Skip to content

April 27th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Hamid Moslehi, Terry Paulsen, Gabrel Dominguez, Anne Marie Sims, Joseph Shebroe, Jeanne Mulcahy, Debbie Rowe, Part 3 of 4

February 2, 2014

In order to discredit Mesereau’s assertion that if Janet had been in danger at Neverland she would have told Moslehi, Auchincloss asked him if he even had a close relationship with Janet to where she would even feel comfortable enough to tell him in the first place, and Moslehi stated that he felt that they were close due to his close association with her family:

27 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. You were asked

 

28 if she told you some things about her circumstances 7839

 

1 at the time. Did Janet confide in you anything

 

2 other than the fact that her world was upside down

 

3 at that time?

 

4 A. I don’t remember.

 

5 Q. Okay. Did you have a relationship with

 

6 Janet where she would sit down and confide with you

 

7 details about her problems, other than what you’ve

 

8 stated?

 

9 A. Did I have a relationship? Such as —

 

10 Q. Is she the type of person that would sit

 

11 down and confide in you personal things?

 

12 A. I believe because I worked with her kids a

 

13 lot during a few other productions, she kind of felt

 

14 comfortable to just empty herself of whatever she

 

15 had in mind, I guess, at that time.

 

16 Q. And did she do that in that phone

 

17 conversation with you at Neverland?

 

18 A. Did she did that on that conversation?

 

19 Q. Yeah. That you had when you were at

 

20 Neverland.

 

21 A. I believe the way she was expressing her,

 

22 you know, personal life matters, in this case being

 

23 upside down because of the media, I felt like, you

 

24 know, she needs a shoulder to cry, kind of things.

 

25 Q. Did she do that any other time?

 

26 A. No.

Next, Auchincloss focused on the period of time between February 20th and 21st, 2003, when which is the day the rebuttal video was shot, and the day after, respectively.  During his phone call with Jackson (who called to thank him for his work on the rebuttal documentary), Moslehi mentioned to him the unpaid invoices that he was due, and he was told by Jackson to call his attorney David Legrand.

Moslehi called LeGrand to complain about his unpaid invoices, and the next day he received a faxed termination letter that stated his services would no longer be needed.  Moslehi was instructed to meet with Konitzer and Weisner, but felt that they were playing games with him because they were insincere with him, and were playing “phone tag” (i.e. Moslehi would call one, and would be told to call the other, etc.)

27 Q. When you were — well, I want to go through

 

28 this time period of February 20th to the 21st. And 7840

 

1 I want to talk particularly about your conversation

 

2 with Mr. Jackson on that.

 

3 First of all, when you talked to Mr. Jackson

 

4 after the filming — or after the airing of the

 

5 rebuttal film, you mentioned that you talked to him

 

6 about some financial problems that you were having

 

7 with him and his production company.

 

8 A. I believe what I discussed with him is that

 

9 my invoices are not being paid.

 

10 Q. Yes.

 

11 A. And also some other issues.

 

12 Q. Did you talk to him about the fact that you

 

13 were also promised some — a percentage of the

 

14 rebuttal film?

 

15 A. I don’t think I went that far. But I just

 

16 wanted to keep it simple and, you know, short with

 

17 him, just so, you know, whomever he needs to call,

 

18 please call, because I’m not being paid.

 

19 Q. Did you explain that you hadn’t been paid in

 

20 years, or over a year, I guess it was?

 

21 A. I’m not sure whether I mentioned the period

 

22 of time that I’m not getting paid, but I said that

 

23 my invoices are not being paid, and I —

 

24 Q. Did you mention the amount of money that was

 

25 owed to you?

 

26 A. I don’t remember.

 

27 Q. Okay. And what did he tell you to do about

 

28 these problems? 7841

 

1 A. He asked me to call David LeGrand, his

 

2 lawyer.

 

3 Q. And did you call David LeGrand?

 

4 A. Yes, I did.

 

5 Q. And you told him about the problems?

 

6 A. Well, he knew the problem. I told him that,

 

7 “Mr. Jackson wants to talk to you, so why don’t you

 

8 call Mr. Jackson.”

 

9 Q. Okay. Did you mention to him that it was

 

10 about finances?

 

11 A. I — well, I don’t remember specifically on

 

12 that conversation whether I spoke or not. But

 

13 during the day, during the whole entire day, I’d

 

14 been calling them and asking, you know, “What is it

 

15 with my payment?” So they were well aware of that

 

16 I’m not being paid, that they have not made the

 

17 payment.

 

18 Q. Sometime later in the day, did you receive a

 

19 fax from David LeGrand that same day?

 

20 A. I believe it was the 21st, yes.

 

21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: If I may approach, Your

 

22 Honor.

 

23 THE COURT: Is that a marked exhibit?

 

24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes, it is.

 

25 Q. Mr. Moslehi, I show you Exhibit No. 851.

 

26 Appears to be a two-page document with a fax page on

 

27 the first, and the top being — at the top of each

 

28 page are the words “Hale Lane.” 7842

 

1 Do you recognize that document?

 

2 A. Yes, I do.

 

3 Q. What is it, please?

 

4 A. This is a letter from David LeGrand dated

 

5 February 21st, 2003. It was faxed to me. And is

 

6 telling me that my services are no longer required.

 

7 And then also Mr. Weizner and —

 

8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

9 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. I’ll ask you, is

 

10 this the document that you received from Mr. LeGrand

 

11 in response to your conversation with him that he

 

12 should call Mr. Jackson?

 

13 A. That’s correct.

 

14 Q. And was a copy of this letter — does this

 

15 letter indicate a copy was sent to Mr. Jackson?

 

16 A. Um —

 

17 MR. MESEREAU: Foundation.

 

18 THE WITNESS: It says carbon copy —

 

19 THE COURT: Just a moment.

 

20 THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.

 

21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: This is offered as

 

22 foundation.

 

23 THE COURT: All right. Overruled.

 

24 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Does it indicate that a

 

25 copy was sent to Mr. Jackson?

 

26 A. This letter is signed by David LeGrand and

 

27 it’s carbon copy, cc, to Michael Jackson, Ronald

 

28 Konitzer, John Genga. 7843

 

1 Q. And the facsimile page on the front, the

 

2 first page, does it also indicate that copy was sent

 

3 to Mr. Jackson at Neverland Valley Ranch?

 

4 A. That is correct.

 

5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Offer 851 into

 

6 evidence, Your Honor.

 

7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation and

 

8 hearsay.

 

9 THE COURT: I need to see the document.

 

10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes. It is offered as an

 

11 authorized admission, as well as it is offered for

 

12 nonhearsay purposes to show knowledge on behalf of

 

13 the defendant.

 

14 There is one further authentication issue

 

15 that I will mention; that this is defense discovery

 

16 to the People, so this is a copy of a document

 

17 that’s in the defendant’s possession.

 

18 THE COURT: That doesn’t authenticate

 

19 anything.

 

20 The only foundational issue that I just have

 

21 a quandary about is how he knows that this is

 

22 from — who it purports to be from.

 

23 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: It’s a response to —

 

24 THE COURT: No, how the witness knows, not

 

25 how you know.

 

26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: No, I mean his testimony

 

27 is that he called Mr. LeGrand that day and received

 

28 this letter. 7844

 

1 THE COURT: I’d like to hear from — I’ll

 

2 allow you to — before I rule on the foundation

 

3 issue, I’ll allow you to ask him any other questions

 

4 you have on that issue to —

 

5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you.

 

6 THE COURT: — authenticate that.

 

7 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Mr. Moslehi, how long

 

8 after the conversation with Mr. LeGrand on the

 

9 21st — first of all, let me ask you, did you

 

10 receive this communication, Exhibit 851, before or

 

11 after you spoke to Mr. LeGrand on the phone?

 

12 A. After.

 

13 Q. How much time after?

 

14 A. A few hours.

 

15 Q. And this document references a communication

 

16 regarding future — your business affairs that is —

 

17 that you are to have with Dieter Weizner and Ronald

 

18 Konitzer on February 24th, 2003. Are you aware of

 

19 that?

 

20 A. I’m sorry, um —

 

21 Q. If I may show you the exhibit again. Page

 

22 two, paragraph two.

 

23 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. I’m not sure what

 

24 the procedure is.

 

25 THE COURT: Excuse me.

 

26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Well, I’m —

 

27 THE COURT: Why are you showing him the

 

28 document? 7845

 

1 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m sorry. I’m sorry.

 

2 I’ll go about it the proper way.

 

3 Q. Would — does this letter have a paragraph

 

4 in this indicating that you are to communicate with

 

5 Ronald Konitzer and Dieter on February 24th, 2003?

 

6 A. Yes, it does.

 

7 Q. Did you communicate with them on that date?

 

8 A. And prior, yes.

 

9 Q. Did you discuss this letter with them?

 

10 A. Yes, I did.

 

11 Q. Did they appear to understand and know about

 

12 it?

 

13 A. They were playing games with me.

 

14 Q. Okay. But did they pretend that they didn’t

 

15 know about this letter, or did they —

 

16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading;

 

17 foundation.

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

 

19 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

20 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: May I ask the next

 

21 question?

 

22 THE COURT: Yes.

 

23 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: What do you mean they

 

24 were playing games with you?

 

25 A. I would call Dieter, and Dieter would say

 

26 call Ronald, and they were not responding to my

 

27 phone calls properly. And they told me this was

 

28 probably a misunderstanding, or — you know, games. 7846

1 Q. All right.

 

2 A. They were not sincere about their statements

 

3 or, you know, whatever they had in mind.

 

4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I would offer 851 into

 

5 evidence at this time.

 

6 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection.

 

7 THE COURT: How did you know that that letter

 

8 came from Mr. LeGrand?

 

9 THE WITNESS: Because it was faxed from his

 

10 office, and it had a cover sheet and it’s signed by

 

11 Mr. LeGrand.

 

12 THE COURT: Did you recognize that signature?

 

13 THE WITNESS: I believe it was the first

 

14 time I saw Mr. LeGrand’s signature, but I had every

 

15 reason to believe that that was from Mr. LeGrand.

 

16 THE COURT: All right. I’m going to reserve

 

17 ruling on that. I have some problems with your

 

18 foundation.

 

19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. I’ll ask a couple

 

20 more questions along those lines.

 

21 Q. Have you subsequently received any faxes

 

22 from Hale Lane, Attorneys at Law?

 

23 A. After that?

 

24 Q. Yes.

 

25 A. Yes, I have.

 

26 Q. Did they look identical in terms of the

 

27 appearance of the fax letterhead?

 

28 A. Yes, they did. 7847

 

1 Q. Have you subsequently received letters from

 

2 David LeGrand?

 

3 A. After that one?

 

4 Q. Yes.

 

5 A. I believe maybe I received one or two, and

 

6 then he started communicating with my lawyer.

 

7 Q. Okay. As far as those letters go, did they

 

8 match, did the signature match?

 

9 A. I never tried to look into the signature,

 

10 see if it matches. Once I received that letterhead,

 

11 I had every reason to believe that it’s coming from

 

12 David LeGrand.

 

13 Q. Did you — this is a fax letter with a fax

 

14 letterhead. Did you subsequently receive this

 

15 letter by way of U.S. Mail?

 

16 A. I don’t believe so.

 

17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. Thank you. No

 

18 further questions.

 

19 THE COURT: All right.

Under recross-examination, Mesereau made sure that Moslehi was fully aware of Janet’s financial status by asking him if he would have loaned her the $2,000 dollars if he had known that she was being supported by someone making $80,000 a year, and he said during that time period (Feb. 2003) his state of mind was different, but today (April 2005) he wouldn’t have.

23 RECROSS-EXAMINATION

 

24 BY MR. MESEREAU:

 

25 Q. Mr. Moslehi, if you had known that Janet

 

26 Arvizo was living with someone who earned close to

 

27 $80,000 a year, would you have loaned her that

 

28 $2,000? 7848

 

1 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; assumes facts.

 

2 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

3 You may answer.

 

4 THE WITNESS: If I knew that Janet Arvizo

 

5 was living with another husband or just a person

 

6 that has $80,000?

 

7 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Who was supporting her and

 

8 who earned close to $80,000 a year, would you have

 

9 loaned her the 2,000?

 

10 A. Well, at the time, my state of mind was

 

11 different. I don’t know. Today, probably not.

Next, Mesereau questioned Moslehi about the fact the he kept all of his tapes and videos of Jackson because his invoices were not paid in full, despite the fact that Jackson paid $200,000 of his outstanding balance. After this line of questioning, Mesereau ended his recross examination:

12 Q. Okay. Now, the letter that the prosecutor

 

13 just showed you, which purports to be from the Hale

 

14 Lane law firm, is dated February 21st, 2003, right?

 

15 A. That’s correct.

 

16 Q. And you claim you did receive this letter,

 

17 right?

 

18 A. That’s correct.

 

19 Q. And in the letter, you were asked to return

 

20 tapes, photos and other property of MJJ Productions

 

21 by a certain date, correct?

 

22 A. Yes, it is.

 

23 Q. The date you were supposed to return those

 

24 properties was February 24th, 2003, correct?

 

25 A. I — I’m not sure. I don’t have it in front

 

26 of me, but if you say so, I take your word.

 

27 Q. Okay. And the letter suggested that your

 

28 invoices will be addressed, correct? 7849

 

1 A. I’m not looking at the document, but if you

 

2 say so, I take your word.

 

3 Q. And at some point after this letter was

 

4 received, you obtained or received payment of

 

5 $200,000, correct?

 

6 A. I believe a month after I received that

 

7 letter, approximately a month after, I received.

 

8 Q. So approximately late March 2003, you

 

9 received payment of $200,000, true?

 

10 A. That’s correct.

 

11 Q. You never returned the tapes or photos

 

12 referred to in the letter, true?

 

13 A. What does it refer in the letter?

 

14 Q. Any tapes, photos or other property of MJJ

 

15 Productions, or Michael Jackson or his affiliates.

 

16 A. I don’t — after 21st, I don’t believe so.

 

17 Q. Okay. To date, you haven’t turned over all

 

18 the tapes you did for Mr. Jackson, true?

 

19 A. Since my invoices were not paid in full, no.

 

20 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. No further questions.

 

21 THE COURT: Was that 851 that you were

 

22 quoting from?

 

23 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes.

 

24 THE COURT: All right. I’ll admit it.

 

25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: No further questions.

 

26 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, we do have a

 

27 motion, and it probably ought to be heard before

 

28 this witness leaves the general vicinity. 7850

 

1 THE COURT: You have no other questions of

 

2 this witness?

 

3 MR. MESEREAU: No, Your Honor.

 

4 THE COURT: And you have no other questions?

 

5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: No.

 

6 MR. SANGER: Depending on the ruling on the

 

7 motion.

 

8 THE COURT: Is it a motion that you already

 

9 tried to make this morning?

 

10 MR. SANGER: No. No, Your Honor.

 

11 THE COURT: Why don’t you approach and tell

 

12 me what it is.

 

13 (Discussion held off the record at sidebar.)

 

14 THE COURT: What I’m going to do is require

 

15 that the witness remain at the courthouse, and call

 

16 your next witness.

 

17 I think the way we’ll handle this, the

 

18 motion that the defense wishes to make, is that

 

19 we’ll stop a few minutes early so the jury gets a

 

20 longer lunch, and we’ll listen to the motion.

 

21 Come forward, please. When you get to the

 

22 witness stand, remain standing.

 

23 Face the clerk and raise your right hand.

Summary of Hamid Moslehi’s Testimony

1. Moslehi began working with MJJ Productions in 1996, providing photography and video production services for over 40 projects. During the production of Bashir’s “Living With Michael Jackson” crock-umentary, Moslehi supervised several scenes that were shot at Neverland, and in Miami. He adjusted lighting, camera angles, and other technical aspects of the shoots. He also served as Jackson’s personal Director of Photography from 1997 through 2003.

 

2. Moslehi assisted in two shoots at Neverland on July 30th & 31st, 2002, and a shoot in January 2003. He first met the Arvizo family when they visited Neverland in September 2000, and he shot the following footage of a very sick Gavin being wheeled around in a wheelchair by Jackson:

3. Moslehi recounted the work he did for Jackson during the final scene of Bashir’s documentary, which was shot in Miami, Florida in January 2003, and the interview with Debbie Rowe on February 5th, 2003. Moslehi denied seeing Weisner or Konitzer holding a script for Debbie Rowe to read from, which refutes the prosecution’s assertions that the interview was scripted to make Jackson look good.

4. Auchincloss asked Moslehi about what Janet purportedly told him about being unhappy with shooting the video; Mesereau’s objection was sustained, so Auchincloss had to rephrase the question. Moselehi stated that Janet wasn’t happy because of the media coverage that had turned her life upside down, and she didn’t want to expose herself to more hassle. Moslehi talked with Janet for 20 minutes over the phone to convince her to do the shoot.

5. Moslehi was told by Schaffel that the rebuttal video wouldn’t be shot at Neverland, but rather at Moslehi’s home. Moslehi responded by asking if it could be shot at Scheffel’s home, but he didn’t want the Arvizos to remember his address (smart man!)

6. The rebuttal video was around one hour long, and after it was shot everyone left the residence. However, just prior to leaving, Janet had a private meeting with Moslehi, who offered to loan her $2,000 dollars on his own volition, and of course Auchincloss was sure to ask him to confirm that Janet never asked him for money. Later on, Schaffel’s associate asked for the tape, but Moslehi refused to return it because he wanted to make himself a copy, and he wanted to resolve his aforementioned financial dispute with Jackson.

7. Moslehi’s professional relationship with Jackson ended in 2003, after he received a termination letter stating that his services would no longer be required. He attempted to arrange a meeting at Neverland with Jackson for February 26th, 2003 to discuss his unpaid invoices, but just prior to the start of that meeting he was told to leave the property by Jackson’s assistant.

8. Under cross examination by Mesereau, Moslehi admitted that although Janet never explicitly asked for money, she let it be known that she was struggling financially, and that is why he offered to loan her the $2,000 dollars, and gave her an indefinite period of time to repay him. Moslehi’s initially admitted this in an interview with Sgt. Steve Robel on April 23rd, 2005.

9. Moslehi was questioned about his participation in the “Take Two” rebuttal, and interestingly he admitted that it was his idea, and not Jackson’s, to set up his camera and film Jackson’s interviews with Bashir. It’s a good thing that Moslehi took the initiative to make this suggestion to Jackson, because otherwise it would have been much harder to prove just how deceitful and dishonest Bashir’s edited documentary really was! Oh, urprise, surprise! Martin Bashir did not obtain Moslehi’s expressed written consent before using Moslehi’s image in his crock-umentary!

 

10. Meseareau questioned Moslehi about the money that he was suing Jackson for, which included a percentage of the profits of the “Take Two” documentary that he was promised from Weisner and Konitzer. Moselehi claimed that he had no knowledge of the fact that they had been caught embezzling money from Jackson.

11. Mesereau continued on the subject of Moslehi’s $2,000 dollar loan to Janet Arvizo on February 19th, 2003, which he offered to her on his own volition because he felt sorry for her. The check was given to her after the rebuttal video was filmed, and one of the motivating factors for Moslehi was Janet’s comments about being “spit upon and abused”. Mesereau used this information to discredit Janet’s claims of being poor by asking Moslehi if Janet told him that she was living with and receiving financial support from Major Jay Jackson, and if she told him about her $152,000 dollar J.C. Penney settlement, among other facts.

As you would imagine, Janet never revealed to Moslehi the true state of her finances!

12. Mesereau segued into the topic of Brad Miller, who was present at the shooting of the rebuttal video, although Moslehi did not know at that time that he was working for Jackson’s then attorney Mark Geragos, nor did Moslehi know that he himself was subsequently surveilled by Miller. Mesereau questioned Mosleh about Miller’s surveillance footage of him that the prosecution seized during their raid on his office.

13. Moslehi explained that he withheld possession of the rebuttal tape from Jackson because the deadline to submit it for the documentary had already passed, and he wanted to make his own personal copies of it. He also spoke about the work that he put in to get the “Take Two” rebuttal finished, the money that he was promised by Konitzer and Weisner, and the legal action that he took to secure his payment.

14. Prior to the shooting of Bashir’s documentary, Moslehi met Bashir and told him that he wanted to obtain copies of his footage, and Bashir initially obliged verbally, but as we all know he reneged on that promise!

15. Moslehi testified that there was a questionnaire that Christian Robinson used to ask questions to Janet, and there was no “script”, as she and the prosecution asserted during her testimony, nor did they attempt to memorize any answers. Moslehi specifically stated that nobody coached her or her children on what to say, and Janet willingly signed a three page nondisclosure agreement from Schaffel.

16. Moslehi’s knowledge of Brad Miller was questioned again by Mesereau, who wanted to dispel the prosecution’s assertion that Miller (among many others) attended the shooting of the rebuttal video to intimidate the Arvizos into going along with the script and praise Jackson against their will. Miller stood behind the scenes and observed everything, but did not actively participate in the filming. Moslehi was told that Miller was a private investigator, and just assumed that he was with Marc Schaffel, but didn’t know that he worked for Mark Geragos. 

17. 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!)

18. 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.

19. 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. 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.

 

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

22. 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).

23. Moslehi was asked a hypothetical question by Auchincloss: 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.

24. In order to discredit Mesereau’s assertion that if Janet had been in danger at Neverland she would have told Moslehi, Auchincloss asked him if he even had a close relationship with Janet to where she would even feel comfortable enough to tell him in the first place, and Moslehi stated that he felt that they were close due to his close association with her family.

25.  Next, Auchincloss focused on the period of time between February 20th and 21st, 2003, when which is the day the rebuttal video was shot, and the day after, respectively.  During his phone call with Jackson (who called to thank him for his work on the rebuttal documentary), Moslehi mentioned to him the unpaid invoices that he was due, and he was told by Jackson to call his attorney David Legrand.

Moslehi called LeGrand to complain about his unpaid invoices, and the next day he received a faxed termination letter that stated his services would no longer be needed.  Moslehi was instructed to meet with Konitzer and Weisner, but felt that they were playing games with him because they were insincere with him, and were playing “phone tag” (i.e. Moslehi would call one, and would be told to call the other, etc.)

26. Under recross-examination, Mesereau made sure that Moslehi was fully aware of Janet’s financial status by asking him if he would have loaned her the $2,000 dollars if he had known that she was being supported by someone making $80,000 a year, and he said during that time period (Feb. 2003) his state of mind was different, but today (April 2005) he wouldn’t have.

27. Mesereau questioned Moslehi about the fact the he kept all of his tapes and videos of Jackson because his invoices were not paid in full, despite the fact that Jackson paid $200,000 of his outstanding balance. After this line of questioning, Mesereau ended his recross examination. 

 

 

The next prosecution witness was Terry Paulsen, a senior billing analyst with Huntel Systems, a telephone company that used by Xtra Jet for their chartered flights. He testified about the phone records for several telephone calls that were made during the flight back to Neverland from Miami on February 7th, 2003.

7 DIRECT EXAMINATION

 

8 BY MR. NICOLA:

 

9 Q. Good morning.

 

10 A. Good morning.

 

11 Q. Would you mind scooting up by that

 

12 microphone, please?

 

13 A. Okay.

 

14 Q. And swivel that towards your mouth so that

 

15 everybody can hear you.

 

16 How are you this morning?

 

17 A. Fine.

 

18 Q. Ms. Paulsen, who are you employed with?

 

19 A. Huntel Systems.

 

20 Q. What is your position with Huntel Systems?

 

21 A. I’m a senior billing analyst.

 

22 Q. How long have you been working in that

 

23 capacity with Huntel?

 

24 A. 27 years.

 

25 Q. And are you here today as the custodian of

 

26 records for some documents from Huntel Systems?

 

27 A. Yes.

 

28 Q. What kind of documents? 7852

 

1 A. They’re phone calls made from an aircraft,

 

2 telephone calls.

 

3 Q. Air-to-ground telephone calls?

 

4 A. Yes.

 

5 Q. Pursuant to a search warrant, did you

 

6 provide the documents that I’m going to hand you

 

7 marked as Exhibit 850, previously shown to counsel?

 

8 A. Yes, these are ones I provided.

 

9 Q. Could you describe those documents briefly

 

10 for the jury, please?

 

11 A. It’s phone calls made from an aircraft on

 

12 February 7th, 2003.

 

13 Q. And the company that bill was sent to?

 

14 A. It was sent to Xtra Jet out of Santa Monica,

 

15 California.

 

16 Q. With respect to the contents of that

 

17 exhibit, is that generally a phone bill?

 

18 A. Yes, it is.

 

19 Q. Okay. And is your company a company that

 

20 bills for phone calls made from aircraft to the

 

21 ground?

 

22 A. Yes.

 

23 Q. Does the document reflect information that’s

 

24 made in the regular course of the business of

 

25 Huntel?

 

26 A. Yes, it is.

 

27 Q. And Huntel is a telecommunications provider?

 

28 A. Huntel is — we’re the billing vendor. 7853

 

1 Q. Okay. Is it part of your business to keep

 

2 track of the kind of records that you’re —

 

3 A. Yes, it is.

 

4 Q. Okay. Now, the entries in the phone record,

 

5 do they begin on a particular page in that exhibit?

 

6 A. They begin on page four.

 

7 Q. Okay. Is there a page two or a page three

 

8 in Exhibit 850?

 

9 A. No, there is not.

 

10 Q. Okay. Do you recall what is actually

 

11 contained in the record of page two and three?

 

12 A. One of it is just information on paying your

 

13 bill by a credit card. The other was phone calls

 

14 that did not pertain to the date that we were

 

15 requesting to provide.

 

16 Q. Is it customary to provide only what is

 

17 reflected in the search warrant, as far as your

 

18 company is concerned?

 

19 A. Yes.

 

20 Q. And their request was for February 7th,

 

21 2003?

 

22 A. February 7th or 8th, but there weren’t calls

 

23 on the 8th.

 

24 Q. Is the information on that document relied

 

25 upon by your company in the regular course of its

 

26 business?

 

27 A. Yes, it is.

 

28 Q. Okay. And do you rely on it being accurate? 7854

 

1 A. Yes, I do.

 

2 Q. And briefly describe for the jury how the

 

3 information in those phone records is generated.

 

4 A. When a customer makes — or is flying in an

 

5 airplane and they make a call, it goes from the

 

6 airplane to a ground station, out a landline to the

 

7 party that’s being called. And when the call’s

 

8 completed, then the ground station records that in

 

9 its memory.

 

10 And once a week, we go into the system,

 

11 we — through a modem telephone line, computer

 

12 program, we get that information out. And once a

 

13 month, we process that into a telephone bill so it

 

14 puts it in a format that can print on a bill, reads

 

15 the information that’s taken from the ground

 

16 station.

 

17 Q. Does the ground station have an identifying

 

18 number that shows up on the bill?

 

19 A. Yes, it does.

 

20 MR. NICOLA: And, well, Your Honor, at this

 

21 time I would offer 850 into evidence as a business

 

22 record.

 

23 MR. SANGER: No objection.

 

24 THE COURT: It’s admitted.

Mag Nicola questioned Paulsen about several phone calls that were made from that flight; one call was made to El Monte, CA, and another to Santa Ynez, CA. 

25 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: What I’m going to do, Miss

 

26 Paulsen, is use the Elmo.

 

27 “Input 4,” if you don’t mind, Your Honor.

 

28 THE COURT: All right. 7855

 

1 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: If you would turn to line

 

2 25, I would just like to show you a sample line from

 

3 this. If you could just start with the number 25

 

4 and explain to the jury what the items mean as you

 

5 go from left to right as you look at the exhibit,

 

6 please.

 

7 A. Okay. Each call has its own item number.

 

8 The date would be 2-07; would be it was made

 

9 February 7th. They called El Monte, California.

 

10 The phone number, the 626 number, is the number that

 

11 they called. 6:57 p.m. is the time that they hung

 

12 up from the call. So the call was made one minute

 

13 prior to that, and one minute tells you how long the

 

14 call lasted.

 

15 “CCD” just means, years ago when these

 

16 numbers were issued to companies, they were called

 

17 calling cards. So it just — “CCD” is calling card.

 

18 Then the — there’s two charges per phone

 

19 call, or the call’s broken out into two different

 

20 sections. One is the land time, and that’s from the

 

21 time, if I called you, you picked up the phone.

 

22 From the time you pick up the phone till you hang it

 

23 up, that’s the land time.

 

24 The air time is what is actually charged,

 

25 and that’s the time from when I pick up the phone in

 

26 the airplane and I hang up the phone. That’s the

 

27 air time. So there’s two different times.

 

28 And you can tell by the time of day or by 7856

 

1 the number called which two calls go together. So

 

2 in this case, Call 25 and 26 would go together. It

 

3 was made over Troy, Alabama, and the phone number

 

4 under that would be the phone number for Troy,

 

5 Alabama.

 

6 Q. Is the number for the Troy, Alabama, place a

 

7 ground station?

 

8 A. Pardon?

 

9 Q. Is that what you would call a ground

 

10 station?

 

11 A. The ground station phone number.

 

12 Q. How does the wireless phone on the aircraft

 

13 decide which ground station it’s going to repeat at;

 

14 do you know?

 

15 A. Okay. As you’re flying, the transmitter in

 

16 the phone will pick up the strongest signal on the

 

17 ground station. The ground station sends up

 

18 signals, and it picks up the strongest one. So you

 

19 don’t have a choice of what station you’re going

 

20 through. It just picks it up and places a call.

 

21 So if you’re flying near Troy, it’s going to

 

22 pick up the Troy, Alabama, ground station.

 

23 Q. Now, with respect to the date stamp

 

24 specifically on Item 25, it says 6:57 p.m. Is that

 

25 6:57 p.m. in any particular time zone? Or can you

 

26 explain that for the jury, please?

 

27 A. The time zone is the time zone that the

28 ground station is located in. So if you’re flying 7857

1 over Troy, Alabama, that would be the time of day at

 

2 Troy, Alabama. If you’re flying over Los Angeles,

 

3 California, it would be the Los Angeles time, so

 

4 there could be a difference in the time zones.

 

5 Q. Okay. Miss Paulsen — I wasn’t done with

 

6 the Elmo.

 

7 If I could direct your attention, please —

 

8 and if I could have “Input 4” again, Your Honor —

 

9 to Line No. 40.

 

10 A. Okay.

 

11 Q. And is that a call placed to Santa Ynez,

 

12 California?

 

13 A. Yes.

 

14 Q. You can read the area code and the number,

 

15 please.

 

16 A. The area code is (805) 688-9979.

 

17 Q. And the time of that call, please?

 

18 A. Is 8:39 p.m.

 

19 Q. And where is the aircraft now?

 

20 A. The aircraft is over Artesia, New Mexico.

 

21 Q. Okay. Could you please flip to the second

 

22 page of the exhibit?

 

23 A. Page five?

 

24 Q. Yes. And just tell the jury what time the

 

25 last call was recorded from that aircraft.

 

26 A. Line Item 71?

 

27 Q. Yes, please.

 

28 A. It was placed at 9:28 p.m. on February 7th 7858

 

1 over Grand Canyon, Arizona.

 

2 MR. NICOLA: Okay. Thank you, Miss Paulsen.

 

3 No further questions, Your Honor.

 

4 MR. SANGER: Could I have that?

 

5 MR. NICOLA: Certainly.

 

6 MR. SANGER: Just leave it up on the thing.

 

7 MR. NICOLA: Oh, on the —

 

8 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I’m going to put

 

9 this back up on the Elmo and….

Under cross examination, Paulsen revealed that there is no way of determining who placed each call, nor is there a way to determine if the callers could even hear each other once a connection was made:

11 CROSS-EXAMINATION

 

12 BY MR. SANGER:

 

13 Q. Okay. It’s your understanding that this

 

14 reflects telephone calls made from an airplane that

 

15 are eventually connected through to some landline

 

16 somewhere, correct?

 

17 A. Yes.

 

18 Q. And when I say “landline,” it could be

 

19 connected to a cell phone ultimately; is that right?

 

20 A. It would still go through a landline to a

 

21 cell phone. I mean, it goes out the ground station,

 

22 however the ground station sends it out.

 

23 Q. When you’re talking about Troy, Alabama,

 

24 there’s some ground station there, and essentially

 

25 you’re now hooked up with the phone system that we

 

26 would hook into if we pick up the kind of phone we

 

27 pick up in the courtroom, right?

 

28 A. Right. 7859

 

1 Q. And wherever that phone system then directs

 

2 the call is the ultimate destination, right?

 

3 A. Right.

 

4 Q. All right. And so just so we’re all clear,

 

5 you got two lines per call, right?

 

6 A. Right.

 

7 Q. And the one line shows the number that’s

 

8 called — actually both lines show the number that’s

 

9 called, correct?

 

10 A. Correct.

 

11 Q. And then the second line shows the charge to

 

12 the airline; is that right?

 

13 A. Right.

 

14 Q. Now, first of all, the billing goes to a

 

15 particular airplane or a particular company?

 

16 A. Particular company.

 

17 Q. And so the company that owns the airplane

 

18 will get the bill?

 

19 A. Yes.

 

20 Q. All right. Can you tell which airplane that

 

21 belongs to that company was the source of the

 

22 telephone call?

 

23 A. No, I cannot.

 

24 Q. So if an airplane — private charter

 

25 airplane company might have several planes, and

 

26 their phone bill will not distinguish between one

 

27 airplane and another; is that correct?

 

28 A. It will distinguish between one phone number 7860

 

1 and another, but not one airplane and another.

 

2 Q. All right. And on the airplane, you have no

 

3 idea how big these airplanes are; is that true?

 

4 A. They’re private aircraft. I’m — I would

 

5 assume like a jet or something, but I do not know,

 

6 no.

 

7 Q. Yeah. So you’re making some assumptions,

 

8 but you don’t know how many people, for instance,

 

9 would be on the airplane, right?

 

10 A. No.

 

11 Q. And you have no way of determining what

 

12 person on the airplane made the call, correct?

 

13 A. No, I don’t.

 

14 Q. So let’s assume hypothetically that an

 

15 airplane had two pilots, 11 passengers, and a crew

 

16 member. Assume that as a hypothetical. Of those

 

17 14 people, would you have any way to determine from

 

18 your records who made these phone calls?

 

19 A. No.

 

20 Q. Now, I do note that there are some phone

 

21 calls, a number of them that are — if we look at

 

22 the exhibit, and this is Exhibit 850, I believe; is

 

23 that correct? You have the actual exhibit in front

 

24 of you.

 

25 A. Yes.

 

26 Q. And what’s on the board is a copy of the

 

27 same exhibit?

 

28 A. Yes. 7861

 

1 Q. So if we look up at the top there where it

 

2 says, “Minute,” or “M-I-N” —

 

3 A. Uh-huh, yes.

 

4 Q. — what is the minimum unit of time that

 

5 will be recorded on your bill?

 

6 A. The minimum is — you’ll see there’s a

 

7 couple that are short-term charges that are 20 to 30

 

8 seconds. But the minimum usually is 30 seconds.

 

9 But 20 seconds on.

 

10 Q. Okay. So on this particular bill, the

 

11 minimum that we see on that page — and I’m taking

 

12 this off so I can see it up close. The minimum

 

13 charge — or, I’m sorry, the minimum recorded in the

 

14 columns on this exhibit is one minute; is that

 

15 right?

 

16 A. Right. So it rounds up to a minute.

 

17 Q. All right. So if there’s a shorter call,

 

18 it’s still going to show up as one minute on the —

 

19 in that column there; is that correct?

 

20 A. Anything over 30 seconds will.

 

21 Q. And you also, from this bill, do not know if

 

22 two people were actually able to talk to each

 

23 another during these phone calls; is that correct?

 

24 A. It will connect. If it doesn’t connect, it

 

25 doesn’t register.

 

26 Q. Okay. It connects to another phone, right?

 

27 A. Right.

 

28 Q. Now, this is basically a cell phone in the 7862

 

1 air, right?

 

2 A. Similar to a cell phone.

 

3 Q. And when you’re flying and using one of

 

4 these phones, you have to basically hit the repeater

 

5 down on the ground in order to make a connection,

 

6 correct?

 

7 Do you know what I mean, or am I using the

 

8 wrong word?

 

9 A. If you can, yeah, rephrase that for me.

 

10 Q. Well, you said it’s like a cell phone in the

 

11 air.

 

12 A. Right.

 

13 Q. So while you’re flying along, your signal

 

14 from the cell phone in the air has to hit —

 

15 A. A ground station.

 

16 Q. — the ground station.

 

17 And that’s called a repeater, is it not, or

 

18 do you know? Or a cell site?

 

19 A. I have no idea.

 

20 Q. Okay. Whatever it’s called, you got to hit

 

21 that thing, otherwise it doesn’t work, right?

 

22 A. Right.

 

23 Q. And when you hit it, there are places where

 

24 you will — you’ll hit it and you’ll make a

 

25 connection, but you will not have a clear enough

 

26 connection to actually talk; is that correct?

 

27 A. There’s that possibility, yes.

 

28 Q. So it’s, in that sense, like a cell phone; 7863

 

1 that you can have bad reception, and you can be

 

2 saying, “Can you hear me now?” And somebody on the

 

3 other side is saying, “What?” Right?

 

4 A. True.

5 Q. Okay. So you do not know, from all these

 

6 phone calls, how many actual conversations occurred

 

7 between human beings where they could hear each

 

8 other and communicate; is that correct?

 

9 A. No.

 

10 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you very much.

 

11 No further questions, Your Honor.

Before Nicola could finish his redirect examination, Judge Melville dismissed the jury temporarily so that he could hear motions from the defense and prosecution:

13 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

 

14 BY MR. NICOLA:

 

15 Q. You mentioned that sometimes the airline

 

16 charges will be together and you need to look at the

 

17 actual time of a call that goes out?

 

18 A. Uh-huh.

 

19 MR. NICOLA: If I could have the Elmo just

 

20 one more time, Your Honor.

 

21 THE WITNESS: Excuse me.

 

22 MR. NICOLA: I think we have an example

 

23 here, line —

 

24 THE COURT: I’m going to break now for the

 

25 argument.

 

26 (To the jury) Go ahead and take your

 

27 recess.

 

28 MR. NICOLA: Oh, the motion. 7864

1 THE COURT: You may step down.

 

2 MR. NICOLA: Step down.

 

3 THE COURT: (To the audience) All right.

 

4 Please remain seated. There’s a motion that’s going

 

5 to be made.

 

6 All right, Counsel. Go ahead. Do you want

 

7 to make your motion?

 

8 MR. SANGER: Yeah. (Indicating.)

 

9 THE COURT: Oh, I’m sorry.

Sanger argued again for a mistrial due to Auchincloss’s violation of Judge Melville’s admonition to stop asking Hamid Moslehi about his desire to clarify Jackson’s statements about sharing his bed with children in the “Take Two” rebuttal documentary. Judge Melville initially told the defense that they could not go into that area, yet Auchincloss questioned Moslehi about it several times.

Here is the excerpt from earlier in the day that Sanger is referring to:

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.

 

The defense felt that the jury had been intentionally prejudiced by Auchincloss’s questions, so they wanted either a mistrial or some other type of punitive action taken against the prosecution. Here’s Sanger’s argument:

11 (The following proceedings were held in

 

12 open court outside the presence and hearing of the

 

13 jury:)

 

14

 

15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Your Honor, would you like

 

16 the witness to leave the courtroom?

 

17 THE COURT: No. She may well want to.

 

18 She’s free to do so, but she doesn’t — she’s not

 

19 required.

 

20 MR. NICOLA: Are we back in session at

 

21 11:45, Your Honor?

 

22 THE COURT: At the end of our break, yes.

 

23 Go ahead.

 

24 MR. SANGER: On behalf of Mr. Jackson, we

 

25 are making a motion for mistrial based on

 

26 prosecutorial misconduct. And the grounds for that

 

27 motion for mistrial are that the Court ruled, as

 

28 Your Honor reminded me, at a 402 motion that we 7865

 

1 would not be allowed to play this tape in its — in

 

2 the prosecution’s case-in-chief.

 

3 THE COURT: Correct.

 

4 MR. SANGER: I made another motion

 

5 contemporaneous in time, having felt that it was

 

6 appropriate to do so. The Court summarily, and I

 

7 think clearly, denied the motion.

 

8 THE COURT: And correctly. No, all right, go

 

9 ahead.

 

10 (Laughter.)

 

11 THE COURT: You don’t have to say that.

 

12 MR. SANGER: I’m going to assert my Fifth

 

13 Amendment rights on that.

 

14 I said that humorously, for the record.

 

15 THE COURT: I took it humorously, for the

 

16 record.

 

17 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

 

18 The serious part here, though, is that Mr.

 

19 Auchincloss deliberately overreached. And the harm

 

20 is, that having — the Court having made such a

 

21 clear ruling, he attempted to gain benefit from the

 

22 Court’s ruling that he wasn’t entitled to.

 

23 Your Honor said we couldn’t go into it, so

 

24 he got up and went into it, and that was clearly

 

25 inappropriate to start with. And it seemed

 

26 calculated and intentional. Now, I can’t read his

 

27 mind. But I can’t figure out how he could have

 

28 missed that, after we just had a hearing on it. 7866

 

1 Your Honor made an admonition — and

 

2 unfortunately my Livenote is not hooked up today, so

 

3 I can’t quote verbatim, but Your Honor has it. You

 

4 gave an admonition to Mr. Auchincloss not to do

 

5 that, and you explained to him exactly why; that you

 

6 had just ruled, and it’s not appropriate for him to

 

7 go into that same area. He persisted and asked at

 

8 least two more direct questions that just flew right

 

9 in the face of the Court’s ruling.

 

10 And the questions were not innocent

 

11 questions that were going around to try to get to

 

12 something else. They were even more focused, to

 

13 telegraph to the jury exactly what he wanted them to

 

14 hear. And he wanted them to hear that, in his

 

15 opinion, the issue with regard to, as I think he

 

16 said, something like sleeping with boys was not one

 

17 of those areas that this witness felt was unfairly

 

18 portrayed.

 

19 And he knew that he could get away with that

 

20 because the Court was, at the very least, going to

 

21 sustain the objection. We already couldn’t go into

 

22 it. There’s nothing we could do about it. The bell

 

23 has been rung, and this jury heard it.

 

24 I think the harm is particularly

 

25 significant, because it’s been our position that

 

26 clearly those statements were the statements that

 

27 were grossly misrepresented by Mr. Bashir in the way

 

28 he edited the film. 7867

 

1 So as a result of that, a tremendous amount

 

2 of prejudice has occurred. It was deliberate on the

 

3 part of the prosecutor. I say that, and that’s my

 

4 interpretation of what I saw. I don’t think there’s

 

5 another reasonable interpretation. It’s — there’s

 

6 no other remedy, other than to grant a mistrial and

 

7 say this is prosecutorial misconduct. It shouldn’t

 

8 have been done. As a result of their willful

 

9 misconduct, a mistrial has to be granted. And

 

10 that’s our motion.

 

11 If the Court denies that, then we would of

 

12 course ask the Court to entertain some other remedy

 

13 which I’d ask to be heard on later, but I’m making a

 

14 motion for mistrial, and I think it should be

 

15 granted.

 

16 Thank you.

 

17 THE COURT: Counsel?

Auchincloss argued that Mesereau opened the door to that line of questioning by asking Moslehi about Bashir’ s gross misrepresentations of Jackson’s comments being the motivation for filming the “Take Two” documentary, so he wanted to get specific answers to clarify what gross misrepresentations Moslehi was referring to.

18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: To begin with, the

 

19 questions that I was asking this witness about did

 

20 not focus upon the material that was produced in the

 

21 video, “The Footage You Were Never Meant To See.”

 

22 And those questions were not designed and obviously

 

23 were not intended to ask him about what was on that

 

24 final production.

 

25 My question went directly to an issue that

 

26 defense counsel spent five pages questioning this

 

27 witness about on cross-examination yesterday. And I

 

28 have a couple of those items highlighted, and if the 7868

 

1 Court would allow me, I’d like to project them from

 

2 the official transcripts.

 

3 THE COURT: Just read them to me.

 

4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. First of all,

 

5 Your Honor, counsel started by asking the question

 

6 of this witness:

 

7 “And the reason you were being interviewed

 

8 by Brad Lachman Productions was because the

 

9 intention was to have some of those parts that

10 you had filmed appear in the rebuttal video,

 

11 right?”

 

12 And I objected. I say, “I’m going to

 

13 object. Relevancy and beyond the scope.

 

14 “Mr. Mesereau: I believe that he opened the

 

15 entire door, Your Honor.

 

16 “The Court: The objection is overruled.

 

17 “Mr. Mesereau: In fact, the title of that

 

18 documentary on television was, “The Michael

 

19 Jackson Interview: .The Footage You Were Never

 

20 Meant To See,’ right?”

 

21 We go on. He questions him extensively

 

22 about “The Footage You Were Never Meant To See,”

 

23 including charities and Mr. Bashir’s remarks.

 

24 We get to an area here that’s particularly

 

25 interesting in which counsel says:

 

26 “And your belief at that time was that

 

27 Mr. Bashir had presented a very distorted view of

 

28 that interview with Mr. Jackson, correct? 7869

 

1 “Mr. Auchincloss: Objection; calls for a

 

2 conclusion.

 

3 “Mr. Mesereau: State of mind, Your Honor.

 

4 “Mr. Auchincloss: Relevance.

 

5 “The Court: Overruled.”

 

6 Now, this is an area that was clearly gone

 

7 into by the defense, and my questions went directly

 

8 to that question that defense counsel asked of this

 

9 witness, that the — that Martin Bashir presented a

 

10 very distorted view, and my questions went directly

 

11 to those remarks.

Judge Melville admonished Auchincloss for trying to get into the specifics of Jackson’s comments, but he still denied Sanger’s motion for mistrial. In response, Sanger suggested that Judge Melville admonish the jury that Auchincloss’s questions were inappropriate, or (better yet!) allow the defense to play Moslehi’s outtakes from the Bashir documentary.

12 THE COURT: You went from the general

 

13 concept, which I allowed, to the specifics, which I

 

14 was not allowing.

 

15 The motion for a mistrial is denied.

 

16 All right. We’ll take our break.

 

17 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, just — if I may —

 

18 THE COURT: I’ll let you address the issue of

 

19 alternative remedies. I thought you said you wanted

 

20 to do that later.

 

21 MR. SANGER: Well, later. Whenever you

 

22 want.

 

23 THE COURT: I will. I’ll let you do that.

 

24 MR. SANGER: Okay.

 

25 (Recess taken.)

 

26 MR. MESEREAU: I don’t think Mr. Sanger is

 

27 here, Your Honor. I think he was intending to

 

28 present some potential remedies to the Court. 7870

 

1 THE COURT: Yes, that’s what I thought he

 

2 was going to do.

 

3 They’re waving at you.

 

4 MR. MESEREAU: Oh, okay. No, I said Mr.

 

5 Sanger doesn’t appear to be here, and I think he

 

6 wanted to present some alternative remedies to the

 

7 Court. And unfortunately, I don’t know where he is.

 

8 (Laughter.)

 

9 THE COURT: Perhaps we should just call the

 

10 jury in and we could take up that issue later.

 

11 Maybe he’s doing some research on that.

 

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

 

13 MR. NICOLA: He may wish to recross after I

 

14 redirect Miss Paulsen. He may wish to recross.

 

15 THE COURT: This is his witness?

 

16 MR. NICOLA: Yes.

 

17 THE COURT: So we have to wait for him no

 

18 matter what.

 

19 MR. NICOLA: If you say I could be back on

 

20 Friday, I’ll go look for him right now, Judge.

 

21 Maybe he’s in the law library?

 

22 MR. MESEREAU: I really don’t know.

 

23 A VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE: There he is.

 

24 THE BAILIFF: Yea.

 

25 (Laughter.)

 

26 THE COURT: I’m sorry. I came out; I didn’t

 

27 know you were not here yet.

 

28 MR. SANGER: I apologize. I had to go back 7871

 

1 to my office and get something here.

 

2 THE BAILIFF: I’m sorry, I thought he was

 

3 here. Sorry.

 

4 MR. SANGER: Do you want to address the —

 

5 THE COURT: If you’re prepared. I came on

 

6 so that you could do that. I don’t know if you

 

7 wanted to do it now or later. I misinterpreted what

 

8 you had said earlier, so….

 

9 MR. SANGER: That’s fine, Your Honor.

 

10 The reason I wanted to bring it up sooner

 

11 rather than later is that if the Court fashioned a

 

12 remedy that involved Mr. Moslehi, he would be here;

 

13 and if you didn’t, he could leave. So let me just

 

14 address it quickly.

 

15 The motion for mistrial having been denied,

 

16 and without conceding anything in that regard, our

 

17 alternative request would be to either have, number

 

18 one, an admonition to the jury that it was

 

19 inappropriate to continue to ask those questions and

 

20 that you had precluded the defense from getting into

 

21 it, and make it very clear that those — the

 

22 questions, as the jury’s been instructed, are not to

 

23 be considered unless there’s an answer.

 

24 But in this particular case, because you had

 

25 already made rulings very clearly, you want to make

 

26 sure that there’s no unfair inference drawn, even if

 

27 it’s a subconscious or subliminal one. So some

 

28 instruction to that effect, a curative instruction 7872

 

1 of some sort to try to get us back to square one and

 

2 unring the bell.

 

3 Absent that —

 

4 THE COURT: “You’re to disregard any

 

5 subliminal messages you received during the last

 

6 session?”

 

7 (Laughter.)

 

8 MR. SANGER: I’m sure we could word

 

9 something more artfully than the concept that I just

 

10 floated there, but I think there is something that

 

11 could be done by way of a curative instruction to

 

12 try to unring that bell. And I think it was

 

13 unfairness and it was a matter of seizing on what

 

14 the Court has just ruled on, and I think that’s the

 

15 big harm. It’s not a matter that — it’s a matter

 

16 that the prosecution had objected to our bringing

 

17 that tape in and then sought to gain the benefit of

 

18 the Court’s continued ruling.

 

19 If the Court does not do that, then I would

 

20 ask — or in the alternative, either way, I’d ask

 

21 the Court to allow us to now just play the outtakes,

 

22 and that’s —

 

23 THE COURT: That’s where I thought you were

 

24 going.

 

25 MR. SANGER: I didn’t want to disappoint.

 

26 (Laughter.)

 

27 MR. SANGER: And it’s a fair way to do it,

 

28 Your Honor. The outtakes are the outtakes. And if 7873

 

1 the jury sees that, they’ll be able to form their

 

2 own opinion and they won’t be dealing with

 

3 subliminal matters. They’ll be dealing with liminal

 

4 matters.

 

5 I’ll submit it.

Judge Melville ruled that he would allow the defense to play Moslehi’s outtakes later on in the trial:

6 THE COURT: (To Mr. Auchincloss) You can sit

 

7 down.

 

8 You know, I don’t believe that Mr.

 

9 Auchincloss seized the moment to take advantage of

 

10 you after objecting. You know, I think there was a

 

11 disconnect from — in his brain somewhere about —

 

12 because he was worried about the earlier examination

 

13 that had been done. And I just don’t believe he was

 

14 trying to do something to confront the Court or

 

15 affront the Court.

 

16 And I think I, you know, saved the day by

 

17 objecting myself, stopping it. So the jury has —

 

18 knows that I did not think that was proper. They

 

19 got the message loud and clear. I’ve never done

 

20 that before in this trial, so it was a very loud

 

21 message I sent. So I think that’s sufficient in

 

22 this case.

 

23 So, do you have your witness here if we

 

24 bring in the jury?

 

25 MR. NICOLA: Yes, Your Honor.

 

26 THE COURT: All right. And, you know, the

 

27 issue of the playing those tapes still remains for

 

28 your part of the case. That may well be. So if 7874

 

1 there’s a foundational issue here, you had suggested

 

2 that the prosecution might agree. I would like that

 

3 out of the way, because I don’t think — if all we

 

4 need is to have him come back, when all you want to

 

5 do is play the tapes, we wouldn’t want to have to do

 

6 that.

 

7 You may want him back, too. I don’t know.

 

8 But if that’s something we could agree on, playing

 

9 those outtakes without a further foundation from

 

10 him, if either of the parties desire, I think that

 

11 would be a good thing to do. But you can talk to

12 each other about that.

 

13 MR. SANGER: Very well, Your Honor.

 

14 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And is it permissible for

 

15 Mr. Moslehi to leave? He’s waiting for us.

 

16 THE COURT: Yes.

 

17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you.

 

18 THE COURT: But you understand my issue on —

 

19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I do. And I think that’s

 

20 something —

 

21 THE COURT: — whether you want to agree to a

 

22 foundational issue that he took those tapes. We’ve

 

23 all watched them.

 

24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m certain if it’s merely

 

25 authentication, we can come to some agreement.

 

26 THE COURT: Okay. I’ll leave while you bring

 

27 the jury in.

 

28 // 7875

Nicola’s redirect examination of Terry Paulsen continued below:

1 (The following proceedings were held in

 

2 open court in the presence and hearing of the

 

3 jury:)

 

4

 

5 THE COURT: All right, Counsel. Proceed,

 

6 please.

 

7 MR. NICOLA: Thank you, Your Honor.

 

8 May I have — “Input 4” is already on.

 

9 Q. Miss Paulsen, if I could direct your

 

10 attention to Item 29 and 30. There appear to be two

 

11 air link charges right behind each other.

 

12 Is that an example of what you testified to

 

13 on direct as having to look for the corresponding

 

14 number to figure out which charges go together?

 

15 A. Yes, it is. Item 27 and 29 would go

 

16 together. And Item 28 and 30 would go together.

 

17 Q. Okay. And Item 27 is registered in the bill

 

18 as a two-minute call to the same telephone number as

 

19 Item 25; is that correct?

 

20 A. Yes.

 

21 Q. Okay. Once a call gets past one minute,

 

22 does it register automatically in your system as a

 

23 two-minute call?

 

24 A. Anything over one minute, if it goes over a

 

25 minute, it registers as two minutes.

 

26 MR. NICOLA: Thank you, Mrs. Paulsen. I

 

27 have nothing further.

 

28 MR. SANGER: Nothing further, Your Honor. 7876

 

1 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may

 

2 step down.

 

3 THE COURT: Call your next witness.

 

4 MR. NICOLA: The next witness will be Gabe

 

5 Dominguez, Your Honor.

 

6 MR. SANGER: Which exhibit?

 

7 MR. NICOLA: With T-Mobile.

 

8 Stop that witness.

 

9 Oh, he got it. Never mind.

 

10 THE COURT: Raise your right hand, please.

To be continued: https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/april-27th-2005-trial-analysis-hamid-moslehi-terry-paulsen-gabriel-dominguez-anne-marie-sims-joseph-shebroe-jeanne-mulcahy-debbie-rowe-part-4-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: