Skip to content

April 21st, 2005 Trial Analysis: Brian Barron (Cross Examination), Stephen Cleaves, Timothy Sutcliffe, Timothy Rooney, Steven Moeller, Jeff Klapakis, Cynthia Montgomery, Part 1 of 4

September 15, 2013

Sanger’s cross examination of Brian Barron continued today, and Barron’s knowledge of the gate logs from February and March 2003 was the subject at hand. Nothing extraordinary that is worth noting here was said, and Sanger ended his cross examination.

Under redirect examination, Auchincloss asked Barron to elaborate on his earlier testimony about the various intruders who were caught and removed from Neverland by security. Over the years, there were around five to ten intruders who invaded Neverland, but none of them posed a serious threat to Jackson:

18 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

 

19 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:

 

20 Q. All right. Good morning, Mr. Barron.

 

21 A. Good morning.

 

22 Q. Unfortunately I’m going to have to return to

 

23 these records, but I’m going to give us a little bit

 

24 of a break, ask you a few questions beforehand.

 

25 A. Certainly.

 

26 Q. Mr. Sanger asked you about the intruders on

 

27 the ranch.

 

28 A. Yes. 7174

 

1 Q. Can you characterize what — any

 

2 generalities concerning what type of intruders they

 

3 would be? What would their purpose be to try and

 

4 get onto the ranch?

 

5 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object. That’s

 

6 vague.

 

7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll begin by asking you a

 

8 foundational question. I’ll withdraw that question.

 

9 Q. Was there anything that these individuals

 

10 had in common, any generalities you could make in

 

11 terms of their motive to be on that property?

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. What was that?

 

14 A. To see Mr. Jackson in the ranch.

 

15 Q. So these were fans?

 

16 A. Yes.

 

17 Q. Predominantly not physically threatening to

 

18 Mr. Jackson?

 

19 MR. SANGER: I object. Calls for

 

20 speculation and leading.

 

21 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

22 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did these fans, in your

 

23 opinion as a security guard and based on your

 

24 observations of them, appear to present any physical

 

25 threat to Mr. Jackson, in general?

 

26 MR. SANGER: Objection; lack of foundation.

 

27 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

28 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did you see these 7175

 

1 intruders on the ranch on occasion?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 Q. How many occasions?

 

4 A. Several. Not many came on the ranch while I

 

5 was working.

 

6 Q. During the five years you were there?

 

7 A. Yes. We did have —

 

8 MR. SANGER: Objection, Your Honor. The

 

9 witness is trying to answer the question.

 

10 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: How many were there?

 

11 MR. SANGER: Excuse me.

 

12 THE COURT: I think the last question was,

 

13 “During the five years you were there?” Answer,

 

14 “Yes, we did have…,” and then you were

 

15 interrupted.

 

16 THE WITNESS: We did have intruders

 

17 throughout my working there. When I was working, at

 

18 the times that I was working, maybe a handful, five

 

19 to ten.

 

20 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. And in terms

 

21 of — in terms of staying on top of the potential

 

22 security threat from fans entering the ranch, were

 

23 you generally apprised when other intruders entered

 

24 the property when you weren’t there?

 

25 A. Yes.

 

26 Q. So this was part of your job as a security

 

27 officer to be aware of who might want to get on the

 

28 property? 7176

 

1 A. Yes.

 

2 Q. All right. And during the course of your

 

3 employment during this five-year period, can you

 

4 state whether or not these intruders in general

 

5 appeared to present any physical threat to Mr.

 

6 Jackson?

 

7 A. In general, not much physical threat. There

 

8 were a few, a couple, that we felt could. Maybe not

 

9 to him, but we were not just there to protect him.

 

10 I mean, there was lots of other people on the ranch.

 

11 Q. Okay. And what do you mean when you say

 

12 they might not present a threat to Mr. Jackson, but

 

13 might present a threat to someone else?

 

14 A. For the most part, if Mr. Jackson was inside

 

15 a building, he would be fairly secure.

 

16 Q. Uh-huh.

 

17 A. We didn’t have a dozen security guards to

 

18 post at every door or anywhere — I mean everywhere

 

19 that we could possibly have an intruder on the

 

20 ranch. But there were — there were a few that we

 

21 were concerned with when they were seen in the area

 

22 or did happen to get on the ranch.

Next, Barron testified that Frank Cascio had probably been to Neverland more than 100 times in his lifetime:

23 Q. Okay. In terms of Frank Cascio, you’ve

 

24 testified that you’ve seen him with Mr. Jackson

 

25 about 75 to 100 times. He’s visited the ranch over

 

26 100 times. Is that accurate?

 

27 A. Absolutely.

 

28 Q. Are there any guests that you’re aware of 7177

 

1 that you would say had visited Mr. Jackson on more

 

2 occasions than Mr. Cascio?

 

3 A. Possibly Miko Brando and his family.

 

4 Q. Okay. Anybody else?

 

5 A. I can’t think of any right off the top of my

 

6 head.

 

7 Q. And would Mr. Cascio typically be on the

 

8 property — well, let me strike that.

 

9 Would Mr. Cascio always be on the property

 

10 when his siblings were with him?

 

11 A. Not always. But most of the time.

 

12 Q. Who is Miko Brando?

 

13 A. Marlon Brando’s son.

 

14 Q. In terms of his relationship with Jackson,

 

15 is he an employee?

 

16 A. I think so. I don’t know. I’m sure — I

 

17 know that they’re friends. I don’t know for certain

 

18 if he is employed by Mr. Jackson.

Auchincloss once again tried to lead Barron into giving a hurtful answer to Jackson by asking him if the security protocol that stated that guards should be notified whenever guest left Neverland applied to children as well as adults:

19 Q. Okay. You said that you were certain that

 

20 Janet Arvizo had access to the house. Did you ever

 

21 see her in the house?

 

22 A. No.

 

23 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge to base

 

24 that statement on?

 

25 A. She was a guest. Her children had access to

 

26 the house. I would just, as a security guard at

 

27 that time, put two and two together and say she had

 

28 access to the house. 7178

 

1 Q. So that’s an assumption?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 MR. SANGER: Objection. Leading;

 

4 argumentative.

 

5 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

6 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You testified that

 

7 typically, ideally I should say, that you would be

 

8 notified when guests would be leaving Neverland?

 

9 A. Ideally, yes.

 

10 Q. Would that — and that would include

 

11 children as well as adults?

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. And that rule was — is it fair to say that

 

14 that rule was — generally was not really enforced

 

15 or followed very often?

 

16 MR. SANGER: I will object, Your Honor.

 

17 First of all, it’s vague. And secondly, if it

 

18 wasn’t vague, it would be leading.

 

19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Well, I’ll strike the

 

20 question and ask another one.

 

21 Q. Can you tell me whether that rule was

 

22 followed or not?

 

23 A. Not often.

 

24 Q. In terms of being allowed off the property,

 

25 you talked a little bit about children, whether or

 

26 not they’d be allowed off the property.

 

27 If a 16-year-old walked up to the gate and

 

28 said, “I want to take a walk down the road,” would 7179

 

1 you allow them to do so?

 

2 MR. SANGER: Objection. Calls for

 

3 speculation; incomplete hypothetical.

 

4 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

5 You may answer.

 

6 THE WITNESS: If they wanted to take a walk

 

7 down the street?

 

8 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yeah.

 

9 A. I don’t see why not.

 

10 Q. So you wouldn’t question their leaving,

 

11 exiting the ranch for purposes of taking a walk?

 

12 A. No.

 

13 Q. And as far as ATV use, you said those were

 

14 not allowed off the property?

 

15 A. That’s correct.

 

16 Q. So if — did that rule apply to adults as

17 well as children?

 

18 A. Anyone.

 

19 Q. Anyone. Okay.

 

20 A. Yes.

 

21 Q. So if Chris Tucker drove up on an ATV, on

 

22 one of these quads, you’d say, “Sorry, you can’t go

 

23 off the property”?

 

24 A. Correct.

 

25 MR. SANGER: Objection. Calls for

 

26 speculation and relevance.

 

27 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer was,

 

28 “Correct.” Next question. 7180

Next, Barron was asked about Jackson’s privacy on the ranch, as if he wasn’t entitled to any! When Auchincloss asked about Barron’s knowledge of young boys sleeping in his bedroom, Sanger objected and it was sustained by Judge Melville.:

1 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Neverland Ranch, is

 

2 that in the County of Santa Barbara?

 

3 A. Yes.

 

4 Q. Now, as far as having access to Mr. Jackson,

 

5 the employees having access to Mr. Jackson, can you

 

6 characterize for me the degree with which he valued

 

7 his privacy on the ranch?

 

8 A. In my opinion, his privacy was most

 

9 important on the ranch.

 

10 Q. Okay. So why do you say that?

 

11 A. He never specifically told me that his —

 

12 that he wanted his privacy, but that’s what we were

 

13 there for was to help him have his privacy on the

 

14 ranch.

 

15 I tried to impose on him as little as

 

16 possible, only if needed be. And that was something

 

17 that I was taught as I was trained at the ranch, to

 

18 let him have his own time. And if we needed to

 

19 speak to him, we would. If not, we wouldn’t. We’d

 

20 pass it through a chain of command.

 

21 Q. Okay. So if Mr. Jackson was, let’s say, in

 

22 the dance studio —

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. — and you knew he was in the dance

 

25 studio —

 

26 A. Yes.

 

27 Q. — would you avoid that area; I mean, let

 

28 him kind of have his space there? 7181

 

1 A. Yes.

 

2 MR. SANGER: Wait a second. I’m going to

 

3 object. I’m sorry. Move to strike the answer. For

 

4 purpose of objecting, the question was vague and

 

5 compound.

 

6 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

7 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Were you encouraged or

 

8 discouraged in engaging with guests in

 

9 conversations?

 

10 A. Discouraged.

 

11 Q. Discouraged?

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. What about privacy for the guests?

 

14 A. Same as Mr. Jackson.

 

15 Q. Were you aware that Mr. Jackson — were you

 

16 ever aware that Mr. Jackson would have young boys

 

17 sleep in his room with him?

 

18 MR. SANGER: Objection; foundation.

 

19 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

20 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You mentioned that you

 

21 were — you would report something illegal if you

 

22 saw it?

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. Were you allowed into Mr. Jackson’s bedroom

 

25 when he had guests in there?

 

26 A. No.

 

27 Q. Do you know of any employees that were

 

28 allowed access into his bedroom to see what was 7182

 

1 going on in there when he had guests in there?

 

2 MR. SANGER: Objection; foundation.

 

3 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

4 You may answer.

 

5 THE WITNESS: I know that Joe Marcus had

 

6 access to his room. Or the house manager, whomever

 

7 that was at the time. Whether or not they were

 

8 allowed to go in when he had guests in his room, I

 

9 don’t know.

 

10 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You just know that he

 

11 had the key, the code; is that what you’re saying?

 

12 Or you tell me.

 

13 MR. SANGER: Objection; leading.

 

14 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

15 You may answer.

 

16 THE WITNESS: I know that Joe Marcus was able

 

17 to get into the — Mr. Jackson’s room. Whether he

 

18 had a key or had the key pad, I would assume he had

 

19 both.

 

20 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Who did Joe Marcus

 

21 report to?

 

22 A. Mr. Jackson.

 

23 Q. Directly?

 

24 A. I believe so, yes.

 

25 Q. Okay. Anybody outrank Joe Marcus on the

 

26 ranch?

 

27 A. When he was ranch manager, no.

 

28 Q. Okay. Do you know if there were guests 7183

 

1 allowed on the property without Mr. Jackson’s

 

2 approval?

 

3 MR. SANGER: Objection; foundation.

 

4 THE COURT: Sustained.

Auchincloss tried to redirect Barron back to the topic of the sleeping arrangements of children, and Barron stated that it was very common for children and other guests to sleep in areas that they were not assigned:

5 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Are you aware of any

 

6 instances, personally aware of any instances, where

 

7 an individual was allowed on that property,

 

8 Neverland Ranch, if Mr. Jackson — and Mr. Jackson

 

9 did not want them there?

 

10 A. At the time of them coming on?

 

11 MR. SANGER: Objection. Foundation and

 

12 vague.

 

13 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes.

 

14 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

15 You may answer.

 

16 THE WITNESS: No, generally Mr. Jackson would

 

17 be the one who allowed people to come on the

 

18 property. There was sometimes when somebody would

 

19 show up and we would call whomever was in charge,

 

20 like Jesus Salas or Joe Marcus, and he would make a

 

21 decision whether or not they could come on. But for

 

22 the most part, from what all I remember, those are

 

23 people who have been allowed on the property prior

 

24 to that occasion.

 

25 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Was Frank Tyson one of

 

26 these people?

 

27 A. Yes.

 

28 Q. So during your evening rounds as a security 7184

 

1 officer, would you ever have occasion to see Mr.

 

2 Jackson during the late and early morning hours?

 

3 A. Yes.

 

4 Q. Would you ever have occasion to see him with

 

5 his guests during the late and early morning hours?

 

6 A. Yes.

 

7 Q. Were his guests during these periods ever

 

8 children?

 

9 A. Yes.

 

10 Q. How often?

 

11 A. Often.

 

12 Q. Okay.

 

13 A. Often. I don’t know how to say how often,

 

14 but often.

 

15 Q. And the assignments and guest logs. There

 

16 are certain rooms that are assigned to certain

 

17 guests. Does that mean that that individual who was

 

18 assigned to that unit necessarily slept in that unit

 

19 on that given night?

 

20 A. No.

 

21 Q. Why do you say that?

 

22 A. Because — well, one of the biggest reasons

 

23 is we would receive the phone calls in the evening

 

24 hours for guests at the front gate. And nine times

 

25 out of ten, we had to try several extensions to find

 

26 that person. The first one you would try would

 

27 always be where on the log it said they would be, if

 

28 it were a guest unit or in the theater or wherever 7185

 

1 it said they may be. We went through several

 

2 different places. So you would try that first. But

 

3 it was — often we had to go through more than one

 

4 extension to find someone.

 

5 Q. Were there any instances where you’d see

 

6 children sleeping in areas of the ranch where they

 

7 were not assigned?

 

8 A. Yes.

 

9 Q. How common was that?

 

10 A. Um, it happened. It wasn’t uncommon. It

 

11 wasn’t something that happened every time, but it

 

12 definitely happened.

In this excerpt, Auchincloss questioned Barron about his knowledge of the relationship between Jackson and his bodyguard Chris Carter, who was imprisoned in Las Vegas at this time during the trial. We’ll hear a lot more about Carter later on in the trial!

13 Q. Okay. Who is Dr. Farshshian? Do you know

 

14 that name?

 

15 A. I know he’s a doctor. I don’t know what

 

16 he’s a doctor of. And I know he came to the ranch

 

17 often.

18 Q. Do you know if Dr. Farshshian would ever

 

19 come to the ranch without Mr. Jackson?

 

20 A. I don’t know if he did or didn’t.

 

21 Q. As far as the — as far as the individual

 

22 you’ve named as Chris Carter —

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. — you previously identified him as what?

 

25 A. Chris Carter?

 

26 Q. Yes, and his relationship to Mr. Jackson.

 

27 A. As a security guard, I believe personal

 

28 security guard. 7186

 

1 Q. And how often would you see Mr. Carter with

 

2 Mr. Jackson?

 

3 A. Together?

 

4 Q. Yes.

 

5 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object. Vague as

 

6 to time.

 

7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: That’s fine. I’ll refine

 

8 that question.

 

9 Q. When did you first see Chris Carter start to

 

10 visit Neverland?

 

11 A. Oh. Probably in either late 2001 or early

 

12 2002.

 

13 Q. And was he employed as a security guard for

 

14 Mr. Jackson at that time?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. Now, you’ve mentioned that there are

 

17 security guards that are personal guards and

 

18 security guards that are guards on the ranch.

 

19 A. Yes.

 

20 Q. The difference is what?

 

21 A. Guards on the ranch generally don’t travel

 

22 with Mr. Jackson.

 

23 Q. So Chris Carter would be someone who

 

24 traveled with Mr. Jackson?

 

25 A. Yes.

 

26 Q. When Mr. Jackson — well, let me strike

 

27 that. When Mr. Carter was on the ranch, would he

 

28 ever spend any time just as a guest of the ranch, 7187

 

1 generally speaking?

 

2 A. No.

 

3 Q. So if Mr. Carter visited — was on the

 

4 ranch, would it be fair to say that Mr. Jackson

 

5 would generally be with him?

 

6 MR. SANGER: Objection; leading.

 

7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I can rephrase it.

 

8 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

9 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: When Mr. Carter was on

 

10 the ranch, generally where was Mr. Jackson?

 

11 A. On the ranch.

Auchincloss went back to the subject of the directive to security on February 19th, 2003 that stated “The kids are not to leave per Joe”. The prosecution tried to use this as “proof” of Jackson’s conspiracy to hold the family against their will at Neverland, and Barron testified that he had never seen that type of directive before in all of his years at Neverland. But the reason that directive was so specific and warranted is because the media had never tried to hound any other families who stayed as guests at Neverland!

12 Q. Okay. Now, you’ve mentioned during direct

 

13 examination that there was this grease board with a

 

14 message from somebody that says Gavin is not to

 

15 leave the property.

 

16 A. Yes.

 

17 Q. And Mr. Sanger has shown you one of the

 

18 exhibits that says Gavin and Star are not to leave

 

19 the property.

 

20 A. Yes.

 

21 Q. Is there a relationship between the logs

 

22 that you looked at and the information that you

 

23 would normally find on that grease board?

 

24 A. Yes, at times there —

 

25 Q. Would one normally track the other?

 

26 A. Yes.

 

27 Q. And why is that?

 

28 A. So that — because we don’t all — let’s say 7188

 

1 there’s three of us on duty at the ranch as security

 

2 guards. Because we’re not all at the front gate at

 

3 the same time — for instance, if we all worked 6

 

4 p.m. to 6 a.m., we’re not all going to work the gate

 

5 at 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. So there would be one at the

 

6 gate, or two or three, however many more, at the

 

7 house, so that both areas of the security, both

 

8 offices of the security had the same information.

 

9 Q. Okay. So all the security guards would be

 

10 on the same page working to fulfill those

 

11 directives?

 

12 A. Correct.

 

13 Q. Now, I believe the directive that appears in

 

14 the log, if I remember correctly — let me just find

 

15 it here.

 

16 If I could have the Elmo, Your Honor.

 

17 The date on this particular exhibit is

 

18 2-19-03. And this is the one that has, “The kids

 

19 are not to leave per Joe.” Let’s get the entire

 

20 statement in there, and I believe that’s at 5:52.

 

21 Now —

 

22 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I’m sorry, just for

 

23 the record, could we have the page number?

 

24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Oh, yes. Certainly.

 

25 MR. SANGER: And the exhibit number.

 

26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: That’s a good point. This

 

27 is Exhibit No. 334 and it’s page number 154.

 

28 Q. Have you ever seen a directive like this on 7189

 

1 one of the logs before that told the security guards

 

2 not to let a child off the property?

 

3 A. No.

 

4 Q. Have you ever seen a directive before like

 

5 the one you saw on the grease board that said, “Do

 

6 not let Gavin off the property”?

 

7 A. No.

 

8 Q. During your five years, did you ever see

 

9 anything of that nature during your employment?

 

10 A. No.

 

11 MR. SANGER: Objection; asked and answered.

 

12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I said “before,” and this

 

13 contemplates the entire period.

 

14 THE COURT: All right. The objection is

 

15 overruled. It’s answered.

 

16 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: As far as this date

 

17 goes, February 19th, are you aware whether or not

 

18 Janet Arvizo was scheduled to return to Neverland on

 

19 that particular day?

 

20 A. I’m not aware if she was.

After further scrutiny, Barron admitted that there was an error on one of the guest logs; the Arvizos were not listed on the guest log for February 6th, 2003, but were listed as a “carry over” (i.e. they spent the night) on February 7th, 2003:

21 Q. All right. I have a few questions about the

 

22 logs and I’ll be done.

 

23 Beginning with the log for 334, Exhibit 120,

 

24 we’ve had considerable testimony about this

 

25 particular page.

 

26 Now, first of all, let me ask you, based

 

27 upon your review of the logs and your experience in

 

28 working with these logs, how would you characterize 7190

1 the degree of accuracy that is recorded?

 

2 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object. Are we

 

3 talking about this particular page or are we talking

 

4 about —

 

5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: In general.

 

6 THE WITNESS: In general, they were — can I

 

7 answer?

 

8 THE COURT: Sure.

 

9 THE WITNESS: Sorry.

 

10 In general they were accurate. Obviously we

 

11 make mistakes spelling names. There was that issue.

 

12 But they were accurate.

 

13 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And as far as this

 

14 particular page goes, which is at the bottom,

 

15 2-7-03, this shows that the Arvizos are a carry-over

 

16 from the previous day?

 

17 A. Yes.

 

18 Q. And if we go back to the preceding day, we

 

19 have — I’m now showing you 2-6-03. We have this

 

20 guest information —

 

21 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, excuse me. Could

 

22 we have a page number?

 

23 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes, thank you. That same

 

24 exhibit, 00116.

 

25 Q. Now, if Gavin, Star, and Davellin were on

 

26 the property, if the Arvizos were on the property on

 

27 2-7-03 as a carry-over, shouldn’t they be reflected

 

28 in this document on February 6 somewhere in “Guest 7191

 

1 Information”?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 Q. So how do you explain that?

 

4 MR. SANGER: Calls for speculation, Your

 

5 Honor.

 

6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Not necessarily.

 

7 MR. SANGER: And lack of foundation.

 

8 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

9 You may answer.

 

10 THE WITNESS: Either it was completely

 

11 overlooked or they weren’t there.

 

12 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Would you agree there

 

13 clearly is an error in the logs somewhere on those

 

14 two pages?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. Now, as far as the “Owner and guest”

 

17 notation there that you see, I believe you were

 

18 shown that by Mr. Sanger, and you responded that

19 there was something odd about that?

 

20 A. Yes.

 

21 Q. What is it that you find curious about that

 

22 entry?

 

23 A. What strikes me is that we would never — I

 

24 would never, and I don’t believe anyone else would

 

25 ever write “Owner” down, “Owner and guest,” on one

 

26 of these logs. Again, for his privacy. We never

 

27 logged him in or out.

 

28 Q. Okay. Would you sometimes make a notation 7192

 

1 if he was to be expected on the property?

 

2 A. On one of these sheets?

 

3 Q. On a sheet somewhere; just that, “Mr.

 

4 Jackson is expected to come today,” or something of

 

5 that nature.

 

6 A. No, that was generally verbal.

 

7 Q. Okay. But as far as an entry on — in this

 

8 particular fashion, you’ve never seen this before?

 

9 A. No.

 

10 Q. Never seen it during your five years there?

 

11 A. No.

 

12 Q. Do you recognize that handwriting at all?

 

13 A. No. I can barely read it. But, no, I don’t

 

14 recognize it.

Auchincloss finished his redirect examination by asking Barron about Dr. Arnold Klein’s relationship with Jackson, and the vehicles that Jackson typically used when he was chauffeured:

15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. If I could

 

16 just have a moment, Your Honor.

 

17 THE COURT: Yes.

 

18 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Do you know an

 

19 individual by the name of Klein?

 

20 A. Is there a first name?

 

21 Q. Doctor?

 

22 A. Dr. Klein. I remember the name of Dr.

 

23 Klein.

 

24 Q. Okay. And did that have any relationship to

 

25 your employment at Neverland?

 

26 A. Yes.

 

27 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object. It’s

 

28 beyond the scope of cross. 7193

 

1 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I believe counsel showed

 

2 him a document that had Dr. Klein’s name on it.

 

3 THE COURT: All right. Overruled.

 

4 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And how do you know Dr.

 

5 Klein?

 

6 A. Just that he came to the property.

 

7 Q. Do you know what his relationship was to Mr.

 

8 Jackson?

 

9 A. No.

 

10 Q. Do you know if he would be a guest of Mr.

 

11 Jackson’s when Mr. Jackson was not present?

 

12 MR. SANGER: Objection. Lack of foundation,

 

13 Your Honor, and relevance.

 

14 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

15 You may answer.

 

16 THE WITNESS: I don’t recall if he was ever

 

17 there without Mr. Jackson being there.

 

18 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. When one of the

 

19 Rolls or the Bentleys would leave the property, can

 

20 you tell me whether or not Mr. Jackson would

 

21 generally be associated with the use of that

 

22 vehicle, such a vehicle?

 

23 MR. SANGER: Objection. Vague and lack of

 

24 foundation.

 

25 THE COURT: Sustained on vague.

 

26 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: When you were

 

27 conducting your daily duties at the security guard

 

28 booth – 7194

 

1 A. Yes.

 

2 Q. — would you see Mr. Jackson coming and

 

3 going onto the property?

 

4 A. Yes.

 

5 Q. Would he typically be in a vehicle?

 

6 A. Yes.

 

7 Q. Would you see an occasion where the Bentley

 

8 or the Rolls was used?

 

9 A. Yes.

 

10 Q. Would you be able to see if Mr. Jackson was

 

11 in that vehicle?

 

12 A. In the Rolls, the older Rolls Royces, yes,

 

13 because there wasn’t as dark a tint as on the

 

14 Bentley. The Bentley was very dark tinted.

 

15 Q. Can you tell me, were those cars generally

 

16 used when Mr. Jackson was being transported

 

17 somewhere?

 

18 A. The Bentley in particular, yes.

 

19 Q. And I’m going to direct you to Exhibit No. 191,

 

20 and/or I should say Exhibit 335, page number 191, if

 

21 I can find it. It’s not in order. Here we go.

 

22 That’s the wrong exhibit. I’m sorry, Your

 

23 Honor.

 

24 That actually completes my redirect. Thank

 

25 you.

Sanger had additional questions for Barron to refute the insinuations that were put out there by Auchincloss. He questioned Barron about the need for Jackson’s privacy, his sensitivity to sunlight due to vitiligo, and the treatment that Dr. Klein gave to Jackson to deal with his vitiligo.

1 RECROSS-EXAMINATION

 

2 BY MR. SANGER:

 

3 Q. I know you want to go home.

 

4 A. Yes, sir.

 

5 Q. I’ll try to get you out of here.

 

6 First of all, you had occasion to meet

 

7 Michael Jackson from time to time, correct?

 

8 A. Yes.

 

9 Q. Had a chance to talk with him from time to

 

10 time, correct?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. And you felt it was appropriate to respect

 

13 his privacy at his home, correct?

 

14 A. Correct.

 

15 Q. There was nothing weird about allowing a

 

16 celebrity to have private time at his home, was

 

17 there?

 

18 A. No.

 

19 Q. And in fact, how many employees were there

 

20 at the ranch, roughly, during the time you worked

 

21 there?

 

22 A. Probably around 80. Between 80 and maybe

 

23 100.

 

24 Q. So if 80 or 100 people came up and spent a

 

25 minute with Mr. Jackson every time, every day, he

 

26 would have no privacy, correct?

 

27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative.

 

28 THE COURT: Sustained. 7196

 

1 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Okay. In other words, with

 

2 that many people or even with a few people, it would

 

3 be important to allow a person whose home it was to

 

4 spend time at their home and not be bothered by

 

5 people who are employed there to work for him,

 

6 correct?

 

7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Same objection.

 

8 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

9 You may answer.

 

10 THE WITNESS: Yes.

 

11 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Okay. Now, in the course of

 

12 knowing Mr. Jackson in the context that you just

 

13 described, Mr. Jackson is sensitive to the sun; is

 

14 that correct?

 

15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; foundation.

 

16 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

17 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Were you aware that he took

 

18 measures to try to avoid direct sunlight?

 

19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; exceeds the

 

20 scope.

 

21 MR. SANGER: Not at all. Dr. Klein.

 

22 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

23 (Laughter.)

 

24 THE WITNESS: Was I aware —

 

25 Q. BY MR. SANGER: That he took measures to

 

26 avoid direct sunlight.

 

27 A. Yes.

 

28 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Object as to foundation. 7197

1 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

2 MR. SANGER: And the answer’s in, Your

 

3 Honor?

 

4 THE COURT: Yes.

 

5 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

 

6 Q. Were you aware that Dr. Klein was the

 

7 dermatologist treating Mr. Jackson’s vitiligo?

 

8 A. No.

 

9 Q. Were you aware that he was a dermatologist?

 

10 A. I was aware that he was a doctor.

 

11 Q. And you believe he was Mr. Jackson’s doctor

 

12 for one problem or another; is that correct?

 

13 A. Yes.

Sanger found a significant discrepancy in what Auchincloss stated was on the grease board to what was actually there; the actual phrase was “The kids are not to leave per Joe”, but Auchincloss conveniently replaced “the kids” with Gavin in order to insinuate that Jackson was trying to isolate Gavin:

14 Q. All right. Now, there was testimony on

 

15 direct and then redirect again about this notation

 

16 on the grease board and the notation in the logs on

 

17 page — it was 154 of Exhibit 334 about — the

 

18 notation on the grease board you recall was specific

 

19 to Gavin. Gavin should not leave the property; is

 

20 that right?

 

21 A. “Gavin is not allowed off property.”

 

22 Q. That’s your recollection of what was on the

 

23 grease board, correct?

 

24 A. Yes.

 

25 Q. And your recollection of what was in the log

 

26 is what, in fact, was shown to you in Exhibit 334,

 

27 page 154.

 

28 May I, your Honor? 7198

 

1 THE COURT: Yes.

 

2 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Page 00154, and again, it

 

3 says — the whole quote is, “The kids are not to

 

4 leave per Joe.” “Kids” meaning like Gavin, Star, et

 

5 cetera, right?

 

6 A. Right.

 

7 Q. And this was on the log of – you can see it

 

8 there – 2-19-03, correct?

 

9 A. February 19th.

 

10 Q. February 19th, 2003, correct?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. And that was that time period where you had

 

13 so many people on the ranch that you had this master

 

14 list on 2-17, and then the regular posting of guests

 

15 didn’t resume again until after 2-20. You resumed

 

16 again on 2-21-03, correct?

 

17 A. Yes.

 

18 Q. All right. So it was not possible to track

 

19 everybody’s movements on and off the ranch during

 

20 that period of time; is that correct? They weren’t

 

21 all logged in and out as they should have been?

 

22 A. Not possible to —

 

23 Q. Track whether or not people left and came

 

24 back on the ranch between that 2-17 and 2-20 when

 

25 they were all kind of lumped together?

 

26 A. I believe there’s even a note on the bottom

 

27 of that page that that’s going to be carried over

 

28 through those periods. I believe it would be easy 7199

 

 

1 to keep track of who comes and goes on the property.

 

2 In answer to your question, no, I believe

 

3 that it could be tracked —

 

4 Q. Okay.

 

5 A. — who was coming and going.

 

6 Q. All right. And I’m going to —

 

7 A. Maybe not by paperwork, but it could have

 

8 been done.

 

9 Q. Okay. It could have been done, but the

 

10 paperwork here is somewhat deficient in that regard,

 

11 isn’t it?

 

12 Let me put up 149, which is the page that

 

13 said 2-17 through 2-20. And that’s where we had

 

14 everybody there on that big list, correct?

 

15 A. Correct.

 

16 Q. And, for instance, it shows for the Arvizo

 

17 family, the kids, it shows carried over from the day

 

18 before, and it shows 1951 hours out, and it doesn’t

 

19 show back in.

 

20 A. Well, if you lift — scoot the page back so

 

21 we can see the bottom.

 

22 Q. Certainly.

 

23 A. If I were working the gate at this time

 

24 period and I saw that note on the bottom, “List

 

25 until guest departs, C-1,” which is for Charles 1,

 

26 which was Curtis Gordon, who was a supervisor, I

 

27 would take that to mean that they came in on — or

 

28 the carry-over happened on the 17th, and their time 7200

 

1 out was on the 20th.

 

2 Q. Okay. I understand. So your interpretation

 

3 of this, if this were accurate, is that the Arvizos

 

4 did not leave until the evening of the 20th, 1951

 

5 for the children, and 2145 for Janet, correct?

 

6 A. Correct.

 

7 Q. So again, everybody gets this, but 7:51 at

 

8 night and 9:40, whatever that says, at night for

 

9 Janet, correct?

 

10 A. Yes.

Sanger tried to explain that the reason that directive was given to security is because the Arvizos were scheduled to shoot the rebuttal video on February 20th, so it would have been reasonable that they wouldn’t be allowed to leave early and risk missing their appointment, but Judge Melville sustained both of Auchincloss’s objections.

11 Q. Now, were you — are you aware, as you sit

 

12 there right now, that the Arvizos were in Los

 

13 Angeles on the evening of the 19th?

 

14 A. No.

 

15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object as to

 

16 the form of the question being — assuming facts.

 

17 THE COURT: The answer is, “No.” Next

 

18 question.

 

19 Q. BY MR. SANGER: And if they were in Los

 

20 Angeles on the evening of the 19th, there is no

 

21 indication in these logs that they left the ranch

 

22 for that purpose; is that correct?

 

23 A. That’s correct.

 

24 Q. All right. And, now, turning to 154 again,

 

25 which we’ve all seen, 2-19, it says 1752, so that’s

 

26 5:52, just before six o’clock in the evening on the

 

27 19th.

 

28 If the Arvizos were supposed to be available 7201

1 for the purpose of going to Los Angeles for a

 

2 videotaping, would it be reasonable for the gate to

 

3 be advised that the kids should not leave the ranch?

 

4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object as

 

5 argumentative and assuming facts not in evidence.

 

6 THE COURT: Sustained as argumentative.

 

7 MR. SANGER: All right.

 

8 Q. Let’s put it this way: In other words, as

 

9 part of the duties of somebody at the gate, would

 

10 you feel it was an appropriate instruction that

 

11 somebody not — whether it’s an adult or a child,

 

12 that somebody not leave the ranch if they’re

 

13 expected to be available to get into a car to go

 

14 somewhere?

 

15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Argumentative;

 

16 calls for a conclusion.

 

17 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

18 MR. SANGER: All right.

 

19 Q. Now, whatever that notation is for, was that

 

20 notation placed there in a place on these gate

 

21 activity logs where any and all of the security

 

22 staff would be able to read it?

 

23 A. Any and all that were working that day, yes.

 

24 Q. Okay. And was it — are these records kept

 

25 as permanent records?

 

26 A. I believe so.

 

27 Q. All right. So presumably months later,

 

28 years later, somebody could go back and find that 7202

 

1 notation, right?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 Q. This is not a secret communication that was

 

4 designed to be destroyed after people received the

 

5 information, correct?

 

6 A. Correct.

 

7 Q. Okay. It was left as a permanent memorial

 

8 to something that was instructed or something that

 

9 was communicated to the security staff; is that

 

10 right?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. And when you talk about this grease board,

 

13 any message that was on the grease board was put

 

14 there so that anybody on the security staff could

 

15 see it; is that correct?

 

16 A. Correct.

 

17 Q. And anybody else that consulted the records

 

18 could also see it, obviously; is that right?

 

19 A. These records.

 

20 Q. I’m sorry, you’re right. You’re up all

 

21 night and I’m getting confused, so let me clarify

 

22 it.

 

23 First of all, the grease board. Anybody

 

24 that came into the security office could see that

 

25 grease board and would be able see what was up

 

26 there, right?

 

27 A. Yes.

 

28 Q. And that was right in the front room, 7203

 

1 correct?

 

2 A. Correct.

 

3 Q. The doors are often open?

 

4 A. When someone comes in and out.

 

5 Q. There’s windows there?

 

6 A. Yes.

 

7 Q. Administration people can come down and do

 

8 often come down into the security office, correct?

 

9 A. Correct.

 

10 Q. So there’s people that would work up in the

 

11 administration building, the ranch manager, the

 

12 administrative assistants and so on, correct?

 

13 A. Yes.

 

14 Q. Firemen could go in there and see that,

 

15 correct?

 

16 A. Yes.

 

17 Q. You of course could see it, and you were a

 

18 sworn peace officer, right?

 

19 A. Correct.

 

20 Q. All right. And then similarly, with regard

 

21 to those records, the gate log records, those were

 

22 maintained so that people from the administration

 

23 could review them, correct?

 

24 A. Correct.

 

25 Q. And again, firemen and other security

26 officers could review them?

 

27 A. Yes.

 

28 Q. So this was not a secret? 7204

 

1 A. No.

 

2 Q. Thank you.

Next, Sanger clear up any misconceptions that Auchincloss put into the jury’s heads with his previous questions about the sleeping arrangements at Neverland.

3 Now, you indicated that sometimes

 

4 assignments got — let me withdraw that.

 

5 The question was about room assignments.

 

6 Was there really a room assignment system?

 

7 A. Yes, at times there were.

 

8 Q. Okay.

 

9 A. Especially with the guest units.

 

10 Q. Who assigned people guest units?

 

11 A. Generally it would be the — whomever was in

 

12 charge of the house, or at times who was in charge

 

13 of the housekeeping, or the ranch manager.

 

14 Q. Okay. So was it your understanding that

 

15 those — that somebody like that would actually tell

 

16 the guest, “You are assigned to this unit”?

 

17 A. Yes.

 

18 Q. Okay. And if guests wanted to stay

 

19 someplace else, for instance, somebody said, “Boy,

 

20 I’d really like to have Unit No. 4,” would an effort

 

21 be made on the part of the staff to allow that

 

22 person to have that unit?

 

23 A. I never was involved in that.

 

24 Q. Fair enough. If somebody wanted to stay,

 

25 for instance, out at the theater rather than a guest

 

26 unit, would they be accommodated, for the most part?

 

27 A. For the most part, yes.

 

28 Q. All right. Now, sometimes somebody might be 7205

 

1 assigned, say, to a guest unit and they would

 

2 decide, “Well, I’d really rather stay out at the

 

3 theater.” That could happen, right?

 

4 A. Sure, it could happen.

 

5 Q. They might ask permission of somebody,

 

6 whatever happens; they end up staying out at the

 

7 theater on Night No. 1?

 

8 A. Okay. Yes.

 

9 Q. And it’s — it’s generally — it generally

 

10 becomes known where the guests are staying; is that

 

11 correct?

 

12 A. Eventually, hopefully.

 

13 Q. Okay.

 

14 A. Yes.

 

15 Q. But guests may make requests for food or

 

16 other services on a — well, let me ask that. They

 

17 may do that from time to time?

 

18 A. Yes.

 

19 Q. In fact, it’s very common for people to call

 

20 for food or drink or something and have it delivered

 

21 to where they are?

 

22 A. Yes.

 

23 Q. And security eventually becomes aware of

 

24 where people are, either through them requesting

 

25 services, or phone calls coming in for them, or

 

26 something else, right?

 

27 A. Yes.

 

28 Q. And so if somebody is logged in repeatedly 7206

 

1 in the same unit in the security logs, that would

 

2 tend to indicate that security is now pretty much

 

3 aware that that’s where the person is staying; is

 

4 that right?

 

5 A. Yes.

 

6 Q. All right. Now, you remember Davellin, do

 

7 you not?

 

8 A. Vaguely.

 

9 Q. Vaguely. Do you remember — and you

 

10 remember Marie Nicole?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. During this time period, do you remember

 

13 Davellin and Marie Nicole hanging out together?

 

14 A. Yes, I believe I do.

 

15 Q. And they seemed to be good friends; is that

 

16 correct?

 

17 A. Yes.

 

18 Q. And did they seem to be having fun?

 

19 A. Yes.

 

20 Q. All right. And they’d walk around the

 

21 property and have a good time?

 

22 A. Sure.

 

23 Q. All right. And do you recall Davellin and

 

24 Marie Nicole staying out at the theater during this

 

25 period of time?

 

26 A. Yes, I do.

 

27 Q. So in addition to the log entries, you

 

28 personally recall them being out — staying out in 7207

 

1 that area; is that correct?

 

2 A. Yes.

Finally, Sanger asked Barron to confirm certain facts about the intruders who were caught at Neverland, and the severe breach in security that they represented. One of them made it up to the third floor of the main house! Several repeat intruders were prosecuted by the sheriff’s office.

3 Q. Okay. And I believe one last area I want to

 

4 ask you about here that was brought up by Mr.

 

5 Auchincloss.

 

6 You have experience as a police officer, and

 

7 also experience being a security guard for Mr.

 

8 Jackson, a major celebrity, and I’m going to ask

 

9 you, drawing on all of that, do you assume that

 

10 intruders are not going to be a danger to anybody?

 

11 A. No.

 

12 Q. In fact, you assume they’re going to be a

 

13 danger?

 

14 A. Yes.

 

15 Q. You have to do that. And you’re aware of

 

16 celebrity stalkers, are you not?

 

17 A. Yes.

 

18 Q. And you’re aware of instances where

 

19 celebrity stalkers, even though they were fans, did

 

20 harm to celebrities, correct?

 

21 A. Yes.

 

22 Q. And did harm to people around celebrities,

 

23 correct?

 

24 A. Yes.

 

25 Q. Were you aware that one of the intruders

 

26 actually got into the train room upstairs in Mr.

 

27 Jackson’s house?

 

28 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object. Assumes 7208

 

1 facts.

 

2 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

3 You may answer.

 

4 THE WITNESS: The third floor of the house?

 

5 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Yes.

 

6 A. Yes.

 

7 Q. And you would consider that to be a serious

 

8 intrusion into Mr. Jackson’s security, would you

 

9 not?

 

10 A. Yes.

 

11 Q. Were you aware that one of the intruders was

 

12 possessing a handgun?

 

13 A. No.

 

14 Q. A number of these intruders were actually

 

15 arrested, the sheriff was brought on, and they were

 

16 arrested and taken away; is that correct?

 

17 A. Correct.

 

18 Q. And some of the repeat intruders were

 

19 actually prosecuted by the District Attorney’s

 

20 Office; is that right?

 

21 A. Yes.

 

22 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you. No further

 

23 questions.

Auchincloss had more questions under further redirect examination to have Barron clarify certain issues:

25 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

 

26 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:

 

27 Q. Generally speaking, based on your experience

 

28 and not on what you anticipated, what did these 7209

 

1 intruders want?

 

2 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object. That’s —

 

3 that’s vague.

 

4 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

5 You may answer.

 

6 THE WITNESS: What did they want?

 

7 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yeah. Why did they

 

8 want to come on Neverland?

 

9 A. They wanted to see Mr. Jackson.

 

10 Q. Just see him?

 

11 A. See him.

 

12 Q. Maybe meet him?

 

13 A. Yes.

 

14 Q. That’s all?

 

15 MR. SANGER: Objection. Calls for

 

16 speculation, Your Honor.

 

17 THE COURT: Argumentative; sustained.

 

18 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: As far as the grease

 

19 board goes, you previously testified that that

 

20 instruction was on the board for approximately a

 

21 week?

 

22 A. That’s about the length that I remember it

 

23 being there.

 

24 Q. Did you take that instruction seriously for

 

25 the entire week?

 

26 A. Yes.

 

27 Q. Did you consider that to be an order to not

 

28 let Gavin off the property for that entire period of 7210

1 time?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 Q. And can you tell me, based on your

 

4 experience and training at Neverland, who would have

 

5 authority to make such an order on the grease board

 

6 and in the logs?

 

7 A. Well, ultimately Mr. Jackson.

 

8 Q. Okay. And who would do — who would

 

9 ultimately? How would the chain go? Who put stuff

 

10 up on the board?

 

11 A. Generally one of my supervisors.

 

12 Q. And who was your supervisor?

 

13 A. Either Curtis Gordon, Julio Magana or Violet

 

14 Silva.

 

15 Q. And who do they report to?

 

16 A. Joe Marcus.

 

17 Q. And who does he report to?

 

18 A. Mr. Jackson.

 

19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you. No further

 

20 questions.

Next, Sanger made Barron clarify that just because Jackson is the owner of the ranch, it doesn’t mean that each and every single decision that is made comes directly from him. Barron testified that he had no idea if it was Jackson’s decision to put that directive out to the security guards about not having the Arvizos leave the ranch:

22 FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION

 

23 BY MR. SANGER:

 

24 Q. Now, when you say “report to,” you have

 

25 absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Jackson

 

26 himself gave an instruction that Gavin was not to go

 

27 off the ranch; is that true?

 

28 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative. 7211

 

1 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

2 You may answer.

 

3 THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge of him

 

4 giving that.

 

5 Q. BY MR. SANGER: All right. And the fact

 

6 that people report — Mr. Jackson owns the property,

 

7 to your knowledge, correct?

 

8 A. To my knowledge, yes.

 

9 Q. Okay. And the fact that people ultimately

 

10 report to the owner of the property does not mean

 

11 that they get every instruction that they

 

12 communicate down the line from the owner of the

 

13 property, correct?

 

14 A. Correct.

 

15 Q. So it’s entirely possible, based on your

 

16 understanding of this chain of command, that

 

17 somebody somewhere in the middle, up or down, in

 

18 this chain of command decided to put this on the

 

19 grease board, correct?

 

20 A. It could have happened, yes.

 

21 Q. And you certainly never saw Mr. Jackson come

 

22 in and write anything on the security grease board

 

23 himself, correct, sir?

 

24 A. That’s correct.

 

25 Q. And you never saw Mr. Jackson write anything

 

26 himself into the gate logs; is that correct, sir?

 

27 A. Correct.

 

28 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you. 7212

Auchincloss had one last question: he asked Barron if he was aware of any reason why any of his bosses in his chain of command would want to give such a directive, and he denied having any knowledge of their motives, and Judge Melville sustained Sanger’s objection and struck Barron’s answer from the record:

1 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: One last question.

 

2

 

3 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

 

4 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:

 

5 Q. Are you aware, during the course of your

 

6 employment at Neverland, of any motive, reason, why

 

7 Joe Marcus, Violet Silva, Curtis Gordon, Julio

 

8 Magana, any of these individuals, any — are you

 

9 aware of any reason why they would want to have

 

10 Gavin Arvizo kept on the Neverland property?

 

11 A. No.

 

12 MR. SANGER: Calls for speculation, Your

 

13 Honor.

 

14 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you. No further

 

16 questions.

 

17 MR. SANGER: And move to strike the answer.

 

18 I think it did come in or was said.

 

19 THE COURT: I’ll strike the answer.

 

20 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

 

21 He had no questions. There were no

 

22 questions, so I have no questions.

 

23 THE COURT: You’re free to go.

 

24 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.

 

25 THE COURT: Come forward.

 

26 When you get to the witness stand, please

 

27 remain standing, face the clerk and raise your right

 

28 hand. 7213

Summary of Brian Barron’s Testimony

1. Brian Barron was a former security officer for Neverland. He worked there on and off for 5 ½ years before taking a leave of absence in December 2003,  at the advice of his boss at his other full time security job.

2. Auchincloss began to question Barron about his observations of the young boys who frequently interacted with Jackson, starting with Frank Cascio. Barron was asked if he ever saw Cascio spend time in Jackson’s bedroom, and he said he had no idea, but Sanger objected to that question, and it was sustained by Judge Melville. Auchincloss later asked Barron to estimate how many nights Cascio spent at Neverland, and he estimated that it was in the hundreds, which is what you would expect of someone who was so close to Jackson.

3. In another attempt to prejudice the jury, Auchincloss asked about “the Los Olivos boys”, who were 3 teenaged boys lived near Neverland and interacted with Jackson often. Barron described them as “destructive” due to they’re misbehavior.

4. During the time period that the Arvizos were at Neverland, the security officers there wrote a directive order on a chalkboard that stated “Gavin is not allowed off property” in Feb. 2003 for one week, and the prosecution tried to use this as evidence of the “conspiracy”, and it was the apex of their line of questioning towards Barron. He stated that the Arvizos were not allowed to leave the property without permission from Jesus Salas, the ranch manager. But this rule applied to all guests at the ranch! Auchincloss had no further questions after Barron explained what the directive meant.

5. Under cross examination by Robert Sanger, Barron was asked about his taking a leave of absence from Neverland at the advice of the chief of police at Guadalupe; he was advised to resign after the Neverland raid. The chief of police felt that since Barron was a peace officer, it wouldn’t be appropriate for him to work there during a criminal investigation. Sanger also made sure to have Barron confirm that he never saw any criminal conduct at Neverland during his entire tenure there.

6. Sanger then asked Barron about the professionalism of the security department at Neverland, and this was an obvious attempt to offset any negative perceptions that the jurors could have received from Auchincloss’ line of questions under direct examination. Barron testified that everything was run in a professional manner.

7. During his time at Neverland, Barron had to deal with intruders and trespassers who made it past security and into the main house! This is why Jackson installed the alarms outside of his bedroom.

8. Barron was asked to describe the ease at which someone could jump over the fence that surrounds Neverland; this was to blow a hole clean through the prosecution’s claims that the Arvzos had no way of escaping Neverland. He stated that there was very little fencing protection around the perimeter of the property, and anyone could merely hop over it to enter or escape.

9. Barron was asked to describe the directive that was on the gate log on February 19th, 2003; Auchincloss told Barron that the directive was written on the grease board, when in fact it was on the gate log. Barron testified that it was general policy of the Ranch to not allow children to go off property without permission.

10. Barron then testified that Frank Cascio’s family also spent a lot of time at Neverland; Sanger questioned him about this in order to show the jury that it was very common for the families of Jackson’s young friends to spend time at Neverland.

11. Sanger pivoted to Jackson’s security concerns, and Barron confirmed that guests were required to sign confidentiality agreements before entering the ranch. He also described the general atmosphere and work conditions of the ranch, and these questions were asked by the defense to give the jurors an accurate depiction of what life at Neverland was really like.

12. Sanger finally got to the heart of the matter and questioned Barron about his knowledge of Janet Arvizo, who he didn’t remember until he was shown a photo of her. Other than a few brief conversations over the telephone, he didn’t have any contact with her. She appeared to want to be at Neverland, and there was no indication that she or her family didn’t want to be at Neverland, according to Barron. During the grand jury proceedings, Barron testified that Janet had full and complete access to all of Neverland, and wasn’t restricted at all.

13. Here’s a bombshell piece of information that is truly indicative of Sneddon’s vendetta against Jackson: in an interview with Det. Bonner from the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department, Barron was asked to become a paid informan for Sneddont, but he refused the offer. Why would Sneddon want to have an informant infiltrate Neverland? I believe that, at best, he wanted a spy to report to him any possible dirt on Jackson, and at worst, he wanted someone there to plant evidence that could have been used on a subsequent raid! It’s not as farfetched as you may think, especially when you consider all of the other sleazy actions that Sneddon took to bring this case to trial, including (but not limited to) changing the dates of the alleged molestation once he realized Jackson had an alibi, adding the ridiculous conspiracy charge, allowing Gavin to handle the adult magazines without wearing gloves, using the 1108 witnesses to bolster his flimsy case, etc. (Be sure to read this post and this post for information on dirty linen that was mysteriously planted at Neverland in an unusual location.)

14. Sanger questioned Barron about the accident report that was written after Gavin crashed his golf cart into a theater fountain due to his reckless driving on June 21st, 2002. Gavin was warned to be careful and drive the car slowly, but he ignored those requests. Chris Tucker invited the Arvizos to Neverland, and they drove the ATV’s unto the main road outside of Neverland, and into the nearby town of Los Olivos.

15. Sanger’s cross examination of Brian Barron continued today, and Barron’s knowledge of the gate logs from February and March 2003 was the subject at hand. Nothing extraordinary that is worth noting here was said, and Sanger ended his cross examination. Under redirect examination, Auchincloss asked Barron to elaborate on his earlier testimony about the various intruders who were caught and removed from Neverland by security. Over the years, there were around five to ten intruders who invaded Neverland, but none of them posed a serious threat to Jackson.

16. Under redirect examination, Auchincloss went back to the subject of the directive to security on February 19th, 2003 that stated “The kids are not to leave per Joe”. The prosecution tried to use this as proof of Jackson’s conspiracy to hold the family against their will at Neverland, and Barron testified that he had never seen that type of directive before in all of his years at Neverland. But the reason that directive was so specific and warranted is because the media had never tried to hound any other families who stayed as guests at Neverland!

17. Under recross examination, Sanger had additional questions for Barron to refute the insinuations that were put out there by Auchincloss. He questioned Barron about the need for Jackson’s privacy, his sensitivity to sunlight due to vitiligo, and the treatment that Dr. Klein gave to Jackson to deal with his vitiligo.

18. Sanger found a significant discrepancy in what Auchincloss stated was on the grease board to what was actually there; the actual phrase was ‘The kids are not to leave per Joe”, but Auchincloss conveniently replaced “the kids” with Gavin in order to insinuate that Jackson was trying to isolate Gavin. Sanger tried to explain that the reason that directive was given to security is because the Arvizos were scheduled to shoot the rebuttal video on February 20th, so it would have been reasonable that they wouldn’t be allowed to leave early and risk missing their appointment, but Judge Melville sustained both of Auchincloss’s objections.

19.  Finally, Sanger asked Barron to confirm certain facts about the intruders who were caught at Neverland, and the severe breach in security that they represented. One of them made it up to the third floor of the main house! Several repeat intruders were prosecuted by the sheriff’s office.

To Be Continued: https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/april-21st-2005-trial-analysis-brian-barron-cross-examination-stephen-cleaves-timothy-sutcliffe-timothy-rooney-steven-moeller-jeff-klapakis-cynthia-montgomery-part-2-of-4/

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: