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 2 of 4

September 19, 2013

The next prosecution witness was Stephen Cleaves, a sergeant with 25 years of experience with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department. During the raid at Neverland, he was in charge of a group of investigators who searched the security office for files or computers.

17 DIRECT EXAMINATION

 

18 BY MR. SNEDDON:

 

19 Q. Good morning.

 

20 A. Good morning.

 

21 Q. You’re a sergeant employed by the Santa

 

22 Barbara County Sheriff’s Department, correct?

 

23 A. That’s correct.

 

24 Q. How long have you been with the department?

 

25 A. 25 years.

 

26 Q. And your current assignment?

 

27 A. I’m working special operations.

 

28 Q. And you live in Santa Ynez? 7214

 

1 A. That’s correct.

 

2 Q. And on November the 18th of 2003, were you

 

3 part of a group of people who executed a search

 

4 warrant at Neverland Valley Ranch?

 

5 A. I was.

 

6 Q. And what was your particular responsibility

 

7 on that day?

 

8 A. To supervise a group of investigators that

 

9 went and searched the security offices for files.

 

10 Q. And when you say “security office,” where

 

11 was that located on the premises?

 

12 A. It was part of the main residence at the far

 

13 west end, I believe that is.

 

14 Q. Was it directly connected to the residence

 

15 or was there a breezeway between the two buildings?

 

16 A. I believe there’s a breezeway.

 

17 Q. Now, when you got to the security office,

 

18 you said that you were assigned a particular

 

19 responsibility in that office.

 

20 A. That’s correct.

 

21 Q. What was the responsibility?

 

22 A. To look for files or computers.

 

23 Specifically, we had a list of names that we were

 

24 looking for that — of persons who came on or off

 

25 the ranch.

 

26 Q. And did those names include the Arvizo

 

27 family?

 

28 A. Yes, they did. 7215

 

1 Q. And other individuals?

 

2 A. They did.

 

3 Q. Now, did you actually participate in looking

 

4 through the records yourself?

 

5 A. I did.

 

6 Q. And from where did you obtain the records?

 

7 A. There were several boxes of — cardboard

 

8 boxes that had files stored in them in that room,

 

9 and we ultimately went through each one of those

 

10 boxes and then pulled the files with the names that

 

11 we were looking for.

 

12 Q. So with regard to the search that occurred,

 

13 all of the boxes and all the files contained in that

 

14 security office were viewed by you or other

 

15 members — or the people working with you in that

 

16 task?

 

17 A. That’s correct.

 

18 MR. SANGER: Objection. Calls for

 

19 speculation; lack of foundation; and leading.

 

20 THE COURT: Overruled. Next question.

 

21 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Did you personally, as a

 

22 result of your efforts in looking through these

 

23 materials, take into your custody and control

 

24 certain exhibits?

 

25 A. I did.

 

26 Q. And do you recall just approximately how

 

27 many — well, first of all, what were the nature of

 

28 the items that you actually took into your custody 7216

 

1 and control?

 

2 A. Mine were files, and they were related to

 

3 the gatehouse log entries and/or any medical injury

 

4 incident reports. I believe all of mine were

 

5 directly related to the entry logs, though, for the

 

6 ranch.

 

7 Q. And when you went through the items and you

 

8 saw items that you felt were items that you wanted

 

9 to seize pursuant to the search warrant, what did

 

10 you do with those items?

 

11 A. As we went through the box, we would collect

 

12 the items that we wanted to seize and set them

 

13 aside, completed the box, and then we took the items

 

14 over to Deputy Moeller, who was our seizing officer,

 

15 and turned them over to him. He assigned them an

 

16 item number and packaged them for evidence.

 

17 Q. And that’s what you did with regard to the

 

18 items that you took?

 

19 A. That’s correct.

 

20 Q. Now, do you recall whether or not any of the

 

21 documents that you went through personally that day

 

22 involved any records beyond December 31st of the

 

23 year 2002? In other words, did you find any records

 

24 for the year 2003?

 

25 A. I — I don’t believe so, no.

 

26 MR. SNEDDON: No further questions.

Under cross examination, Sanger questioned Sgt. Cleaves about his knowledge of the search warrant for the raid, which excluded the administration building:

1 CROSS-EXAMINATION

 

2 BY MR. SANGER:

 

3 Q. Sergeant Cleaves, in your 25 years with the

 

4 Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department, what kinds of

 

5 duties did you have?

 

6 A. Started off in patrol, working down in

 

7 Goleta. Was transferred to Solvang, Santa Ynez.

 

8 Worked there for a number of years. Went back down

 

9 to special operations, where I worked vice,

 

10 narcotics, gangs, and then was assigned to the

 

11 helicopter crew. Was promoted to sergeant,

 

12 transferred to Santa Maria.

 

13 From Santa Maria, back to Santa Ynez. From

 

14 Santa Ynez, back to Santa Maria. And then back to

 

15 Santa Ynez, and I’m currently working in special

 

16 operations.

 

17 Q. Special operations is a — is that a

 

18 detective assignment?

 

19 A. It is.

 

20 Q. All right. And in this particular case, the

 

21 extent of your assignment in this case was

 

22 essentially to assist with this search and look for

 

23 some records in the office?

 

24 A. That’s correct.

 

25 Q. And did you search anyplace other than the

 

26 security office?

 

27 A. Our search also —

 

28 Q. I’m sorry. I was vague. Let me clarify the 7218

 

1 question. Did you personally search anyplace other

 

2 than the office?

 

3 A. I did.

 

4 Q. Where else did you search?

 

5 A. The garage immediately to the rear of the

 

6 security office. And the video library that was

 

7 upstairs above that office.

 

8 Q. You did not search the administration

 

9 building; is that correct?

 

10 A. No.

 

11 Q. In fact, there was not a warrant to search

 

12 the administration building, correct?

 

13 A. I don’t know. I just searched the area that

 

14 we were asked to search.

 

15 Q. So did you review the warrant?

 

16 A. I did.

 

17 Q. And you were given a briefing —

 

18 A. Yes.

 

19 Q. — the morning of the search?

 

20 A. Yes.

 

21 Q. Is that correct, sir?

 

22 A. Yes, yes.

 

23 Q. And prior to your searching, you were given

 

24 a copy of a protocol; is that right?

 

25 A. A protocol.

 

26 Q. It was a — I forgot the name of — a

 

27 memorandum, in any event, that explained what the

 

28 case was about and what you were looking for? 7219

 

1 A. We received the warrant, we read the

 

2 warrant. And my assignment was to do the security

 

3 wing, and that’s what we did.

 

4 Q. Do you remember whether or not you got a

 

5 little packet that included an outline of what the

 

6 case was about and who the significant parties were

 

7 and that sort of thing?

 

8 A. I don’t recall that. I do recall getting a

 

9 list of names that we were supposed to look for in

 

10 the security office.

 

11 Q. And you got a copy of the affidavit for the

 

12 search warrant?

 

13 A. Right.

 

14 Q. So you had a chance to familiarize yourself

 

15 with that; is that correct?

 

16 A. Yes, sir.

17 Q. And the affidavit would have been something

 

18 that explained to the judge issuing the warrant,

 

19 would have explained what your department thought

 

20 the case was about, and why you should be allowed to

 

21 search, correct?

 

22 A. True.

 

23 Q. Correct?

 

24 A. Yes.

 

25 Q. And — all right. Did you have a copy of

 

26 the warrant itself, see a copy of the warrant?

 

27 A. We did get a copy of the warrant and we did

 

28 read it, yes. 7220

 

1 Q. Was it your understanding, from all of that

 

2 information, that the warrant was for the main

 

3 residence, correct?

 

4 A. Yes.

 

5 Q. And it was for the security office, correct?

 

6 A. Yes.

 

7 Q. And it was for the separate building that

 

8 was described as an arcade; is that correct?

 

9 A. I don’t specifically recall that.

 

10 Q. All right. In any event, it was not for

 

11 every building on that ranch, was it?

 

12 A. I don’t have that specific knowledge.

 

13 Q. All right. In any event, to your

 

14 knowledge — well, let me withdraw that.

 

15 Aside from where you said you looked, which

 

16 would have been the security office, and then in

 

17 that same building, which was part of the garage,

 

18 correct?

 

19 A. Correct.

 

20 Q. You looked in the garage?

 

21 A. Correct.

 

22 Q. And then you went upstairs in that same

 

23 building and you looked in the video library,

 

24 correct?

 

25 A. Correct.

 

26 Q. All right. Other than that, you did not

 

27 search any other part of that ranch, you personally,

 

28 for records, correct? 7221

 

1 A. No, I did not.

 

2 Q. And are you familiar with Brian Barron?

 

3 A. I know the name. A security guard.

 

4 Q. Were you aware that he was a sworn peace

 

5 officer?

 

6 A. At the time of the search I don’t believe

 

7 so.

 

8 Q. You’re aware —

 

9 A. I hadn’t paid attention.

 

10 Q. You are aware now; is that correct?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. And if he has indicated that records are

 

13 accurate, as presented to him in court by the

 

14 prosecutor that pertain to these gate logs, would

 

15 you have any reason to believe that he was

 

16 incorrect?

 

17 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to

 

18 object. Calls for speculation; no foundation.

 

19 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

20 MR. SANGER: Okay. I have no further

 

21 questions.

 

22 MR. SNEDDON: Nothing further.

 

23 THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down.

 

24 MR. SNEDDON: Thank you, Sergeant Cleaves.

The next prosecution witness was Detective Timothy Sutcliffe, who testified earlier about the prosecution’s fingerprint evidence, and was recalled in order to be questioned about the assistance that he gave to Sgt. Cleaves during the Neverland raid. He also confirmed that the Arvizo children stayed at Neverland on December 2nd, 2002, but Janet was not there (they went there with Chris Tucker) based on the guest records that he seized (which were only the records that had the Arvizo’s names on them):

15 DIRECT EXAMINATION

 

16 BY MR. SNEDDON:

 

17 Q. Actually, just to clarify things, you’re the

 

18 same Timothy Sutcliffe who testified previously in

 

19 this case?

 

20 A. Yes, I am.

 

21 Q. That was a long time ago, but — now,

 

22 everybody probably recalls this, but just for the

 

23 purposes of refreshing people’s recollections,

 

24 you’re employed by the Santa Barbara County

 

25 Sheriff’s Department?

 

26 A. That is correct.

 

27 Q. And your current assignment is?

 

28 A. I work for the Criminal Investigations 7223

 

1 Division in the Forensics Unit.

 

2 Q. And was that your assignment back on

 

3 November 18th of 2003?

 

4 A. Yes, it was.

 

5 Q. Now, on that particular date, were you

 

6 assigned to assist Sergeant Cleaves in the review of

 

7 certain records and files in the security office of

 

8 Neverland Valley Ranch during the execution of a

 

9 search warrant?

 

10 A. Yes, I was.

 

11 Q. Now, tell me what you did on that particular

 

12 day with regard to the records in the security

 

13 office.

 

14 A. We were given a list of names of individuals

 

15 that — to search for specific items. We were

 

16 checking through the security documents, which were

 

17 gate logs and guest lists, for those particular

 

18 names, and I did find some of those items.

 

19 Q. And with regard to the items that you found,

 

20 what did you do with them?

 

21 A. As I collected those items, I then gave

 

22 those to Detective Moeller, who listed them on the

 

23 SH-451 property form.

 

24 Q. Now, prior to testifying here today, I asked

 

25 you to review the logs that you personally took on

 

26 the occasion of the execution of that search warrant

 

27 on November 18th. Do you recall doing that?

 

28 A. That’s correct. 7224

 

1 Q. And I specifically asked you to review those

 

2 logs to see whether or not you found the name of

 

3 Janet Arvizo on any of those documents that you

 

4 took.

 

5 A. That’s correct.

 

6 Q. And with regard to the documents you took,

 

7 you found the name of the Arvizo children listed,

 

8 did you not?

 

9 A. Yes, I did.

 

10 Q. And on the documents that you reviewed, did

 

11 you find the name of Janet Arvizo listed as a guest

 

12 at the ranch during any of those occasions?

 

13 A. No, I did not.

 

14 Q. Now, the records that you found, describe to

 

15 the jury the process that you went through

 

16 personally to take the records.

 

17 A. There were several boxes of records, and

 

18 there was a filing cabinet, and I had selected a

 

19 specific box to go through of records. And as I was

 

20 pulling the records out, looking over each

 

21 individual record searching for those individuals’

 

22 names, then I would set those aside. And when I was

 

23 done with a particular box or file, I’d hand those

 

24 to Detective Moeller so he could enter those into

 

25 the 451 form.

 

26 Q. All right. Now, lastly, with regard to the

 

27 logs and the documents that you actually took on

 

28 this particular occasion, did you find or take any 7225

 

1 logs that went beyond the date of December 31st of

 

2 2002?

 

3 A. Can I check my —

 

4 Q. Do you need to refresh your recollection on

 

5 that?

 

6 A. Yes, I do.

 

7 Q. What document are you doing that from?

 

8 A. The SH-451 form.

 

9 Q. All right. Please take a look at it and see

 

10 if it refreshes your recollection. That’s just for

 

11 the documents you took, now.

 

12 A. Correct.

 

13 Yes, just the last entry is 12-2 of .02.

 

14 Q. Nothing with regard to the year 2003?

 

15 A. No.

 

16 MR. SNEDDON: Thank you. No further

 

17 questions.

 

Sanger’s cross examination of Sgt. Sutcliffe focused on the fact that he did not make a note of the records that were in the office after December 2nd, 2002, despite the fact that there were many records from early 2003.

19 CROSS-EXAMINATION

 

20 BY MR. SANGER:

 

21 Q. Detective Sutcliffe, how are you?

 

22 A. Good morning.

 

23 Q. The logs that you saw were located in the

 

24 security office; is that correct?

 

25 A. That’s correct.

 

26 Q. All right. And that is, once again, the

 

27 office at the end of the building that has the

 

28 garage on the first floor and the video library on 7226

 

1 the second floor; is that correct?

 

2 A. That’s correct.

 

3 Q. Did you search the administration building?

 

4 Do you know where the administration building is?

 

5 A. No. If you could tell me where it is.

 

6 Q. Up on the hill.

7 A. No, I did not search the administration

 

8 building.

 

9 Q. Okay. Did you — did you — and you were

 

10 briefed before you went out there to do the search;

 

11 is that correct?

 

12 A. That’s correct.

 

13 Q. The search warrant did not include the

 

14 administration building, did it?

 

15 A. I don’t recall on that.

 

16 Q. Okay. And you did not search the office at

 

17 the gate; is that correct?

 

18 A. No, I did not.

 

19 Q. You said the last record you have an entry

 

20 for in your sheriff’s booking form is December 2,

 

21 2002; is that correct? Is that what you just said?

 

22 A. Can I check?

 

23 Q. Sure. Certainly. I thought I was wrong.

 

24 But you need to look. That’s fine. Okay.

 

25 A. Yes, 12-2 of .02.

 

26 Q. Okay. That’s the last record you seized; is

 

27 that correct?

 

28 A. That’s the last — the latest date. 7227

 

1 Q. That’s the last date or the latest date that

 

2 you seized, correct?

 

3 A. That is correct.

 

4 Q. That is not the latest date that you saw?

 

5 A. I don’t recall any further than that.

 

6 Q. Do you recall seeing records there at that

 

7 office that went through the end of 2002?

 

8 A. Yeah, I — I recall. I think there was some

 

9 2003 records as well.

 

10 Q. Some 2003?

 

11 A. But I didn’t seize those, no.

 

12 Q. In any event, you just seized the records up

 

13 to the date — let me withdraw that.

 

14 You just seized the records that had entries

 

15 for the names that you were looking for, correct?

 

16 A. Correct.

 

17 Q. And you did not make any record of the last

 

18 date of any records that were there; is that

 

19 correct?

 

20 A. I don’t understand the question, I’m sorry.

 

21 Q. That’s fine. You did not make a note of the

 

22 last — the most recent record that was there

 

23 present in the office; is that correct?

 

24 A. The only ones I’m real familiar with are the

 

25 ones I collected. And the last date of the items I

 

26 collected was — the latest date was 12-2 of 2002.

 

27 Q. Okay. My question was, you did not make a

 

28 note of the latest date that was present in the 7228

 

1 office, did you?

 

2 A. No, I did not.

 

3 Q. And your recollection was, however, that you

 

4 did not have the current logs for 2003, correct?

 

5 A. I recall that there was some 2003 logs. I

 

6 just remember dates for 2003, but I don’t recall

 

7 what exactly they were.

 

8 Q. Okay. You didn’t have logs — this was

 

9 November 18th, 2003, that you’re there, right?

 

10 A. Correct.

 

11 Q. You didn’t have the logs for November 17th,

 

12 for instance, did you?

 

13 A. Not that I’m aware of.

 

14 Q. All right. And you did not locate the

 

15 current logs for the recent months of 2003 in your

 

16 searching, correct?

 

17 A. I personally did not, no.

 

18 MR. SANGER: All right. I have no further

 

19 questions. Thank you.

Sneddon redirect examined Det. Sutcliffe to have him clarify to the jury exactly why he didn’t seize any records that did not contain the Arvizo’s name on it, which were the only records authorized by the judge’s search warrant:

21 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

 

22 BY MR. SNEDDON:

 

23 Q. Well, let’s just get this straight so

 

24 everybody understands it.

 

25 You were only authorized by the warrant to

 

26 seize documents through the time that the Arvizo

 

27 family was there, isn’t that correct, through March

 

28 of 2003? 7229

 

1 A. That’s correct.

 

2 Q. So there would be no reason to look for

 

3 documents in April, May, June, July, November of

 

4 2003?

 

5 MR. SANGER: Objection. That’s leading and

 

6 it’s also argumentative.

 

7 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

8 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: In the execution of the

 

9 search warrant, are you bound not to review the

 

10 records that go beyond the period authorized by the

 

11 judge in the warrant?

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. Now, with regard to whatever document you

 

14 may have seen in 2003 that would have been within

 

15 the time limit of the warrant itself, did you

 

16 personally see anything within 2003?

 

17 A. No.

 

18 MR. SANGER: Excuse me, I’m going to object

 

19 to that question. The way it’s phrased is — it’s

 

20 vague and it’s also compound, if I understand it at

 

21 all.

 

22 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

23 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Did you personally see any

 

24 documents during your examination of the records

 

25 covering the month of January 2003?

 

26 A. I don’t recall the specific month. I just

 

27 remember seeing 2003s. Seems to me that there was

 

28 some, but I don’t recall any specific information 7230

 

1 about 2003.

 

2 Q. In the execution of the warrant, if you’d

 

3 seen something during the time period set forth in

 

4 the warrant, in other words, January, February,

 

5 March of 2003, and it contained the name of any of

 

6 the parties that you were looking for, would you

 

7 have taken it?

 

8 A. Yes, I would have.

 

9 MR. SNEDDON: Nothing further. No further

 

10 questions.

 

11 THE COURT: Thank you.

 

12 MR. SNEDDON: Investigator Rooney.

 

13 THE COURT: We’ll take our break.

 

14 MR. SNEDDON: Okay.

 

15 (Recess taken.)

 

16 THE COURT: Counsel?

 

17 MR. SNEDDON: Thank you, Your Honor. Tim

 

18 Rooney.

 

19 THE COURT: Remain standing, please. Face

 

20 the clerk and raise your right hand.

The next prosecution witness was senior criminal investigator Timothy Rooney, a 16 year veteran of the District Attorney’s office. His duty during the raid of Neverland was to participate in the review of documents and logs that were seized from the security office, none of which were dated after December 31st, 2002:

3 DIRECT EXAMINATION

 

4 BY MR. SNEDDON:

 

5 Q. Mr. Rooney, you’re employed by the Santa

 

6 Barbara County District Attorney’s Office, correct?

 

7 A. Yes, sir.

 

8 Q. How long have you been with the District

 

9 Attorney’s Office?

 

10 A. 16 years.

 

11 Q. And in what capacity are you employed by the

 

12 District Attorney’s Office?

 

13 A. Senior criminal investigator.

 

14 Q. Before that, did you have law enforcement

 

15 experience?

 

16 A. 11 years with Santa Barbara Police

 

17 Department.

 

18 Q. Okay. Now, on November the 11th of —

 

19 November the 18th, I’m sorry, November 18th, 2003,

 

20 were you assigned to participate in the execution of

 

21 a search warrant on Neverland Valley Ranch?

 

22 A. Yes.

 

23 Q. And what were your — was part of the

 

24 assignment that you were given that day to

 

25 participate in the review of some documents and logs

 

26 in the security office?

 

27 A. Yes.

 

28 Q. And were you working in conjunction with 7232

 

1 other people in doing that?

 

2 A. Yes, sir.

 

3 Q. I’m not sure that mike’s working. You might

 

4 want to try that one there.

 

5 A. Okay.

 

6 Q. And who was it that you were working with in

 

7 processing these documents?

 

8 A. Sergeant Steve Cleaves from the sheriff’s

 

9 office, Deputy Moeller from the sheriff’s office,

 

10 Tim Sutcliffe from the sheriff’s office, Shelly

 

11 Sweeton, a criminal investigator with the District

 

12 Attorney’s Office, and myself.

 

13 Q. And from where did you obtain the materials

 

14 that you personally went through?

 

15 A. From the security area.

 

16 Q. And were they in some form of containers?

 

17 A. Yes.

18 What kind?

19 A. Some were retrieved from files that were in

 

20 file cabinets and boxes.

 

21 Q. Now, what is the process that you used in —

 

22 first of all, were you given a list of names of

 

23 people to look for on these logs and records?

 

24 A. Yes.

 

25 Q. And what was the nature of the records that

 

26 you were looking through?

 

27 A. Records consisted of logs of people going in

 

28 and out of the ranch, employees, guests, business 7233

 

1 vendors.

 

2 Q. And you had a list of names to look for; is

 

3 that correct?

 

4 A. Yes, sir.

 

5 Q. And during the course of your examination of

 

6 the documents that you personally examined, did you

 

7 have occasion to remove some of those documents?

 

8 A. Yes, I did.

 

9 Q. And after you removed them, what did you do

 

10 with them?

 

11 A. I notified Deputy Moeller and he scribed

 

12 them, took them from my possession and documented

 

13 them.

 

14 Q. So he took them from you, you gave them to

 

15 him and he documented them —

 

16 A. Yes.

 

17 Q. — is that correct?

 

18 A. Yes, sir.

 

19 Q. Now, have you had a chance to review the

 

20 documents that you took on that particular day —

 

21 A. Yes.

 

22 Q. — generally speaking?

 

23 A. Yes, I have.

 

24 Q. Do any of those documents include documents

 

25 after the date of December 31st of 2002?

 

26 A. I don’t believe so.

 

27 MR. SNEDDON: No further questions.

 

28 // 7234

Sanger asked Rooney a few general questions about his participation in the raid at Neverland, and that was all:

1 CROSS-EXAMINATION

 

2 BY MR. SANGER:

 

3 Q. Good morning.

 

4 A. Good morning.

 

5 Q. It’s still morning. We always have to check

 

6 here. We get kind of out of sequence.

 

7 Did you write a report in this case?

 

8 A. No, sir.

 

9 Q. Your assignment, among other things, was to

 

10 look through those documents; is that correct?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. Were you assigned to do anything else in

 

13 this case?

 

14 A. I helped search the video movie room that he

 

15 had.

 

16 Q. The video library?

 

17 A. Yes, the library.

 

18 Q. I’m sorry.

 

19 A. The video library at the ranch.

 

20 Q. I didn’t mean to talk over you.

 

21 Okay. The video library was upstairs in the

 

22 same building as the security office?

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. And you also were assigned to stand watch

 

25 over the guest units until somebody came to search

 

26 them?

 

27 A. Yes.

 

28 Q. Okay. Other than that, did you do anything 7235

 

1 else in this case?

 

2 A. I went to the back employee area and stood

 

3 by till somebody came — from the sheriff’s office

 

4 came and contacted the employees.

 

5 Q. Okay. Did you search the administration

 

6 building? Let me ask the foundational question. Do

 

7 you know where the administration building was on

 

8 the ranch?

 

9 A. No, sir.

 

10 Q. Okay. You were down at the main residence

 

11 on the adjoining building with the video library and

 

12 the security office, correct?

 

13 A. Yes, sir.

 

14 Q. You did not go up on the hill to an

 

15 administration building to search there, did you?

 

16 A. Yes, that’s the building I was referring to

 

17 in the back. I didn’t search there, but I stood by

 

18 with the employees until somebody from the sheriff’s

 

19 office relieved me. I did not search that area.

 

20 Q. You’re saying “the back.” Do you mean right

 

21 behind the house?

 

22 A. Up high where you’re talking about.

 

23 Q. What does that building look like?

 

24 A. I don’t remember.

 

25 Q. Was it an industrial-looking building?

 

26 A. I believe so.

 

27 Q. Okay. So we’re then talking about the — is

 

28 that the building that has a fire truck up there? 7236

 

1 A. There were no fire trucks when I was up

 

2 there, I don’t believe, but other employees’

 

3 vehicles.

 

4 Q. All right. Okay. In any event, you did not

 

5 search inside of that administration building; is

 

6 that correct?

 

7 A. That’s correct.

 

8 Q. And you’re aware at the front gate there is

 

9 an office at the gatehouse; is that correct?

 

10 A. Yes, there is.

 

11 Q. Did you search the office at the gatehouse?

 

12 A. No, sir.

 

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

 

14 questions.

 

15 MR. SNEDDON: Nothing further.

 

16 THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down.

The next prosecution witness was Detective Steven Moeller, who also searched the security office at Neverland, and served as a scribe who logged evidence that was seized into the official police records. He was asked to review the documents that he seized, and confirm that all but one were from the year 2002:

5 DIRECT EXAMINATION

 

6 BY MR. SNEDDON:

 

7 Q. All right. Mr. Moeller, you’re going to

 

8 have to scoot up to that microphone there.

 

9 A. Can you hear me?

 

10 Q. That’s perfect. That’s as good as it gets

 

11 in here.

 

12 All right. You’re a deputy employed by the

 

13 Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department?

 

14 A. I am.

 

15 Q. How long have you been with the department?

 

16 A. 30 years.

 

17 Q. And what are your current duty assignments?

 

18 A. Currently I’m attached to the Aviation

 

19 Bureau of the sheriff’s department.

 

20 Q. And on November the 18th of 2003, you are

 

21 one of the people who participated in the execution

 

22 of a search warrant at Neverland Valley Ranch; is

 

23 that correct?

 

24 A. That’s correct.

 

25 Q. And on that particular occasion, were you

 

26 assigned some responsibilities in connection with

 

27 the execution of that warrant at the security

 

28 office? 7238

 

1 A. Yes, I was.

 

2 Q. And what were those responsibilities?

 

3 A. To go through various documentation looking

 

4 for specific names on the list, and doing a basic

 

5 search of that security office.

 

6 Q. All right. And were you assigned a

 

7 particular responsibility with regard to any of the

 

8 documents that were found during the course of that

 

9 search?

 

10 A. Yes. I was a scribe.

 

11 Q. What’s that mean?

 

12 A. That means that I — for the search team,

 

13 once they find something that they believe they want

 

14 to hold as evidence, they turn it over to me, I

 

15 assign it a number, and then I fill out the property

 

16 sheet.

 

17 Q. And then after you assign it a number and

 

18 you fill out the property sheet, what do you do with

 

19 it? What did you do with it on this occasion?

 

20 A. The evidence?

 

21 Q. Yes.

 

22 A. Bagged it.

 

23 Q. Okay. And then after you bagged it?

 

24 A. I turned it over to the evidence officer.

 

25 Q. All right. Now, you were working with some

 

26 other officers in the security office who you

 

27 provided the scribe responsibilities for. Now, who

 

28 were the other officers you were working with in 7239

 

1 there?

 

2 A. There was Sergeant Steve Cleaves, Detective

 

3 Sutcliffe, Detective Rooney, and Detective Sweeney.

 

4 Q. And as they — as they gave you the

 

5 particular item and you assigned a number to it, did

 

6 you make out what’s called an SH-451 form?

 

7 A. I did.

 

8 Q. What is that, for the jury?

 

9 A. Basically that takes the evidence that’s

10 turned over, any description of that evidence, and

 

11 we log who located that evidence and what location.

 

12 Q. All right. I want to show you a series of

 

13 exhibits, with the Court’s permission.

 

14 I can approach the witness, if I might.

 

15 THE COURT: Yes.

 

16 MR. SNEDDON: And Counsel, this is 300

 

17 through —

 

18 MR. SANGER: 334.

 

19 MR. SNEDDON: 334. Excellent.

 

20 Q. I’m going to ask you to examine the items

 

21 300 through 334, which basically ends where that

 

22 yellow tag is.

 

23 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I’m going to object

 

24 to this procedure as cumulative, in that there’s

 

25 already a foundation and these documents were

 

26 admitted.

 

27 MR. SNEDDON: I have other questions about

 

28 the documents that I’m going to ask. 7240

 

1 THE COURT: I’m not going to rule on your

 

2 objection, because I don’t know — he’s just asked

 

3 him to look at the records. So I don’t know if it’s

 

4 cumulative or not.

 

5 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Okay. Have you looked at

 

6 all those documents?

 

7 A. I have.

 

8 Q. Now, with regard to the very last one, this

 

9 is People’s 333, it’s in evidence, it’s the one —

 

10 yeah, flip that over, because I’m going to ask you a

 

11 question about — no. Flip it this way.

 

12 A. Okay.

 

13 Q. With regard to that particular document, in

 

14 the upper left-hand corner is a number written in

 

15 ink; is that correct?

 

16 A. That’s correct.

 

17 Q. And do you recognize that number?

 

18 A. Yes.

 

19 Q. Okay. Did you put that number on there?

 

20 A. I did.

 

21 Q. Okay. Now, go back one more document, if

 

22 you would. That document — excuse me. With regard

 

23 to the exhibit we were just talking about is in

 

24 small numbers, black ink, correct?

 

25 A. That is correct.

 

26 Q. Now, go back one more.

 

27 MR. SANGER: May I approach, Your Honor?

 

28 I’m not sure I’m following this. 7241

 

1 THE COURT: Yes.

 

2 MR. SNEDDON: It’s the same as in yours.

 

3 MR. SANGER: It’s a different colored ink on

 

4 that one. This is not colored.

 

5 MR. SNEDDON: It’s black.

 

6 MR. SANGER: I see, okay. That was the

 

7 first number? Can I just ask where the second

 

8 number was?

 

9 THE WITNESS: 602?

 

10 MR. SNEDDON: That’s on 601.

 

11 THE WITNESS: 601.

 

12 MR. SNEDDON: In the upper left-hand corner

 

13 of the document.

 

14 MR. SANGER: All right. Thank you.

 

15 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Moving back, the next

 

16 document has, in the upper left-hand corner, what

 

17 number in black?

 

18 A. 6-3-5.

 

19 Q. Is that your handwriting?

 

20 A. Yes.

 

21 Q. Now, the handwriting with regard to 635

 

22 compared to 601 is significantly larger, is it not?

 

23 A. It is.

 

24 Q. Okay. And with regard to the review of the

 

25 documents that I asked you to do in front of the

 

26 jury here, those all have large print on them like

 

27 the 6 — like the one that’s marked as People’s 332,

 

28 correct? 7242

 

1 A. Correct.

 

2 Q. So even though they’re smaller in size in

 

3 one case and bigger in others, it’s the same

 

4 handwriting, your scribe?

 

5 A. It is.

 

6 Q. Do you have your SH-451 form —

 

7 A. I do.

 

8 Q. — with you?

 

9 Don’t look at it yet. I’m going to ask you

 

10 a question.

 

11 A. Okay.

 

12 Q. And if you have to look at it, I’ll let you

 

13 do that.

 

14 A. Oh. Okay.

 

15 Q. With regard to the items that were given you

 

16 from No. 300 through 332 – okay? —

 

17 A. Okay.

 

18 Q. — were any of those documents beyond the

 

19 date of January 1st, 2003?

 

20 A. I don’t believe so.

 

21 Q. Did you — would your SH-451 help you

 

22 refresh your recollection to that effect?

 

23 A. It might.

 

24 Q. Make sure you’re certain of that.

 

25 Let me just ask you a question. Your

 

26 report, your SH-451, is listed by item number,

 

27 correct?

 

28 A. Correct. 7243

 

1 Q. So it doesn’t necessarily correspond,

 

2 without individually looking at every page, as to

 

3 which is which?

 

4 A. Correct.

 

5 Q. So why don’t we just turn all the way back,

 

6 just momentarily to get the place on this, to Item

 

7 No. 300 — or Item 301. How’s that? Just turn the

 

8 book to 301.

 

9 A. 301.

 

10 Q. Okay. And that corresponds to your Item No.

 

11 614, correct?

 

12 A. Correct.

 

13 Q. Just run consecutively to 614 down to the

 

14 end of your documents.

 

15 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object, Your

 

16 Honor.

 

17 MR. SNEDDON: Let me do it another way.

 

18 MR. SANGER: Sorry. Go ahead.

 

19 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Just please review your

 

20 form for right now.

 

21 A. Okay.

 

22 Q. And, now, does that refresh your

 

23 recollection as to whether or not items — the

 

24 evidentiary items 301 through 332 were all items

 

25 from the year of 2002?

 

26 A. With the exception of one.

 

27 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object, Your

 

28 Honor. The exhibits speak for themselves. We’re 7244

 

1 getting a report about the exhibits.

 

2 THE COURT: He just asked him to refresh his

 

3 recollection. If I understand your objection

 

4 correctly, I’ll overrule it.

 

5 MR. SANGER: Well, the objection was — the

 

6 question was, what is the dates on the exhibits, not

 

7 in his report.

 

8 THE COURT: He asked him to review the item

 

9 and see if it refreshed his recollection.

 

10 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: This would be only through

 

11 Items — your Item 635?

 

12 A. Correct. 2002.

 

13 THE COURT: I think what’s happened is the

 

14 question is in two stages. So I’ll ask you to break

 

15 the question down to two separate questions.

 

16 MR. SNEDDON: Yes, Your Honor. I will do

 

17 that.

 

18 Q. Does reviewing your SH-451 form refresh your

 

19 recollection as to whether or not the Exhibits 301

 

20 through 332 are all from the same year?

 

21 A. Correct.

 

22 Q. And that year would be what?

 

23 A. 2002.

 

24 Q. And there was a single document which is

 

25 Exhibit 333, correct?

 

26 A. Correct.

 

27 Q. One-page document. That was from the year

 

28 2003? 7245

 

1 A. Correct.

 

2 MR. SNEDDON: Nothing further.

 

3 MR. SANGER: The only problem is the book

 

4 that was given to me has a two-page document. Maybe

 

5 it’s two sides of one page.

 

6 May I just inquire?

Under cross examination, Moeller was questioned by Sanger about the document from 2003, which wasn’t a gate log, but was a Neverland Valley Medical Report log:

8 CROSS-EXAMINATION

 

9 BY MR. SANGER:

 

10 Q. 333, is that two pages, or is it one page

 

11 with two sides, or what is it?

 

12 A. Two sides.

 

13 Q. Actually —

14 A. Well —

 

15 Q. — one piece of paper?

 

16 A. No, two pieces of paper.

 

17 Q. So basically, then, the answer would be

 

18 Exhibit 333 is two pages that pertain to 2003?

 

19 A. Correct.

 

20 Q. Without getting too complicated here, you

 

21 have a number of records which include gate logs

 

22 from 2002?

 

23 A. Correct.

 

24 Q. And then you have two pages, which is

 

25 Exhibit 333, that are not gate logs; is that

 

26 correct?

 

27 A. No, they’re not.

 

28 Q. Okay. So you have — those are a Neverland 7246

 

1 Valley Fire Department Emergency Medical Report from

 

2 2003, correct?

 

3 A. Correct.

 

4 Q. And then there’s a Neverland Valley Medical

 

5 Report Log from 2003?

 

6 A. That’s also correct.

 

7 Q. So those medical reports are from 2003. The

 

8 gate logs that you scribed in during the search were

 

9 from 2002?

 

10 A. Correct.

 

11 Q. There you go.

 

12 Now, by the way, is your assignment with the

 

13 Aviation Bureau, is that a — does that mean you’re

 

14 up in the air full time in a helicopter or a plane?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. That’s where you are at all times?

 

17 A. As much as —

 

18 Q. As much as you can, probably?

 

19 A. As much as the county can afford.

 

20 Q. When did you first get that assignment?

 

21 A. Approximately six years ago.

 

22 Q. All right. So at the time you were — you

 

23 were assigned to do this, you were taken out of the

 

24 air to come down to the ground and help out?

 

25 A. Actually, during that year that the search

 

26 warrant occurred, I was temporarily with the

 

27 narcotics unit for about eight months.

 

28 Q. So you were working as a detective? 7247

 

1 A. I was.

 

2 Q. And you have prior experience as a detective

 

3 in the department?

 

4 A. No.

 

5 Q. That was your only time as a detective?

 

6 A. Yes.

 

7 Q. All right. Now, you were briefed on this

 

8 search before you went out to the ranch, correct?

 

9 A. Correct.

 

10 Q. And you received a copy of the search

 

11 warrant, correct?

 

12 A. Correct.

 

13 Q. And you were aware of the structures that

 

14 were covered by the search warrant; is that correct?

 

15 A. Correct.

 

16 Q. And that would be the main house, correct?

 

17 A. Correct.

 

18 Q. The security office, correct?

 

19 A. Correct.

 

20 Q. And then the arcade building?

 

21 A. Yes.

 

22 Q. Did you search the administration building?

 

23 A. I did not.

 

24 Q. Do you know where that administration

 

25 building was?

 

26 A. No.

 

27 Q. Were you aware there was an

 

28 industrial-looking building up on the hill? 7248

 

1 A. If that’s by the fire department —

 

2 Q. Yes.

 

3 A. — area, yes.

 

4 Q. You’re aware of that building?

 

5 A. I’m aware of that building, yes.

 

6 Q. But you did not search it?

 

7 A. I did not.

 

8 Q. And you’re aware of the gatehouse or the

 

9 office next to the gate, the very front gate on

 

10 Figueroa Mountain Road, correct?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. And that was an office that was not searched

 

13 as well; is that correct?

 

14 A. I did not search that.

 

15 MR. SANGER: All right. Okay. No further

 

16 questions.

 

17 MR. SNEDDON: Nothing further, Your Honor.

 

18 THE COURT: You may step down.

 

19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Your Honor, we’ll call

 

20 Jeff Klapakis as our next witness.

The next prosecution witness was Lieutenant Jeff Klapakis, who also testified earlier in the trial and was recalled to testify about his participation in the search of unindicted co-conspirator Marc Schaffel on January 31st, 2004. As he sat in the witness stand, prepared to be questioned, Judge Melville unexpectedly decided to dismiss the jury for the rest of the day because he needed to hear the prosecution and defense’s arguments for and against, respectively, the admission of a key prosecution witness, who happened be an expert on Battered Women’s Syndrome.

 

1 DIRECT EXAMINATION

 

2 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:

 

3 Q. Good afternoon, Lieutenant Klapakis.

 

4 A. Good afternoon.

 

5 Q. You’ve previously testified in this case

 

6 that you were a lieutenant assigned to the Michael

 

7 Jackson case. During the month of January in 2004,

 

8 did you serve a search warrant on the home of

 

9 F. Marc Schaffel?

 

10 A. Yes.

 

11 Q. And where did you serve that warrant?

 

12 A. In Calabasas, California. At his residence.

 

13 Q. What was the date of the — that the warrant

 

14 was served?

 

15 A. January 31st, .04.

 

16 MR. SANGER: Before we go any further —

 

17 yes, all right. Before we go any further, could we

 

18 approach the bench briefly?

 

19 THE COURT: Yes.

 

20 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

 

21 (Discussion held off the record at sidebar.)

 

22 THE COURT: (To the jury) Before we have any

 

23 further testimony, I have to hear some motions, and

 

24 not just as to this witness, but to several

 

25 witnesses that the District Attorney is anticipating

 

26 calling. And there’s — I don’t see any way that we

 

27 could complete those this afternoon, so I’m going to

 

28 have to let you go home. 7250

 

1 THE JURY: (In unison) Oh.

 

2 (Laughter.)

 

3 THE COURT: I knew you would be disappointed.

 

4 So you don’t come back.

 

5 THE JURY: (In unison) Oh.

 

6 THE COURT: And I’ll see you Monday at 8:30.

 

7 Remember the admonitions.

 

8 Let me just say one thing to you. This is

 

9 not unusual. When you get to the end of either side

 

10 of the case, things — it starts stuttering. Every

 

11 case I’ve ever had, those — the witnesses that are

 

12 left are the ones that have something that I have to

 

13 do, and it’s just not unusual. I don’t want you to

 

14 think it is. It just sort of — cases don’t just

 

15 ride out to the end smoothly and stop. At least not

 

16 in my court. They always go bump, bump, bump.

 

17 That’s where we are; bump, bump, bump.

 

18 So I’ll see you next Monday.

 

19 I’m going to just leave the stand for a

 

20 moment until you’re ready to start the motions.

Let’s look at the motions regarding the admission of this expert witness filed by the prosecution and defense back in January 2005:

On January 18th, 2005 Sneddon filed the motion titled IN LIMINE MOTION RE: ADMISSION OF EXPERT TESTIMONY ON “BATTERED WOMEN’S SYNDROME, in which he described how the years of horrendous abuse that Janet suffered at the hands of her ex-husband David made her a “classic victim” of domestic violence, and whose behavior and actions during her “imprisonment” at Neverland were consistent with “Battered Women’s Syndrome”. According to Sneddon, “expert testimony has been widely accepted as a means to help jurors understand the counter-intuitive behavior of victims of stress disorders.” He wanted to his expert to explain to the jury why Janet kept returning to Neverland, why she didn’t go straight to the police, why she allowed herself to be controlled and manipulated by Jackson’s entourage, why she defended Jackson in the rebuttal video, and other actions that were at variance to how a crime victim would act.

As expected, the defense countered Sneddon’s assertions that Janet’s actions were caused by BWS in this pleading titled OPPOSITION TO DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S MOTION RE: ADMISSION OF EXPERT TESTIMONY ON “BATTERED WOMEN’S SYNDROME”, in which they stated that the prosecution failed to provide adequate information to determine whether or not Janet had indeed suffered from BWS, and because of this lack of information (primarily, the lack of statements from Janet), and the fact that the foundation for that type of evidence had not been laid, they could not possibly oppose their motion. In a nutshell, “the prosecution’s motion explains how BWS testimony would bolster the testimony of Janet Arvizo, but they have not established that her behavior was consistent with being a battered woman.

On January 25th, 2005 the prosecution replied with PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION RE: ADMISSION OF EXPERT TESTIMONY ON BATTERED WOMAN’S SYNDROME AT TRIAL, in which Sneddon succinctly stated that the prosecution will indeed lay the foundation for the admission of BWS evidence during the trial.

The first item that was discussed was the prosecution’s motion in limine regarding the admission of an expert witness on Battered Women’s Syndrome.  Sanger requested that the prosecution explain to him why such a witness was needed, so Auchincloss obliged his request and stated that the reason Janet kept returning to her “abusers” at Neverland, never called police, and lied under oath during her depositions about her domestic abuse is due to the Battered Women’s Syndrome that she developed from being in an abusive 16 year marriage to David Arvizo, and there were parallels in the way that Janet was treated by both David and Jackson:

22 (The following proceedings were held in

 

23 open court outside the presence and hearing of the

 

24 jury:)

 

25

 

26 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, before you start on

 

27 the motion, I asked Mr. Dunkle to come over and sit

 

28 in, because so many of these things were filed at 7251

 

1 the last minute and he’s worked on responses, so I’d

 

2 like to have him here. And he’ll be here in a few

 

3 minutes, but we can start without him, of course.

 

4 THE COURT: That’s fine.

 

5 All right. The first item on the calendar

 

6 is the plaintiff’s motion in limine re admission of

 

7 expert testimony on Battered Women’s Syndrome. I

 

8 deferred ruling. I would like to have Mr. Sneddon,

9 whoever is handling the motion here, explain to me

 

10 why this witness is necessary, what you intend to

 

11 prove.

 

12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: This is my motion, Your

 

13 Honor. And given the enormity of the evidence

 

14 concerning Janet Arvizo’s 16-year abusive

 

15 relationship at the hands of her husband, and given

 

16 the fact that the charges and facts of this case

 

17 fall immediately upon the end of that 16-year

 

18 relationship, both sides have made the issue of this

 

19 relationship central to this case.

 

20 The defense has even attempted to use this

 

21 relationship to show that Miss Arvizo was somehow

 

22 fraudulent in the J.C. Penney case by attempting —

 

23 I won’t concede that they were successful, but they

 

24 attempted to lead the jury to believe that some of

 

25 her injuries were, in fact, caused by her husband.

 

26 So there doesn’t seem to be any contention that both

 

27 sides agree that this woman suffered at the hands of

 

28 her husband. 7252

 

1 THE COURT: I guess the issue that I want

 

2 discussed is what is the relevance here. The code

 

3 section says that if you show relevance and you have

 

4 an expert that will so testify —

 

5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Very well. I’ll go

 

6 straight to the point.

 

7 False imprisonment. Child endangerment.

 

8 Personal verbal attacks. Death threats. Isolation.

 

9 Hopelessness. Emotional abuse. These are all the

 

10 central issues of domestic violence. They are also

 

11 the central issues in this case.

 

12 Domestic violence evidence, expert evidence

 

13 by a Battered Women’s Syndrome expert, is designed

 

14 to debunk misperceptions about women who have

 

15 suffered this posttraumatic stress disorder. Women

 

16 who have been raped, women who have been beaten,

 

17 women who have been abused do not act in a — in a

 

18 predictive manner.

 

19 There are many misconceptions about how

 

20 Janet Arvizo should act, given the stimulus of the

 

21 defendant’s conduct in this particular case.

 

22 Specifically — these are problem areas for this

 

23 jury that this expert will help them now to wade

 

24 through. Specifically, why did she return to her

 

25 abusers at Neverland? The jury needs to understand

 

26 that. Victims of domestic violence virtually always

 

27 return to their abusers.

 

28 Why didn’t she go to the police? Why 7253

 

1 doesn’t she report this? Victims of domestic

 

2 violence — this expert will testify, victims of

 

3 domestic violence, when they’re threatened, when

 

4 they’re abused, when they’re taken advantage of,

 

5 they virtually never go to the police.

 

6 Why didn’t she make greater attempts to

 

7 leave? Why didn’t she just walk away? Those are

 

8 the questions of people who wonder why these women

 

9 stay in these domestic violence relationships. This

 

10 expert will help this jury understand this issue.

 

11 Why she’s still susceptible, why she’s so gullible.

 

12 Common traits in domestic violence cases. Why was

 

13 she so easily manipulated? Domestic violence

 

14 victims are routinely manipulated by the men who

 

15 abuse them. Why did she continue to trust in people

 

16 who had proven they were untrustworthy?

 

17 Another common trait, this learned

 

18 hopelessness. That’s the terminology that the

 

19 experts use, “learned hopelessness”; that they

 

20 become eternal believers in, “Well, you know, if I

 

21 just tow the line, if I just do what I’m told, if I

 

22 don’t make any waves, if I don’t make any fuss,

 

23 everything will be okay.”

 

24 Why did she act so helpless? A common

 

25 question that we all have of victims of domestic

 

26 violence and a common trait that’s certainly

 

27 associated with this disorder.

 

28 Why did she have — continue to have hope 7254

 

1 and faith in Jackson when Jackson’s people were

 

2 conducting this conspiracy around her? Again, this

 

3 sense of hope, trying to find some light at the end

 

4 of the tunnel, trying to believe, wanting to

 

5 believe. She wanted to believe that Jackson could

 

6 help her, even when all the evidence was contrary.

 

7 Why does she lie under oath? Now, here’s an

 

8 important point. The defense has placed that fact

 

9 in the center of their attack on Janet Arvizo.

 

10 They’ve charged her with perjury. They made a big

 

11 deal about it. They questioned her extensively

 

12 about that.

 

13 And this expert will come forward and tell

 

14 you that victims of domestic violence virtually

 

15 always or routinely lie under oath and protect their

 

16 abusers. And that’s exactly what she did in this

 

17 case.

 

18 THE COURT: But I’m having trouble keeping up

 

19 with you here. Are you talking at this point about

 

20 her lying under oath in depositions about whether

 

21 her ex-husband was abusive or not?

 

22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes, I am.

 

23 THE COURT: But just before that, you were

 

24 attributing the — it wasn’t — you were sort of

 

25 placing Mr. Jackson in the position of a husband,

 

26 weren’t you?

 

27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Well, I am. I’m

 

28 placing – 7255

 

1 THE COURT: You made a big jump there.

 

2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Well, I did. And I’m

 

3 saying that Mr. Jackson was in a position where he

 

4 could exploit the vulnerabilities of a woman who

 

5 suffers from posttraumatic stress disorder.

 

6 Now, the statute itself says that the common

 

7 misperceptions regarding Battered Women’s Syndrome

 

8 is admissible to help the jury understand the nature

 

9 and effect of the physical, emotional, mental abuse

 

10 on the beliefs, perceptions and behavior of victims

 

11 of domestic violence.

 

12 Janet Arvizo’s beliefs, her perceptions and

 

13 her behavior in this case have been called into

 

14 question by the defense. And those beliefs,

 

15 perceptions and behaviors were altered, permanently

 

16 probably, during those 16 years of being a battered

 

17 wife.

 

18 Now, there are some interesting parallels

 

19 here, even though Mr. Jackson is not in a position

 

20 of being a typical classic father figure in a

 

21 family. I mean, there’s the family overtones.

 

22 There’s the I’m-going-to-take-care-of-you overtones.

 

23 There’s certainly some interesting parallels here.

 

24 But this is primarily to help the jury understand

 

25 why Janet behaves the way she does. Many questions

 

26 are asked about this, and questions that have been

 

27 focused on by the defense.

 

28 And Janet behaves the way she does because 7256

 

1 of her history as a victim of domestic violence.

 

2 Because of the stimulus that’s provided, death

 

3 threats, she reacts that way when she gets death

 

4 threats. When she’s scared, when she’s upset, she

 

5 doesn’t go to the police. When she’s feeling

 

6 hopeless, she locks herself in a room and sits there

 

7 on Neverland and doesn’t go out and see anybody.

 

8 She is — is she paranoid? Yes, as most

 

9 victims of domestic violence are.

To Be Continued: https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/april-21st-2005-trial-analysis-brian-barron-cross-examination-stephen-cleaves-timothy-sutcliffe-timothy-rooney-steven-moeller-jeff-klapakis-cynthia-montgomery-part-3-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: