Skip to content

April 26th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Cynthia Montgomery, Jeff Klapakis, and Hamid Moslehi, Part 2 of 4

December 16, 2013

Cynthia Mongomery

In this excerpt, Montgomery testified that  Schaffel approached her with the idea of working with Jackson on a professional level, booking his flights, etc. in the year 2000.

28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, you indicated you met 7583

 

1 Mr. Jackson for the first time in approximately

 

2 September of 2003, true?

 

3 A. Formally.

 

4 Q. Formally?

 

5 A. Correct.

 

6 Q. When did you first meet Mr. Jackson in

 

7 person?

 

8 A. I’ve been introduced to him backstage at a

 

9 concert.

 

10 Q. And when was that?

 

11 A. I don’t recall. Many years ago.

 

12 Q. Okay. Do you know how many years ago that

 

13 was?

 

14 A. I couldn’t tell you that.

 

15 Q. You didn’t really have a discussion with him

 

16 at that point, did you?

 

17 A. No.

 

18 Q. Okay. And were you attempting to try and

 

19 get Mr. Jackson’s business at the time?

 

20 A. In September of .03?

 

21 Q. The first time you met him.

 

22 A. No.

 

23 Q. Were you in the travel business at that

 

24 point?

 

25 A. Yes.

 

26 Q. Was it ever your goal to obtain Mr. Jackson

 

27 as a client?

 

28 A. When Mr. Schaffel approached me with it, of 7584

 

1 course.

 

2 Q. And when did Mr. Schaffel approach you with

 

3 the idea of booking flights for Mr. Jackson?

 

4 A. When he became an associate of Mr.

 

5 Jackson’s.

 

6 Q. When did Mr. Schaffel first approach you

 

7 about booking flights for Mr. Jackson?

 

8 A. I couldn’t recall specifically.

 

9 Q. Do you know approximately when it was?

 

10 A. It was sometime in the year 2000.

 

11 Q. Had you been booking flights for Mr.

 

12 Schaffel before that date?

 

13 A. Yes.

 

14 Q. And I believe you said you have booked

 

15 flights for Mr. Schaffel for approximately, what,

 

16 10, 15 years?

 

17 A. I believe so.

 

18 Q. Okay. Now, are you the only one, to your

 

19 knowledge, during that period that was booking

 

20 flights for Mr. Schaffel?

 

21 A. No.

 

22 Q. Were other people booking flights for Mr.

 

23 Schaffel as well?

 

24 A. In my office, or —

 

25 Q. Anywhere.

 

26 A. Well, I can only speak for my office. There

 

27 was someone else that could have done them.

 

28 Q. And who else could have done it in your 7585

 

1 office?

 

2 A. One of my assistants.

 

3 Q. Would you have known about the flight if

 

4 your assistant did it?

 

5 A. Absolutely.

 

6 Q. To your knowledge, during the 10 or 15 years

 

7 that you booked flights — excuse me. For the 10 or

 

8 15 years that you or your company booked flights for

 

9 Mr. Schaffel, was it your understanding that you

 

10 were the exclusive travel agent for Mr. Schaffel?

 

11 A. Absolutely not.

 

12 Q. Who else was booking flights for Mr.

 

13 Schaffel at the time?

 

14 A. I’m not privy to that information.

 

15 Q. Well, how do you know someone else was?

 

16 A. I — I didn’t say that I did. I have no

 

17 idea. I have no knowledge. Other than in my

 

18 office, I said I have no knowledge.

 

19 Q. Okay. So as far as you know, during the

 

20 10 or 15 years that you or your office booked

 

21 flights for Mr. Schaffel, you were the only people

 

22 doing that, correct?

 

23 A. I don’t believe that’s what I said. I

 

24 booked flights for him. Somebody in my office could

 

25 have booked flights for him. I have no other

 

26 knowledge if he went through another agency or

 

27 directly through the airlines. I have no knowledge

 

28 of that. 7586

 

1 Q. And during those 10 or 15 years, you have

 

2 booked flights for Mr. Schaffel to Brazil, have you

 

3 not?

 

4 A. Yes, I have.

 

5 Q. You have booked many flights for Mr.

 

6 Schaffel to Brazil, have you not?

 

7 A. I don’t — I mean, without looking at the

 

8 documents, I’m sure I have.

 

9 Q. Why are you sure you have?

 

10 A. I recall a few trips.

 

11 Q. He has traveled to Brazil extensively

 

12 through the years, has he not?

 

13 A. I believe he has.

 

14 Q. How close a friend were you of Mr. Schaffel

 

15 during the time you had a friendly relationship with

 

16 him?

 

17 A. We would socialize on occasion. Travel

 

18 together.

 

19 Q. And would that be — would the socializing

 

20 be in Las Vegas primarily?

 

21 A. No.

 

22 Q. Where would it be?

 

23 A. Hawaii.

 

24 Q. Okay. Now, when you met Mr. Jackson at

 

25 Neverland in September of 2003, Mr. Schaffel was

 

26 there, correct?

 

27 A. Yes, he was.

 

28 Q. And you were there because Mr. Schaffel was 7587

 

1 conducting a fund-raiser, correct?

 

2 A. Yes, he was.

 

3 Q. And you were assisting Mr. Schaffel in that

 

4 fund-raiser, correct?

 

5 A. I did.

 

6 Q. And Mr. Schaffel arranged for the

 

7 fund-raiser to take place at Neverland, true?

 

8 A. Yes.

 

9 Q. Okay. And then you say you met Mr. Jackson

 

10 about a month later; is that true?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. Okay. And approximately when was that? Was

 

13 that October?

 

14 A. Yes.

 

15 Q. And where was that, if you know?

 

16 A. Yes, I do. The Four Seasons Hotel in Las

 

17 Vegas.

 

18 Q. Okay. Have you ever spoken to Mr. Jackson

 

19 on the telephone?

 

20 A. No.

When Mesereau questioned Montgomery about her interactions with Jackson during the booking of the flight to Brazil for the Arvizos, she testified that she never spoke to Jackson or the Arivozs, and that the tickets were never bought. Ironically, Schaffel himself took a trip to Brazil in March 2003.

21 Q. When you arranged the flights you testified

 

22 about earlier, you have never spoke to Mr. Jackson

 

23 in any phone call about arranging those flights,

 

24 true?

 

25 A. That’s true.

 

26 Q. And it was Mr. Schaffel who talked to you

 

27 about the flight to Brazil that was supposed to

 

28 involve the Arvizos, correct? 7588

 

1 A. Yes.

 

2 Q. Were plane tickets ever purchased for that

 

3 flight?

 

4 A. No.

 

5 Q. When did you last talk to Mr. Schaffel about

 

6 that proposed flight?

 

7 A. Sometime probably in February of 2001.

 

8 Q. Did you ever talk —

 

9 A. The year.

 

10 Q. I’m sorry.

 

11 A. The year. I’m sorry.

 

12 Q. Did you ever talk to any member of the

 

13 Arvizo family about that flight?

 

14 A. No. Not that I’m aware of, no.

 

15 Q. And at some point you learned that that

 

16 flight was going to be cancelled, correct?

 

17 A. Yes.

 

18 Q. And you learned the flight was going to be

 

19 cancelled before you had a chance to buy any flight

 

20 ticket, correct?

 

21 A. Yes.

 

22 Q. And certainly, it goes without saying, you

 

23 never sent any bill for any tickets or anything

 

24 related to that flight, correct?

 

25 A. Correct.

 

26 Q. And that’s because Mr. Schaffel talked to

 

27 you about what he wanted, but the flight never

 

28 happened, right? 7589

 

1 A. He said he had a change of plans.

 

2 Q. Okay. Now, around the time the plans were

 

3 changed, to your knowledge, did Mr. Schaffel go to

 

4 Brazil?

 

5 A. Yes.

 

6 Q. Did you arrange the flight for Mr. Schaffel

 

7 to go to Brazil?

 

8 A. I did.

 

9 Q. Did you arrange to purchase the tickets for

 

10 Mr. Schaffel to go to Brazil?

 

11 A. Indirectly.

12 Q. Okay. To your knowledge, did Mr. Schaffel

 

13 go to Brazil alone?

 

14 A. I don’t know.

 

15 Q. Okay. And do you know approximately when

 

16 Mr. Schaffel’s flight to Brazil took place?

 

17 A. Around the same time. March the 1st.

 

18 Q. Okay. Do you remember whether you arranged

 

19 a round-trip for Mr. Schaffel in March of 2003?

 

20 A. I did.

 

21 Q. And to your knowledge, did he then return to

 

22 the United States at some point?

 

23 A. I can’t swear that he actually took the

 

24 flight.

 

25 Q. Okay. But you bought tickets for him,

 

26 correct?

 

27 A. Indirectly. I made reservations for him.

 

28 Q. And to your knowledge, he actually did go to 7590

 

1 Brazil, right?

 

2 A. I can’t testify to that, Mr. Mesereau.

 

3 Sorry.

 

4 Q. Okay. Okay. You never learned one way or

 

5 the other?

 

6 A. I can’t recall if he did.

Montgomery was next questioned in detail about her lawsuit against Jackson. She sued Jackson because she paid for his flight back to Santa Barbara, and filed suit to be reimbursed.

7 Q. Okay. Do you know someone named Cindy Bell?

 

8 A. I do.

 

9 Q. And who is Cindy Bell?

 

10 A. She’s a flight attendant for Xtra Jet.

 

11 Q. And did you ever make arrangements for Mr.

 

12 Jackson to fly anywhere with Cindy Bell?

 

13 A. Yes, I believe so.

 

14 Q. And what are you referring to?

 

15 A. A flight — she was a stewardess on one of

 

16 his flights.

 

17 Q. Had you met her personally?

 

18 A. No.

 

19 Q. Have you spoken to her on the phone?

 

20 A. I have.

 

21 Q. And you’ve also spoken to Lauren Wallace on

 

22 the phone, right?

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. And have you met Lauren Wallace personally?

 

25 A. Yes.

 

26 Q. Okay. Now, I believe your lawsuit against

 

27 Mr. Jackson has to do with your using your credit

 

28 card to pay for the Xtra Jet flight that he was 7591

 

1 secretly videotaped on; is that correct?

 

2 A. No.

 

3 Q. What is your suit against Mr. Jackson for;

 

4 how much money?

 

5 A. I believe the suit is for $50,000.

 

6 Q. Okay. And aren’t you claiming in the suit

 

7 that you charged on your credit card costs that

 

8 were — should have been borne by Mr. Jackson?

 

9 A. No.

 

10 Q. Well, what are you —

 

11 A. There’s no credit card in question here.

 

12 Q. Did you pay for a flight involving Mr.

 

13 Jackson?

 

14 A. I did.

 

15 Q. And how did you pay for that flight?

 

16 A. In cash.

 

17 Q. And was that the flight where he was

 

18 secretly videotaped?

 

19 A. Yes.

 

20 Q. And did you actually go to Xtra Jet and give

 

21 them cash?

 

22 A. I did.

 

23 Q. And where did you go to Xtra Jet and pay

 

24 cash?

 

25 A. Santa Monica, California.

 

26 Q. Did you go to their offices?

 

27 A. I did.

 

28 Q. Okay. And you personally arranged for that 7592

 

1 flight, true?

 

2 A. I did.

 

3 Q. Did you get a receipt from Xtra Jet?

 

4 A. I — I’m not sure. I probably did. At that

 

5 time —

 

6 Q. Are you saying — excuse me. Are you saying

 

7 you handed $50,000 in cash to Xtra Jet?

 

8 A. No, I didn’t say that. I hand — the

 

9 lawsuit is a different amount than what I gave Xtra

 

10 Jet.

 

11 Q. Are you suing Mr. Jackson because you claim

 

12 you should be reimbursed by Mr. Jackson for money

 

13 you spent on his behalf?

 

14 A. Correct.

 

15 Q. And was the money you claim you spent on his

 

16 behalf cash that you paid?

 

17 A. I have paid part of it, I did that day, part

 

18 of it in cash.

 

19 Q. You say part of it in cash?

 

20 A. That’s correct.

 

21 Q. Okay. Did you give Xtra Jet that cash?

 

22 A. I did.

 

23 Q. Who did you give the cash to at Xtra Jet?

 

24 A. Jeffrey Bohr.

 

25 Q. And who is he?

 

26 A. The owner of Xtra Jet.

 

27 Q. Okay. And was he a friend of yours?

 

28 A. I would say more of a business associate. 7593

 

1 Q. And you went to Santa Monica to have a

 

2 meeting with him, true?

 

3 MR. NICOLA: Objection. Relevance, Your

 

4 Honor.

 

5 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Are you suing Mr. Jackson

 

7 for money you paid in cash?

 

8 MR. NICOLA: Objection, Your Honor. This

 

9 is — asked and answered.

 

10 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

11 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Are you suing Mr. Jackson

 

12 for charges you made on a credit card?

 

13 A. No.

 

14 MR. NICOLA: Objection; asked and answered.

 

15 THE COURT: Overruled. Next question.

 

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. How long have you

 

17 had a relationship with the company Xtra Jet?

 

18 A. Um, for a couple of years.

 

19 Q. And who has been your primary contact at the

 

20 company called Xtra Jet?

 

21 A. Brian — at the time it was Brian Kranitz.

 

22 Q. Okay. And it was your recommendation that

 

23 Mr. Jackson fly with Xtra Jet, true?

 

24 A. No.

 

25 Q. Well, it was certainly your recommendation

 

26 that he fly on Xtra Jet on the day he was secretly

 

27 videotaped, true?

 

28 A. That’s true. 7594

 

1 Q. Now, on that particular day when Mr. Jackson

 

2 was secretly videotaped on Xtra Jet, you also flew

 

3 on a different Xtra Jet flight, correct?

 

4 A. I did.

 

5 Q. And on that particular day, Mr. Jackson was

 

6 flying from Las Vegas to Santa Barbara, true?

 

7 A. Yes.

 

8 Q. And you flew on a separate Xtra Jet flight

 

9 from Las Vegas to Santa Barbara; is that correct?

 

10 A. Yes. In part.

 

11 Q. And other people were with you on your

 

12 particular flight on Xtra Jet on that day, true?

 

13 A. Yes.

 

14 Q. Did you arrange for those people to be on

 

15 that flight with you?

 

16 A. Only one.

 

17 Q. Did you learn at some point that

 

18 photographers were on that flight that you were on?

 

19 A. No.

 

20 Q. Okay. To your knowledge, were any media

 

21 people on the flight that you were on?

 

22 A. No.

 

23 MR. NICOLA: Objection, relevance, Your

 

24 Honor.

 

25 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer is in.

 

26 “No.” Next question.

 

27 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor.

Here are more questions about her arrangements of Jackson’s flights, and about Schaffel’s relationship with Jackson. When Mesereau asked Montgomery if she felt that Schaffel was trying to promote a relationship with Jackson for his own benefit, Nicola objected, and it was sustained by Judge Melvile:

28 Q. Now, the prosecutor has showed you some 7595

 

1 itineraries that you’ve testified you used in your

 

2 business of making flight arrangements for Mr.

 

3 Jackson, right?

 

4 A. Yes.

 

5 Q. And I believe you said that 99 percent of

 

6 the time Evvy would give you the information you

 

7 needed to make those flight arrangements, correct?

 

8 A. Yes.

 

9 Q. And your understanding was that you would

 

10 make the flight reservations for Mr. Jackson, right?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. You’d also make the reservations for others

 

13 who traveled with Mr. Jackson, right?

14 A. I would — she would give me the manifest

 

15 with their names on it.

 

16 Q. Yes. And you would ensure that all of those

 

17 individuals were allowed to be on the flight that

 

18 you booked, right?

 

19 A. It was an FAA requirement. I had no —

 

20 I couldn’t allow or disallow anything.

 

21 Q. Well, but the plans for Mr. Jackson and

 

22 others to fly were primarily made by you, right?

 

23 A. I was — I submitted — I was given a list,

 

24 I submitted a list, and I had no control of who was

 

25 on that flight.

 

26 Q. Well, I don’t mean to suggest that. But

 

27 certainly if you were told by Evvy —

 

28 A. Uh-huh. 7596

 

1 Q. — that she would like you to make a flight

 

2 reservation for whatever it may be, let’s say five

 

3 people, you would arrange for all those five people

 

4 to be on a particular flight, true?

 

5 A. Yes.

 

6 Q. Okay. And would the cost billed by Xtra Jet

 

7 go up the more people that were on the flight?

 

8 A. No.

 

9 Q. It was a set fee each time, true?

 

10 A. Correct.

 

11 Q. So if Mr. Jackson were with two people or

 

12 six people, it made no difference in terms of cost,

 

13 correct?

 

14 A. Other than the catering, it made no

 

15 difference.

 

16 Q. Okay. And would you arrange the catering as

 

17 well?

 

18 A. Yes.

 

19 Q. And are you the person who would arrange for

 

20 a particular type of food to be served on the

 

21 flight?

 

22 A. Yes.

 

23 Q. All right. And how were you compensated for

 

24 making these arrangements?

 

25 A. Xtra Jet would bill me back.

 

26 Q. Okay. And what was your understanding with

 

27 Xtra Jet as far as what you would be billed?

 

28 A. It was discussed prior to making the 7597

 

1 reservations.

 

2 Q. Would you — excuse me. Let me rephrase

 

3 that.

 

4 Did you have a set fee that you would be

 

5 billed by Xtra Jet or did you negotiate it

 

6 differently for each flight?

 

7 A. Well, each destination carries its own

 

8 price —

 

9 Q. Okay.

 

10 A. — depending on where he was going.

 

11 Q. So there was a — in effect, a form or

 

12 schedule of what the cost of the flight would be,

 

13 depending on where it went, true?

 

14 A. Absolutely.

 

15 Q. And how were you compensated?

 

16 A. I received commission.

 

17 Q. Okay. And would the commission be a

 

18 percentage of the total cost of the flight?

 

19 A. Usually, yes.

 

20 Q. All right. Now, if Xtra Jet sent you a

 

21 bill, would you then typically forward that bill to

 

22 whoever you thought should pay it?

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. And you’ve indicated that you sent some

 

25 bills to MJJ Productions, right?

 

26 A. Yes.

 

27 Q. And you sent some bills to Neverland Valley

 

28 Entertainment, right? 7598

 

1 A. Yes.

 

2 Q. Now, the prosecutor asked you some questions

 

3 about who owns those companies, correct?

 

4 A. Yes.

 

5 Q. You don’t have any idea whatsoever who

 

6 actually owns stock or any other interest in

 

7 Neverland Valley Entertainment, true?

 

8 A. I wouldn’t say that that’s true at all.

 

9 I would say I was told about Neverland Valley

 

10 Entertainment.

 

11 Q. Only by Mr. Schaffel, correct?

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. And certainly it was always your

 

14 understanding that Mr. Schaffel was trying to

 

15 promote a relationship with Michael Jackson for his

 

16 own benefit, true?

 

17 MR. NICOLA: Objection. Calls for

 

18 speculation, Your Honor.

 

19 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You never spoke to Mr.

 

21 Jackson about whether he owned any interest

 

22 whatsoever in Neverland Valley Entertainment, did

 

23 you?

 

24 A. No.

 

25 Q. Your information about Neverland Valley

 

26 Entertainment came primarily from Mr. Schaffel,

 

27 true?

 

28 A. And one of the bookkeepers. 7599

 

1 Q. How long would you say you were a friend of

 

2 Mr. Schaffel?

 

3 A. I believe I said almost 20 years.

 

4 Q. Okay. Did you know whether or not Mr.

 

5 Schaffel would try and get reimbursed for anything

 

6 his company allegedly spent for Mr. Jackson?

 

7 A. Yes. Yes.

 

8 Q. Did you have knowledge that Mr. Schaffel

 

9 would sometimes send bills to Mr. Jackson’s

 

10 accountants?

 

11 MR. NICOLA: Objection. Relevance; calls

 

12 for speculation; lack of foundation.

 

13 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

14 You may answer “yes” or “no.”

 

15 THE WITNESS: Yes, I have knowledge.

 

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And did you have any

 

17 knowledge at the time that Mr. Schaffel was sending

 

18 bills to Mr. Jackson’s accountants for money

 

19 allegedly spent on the Arvizos?

 

20 MR. NICOLA: Objection, Your Honor. That

 

21 lacks a foundation.

 

22 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

23 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever learn whether

 

24 or not Mr. Schaffel was sending bills to Mr.

 

25 Jackson’s accountants seeking reimbursement for

 

26 money he claimed he spent on the Arvizos?

 

27 MR. NICOLA: Your Honor, that calls for

 

28 speculation. Lacks foundation. 7600

 

1 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

2 THE WITNESS: I know that he — I’m sorry. I

 

3 have some knowledge.

 

4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Pardon me?

 

5 A. I have some knowledge.

 

6 Q. Okay. When you sent bills to Neverland

 

7 Valley Entertainment, your understanding was that

 

8 Mr. Schaffel owned some interest in that company,

 

9 true?

 

10 A. Absolutely.

 

11 Q. And you also knew that Mr. Schaffel was

 

12 sending bills to Mr. Jackson’s accountants on behalf

 

13 of Neverland Valley Entertainment claiming he was

 

14 owed reimbursement, true?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. And you say, as you sit here today, you’ve

 

17 never learned Mr. Schaffel has sued Mr. Jackson

 

18 claiming he’s owed millions?

 

19 MR. NICOLA: Objection, Your Honor. That’s

 

20 argumentative, calls for speculation.

 

21 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

22 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: The prosecutor showed you

 

23 some documents involving travel plans that came to

 

24 you from Evvy Tavasci, correct?

 

25 A. Yes.

 

26 Q. And your understanding was that Evvy Tavasci

 

27 was a personal assistant to Mr. Jackson, right?

 

28 A. Yes. 7601

 

1 Q. And she was employed by MJJ Productions,

 

2 right?

 

3 A. As far as I understood, yes.

 

4 Q. And your understanding was that MJJ

 

5 Productions was a company owned by Michael Jackson,

 

6 correct?

 

7 A. Yes.

 

8 Q. Now, you would often make travel

 

9 arrangements for Mr. Jackson and members of his

 

10 family, true?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. And did you meet other members of his family

 

13 at any time, to your knowledge?

 

14 A. Um, cousins.

 

15 Q. And who were they?

 

16 A. Elijah Jackson. People that were in Vegas.

 

17 Q. And to your knowledge, who was Elijah

18 Jackson?

 

19 A. I believe to be a cousin or a nephew.

 

20 Q. Okay. Did you ever meet Grace Rwaramba?

 

21 A. Yes.

 

22 Q. And where did you meet Grace Rwaramba?

 

23 A. Officially on the tarmac in Santa Barbara.

 

24 Q. And your understanding was that she was a

 

25 nanny for Mr. Jackson’s —

 

26 A. Correct.

 

27 Q. — children, correct?

 

28 A. Correct. 7602

 

1 Q. Did you ever meet his children?

 

2 A. I don’t recall.

 

3 Q. How about Levon Jackson?

 

4 A. I can’t recall that either.

 

5 Q. Okay. How about P.K. Jackson?

 

6 A. That’s one of the children.

 

7 Q. P.M. Jackson? Never met them?

 

8 A. To the best of my knowledge, no. Best of my

 

9 recollection, no.

 

10 Q. You met the nanny but not the children,

 

11 right?

 

12 A. Right.

 

13 Q. And how about Patricia Chavez?

 

14 A. No.

 

15 Q. But you remember booking flights for these

 

16 individuals, right?

 

17 A. The names are very familiar.

 

18 Q. Okay.

 

19 A. Sure.

 

20 Q. Do you recall making any special

 

21 arrangements for the dietary needs of his children?

 

22 A. Diet — special dietary needs. Just what

 

23 Evvy would tell me to order.

 

24 Q. So pretty much she made those decisions, not

 

25 you?

 

26 A. That’s correct.

 

27 Q. She’d forward the information to you, you

 

28 would then call Xtra Jet and arrange for it to 7603

 

1 happen; is that right?

 

2 A. Yes.

Here are additional questions about fund raisers that Montgomery was involved in with Schaffel:

3 Q. All right. When did you last book a flight

 

4 for Mr. Jackson, to your knowledge?

 

5 A. November 19th, 2003.

 

6 Q. Do you ever remember booking flights for the

 

7 Cascio family?

 

8 A. I do.

 

9 Q. Did you ever meet the Cascio family?

 

10 A. Just the son.

 

11 Q. Okay. Ever meet the parents?

 

12 A. No.

 

13 Q. To your knowledge, are you the only one in

 

14 your family suing Mr. Jackson?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. Is it you individually, or your company, or

 

17 both?

 

18 A. As an individual.

 

19 Q. Okay. The company did not sue Mr. Jackson;

 

20 is that true?

 

21 A. Yes, that’s true.

 

22 Q. And when did you file that suit, if you

 

23 know?

 

24 A. I believe 2004.

 

25 Q. Was it filed in Los Angeles?

 

26 A. Yes.

 

27 Q. To your knowledge, is the case currently

 

28 going forward? 7604

 

1 A. Yes.

 

2 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with an individual

 

3 named Michelle Christina?

 

4 A. Not that I recall.

 

5 Q. How about a company called Oneness,

 

6 O-n-e-n-e-s-s?

 

7 A. Yes.

 

8 Q. And when did you first become familiar with

 

9 a company called Oneness?

 

10 MR. NICOLA: I’m going to object, Your

 

11 Honor. It doesn’t appear to be relevant. It’s

 

12 beyond the scope of direct.

 

13 MR. MESEREAU: I will — I will tie it up,

 

14 Your Honor.

 

15 THE COURT: All right. Overruled.

 

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You get involved in

 

17 charitable fund-raisers from time to time, correct?

 

18 A. Yes.

 

19 Q. Is that part of what your travel company

 

20 does?

 

21 A. I donate through my travel company.

 

22 Q. Do you ever help to arrange charitable

 

23 fund-raisers?

 

24 A. Yes.

 

25 Q. And is that one of the things your company

 

26 does?

 

27 A. Like I just said, I donate travel for

 

28 charities. 7605

 

1 Q. Okay. And you became familiar with a

 

2 company Oneness while doing just that, right?

 

3 MR. NICOLA: I’m going to renew my

 

4 objection, Your Honor, on relevance grounds.

 

5 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Are you claiming that

 

7 because Mr. Jackson owes you money, you’re not going

 

8 to pay a company called Oneness?

 

9 MR. NICOLA: Objection. Your Honor,

 

10 there’s —

 

11 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: How many fund-raisers have

 

13 you been involved in for Marc Schaffel?

 

14 A. One.

 

15 Q. Just one?

 

16 A. Yes.

 

17 Q. Okay. Have you ever assisted in promoting

 

18 Mr. Schaffel’s company in any way?

 

19 MR. NICOLA: I’m going to object. Your

 

20 Honor, this is not relevant.

 

21 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

22 You may answer.

 

23 THE WITNESS: I’m sorry?

 

24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you ever assisted

 

25 Mr. Schaffel in any public relations efforts

 

26 involving his company?

 

27 A. “His company” being Neverland Valley?

 

28 Q. Any company he owns. 7606

 

1 A. Not that I — I mean, I’m not sure I’m

 

2 understanding where — what the question is. Have I

 

3 promoted his company?

 

4 Q. Yes.

 

5 A. I would say no to that.

 

6 Q. Okay. But the fund-raiser you claim you met

 

7 Mr. Jackson at was a fund-raiser arranged by Mr.

 

8 Schaffel, true?

 

9 A. Yes.

 

10 Q. And you were assisting him with that, true?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. Okay. Were you assisting him in raising

 

13 money?

 

14 A. Yes.

 

15 Q. Have you done that on other occasions?

 

16 A. Yes.

 

17 Q. How many times have you assisted Marc

 

18 Schaffel in raising money, to your knowledge?

 

19 A. Just that one time.

 

20 Q. I’m sorry if I misunderstood.

 

21 A. Just that one time.

 

22 Q. Okay. Never on any other occasion?

 

23 A. Not that I’m aware of.

 

24 Q. Okay. Have you ever had any kind of a

 

25 financial interest in any projects involving Mr.

 

26 Schaffel?

 

27 MR. NICOLA: Objection, Your Honor. It’s

 

28 vague, lacks a foundation and not relevant. 7607

 

1 MR. MESEREAU: Bias, Your Honor.

 

2 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

3 You may answer.

 

4 THE WITNESS: No.

 

5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you ever done any

 

6 business with Mr. Schaffel other than arranging

 

7 flights and helping him with that one fund-raiser?

 

8 A. Not to my knowledge.

Montgomery first met with prosecutors in 2004; she contacted them after watching Ed Bradly’s interview with Jackson in December 2003. Prior to testifying, she met with detectives several times to go over her testimony.

9 Q. When did you first meet with any

 

10 representative of the prosecution about your

 

11 testimony?

 

12 A. Sometime in the year 2004.

 

13 Q. Were you contacted by any representative of

 

14 the prosecution for purposes of that meeting?

 

15 A. I received a phone call.

 

16 Q. Okay. And who called you?

 

17 A. I believe it was Lieutenant Jeff Klapakis.

 

18 Q. And how many meetings do you think you’ve

 

19 had before today with any member of the prosecution

 

20 to discuss this case?

21 A. Specifically the prosecution or the

 

22 detectives?

 

23 Q. Let’s start with the prosecution.

 

24 A. I met with them — I just met them last

 

25 week.

 

26 Q. For the first time?

 

27 A. Yes.

 

28 Q. Were you with your attorney? 7608

 

1 A. No.

 

2 Q. When did you first notify the prosecution

 

3 that you would not testify in this trial unless you

 

4 were granted legal immunity?

 

5 A. I did not do that.

 

6 Q. Who did it?

 

7 A. My attorney.

 

8 Q. Do you know when he first did that?

 

9 A. I can’t be certain of that.

 

10 Q. Okay. Do you have any idea at all?

 

11 A. I think it was Thursday maybe.

 

12 Q. Okay.

 

13 A. I have no idea.

 

14 Q. Okay. Did you ever personally, on your own

 

15 initiative, call any sheriff to give information

 

16 about Mr. Jackson?

 

17 A. I did.

 

18 Q. And when did you do that?

 

19 A. After I saw the 60 Minutes Ed Bradley

 

20 special.

 

21 Q. Okay. Did you then meet with any

 

22 representative with the sheriff’s department?

 

23 A. Not at that time, no.

 

24 Q. How many times have you personally called

 

25 the sheriff’s department to volunteer information

 

26 about Mr. Jackson?

 

27 A. About Mr. Jackson?

 

28 Q. Yes. 7609

 

1 A. I couldn’t tell you a number.

 

2 Q. How many interviews do you think you’ve had

 

3 with any representative of the sheriff’s department

 

4 about Mr. Jackson?

 

5 A. Several.

 

6 Q. How many do you think?

 

7 A. In person, three or four.

 

8 Q. Have you ever had any discussion with anyone

 

9 about what you were going to say in court today

 

10 linked to the prosecution?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. Who?

 

13 A. Mr. Nicola and the sergeant and the

 

14 lieutenant.

 

15 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Nicola what

 

16 questions you were going to be asked in court?

 

17 A. Yes.

 

18 Q. And did you and he discuss what your

 

19 responses were going to be?

 

20 A. To tell the truth.

 

21 Q. Say anything more than that?

 

22 A. Just tell the truth. Be honest.

 

23 Q. That’s all he said, right?

 

24 A. To relax.

 

25 Q. Okay. So he went over questions he was

 

26 going to ask you, and all you said in response was,

 

27 “I’ll tell the truth, I’ll tell the truth,” right?

 

28 A. To answer the questions pertaining to the 7610

 

1 evidence that I am responsible for doing, correct.

 

2 Q. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Nicola of the

 

3 prosecution the fact that you had legal immunity?

 

4 A. After my attorney called him, I did.

 

5 Q. And did you and he ever go over what legal

 

6 immunity means?

 

7 A. Yes. We touched on it.

 

8 Q. And when did you do that?

 

9 A. I believe that day, Thursday.

 

10 Q. Okay. And that would be last Thursday,

 

11 correct?

 

12 A. Correct.

 

13 Q. Did you and he discuss any document that

 

14 gave you legal immunity from being prosecuted for

 

15 what you said in court?

 

16 A. No.

 

17 Q. Did you and your attorney ever meet with

 

18 Mr. Nicola regarding your grant of legal immunity?

 

19 A. Mr. Nicola was introduced to my attorney

 

20 yesterday morning for the first time. I wasn’t

 

21 privy to their conversation.

 

22 Q. So you’d never had a meeting with Mr. Nicola

 

23 and your attorney present, correct?

 

24 A. Not a meeting, no.

Montgomery served as an informant for the prosecution, and secretly recorded a phone call for them:

25 Q. Okay. To your knowledge, have you ever been

 

26 involved in any secretly recorded telephone

 

27 conversations concerning this case?

 

28 A. Yes. 7611

 

1 Q. How many conversations, to your knowledge,

 

2 have you been involved in that were secretly

 

3 recorded?

 

4 A. One.

 

5 Q. Did you know that conversation was going to

 

6 be recorded?

 

7 A. I was asked to record it, yes.

 

8 Q. Was that by the representatives of the

 

9 sheriff’s department?

 

10 A. Yes.

 

11 Q. And did you call someone knowing that that

 

12 call was going to be secretly recorded?

 

13 A. I did.

 

14 Q. Okay. And approximately when was that?

 

15 A. 2004, the beginning — I’m not sure. I’m

 

16 sorry.

 

17 Q. Do you have any idea?

 

18 A. Not without reviewing documents, no, sir.

After asking a few follow-up questions on the trip to Brazil that Montgomery arranged, Mesereau concluded his cross-examination:

18 A. Not without reviewing documents, no, sir.

 

19 Q. Okay. The round trip that you — excuse me,

 

20 let me try and find the right word.

 

21 You and Mr. Schaffel discussed a round trip

 

22 to Brazil involving the Arvizos, correct?

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. And you put together an itinerary for that

 

25 round trip, right?

 

26 A. I made a reservation for that trip.

 

27 Q. And in the course of making the reservation,

 

28 you actually had an itinerary with dates, correct? 7612

 

1 A. Yes.

 

2 Q. There was a departure date, true? And there

 

3 was a return date, right?

 

4 A. True.

 

5 Q. The trip you were arranging was for how many

 

6 people?

 

7 A. Four.

 

8 Q. You separately had arranged a Brazil trip

 

9 for Mr. Schaffel, correct?

 

10 A. Yes.

 

11 Q. You arranged a separate trip for Mr.

 

12 Schaffel around the time that you and he discussed

 

13 arranging a trip for the Arvizos, correct?

 

14 A. Yes.

 

15 Q. And when you used to get tickets for Mr.

 

16 Schaffel, how would you typically arrange to pay for

 

17 those tickets?

 

18 A. He would send me a check or put it on his

 

19 credit card.

 

20 Q. Did he ever send you a check involving a

 

21 trip for the Arvizos?

 

22 A. I couldn’t tell you for sure. I’d have to

 

23 look at documents.

 

24 Q. To your knowledge, was there ever a charge

 

25 made on any credit card for a trip to Brazil

 

26 involving the Arvizos?

 

27 A. Not to my knowledge.

 

28 Q. Okay. 7613

 

1 A. No.

 

2 Q. And at no time did you ever arrange any trip

 

3 to Brazil for Mr. Jackson, right?

 

4 A. That’s right.

 

5 Q. And at no time did you ever speak to Mr.

 

6 Jackson on the phone about any trip to Brazil,

 

7 right?

 

8 A. I’ve never spoken to Mr. Jackson on the

 

9 telephone.

 

10 Q. And you’ve never spoken to him in person

 

11 about any trip to Brazil at any time?

 

12 A. That’s correct.

 

13 MR. MESEREAU: I have no further questions

 

14 at this time.

 

15 THE COURT: Counsel?

 

16 MR. NICOLA: Thank you, Your Honor.

Under redirect examination, Nicola asked a few general questions to Montgomery to elaborate on topics she touched on under cross examination, most notably her reason for contacting authorities after watching Ed Bradley’s interview with Jackson. She stated that his claim of being abused by police officers during his arrest was false because she witnessed it, and what he claimed happened did not happen at all.

18 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

 

19 BY MR. NICOLA:

 

20 Q. Mrs. Montgomery, did you actually review the

 

21 Judge’s order granting you use immunity during the

 

22 break?

 

23 A. I did.

 

24 Q. Okay. And do you understand use immunity

 

25 does not protect you from lying on the witness

 

26 stand; isn’t that correct?

 

27 A. Absolutely.

 

28 Q. You indicated with respect to the events of 7614

 

1 November 20th of 2004 — 2003. Thank you for

 

2 that — with respect to the events of November 20th,

 

3 2003, you’ve cooperated with the FBI?

 

4 A. I have on several occasions.

 

5 Q. Okay. And was it your idea to request

 

6 immunity in this case?

 

7 A. No, it was not.

 

8 Q. It was your attorney’s?

 

9 A. Absolutely — yes.

 

10 Q. Were you present in court yesterday when

 

11 immunity for you was discussed amongst all the

 

12 attorneys and the Judge?

 

13 A. Yes, I was.

 

14 Q. Did your attorney actually object to that?

 

15 A. Yes, he did.

 

16 Q. Again, was that your idea or his?

 

17 A. It was his idea.

 

18 Q. You mentioned that you contacted law

 

19 enforcement for the first time after seeing an Ed

 

20 Bradley 60 Minutes interview?

 

21 A. Yes, I did.

 

22 Q. Was that broadcast on television?

 

23 A. It was.

 

24 Q. Was there something about that that caused

 

25 you to pick up the phone and call the police?

 

26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; relevance.

 

27 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

28 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: You may answer. 7615

1 A. Yes. A statement Mr. Jackson made.

 

2 Q. What was that statement?

 

3 A. That he was mishandled by the authorities

 

4 upon his arrest.

 

5 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; relevance.

 

6 THE COURT: Overruled. It’s redirect of

 

7 questions you asked.

 

8 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Would you answer that

 

9 question again? I believe you were cut off.

 

10 THE COURT: I’ll just have the question and

 

11 statement read back.

 

12 Read the question and answer, please.

 

13 (Record read.)

 

14 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Were you present at his

 

15 arrest scene?

 

16 A. I was — yes. When he was put into

 

17 handcuffs, yes, I was.

 

18 Q. Was that the tail end of that November 20th

 

19 flight in 2003?

 

20 A. It was close to the tail end of it.

 

21 Q. Okay. And you witnessed the events?

 

22 A. I did.

 

23 Q. Felt what Mr. Jackson said on the television

 

24 was not true?

 

25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Move to strike;

 

26 foundation.

 

27 THE COURT: Sustained. It’s stricken.

 

28 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Did you see Mr. Jackson 7616

 

1 being mishandled by anybody?

 

2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance;

 

3 foundation.

 

4 THE COURT: Sustained.

Nicola finished up by having Montgomery elaborate on her role in the Brazil trip:

5 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Could you tell us on

 

6 approximately how many occasions you contacted

 

7 Lieutenant Klapakis?

 

8 A. How many times I contacted him? Through the

 

9 course of this investigation?

 

10 Q. Yes.

 

11 A. Many.

 

12 Q. You talk to him frequently, correct?

 

13 A. I do.

 

14 Q. And did you always relay to him information

 

15 that you had firsthand knowledge of?

 

16 A. I did.

 

17 Q. Okay. Did you also relay to him things that

 

18 you had heard from other sources?

 

19 A. Yes, I did.

 

20 Q. Did you ever actively try to hide anything

 

21 from Lieutenant Klapakis when he inquired with you

 

22 about facts you may know about the case?

 

23 A. No, I did not.

 

24 Q. Did you hide anything from the FBI when they

 

25 interviewed you about the November 20th flight?

 

26 A. No, I did not.

 

27 Q. I’d like to clean something up in your

 

28 cross-examination. You actually testified that the 7617

 

1 flight arrangements you made for the Arvizos to

 

2 Brazil occurred in 2001. That actually occurred in

 

3 2003?

 

4 A. Yes, it did.

 

5 Q. Could you take a look at Exhibit No. 848

 

6 again, please, and just confirm that?

 

7 A. February 25th, 2003.

 

8 Q. And the day of their flight was March 2nd?

 

9 A. March 1st of 2003.

 

10 Q. And you indicated on cross-examination that

 

11 at some point Mr. Schaffel called you and said there

 

12 was a change of plans regarding the Arvizos’ trip?

 

13 A. Yes, he did.

 

14 Q. Do you recall his tone of voice when he

 

15 spoke with you?

 

16 A. I’m not sure I recall his tone of voice.

 

17 Q. Do you recall anything about that

 

18 conversation that caused you to take particular note

 

19 of it?

 

20 A. Normal for Schaffel’s behavior.

 

21 Q. Normal behavior for Mr. Schaffel?

 

22 A. Uh-huh. I would say yes to that.

 

23 Q. Is there anything that can help you pinpoint

 

24 the date of when he contacted you and said there had

 

25 been a change of plans?

 

26 A. I don’t recall a date that he would have

 

27 told me to cancel the reservations.

 

28 Q. Do you know even whether that occurred after 7618

 

1 the flight was scheduled to leave?

 

2 A. Reservations, if you don’t ticket, will fall

 

3 out of the computer system after — 24 hours after

 

4 the scheduled departure date.

 

5 Q. Is there any indication on Exhibit 847 of a

 

6 cancellation date?

 

7 A. 848?

 

8 Q. 848, I’m sorry.

 

9 A. No. They were never physically cancelled.

 

10 Q. Okay. The information regarding the address

 

11 for Mrs. Arvizo —

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. — Mr. Schaffel give you that address?

 

14 A. Yes.

 

15 Q. Would you read that whole address into the

 

16 record for us, please?

 

17 A. Ms. Janet Arvizo, 11520 Trent Court,

 

18 Calabasas, California 91302.

 

19 Q. Okay. And he gave you each part of that

 

20 address?

 

21 A. Yes.

 

22 Q. To your knowledge, and with your experience

 

23 in dealing with securing visas for clients that

 

24 travel outside of the country, do you know the

 

25 different levels of visas that are available for

 

26 travel into Brazil specifically?

 

27 A. You have to call each consulate every time

 

28 you book into a country, find out the specific 7619

 

1 needs.

 

2 Q. And with your contact specifically with

 

3 respect to Brazil and Mr. Schaffel traveling down

 

4 there, did you have knowledge from your contacts

 

5 with the consulate as to whether they issued 30- or

 

6 60- or 90-day visas?

 

7 A. I called to inquire at the time I made the

 

8 reservations, yes.

 

9 Q. So you called to inquire on the Arvizos’

 

10 reservation as well?

 

11 A. I called because they needed passports, so I

 

12 needed to know how —

 

13 Q. Do you recall what the length of the visa

 

14 was they were requesting?

 

15 A. I don’t recall that.

 

16 Q. If you asked for a 30-day visa, but you

 

17 overextend your stay, do you know what happens?

 

18 A. Well, if — customs, if they catch you, they

 

19 will kick you out of the country.

 

20 Q. Okay. But they have to catch you first?

 

21 A. Yes. They would catch you trying to depart

 

22 the country, actually. They would see that your

 

23 visa had expired, if it did expire.

Lastly, Nicola attempted to rebut any misconceptions that the jury may have had about the prosecution’s influence over Montgomery’s willingness to testify. Montgomery was asked leading questions about the not having been intimidated or coerced into testifying or cooperating with police, and her use immunity not giving her a right to lie on the witness stand about the facts of the case.

24 Q. You mentioned that you secretly recorded one

 

25 telephone conversation. Do you recall which

 

26 detective asked you to do that?

 

27 A. Two detectives. One lieutenant, one

 

28 sergeant. 7620

 

1 Q. Okay. And was that something that you did

 

2 willingly?

 

3 A. Yes.

 

4 Q. They didn’t pressure you or threaten some

 

5 kind of prosecution against you if you didn’t do

 

6 that?

 

7 A. No.

 

8 Q. Has anybody at this table, anybody you’ve

 

9 met from law enforcement or the prosecution, ever

 

10 threatened you or tried to coerce you and get you to

 

11 say anything that was not truthful?

 

12 A. No.

 

13 Q. Does this grant of use immunity protect you

 

14 from lying on the witness stand?

 

15 A. No, it does not.

 

16 Q. Do you understand if you do, you can be

 

17 prosecuted for perjury, correct?

 

18 A. Yes, correct.

 

19 Q. Your suit against Mr. Jackson, you are suing

 

20 for the cost of the flight from Las Vegas to Santa

 

21 Barbara, plus other expenses?

 

22 A. Correct.

 

23 MR. NICOLA: Okay. Your Honor, I have no

 

24 further questions.

 

25 THE COURT: Mr. Mesereau?

 

26 MR. MESEREAU: Yes.

Mesereau attacked Montgomery’s credibility by getting her to once again confirm to the jury that the reason she and her attorney gave the prosecution an ultimatum of use immunity or else is because they were worried about her possible prosecution in Nevada over the illegal videotaping of Jackson’s flight to Santa Barbara. Montgomery tried to absolve herself of all responsibility for taking use immunity, and shifted it to her attorney. Mesereau’s cross examination ended after this line of testimony.

1 RECROSS-EXAMINATION

 

2 BY MR. MESEREAU:

3 Q. The prosecutor asked you questions about

 

4 what your attorney said in court yesterday, right?

 

5 A. Yes.

 

6 Q. And you were present yesterday when your

 

7 attorney made those comments on your behalf, true?

 

8 A. Yes.

 

9 Q. Your attorney expressed a concern in open

 

10 court that you might be prosecuted in Nevada, true?

 

11 A. I believe he said that.

 

12 Q. Your attorney also expressed concerns that

 

13 you might be prosecuted in federal court, true?

 

14 A. I believe he said that.

 

15 Q. And because of his fear that you might be

 

16 prosecuted, he didn’t want you to testify at all,

 

17 correct?

 

18 A. It’s his job to do that.

 

19 Q. Because of his fears that you would be

 

20 prosecuted, he didn’t want you testifying at all,

 

21 true?

 

22 A. I’ve had a conversation with my attorney.

 

23 I don’t believe he has any fears of my prosecution.

 

24 Q. Did your attorney express concerns yesterday

 

25 in this courthouse in your presence and on your

 

26 behalf that you might be prosecuted in Nevada and

 

27 also by federal authorities?

 

28 MR. NICOLA: Object. Objection, Your Honor, 7622

 

1 calls for hearsay and speculation.

 

2 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: It’s a concern that you

 

4 might be prosecuted that resulted in your demand for

 

5 a legal immunity, true?

 

6 MR. NICOLA: Objection; misstates the

 

7 evidence.

 

8 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

9 You may answer.

 

10 THE WITNESS: No.

 

11 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Your position yesterday in

 

12 this courtroom was, “If I don’t get immunity, I

 

13 don’t testify,” right?

 

14 A. That was my attorney’s position.

 

15 Q. But you had nothing to do with that?

 

16 MR. NICOLA: Objection, that’s

 

17 argumentative, Your Honor. Calls for hearsay.

 

18 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

19 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.

 

20 MR. NICOLA: May I inquire, two, from here,

 

21 Your Honor?

 

22 THE COURT: No.

 

23 MR. NICOLA: From here?

 

24 THE COURT: Yes.

Nicola just had one last question: he asked Montogemry to clarify that she could be prosecuted in Nevada whether she testified or not for the prosecution:

26 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

 

27 BY MR. NICOLA:

 

28 Q. Is it your understanding that if you did 7623

 

1 something wrong on November 20th you can still be

 

2 prosecuted either in Nevada or federal court?

 

3 A. Yes, it’s my understanding.

 

4 MR. NICOLA: Okay. I have no further

 

5 questions.

 

6 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.

 

7 THE COURT: Thank you. May step down.

 

8 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, may the witness

 

9 be subject to re-call?

 

10 THE COURT: Yes.

 

11 THE WITNESS: Am I excused?

 

12 MR. NICOLA: Yes.

 

13 THE WITNESS: Thanks.

 

14 THE COURT: Call your next witness.

 

15 MR. NICOLA: I believe it’s going to be

 

16 Lieutenant Jeff Klapakis, Your Honor.

 

17 THE BAILIFF: He’s on his way in.

 

18 THE COURT: You’re still under oath. You

 

19 may be seated.

 

Summary of Cynthia Montgomery’s Testimony:

1. Cynthia Montgomery initially testified on April 21st, 2005, and she was recalled to by the prosecution to discuss her knowledge of the trip to Brazil for the Arvizo family that she booked for Ronald Konitizer, Marc Schaffel, and Dieter Wiesner.

2. Montgomery was asked by Mag Nicola to describe the work she did for Jackson beginning in late 2002; she would receive requests from Jackson’s assistant Evvy Tavasci or Marc Schaffel to schedule flights for Jackson, and would sometimes pay for them herself before being reimbursed by Jackson.

3. Montgomery was questioned about a flight manifest, airline bill, passenger trip sheet, and trip report for Jackson from June 6th, September 12th, 2003, and during her answer she asked Nicola to block out her address from the documents so that she could maintain her privacy, yet she had no respect whatsoever for Jackson’s privacy when she surreptitiously videotaped him on his surrender flight to Santa Barbara on November 20th, 2003! What a hypocrite!

4. The prosecution just couldn’t leave well enough alone! Nicola once again revived the dead issue of Jackson’s habit of drinking alcohol out of soda cans, and Montgomery was asked AGAIN about Jackson’s requests despite the fact that flight attendant Cynthia Bell previously testified that it was HER idea to serve alcohol to Jackson in soda cans and plastic thermal bottles!

5. On February 25th, 2003, he called Montgomery and requested that flight arrangements for a one-way trip to Brazil be made for the Arvizos for March 1st, 2003, despite the fact that due to Visa regulations, U.S. citizens cannot purchase one way tickets to Brazil. Montgomery arranged for a return trip to be made for them, and the total cost of the round trip was $15,092 dollars! After this line of questioning, Assistant District Attorney Mag Nicola ended his direct examination of Montgomery.

6. Mesereau began his cross-examination by asking Montgomery to explain her immunity, and her reasons for seeking it before testifying. She became very evasive when questioned about her knowledge of the FBI’s investigation into her participation into the secret taping of Jackson on his flight to California.

7. Montgomery describes the flight in detail, and she also denied having any knowledge of Scheffel’s alleged involvement in the selling of the secret videotape of Jackson on the flight back to Santa Barbara.

8. When Mesereau questioned Montgomery about her interactions with Jackson during the booking of the flight to Brazil for the Arvizos, she testified that she never spoke to Jackson or the Arivozs, and that the tickets were never bought. Ironically, Schaffel himself took a trip to Brazil in March 2003. Montgomery was next questioned in detail about her lawsuit against Jackson. She sued Jackson because she paid for his flight back to Santa Barbara, and filed suit to be reimbursed.

 

9. Montgomery first met with prosecutors in 2004; she contacted them after watching Ed Bradly’s interview with Jackson in December 2003. Prior to testifying, she met with detectives several times to go over her testimony. Montgomery also served as an informant for the prosecution, and secretly recorded a phone call for them. Mesereau ended his cross examination after this line of questioning was over.

 

10. Under redirect examination, Nicola asked a few general questions to Montgomery to elaborate on topics she touched on under cross examination, most notably her reason for contacting authorities after watching Ed Bradley’s interview with Jackson. She stated that his claim of being abused by police officers during his arrest was false because she witnessed it, and what he claimed happened did not happen at all.

11. Nicola attempted to rebut any misconceptions that the jury may have had about the prosecution’s influence over Montgomery’s willingness to testify. Montgomery was asked leading questions about the not having been intimidated or coerced into testifying or cooperating with police, and her use immunity not giving her a right to lie on the witness stand about the facts of the case. Nicola’s redirect examination ended after this line of questioning.

12. Mesereau attacked Montgomery’s credibility by getting her to once again confirm to the jury that the reason she and her attorney gave the prosecution an ultimatum of use immunity or else is because they were worried about her possible prosecution in Nevada over the illegal videotaping of Jackson’s flight to Santa Barbara. Montgomery tried to absolve herself of all responsibility for taking use immunity, and shifted it to her attorney. Mesereau’s recross examination ended after this line of testimony.

 

To be continued….

Advertisements

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: