Skip to content

April 27th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Hamid Moslehi, Terry Paulsen, Gabrel Dominguez, Anne Marie Sims, Joseph Shebroe, Jeanne Mulcahy, Debbie Rowe, Part 2 of 4

January 23, 2014

In this next excerpt, Moslehi stated that he wasn’t aware of any subsequent documentaries after the “Take Two” rebuttal (i.e. Jackson’s “Hidden Home Movies” special), that he was present at Neverland on February 8th, 2003 when Ed Bradley and his crew arrived to interview Jackson, and that he developed a friendship with the Arvizos beginning in 2000.

24 Q. The FOX TV special, “The Footage You Were

 

25 Never Meant To See,” appeared on February 20th,

 

26 2003, on television, right?

 

27 A. That’s correct.

 

28 Q. Did you watch that show? 7794

1 A. Yes, I did.

 

2 Q. Okay. Did some of the footage you had done

 

3 of the Bashir interview appear on that documentary?

 

4 A. Yes, it did.

 

5 Q. Did your interview, your personal interview,

 

6 appear in that documentary?

 

7 A. Yes, it did.

 

8 Q. Was it your understanding that additional

 

9 documentaries were going to be made to put Mr.

 

10 Jackson in a favorable light?

 

11 A. Another after “The Footage You Were Never

 

12 Meant To See,” I had no knowledge of that.

 

13 Q. You never understood there was to be a two-

 

14 or three-part series in that regard?

 

15 A. No. Nobody informed me anything on that.

 

16 Q. Okay. Do you recall being at Neverland on

 

17 approximately February 8th, 2003, to meet people

 

18 from 60 Minutes?

 

19 A. I believe so. I think it was a Saturday, if

 

20 I’m not wrong.

 

21 Q. Do you remember meeting someone named Ed

 

22 Bradley at Neverland?

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. And do you remember meeting Mr. LeGrand on

 

25 that day?

 

26 A. Yes.

 

27 Q. Do you remember meeting other people from

 

28 CBS on that day? 7795

 

1 A. Yes.

 

2 Q. And why were you at Neverland on February

 

3 8th, 2003?

 

4 A. I was there as a personal DP, which stands

 

5 for Director of Photography, for Mr. Jackson, for

 

6 his lighting and the look of his picture.

 

7 Q. Was anything filmed on February 8th, 2003?

 

8 A. I don’t believe so.

 

9 Q. Do you know why?

 

10 A. No.

 

11 Q. Okay. How long were you there that day, if

 

12 you remember?

 

13 A. A few hours.

 

14 Q. Do you remember seeing Janet Arvizo there

 

15 that day?

 

16 A. I don’t remember.

 

17 Q. Would it refresh your recollection just to

 

18 look at the police report summary of your interview?

 

19 A. Sure.

 

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

 

21 THE COURT: Yes.

 

22 THE WITNESS: I don’t remember making that

 

23 statement about Janet.

 

24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: How many times do you

 

25 think you have seen Janet Arvizo at Neverland?

 

26 A. I would say two or three times.

 

27 Q. Okay. Do you know approximately when?

 

28 A. At various times. 7796

 

1 Q. Okay. Approximately when do you think the

 

2 first time you saw Janet Arvizo at Neverland was?

 

3 A. Between 2000 and 2003. It could have been

 

4 2001. I don’t know.

 

5 Q. Okay. Did you meet her for the first time

 

6 when the 60 Minutes crew was at Neverland?

 

7 A. I don’t remember seeing her that day.

 

8 Q. Okay. When do you think you first saw her,

 

9 ever?

 

10 A. It could have — again, it’s between the

 

11 year 2000 and 2002, I would say. It could — like

 

12 approximately 2001. I don’t know.

 

13 Q. And was your first meeting with her at

 

14 Neverland, to your knowledge?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. Okay. And do you recall whether or not her

 

17 children were there when you met her the first time?

 

18 A. I think they were.

 

19 Q. Okay. And you indicated in response to the

 

20 prosecutor’s questions you developed a friendship

 

21 with the Arvizo family?

 

22 A. Well, as I said, in the year 2000, I did two

 

23 projects that Arvizo kids, David or Star and Gavin,

 

24 were involved. One of the project I was directing.

 

25 And within that project I had a lot of conversations

 

26 and interactions with David and Gavin. So I kind of

 

27 got to know them.

 

28 Q. Did you stay in touch with them on a social 7797

 

1 level?

 

2 A. No.

 

3 Q. When you weren’t talking to them at

 

4 Neverland, did you call them on the phone?

 

5 A. From Neverland, calling them?

 

6 Q. Let me rephrase it. I’ll ask a better

 

7 question.

 

8 Aside from the instances where you saw them

 

9 in person, did you have a relationship where you

 

10 would call them from time to time?

 

11 A. I don’t think so.

 

12 Q. Did they call you from time to time?

 

13 A. I don’t think so.

 

14 Q. Okay. So your only involvement with them

 

15 was either at Neverland or when they came to your

 

16 home; is that right?

 

17 A. That’s correct.

 

18 Q. You didn’t see them during your trips to

 

19 Florida, right?

 

20 A. No, I didn’t.

Debbie Rowe’s interview with Moslehi was the next subject that Mesereau focused on; the interview was shot at Marc Schaffel’s house in early February 2003, before the Arvizo’s rebuttal video was filmed. Schaffel initially wanted the rebuttal video with the Arvizos shot at his home, but changed his mind because he didn’t want them to know where he lived (which was a very wish choice on his part!)

21 Q. Okay. Now, you indicated that you had met

 

22 one of Marlon Brando’s sons; is that correct?

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. And who did you meet that was a son of

 

25 Marlon Brando?

 

26 A. Miko Brando.

 

27 Q. And when did you first meet him?

 

28 A. .97, .98. 7798

 

1 Q. Did you see him often at Neverland?

 

2 A. Sometimes.

 

3 Q. Was it your understanding that he was a

 

4 friend of Michael Jackson?

 

5 A. Friend and associate.

 

6 Q. Okay. And when did you last see him?

 

7 A. Last time, end of February of 2003.

 

8 Q. Okay. Now, you did an interview with a

 

9 woman named Debbie Rowe, didn’t you?

 

10 A. That’s correct.

 

11 Q. And that was footage that you filmed for

 

12 purposes of the rebuttal documentary, right?

 

13 A. At the time I don’t think there was a

 

14 rebuttal documentary. My understanding was she was

 

15 responding to some of the comments that Bashir made

 

16 on his documentary.

 

17 Q. And that interview took place at your home,

 

18 correct?

 

19 A. No.

 

20 Q. Where did that take place?

 

21 A. At Marc Schaffel’s house in Calabasas.

 

22 Q. Oh, okay. Okay. Do you know approximately

 

23 when that interview took place?

 

24 A. I believe early February 2003.

25 Q. So it took place before you filmed the

 

26 Arvizo family, right?

 

27 A. That’s correct.

 

28 Q. Did you meet Ms. Rowe at Marc Schaffel’s 7799

 

1 house?

 

2 A. I met her at — well, not for the first

 

3 time, but, yeah, I saw her.

 

4 Q. But when you filmed her for purposes of

 

5 responding to the Bashir documentary, you traveled

 

6 to Schaffel’s home, correct?

 

7 A. That’s correct.

 

8 Q. And when you got there, was Debbie Rowe

 

9 present?

 

10 A. Or she came afterwards.

 

11 Q. You didn’t bring her there, right?

 

12 A. No.

 

13 Q. So your understanding on February 20th was

 

14 that Schaffel had no problem with Debbie Rowe

 

15 knowing where he lived, but he didn’t want the

 

16 Arvizos to know where he lived, right?

 

17 A. That could be so, yeah.

 

18 Q. But he never told you why he didn’t want the

 

19 Arvizos to know where his house was?

 

20 A. No.

Before Bashir’s documentary aired in the USA, it was already known within Jackson’s camp that a negative spin was added to it by Bashir, so Moslehi brought up the fact that he had his own footage of Bashir praising Jackson. Surprisingly, Jackson’s assistant Evvy Tavasci refused to look at it because Jackson’s lawyers were already handling the situation, so he spoke directly to Jackson, who told him to call Dieter Weisner, and Moslehi flew to Florida to allow Weisner to view it.

21 Q. Now, it was no secret that the purpose of

 

22 the rebuttal documentary was to put Mr. Jackson in a

 

23 positive light, right?

 

24 A. Sure.

 

25 Q. Everyone knew that was the purpose, right?

 

26 A. Yeah.

 

27 Q. It was meant to be a response to the Bashir

 

28 documentary, right? 7800

1 A. That’s correct.

 

2 Q. It was meant to show things that Bashir had

 

3 left out of his documentary that were positive about

 

4 Michael, right?

 

5 A. That’s correct.

 

6 Q. You actually had volunteered to provide

 

7 footage that Bashir had left out of his show, right?

 

8 A. Did I volunteer?

 

9 Q. Yes. It was partly your idea to include

 

10 your footage in the response to Bashir, right?

 

11 A. Um —

 

12 Q. Let me rephrase it if it’s unclear.

 

13 A. Please.

 

14 Q. At some point following the airing of

 

15 Bashir, you came forward and said, “I have footage

 

16 of what positive things Bashir said about Michael,”

 

17 right?

 

18 A. This, I believe, was prior to the airing it.

 

19 Prior to the airing the ABC version of Martin Bashir

 

20 in the United States.

 

21 Q. Yes. Okay. Let me restate the question.

 

22 You saw the Bashir documentary at some

 

23 point, right?

 

24 A. At one point, yes.

 

25 Q. When you saw it, you realized he had left

 

26 out a lot of footage where he praises Michael

 

27 Jackson, right?

 

28 A. No. 7801

 

1 Q. Well, he had footage where he praised

 

2 Michael Jackson for being a good parent, right?

 

3 A. Well, I mean, let me correct —

 

4 Q. Sure.

 

5 A. Okay. The timing of how you’re putting it

 

6 is kind of off.

 

7 Q. Oh, okay.

 

8 A. I was told by Mr. Jackson’s personal

 

9 assistant at one point, before this documentary, the

 

10 ABC version of the Martin Bashir was aired in United

 

11 States; that Martin Bashir is going to air his own

 

12 version in London through BBC, I believe. At that

 

13 point I brought up the fact that I have some footage

 

14 of the behind the scenes. So at that time I have

 

15 not seen the Martin Bashir footage yet.

 

16 Q. Okay.

 

17 A. Am I clear?

 

18 Q. At that particular time, you were the only

 

19 one that had a copy of your footage, right?

 

20 A. That’s correct.

 

21 Q. Okay. And did you talk to representatives

 

22 of FOX about including your footage in the FOX

 

23 documentary?

 

24 A. No.

 

25 Q. Okay. Who did you talk to about including

 

26 your footage in that show?

 

27 A. Well, this is how it happened: I talked to

 

28 Mr. — Miss Evvy Tavasci, which is Mr. Jackson’s 7802

 

1 personal assistant. I informed her that I have

 

2 footage of the behind-the-scene and other footage of

 

3 the interview.

 

4 Q. Uh-huh.

 

5 A. And I offered her to look at it. And she

 

6 refused. She said, “It’s okay. Don’t worry. Mr.

 

7 Jackson has obtained lawyers and they’re going to

 

8 take care of this matter.”

 

9 I took the footage with a video camera and a

 

10 play-back machine to the office of Miss Tavasci to

 

11 show her what I have. She still refused to look at

 

12 them, and she indicated that I should not be worried

 

13 about it, and Mr. Jackson’s lawyers will handle the

 

14 situation.

 

15 Then —

 

16 Q. And what did you do next?

 

17 A. Next, I believe I spoke to Mr. Jackson and

 

18 he asked me to call Dieter —

 

19 Q. Okay.

 

20 A. — about the matter.

 

21 Q. Right.

 

22 A. I spoke to Dieter, and I told him what I

 

23 have, and he informed me that I’m going to go to

 

24 Florida for another type of filming, and we’re going

 

25 to discuss this matter with him.

 

26 Q. And it was after that that you flew to

 

27 Florida, right?

 

28 A. Yes. 7803

 

1 Q. And you flew to Florida expecting to do some

 

2 filming, right?

 

3 A. That’s correct.

 

4 Q. And at some point in Florida you learned

 

5 that there was a change of plans and there would be

 

6 no filming; is that correct?

 

7 A. That’s correct.

 

8 Q. How long were you in Florida for that trip?

 

9 A. I think a day, one day maybe.

 

10 Q. Do you know approximately when that was?

 

11 A. I don’t have my records here. But I believe

 

12 it’s like February 6th and 7th. Something like

 

13 that.

 

14 Q. Do you remember hearing anything about a

 

15 press conference that was cancelled in Florida?

 

16 A. Did I hear that there was a press conference

 

17 that was cancelled?

 

18 Q. Yes.

 

19 A. No.

 

20 Q. Okay. Do you recall any talk about a press

 

21 conference in Florida?

 

22 A. I asked what is the purpose of this

 

23 filming —

 

24 Q. Yes.

 

25 A. — and they never give me a specific answer.

 

26 But my understanding was that it could have been

 

27 either a press conference or a response in a video

 

28 format from Mr. Jackson to Martin Bashir 7804

 

1 documentary.

 

2 Q. Okay. Now, how long after you got to

 

3 Florida did you find out there was a change of

 

4 plans and you were not going to be filming

 

5 anything?

 

6 A. I think hours after that.

 

7 Q. Okay. Did you spend the night in Florida on

 

8 that trip?

 

9 A. Yes, I did.

 

10 Q. Where did you stay?

 

11 A. At the hotel.

 

12 Q. The Turnberry?

 

13 A. I don’t remember the name of the hotel.

 

14 Q. Okay. And did you fly back on your own the

 

15 next day?

 

16 A. Yes.

 

17 Q. Okay. And when you were in Florida for that

 

18 trip, did you see Mr. Jackson?

 

19 A. No.

 

20 Q. Did you see any of the Arvizos?

 

21 A. No.

 

22 Q. Did you see Chris Tucker?

 

23 A. No.

 

24 Q. Did you see Dieter or Konitzer?

 

25 A. Yes.

 

26 Q. And where did you see them?

27 A. In their room.

 

28 Q. Okay. 7805

 

1 THE COURT: Okay, Counsel. Let’s take a break.

 

2 (Recess taken.)

After the recess concluded, Judge Melville heard arguments from the defense outside the presence of the jury to determine if Moslehi’s outtake footage from the Basir documentary would be admissible, but Judge Melville denied it:

1 (The following proceedings were held in

 

2 open court outside the presence and hearing of the

 

3 jury:)

 

4

 

5 THE COURT: Counsel?

 

6 MR. SANGER: Yes, Your Honor, if I may

 

7 address the Court.

 

8 THE COURT: Yes.

 

9 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

 

10 We would — first of all, it’s a good time

 

11 to do this on the record. There were four DVDs

 

12 which were lodged with the Court on a previous

 

13 occasion for a pre-trial matter that were numbered

 

14 913, 1011 and 12, and also 1315, and I don’t think

 

15 they were given exhibit numbers at the time.

 

16 I believe the Court has allowed the clerk to

 

17 now mark the Exhibits 913, 1011 and 12 as 5009-A,

 

18 -B, and -C. And then the item marked 1315 has been

 

19 marked as 5010.

 

20 So we’d just like the record to reflect

 

21 that, if we can, Your Honor, first of all.

 

22 THE COURT: All right.

 

23 MR. SANGER: Now, having said that, we would

 

24 like — as a part of the cross-examination of this

 

25 witness, we would like to play Exhibit 5009-A, -B

 

26 and -C, which are the outtakes or Mr. Moslehi’s

 

27 footage of the Bashir interviews. And they’re

 

28 offered for the purpose of showing the context and 7812

 

1 the complete statements made by Mr. Jackson at the

 

2 time that certain statements were edited out and

 

3 placed in the Bashir video.

 

4 And as the Court recalls, statements in the

 

5 Bashir video were admitted for the truth of the

 

6 matter as admissions of the party. And these videos

 

7 show the context in which those statements were

 

8 made, not just the particular words, but the whole

 

9 context in which Mr. Jackson was led to make those

 

10 statements. So that’s our offer.

 

11 Now, I’ve talked to the District Attorney,

 

12 Mr. Auchincloss. I asked him if he would agree that

 

13 we could play this in open court without first

 

14 showing Mr. Moslehi to authenticate it, and he is

 

15 considering that; I think probably will agree to

 

16 that.

 

17 The question that he asked that we address

 

18 right now was the admissibility of this, so I asked

 

19 the bailiff to ask Your Honor to come out so we

 

20 could talk about —

 

21 THE COURT: I already ruled that it wasn’t

 

22 admissible in the direct part of the People’s case,

 

23 because the Bashir case — the Bashir tape was

 

24 introduced for the limited purpose of showing that

 

25 Mr. Jackson had some motive to be doing certain acts

 

26 that the People claimed that he did, and it had

 

27 nothing to do with the truth of the matter in the

 

28 tape, although the tape was admitted under certain 7813

 

1 circumstances for the truth of the matter.

 

2 So your request is denied. That’s the

 

3 second time I’ve denied it.

 

4 All right. Let’s bring in the jury.

 

5 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, could I —

 

6 THE COURT: No.

 

7 MR. SANGER: I don’t mean to argue — okay.

Mesereau continued with his cross examination of Moslehi by questioning him about his statements to police about what Janet Arvizo told him about the media harassing her after the Bashir documentary aired, and (more importantly) she never mentioned anything about receiving death threats, false imprisonment, or that her sons were being plied with alcohol or molested by Jackson.

9 (The following proceedings were held in

 

10 open court in the presence and hearing of the

 

11 jury:)

 

12

 

13 THE COURT: You may proceed.

 

14 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

 

15 Q. Mr. Moslehi, I believe you testified that

 

16 you had approximately six or seven meetings with the

 

17 Arvizo family at various times. Does that sound

 

18 right?

 

19 A. Approximately.

 

20 Q. Okay. And I believe you testified that

 

21 Janet Arvizo told you in the phone conversation of

 

22 the 19th of February, 2003, that she was being

 

23 hassled by the media; is that right?

 

24 A. That’s correct.

 

25 Q. And she was not happy about that, correct?

 

26 A. That’s correct.

 

27 Q. And in your interviews with representatives

 

28 of the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department, you have 7814

 

1 discussed your various discussions with Janet,

 

2 correct?

 

3 A. Could you refresh my memory?

 

4 Q. Sure. Sure. Maybe I’m not being clear.

 

5 In your interviews with representatives of

 

6 the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department, you have

 

7 discussed conversations you had with the Arvizos,

 

8 correct?

 

9 A. Janet and the kids?

 

10 Q. Yes.

 

11 A. Yeah.

 

12 Q. And in your discussions with representatives

 

13 of the prosecution, you have discussed conversations

 

14 you had with the Arvizos, right?

 

15 A. Sure.

 

16 Q. At no time did Janet Arvizo tell you she

 

17 thought she was going to be murdered, right?

 

18 A. No.

 

19 Q. She never said that to you, right?

 

20 A. No.

 

21 Q. At no time did Janet Arvizo tell you there

 

22 were death threats on she and her family, right?

 

23 A. That’s correct.

 

24 Q. At no time did Janet Arvizo tell you she or

 

25 her family were being falsely imprisoned, right?

 

26 A. That’s correct.

 

27 Q. At no time did Janet Arvizo ever complain to

 

28 you that Mr. Jackson was giving alcohol to her 7815

 

1 children, right?

 

2 A. That’s correct.

 

3 Q. At no time did Janet Arvizo ever complain to

 

4 you that Mr. Jackson was improperly touching any of

 

5 her children, right?

 

6 A. That’s correct.

 

7 Q. At no time did Janet Arvizo tell you her

 

8 children were being abused by Mr. Jackson, right?

 

9 A. That’s correct.

 

10 Q. At no time did Janet Arvizo ask you to call

 

11 the police on her behalf, right?

 

12 A. That’s correct.

Next, Moslehi testified about the “Neverland Channel” video that he shot with Star and Gavin in 2000, for which he was paid by Jackson for his services:

13 Q. Now, you testified that at Mr. Jackson’s

 

14 request, you did a video at Neverland called

 

15 “Neverland Channel,” right?

 

16 A. That’s correct.

 

17 Q. And was it your understanding that was

 

18 supposed to be a videotape featuring Star Arvizo as

 

19 sort of the narrator?

 

20 A. Well, initially my understanding was that

 

21 we’re going to do a pilot – a pilot is like a sample

 

22 of an idea in a video format – of an idea that Mr.

 

23 Jackson have.

 

24 Q. And you did film that entire video, right?

 

25 A. That’s correct.

 

26 Q. And the understanding was that Mr. Jackson

 

27 would pay for your services in filming that video,

 

28 right? 7816

 

1 A. That’s correct.

 

2 Q. You also testified that you did a video of

 

3 Mr. Jackson with Gavin, right?

 

4 A. The 2000?

 

5 Q. Yes.

 

6 A. Yeah.

 

7 Q. And it was your understanding Gavin was

 

8 recovering from cancer, correct?

 

9 A. Well, Gavin had cancer. I’m not sure

 

10 whether he was recovering or not, but —

 

11 Q. But your understanding is he was ill?

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. And your understanding was that Mr. Jackson

 

14 also agreed to pay for your services in doing that

 

15 video, right?

 

16 A. Customary, sure.

 

17 Q. Yes. At no time was it ever your belief

 

18 that the Arvizos were supposed to pay for any of

 

19 these videos?

 

20 A. That’s correct.

Moslehi’s lawsuit against Jackson was the next area that Mesereau focused on during his cross examination; the lawsuit was centered on unpaid invoices and a cut of the profits from the “Take Two” documentary. Moslehi was promised a percentage of the profits of the documentary by Konitzer and Weisner, but Jackson was unaware of this alleged agreement.

Mesereau then brought his cross examination to a close by asking Moslehi why he thought that Jackson called to thank him for his work on February 21st, 2003, and he stated that it was his understanding that Jackson was thanking him for his work on the “Take Two” rebuttal documentary.

21 Q. Okay. Now, you currently have a lawsuit

 

22 against Mr. Jackson, right?

 

23 A. Unpaid invoices, yes.

24 Q. Right. You’re seeking unpaid invoices and

 

25 some other benefits, right?

 

26 A. Like?

 

27 Q. Well, you’re asking that invoices be paid.

 

28 You’re also – 7817

 

1 A. Damages.

 

2 Q. Yeah. You’re also talking about a profits

 

3 interest that you claim Dieter and Konitzer promised

 

4 you, right?

 

5 A. That’s correct.

 

6 Q. Now, in your lawsuit, you’re also asking for

 

7 damages related to a — excuse me. You’re also

 

8 seeking damages related to some footage of what you

 

9 call “Michael Jackson’s Private Home Videos,”

 

10 correct?

 

11 A. I believe so.

 

12 Q. And that was another FOX special that was

 

13 done about Michael Jackson, right?

 

14 A. I believe so.

 

15 Q. And it’s your belief that some of your work

 

16 appeared in that show as well, right?

 

17 A. Yes.

 

18 Q. And it’s your belief that you should be paid

 

19 for your services in that regard, right?

 

20 A. For — sure.

 

21 Q. Yes. Was it your belief that footage you

 

22 did was going to appear both in the Povich

 

23 documentary and in another show done by FOX called

 

24 “Michael Jackson’s Home Videos”?

 

25 A. No. I was never been informed that there is

 

26 a second documentary.

 

27 Q. Do you know, as you sit here today, whether

 

28 or not there was a second documentary? 7818

 

1 A. I did not know there was a second

 

2 documentary. Meaning nobody informed me that

 

3 there’s a follow-up, .another piece of documentary

 

4 called “Michael Jackson’s Home Videos.”

 

5 Q. Did you learn at some point that that had

 

6 happened?

 

7 A. Yes.

 

8 Q. When did you learn that there had been a

 

9 second documentary called “Michael Jackson’s Private

 

10 Home Videos”?

 

11 A. I believe I’ve learned that watching T.V.,

 

12 been advertised.

 

13 Q. Okay. And that show appeared in

 

14 approximately April of 2003, right?

 

15 A. Approximately.

 

16 Q. Did you watch that show on television?

 

17 A. Yes, I did.

 

18 Q. Okay. Your belief is you’re entitled to a

 

19 profit participation in whatever revenues were

 

20 generated from that show as well, right?

 

21 A. Well, I guess we have to talk to my lawyer

 

22 in regard to that.

 

23 Q. Okay.

 

24 A. Because that’s a technical question. I’m

 

25 not a lawyer to make that kind of —

 

26 Q. Okay. But your lawsuit is currently active,

 

27 right?

 

28 A. It is. 7819

 

1 Q. Okay. And your claim is that the agreements

 

2 you had about being compensated for your services

 

3 and having a profit participation in these

 

4 television shows were primarily based on what Dieter

 

5 and Konitzer told you, right?

 

6 A. Well, the invoices, it’s part of customary

 

7 transactions between me and MJJ Productions.

 

8 Q. Right.

 

9 A. But the percentage was between Ronald,

 

10 Dieter and me.

 

11 Q. Okay. And you don’t know whether Dieter or

 

12 Konitzer ever discussed a profit participation with

 

13 Michael Jackson, right?

 

14 A. With Mr. Jackson himself?

 

15 Q. Yes.

 

16 A. I’m not sure.

 

17 Q. They just told you talk to them and don’t

 

18 talk to Mr. Jackson, right?

 

19 A. That’s correct.

 

20 Q. Okay. Now, I believe you said that

 

21 approximately February 21st, 2003, Michael Jackson

 

22 called you to thank you, right?

 

23 A. That’s correct.

 

24 Q. Now, obviously when he called you to thank

 

25 you, he hadn’t seen what you had filmed, right?

 

26 A. Filmed what?

 

27 Q. Well, the footage you did of the Arvizos, he

 

28 could not have seen, true? 7820

 

1 A. Oh, of the Arvizo family footage.

 

2 Q. But nevertheless, he called you and thanked

 

3 you for what you had done, right?

 

4 A. After seeing “The Footage You Were Never

 

5 Meant To See,” I believe that’s why Mr. Jackson

 

6 called me, to thank me.

 

7 Q. He was talking about the Bashir footage that

 

8 you had done; is that correct?

 

9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; requires

 

10 speculation.

 

11 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll rephrase it.

 

12 Q. When Mr. Jackson called you to thank you on

 

13 February 21st, was it your understanding that he was

 

14 thanking you about what you had done in the Bashir

 

15 interview?

 

16 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; speculation.

 

17 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

18 You may answer.

 

19 THE WITNESS: My understanding for that

 

20 thank-you call was that Mr. Jackson saw the rebuttal

 

21 documentary, the entire “Footage You Were Never

 

22 Meant To See,” and because of what I’ve done —

 

23 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Yes.

 

24 A. — he’s calling to thank me.

 

25 Q. But he obviously, at that point, had never

 

26 seen your film of the Arvizo family, right?

 

27 A. No.

 

28 Q. Because you had control of that, right? 7821

 

1 A. That’s correct.

 

2 Q. You had never released that, right?

 

3 A. That’s correct.

 

4 Q. And he was thanking you for what was on that

 

5 Maury Povich documentary, true?

 

6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; asked and

 

7 answered.

 

8 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

9 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions, Your

 

10 Honor.

 

11 THE COURT: Counsel?

 

12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you, Your Honor.

Under redirect-examination, Auchincloss questioned Moslehi about the participation of Jackson’s co-conspirators in the rebuttal video:

14 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

 

15 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:

 

16 Q. During the period of time that you were

 

17 working with the Arvizos on this rebuttal film,

 

18 you’ve told us about Christian Robinson, Brad

 

19 Miller, Paul being present, Vinnie being present,

 

20 you and your crew.

 

21 As far as you know, was anybody else

 

22 involved in this rebuttal video?

 

23 A. Being involved or being present at my house?

 

24 Q. That’s a good question. Let’s add a few

 

25 names.

 

26 You mentioned that Frank was involved in it;

 

27 is that correct?

 

28 A. He was involved with it, yes. 7822

 

1 Q. And Mr. Schaffel was involved in it?

 

2 A. That’s correct.

 

3 Q. And Mr. Konitzer was involved in it?

 

4 A. I’m — sure.

 

5 Q. He talked to you about it, right?

 

6 A. I think most of the conversation was going

 

7 through Dieter than Ronald in regard to that.

 

8 Q. Was Ronald present in that conversation?

 

9 A. It was a phone conversation, so I don’t know

 

10 whether Ronald was listening to that or not, or

 

11 whether they had conversation within themselves.

 

12 Q. Okay. But you also mentioned a conversation

 

13 you had in Florida with Ronald and Dieter?

 

14 A. That’s correct.

 

15 Q. Did they discuss filming the rebuttal film

 

16 at that time?

 

17 A. At that time, the discussion was about what

 

18 I had already filmed of Martin Bashir.

 

19 Q. Okay.

 

20 A. There was nothing on the table as far as

 

21 project goes.

 

22 Q. Okay. So as far as the project goes, they

 

23 just told you to talk to Mr. Schaffel?

 

24 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; assumes

 

25 facts not in evidence.

 

26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll strike the question.

 

27 Q. So as far as the project goes, what did they

 

28 direct you to do? 7823

1 A. Once we discussed what I have as far as the

 

2 footage that I shot of Martin Bashir interview with

 

3 Mr. Jackson, and once we agreed to certain terms,

 

4 they informed me and advised me to go to L.A. and

 

5 talk to Marc Schaffel.

 

6 Q. Okay. And the purpose of this, you’ve

 

7 testified, was to make Michael Jackson look good

 

8 ultimately, the whole rebuttal film?

 

9 A. That’s correct.

 

10 Q. Okay. So other than the names I’ve

 

11 mentioned, were — were there any other people

 

12 involved in this enterprise of making the entire

 

13 rebuttal film, as far as you know?

 

14 A. Um — okay, can we go through those names

 

15 one more time? Just so I don’t misunderstand.

 

16 Q. Okay. Mr. Jackson, Ronald, Dieter. We’ve

 

17 got Mr. Schaffel, Frank, Vinnie, Christian, Paul —

 

18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection to the question.

 

19 I don’t think it’s — I think it’s a compound

 

20 question.

 

21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m asking him for other

 

22 names.

 

23 THE COURT: He’s clarifying an earlier

 

24 question.

 

25 Overruled. Go ahead.

 

26 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Paul. Brad Miller.

 

27 You and your crew.

 

28 A. Well, there was another production company 7824

 

1 called Brad Lachman Productions —

 

2 Q. Okay.

 

3 A. — which FOX hired to put the final editing

 

4 together.

 

5 Q. Very good. Anybody else other than that?

 

6 A. Not that I remember right now.

 

7 Q. When you were engaging in the production or

 

8 the putting together the various videos that were

 

9 going to make up this rebuttal film, what were the

 

10 issues that you were trying to address specifically?

 

11 A. Comments that Martin Bashir made on his own

 

12 documentary.

When Auchincloss asked Moslehi to explain what Jackson said in the Bashir documentary that needed to be explained in the rebuttal, Judge Melville admonished him for going into an area that he precluded the defense from going into:

13 Q. Were there comments that Mr. Jackson himself

 

14 made that you were attempting to address?

 

15 A. On the Martin Bashir documentary?

 

16 Q. In your rebuttal, yes.

 

17 A. Well, we tried to clarify certain statements

 

18 that Mr. Jackson made which, for example, if Martin

 

19 Bashir would have continued rolling, I mean, or

 

20 editing that — let me try this again.

 

21 Q. Sure.

 

22 A. There were certain statements that were made

 

23 by Mr. Jackson in the Martin Bashir documentary —

 

24 Q. Uh-huh.

 

25 A. — that the way it was edited, what happened

 

26 is Mr. Jackson sounded different than if they would

 

27 have continued another two or three seconds of that

 

28 statement. 7825

 

1 Q. Give me an example.

 

2 A. Um — um —

 

3 THE COURT: Counsel, I have to ask a

 

4 question. Why are you going into an area that I

 

5 told the defense they couldn’t go into?

 

6 My objection’s sustained.

 

7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. Thank you, Your

 

8 Honor. I’ll move on.

Auchincloss dug further into Jackson’s motivations for airing the rebuttal so quickly, and he was again admonished for trying to question Moslehi about Jackson’s statements that needed to be clarified in the rebuttal (i.e. sharing beds with children).

9 Q. What was the level — well, let me ask you

 

10 this: Was there any sense of urgency in the

 

11 creation of this rebuttal film?

 

12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague.

 

13 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

14 You may answer.

 

15 THE WITNESS: We tried to get it as soon as

 

16 possible.

 

17 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. And why was

 

18 that?

 

19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.

 

20 THE COURT: All right. I’ll sustain the

 

21 foundation objection.

 

22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay.

 

23 Q. Do you know why there was a sense of urgency

 

24 in creating this film?

 

25 A. My opinion? Or was there any discussion

 

26 from any party?

 

27 Q. Did you discuss the timing issues of this

 

28 film with any of the people that I’ve mentioned 7826

 

1 previously that were involved in it?

 

2 A. Well, once this project was sold to FOX,

 

3 they set up a date, deadline to be aired.

 

4 Q. Okay.

 

5 A. So basically, based on that date, we’ll try

 

6 to squeeze everything in there and finish it.

 

7 Q. And that date was?

 

8 A. February 20th.

 

9 Q. Midnight February 20th; is that right?

 

10 A. Well, the deadline to provide the footages

 

11 was I believe the 19th, February 19 of 2003, to be

 

12 aired on February 20th, 2003.

 

13 Q. In terms of the Martin Bashir special, was

 

14 there any editing done by Mr. Bashir that was

 

15 problematic, that you saw, that misrepresented Mr.

 

16 Jackson’s statements about him sleeping with

 

17 children?

 

18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;

 

19 leading; Court order.

 

20 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.

 

21 It’s the area I told you not to go into.

 

22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.

 

23 Q. Was that area one of the areas that you felt

 

24 you needed to work on?

 

25 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection.

 

26 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.

Auchincloss revisited the subject of the nondisclosure agreement that Janet initially hesitated to sign, and delayed the shooting of the rebuttal video by about 15 minutes.

28 Q. As far as the — I want to talk now about 7827

1 the activities that occurred at your home when the

 

2 Arvizos were being filmed.

 

3 You mentioned that Janet was — expressed

 

4 some reluctance to sign this release; is that

 

5 correct?

 

6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; misstates the

 

7 evidence.

 

8 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

9 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did Janet express any

 

10 reluctance to sign this release?

 

11 A. What I saw is that there was a con — a

 

12 conversation and a discussion between Janet and

 

13 Vinnie and other parties about this release or

 

14 document that was presented to her.

 

15 Q. Did that discussion cause any delay in the

 

16 shooting of the filming?

 

17 A. A little bit. A little bit.

 

18 Q. How many minutes of delay, would you say, if

 

19 you can characterize it?

 

20 A. I would say 15 minutes.

 

21 Q. And you said that Vinnie used your phone

 

22 number?

 

23 A. My fax.

 

24 Q. Your fax number.

 

25 A. Or they could have used my phone, too.

 

26 Q. Do you know if he used your phone number?

 

27 A. To call somebody?

 

28 Q. Yes. 7828

 

1 A. I remember my phone being used, but I didn’t

 

2 know who’s calling who or what. But I remember my

 

3 phone being used.

 

4 Q. Do you know the number (310) 283-5866?

 

5 A. That’s my cell phone number.

 

6 Q. That’s your cell phone number, okay.

 

7 As far as the use of your fax machine, do

 

8 you know if Vinnie made any documents that came from

 

9 your fax machine?

 

10 A. I believe that he either received or send

 

11 some faxes through my machine.

 

12 Q. When Janet had finished with negotiating or

 

13 talking with Vinnie, Christian and Paul, you

 

14 mentioned that Vinnie, Christian and Paul seemed

 

15 happy previously, correct?

 

16 A. It seemed to me that the matter has been

 

17 resolved, but —

 

18 Q. Did Janet seem happy, or could you tell?

 

19 You tell me.

 

20 A. Well, when we started filming, she appeared

 

21 happy. But I don’t know, prior to, whether or not

 

22 she was happy or not. I don’t know.

 

23 Q. Was there a change in her demeanor from

 

24 before filming to when the cameras started rolling?

 

25 A. Repeat that one more time.

 

26 Q. Was there a change in her demeanor from

 

27 before the cameras were rolling and she’s in your

 

28 home for this however — I guess you said it was 7829

 

1 over an hour — to the time the cameras started

 

2 rolling, was there a change in Janet’s demeanor?

3 A. She seemed more energetic when the cameras

 

4 are rolling.

 

5 Q. You were asked if you saw any coaching, and

 

6 you said, “No.”

 

7 A. Not that I remember seeing any coaching.

 

8 Q. Do you know if she was coached?

 

9 A. I don’t know that.

 

10 Q. Do you know whether or not — did you keep

 

11 your eye on her the entire time that she was in your

 

12 house?

 

13 A. The entire house? No.

 

14 Q. Was there an opportunity for her to be

 

15 coached?

 

16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation; calls

 

17 for speculation.

 

18 THE COURT: Calls for a conclusion.

 

19 Sustained.

 

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

 

21 went to Neverland at one time for the filming of

 

22 60 Minutes, correct?

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. And was that cancelled?

 

25 A. Yes.

 

26 Q. Do you know why?

 

27 A. I don’t.

In this excerpt, while discussing the approval that Neverland ranch Manager Joe Marcus requested to allow the Arvizos to leave and shoot the rebuttal video, Auchincloss literally harasses Moslehi over his knowledge of whether Jackson uses a cell phone or not:

28 Q. As far as the entire documentary, this 7830

 

1 rebuttal documentary, you mentioned that you were to

 

2 receive some points?

 

3 A. Percentage.

 

4 Q. A percentage?

 

5 A. Yeah.

 

6 Q. When you spoke to Ronald and Dieter, was it

 

7 contemplated that this documentary was a for-profit

 

8 enterprise?

 

9 A. For profit?

 

10 Q. Yeah, would make money.

 

11 A. Sure.

 

12 Q. Do you know if it made money?

 

13 A. I think it did, yes.

 

14 Q. Do you know how much it made?

 

15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.

 

16 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

17 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Do you know how much —

 

18 was there any discussion about how much this

 

19 documentary was anticipated to make with Dieter and

 

20 Ronald?

 

21 A. Well, FOX —

 

22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.

 

23 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

24 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did you have a

 

25 discussion with Dieter and Ronald about the

 

26 profitability or the amount of money that this

 

27 documentary or rebuttal could make?

 

28 A. Did I have any conversations with them that 7831

 

1 this documentary will make — well, we knew there

 

2 was going to be some money made off of it.

 

3 Q. Yes.

 

4 A. But we didn’t know how much at the time.

 

5 Q. Did you have an idea?

 

6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation and

 

7 Court order.

 

8 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: It’s a “yes” or “no.”

 

9 That’s fine, Your Honor. I’ll move on.

 

10 Q. Now, as far as the — the Arvizos

 

11 being taken off — the Arvizo children being taken

 

12 off of Neverland, you answered a few questions for

 

13 counsel concerning that issue when you took the

 

14 children off Neverland.

 

15 And you said there was a period of time, I

 

16 believe it was about a half an hour, between when

 

17 you first talked to Joe Marcus and he said the

 

18 children were not allowed off the property and the

 

19 time when you actually left; is that right?

 

20 A. I believe so, yeah.

 

21 Q. Did you see where he went during that half

 

22 hour at all?

 

23 A. No, I didn’t.

 

24 Q. If you wanted to contact Mr. Jackson when he

 

25 was away from Neverland, how would you do it?

 

26 A. I would either call his bodyguards or his

 

27 office.

 

28 Q. Okay. Why would you call his bodyguard? 7832

 

1 A. Well, that’s the fastest way to get to Mr.

 

2 Jackson.

 

3 Q. Does Mr. Jackson carry a cell phone?

 

4 A. I don’t believe so.

 

5 Q. Do his bodyguards carry cell phones?

 

6 A. I think they do.

 

7 Q. Have you seen this?

 

8 A. Yes.

 

9 Q. If he wants to make a call, do you know what

 

10 he does in terms of use of a cell phone?

 

11 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.

 

12 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

13 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Have you seen Mr.

 

14 Jackson ever use a cell phone?

 

15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation; calls

 

16 for speculation; beyond the scope.

 

17 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

18 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Have you seen Mr.

 

19 Jackson ever use a cell phone over the years you’ve

 

20 known him?

 

21 A. Dialing it, or just talking on it?

 

22 Q. Talking on it.

 

23 A. I’ve seen him talking on the cell phone.

 

24 Q. Whose cell phone would he use?

 

25 A. I’m assuming his bodyguards’, but I can be

 

26 wrong.

 

27 Q. Okay. So after this half hour passed and

 

28 you left the property, did Joe Marcus offer any 7833

 

1 resistance?

 

2 A. No.

 

3 Q. Did he seem to be okay with you taking the

 

4 children off property?

 

5 A. Sure.

 

6 Q. You said that you had a conversation at

 

7 Neverland with Mrs. Arvizo, and your sense was that

 

8 she approved of you taking the children to your

 

9 home. I believe that was your testimony. You

 

10 correct me if I’m wrong. Is that accurate?

 

11 A. If I remember correctly, after I had a

 

12 conversation with her, my understanding was that

 

13 she’s going to participate in this rebuttal

 

14 documentary, but she’s not going to be at Neverland,

 

15 so therefore we went to L.A.

 

16 Q. Okay. So that was on the evening of

 

17 February 19th?

 

18 A. That’s correct.

 

19 Q. And your deadline was midnight on February

 

20 19th; is that correct?

 

21 A. That’s correct.

 

22 Q. Was an arrangement made with Brad Lachman

 

23 Productions that if you got the Arvizo film to them

 

24 by midnight, they would still be able to incorporate

 

25 it into the final production of the rebuttal film?

 

26 A. If I remember correctly, if we had any

 

27 additional or new footage that we wanted to put into

 

28 this documentary, should be delivered no longer than 7834

 

1 midnight 19 — February 19.

 

2 Q. Okay. If you delivered it on February 19th

 

3 before midnight, was it your understanding there was

 

4 still time to get it into the final version?

 

5 A. Yes.

 

6 Q. And your testimony is that you didn’t make

 

7 that deadline?

 

8 A. Yes, we missed that.

Even though the deadline to shoot the rebuttal video was missed, Moslehi still shot it because he was asked to and wanted to fulfill his responsibility.

9 Q. When you originally talked with Dieter and

 

10 Ronald about being paid the money that you were

 

11 owed, was it understood that upon the completion of

 

12 the Arvizo film, you would be paid, the filming of

 

13 the Arvizos?

 

14 A. Upon airing “The Footage You Were Never

 

15 Meant To See.”

 

16 Q. Okay. And the Arvizo footage was just part

 

17 of that?

 

18 A. That’s correct.

 

19 Q. All right. Did you anticipate that you

 

20 would be getting a payday – in other words, a

 

21 payment of all the money that was owed to you –

 

22 after the 20th of February?

 

23 A. I was expecting the 21st, by midday, I would

 

24 receive my payments in full, plus what they promised

 

25 me.

 

26 Q. Okay. Are you aware of whether or not this

 

27 documentary was also sold all over the world?

 

28 A. It is sold all over the world. 7835

 

1 Q. Okay. This rebuttal film was sold all over

 

2 the world?

 

3 A. That’s correct.

 

4 Q. In terms of the filming of the Arvizos, the

 

5 footage that you obtained, is this footage — was

6 this footage at the time, did you consider it to be

 

7 valuable?

 

8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague.

 

9 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

10 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: At the time that this

 

11 footage was filmed, you understood that it was not

 

12 going to make it into the Brad Lachman production,

 

13 correct?

 

14 A. Well, I was hoping that I can get it done by

 

15 midnight.

 

16 Q. Okay.

 

17 A. But once we passed the deadline, I figured

 

18 it’s not going to happen.

 

19 Q. And you shot it anyway because of what?

 

20 A. Well, because I was told to, and also I

 

21 wanted to do my job. I mean, I had a responsibility

 

22 and I wanted to do that.

 

23 Q. And who specifically told you to shoot that

 

24 footage?

 

25 A. I believe it was arranged through Marc

 

26 Schaffel and Dieter, those people.

 

27 Q. Did you discuss with anybody the fact that

 

28 you weren’t going to make the deadline and that you 7836

1 should go ahead and shoot it anyway?

 

2 A. I don’t remember discussing the deadline

 

3 with anyone. This was just in my mind.

 

4 Q. Okay. So that was your decision to go ahead

 

5 and shoot it anyway?

 

6 A. Well, I figured since I had my crew and

 

7 equipment ready, if they are happy to participate,

 

8 get it done at least.

 

9 Q. Was there a discussion at the shooting about

 

10 the deadline; that it had to be done by midnight?

 

11 A. I think I mentioned to one of these guys

 

12 that, “Guys, we’re not going to make it anyway.”

 

13 But —

 

14 Q. Do you know if either Christian or Paul or

 

15 Vinnie knew about the deadline?

 

16 A. I’m not sure about Vinnie, but I’m sure

 

17 Christian and Paul should have known about the

 

18 deadline.

 

19 Q. And I believe your testimony is that

 

20 Christian wanted the video to take with him?

 

21 A. They wanted to take the tapes that night,

 

22 yes.

 

23 Q. Even though it was too late to put it on

 

24 the —

 

25 A. That’s correct.

 

26 Q. All right. If you — are you familiar with

 

27 the value of footages such as this, you know,

 

28 footage concerning a family that is of public 7837

 

1 interest on the open market?

 

2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague; Court

 

3 order.

 

4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m unfamiliar with the

 

5 Court order, but —

 

6 THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection. It’s

 

7 the restrictions I’ve placed on financial

 

8 information.

 

9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.

Next, Moslehi was asked a hypothetical question: if he had known that Janet had received $20,000 dollars to help pay for Gavin’s illness (the obvious inspiration for this hypothetical scenario was Louise Palanker), or if she had received a $30,000 dollar civil judgment (i.e. JC Penney settlement), would he had still loaned her the $2,000 dollars, and he said it wouldn’t have made a difference because she received those payments three years prior.

10 Q. You testified that you gave Janet Arvizo

 

11 $2,000, considered it a loan, and were asked a

 

12 number of questions about financial conditions

 

13 involving Janet Arvizo.

 

14 Would it have made any difference to you in

 

15 giving Janet Arvizo this $2,000 if you learned that

 

16 some people gave her some money three years earlier

 

17 based upon Gavin’s illness? Would that have made

 

18 any difference to you?

 

19 MR. MESEREAU: Calls for speculation and

 

20 misstates the evidence.

 

21 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

22 You may answer.

 

23 THE WITNESS: Um, can you repeat the

 

24 question one more time?

 

25 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: My question is, you

 

26 gave her this $2,000.

 

27 A. Okay.

 

28 Q. You previously stated you were concerned 7838

1 about Janet. Her world was upside down is what

 

2 you’ve said.

 

3 Would it have made any difference, would it

 

4 have prevented you from doing this act of generosity

 

5 or kindness if you knew that years earlier she had

 

6 received some money for charitable — from

 

7 charitable individuals to help Gavin? Would that

 

8 have made any difference?

 

9 A. I believe, depending on the timing and the

 

10 amount of money, it could have been.

 

11 Q. Okay. So let’s say she got $20,000 to help

 

12 Gavin with his illness in terms of creating a safe

 

13 room for him, that type of thing.

 

14 A. Three years prior?

 

15 Q. Yeah. Would that have made any difference

 

16 to you?

 

17 A. For 20,000 three years prior, no.

 

18 Q. And what about if she got a civil judgment

 

19 for about 30,000 three years prior, would that have

 

20 made any difference?

 

21 A. Three years —

 

22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; misstates the

 

23 evidence.

 

24 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

25 You may answer.

 

26 THE WITNESS: Three years, 30,000, no.

To be continued: https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/april-27th-2005-trial-analysis-hamid-moslehi-terry-paulsen-gabrel-dominguez-anne-marie-sims-joseph-shebroe-jeanne-mulcahy-debbie-rowe-part-3-of-4/

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: