q. When did you meet Patrick Metoyer?

 

4 A. Officer — the same time Officer Lassak, I

 

5 met him.

 

6 Q. And what year would that be?

 

7 A. That would be in 2001.

 

8 Q. Did you know a Sergeant Milt Hernandez from

 

9 the LAPD?

 

10 A. And Officer Metoyer is no longer working for

 

11 LAPD.

 

12 Q. Did you know a Sergeant Milt Hernandez from

 

13 the LAPD?

 

14 A. That — that name doesn’t sound familiar.

 

15 Q. Do you remember talking to him? He’s with

 

16 the Hollenbeck Division.

 

17 A. I think what you’re trying to refer to is

 

18 someone who was there as a watch commander or

 

19 something like that.

 

20 But not a friend. He’s not a friend.

 

21 Q. When did you first meet him?

 

22 MR. ZONEN: Who’s “him”? Objection; vague.

 

23 MR. MESEREAU: Milt Hernandez.

 

24 Q. When did you first meet him?

 

25 A. If it’s the same —

 

26 MR. ZONEN: Objection; assuming facts not in

 

27 evidence that she ever met him.

 

28 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll rephrase it, Your Honor. 6523

 

1 Q. Did you ever meet Sergeant Milt Hernandez

 

2 from the Hollenbeck Division?

 

3 A. No, never.

 

4 Q. Did you ever speak to him on the phone?

 

5 A. If it’s the same person, I think it was

 

6 inquiring about the LAPD Explorers, because I was

 

7 interested in moving Davellin from the Wall Street

 

8 Central Division up to the Hollenbeck Division, if

 

9 that’s —

 

10 Q. And approximately when did you talk to him,

 

11 if you remember?

 

12 A. I don’t remember.

 

13 Q. You said you first met LAPD Officer Andrew

 

14 Lassak —

 

15 A. And this is the best I can remember.

 

16 Q. You said you first met LAPD Officer Andrew

 

17 Lassak in 2001; is that correct?

 

18 A. That is correct.

 

19 Q. And how did you meet him?

 

20 A. I think it was because of a call or

 

21 something like that.

 

22 Q. And what are you talking about?

 

23 A. That’s the best I can remember.

 

24 Q. You said it’s a call about something?

 

25 A. Yeah, that’s the best I can remember.

 

26 Q. Did you call him?

 

27 A. No, I didn’t.

 

28 Q. Did he call you? 6524

 

1 A. No.

 

2 Q. Did you ever ask him to assist you or your

 

3 family in anything?

 

4 A. No.

 

5 Q. Did you ever ask him to drive you home?

 

6 A. Not me personally.

 

7 Q. Did he ever drive you home?

 

8 A. I think so, yes. In the LAPD car, yes. I

 

9 do recall that.

 

10 Q. And when did LAPD Officer Andrew Lassak

 

11 drive you home?

 

12 A. He drove me home because I had — both my

 

13 feet were operated.

 

14 Q. And how did you get in touch with him?

 

15 A. I think there was a call, a request for

 

16 help, and he helped me out. I don’t really recall.

 

17 Q. He drove you home from the welfare

 

18 department, didn’t he?

 

19 A. Yeah, I think so. Yeah. Yes.

 

20 Q. Okay. And through him, you met a number of

 

21 LAPD officers, did you not?

 

22 A. Yes. Just met, not friends.

 

23 Q. And they were in the Hollenbeck Division

 

24 where your Soto Street home was, correct?

 

25 A. That’s correct. And I don’t know any of

 

26 their names.

 

27 Q. And you met all these officers in

 

28 approximately 2001, right? 6525

 

1 A. This is correct.

 

2 Q. You also met some officers from the

 

3 Metropolitan Transportation Authority, also called

 

4 MTA, right?

 

5 A. This is correct.

 

6 Q. And who did you meet from the MTA — excuse

 

7 me, let me rephrase that.

 

8 What police officers did you know from the

 

9 MTA?

 

10 A. That department, to the best I can remember,

 

11 was dissolved. It’s no longer. They were all sent

 

12 out to different departments, because that was —

 

13 that had ended. But I did get to meet – which I

 

14 completely lost contact with them – I think it was a

 

15 female officer and a male officer. No, actually —

 

16 yeah. That was the initial officers I met, yes.

 

17 But they’re no longer existent.

 

18 Q. How do you know that?

 

19 A. Because I drove — I rode the bus frequently

 

20 and I never got to see them again anymore. They

 

21 were substituted by private security. Because LAPD

 

22 used to run the metro department.

 

23 Q. Did you ever meet a Sergeant Chiu from the

 

24 Rampart Division?

 

25 A. Sergeant Chiu. That name doesn’t sound

 

26 familiar.

 

27 Q. How about a Cindy Garcia?

 

28 A. I may have. But it doesn’t sound familiar. 6526

 

1 Q. How about a Detective Angulo, A-n-g-u-l-o,

 

2 from the Hollenbeck Division?

 

3 A. It doesn’t sound familiar. Because of

 

4 Officer Lassak, I got to meet a lot of officers, but

 

5 they weren’t my friends. Just when he was doing his

 

6 patrol, he would stop by and he would have someone

 

7 with him. He was — what are those officers called

 

8 when they’re — oh, he was a training officer. So

 

9 he constantly had someone he was training.

 

10 Q. And at one point you had LAPD Officer

 

11 Lassak’s cell phone number, didn’t you?

 

12 A. Yes, I did.

 

13 Q. Do you remember the number?

 

14 A. No, I don’t.

 

15 Q. And he did some nice things for you and your

 

16 family, didn’t he?

 

17 A. Yes, he — he was our friend.

 

18 Q. Please tell the jury the nice things that

 

19 LAPD Officer Andrew Lassak did for you and your

 

20 family.

 

21 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as

 

22 irrelevant.

 

23 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Ms. Arvizo, the truth is,

 

25 you knew a lot of police officers near where you

 

26 lived, you could have called any of them and said

 

27 you were the victim of crime, and you didn’t, right?

 

28 A. It would have been helpful, but Officer 6527

 

1 Lassak was recently married in about June. And out

 

2 of respect I figured he’s got a new wife, and it’s

 

3 best that I don’t communicate with him. So I lost

 

4 communication the day he got married, right before.

 

5 Q. Did you ever hear of a group called Big

 

6 Brother or Adopt-a-Family?

 

7 A. No, but — no, but I came to find out now

 

8 that maybe those kind of things are —

9 Q. I’m sorry?

 

10 A. That’s what I told you.

 

11 Q. Okay. When you were interviewed by Santa

 

12 Barbara sheriffs —

 

13 A. Yes.

 

14 Q. — did you ever mention that you had met

 

15 Andrew Lassak and a bunch of other officers through

 

16 a group called Big Brother or Adopt-a-Family?

 

17 A. I think that was Officer Robel or Officer

 

18 Zelis that mentioned that. It wasn’t I that said

 

19 that.

 

20 Q. Excuse me. Let me rephrase that.

 

21 Did you ever participate with LAPD Officer

 

22 Andrew Lassak in any type of group involving family

 

23 support in East Los Angeles?

 

24 A. Okay, Officer — I think I know what you’re

 

25 referring to if —

 

26 Q. Yeah, whatever — please tell the jury

 

27 whatever it is.

 

28 A. Okay, Officer Lassak — usually all the 6528

 

1 department — this is what was explained to me.

 

2 Each officer personally picks someone, someone from

 

3 the community or someone they like, or anything, and

 

4 they put their name into some kind of — I don’t

 

5 know how it works, but this is how I came to

 

6 understand. That they put their name into some —

 

7 something, and then they pick families out of there.

 

8 And that’s it.

 

9 Q. And was your family chosen to participate?

 

10 A. Yes. Officer Lassak put me and my kids in

 

11 there.

 

12 Q. Approximately when was this?

 

13 A. This was in — I don’t remember. But it was

 

14 Christmas.

 

15 Q. Do you know approximately what year?

 

16 A. No, I wouldn’t be able to tell you that, but

 

17 I know it was Christmas.

 

18 Q. Was it before you think you met Michael

 

19 Jackson?

 

20 A. No, it was after. Because I — like I said,

 

21 I met Officer Lassak after David was arrested.

 

22 Q. And for the jury’s benefit, approximately

 

23 when was David arrested?

 

24 A. About — I don’t know. My best estimate,

 

25 September, October of 2001. That’s my best

 

26 estimate.

 

27 Q. And in your interview with the Santa Barbara

 

28 sheriffs, you said that Mr. Lassak would come with 6529

 

1 different officers and make jokes, right?

 

2 A. Yes. He would — like I said, Officer

 

3 Lassak, even though he was a corporal, he’s also a

 

4 training officer. And he would bring different

 

5 officers, and he would stand in the doorway, and

 

6 he’d make jokes with the kids.

 

7 Q. Now, which doorway was this?

 

8 A. My front door to my apartment.

 

9 Q. Okay. And you said he’d get a big kick out

 

10 of the kids telling him jokes, right?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. And do you know who the officers are that he

 

13 used to bring to your front door?

 

14 A. I wouldn’t be able to tell you, because the

 

15 majority of them never came twice. They just would

 

16 come once.

 

17 Q. How many would he often bring — excuse me,

 

18 let me rephrase that.

 

19 How many officers would Mr. Lassak bring to

 

20 your house at one time?

 

21 A. Well, whoever he was training at that time.

 

22 Q. What’s the largest number of officers he

 

23 ever brought to your house?

 

24 A. Well, him and the other person he was

 

25 training.

 

26 Q. And did you ever go to the police department

 

27 to see him, where he worked?

 

28 A. I don’t think so. 6530

 

1 Q. Did you used to see Officer Lassak driving

 

2 around the Hollenbeck Division?

 

3 A. Yes, I did.

 

4 Q. And you were a friend of his for a number of

 

5 years, weren’t you?

 

6 A. Up until he got married. Because when he

 

7 got married, I felt it’s a new marriage, and out of

 

8 respect, he needs to dedicate himself to his wife.

 

9 And I don’t think it would be very respectful for me

 

10 to be a friend when he’s supposed to be dedicating

 

11 his time to his new wife.

 

12 Q. Okay. Do you remember the names of other

 

13 officers in the Hollenbeck Division that you knew

 

14 around the time Officer Lassak used to come to your

 

15 doorway?

 

16 A. Only Officer Lassak.

 

17 Q. Did Officer Lassak ever arrange any type of

 

18 fund-raiser for your family?

 

19 A. No, outside from him putting — putting us

 

20 in that Christmas thing, that’s it. No fund-raiser.

 

21 Q. Now, what Christmas thing was this?

 

22 A. It was — every officer picks somebody and

 

23 they put it in like a bag, and that’s it.

 

24 Q. Okay. And where did this take place?

 

25 A. In the Hollenbeck Division.

 

26 Q. And what location did this Christmas event

 

27 take place?

 

28 A. In the Hollenbeck Division. 6531

 

1 Q. Okay. Was that at the police station?

 

2 A. I think it was.

 

3 Q. Did you bring your children to the police

 

4 station?

 

5 A. I didn’t go.

 

6 Q. Did your family participate in that event?

 

7 A. Yes.

 

8 Q. How?

 

9 A. Officer Lassak had came by and told the kids

 

10 that on this day they were going to have like a

 

11 Christmas party. And that’s it.

 

12 Q. And who went to the Christmas party from

 

13 your family?

 

14 A. Davellin, Gavin and Star.

 

15 Q. Okay. And this is after 2001, right?

 

16 A. It definitely has to be, because it was —

 

17 I met Officer Lassak after David was arrested, and

 

18 that’s my best estimate.

Janet denied speaking with attorney Larry Feldman within the weeks prior to her testimony, but admitted that she spoke with him each time she received a subpoena throughout the pretrial hearings:

 

19 Q. When is the last time you spoke to Attorney

 

20 Larry Feldman? Don’t say what you said. That’s

 

21 confidential. But when was the last time you spoke

 

22 to Attorney Larry Feldman?

 

23 A. I — I wouldn’t be able to tell. I couldn’t

 

24 remember.

 

25 Q. Have you been in any communication with him

 

26 in the last month?

 

27 A. Let me see. Let me see.

 

28 No. It’s only the times that I was 6532

 

1 receiving subpoenas from your office was — yeah,

 

2 that’s the best I can remember.

 

3 Q. Have you talked to him in the last couple

 

4 weeks?

 

5 A. I don’t think so. I’ve been here.

 

6 Q. Have you talked to Attorney Larry Feldman in

 

7 the last couple of weeks?

 

8 A. Let me see. You know what? When was —

 

9 when did he testify?

 

10 Q. I can’t answer questions.

 

11 A. Oh, okay. I’m only saying that would help

 

12 me remember. Because it was before that time.

 

13 Q. Have you talked to Attorney Larry Feldman

 

14 while this trying has been going on?

 

15 A. Oh, yes, yes.

 

16 Q. How many times?

 

17 A. Oh, I wouldn’t be able to tell you that.

 

18 Just about every time you sent a subpoena.

 

19 Q. Okay. Would it be accurate to say that

 

20 while this trial has been going on you’ve talked to

 

21 him more than once?

 

22 A. Oh, yes. Every time they sent a subpoena.

 

23 Q. Okay.

 

24 THE COURT: Counsel, there may be a little

 

25 ambiguity there as to, “while the trial has been

 

26 going on.”

 

27 MR. MESEREAU: Oh, okay. I understand.

 

28 THE COURT: What “the trial” is to some 6533

 

1 people is different than others.

 

2 MR. MESEREAU: Sure. Let me rephrase it.

 

3 Q. You’re aware that Attorney Larry Feldman

 

4 testified in this trial, right?

 

5 A. Yep. Yes.

 

6 Q. How did you know that?

 

7 A. Because I had seen “Accuser’s Mother’s

 

8 Attorney Testifies.” I seen that, something like

 

9 that.

 

10 Q. Okay. Within the last few months, you’ve

 

11 been in contact with Attorney Larry Feldman, have

12 you not?

 

13 A. Yes, yes.

 

14 Q. You’ve been in contact with him on a number

 

15 of occasions?

 

16 A. Yes, every time they sent a subpoena over.

 

17 Q. Okay. Okay. Now, I think you’ve answered

 

18 this question, but let me just be specific.

 

19 A. Okay.

 

Once again, Janet tries to explain why she didn’t contact police during her “imprisonment”, and why she “seized” her communication with Officer Lassak, and she further described the relationship she and her family had with Larry Feldman (pay attention to how she called Mesereau and his team “bullies” for all of the subpoenas they sent her!) :

20 Q. All of these officers you met through LAPD,

 

21 Officer Andrew Lassak, starting with the year 2001,

 

22 none of them were ever contacted by you about false

 

23 imprisonment, right?

 

24 A. That’s correct.

 

25 Q. None of those —

 

26 A. Until when I tried afterwards between Mr.

 

27 Dickerman and the Santa Barbara sheriffs. And on

 

28 your thing they said, “Don’t talk to any other 6534

 

1 officers but their department so the investigation

 

2 wouldn’t be compromised.”

 

3 Q. Before you went to Attorney William

 

4 Dickerman, you never contacted any of these officers

 

5 or trainees that you knew in your neighborhood about

 

6 anything you claim Michael Jackson was doing?

 

7 A. That’s correct. I was afraid to talk on the

 

8 phone, because they were monitoring, listening and

 

9 surveilling me and following me. That’s correct.

 

10 Q. Even when you were at your parents’ home,

 

11 you never called LAPD Officer Andrew Lassak and

 

12 complained, right?

 

13 A. Because at this point I didn’t have his

 

14 phone number.

 

15 Q. When did you lose it?

 

16 A. When he got married, out of respect, I

 

17 seized my communication with him.

 

18 Q. Well, you’d been to the Hollenbeck Division

 

19 Police Department before, right?

 

20 A. Yes, I had.

 

21 Q. Did you ever contact anyone from the

 

22 Hollenbeck Division Police Department and complain

 

23 about Michael Jackson?

 

24 A. Well, I no longer belong to their division.

 

25 I know — because my apartment, because of them, is

 

26 no more existent there, so I’m not their problem

 

27 anymore.

 

28 Q. You still could have called them, couldn’t 6535

 

1 you?

 

2 A. I didn’t. Because of being monitored,

 

3 followed, surveilled, listened to.

 

4 Q. You didn’t call them from Jay Jackson’s

 

5 apartment, right?

 

6 A. That’s correct.

 

7 Q. You didn’t call them from your parents’ home

 

8 in El Monte, correct?

 

9 A. That’s correct.

 

10 Q. You didn’t call them from Soto Street while

 

11 you were living there, correct?

 

12 A. That’s correct. But I told the Santa

 

13 Barbara Sheriff’s Department.

 

14 Q. After you went to Attorney Larry Feldman,

 

15 right?

 

16 A. No. Before. Jay Jackson called in about

 

17 February and that’s when we communicated. That was

 

18 our first communication.

 

19 Q. You didn’t fill out a police report with any

 

20 police department about anything until you went to

 

21 Attorney Larry Feldman, right?

 

22 A. We made contact with sheriffs, Santa Barbara

 

23 sheriffs, back in February. They were not helpful

 

24 to us. So there was this big gap until afterwards.

 

25 Q. When did you first meet Attorney Larry

 

26 Feldman?

 

27 A. After Mr. Bill Dickerman introduced me to

 

28 him. 6536

 

1 Q. Do you know about when that was?

 

2 A. I wouldn’t be able to tell you. But they

 

3 could tell you best.

 

4 Q. To your knowledge, how long has Attorney

 

5 Larry Feldman been giving you advice? Don’t say

 

6 what the advice is. I’m just asking you, as far as

 

7 you know, how long has Attorney Larry Feldman been

 

8 giving you advice?

 

9 A. I’m a little confused by the question,

 

10 because he’s helped more than gave me advice, when

 

11 you guys have been bomb — giving me all those

 

12 subpoenas.

 

13 Q. I understand.

 

14 A. That they even wanted my school records all

 

15 the way till I was a kindergartner myself.

 

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

 

17 THE COURT: Just a moment.

 

18 That’s stricken.

 

19 Do you want to rephrase the question?

 

20 MR. MESEREAU: Yes.

 

21 Q. If you know, for how many years has Attorney

 

22 Larry Feldman been giving you advice?

 

23 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I’m having

 

24 difficulty with it. I’m telling you, “help” and

 

25 “advice” to me is different.

 

26 THE COURT: She’s asking you to clarify the

 

27 question. That’s —

 

28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: What you say to an 6537

 

1 attorney is confidential, and I’m not asking you

 

2 about your conversations. Okay?

 

3 I’m just asking you how long, in your mind,

 

4 Attorney Larry Feldman has been helping you. We’ll

 

5 use the word “help.”

 

6 A. Okay. Well, he felt that your defense team

 

7 was bullies.

 

8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Objection.

 

9 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

10 MR. MESEREAU: Move to strike.

 

11 THE COURT: Stricken.

 

12 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, could the witness

 

13 be admonished to answer the question?

 

14 THE COURT: Ask the question again or have

 

15 the question read back, please.

 

16 (Record read.)

 

17 THE WITNESS: Okay. Every time they — they

 

18 were sending me the subpoena, for example,

 

19 requesting all my school records, all the way till I

 

20 was a kindergartner, he’s been helping me.

 

21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Let me ask it one more

 

22 time. But if I’m not clear, just tell me.

 

23 A. Okay.

 

24 Q. What year did you meet Attorney Larry

 

25 Feldman?

 

26 A. In 2003.

 

27 Q. You knew some police officers from the MTA,

 

28 did you not? 6538

 

1 A. Yes, I did. I did meet them, but it was not

 

2 a close contact, as I was with Officer Lassak, which

 

3 I stopped because he had gotten married, and that

 

4 was it. And they no longer were in existence,

 

5 because a private security company took over the

 

6 metro bus division. So I lost complete contact of

 

7 them.

 

8 Q. And MTA means Metropolitan Transportation

 

9 Authority, correct?

 

10 A. Yes. They’re underneath the ground.

 

11 They’re police officers that were underneath the

 

12 ground taking care of the trains that run — I don’t

 

13 know whether they’re train or metro rail. I don’t

 

14 know the correct —

 

15 Q. And you knew a number of officers with the

 

16 MTA, correct?

 

17 A. When that was dissolved, my — as far as my

 

18 relationship was with them, every time me and my

 

19 children rode the trains, when we would see them

 

20 we’d say hello. But past that, once they were — I

 

21 don’t know what the word is. When they were gone,

 

22 no more, I didn’t see them anymore.

 

23 Q. And how many officers from the MTA do you

 

24 think you knew, when you knew them?

 

25 A. It was about two. A male and a female, and

 

26 the rest were by sight. Every time we’d see them,

 

27 we’d say hello. But there was definitely more than

 

28 two that I recognized by face. 6539

 

1 Q. And were they stationed in the Hollenbeck

 

2 area?

 

3 A. No, they weren’t stationed in the Hollenbeck

 

4 area.

 

5 Q. Where were they stationed?

 

6 A. They were stationed — to my understanding,

 

7 they were stationed right there, underneath the

 

8 ground in the train rail system.

 

9 Q. And didn’t these MTA officers help your

 

10 family out also?

 

11 A. Well, I don’t know if you call it help, but

 

12 they also did some Christmas thing.

 

13 Q. And what was that?

 

14 A. They — they took a liking to the kids,

15 because they saw the kids go off and on the trains,

 

16 and so — and that was it.

 

17 Q. And approximately when did this happen?

 

18 A. Christmastime.

 

19 Q. Approximately what year, if you know?

 

20 A. I don’t remember. But I do remember

 

21 Christmastime.

 

22 Q. Was it after 2001?

 

23 A. Oh. Oh, yes, yes. After — after David was

 

24 arrested, me and my kids became free to have — to

 

25 go beyond having friendships.

 

26 Q. And after David was arrested, it would be

 

27 accurate to say that you and your kids had a lot of

 

28 friends who were police officers, right? 6540

 

1 A. The only one we could say is Officer Lassak.

 

2 That’s it. The rest were just people that we met,

 

3 but completely lost contact with.

 

4 Q. And through Major Jay Jackson, did you meet

 

5 anyone in the United States Army?

 

6 A. Not really. I — no. I don’t even go to —

 

7 when Jay would have, like, gatherings from the Army,

 

8 I prefer not to go. Even to his — even to his

 

9 going-away luncheon, because I knew I wasn’t smart

 

10 enough to be in that kind of group.

 

11 THE COURT: Counsel, is this a good place to

 

12 stop?

 

13 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.

 

14 THE COURT: All right. We’re going to

 

15 recess for the weekend. Remember next Wednesday

 

16 afternoon, we’re not going to be in session. I’ll

 

17 see you Monday at 8:30. Remember the admonitions.

 

18 Don’t talk to anybody. Don’t read anything. Enjoy

 

19 the weekend.

 

20 MR. SANGER: When are we not in session?

 

21 THE COURT: Wednesday afternoon.

 

22 MR. SANGER: Wednesday afternoon we’re not

 

23 in session. We’re here Monday.

 

24 (The proceedings adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

To be continued: https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2013/06/15/april-18th-2005-trial-analysis-janet-arvizo-cross-examination-part-1-of-4/

Advertisements
2 Comments leave one →
  1. goodie permalink
    June 12, 2013 3:44 pm

    what the hell is she talking about? if she was such a bad actress then how on earth did she make all the whispering and laughing seem genuine?,she is full of self contradictions; if she got into trouble for going off the “script” then why those things did not get edited as they were “scripted”

Trackbacks

  1. April 15th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Janet Arvizo (Direct and Cross Examination), Part 2 of 3 | Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: