Skip to content

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

February 15, 2014

The next prosecution witness was Gabriel Dominguez, a custodian of records for T-Mobile. He was asked to verify phone records for Christopher Carter (Jackson’s bodyguard), Francesco Cascio (Frank), Vincent Amen (Frank’s friend and unindicted co-conspirator), Evelyn Tavasci (Jackson’s assistant), and Christian Robinson (who directed the rebuttal documentary that was aired on Fox) during the period of January through March 2003. His entire direct and cross examination literally consisted of him trying to explain how to read a phone bill! So I’ll just move on to the next witness; if there was anything of any substance to his testimony, I would summarize it, but there was nothing noteworthy that is worth repeating here.

The next prosecution witnesses were Anne Marie Sims , Joseph Shebroe, and Jeanne Mulcahy, custodians of records for the Pacific Bell telephone company, Verizon, and AT&T,  respectively.  Once again, I will skip their testimonies because nothing worthwhile or significant was said.

The next prosecution witness was Jackson’s ex-wife Debbie Rowe, who started off by explaining her relationship with Jackson, and her visitation rights with Prince and Paris.

Before I get to her testimony, let’s look at the motions that were filed by the prosecution and defense regarding the admission and exclusion, respectively, of Rowe’s testimony.

On April 21st, 2005 the prosecution filed PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PRESENT THE TESTIMONY OF DEBBIE ROWE PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE §1101, in which they argued that Rowe should be allowed to testify in order to corroborate Jackson’s plan to force the Arvizo family to shoot the rebuttal video (remember, the prosecution claimed that they were held hostage at Neverland so that they could be forced to shoot the rebuttal video). The prosecution asserted that Rowe agreed to take part in the rebuttal video so that she could see her children, and that she willingly lied to make Jackson look good.

The next day, the defense countered with MR. JACKSON’S OPPOSTION TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO PRESENT THE TESTIMONY OF DEBBIE ROWE, in which they argued that the prosecution was using Rowe to bolster their obviously weak and floundering case, and they wanted to embarrass Jackson by delving into his child custody litigation with Rowe.

On April 26th, 2005 the prosecution filed PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING WITNESS DEBBIE ROWE TO TESTIFY FULLY AS TO RELEVANT MATTERS NOTWITHSTANDING CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT THAT CERTAIN MATTERS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, in which they promised to not ask Rowe to answer any questions that would violate any confidentiality agreements that she and Jackson signed regarding their children. This motion was filed in an obvious attempt to appease the Court and give Judge Melville one less reason to grant the defense’s request to exclude Rowe from testifying.

Well, Judge Melville obviously ruled that Rowe could testify (otherwise, she wouldn’t be here!), so let’s get to her testimony right now:

4 DIRECT EXAMINATION

 

5 BY MR. ZONEN:

 

6 Q. Do you refer to be called Miss Rowe?

 

7 A. Debbie, please.

 

8 Q. All right. But in court, we’re a little

 

9 more formal.

 

10 A. Oh.

 

11 Q. In terms of surnames, do you go by Miss

 

12 Rowe?

 

13 A. Yes.

 

14 Q. Do you know the defendant, Michael Jackson,

 

15 seated to my right with the long, dark hair?

 

16 A. Yes, I do.

 

17 Q. How do you know Mr. Jackson?

 

18 A. We’ve been friends and we were married.

 

19 Q. When were you married to Mr. Jackson?

 

20 A. From 1997 to 1999.

 

21 Q. All right. We’ve —

 

22 A. Sorry.

 

23 Q. The acoustics are not quite what they could

 

24 be in this courtroom, so you have to stay close to

 

25 the microphone and keep your voice up. Is that all

 

26 right?

 

27 A. Okay.

 

28 Q. All right. You were married to Mr. Jackson 7932

 

1 between which periods of time again, please?

 

2 A. I believe 1997 to 1999.

 

3 Q. For what period of time did you know Mr.

 

4 Jackson prior to that?

 

5 A. Probably 20 years or more.

 

6 Q. Were you friends with Mr. Jackson?

 

7 A. Yes.

 

8 Q. Are you the mother of his two children?

 

9 A. Yes, I am.

 

10 Q. The two oldest children?

 

11 A. Yes, I am.

 

12 Q. And their names are what?

 

13 A. Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr., and Paris

 

14 Michael Katherine Jackson.

 

15 Q. And when were you divorced from Mr. Jackson?

 

16 A. October — I believe October 1999.

 

17 Q. Did you have — did you ever live with Mr.

 

18 Jackson during the course of your marriage?

 

19 A. We never shared a home.

 

20 Q. Did you live with Mr. Jackson prior to that

 

21 marriage?

 

22 A. We never shared an apartment.

 

23 Q. At the time that the marriage was dissolved,

 

24 was there an understanding or an agreement as to

 

25 child custody?

 

26 A. I’m sorry?

 

27 Q. Was there an understanding or agreement as

 

28 to child custody? 7933

 

1 A. Yes.

 

2 Q. And who had custody of the two children?

 

3 A. Michael did.

 

4 Q. Did you have visitation of the two children?

 

5 A. Yes, I did.

 

6 Q. And what was the extent of the visitation as

 

7 determined by that divorce?

 

8 A. Every 45 days for eight hours.

 

9 Q. All right. Did you, in fact, see the two

 

10 children every 45 days for eight hours?

 

11 A. I tried.

 

12 Q. All right. Were there difficulties in being

 

13 able to do so?

 

14 A. Yes.

 

15 Q. What kinds of difficulties?

 

16 A. There were times that the children and

 

17 Michael would be out of the country, and I was

 

18 working at the time, and if they were in South

 

19 Africa, I would not have enough time to fly to where

 

20 they were and then return home in time to be at

 

21 work.

 

22 Q. Were you able to make up that eight-hour

 

23 period when they returned?

 

24 A. No. It was pushed off until the next 45

 

25 days.

 

26 Q. For what period of time did that continue,

 

27 that custody arrangement?

 

28 A. I believe a year and a half. 7934

 

1 Q. At some point in time did you voluntarily

 

2 agree to give up parental rights as to those two

 

3 children?

 

4 A. Yes.

 

5 Q. And when was that, can you tell us?

 

6 A. I believe 2001.

 

7 Q. And why did you do that?

 

8 A. The visitations were not comfortable. We

 

9 were hooked up at a hotel. I was — when I would

 

10 bring things to do, finger-painting, coloring or

 

11 whatever, the nanny was always very concerned with

 

12 the children getting dirty. I would bring T-shirts

 

13 or something to put over their clothes, and the

 

14 environment was very sterile. It wasn’t a quality

 

15 relationship.

 

16 Q. Did you ask to have more time with the kids?

 

17 A. Yes.

 

18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

 

19 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer was,

 

20 “Yes.”

 

21 THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.

 

22 THE COURT: Next question.

 

23 That’s all right.

 

24 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: And was that request granted?

 

25 A. No.

 

26 Q. And tell me why you made the decision to

 

27 give up parental rights as to the two children at

 

28 that time. 7935

 

1 A. I didn’t believe that —

 

2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance;

 

3 opinion.

 

4 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

5 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: At some point in time — when

 

6 was the last time that you saw the two children?

 

7 A. Two and a half, three years ago. I’m not

 

8 sure. I don’t remember the dates.

Next, Zonen questioned Rowe about how her interview for the “Take Two” rebuttal documentary was set up. The prosecution asserted that Jackson offered Rowe the opportunity to see the children as bait to get her to agree to do the interview:

9 Q. Did you receive a call from anybody in the

 

10 early part of February of 2003 requesting your

 

11 assistance on behalf of Michael Jackson?

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

 

14 THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.

 

15 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

16 You may — it’s answered, “Yes.” Next

 

17 question.

 

18 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: From whom was that telephone

 

19 call?

 

20 A. Originally —

 

21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

22 MR. ZONEN: I asked who it was.

 

23 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

24 You may answer as to who it was.

 

25 THE WITNESS: Originally my former boss’s

 

26 partner called me and said that I needed to call my

 

27 old boss; that he needed to speak with me; that

 

28 Michael needed my help with something. 7936

 

1 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Who was the old boss you’re

 

2 referring to?

 

3 A. Arnold Klein.

 

4 Q. What kind of work was that that you were

 

5 doing for Mr. Klein?

 

6 A. He’s a dermatologist. I was an assistant

 

7 for him.

 

8 Q. For what period of time were you his

 

9 assistant?

 

10 A. From 1979 to 2000 or 2001.

 

11 Q. What kind of work did you do for Mr. —

 

12 Dr. Klein?

 

13 A. I assisted him with surgeries and patients.

 

14 Q. Without getting into the content of that

 

15 telephone call, did you, in fact, call Dr. Klein?

 

16 A. Yes, I did.

 

17 Q. And did you have a conversation with him?

 

18 A. Very brief.

 

19 Q. Did that conversation lead to a conversation

 

20 with yet another person?

 

21 A. Yes. He wanted me to speak with Marc

 

22 Schaffel.

 

23 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

24 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

25 MR. MESEREAU: Move to strike.

 

26 THE COURT: Stricken.

27 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: That conversation led to a

 

28 conversation with yet another person; is that 7937

 

1 correct?

 

2 A. Yes, it is.

 

3 Q. Who was that person with whom you then had a

 

4 conversation?

 

5 A. Marc Schaffel.

 

6 Q. Do you know Marc Schaffel?

 

7 A. Not before this conversation.

 

8 Q. Was that the first time you had ever spoken

 

9 with Mr. Schaffel?

 

10 A. Yes.

 

11 Q. Prior to that conversation, did you know who

 

12 he was?

 

13 A. No.

 

14 Q. Had you — had you ever heard his name prior

 

15 to that day?

 

16 A. No.

 

17 Q. Did you, in fact, call Marc Schaffel?

 

18 A. The call was placed between Dr. Klein and

 

19 myself.

 

20 Q. All right.

 

21 A. I don’t hand out my phone number.

 

22 Q. Ultimately, Marc Schaffel contacted you, or

 

23 Dr. Klein arranged the conversation? How was that?

 

24 A. Correct. Dr. Klein arranged the

 

25 conversation. I did not feel comfortable with a

 

26 three-way, and told Mr. Schaffel that I would call

 

27 him if he gave me his number.

 

28 Q. All right. Did Mr. Schaffel, in fact, have 7938

 

1 a conversation with you?

 

2 A. Yes, he did.

 

3 Q. Do you recall when that conversation took

 

4 place?

 

5 A. It was early in February, in the morning.

 

6 Q. And what was the nature of that

 

7 conversation?

 

8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection, hearsay.

 

9 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

10 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Would you tell us if — prior

 

11 to that conversation, were you aware of a

 

12 documentary that was titled, “Living with Michael

 

13 Jackson”?

 

14 A. No.

 

15 Q. Were you aware of a person by the name of

 

16 Martin Bashir?

 

17 A. No.

 

18 Q. As a consequence of this conversation with

 

19 Marc Schaffel, did you then have a conversation with

 

20 the defendant?

 

21 A. Yes.

 

22 Q. And how long after your conversation with

 

23 Mr. Schaffel was your conversation with Michael

 

24 Jackson?

 

25 A. Probably 30 minutes.

 

26 Q. Who called who?

 

27 A. They called me back, because they could not

 

28 get ahold of Michael immediately. 7939

 

1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive;

 

2 hearsay; move to strike.

 

3 THE COURT: Nonresponsive. Who called who is

 

4 the question?

 

5 MR. ZONEN: Right.

 

6 THE COURT: I’ll strike the answer.

 

7 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Were you contacted by

 

8 somebody with regards —

 

9 A. Marc Schaffel, yes.

 

10 Q. Marc Schaffel called you?

 

11 A. And Ronald Konitzer.

 

12 Q. You then had a conversation with Ronald

 

13 Konitzer as well?

 

14 A. For a brief moment. Michael was with him.

 

15 Q. Did Michael Jackson then get on the

 

16 telephone?

 

17 A. Yes, he did.

 

18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

 

19 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

20 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What did Mr. Jackson say to

 

21 you in the course of this conversation?

 

22 A. He told me there was a video coming out, and

 

23 it was full of lies, and would I help. And I said,

 

24 as always, yes. I asked him if he was okay. I was

 

25 very upset.

 

26 Q. When was the last time you had talked with

 

27 Michael Jackson?

 

28 A. The day of our divorce. 7940

 

1 Q. And how long prior to that, to this

 

2 conversation you’re now referring to, was that day

 

3 of your divorce?

 

4 A. October 12th.

 

5 Q. Of what year, please?

 

6 A. .99.

 

7 Q. All right. So we’re now talking about

 

8 February of 2003; is that correct?

 

9 A. Yes.

 

10 Q. Now, he asked you for some kind of

 

11 assistance; is that correct?

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. What exactly did he ask you to do, if

 

14 anything?

 

15 A. He asked if I would work with Ronald and

 

16 Dieter to help him, and I said yes. And I asked him

 

17 how he was. I asked him how the children were. And

 

18 I asked if I could see them when everything settled

 

19 down.

 

20 Q. What did he tell you?

 

21 A. He said yes.

 

22 Q. All right. Had you had any communication

 

23 with Mr. Jackson in the preceding period of time

 

24 with regards to the children?

 

25 A. No.

 

26 Q. Had you sent any letters to him at all

 

27 requesting that you be able to see them at some

 

28 point in time? 7941

 

1 A. No.

 

2 Q. Did you want to see the children?

 

3 A. Very much.

 

4 Q. All right. The conversation that you had

 

5 with Mr. Jackson over the telephone, did he tell you

 

6 from where he was calling?

 

7 A. No. I was told by Marc that they had to

 

8 call Europe.

 

9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay;

 

10 nonresponsive; move to strike.

 

11 THE COURT: It’s nonresponsive. Stricken.

 

12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: You had mentioned that Ronald

 

13 Konitzer had called back; is that correct? Did I

 

14 get that right?

 

15 A. Marc Schaffel called me back. Ronald had

 

16 called Marc, or Marc had called Ronald. I don’t

 

17 know who placed that call.

 

18 Q. At some point in time you actually spoke

 

19 with Ronald Konitzer?

 

20 A. Yes.

 

21 Q. Did you know Mr. Konitzer prior to that day?

 

22 A. I think I met him years ago when Michael was

 

23 on tour. I don’t — he said that I had met him. I

 

24 didn’t remember. I didn’t have a face and I didn’t

 

25 recognize the voice.

Here is Rowe’s recollection of the conversation that she had with Jackson regarding her participation in the rebuttal documentary:

26 Q. All right. And did you carry on — without

 

27 getting into the content of the conversation, did

 

28 you, in fact, have a conversation with Mr. Konitzer 7942

 

1 before your conversation with Michael Jackson?

 

2 A. He just said, “Michael needs your help” —

 

3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive;

 

4 hearsay.

 

5 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: The question is “yes” or

 

6 “no.”

 

7 A. Yes.

 

8 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

9 THE WITNESS: Sorry.

 

10 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: The conversation that you had

 

11 with Michael Jackson was approximately how long in

 

12 length?

 

13 A. Two and a half minutes, maybe.

 

14 Q. Were you at home at that time?

 

15 A. Yes, I was.

 

16 Q. You said that you had asked him how he was

 

17 and how the children were?

 

18 A. Yes.

 

19 Q. What did he tell you specifically about

 

20 the — whatever it was, the performance that was

 

21 coming on television or the documentary, how did he

 

22 describe it to you?

 

23 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading and

 

24 assumes facts not in evidence.

 

25 THE COURT: Sustained as to assuming facts.

 

26 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What did he tell you about

 

27 what was going to happen?

 

28 A. That there was a bad video coming out. I 7943

 

1 did not — he didn’t go into any more detail about

 

2 that.

 

3 Q. Did you ask him what it was about?

 

4 A. No.

 

5 Q. Did you ask him if it dealt with him

 

6 personally, Mr. Jackson?

 

7 A. I assumed it did.

 

8 Q. Okay. Now, he asked you for some

 

9 assistance; is that correct?

 

10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; asked and

 

11 answered.

 

12 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

13 You may answer.

 

14 THE WITNESS: Yes.

 

15 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: And did he describe to you in

 

16 any detail or particularity what it was he wanted

 

17 you to do?

 

18 A. No, he did not.

 

19 Q. Okay. Did he tell you to follow anybody’s

 

20 direction?

 

21 A. He asked me —

 

22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

 

23 THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.

 

24 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What did he tell you to do?

 

26 A. He asked me to work with Ronald, Dieter and

 

27 Marc.

 

28 Q. All right. You just told us about Ronald. 7944

 

1 Is Dieter somebody you knew prior to that day?

 

2 A. I don’t remember.

 

3 Q. Do you know Dieter’s last name?

 

4 A. Weizner or Weizer.

 

5 Q. Okay. And you don’t recall at this time

 

6 whether you had ever met him prior to that date, the

 

7 time of that phone call?

 

8 A. No.

 

9 Q. Now, did you ask any directions as to how

10 you were going to work with him or what you were

 

11 going to do?

 

12 A. I told them that I needed a release of

 

13 confidentiality, and that until that was done, I

 

14 wouldn’t be able to do anything.

 

15 Q. You told Mr. Jackson that?

 

16 A. No, I’m sorry, I told Marc Schaffel, Dieter

 

17 and Ronald.

 

18 Q. All right. Let’s go back to the

 

19 conversation again with Mr. Jackson —

 

20 A. Okay.

 

21 Q. — before you hung up the phone or before

 

22 your telephone conversation ended.

 

23 You said specifically about the children.

 

24 Tell me what it was that he told you about the

 

25 children with regards to visitation.

 

26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; asked and

 

27 answered.

 

28 THE COURT: Overruled. 7945

 

1 You may answer.

 

2 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Go ahead.

 

3 A. When — when — I said, “Are you” — “Are

 

4 you okay? Are the children okay?” And he said,

 

5 “Yeah, we’re okay.” And I said, “Can I see you when

 

6 everything — and the children when everything is

 

7 over with?” And he said, “Yes.”

 

8 Q. Did you want to see Mr. Jackson and the

 

9 children?

 

10 A. Absolutely.

 

11 Q. Did he give you any other direction as to

 

12 when that might be?

 

13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

 

14 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

15 You may answer.

 

16 THE WITNESS: No.

 

17 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did that conversation end at

 

18 that time, or was there anything else that you

 

19 discussed in the course of that conversation?

 

20 A. Michael and I?

 

21 Q. Yes.

 

22 A. No, we didn’t discuss anything else. The

 

23 phone was handed back to Ronald.

 

24 Q. All right. Your conversation then continued

 

25 with Ronald?

 

26 A. Correct.

 

27 Q. All right. What was asked of you at that

 

28 point by Ronald? 7946

 

1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

2 MR. ZONEN: As explaining her conduct

 

3 thereafter, not for the truth of the matter.

 

4 THE COURT: All right. I’ll allow the

 

5 hearsay for that limited purpose.

 

6 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What was explained by Ronald

 

7 thereafter?

 

8 A. That they were going to do a special – I

 

9 don’t know if they used the word “rebuttal” – to

 

10 counter whatever this video was.

 

11 Q. And what was asked of you?

 

12 A. Would I help.

 

13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; assumes facts not

 

14 in evidence.

 

15 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

16 MR. MESEREAU: And leading.

 

17 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Was anything said by Mr.

 

18 Weizner as to your involvement?

 

19 A. What — I don’t understand. What do you

 

20 mean by that?

 

21 Q. Well, in the telephone call that

 

22 continued — maybe I’m confused. Was it Konitzer or

 

23 was it Weizner?

 

24 A. Konitzer.

 

25 Q. It was Konitzer, all right. Ronald

 

26 Konitzer. What exactly was it that Mr. Konitzer

 

27 then said to you about what you were supposed to do?

 

28 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay. 7947

 

1 THE WITNESS: To —

 

2 MR. MESEREAU: Assumes facts not in

 

3 evidence.

 

4 MR. ZONEN: Again, to explain —

 

5 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

6 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Was there a conversation with

 

7 Mr. Konitzer at that point about anything that you

 

8 were then going to do?

 

9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

 

10 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

11 MR. ZONEN: That was overruled?

 

12 THE COURT: Yes.

 

13 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Go ahead and answer.

 

14 A. What was the question? I’m sorry.

 

15 THE COURT: I’ll have the court reporter read

 

16 it back to you.

 

17 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

 

18 (Record read.)

 

19 THE WITNESS: I was supposed to work with

 

20 Marc Schaffel, and that was when I told them that we

 

21 had to have the paperwork done —

 

22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; nonresponsive.

 

23 THE COURT: The second part of the answer

 

24 I’ll strike. Leave the first part in.

 

25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. With regards to

 

26 working with Marc Schaffel, was there any other

 

27 statement that was given to you by Mr. Konitzer at

 

28 that time? 7948

 

1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

 

2 MR. ZONEN: Hardly suggests the answer.

 

3 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

4 You may answer.

 

5 THE WITNESS: That I would be working with

 

6 Marc on whatever project that had been decided.

 

7 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. Did you, in fact,

 

8 then have a conversation with Marc?

 

9 A. Yes.

 

10 Q. When did that conversation take place? Marc

 

11 Schaffel.

 

12 A. After the connection was broken between

 

13 Michael and Ronald and myself.

 

14 Q. That same day?

 

15 A. It was the same conversation. Marc had us

 

16 on two lines. So when he hung up the one line, Marc

 

17 and I were still on another line.

 

18 Q. Was Marc Schaffel part of the conversation

 

19 that you had with — in other words, was it a

 

20 conference call between Marc and you and Ronald

 

21 Konitzer?

 

22 A. Correct.

 

23 Q. So he was privy to the conversation that was

 

24 taking place at that point?

 

25 A. He set it up.

 

26 Q. All right. Was he part of the conversation

 

27 while you were talking with Mr. Konitzer? In other

 

28 words, did he periodically say things as well? 7949

 

1 A. I don’t remember.

 

2 Q. What did Mr. Schaffel want you to do?

 

3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay; assumes

 

4 facts not in evidence.

 

5 MR. ZONEN: Same exception.

 

6 THE COURT: Foundation, sustained.

 

7 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: In the course of this

 

8 conversation, did Mr. Schaffel make requests of you?

 

9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

 

10 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

11 You may answer.

 

12 THE WITNESS: Nothing specific. I couldn’t

 

13 discuss anything at that point.

 

14 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you advise him that you

 

15 needed to do something?

 

16 A. Yes.

 

17 Q. And what was that?

 

18 A. We needed to agree on a confidentiality

 

19 release between Michael and myself.

 

20 Q. Was there such an agreement that you had

 

21 between you and the defendant?

 

22 A. Eventually.

 

23 Q. Well, prior to this conversation, was there

 

24 some kind of a confidentiality contract that you had

 

25 with Mr. Jackson?

 

26 A. Yes.

 

27 Q. And when did you and Mr. Jackson enter into

 

28 that agreement? 7950

 

1 A. At the time of our divorce.

 

2 Q. And did that restrain you from having

 

3 conversations with people about something or other?

 

4 What did it restrain you from doing, this

 

5 confidentiality agreement?

 

6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;

 

7 leading; relevance.

 

8 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

9 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you know what the

 

10 confidentiality agreement was? Have you ever read

 

11 it?

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. And you read it at or about the time that

14 you entered into this divorce with Mr. Jackson?

 

15 A. Yes, I did.

 

16 Q. All right. Did that confidentiality

 

17 agreement keep you from doing something?

 

18 A. Yes, it did.

 

19 Q. What did it keep you from doing?

 

20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;

 

21 leading; relevance.

 

22 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

23 You may answer.

 

24 MR. MESEREAU: 352.

 

25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Go ahead and answer the

 

26 question.

 

27 A. The confidentiality agreement said that I

 

28 could not speak with the press, public, anyone, 7951

 

1 regarding Michael or the children or our lives

 

2 together.

 

3 Q. Were you able to get an exemption from that

 

4 agreement?

 

5 A. Yes.

 

6 Q. Did you have an attorney working on that?

 

7 A. Yes.

 

8 Q. What is your attorney’s name?

 

9 A. Iris Joan Finsilver, F, as in Frank,

 

10 i-n-s-i-l-v-e-r.

 

11 Q. Has Miss Finsilver been your attorney for

 

12 some time?

 

13 A. Yes.

 

14 Q. Did she represent you in your divorce with

 

15 Mr. Jackson?

 

16 A. Yes, she did.

 

17 Q. Ultimately when that exemption was executed,

 

18 were you then able to speak with Mr. Schaffel about

 

19 what you were expected to do?

 

20 A. Yes.

 

21 Q. And what was it that you were expected to

 

22 do?

 

23 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Assumes facts not

 

24 in evidence; foundation.

 

25 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

26 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. Did you have a

 

27 conversation with Mr. Schaffel after the execution

 

28 of this exemption? 7952

 

1 A. Yes.

 

2 Q. All right. In the course of that

 

3 conversation, were you told things by Mr. Schaffel

 

4 with regards to doing something on behalf of Michael

 

5 Jackson?

 

6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

 

7 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

8 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What did Mr. Schaffel tell

 

9 you in this conversation?

 

10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

11 MR. ZONEN: For the same exception.

 

12 THE COURT: All right. Overruled.

 

13 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Go ahead.

 

14 A. That we would be doing an interview.

 

15 Q. Did he tell you where or when?

 

16 A. He said that it would probably be at his

 

17 home in Calabasas and within two or three days of

 

18 when everything was settled.

 

19 Q. All right. Now, when was it exactly that

 

20 you had this conversation with Mr. Schaffel about

 

21 doing the interview relative to this first phone

 

22 call from Mr. Jackson?

 

23 A. Do you mean when we were going to do it? Or

 

24 when we scheduled it?

 

25 Q. When you scheduled it.

 

26 A. We didn’t schedule it till after the

 

27 documents had been signed.

 

28 Q. Okay. And how long did that take before you 7953

 

1 were able to create and sign documents?

 

2 A. I would like to say that it was probably

 

3 only two days. It seemed a lot longer. There was a

 

4 lot of faxing back and forth.

 

5 Q. Was there some urgency in doing it soon?

 

6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

 

7 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

8 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did anybody ask you to do it

 

9 at a particular time?

 

10 A. Mr. Schaffel.

 

11 Q. What did he say with regards to that?

 

12 A. As soon as he could arrange —

 

13 MR. MESEREAU: Hearsay.

 

14 MR. ZONEN: Same exception.

 

15 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

16 You may answer.

 

17 THE WITNESS: As soon as he could arrange to

 

18 have whatever he needed, I believe, for the

 

19 interview.

 

20 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: And was there a date finally

 

21 set for the interview?

 

22 A. Yes.

 

23 Q. Do you know what that date was?

 

24 A. I don’t know exactly. Beginning of

 

25 February, I believe.

Zonen questioned Rowe about the specifics of the interview in this excerpt; it was shot at Marc Schaffel’s home, and several people in Jackson’s entourage were present. Rowe stated that she refused to speak to Ian Drew (the person that would interview her in the rebuttal) because she wanted to avoid the perception of having her answers rehearsed; she wanted everything to be spontaneous. A list of questions was offered for her to read prior to the interview, but she declined to read them. She also stated that not all of her answers were truthful, but only because she knew that the media would twist her words anyway, and she didn’t like discussing her personal life in public.

26 Q. Are you aware as to when or if the screening

 

27 of “Living with Michael Jackson” ever actually aired

 

28 in the United States? 7954

 

1 A. I know that it aired. I don’t know when it

 

2 aired. I didn’t watch it.

 

3 Q. Do you know when, relative to the airing of

 

4 that production, your interview took place?

 

5 A. I know in relation to when it took place in

 

6 Europe, but not here.

 

7 Q. When did it take place relative to the

 

8 European airing?

 

9 A. The day before I gave my interview.

 

10 Q. Did that interview take place at Mr.

 

11 Schaffel’s residence?

 

12 A. My interview?

 

13 Q. Yes, your interview.

 

14 A. Yes, it did.

 

15 Q. Can you tell us who was present during that

 

16 interview?

 

17 A. Hamid, who is Michael’s photographer; Rudy;

 

18 Christian; Marc; Stuart Backerman, who I think was

 

19 Michael’s PR person; and Iris came with me.

 

20 Q. Up until the time that you arrived at Mr.

 

21 Schaffel’s home to do this, had Mr. Schaffel told

 

22 you that you would get any benefit from doing this

 

23 interview?

 

24 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading and

 

25 hearsay.

 

26 MR. ZONEN: I’m sorry?

 

27 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

28 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Were you going to be paid for 7955

 

1 this interview?

 

2 A. No.

 

3 Q. Were any promises made at all?

 

4 A. Just that I —

 

5 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading and

 

6 hearsay.

 

7 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

8 MR. MESEREAU: And vague.

 

9 THE COURT: Hearsay, sustained. Hearsay.

 

10 MR. ZONEN: On hearsay. We would offer it

 

11 again as to tending to explain her actions and her

 

12 response, and not for the truth of the matter

 

13 stated.

 

14 THE COURT: The objection’s sustained.

 

15 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did anybody offer you

 

16 anything in response to your doing this?

 

17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

 

18 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

19 You may answer.

 

20 THE WITNESS: Do you mean quid pro quo?

 

21 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Yes.

 

22 A. No, I was excited to see Michael and the

 

23 children when all this was over.

 

24 Q. Why did you do this interview?

 

25 A. I promised him that I would always be there

 

26 for him and the children.

 

27 Q. Did anybody mention your children in the

 

28 course of either doing this interview or leading up 7956

 

1 to the interview?

 

2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Asked and

 

3 answered and leading.

 

4 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

5 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: You can answer that question.

 

6 A. Can you explain what you mean?

 

7 Q. Did anybody mention anything about your

 

8 children with regards to — relative to this

 

9 interview —

 

10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection.

 

11 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: — leading up to the

 

12 interview or during the course of the interview?

 

13 MR. MESEREAU: Vague; compound; and leading

 

14 and foundation.

 

15 THE COURT: Rephrase. It’s an extended

16 question now.

 

17 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. Specifically,

 

18 you had conversations with Mr. Schaffel, did you

 

19 not —

 

20 A. Yes.

 

21 Q. — prior to the interview?

 

22 A. Yes.

 

23 Q. Did you have a number of conversations prior

 

24 to the interview?

 

25 A. No.

 

26 Q. How many conversations did you have with him

 

27 prior to the interview?

 

28 A. One to set up the day and time, and one for 7957

 

1 directions on how to get to his house.

 

2 Q. All right. Prior to actually arriving at

 

3 his house, did he talk to you about your children at

 

4 all?

 

5 A. He said the kids were fine; that Michael was

 

6 going to be okay.

 

7 Q. All right. Did he make any representations

 

8 to you about visitation?

 

9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading;

 

10 foundation; hearsay.

 

11 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

12 You may answer.

 

13 THE WITNESS: When I expressed excitement for

 

14 seeing the children and for seeing Michael again and

 

15 possibly reconnecting, he seemed to be very happy.

 

16 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. During the course

 

17 of your being at the house conducting this

 

18 interview, did you talk with Mr. Schaffel any

 

19 further about your children?

 

20 A. Yes.

 

21 Q. All right. What did he say with regards to

 

22 your children while you were at his house?

 

23 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

24 MR. ZONEN: Same exception.

 

25 I will add also it’s a statement in

 

26 furtherance.

 

27 THE COURT: I reject that as a reason, but

 

28 let me look. 7958

 

1 All right. I’ll allow the question for the

 

2 limited purpose of explaining her action after that.

 

3 Do you want the question read back?

 

4 THE WITNESS: I can’t see that far, yes,

 

5 please.

 

6 THE COURT: Okay.

 

7 (Record read.)

 

8 THE WITNESS: That they were fine; that

 

9 Michael was going to be okay; that it was — he was

 

10 happy for me that we were all going to get to see

 

11 each other again, and how big the kids have gotten,

 

12 and how beautiful they were, and how strong-headed

 

13 Paris is and — about like me.

 

14 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What was your expectation

 

15 with regards to your children in terms of your

 

16 completing this interview?

 

17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading;

 

18 foundation.

 

19 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

20 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you have any expectations

 

21 with regard to your kids at all?

 

22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

 

23 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

24 THE WITNESS: Yes.

 

25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What was that? What were

 

26 your expectations?

 

27 A. To be reintroduced to them and to be

 

28 reacquainted with their dad. 7959

 

1 Q. You wanted to be reacquainted with Mr.

 

2 Jackson as well?

 

3 A. Yes.

 

4 Q. Why?

 

5 A. He’s my friend.

 

6 Q. Let me ask you about the interview. For

 

7 what period of time were you at Mr. Schaffel’s home?

 

8 A. I was at his house about ten and a half

 

9 hours, but the taping was about nine.

 

10 Q. Was your attorney with you?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. The entire time?

 

13 A. She stayed downstairs when Ian Drew arrived.

 

14 And I was concerned about someone being able to say

 

15 that —

 

16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive and

 

17 hearsay.

 

18 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

19 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: The question was whether or

 

20 not she was there the entire time. Was there a

 

21 period of time —

 

22 A. She was in the house.

 

23 Q. Okay. She was in the house, but at some

 

24 times not with you?

 

25 A. Correct.

 

26 Q. All right. Now, prior to the start of this

 

27 interview, had you talked with anybody about the

 

28 content of this interview, in other words, what was 7960

 

1 going to be asked of you?

 

2 A. No.

 

3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Assumes facts not

 

4 in evidence, leading and foundation.

 

5 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

6 Do you want the question read back?

 

7 THE WITNESS: No. No, I did not want that.

 

8 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you know what it was you

 

9 were going to be saying?

 

10 A. No.

 

11 Q. Did you know what it was — the questions,

 

12 what questions would be asked of you?

 

13 A. No.

 

14 Q. Did you know whether or not it had anything

 

15 to do with this video or this television show?

 

16 A. All I knew, it was whatever was being put

 

17 out about Michael could be hurtful to him and the

 

18 children, and I don’t know if I was supposed to run

 

19 interference. I don’t know what the basis was for

 

20 my interview.

 

21 Q. Did you ask him about the content of the

 

22 television show?

 

23 A. No.

 

24 Q. Did you ask anybody about the content of the

 

25 questions that would be put to you?

 

26 A. Absolutely not.

 

27 Q. Did you know that it would be questions put

 

28 to you? In other words, it would be in the format 7961

 

1 of an interview?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 Q. Who had told you that?

 

4 A. Mr. Schaffel.

 

5 Q. Who was present at the time when this

 

6 interview commenced?

 

7 A. Iris. Stuart. Rudy. Christian was in and

 

8 out. It was either Christian or Rudy that was in

 

9 and out. Marc. Myself. And Ian Drew.

 

10 Q. Iris is Iris Finsilver, your attorney?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. Stuart is who?

 

13 A. Stuart Backerman, I was told, was a

 

14 spokesperson for Michael.

 

15 Q. Had you ever seen Mr. Backerman prior to

 

16 that day?

 

17 A. No.

 

18 Q. Had you ever heard his name prior to that

 

19 day?

 

20 A. No.

 

21 Q. Were you introduced to him that day?

 

22 A. Yes.

 

23 Q. Did you actually have a conversation with

 

24 him?

 

25 A. Nothing other than, “Nice to meet you,” and

 

26 very casual. Nothing important to say.

 

27 Q. You said Rudy. Who is Rudy?

 

28 A. He was Marc’s go-fer boy. 7962

 

1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.

 

2 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

3 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Marc’s — say that again?

 

4 A. Go-fer boy.

 

5 Q. Go-fer? Somebody who did things for Mr.

 

6 Schaffel?

 

7 A. Yes.

 

8 Q. Do you know Rudy’s last name?

 

9 A. No, I don’t. I’m sorry.

 

10 Q. Do you recall if you were told his last name

 

11 at any time?

 

12 A. No, I was — I was introduced to everyone on

 

13 a first-name basis. I knew Hamid from before.

 

14 Q. All right. Rudy was or was not somebody you

 

15 knew prior to that day?

 

16 A. No.

 

17 Q. Christian, if I’m reading my handwriting

 

18 correctly —

 

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. — was the name you mentioned?

 

21 A. Yes.

 

22 Q. Was Christian somebody you knew prior to

 

23 that day?

 

24 A. No.

 

25 Q. Was his name given to you at that time?

 

26 A. I don’t remember if I was introduced to him

 

27 or if someone had said, “Christian will get it.” I

 

28 knew it was his name, because — I don’t remember 7963

 

1 being formally introduced to him.

 

2 Q. All right. You don’t recall an acquaintance

 

3 with him prior to that day?

 

4 A. No.

 

5 Q. You mentioned Ian Drew.

 

6 A. Yes.

 

7 Q. Who is Ian Drew?

 

8 A. He was someone that was going to interview

 

9 me.

 

10 Q. And was he somebody you knew prior to that

 

11 day as well?

 

12 A. No.

 

13 Q. Did you have any preliminary conversation

 

14 with him prior to the commencement of this

 

15 interview?

 

16 A. Absolutely not.

 

17 Q. Was that by your choice?

 

18 A. Yes.

 

19 Q. And why is that? Why was that?

 

20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation; 352;

 

21 leading.

 

22 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

23 You may answer.

 

24 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Go ahead.

 

25 A. Because I didn’t want anyone to be able to

 

26 come back to me and say that my interview was

 

27 rehearsed, that someone told me what to say.

 

28 Mr. Jackson knows no one can tell me what to 7964

 

1 say. I tend to speak my own mind, and I didn’t want

 

2 the interview to be construed as something other

 

3 than what it was, which was a cold interview.

 

4 Q. At some point in time, were you given any

 

5 kind of a list of questions?

 

6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection.

 

7 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

8 THE WITNESS: It was offered to me and I

 

9 declined it.

 

10 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. Who offered you

 

11 the list?

 

12 A. Ian Drew.

 

13 Q. Why did you decline it?

 

14 A. Again, it was a cold interview, and I wanted

 

15 to keep it that way.

 

16 Q. Was anyone else in the room during the

 

17 course of the interview?

 

18 A. Everyone was. Rudy and Christian were in

 

19 and out, but the main people who were there was

 

20 Hamid, Iris, Stuart, Marc and myself.

 

21 Q. All right.

 

22 A. And Ian.

 

23 Q. Did you know Hamid prior to that?

 

24 A. Yeah, I did.

 

25 Q. Was that Hamid Moslehi?

 

26 A. Yes.

 

27 Q. And you recognized him when you got there?

 

28 A. Oh, yes. 7965

 

1 Q. He had been Mr. Jackson’s videographer for

 

2 some time?

 

3 A. Yeah, for a long, long time.

 

4 Q. Was the location of this interview in

 

5 Calabasas, California?

 

6 A. Yes.

 

7 Q. Do you happen to know the date?

 

8 A. It was the day before that documentary was

 

9 to air. I don’t know the date.

 

10 Q. Miss Rowe, in the course of the interview

 

11 that took place, I think you said over about the

 

12 next nine hours —

 

13 A. Yes.

 

14 Q. — were you truthful in the answers that you

 

15 gave?

 

16 A. Can you rephrase that?

 

17 Q. Did you tell the truth? Did you answer all

 

18 those questions truthfully and honestly?

 

19 A. No.

 

20 Q. All right. Why is that?

 

21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;

 

22 opinion; relevance.

 

23 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

24 You may answer.

 

25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Why is that?

 

26 A. Because my personal life is my personal life

 

27 and no one’s business. And it pretty much doesn’t

 

28 matter. I could call something black. In the 7966

 

1 media, it will be called white.

 

2 Q. Do you remember the questions that you were

 

3 asked?

 

4 A. Not all of them.

 

5 Q. Do you remember some of the questions that

 

6 you were asked?

 

7 A. I would have to see the tape again.

 

8 Q. Did you have an opportunity to review the

 

9 tape recently?

 

10 A. Yes.

 

11 Q. All right. How many hours of tape did you

 

12 review?

 

13 A. To scan over? It was probably two and a

 

14 half hours of it, but I wasn’t really paying

 

15 attention. I found myself very boring and dull.

 

16 Q. Do you mean as the subject matter of the

 

17 tape?

 

18 A. Yeah.

 

19 Q. It went for, I think you said, about two and

 

20 a half hours?

 

21 A. That I — that I saw, I think it was a

 

22 three-hour tape, but I didn’t watch the entire

 

23 video.

 

24 Q. Do you have a belief as to whether or not it

 

25 was an edited version of what had taken place?

 

26 A. It had to be. It was a nine-hour interview.

 

27 And if there’s only three hours, there’s six hours

 

28 someplace. 7967

 

1 Q. Were you asked questions about Mr. Jackson?

 

2 A. Yes, I was.

 

3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; hearsay.

 

4 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

5 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What questions that were

 

6 asked of you about Mr. Jackson did you not give

 

7 honest answers to?

 

8 A. Can you be more specific?

 

9 Q. I can. Did he ask — were you asked

 

10 questions about Mr. Jackson and his parenting of

 

11 your two children?

 

12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; move to

 

13 strike.

 

14 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

15 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you understand the

 

16 question? Would you like to hear it again?

 

17 A. Yes, I was asked the question.

 

18 MR. ZONEN: May the court reporter repeat

 

19 the question, Your Honor?

 

20 THE COURT: I think she understood the —

 

21 THE WITNESS: I understood the question, and

 

22 I said, “Yes.”

 

23 MR. ZONEN: Oh, I’m sorry.

 

24 THE COURT: She answered your question.

 

25 MR. ZONEN: I’m sorry.

 

26 Q. Were those the questions, or among the

 

27 questions, that you did not answer honestly?

 

28 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading. 7968

 

1 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

2 You may answer.

 

3 THE WITNESS: Yes.

 

4 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: When was the last time you

 

5 had actually seen Mr. Jackson related to your two

 

6 oldest children?

 

7 A. The day that we signed our divorce papers.

 

8 Q. Did you have any information at all about

 

9 his parenting skills with your children?

 

10 A. Just — yes, I did. I — when I was seeing

 

11 the children, I spoke with the nannies before we

 

12 divorced. I saw him with the children. I’ve seen

 

13 him with the kids the whole time I’ve known him.

 

14 THE COURT: Counsel, we’ll take our afternoon

 

15 break.

 

16 Before we break, I just want to ask you a

 

17 question, Mr. Sanger.

 

18 MR. SANGER: Yes, sir.

 

19 THE COURT: Would you stipulate that the

 

20 phone records could be released so they can be

 

21 redacted as I ordered?

 

22 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, sir.

 

23 THE COURT: All right. I’ll release the

 

24 phone records that went in evidence today to the

 

25 District Attorney so they can be redacted and

 

26 returned to the Court immediately.

 

27 MR. SANGER: I take it they’ll give me the

 

28 copy of the redacted – 7969

 

1 THE COURT: And you’re ordered to give the

 

2 defense a copy of the redaction.

 

3 Thank you. We’re in recess until tomorrow

 

4 morning. And I’ll see you at 8:30.

 

5 MR. NICOLA: Mr. Sanger — can we talk with

 

6 him for a second?

 

7 MR. SANGER: If the Judge wants us.

 

8 (The proceedings adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

To be continued: https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/april-28th-2005-trial-analysis-debbie-rowe-iris-finsilver-andrew-dietz-jeffrey-schwartz-crystalee-danko-jennifer-simmons-joe-corral-part-1-of-3/

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: