Skip to content

April 28th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Debbie Rowe, Iris Finsilver, Andrew Dietz, Jeffrey Schwartz, Crystalee Danko, Jennifer Simmons, Joe Corral, Part 1 of 3

February 24, 2014

Debbie Rowe’s direct examination continued today, and but before she took the stand Judge Melville listened to oral arguments from the prosecution and defense outside the presence of the jury. The defense filed a motion to have Debbie Rowe’s testimony from the previous day stricken, and after a short discussion, Judge Melville ruled that Rowe should be able to continue her testimony.

The defense filed a motion titled MOTION TO STRIKE THE TESTIMONY OF DEBBIE ROWE to have Rowe’s testimony stricken because it contradicted the prosecution offer that they would only ask her about whether or not her children (Prince and Paris) were used as pawns to get her to participate in the rebuttal documentary, and the 100 scripted questions that she was asked during her interview. Also, Rowe completely rejected many of the prosecution’s claims and assertions about Jackson.

5 (The following proceedings were held in

 

6 open court outside the presence and hearing of the

 

7 jury:)

 

8

 

9 THE COURT: Good morning, everyone.

 

10 COUNSEL AT COUNSEL TABLE: (In unison)

 

11 Good morning.

 

12 THE COURT: The reason I came in without the

 

13 jury is I was provided with a motion to strike the

 

14 testimony of Debbie Rowe this morning.

 

15 I assumed you anticipated I would take that

 

16 up at this moment. Or did you not?

 

17 MR. SANGER: We hoped you would, if you

 

18 would give us the time to do it, Your Honor.

 

19 THE COURT: Here’s my sense of it: She

 

20 hasn’t testified long enough for me to know, really,

 

21 what she’s going to say, or anyone else. And your

 

22 motion might be well-taken. It might not. But I —

 

23 I understand what she said yesterday, but I don’t

 

24 really understand what she has to say today. So I

 

25 would want to really hear more testimony, I think.

 

26 MR. SANGER: Very well. Well, we briefed

 

27 it, and Your Honor understands our position.

 

28 THE COURT: I understand your position. 7975

 

1 I just think the — she barely got started

 

2 yesterday. I mean, I really — I think I’d have to

 

3 let it — well, I would have to know more about what

 

4 she says than what I know already to know whether or

 

5 not your motion is well-taken.

 

6 MR. SANGER: Well, my concern was — if I

 

7 may, my concern was to raise it at the earliest

 

8 possible moment —

 

9 THE COURT: I know.

 

10 MR. SANGER: — because if it goes too long,

 

11 then we get into a position where it’s hard to undo

 

12 it. And if —

 

13 THE COURT: I understand that, but —

 

14 MR. SANGER: I’m not arguing with the Court.

 

15 THE COURT: Okay.

 

16 MR. SANGER: I just want to let you know why

 

17 I think — whenever you feel —

 

18 THE COURT: There is another side of the

 

19 coin, though. I let the testimony in based on their

 

20 representations in their written materials, which —

 

21 if the testimony is the exact opposite, I mean,

 

22 isn’t that the testimony that would be relevant to

 

23 your side of the case?

 

24 MR. SANGER: Yes and no. And the problem —

 

25 I understand that. And we thought about it, but the

 

26 problem is that this will then lead to a tremendous

 

27 amount of other collateral testimony to put whatever

 

28 it is in context. 7976

 

1 THE COURT: Okay.

 

2 MR. SANGER: And that’s my concern. If we

 

3 go too far down the road, then we pretty much are

 

4 committed to doing the whole thing.

 

5 THE COURT: Okay. Well, let’s go further

 

6 down the road before —

 

7 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

 

8 THE COURT: Is there anything you — you

 

9 didn’t get to say anything. I assume —

 

10 MR. ZONEN: Nor am I requesting to.

 

11 THE COURT: Huh?

 

12 MR. ZONEN: Nor am I requesting to.

 

13 THE COURT: Okay.

Zonen started off his direct examination by continuing his questioning of Rowe about her participation in the Take Two rebuttal documentary. He focused on the questions that were posed to her by Schaffel and his crew in order to back up his assertion that Rowe’s interview was scripted, and she testified that Schaffel would interject to offer suggestions to her answers, but nothing was scripted, although she admitted to lying about presenting herself as being involved with Jackson and his children, when in fact she had not spoken to him since their divorce in 1999:

15 (The following proceedings were held in

 

16 open court in the presence and hearing of the

 

17 jury:)

 

18

 

19 THE COURT: I already said good morning to

 

20 everyone else, so I’ll say good morning to you.

 

21 THE JURY: (In unison) Good morning.

 

22 THE COURT: You may proceed.

 

23 MR. ZONEN: Thank you.

 

24

 

25 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

 

26 BY MR. ZONEN:

 

27 Q. Miss Rowe, good morning.

 

28 A. Good morning. 7977

 

1 Q. We left off, we were discussing the

 

2 interview that you had back in February of 2003 at

 

3 Marc Schaffel’s home in Calabasas. And you recall

 

4 that interview, do you not?

 

5 A. Yes.

 

6 Q. And I believe that you had testified

 

7 yesterday that you were at his residence for some

 

8 time over nine or ten hours; is that correct?

 

9 A. Yes.

 

10 Q. Approximately how long were you at his

 

11 residence?

 

12 A. We started early in the morning and finished

 

13 around 9:00, 10:00 at night.

 

14 Q. Was your attorney there the entire time?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. Was she in your presence the entire time?

 

17 A. No, she was not.

 

18 Q. Were there times when you were separated

 

19 from her?

 

20 A. Yes.

 

21 Q. All right. What was the purpose of that?

 

22 A. To — I didn’t want to see the interviewer

 

23 before the interview. And the best way to do that

 

24 was to leave where everything was that was happening

 

25 in the living room off to the side of the main

 

26 entrance of the house, so Mr. Schaffel and I went

 

27 upstairs in his office.

 

28 Q. And did you have a conversation with Mr. 7978

 

1 Schaffel at that time?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 Q. Did you discuss the interview?

 

4 A. No.

 

5 Q. At some point in time, did you take a look

 

6 at a script?

 

7 A. No.

 

8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

 

9 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer was, “No.”

 

10 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. At some point in

 

11 time, did you see one in somebody else’s possession?

 

12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

 

13 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

14 THE WITNESS: Mr. Drew had questions; I

 

15 assume they were questions. He had a number of

 

16 pages and asked if I wanted to see them. And I said

 

17 no.

 

18 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Do you know how many

 

19 questions were on that script?

 

20 A. He told me 105.

 

21 Q. Do you know if he went over all of those

 

22 questions during the course of that interview?

 

23 A. My understanding is we did.

 

24 Q. And the number of hours that you spent in

 

25 actual interview was approximately what?

 

26 A. Nine.

 

27 Q. Was Mr. Schaffel there the entire time?

 

28 A. Yes. 7979

 

1 Q. Was Mr. Schaffel saying anything during that

 

2 time?

 

3 A. He was hearing sounds in the background,

 

4 thought it was being picked up on audio, wanted to

 

5 change what the back —

 

6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

7 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

8 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Go ahead.

 

9 A. Wanted to make sure what the background

 

10 looked like and everything. He occasionally — not

 

11 “occasionally,” frequently would interject to

 

12 rephrase a question or an answer. And I told him if

 

13 that did not —

 

14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive;

 

15 narrative.

 

16 THE COURT: Sustained at this point.

 

17 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Tell us specifically what he

 

18 said to you with regards to either questions or

 

19 answers.

 

20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Calls for a

 

21 narrative; hearsay; foundation.

 

22 THE COURT: Sustained as to narrative.

 

23 MR. ZONEN: All right.

 

24 Q. Tell us if he — let me change that.

 

25 With regards to answers to your questions,

 

26 did he make any comments as to answers to your

 

27 questions?

 

28 A. Yes. 7980

 

1 Q. What kinds of comments did he make?

2 A. He —

 

3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague;

 

4 foundation; calls for a narrative.

 

5 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

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

 

7 question, if you recall.

 

8 A. He would ask me if I would rephrase an

 

9 answer or he would ask Mr. Drew to rephrase a

 

10 question.

 

11 Q. And what types of questions or answers would

 

12 he ask you to rephrase?

 

13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague.

 

14 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

15 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Do you remember any specific

 

16 questions that he asked you to rephrase?

 

17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Misstates the

 

18 evidence and vague.

 

19 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

20 You may answer.

 

21 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: You can answer.

 

22 A. I don’t remember a specific — there were so

 

23 many, I don’t remember any specific. I remember at

 

24 the end he wanted us to add stuff to clarify what he

 

25 thought might be misunderstood or something.

 

26 Q. And did you, in fact, make changes in your

 

27 interview in accordance with his request?

 

28 A. Only if it didn’t change the meaning of what 7981

 

1 I had to say.

 

2 Q. And what was the meaning of what you had to

 

3 say?

 

4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague.

 

5 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

6 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. What is it that

 

7 you were intending to represent in this interview?

 

8 A. Michael as a wonderful person and as a great

 

9 father and generous and caring.

 

10 Q. All right. Did you have information as to

 

11 Michael Jackson as a wonderful father?

 

12 A. As I’ve known him?

 

13 Q. Yes.

 

14 A. Yes.

 

15 Q. When was the last time you’d actually talked

 

16 with him?

 

17 A. In 1999.

 

18 Q. All right. This was in early 2003; is that

 

19 correct?

 

20 A. Correct.

 

21 Q. When was the last time you saw him interact

 

22 with the children?

 

23 A. 1991. I’m sorry, 1999.

 

24 Q. In the course of this interview, did you

 

25 represent yourself as still being part of the

 

26 family?

 

27 A. Yes, I did.

 

28 Q. Was that true? 7982

 

1 A. No, it was not.

 

2 Q. Why did you do it?

 

3 A. To protect the children and to try to keep

 

4 the media and questions away and out of their focus.

 

5 And to make sure that I could do whatever I could

 

6 even at a distance.

 

7 Q. Did you feel that you were enthusiastic

 

8 during this interview?

 

9 A. I —

 

10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

 

11 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: How did you approach this

 

13 interview in terms of your affect?

 

14 A. I was excited to do it.

 

15 Q. Why?

 

16 A. Because I would get to see my children and

 

17 possibly renew a relationship with Mr. Jackson.

 

18 Q. Why did you want to do that?

 

19 A. They’re my family.

 

20 Q. Did you consider them your family?

 

21 A. Yes.

 

22 Q. Did you consider Mr. Jackson to be your

 

23 family to the same extent as your children?

 

24 A. I don’t think anyone is as much as your

 

25 children, but, yes.

 

26 Q. How long had it been since you had seen your

 

27 children?

 

28 A. About two and a half years. 7983

 

1 Q. At the conclusion of the interview, did you

 

2 have a conversation with anybody about when you

 

3 would be able to see your children?

 

4 A. Mr. Schaffel said that he was excited, and

 

5 that we’d be going up to Neverland soon. And I

 

6 said, “Fine.” I said, “Let me know as soon as you

 

7 can.”

 

8 Q. Was that something that you wanted to do?

 

9 A. Very much. Very much.

 

10 Q. When was the last time you had been to

 

11 Neverland?

 

12 A. Years. I couldn’t tell you. Probably .99,

 

13 .98.

Rowe continued to testify that she made attempts to visit the children, and eventually regained her parental rights through the courts. Zonen ended his direct examination after this line of questioning was through, and Rowe’s testimony did absolutely nothing for the prosecution:

14 Q. Did you make any contact with anybody about

 

15 seeing your children within the next, say, 30 days

 

16 or beyond?

 

17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

 

18 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

19 You may answer.

 

20 THE WITNESS: Mr. Schaffel. I would call —

 

21 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: How often — I’m sorry?

 

22 A. I would call him almost weekly. I didn’t

 

23 want to be a noodge, or piss him off, so I would

 

24 call him and chat him up, and say, “By the way,” you

 

25 know, “Are they back?” You know, “When can I see

 

26 them?” Because it was my understanding they were

 

27 out of town.

 

28 Q. For what period of time did you continue to 7984

 

1 contact Mr. Schaffel about that?

 

2 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, we object. Make

 

3 a motion to exclude.

 

4 MR. ZONEN: I’d like to respond to it, even

 

5 if at sidebar.

 

6 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.

 

7 You may answer.

 

8 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Go ahead.

 

9 A. About nine months.

 

10 Q. Did you ever see your children?

 

11 A. No, I did not.

 

12 Q. To this day, have you seen your children?

 

13 A. No, I have not.

 

14 Q. Have you gone back to court?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. Have you reinstated parental rights —

 

17 A. Yes.

 

18 Q. — for yourself?

 

19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading;

 

20 foundation.

 

21 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

22 MR. MESEREAU: Relevance.

 

23 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What did you accomplish in

 

24 court?

 

25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading;

 

26 foundation; relevance; vague; and calls for improper

 

27 opinion.

 

28 THE COURT: The objection to “What did you 7985

 

1 accomplish…” is sustained as vague. That question

 

2 is vague.

 

3 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. Were you able to

 

4 get a ruling in regards to your custody of your

 

5 children?

 

6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; relevance; motion

 

7 to exclude.

 

8 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

9 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Go ahead.

 

10 A. Not regards to custody, but my parental

 

11 rights were reinstated.

 

12 Q. At this time you have parental rights again,

 

13 is that right?

 

14 A. Yes, I do.

 

15 Q. Have you seen your children?

 

16 A. No, I have not.

 

17 Q. Are you still in court making an effort to

 

18 do so?

 

19 A. Very much so. Actively.

 

20 Q. Have you ever seen yourself on television or

 

21 any part of that interview that was conducted at Mr.

 

22 Schaffel’s house?

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. Where did you see it?

 

25 A. I reviewed it last night. I hadn’t seen it.

 

26 I didn’t watch it when it was on television, so I

 

27 saw a video last evening.

 

28 Q. All right. That was the same video that you 7986

 

1 had reviewed once previously?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 Q. But on the occasion last night, you viewed

 

4 it with greater detail?

 

5 A. Yes.

 

6 Q. Did you ever see the Maury Povich film that

 

7 was featured at a later time?

 

8 A. I don’t remember watching it.

 

9 Q. Did you ever receive any money for your

 

10 participation —

 

11 A. No.

 

12 Q. — in this interview?

 

13 A. No.

 

14 Q. What was your motivation to participate in

 

15 this interview?

 

16 A. To see my children.

 

17 MR. ZONEN: Thank you. I have no further

 

18 questions.

 

19 THE COURT: Cross-examine?

 

20 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, we’d like to

 

21 renew our motion to exclude testimony into these

 

22 areas.

 

23 THE COURT: I’ll give you an indicated,

 

24 subject to full argument, but at this point I would

 

25 probably not grant that motion.

 

26 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Mr. Mesereau.

Mesereau began his cross examination by asking Rowe to clarify her custody battle with Jackson, and then to clarify her relationship with Marc Schaffel, whom she didn’t meet until the day of her interview for the rebuttal documentary:

1 CROSS-EXAMINATION

 

2 BY MR. MESEREAU:

 

3 Q. Good morning, Ms. Rowe.

 

4 We’ve never spoken before, correct?

 

5 A. No, we have not.

 

6 Q. Okay.

 

7 A. I’m Debbie.

 

8 (Laughter.)

 

9 Q. The prosecutor asked you some questions

 

10 about your, for lack of a better word, current

 

11 dispute with Michael Jackson in Family Law Court,

 

12 correct?

 

13 A. I wouldn’t call it a dispute, but if that’s

 

14 the legal term, okay.

 

15 Q. Well, the prosecutor asked you about whether

 

16 you obtained rights or not – okay? – and I believe

 

17 you said you have obtained parental rights but not

 

18 custody rights; is that true?

 

19 A. I corrected him, and said that my parental

 

20 rights had been reinstated —

 

21 Q. Okay.

 

22 A. — when he mentioned custody.

 

23 Q. Okay. Okay. Now, when did you first meet

 

24 Mr. Schaffel?

 

25 A. When Mr. Jackson asked me to do the

 

26 interview.

 

27 Q. Okay. And did you first meet him at the

 

28 interview? 7988

 

1 A. Yes. Personally — I had spoken to him on

 

2 the phone. But personally, yes.

 

3 Q. And I gather you developed some type of

 

4 friendship with him; is that true?

 

5 A. I wouldn’t call it a friendship. More of an

 

6 acquaintance. More than an acquaintanceship, but

 

7 not a friendship.

 

8 Q. And you were calling him approximately every

 

9 week; is that true?

 

10 A. For about three months, yes.

The prosecution obtained Rowe’s cell phone number from Schaffel, and they interviewed her on several occasions. Rowe agreed to work with them and participate in a few pretext phone calls, where Rowe would call Schaffel, Ian Drew (her interviewer during the rebuttal interview), Dieter Weisner (although she was unable to reach him), and the police recorded the phone calls without their knowledge.

11 Q. Okay. And at some point you were in contact

 

12 with the Santa Barbara sheriffs about this case,

 

13 correct?

 

14 A. They had called me, yes. And I did not

 

15 return the first call.

 

16 Q. And eventually, you developed somewhat of a

 

17 dialogue with Santa Barbara sheriffs about this

 

18 case, right?

 

19 A. When they caught me on my cell phone on my

 

20 way home from Palm Springs, yes, the number they got

 

21 from Marc Schaffel.

 

22 Q. And you agreed to make what you called some

 

23 pretext phone calls for the sheriffs, correct?

 

24 A. Correct.

 

25 Q. And a pretext phone call means basically you

 

26 agreed to work with the sheriffs, telephone people

 

27 and talk to them while the sheriffs were recording

 

28 those calls; is that correct? 7989

 

1 A. Correct.

 

2 Q. And the idea was that the people you would

 

3 call would not know they were being recorded, right?

 

4 A. Correct.

 

5 Q. Only you and the sheriffs would know there

 

6 were recordings, right?

 

7 A. Correct.

 

8 Q. Now, how many of these pretext phone calls

 

9 do you think you made with or for the sheriffs?

 

10 A. I think there were a total of four to six.

 

11 I’m not sure.

 

12 Q. And who were those pretext phone calls with?

 

13 A. Marc Schaffel. Ian Drew. And I think I may

 

14 have tried to do one with Dieter.

 

15 Q. Were you able to do that one?

 

16 A. I don’t remember.

 

17 Q. Okay. So the only people you recall

 

18 actually speaking with when they didn’t know the

 

19 call was being recorded are Schaffel and Drew; is

 

20 that right?

 

21 A. And Dieter, if I did one with him, he

 

22 wouldn’t have known.

During her 9 hour interview for the rebuttal documentary, Rowe refused to use the suggested answers that Drew offered her because she wanted her answers to be spontaneous and honest. Rowe had not seen Bashir’s documentary prior to her interview, and had no interest in seeing it or reading a transcript of it:

23 Q. Now, Schaffel and Drew were there when you

 

24 were interviewed?

 

25 A. Yes, they were.

 

26 Q. And when you arrived for the interview had

 

27 you ever spoken to Mr. Drew before?

 

28 A. No, I had not. 7990

 

1 Q. Did you meet him for the first time at the

 

2 interview?

 

3 A. Yes, I did.

 

4 Q. So you met Ian Drew for the first time at

 

5 Marc Schaffel’s home, right?

 

6 A. Correct.

 

7 Q. And after you met him, did you develop an

 

8 understanding as to whether or not Mr. Drew would

 

9 have a role in your interview?

 

10 A. I was told he was the one that would be

 

11 doing the interviewing.

 

12 Q. And did he, in fact, do that?

 

13 A. Yes, he did.

 

14 Q. Okay. And is he the one that had the list

 

15 of questions you’ve described?

 

16 A. Yes, he did.

 

17 Q. And I believe you said you thought there

 

18 were about 105 questions, right?

 

19 A. He told me there were 105.

 

20 Q. Mr. Drew told you that?

 

21 A. Yes, he did.

 

22 Q. Did he ever show you the list of questions?

 

23 A. He offered to.

 

24 Q. And you refused, right?

 

25 A. Correct.

 

26 Q. You refused because you wanted to give a

 

27 spontaneous type of response to whatever he asked

 

28 you, right? 7991

 

1 A. Correct.

 

2 Q. Okay. And I think it’s fair to say that

 

3 your responses were very favorable about Michael

 

4 Jackson, right?

 

5 A. Yes.

 

6 Q. You answered questions for approximately

 

7 nine hours; is that true?

 

8 A. Yes. It was a very long day.

 

9 Q. And you were asked all sorts of questions

 

10 about what kind of person Mr. Jackson was, right?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. You were asked about what kind of a father

 

13 he was —

 

14 A. Yes.

 

15 Q. — right?

 

16 You were asked whether or not he was a good

 

17 family person?

 

18 A. Yes.

 

19 Q. You were asked about whether he was a good

 

20 friend of yours, right?

 

21 A. Yes.

 

22 Q. And you, throughout that nine-hour period,

 

23 were very positive about Michael Jackson, right?

 

24 A. Yes.

 

25 Q. And when you got there for the interview,

 

26 your understanding was you were going there to help

 

27 do a very positive, favorable piece about Michael,

 

28 right? 7992

 

1 A. Correct.

 

2 Q. And your understanding was that one of the

 

3 purposes of this interview was to counteract the

 

4 negative stuff that appeared in the Bashir

 

5 documentary, right?

 

6 A. I didn’t know what the video was. I had

7 never heard of Bashir. It was regarding something

 

8 that had played in Europe and was going to be played

 

9 in the United States. I didn’t want to see the

 

10 video. I didn’t want to see the transcripts from

 

11 the video. I didn’t want to know anything about it.

 

12 Q. Okay. Okay. But you knew there was — the

 

13 purpose was to respond to something in the media

 

14 that had been negative about Michael, right?

 

15 A. Negative, twisted, misunderstood, whatever

 

16 it was.

 

17 Q. Okay. And I believe you testified you were

 

18 more than eager to help Michael in this area, right?

 

19 A. Absolutely.

 

20 Q. And as far as you’re concerned, you did help

 

21 him, right?

 

22 A. I hope I did.

 

23 Q. You spoke favorably about him and some of

 

24 your comments were placed on a T.V. documentary,

 

25 right?

 

26 A. The show that — whatever it was that aired

 

27 for it, yeah. I think they said the Povich thing.

Next, Rowe gave her true thoughts on Schaffel, Konitzer, and Weisner! She told sheriffs during her interview with them that she thought that they were all liars in cahoots with each other, using and taking advantage of Jackson for their own financial benefit. She was also told by Schaffel several months before testifying that he would be suing Jackson for a million dollars:

28 Q. And you kept calling Mr. Schaffel for a 7993

1 number of months?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 Q. And you would see him from time to time,

 

4 right?

 

5 A. No, I never saw him. I saw him one time —

 

6 Q. You had lunch with him one time?

 

7 A. He set me up. Yes, I had lunch with him one

 

8 time.

 

9 Q. Where was that?

 

10 A. The Ivy.

 

11 Q. Okay. And you say Schaffel set you up?

 

12 A. Yeah.

 

13 Q. And what do you mean by that?

 

14 A. Apparently there was a meeting going on with

 

15 Michael and some of his people, and I later found

 

16 out that Schaffel and Dieter were not included. And

 

17 so Marc had called me up and said, “Do you want to

 

18 go to lunch?” And I said, “Sure.” I said, “Do you

 

19 want me to meet you in the valley halfway? Do you

 

20 want to come over here? I’ll pick you up.” You

 

21 know, “What do you want to do?” And he said, “Well,

 

22 why don’t I pick you up.” And I said, “Fine. Where

 

23 are we going to go?” And he said, “The Ivy. Is

 

24 that okay?” I said, “Sure.” I never had any

 

25 problems at The Ivy before. So we went to The Ivy.

 

26 Q. And would Schaffel call you from time to

 

27 time?

 

28 A. Yes. 7994

 

1 Q. Okay. And you have previously commented

 

2 that you thought Mr. Schaffel was using Mr. Jackson,

 

3 true?

 

4 A. Oh, yeah.

 

5 Q. You thought he was using him, manipulating

 

6 him?

 

7 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as lack of

 

8 foundation. She said she just met him. Also

 

9 improper opinion.

 

10 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

11 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You told the sheriffs

 

12 that, in your opinion, Marc Schaffel was continually

 

13 trying to take advantage of Michael Jackson, true?

 

14 A. Correct.

 

15 Q. And you thought he was manipulating Michael

 

16 Jackson to make lots of money, right?

 

17 A. Yes.

 

18 Q. Now, you met Dieter at some point, true?

 

19 A. Yes.

 

20 Q. And when did you meet Dieter?

 

21 A. I don’t remember if I met him anytime before

 

22 The Ivy incident, but I met — he was with us at

 

23 lunch.

 

24 Q. Okay. And did you meet Konitzer at some

 

25 point?

 

26 A. Years ago on tour, when he was doing “Those

 

27 Cool Sunglasses.”

 

28 Q. During the period of the interview — I say 7995

1 “during the period.” That’s a little bit vague.

 

2 Let me withdraw that.

 

3 Around the time of the interview, did you

 

4 talk to Konitzer at all?

 

5 A. I spoke with him when I spoke with Mr.

 

6 Jackson to arrange it. And he and Dieter and Marc

 

7 had been on the phone. They had been on the phone

 

8 to tell me about problems that were going on, yes.

 

9 Q. And you’ve also made statements to the

 

10 sheriffs that you thought Dieter and Konitzer were

 

11 manipulating Michael Jackson, correct?

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. You thought Dieter and Konitzer were taking

 

14 advantage of Michael Jackson, true?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. And you thought they were trying to

 

17 manipulate Michael Jackson to make a lot of money,

 

18 right?

 

19 A. Yes.

 

20 Q. Was it your perception, based upon what you

 

21 observed of Schaffel, Dieter and Konitzer, that

 

22 those three were working together?

 

23 A. Oh, yeah.

 

24 Q. You definitely got that impression?

 

25 A. Oh, yeah.

 

26 Q. Okay. And was it your impression that those

 

27 three were working together to find ways to use

 

28 Michael Jackson’s name so they could profit? 7996

 

1 A. Yes.

 

2 Q. And at one point you told the sheriffs that

 

3 you thought Michael Jackson was, in some ways, very

 

4 removed from what those guys were doing, right?

 

5 A. In my past knowledge, he’s removed from the

 

6 handlers, the people who are taking care of

 

7 business, and they make all the decisions. There’s

 

8 a number of times they don’t consult him.

 

9 Q. And you thought these three guys, Schaffel,

 

10 Dieter and Konitzer, were doing just that, didn’t

 

11 you?

 

12 A. Very strongly.

 

13 Q. Do you recall if around this time you ever

 

14 tried to warn Michael Jackson about Schaffel,

 

15 Konitzer and Dieter?

 

16 A. I did. I tried to go through my — my —

 

17 I’m sorry, my old boss. And actually, when I did

 

18 call, I was told that, “Be careful of Marc.”

 

19 Q. And your old boss was Dr. Klein?

 

20 A. Arnold Klein, yes. K-l-e-i-n.

 

21 Q. What you’re saying, you tried to communicate

 

22 with Michael, through Dr. Klein, to warn him about

 

23 what these three characters were doing to Michael?

 

24 A. Or to look and see if he was aware of what

 

25 was going on, if he even knew that I was still

 

26 trying to see the children.

 

27 Q. Okay. And one of the problems you had was

 

28 that because of the custody issues, you were 7997

 

1 supposed to talk through attorneys, right?

 

2 A. Correct.

 

3 Q. And that created a problem in your ability

 

4 to communicate with Michael, right?

 

5 A. It was difficult, yes.

 

6 Q. Okay.

 

7 A. It was easy with Mr. Spiegel, Lance Spiegel.

 

8 Q. And Mr. Spiegel was a prior lawyer for Mr.

 

9 Jackson?

 

10 A. For family, yes.

 

11 Q. Okay. Okay. Now, approximately when did

 

12 you — when were you divorced from Mr. Jackson? Was

 

13 it 1999?

 

14 A. Yes.

 

15 Q. And at that point you gave up custody of the

 

16 children?

 

17 A. No, not at that point. A year and a half

 

18 later.

 

19 Q. Okay. A year and a half later you gave up

 

20 custody of the children, and you had the visitation

 

21 rights that you identified yesterday, right?

 

22 A. Right. No, I’m sorry, I misunderstood.

 

23 I gave up custody at the divorce. I gave him full

 

24 custody. I had visitation – I’m sorry, I

 

25 misunderstood – every 45 days.

 

26 Q. Approximately how long was your marriage to

 

27 Mr. Jackson?

 

28 A. Three and a half years. 7998

 

1 Q. Okay. And I believe you said yesterday

 

2 you’ve stayed his friend, right?

 

3 A. I’ve always considered him my friend.

 

4 Q. And you still do, right?

 

5 A. Yeah. If he’d talk to me. Sorry.

 

6 Q. And without question, the communicating

 

7 through lawyers has created problems with —

 

8 A. Have you met Mr. Hall? Extreme problems.

 

9 Q. Okay. Okay. You’re blaming the lawyers for

 

10 a lot of that, right?

 

11 A. Have you met Mr. Hall? You don’t want to.

 

12 Q. Okay. All right. How many times did you

 

13 meet Dieter personally?

 

14 A. Like — I know for sure the one time.

 

15 Q. Did you talk to Dieter on the telephone?

 

16 A. Yes.

 

17 Q. How many times do you think you talked to

 

18 Dieter on the telephone?

 

19 A. I think once or twice.

 

20 Q. Okay.

 

21 A. I don’t remember. They weren’t eventful

 

22 calls.

 

23 Q. Did he call you or did you call him?

 

24 A. He’s — I know he called me once, and I

 

25 believe I called him.

 

26 Q. Now, did you learn at some point — excuse

 

27 me. Before I get into that, how many calls do you

 

28 think you had with Drew, if any? 7999

 

1 A. From when to when?

 

2 Q. Oh, around the time of the interview.

 

3 A. I met Mr. Drew, he went back to Florida, I

 

4 didn’t see him for about a year. When he came back

 

5 to Los Angeles, he called me and said he was back in

 

6 town.

 

7 Q. Did you develop a friendship with him?

 

8 A. Yeah.

 

9 Q. Okay. Now, did you learn at some point that

 

10 Schaffel was trying to make millions of dollars from

 

11 the footage of your interview?

 

12 A. Yes, I —

 

13 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as lack of

 

14 foundation.

 

15 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

16 THE WITNESS: Yes.

17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: How did you learn that

 

18 Schaffel was trying to make millions of dollars from

 

19 the footage of your interview?

 

20 A. He told me he was paid for it. He told me

 

21 that part of the money that was made from it went

 

22 for a debt that Mr. Jackson had owed him. I later

 

23 found out that he took — he told Ronald and Dieter

 

24 that I wanted $100,000 for doing the interview. And

 

25 I believe a check was cut – not to me. I wouldn’t

 

26 have taken it – and he kept it.

 

27 Q. And how did you learn this information?

 

28 A. Some of it was from Ian. Some of it was 8000

 

1 from Marc himself.

 

2 Q. And at one point Schaffel told you he was

 

3 going to sue Michael Jackson, didn’t he?

 

4 A. Yes, he did.

 

5 Q. He told you he wanted over a million dollars

 

6 from Michael Jackson, true?

 

7 A. He said Michael owed him a million dollars.

 

8 Q. And approximately when did Marc Schaffel

 

9 tell you he was going to sue Michael Jackson?

 

10 A. Six months ago maybe. It may have been

 

11 longer than that, but I’m not really good with — if

 

12 you could give me something to refer to at a time, I

 

13 could say yes, it happened then. But I think it was

 

14 about six months ago. And then he told me, about

 

15 three months ago, that he and his lawyer were filing

 

16 papers.

 

17 Q. And did you ever learn at some point that he

 

18 had actually sued Michael Jackson?

 

19 A. He told me that they’d filed the papers.

 

20 Q. Okay. Did Schaffel ever ask you for

 

21 assistance in his suit against Michael Jackson?

 

22 A. No.

 

23 Q. Did he ever ask you for information to help

 

24 him in his business dealings with Michael Jackson?

 

25 A. I wouldn’t have given it to him.

 

26 Q. Okay. Did he ever ask you for help, though?

 

27 A. I’m sorry?

 

28 Q. Did Schaffel, in your mind, ever ask you to 8001

 

1 help him in his business dealings with Mr. Jackson?

 

2 A. No. He just bragged about either how he

 

3 took advantage of an opportunity that I’m sure he

 

4 knew nothing about or how he was going to do this,

 

5 that or the other thing to make sure that Michael’s

 

6 career was saved, and things of that nature.

 

7 Q. Did Schaffel tell you that he was involved

 

8 in business matters with Dieter?

 

9 A. Yes.

 

10 Q. Did Schaffel tell you he was involved in

 

11 business matters with Konitzer?

 

12 A. Yes. In Europe.

 

13 Q. Okay. And did you ever get the impression

 

14 he was not giving Michael Jackson all the

 

15 information about what he was up to?

 

16 A. He was like everybody else around Mr.

 

17 Jackson. Yeah, he wasn’t telling him everything.

 

18 Q. Why did you think Schaffel was calling you?

 

19 A. To placate me. To say that, “Oh, no, I’m

 

20 working on it. You’ll be seeing the kids.

 

21 Michael’s very excited about it. Everything’s going

 

22 to be great. They’re still in Florida.” You know,

 

23 “As soon as they get home you guys will be

 

24 together.”

 

25 Q. And you didn’t think he was being truthful,

 

26 right?

 

27 A. Obviously he’s full of shit. Sorry.

 

28 I’m sorry, Your Honor. 8002

 

1 Q. You consider Marc Schaffel a liar, don’t

 

2 you?

 

3 A. Yes.

 

4 Q. You consider Dieter a liar, don’t you?

 

5 A. Yes.

 

6 Q. You consider Konitzer to be a liar, don’t

 

7 you?

 

8 A. Yes.

In this excerpt, Rowe continued to portray Schaffel as a sleazy con-artist, based on her interactions with him and his statements to her, and spoke in more detail about Konitzer and Weisner:

9 Q. Did Mr. Drew appear to you to want to

 

10 interact with Schaffel?

 

11 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as speculative.

 

12 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You met Mr. Drew at

 

14 Schaffel’s residence, right?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. And you were introduced to him through

 

17 Schaffel, right?

 

18 A. Yes.

 

19 Q. Was it your belief at that time that the two

 

20 of them had some type of business relationship?

 

21 A. Marc told me that Ian was a plant at one of

 

22 the tabloids to run interference for bad publicity

 

23 for Michael.

 

24 Q. And did you believe that?

 

25 A. I didn’t know, didn’t care, didn’t want to

 

26 be there, but was there for the kids and for him.

 

27 I — you know, I wanted to get in and get out. I’m

 

28 having about as much fun here as I had there. 8003

 

1 Q. Was it your understanding that Schaffel was

 

2 using Ian Drew for a particular purpose?

 

3 A. Yes.

 

4 Q. And that purpose was to sew publicity that

 

5 he wanted in the tabloids?

 

6 A. To get information out. I don’t know if I

 

7 knew that it was — if I knew that it was The Globe

 

8 then that he was the plant for, or if Marc told me

 

9 shortly thereafter. I think Marc told me at the

 

10 day, the day that it was, so I knew that I was

 

11 supposed to expect something coming out in the

 

12 tabloids.

 

13 Q. Right.

 

14 A. “Shockingly” was misinterpreted.

 

15 Q. And was it your impression that Schaffel was

 

16 using Drew to promote Schaffel’s business interests?

 

17 A. If I’m considered a commodity to Mr.

 

18 Jackson, then yes.

 

19 Q. And as far as you were concerned, Schaffel

 

20 was using you as a commodity, right?

 

21 A. Schaffel was talking out both sides of his

 

22 mouth, telling me one thing, telling Mr. Jackson

 

23 something else.

 

24 Q. You thought he was using the two of you,

 

25 didn’t you?

 

26 A. Yes.

 

27 Q. Schaffel bragged to you about the large sums

 

28 of money he was going to make off of Michael 8004

 

1 Jackson, didn’t he?

 

2 A. Yes, he did.

 

3 Q. He bragged about making millions of dollars

 

4 off of Michael Jackson, didn’t he?

 

5 A. Yes, he did.

 

6 Q. He did that many times, didn’t he?

 

7 A. Constantly.

 

8 Q. Did Dieter brag as well about the millions

 

9 he was going to make off of Michael Jackson?

 

10 A. He wasn’t as — he was more subtle about it

 

11 and spoke of it as plans for Michael, not actually

 

12 to take from Michael. So it’s a matter of

 

13 semantics, I’m saying, you know, “I’m going to do it

 

14 for Michael.”

 

15 Q. Did Konitzer brag about all the money he was

 

16 going to make off of Michael Jackson?

 

17 A. He had big plans. So — but they — I

 

18 didn’t speak with him as often as I spoke with Marc.

 

19 So those conversations weren’t about that with

 

20 Ronald. It was getting this project started and how

 

21 they were going to — how everything was going to be

 

22 much better.

 

23 And then I think I had another conversation

 

24 with Ronald and Dieter afterwards when they called

 

25 to say that everything was fine with the video, and

 

26 “Thank you,” and “Things will be fine. We have big

 

27 plans,” and stuff like that. I think there’s only

 

28 two times I spoke with Konitzer. 8005

 

1 Q. Did Dieter ever tell you that he and

 

2 Konitzer were going to take over all of Michael

 

3 Jackson’s affairs?

 

4 A. That was their plan, because he’d been

 

5 mishandled.

 

6 Q. Did Dieter ever tell you, “Don’t call

 

7 Michael Jackson. If you have any question about

 

8 him, talk to me”?

 

9 A. I wouldn’t be allowed to call him. But if I

 

10 had any concerns I would — he said, you know,

 

11 “Please call me.”

 

12 Q. Did Schaffel ever show you any written

 

13 agreements that he said concerned projects he was

 

14 going to do with the Jackson name?

 

15 A. The song. Didn’t show me the contract, but

 

16 that was one thing that he spoke to me about is that

 

17 they were doing a song for Clear Channel or

 

18 something.

 

19 Q. How many times have you been to Schaffel’s

 

20 home?

21 A. Once for the interview, and once to pick him

 

22 up, and I have to remember where we were going. We

 

23 had to drop a friend of his off in Hollywood

 

24 someplace. Oh, we went to see Parviz, this guy

 

25 Parviz. That’s what we did.

Rowe also had negative feelings about Jackson’s former attorney Mark Geragos, who Jackson hired based on Schaffel’s recommendation. Before she could divulge her true feelings about him, Zonen objected based on hearsay and relevance, and his objection was sustained by Judge Melville.

Afterwards, Mesereau continued to question Rowe about her last interactions with Schaffel, Konitzer, and Weisner. Rowe made an astonishing comment that she felt that Schaffel was out to hurt Jackson, and in addition hurt her children as well!

26 Q. Okay. And did Schaffel talk to you about an

 

27 attorney named Mr. Geragos?

 

28 A. Uh-huh. 8006

 

1 Q. Did he tell you that he had picked Mr.

 

2 Geragos?

 

3 A. I don’t know who picked him, but whoever did

 

4 made a huge mistake. Come on. He pleads out or

 

5 loses.

 

6 Q. Well, in your discussions with the sheriffs,

 

7 you made negative comments about Mr. Geragos, didn’t

 

8 you?

 

9 A. Oh, yeah.

 

10 Q. And didn’t you also comment that you thought

 

11 Mr. Geragos was doing —

 

12 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as hearsay

 

13 and speculative and irrelevant and beyond the scope

 

14 of the direct.

 

15 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know why you were

 

17 asked by the sheriffs to record phone conversations

 

18 with Ian Drew?

 

19 MR. ZONEN: Objection; speculative.

 

20 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did any representative of

 

22 the sheriff’s department ever tell you why they

 

23 wanted you to record phone conversations with Ian

 

24 Drew?

 

25 A. It was very frustrating working with the

 

26 sheriff’s department. They don’t give you any

 

27 information. That’s why I wanted to find out for

 

28 myself what was going on. 8007

 

1 Q. And did you ever record conversations

 

2 yourself and then just give those recordings to the

 

3 sheriff?

 

4 A. No, that’s illegal.

 

5 Q. You just did it always with a sheriff

 

6 involved with you?

 

7 A. Yes.

 

8 Q. Okay. When did you last talk to Mr.

 

9 Schaffel?

 

10 A. Conversation-conversation? Probably two

 

11 weeks ago. Probably right before he got the

 

12 transcripts from the conversation. But he had sent

 

13 me e-mails that I had not opened. They’re still on

 

14 my account before I came up here.

 

15 Q. So a couple of weeks ago you talked to him?

 

16 A. Spoke with him, yes.

 

17 Q. Okay.

 

18 A. He was out of town and wouldn’t be back for

 

19 a couple of weeks. He said there was a family

 

20 crisis or something. I was hoping his family wasn’t

 

21 ill.

 

22 Q. Did you call him?

 

23 A. I don’t have a cell phone number for him

 

24 anymore. I lost it. So when he was in town, the

 

25 conversations were less and less after I had spoken

 

26 with the sheriff’s department and found the

 

27 information out that I had found and the way I had

 

28 been treated. And it’s a little difficult for me to 8008

 

1 be civil to someone that I dislike.

 

2 Q. Well, I gather you tried your best to let

 

3 Mr. Schaffel think he could still communicate with

 

4 you?

 

5 A. Yes.

 

6 Q. Up until two weeks ago, right?

 

7 A. Yes.

 

8 Q. Was that at the request of the sheriffs?

 

9 A. No, that was more me. If he did get in

 

10 touch with me, I did tell them.

 

11 Q. And when did you last talk to Ian Drew?

 

12 A. He got promoted from his job just after the

 

13 first of the year. I had dinner with him. There’s

 

14 a group of us that go out on Wednesday nights, and I

 

15 think it was a month ago that I last talked to him.

 

16 It was getting close to my uncle’s birthday, so we

 

17 did — everybody has to come on this Wednesday night

 

18 to not miss my uncle’s birthday.

 

19 Q. Your last communication with Dieter was

 

20 when?

 

21 A. Oh, a long time ago. Not within the last

 

22 year, I don’t think. Well, I think The Ivy incident

 

23 was the last time that I spoke to him. I may — oh,

 

24 no, no, no, no. I did try to call him. Sorry. I

 

25 did try to call him afterwards. And I may have made

 

26 the one phone call. I don’t remember if I made it

 

27 or not. I haven’t seen any of the stuff.

 

28 So if there’s something there, I’d be happy 8009

 

1 to look at it and tell you what was done and what

 

2 was said and what was meant, if you’d like.

 

3 Q. I’m just asking you.

 

4 A. Blonde.

 

5 I don’t remember the day, you know. I think

 

6 I did, but I can’t totally swear to it.

 

7 Q. How about Konitzer. When do you think you

 

8 last talked to him?

 

9 A. If I did, it was very shortly after the

 

10 video.

 

11 Q. Okay. Would it be accurate to say that your

 

12 impression was that Schaffel, Konitzer, and Dieter

 

13 were trying to profit off problems Mr. Jackson had?

 

14 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object again as

 

15 speculative and lack of foundation.

 

16 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did Schaffel tell you that

 

18 he and Dieter and Konitzer were going to make a lot

 

19 of money off of the problems that came out of the

 

20 Bashir documentary?

 

21 A. They said they were going to fix the problem

 

22 and bragged that they had made money.

 

23 MR. ZONEN: Objection; nonresponsive. “They

 

24 said.”

 

25 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

26 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: That bothered you, didn’t

 

27 it?

 

28 A. Yeah. 8010

 

1 Q. Did you ever tell Schaffel, “I don’t like

 

2 what you’re doing to Michael,” or words to that

 

3 effect?

 

4 A. If I had said that, then I wouldn’t have

 

5 been able to find out what he was doing and try to

 

6 get word to whoever was handling him, “You guys are

 

7 going to get screwed.”

 

8 Q. So what you were trying to do was make

 

9 Schaffel think he could maintain a friendship with

 

10 you, but what you really wanted to do was get

 

11 information from him?

 

12 A. Yeah. He was out to hurt Michael, in

 

13 addition would hurt my children.

 

14 Q. And did you feel Dieter was trying to hurt

 

15 Michael and also your children?

 

16 A. I think they’re opportunistic vultures.

 

17 Q. Would that be Dieter, Konitzer and Schaffel?

 

18 A. Okay. You can do them alphabetically if

 

19 you’d like.

 

20 Q. You’re talking about the three of them,

 

21 right?

 

22 A. All of them.

 

23 Q. Who else are you referring to as vultures,

 

24 besides those three?

 

25 A. If it’s a personal opinion, does it count?

 

26 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as beyond

 

27 the scope of the direct examination and speculative

 

28 and improper opinion. 8011

1 THE COURT: Sounds like she’s got a long

 

2 list. I think I’ll sustain the objection.

 

3 (Laughter.)

 

4 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

Next, Mesereau questioned Rowe about her interview with Sgt. Steve Robel, during which she tried to explain how Jackson was being taken advantage of and manipulated by Konitzer, Schaffel, and Weisner.

5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Ms. Rowe, at some

 

6 point, did you learn that Santa Barbara sheriffs had

 

7 recorded a discussion with you?

 

8 A. You did? You did?

 

9 No, I didn’t know that.

 

10 Q. Okay.

 

11 A. Damn you guys. You don’t share anything.

12 Q. Did you ever learn that any discussion you

 

13 had with the Santa Barbara sheriff was, in fact,

 

14 recorded?

 

15 A. Well, if — if you’re referring to I was

 

16 with them and, yeah, they were recording, so that’s

 

17 what I thought was recording.

 

18 Did you bug my phone?

 

19 Q. So at some point you knew they were

 

20 recording — at some point you knew they were

 

21 recording a discussion with you —

 

22 A. Yes.

 

23 Q. — right?

 

24 A. It was a discussion with me with Marc

 

25 Schaffel or with Ian Drew.

 

26 Q. Okay. How about with you just alone with an

 

27 officer?

 

28 A. Oh, when I was speaking with an officer, 8012

 

1 yes, there was a — an interview that was done.

 

2 Q. Okay. And where did that interview take

 

3 place, if you know?

 

4 A. Calabasas. And I can’t give you the name of

 

5 the place because I don’t remember.

 

6 Q. Do you know what officer that was?

 

7 A. Officer Steve Robel. Sergeant Steve Robel,

 

8 actually.

 

9 Q. Do you know approximately when that

 

10 interview took place?

 

11 A. Not off the top of my head, no.

 

12 Q. Do you recall, at one point, you mentioned

 

13 the possibility of going to The Enquirer? Do you

 

14 remember that?

 

15 A. Me?

 

16 Q. Yes. I don’t know if it was — you were

 

17 joking or not, but do you recall saying something

 

18 like that?

 

19 A. It would have been totally joking and

 

20 sarcastic and, “Let’s see if we can mess with them.”

 

21 Q. Well, you talked about at one point Ms.

 

22 Arvizo’s orchestrating lawsuits. Do you remember

 

23 that?

 

24 A. Yeah.

 

25 Q. And you referred to the J.C. Penney case,

 

26 correct?

 

27 A. Probably.

 

28 Q. Did you do your own research into what Janet 8013

 

1 Arvizo had done in the J.C. Penney case?

 

2 A. Just by asking people who had heard

 

3 something on the news. And I hadn’t sat down at the

 

4 computer and actually properly researched it, no.

 

5 Q. And you told the officer that you —

 

6 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as hearsay

 

7 and irrelevant, exceeding the scope of direct.

 

8 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When you spoke to the

 

10 officer in that interview, were you trying to in

 

11 some way protect Michael from the Arvizos?

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. And that’s because you thought the Arvizos

 

14 were taking advantage of Michael, right?

 

15 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as lack of

 

16 foundation, exceeding the scope of direct.

 

17 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: At one point you told

 

19 Officer Robel that Schaffel had made seven and a

 

20 half million dollars off your interview. Do you

 

21 remember that?

 

22 A. Yes.

 

23 Q. Did Schaffel tell you that?

 

24 A. Yes.

 

25 Q. Did you have any reason not to believe that

 

26 he’d made seven and a half million?

 

27 A. I don’t know what shows go for. Michael

 

28 doesn’t do interviews, so I’m sure that anything 8014

 

1 that was televised or produced was worth a lot of

 

2 money.

 

3 Q. Did Schaffel offer you any of that money?

 

4 A. No, and I wouldn’t have taken it.

 

5 Q. Did you know — did you have any idea why

 

6 Schaffel told you he made seven and a half million

 

7 off your interview?

 

8 A. He likes to brag. “Look what I have. Look

 

9 what I’ve done.”

 

10 Q. Did Schaffel tell you any of that money went

 

11 to Dieter?

 

12 A. He didn’t. The way he spoke about it was

 

13 all him.

 

14 Q. Did he tell you any of that money went to

 

15 Konitzer?

 

16 A. No, again, all to him.

 

17 Q. Was it your understanding that Schaffel,

 

18 Dieter and Konitzer worked together or — what was

 

19 your understanding of their relationship?

 

20 A. Michael had a previous relationship with

 

21 Dieter and Ronald, so if Marc wanted to get in touch

 

22 with Michael he could go through them, if he

 

23 couldn’t get ahold of him himself. But I think Marc

 

24 felt that he handled everything in the United

 

25 States. And that they were involved in the European

 

26 things and in marketing or something.

 

27 Q. Did you think Dieter, Konitzer and Schaffel

 

28 were competing with each other at all? 8015

 

1 A. There was some —

 

2 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as

 

3 irrelevant, exceeding the scope of direct.

 

4 MR. MESEREAU: Sustained.

 

5 Q. Did Schaffel ever tell you he was in any

 

6 company with Dieter and Konitzer?

 

7 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as exceeding

 

8 the scope of direct and hearsay.

 

9 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember telling

 

11 the officer who interviewed you, “Michael is very,

 

12 very easily manipulated especially if he’s scared”?

 

13 A. Yes.

 

14 Q. You were trying to tell the officers that

 

15 Michael was being taken advantage of by these

 

16 people, weren’t you?

 

17 MR. ZONEN: Objection; asked and answered.

 

18 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

19 You may answer.

 

20 THE WITNESS: I’m sorry?

 

21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You were trying to tell

 

22 the officer that you thought Michael was being taken

 

23 advantage of by these people, right?

 

24 A. Yes.

Next, Rowe testified about the edited video of her interview that she was given to watch prior to her testimony, and also spoke in more detail about the kind things she had to say about Jackson during her interview:

25 Q. Now, you indicated in your interview you

 

26 were there for about nine to ten hours, right?

 

27 A. Yes.

 

28 Q. How much of that time do you think you were 8016

 

1 answering questions?

 

2 A. It was — we were on that stupid couch for

 

3 seven hours, with no breaks except to change film.

 

4 Q. And was that you and Mr. Drew?

 

5 A. I was on the couch. Drew — Ian was

 

6 opposite me, either in a chair — I think he was in

 

7 a chair.

 

8 Q. Okay. So if you think you know, how many

 

9 hours of actual interview do you think there was

 

10 with you?

 

11 A. The full seven hours. Except for the — the

 

12 time that it took to change videotapes.

 

13 Q. Okay.

 

14 A. I’m sorry. We didn’t break for anything.

 

15 Q. And you have before today, I believe you

 

16 said last night the most recent time, seen a DVD of

 

17 what purports to be that interview, right?

 

18 A. It’s not the whole interview.

 

19 Q. And is that about two and a half to three

 

20 hours long, the one you saw?

 

21 A. It was about three hours.

 

22 Q. And who gave you that DVD to watch?

 

23 A. I asked for a copy from Mr. Zonen.

 

24 Q. And you watched it last night, right?

 

25 A. Yes, I did.

 

26 Q. And correct me if I’m wrong, I think what

 

27 you’re saying is that many hours of your interview

 

28 don’t appear in that DVD, right? 8017

 

1 A. I don’t see how I could have sat there for

 

2 seven hours and only had three hours on tape. I

 

3 don’t remember any breaks except for when the

 

4 cameras were — the film was being changed. I

 

5 interrupted the interview to tell them the film

 

6 was — the camera was blinking, the light. I didn’t

 

7 want to be in the middle of the statement and have

 

8 to start over again, to tell them that the lights

 

9 were blinking, to change the film.

 

10 I saw cuts in that film, in that tape, that

 

11 were — had nothing with me saying, “It’s blinking,

 

12 take it off,” so there’s — there is stuff missing

 

13 from that video.

14 Q. When Schaffel told you he’d made seven and a

 

15 half million dollars off your interview, did he ever

 

16 tell you who he made the money from?

 

17 A. I think he said it was FOX Network. And

 

18 someone in Europe. But I don’t remember who it was

 

19 in Europe.

 

20 Q. And was it your understanding that he kept

 

21 all the footage of your interview?

 

22 A. Yes. It was all taken upstairs to a bedroom

 

23 where they did the editing that night.

 

24 Q. Okay. How did you know they did the editing

 

25 that night?

 

26 A. I was there for about an hour when they were

 

27 doing it.

 

28 Q. Were you upstairs in the bedroom while they 8018

 

1 were doing it?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 Q. And who is “they”?

 

4 A. Marc was in and out. I don’t remember —

 

5 I think it was Christian that was doing the editing.

 

6 Ian told me he was going to be there all night to

 

7 get the video done.

 

8 Q. Now, Mr. Jackson wasn’t there for any of

 

9 that interview, was he?

 

10 A. No.

 

11 Q. Were you being asked to assist in the

 

12 editing upstairs?

 

13 A. No, I wanted to see what they were putting

 

14 down. I’m a bit of a control freak.

 

15 Q. So did they ever object to you being

 

16 upstairs and watching what they were doing?

 

17 A. No, it just got to be too late and too long

 

18 a day and I had to go home. I had school.

 

19 Q. But during the hour that you were upstairs

 

20 watching the editing, what did you see them do?

 

21 A. The very beginning of the interview talking

 

22 about Michael, me speaking about Michael and what

 

23 kind of a person he is. And the — I gave them a

 

24 list, not a written list, but a verbal list of

 

25 things that I wanted included to make sure.

 

26 Q. In that interview, what kind of a person did

 

27 you say Michael was?

 

28 A. Generous. To a fault. Giving and kind. 8019

 

1 Q. Anything else do you recall saying?

 

2 A. Good father. Great with kids. Put other

 

3 people ahead of him. Things like that.

 

4 Q. If you can, do you remember anything else

 

5 you said about Michael?

 

6 A. He’s a brilliant businessman. There’s

 

7 different Michaels. There’s, like, my Michael.

 

8 Q. Do you want some water?

 

9 A. And the Michael that everyone else sees.

 

10 Q. And that would be the public Michael?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. That would be Michael the entertainer,

 

13 right?

 

14 A. Michael the entertainer, yeah.

 

15 Q. When did you first meet Michael?

 

16 A. In the .80s.

 

17 Q. And how did you meet Michael?

 

18 A. Through my office when I worked with Dr.

 

19 Klein.

 

20 Q. Okay. And what was your position with Dr.

 

21 Klein at the time?

 

22 A. I was an assistant.

 

23 Q. And Michael went to Dr. Klein for various

 

24 treatments, right?

 

25 A. Yes.

 

26 Q. And do you recall when he first went to Dr.

 

27 Klein?

 

28 A. Yes. The very first day, yes. I was not 8020

 

1 his nurse then.

 

2 Q. And what was the treatment he was receiving;

 

3 do you know? Was it a skin condition he had?

 

4 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object at this

 

5 point. The question is, What was the treatment he

 

6 was receiving?”

 

7 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll withdraw it. I’ll

 

8 withdraw it.

 

9 THE COURT: All right. It’s withdrawn.

 

10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You met him in the early

 

11 .80s?

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. And you continued to know him through the

 

14 .90s until you were married, right?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. And how long did you work for Dr. Klein?

 

17 A. From .79 to 2001, I think it was, or 2000.

 

18 Q. Okay.

 

19 A. I don’t remember the exact dates.

 

20 Q. Okay. Do you recall ever going on tour with

 

21 Michael?

 

22 A. Uh-huh.

 

23 Q. And when did you first go on a tour with

 

24 Michael?

 

25 A. What was the tour after “Bad”? Was it the

 

26 “History” tour, or “Dangerous”?

 

27 It was the “Dangerous” tour, I’m sorry.

 

28 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object to 8021

 

1 communications between the witness and the defendant

 

2 and ask that that be stricken.

 

3 THE WITNESS: Sorry.

 

4 THE COURT: Stricken.

 

5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Let me try and ask it

 

6 again. What was the first tour that you went on

 

7 with Michael?

 

8 A. “Dangerous.”

 

9 Q. And approximately when was that?

 

10 A. I don’t remember. That was — all those

 

11 tours. And they all just ran together, because it

 

12 was a long schedule.

 

13 Q. Okay. Was it in the .80s or .90s; do you

 

14 know?

 

15 A. I think it was in the early .90s.

 

16 Q. Okay. And where did that tour go to?

 

17 A. I think it started in Bangkok, and went

 

18 throughout Asia, Japan, Singapore. Then there was a

 

19 break. And then it went to Europe.

 

20 I did go to the last concert in Gutenberg, I

 

21 think on the tour previous to that. Because

 

22 Gutenberg wasn’t on the “Dangerous” tour.

 

23 Q. And were you traveling with Michael along

 

24 with his physician?

 

25 A. Yes.

 

26 Q. Okay. And you then went on another tour

 

27 after that?

 

28 A. Yes. 8022

 

1 Q. And what tour was that?

 

2 A. “History.”

 

3 Q. Okay. And approximately when was that?

 

4 A. It seemed like it was right after

 

5 “Dangerous,” within a year or two after “Dangerous.”

 

6 It could have been a little bit longer than that.

 

7 Q. And you were on that tour along with the

 

8 physician as well, right?

 

9 A. We were married when that was going on.

 

10 Q. Okay.

 

11 A. So, no. Klein would come every once in a

 

12 while, but I was there every three weeks to see

 

13 little Michael and Michael and to see how everybody

 

14 was, because I was still working. I couldn’t more

 

15 often than that.

Rowe added more details about Schaffel’s shadiness and corruption by describing the information that he sold to the tabloids:  

16 Q. When did you first meet Mr. Sneddon?

 

17 A. The day before yesterday. Two days ago.

 

18 When did I come up here? I came up here Tuesday.

 

19 Today’s Thursday. I came up here Tuesday.

 

20 Q. I mean, your first time you ever met Mr.

 

21 Sneddon was the early .90s, wasn’t it?

 

22 A. I don’t remember. I remember I did a

 

23 deposition. I thought it was for a woman. I don’t

 

24 remember. I don’t remember any of that part. I

 

25 tend to block out unpleasantries. I don’t remember

 

26 any of that part. I don’t remember if Mr. Sneddon

 

27 was there or not.

 

28 Q. Okay. 8023

 

1 A. I think — I think I just met him.

 

2 Q. Okay. Do you know when you were first

 

3 contacted about this particular case by anyone

 

4 associated with the sheriffs or the prosecution?

 

5 A. It was — there was a voice mail on my car

 

6 phone, which I don’t give out because it’s stupid to

 

7 give out a car phone if you’re not in the car all

 

8 the time. And they had gotten it through — somehow

 

9 probably through Schaffel, because that’s how the

 

10 tabloids got it. Because Marc Schaffel handed out

 

11 that phone number, because that was the only one he

 

12 had, because I had to call release from that line to

 

13 call his house. So there was a message left, and I

 

14 did not return the call.

 

15 And then on a trip back from Palm Springs,

 

16 probably eight or nine o’clock at night, it was

 

17 dark, I’m going to guess it could have been a little

18 bit later, but eight o’clock or 9:00 the phone rang,

 

19 and I thought it might have been someone —

 

20 something wrong with one of my animals or something.

 

21 And I answered it, and it was Sergeant Robel.

 

22 Q. Okay. And do you know approximately when

 

23 that was?

 

24 A. I don’t. I’m sorry.

 

25 Q. Was it like a year ago?

 

26 A. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

 

27 Q. Now, you said Schaffel was giving

 

28 information to the tabloids? 8024

1 A. Yes.

 

2 Q. Was he giving information to the tabloids

 

3 about Michael Jackson, to your knowledge?

 

4 A. He was leaking information.

 

5 Q. To your knowledge, was he trying to profit

 

6 from the tabloids with information about Michael

 

7 Jackson?

 

8 A. I don’t think monetarily. I think maybe

 

9 through manipulation, you know, “Maybe I can stop

 

10 this,” or “I can talk to so and so and fix it.”

 

11 Q. Has it been your belief that Schaffel has

 

12 been trying to create problems for Michael Jackson

 

13 so he could profit from them?

 

14 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Asked and answered

 

15 and speculative, lack of foundation.

 

16 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did Schaffel ever tell you

 

18 in your conversations that he was going to generate

 

19 crises around Michael Jackson so he could then find

 

20 ways to profit?

 

21 A. Just this lawsuit. And I don’t know the

 

22 details of the lawsuit.

 

23 Q. Did he tell you he intends to make millions

 

24 from his lawsuit against Michael Jackson?

 

25 MR. ZONEN: Objection; asked and answered.

 

26 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did he tell you whether or

 

28 not Dieter or Konitzer are still doing business with 8025

 

1 him when you last talked to him?

 

2 A. When I was speaking with him, he didn’t say

 

3 anything about business.

 

4 Q. But he said —

 

5 A. He was more concerned about

 

6 self-preservation at this point.

 

7 Q. He said he’s still talking to them?

 

8 A. I think he is, yes. I think he is. I don’t

 

9 know.

 

10 MR. ZONEN: The question is did he say.

 

11 THE WITNESS: I don’t —

 

12 THE COURT: Is that an objection?

 

13 MR. ZONEN: That’s an objection,

 

14 nonresponsive.

 

15 THE COURT: Sustained. Stricken.

Rowe met with Zonen the night before her testimony and watched the video of her rebuttal interview, but didn’t discuss with him what questions she would be asked. Mesereau ended his cross examination after the court returned from recess:

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You met with Mr. Zonen

 

17 last night; is that correct?

 

18 A. Yes.

 

19 Q. Did you have a long meeting with him?

 

20 A. I watched the video there. And I spoke with

 

21 him for maybe 20, 25 minutes.

 

22 Q. Did Mr. Zonen talk to you about what he was

 

23 going to ask you today?

 

24 A. No.

 

25 Q. He just asked you pretty much to watch the

 

26 video?

 

27 A. Yes.

 

28 Q. And where did this meeting take place? 8026

 

1 Don’t give me an address, if it’s where you were —

 

2 A. Oh. It’s in an office that they had.

 

3 Q. That’s the District Attorney’s Office?

 

4 A. Yes.

 

5 Q. Okay.

 

6 A. I don’t know the address. So I’m lost.

 

7 Q. When was the last time any representative of

 

8 the sheriff’s office asked you to record somebody?

 

9 A. I want to say last year.

 

10 THE COURT: Let’s take our break.

 

11 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor.

 

12 (Recess taken.)

 

1 THE COURT: Counsel?

 

2 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

 

3 Your Honor, we have no further questions,

 

4 and we withdraw our motion.

 

5 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

Under redirect examination, Zonen tried to discredit Rowe’s assertions that Konitzer was using Jackson by making her admit that she hadn’t seen him interact with Jackson in years:

7 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

 

8 BY MR. ZONEN:

 

9 Q. How many conversations did you have with

 

10 Ronald Konitzer?

 

11 A. One or two.

 

12 Q. Over the telephone?

 

13 A. Yes.

 

14 Q. And the length of each of those

 

15 conversations?

 

16 A. Minutes.

 

17 Q. Minutes? Did you ever see Ronald Konitzer

 

18 interact with Michael Jackson?

 

19 A. Not since I had met him in Europe on tour

 

20 years before.

 

21 Q. So you’re talking about conversations that

 

22 may have taken place when, in the early .90s?

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. All right. Since the early .90s, have you

 

25 seen him interact with Mr. Konitzer?

 

26 A. Physically, no. Just on the phone.

 

27 Q. Did you hear him interact with him on the

 

28 telephone, in other words, conversations where you 8033

 

1 were present?

 

2 A. When Mr. Schaffel was setting up the

 

3 interview —

 

4 Q. Yes.

 

5 A. — Ronald was there with Michael.

 

6 Q. Was that the only conversation that you had,

 

7 were party to —

 

8 A. No.

 

9 Q. — involving Mr. Jackson and Mr. Konitzer?

 

10 A. No. There was one or two after that.

 

11 Just — after the interview, thanking me, saying

 

12 everything was going to be fine, and I don’t recall

 

13 if there was another one after that.

 

14 Q. Was Mr. Jackson involved in those

 

15 conversations?

 

16 A. No, he was not.

 

17 Q. That was just a conversation with you and

 

18 Mr. Konitzer?

 

19 A. No, Marc would have been on the phone. He

 

20 did not have my phone number.

 

21 Q. All right. So it was a conversation

 

22 involving you, Marc Schaffel and Ronald Konitzer?

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. And the subject of that conversations was

 

25 what?

 

26 A. Superficial. About the video.

 

27 Q. Nothing about Mr. Jackson’s business

 

28 affairs? 8034

 

1 A. No. Not with Michael on the phone, no.

 

2 Q. Did any of them talk to you about issues

 

3 dealing with the Martin Bashir video?

 

4 A. Before or after the interview?

 

5 Q. After the interview.

 

6 A. When the interview aired, it did, and they

 

7 said that the interview that I had done would help

 

8 deflect and do damage control.

 

9 Q. Did they say that to you more than once?

 

10 A. Yes.

 

11 Q. Did Mr. Konitzer say positive things to you

 

12 about your involvement in this interview?

 

13 A. About my possible involvement?

 

14 Q. No.

 

15 A. I’m sorry.

 

16 Q. Did he say positive things to you about your

 

17 involvement?

 

18 A. Yeah. Yeah.

 

19 Q. Did he say that you were helpful?

 

20 A. Yeah.

 

21 Q. Did you believe that you were?

 

22 A. Yeah.

 

23 Q. Was that your intent?

 

24 A. Yes.

Next, Rowe described in detail the arrangements of her visits with Prince and Paris, and her understanding of Schaffel’s motivation for suing Jackson:

25 Q. All right. Do you still like Michael

 

26 Jackson?

 

27 A. I have very strong memories and feelings for

 

28 the Michael that I have known but haven’t seen since 8035

 

1 1999. But those are based on my feelings. We

 

2 haven’t spoken.

 

3 Q. All right. Is it the case that the sum

 

4 total of your communication with Mr. Jackson since

 

5 1999, six years ago, was a two-and-a-half-minute

 

6 conversation that you described?

7 A. Correct.

 

8 Q. And that was a conversation where he asked

 

9 you to participate in this video; is that correct?

 

10 A. To work with Ronald, Dieter, and Marc.

 

11 Q. Is it clear to you that he understood that

 

12 you wanted to see your children?

 

13 A. Yes.

 

14 Q. All right. Did he ever call you to say

 

15 that —

 

16 A. No.

 

17 Q. — or to invite you up to come see the

 

18 children?

 

19 A. No, he didn’t.

 

20 Q. Who do you believe is responsible for your

 

21 not being able to see the children?

 

22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance;

 

23 foundation.

 

24 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: You can answer the question.

 

26 A. He’s their father. Ultimately it’s his

 

27 decision. I don’t want to believe that. I want to

 

28 believe that it’s other people. I want to believe 8036

 

1 it’s Marc Schaffel threatening him that I want to

 

2 take the children, things like that.

 

3 Q. How long has Marc Schaffel been involved

 

4 with Michael Jackson? When do you believe was the

 

5 end of Mr. Schaffel’s involvement with Michael

 

6 Jackson?

 

7 A. I think The Ivy incident was probably what

 

8 tore it.

 

9 Q. All right.

 

10 A. Marc told me he was on the outs and wanted

 

11 to do what he could to get back in.

 

12 Q. When did he file the lawsuit against Michael

 

13 Jackson?

 

14 A. I don’t know how long it takes to actually

 

15 get to court when you file a paper, or whatever, but

 

16 he had talked about it about three months ago.

 

17 Q. All right.

 

18 A. So I don’t know if he was filing the papers

 

19 then, if he was getting ready to file the papers.

 

20 Q. All right. But your understanding is that

 

21 Marc Schaffel hasn’t had anything to do with Michael

 

22 Jackson for a number of months now; is that correct?

 

23 A. Correct.

 

24 Q. All right. And yet you’re still being

 

25 denied access to your children?

 

26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading;

 

27 relevance; foundation.

 

28 THE COURT: Overruled. 8037

 

1 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Is that true?

 

2 A. We’re — yes, yes.

 

3 Q. All right. Well, then who do you think is

 

4 responsible for that, if it’s not Marc Schaffel?

 

5 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance;

 

6 foundation; leading; and opinion.

 

7 THE COURT: It’s argumentative. Sustained.

 

8 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Tell us, in your opinion, who

 

9 is responsible at this time for your not being able

 

10 to have access to your children?

 

11 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection.

 

12 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

13 THE WITNESS: When I was first promised to

 

14 see the kids, when Michael — he called me, for me

 

15 to show up when they were at that age of three and

 

16 four, four and five, I could be introduced as a

 

17 friend, as a friend of daddy’s. And you don’t

 

18 confuse a child by saying, “Oh, this is your

 

19 mother.”

 

20 I can’t do that now. They’re too old. To

 

21 do something like that, it would be too traumatic.

 

22 I would not walk in and say, “Hey, I’m your mom,”

 

23 you know, “Want to go out?”

 

24 It’s — it’s so much more complicated than

 

25 that when reintroducing yourself to children who may

 

26 or may not remember me.

 

27 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Are you saying that you

 

28 believe that Mr. Jackson is amenable to your seeing 8038

 

1 your children; it’s just a question of how?

 

2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading;

 

3 argumentative; no foundation.

 

4 MR. ZONEN: It’s impeachment, Your Honor, as

 

5 to the leading issue.

 

6 MR. MESEREAU: Improper opinion.

 

7 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.

 

8 Do you want the question read back?

 

9 THE WITNESS: No. Thank you.

 

10 I’m hoping in my heart that he is. But we

 

11 haven’t spoken, so I don’t know. I get to deal with

 

12 Abrams and Hall.

 

13 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Why do you believe he hasn’t

 

14 spoken with you?

 

15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading;

 

16 argumentative; foundation; relevance.

 

17 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

18 THE WITNESS: I don’t know if he is

 

19 concerned about this case. I don’t know what his

 

20 concerns are, if he thinks I’m going to take the

 

21 children from him. I don’t know. I haven’t spoken

 

22 to him. I don’t know.

Rowe believed that her lunch with Schaffel and Weisner was a “set up” because paparazzi photographed them together as they ate, and the restaurant was in the vicinity of the hotel that Jackson and his other associates were meeting at, a meeting that Schaffel and Weisner were excluded from. After discussing this incident, she recounted how Konitzer initially met Jackson in the 90’s while working with him on tour, and Zonen tried again to discredit her by highlighting the fact that she wasn’t knowledgeable about the details of their business relationship, and only knew what she was told by Schaffel, who she called a liar earlier in her testimony:

23 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: How many conversations have

 

24 you had with Dieter Weizner?

 

25 A. The last conversation I had with Dieter I

 

26 think was at The Ivy.

 

27 Q. And how many conversations prior to that?

 

28 A. One or two. 8039

 

1 Q. You said that you were set up, is that

 

2 correct, at that —

 

3 A. In my opinion —

 

4 Q. — lunch?

 

5 A. — yes.

 

6 Q. What does that mean, “set up”?

 

7 A. You don’t go to lunch and then call the

 

8 paparazzi to come and take a picture of you while

 

9 you’re trying to have a salad, and then someone runs

 

10 across the street and almost gets hit by a car

 

11 because they’re taking my picture.

 

12 Q. You didn’t mention that in cross-examination

 

13 when you said that to Mr. Mesereau.

 

14 A. Oh, sorry. I thought —

 

15 Q. Is that what it was that you believe to be

 

16 the set-up?

 

17 A. Yes, because Michael was having a meeting

 

18 with his — some group of people at the Beverly

 

19 Hills Hotel or something. And Marc and Dieter were

 

20 not included. So they were going to show him.

 

21 Q. All right. What does the presence of

 

22 paparazzi have to do with that?

 

23 A. I’m assuming because Marc Schaffel could not

 

24 get to Michael, that if someone were to see it on

 

25 T.V. or something, then it would be detrimental to

 

26 him.

 

27 Q. How long has Michael Jackson had an

 

28 association with Ronald Konitzer? 8040

 

1 A. I know that he knew him in the .90s doing

 

2 marketing and things like that in Europe. I don’t

 

3 know, I haven’t — I haven’t had any involvement

 

4 with Michael since .99, so I don’t know.

 

5 Q. All right. You offered the opinion that you

 

6 believe that this group of people are taking

 

7 advantage of him.

 

8 A. Yes.

 

9 Q. Have you ever actually seen them interact

 

10 with him?

 

11 A. No.

 

12 Q. Are you aware of any of the transactions

 

13 that have taken place between Mr. Konitzer and

 

14 Michael Jackson?

 

15 A. Just when Konitzer was on the phone with

 

16 Michael to tell me that it was okay to work with

 

17 these people to do what needed to be done for the

 

18 project.

 

19 Q. And would you consider that to be a

 

20 conversation for Mr. Jackson’s benefit?

 

21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;

 

22 vague.

 

23 MR. ZONEN: It’s her opinion.

 

24 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

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

 

26 over the telephone with Mr. Konitzer involving your

 

27 involvement in a rebuttal was supposed to defuse a

 

28 difficult situation that Mr. Jackson was in; is that 8041

 

1 correct?

 

2 A. That was my understanding.

 

3 Q. So that was for his benefit, for Mr.

 

4 Jackson’s benefit?

 

5 A. Correct.

 

6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; argumentative.

 

7 Same objection. Foundation; opinion.

 

8 THE COURT: Overruled.

9 THE WITNESS: Correct.

 

10 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: And that’s correct.

 

11 How many conversations have you been party

 

12 to between Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Jackson?

 

13 A. Just the one.

 

14 Q. That was the only one?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. So you don’t really know what extent of

 

17 communication they had between each other; is that

 

18 correct?

 

19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Assumes facts not

 

20 in evidence; foundation; move to strike.

 

21 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

22 THE WITNESS: Only what I was told.

 

23 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Ahh. And told by whom?

 

24 A. By Marc.

 

25 Q. Only Marc; is that right?

 

26 A. And Dieter.

 

27 Q. Okay. Marc is the person you believe to be

 

28 an inveterate liar; is that correct? 8042

 

1 A. Yes.

 

2 Q. He told you that he was making seven and a

 

3 half million dollars off of this production, the

 

4 Maury Povich production?

 

5 A. Correct.

 

6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; assumes facts not

 

7 in evidence.

 

8 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

9 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Is that correct?

 

10 A. Yes, that’s what I was told.

 

11 Q. Did you believe he was profiting from that

 

12 production?

 

13 A. Yes.

 

14 Q. Did you understand that production to be a

 

15 production for profit?

 

16 A. I didn’t care.

 

17 Q. But did you understand it to be a production

 

18 for profit?

 

19 A. If I assumed that, you know, if you’re going

 

20 to make it and sell it, yes, it’s for profit.

 

21 Q. And you understood it was being sold?

 

22 A. Yes.

 

23 Q. You understood it was being marketed?

 

24 A. Yes.

 

25 Q. And that, in fact, was Marc Schaffel’s job,

 

26 was to market that film?

 

27 A. Yes.

 

28 Q. And your involvement in it was to make it 8043

 

1 more marketable; is that true?

 

2 A. Correct.

 

3 Q. Do you think it was inappropriate for Marc

 

4 Schaffel to make a profit off that film?

 

5 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Improper opinion;

 

6 calls for speculation; foundation.

 

7 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

8 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: In your opinion, should he

 

9 have made some profit off that film?

 

10 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection.

 

11 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Do you have any reason to

 

13 brief that Michael Jackson didn’t receive any profit

 

14 off that film?

 

15 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection.

 

16 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

17 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Are you aware that Michael

 

18 Jackson was given over a million dollars in cash by

 

19 Marc Schaffel during that period of time?

 

20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Assumes facts not

 

21 in evidence; foundation; move to strike.

 

22 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

23 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Now, I’d asked you your

 

24 number of conversations with Dieter Weizner. Is

 

25 Weizner somebody you knew back in the early .90s as

 

26 well?

 

27 A. He said I’d met him. I don’t remember.

 

28 I met a lot of people when Michael was on tour. 8044

 

1 There was a ton of people involved.

 

2 Q. Did you have a face-to-face conversation

 

3 with Dieter Weizner in 2003?

 

4 A. For the inter — at The Ivy. Not for the

 

5 interview or anything.

 

6 Q. And The Ivy was just the lunch that you had

 

7 with them?

 

8 A. Yes.

 

9 Q. Did you stay and actually have a lunch?

 

10 A. I was — yeah, I was a wreck. They moved us

 

11 inside until it was completely out of control, and

 

12 it had — I had to leave.

 

13 Q. So you didn’t really have a conversation

 

14 with him?

 

15 A. We did talk.

 

16 Q. About what?

 

17 A. About how they were going to — that the

 

18 people that were on the other side of town were

 

19 inching them out and not including them, and that

 

20 this would show them and get their attention because

 

21 I was with — with them.

 

22 Q. All right. Now, this was in 2004; is that

 

23 right?

 

24 A. I think — I don’t remember the date.

 

25 Q. This is well after the Indictment was

 

26 returned against Mr. Jackson; is that correct?

 

27 A. No. It was — I believe it was before.

 

28 Q. Were you – 8045

 

1 A. I don’t — I don’t remember the date.

 

2 Q. Were you already involved in having given

 

3 information to law enforcement regarding this

 

4 investigation?

 

5 A. I think so. I don’t remember.

In this excerpt, Zonen tried to insinuate that because Jackson had known Konitzer and Weisner for over 10 years, they couldn’t be the liars and manipulators that she thought they were.

6 Q. You described Mr. Jackson as a brilliant

 

7 businessman.

 

8 A. Yes.

 

9 Q. Is that a true statement?

 

10 A. In my opinion, yes.

 

11 Q. During the years that you knew him, you

 

12 understood him to be very talented at the business

 

13 end of his career; is that correct?

 

14 A. I thought so.

 

15 Q. He was successful in making an awful lot of

 

16 money during the years you knew him; is that right?

 

17 A. Yes.

 

18 Q. And he knew Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weizner for

 

19 over ten years, didn’t he?

 

20 A. I don’t know how long they’d known each

 

21 other. I don’t remember when they met. I remember

 

22 meeting — like I said, I remember meeting Ronald

 

23 when he was showing marketing things to Michael.

 

24 I don’t even remember what city we were in.

 

25 Q. But it was the early .90s, was it not?

 

26 A. Yeah. Yeah. It would have had to have

 

27 been. So, yeah, I guess that would be ten years.

 

28 Q. Would the same be true as to Dieter Weizner? 8046

 

1 A. I don’t remember meeting Dieter. Even

 

2 though he said I did, I don’t remember.

 

3 Q. So when did you understand Mr. Weizner’s

 

4 involvement with Michael Jackson to begin?

 

5 A. The man carried six cell phones. I wasn’t

 

6 quite sure what — I wasn’t sure if he was a

 

7 liaison, if he was doing the European marketing and

 

8 working with Marc Schaffel doing the American

 

9 things. All I knew is that the three of them

 

10 were —

 

11 Q. Who are we talking about right now?

 

12 A. Ronald, Marc and Dieter were involved in —

 

13 directly in the video and saving Michael after this

 

14 documentary came out.

Rowe clarified her earlier remarks about Schaffel having a plant at the tabloids; she testified that Drew was given information by Schaffel to rebut any negative stories that the tabloids printed, and he was selected because he was considered to be reputable.

15 Q. All right. Is there anything that you saw

 

16 that was put out to any of the tabloids or any of

 

17 the newspapers by any of the three of them that you

 

18 felt was negative to Michael Jackson?

 

19 A. What do you mean?

 

20 Q. Well, you talked about Mr. Schaffel giving

 

21 information out to the tabloids; is that right?

 

22 A. Yes, but he did it to — he said he could

 

23 run interference. That was why he had Ian Drew as a

 

24 plant at The Globe, to run interference, because —

 

25 I didn’t know this, but I guess the magazines are

 

26 all owned by the same company and they shuffle the

 

27 stories around.

 

28 Q. What kind of interference? 8047

 

1 A. To keep bad stories or gossip, or whatever,

 

2 out, so he would release good information to someone

 

3 he thought was more reputable.

 

4 Q. Bad stories about whom?

 

5 A. Michael.

 

6 Q. All right. So the work that they were doing

 

7 was trying to boost his reputation?

 

8 A. Correct.

 

9 Q. And improve his reputation?

 

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Not destroy him.

 

12 A. After this documentary, correct.

 

13 Q. All right. Was it your understanding that

 

14 the more money Michael Jackson was capable of making

 

15 translated to the more money those three men were

 

16 capable of making?

 

17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;

 

18 relevance.

 

19 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

20 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you know Frank Cascio?

 

21 A. Yes.

 

22 Q. How did you know Frank Cascio?

 

23 A. I met his family years ago.

 

24 Q. Years ago?

 

25 A. Yeah.

Next, Zonen questioned Rowe about her knowledge of the other unindicted co-conspirators, Frank Cascio and Vinnie Amen.

26 Q. How old was Frank Cascio when you met his

 

27 family?

 

28 A. It was just after little Michael had been 8048

 

1 born. He must have been middle teens maybe. He was

 

2 the oldest of the boys.

 

3 Q. You didn’t know him as a person who was

 

4 involved in Mr. Jackson’s relationships or business

 

5 affairs?

 

6 A. No.

 

7 Q. He was a teenager?

 

8 A. This is years ago. We’re talking —

 

9 Q. Yes.

 

10 A. Yeah. No, no, no.

 

11 Q. Did he visit Mr. Jackson regularly?

 

12 A. The family came up — I knew him with the

 

13 family, when Mr. and Mrs. Cascio were there with the

 

14 kids, with the boys.

 

15 Q. Did you understand Frank Cascio’s

 

16 relationship with Michael Jackson to be very close?

 

17 A. He was close with all the Cascios.

 

18 Q. Did you know Vinnie Amen?

 

19 A. No.

Finally, Zonen asked Rowe if she believed that her inclusion in the rebuttal documentary would make it more marketable and help Jackson out of his PR crisis, and she confirmed that it did, and that was her reason for agreeing to do it (along with getting another opportunity to see her children), and Zonen ended his redirect examination. Mesereau declined to recross examine Rowe. 

20 Q. You made the statement, “If I’m considered a

 

21 commodity of Mr. Jackson.” What did that mean?

 

22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Misstates the

 

23 evidence. She was talking about Mr. Schaffel.

 

24 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

25 You may answer.

 

26 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Do you remember making that

 

27 statement?

 

28 A. Yes. 8049

 

1 Q. What did that mean?

 

2 A. I was sellable.

 

3 Q. Do you mean in conjunction with your giving

 

4 this interview?

 

5 A. Yeah. I don’t do interviews.

 

6 Q. Did you ever give an interview for the

 

7 press?

 

8 A. I did a couple of things with Chuck Henry in

 

9 the late .70s. He was a newscaster for NBC in Los

 

10 Angeles.

 

11 Q. You’ve given no interviews other than that?

 

12 A. Not personally, no.

 

13 Q. Did you believe that made you more

 

14 marketable?

 

15 A. To do the interviews?

 

16 Q. Yes.

 

17 A. I don’t want to be marketable.

 

18 Q. I didn’t ask that. I said, do you believe

 

19 that it made you more marketable; in other words,

 

20 for somebody else?

 

21 A. Yeah.

 

22 Q. Do you believe that you were asked to

 

23 participate in this interview because it would make

 

24 the film more marketable?

 

25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Calls for

 

26 speculation; foundation.

 

27 MR. ZONEN: It’s her opinion.

 

28 MR. MESEREAU: And improper opinion. 8050

 

1 THE COURT: Sustained for speculation.

 

2 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did any of the three of them,

 

3 Konitzer or Weizner or Schaffel, talk to you about

 

4 your participation in this video in terms of

 

5 mentioning that it would make the film more

 

6 marketable?

 

7 A. Yes, and that it would help Michael.

 

8 Q. Help Michael Jackson in terms of its

 

9 marketability?

 

10 A. Of the damage control from the Bashir

 

11 document — documentary thing, show.

 

12 MR. ZONEN: Thank you. I have no further

 

13 questions.

 

14 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions, Your

 

15 Honor.

 

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

 

17 step down.

 

18 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Judge.

 

 

Summary of Debbie Rowe’s Testimony

1. Debbie Rowe has known Michael Jackson for more than 20 years. She met him while working as an assistant for Jackson’s dermatologist, Dr. Arnold Klein. She was married to him from 1996 through 1999, and is the mother of two of his three children, Paris and Prince Jackson. She never lived with Jackson during their marriage, and after divorcing, she gave up her parental rights to her children. At the time of her testimony, she had not seen her children in 3 years, and she had not even spoken to Jackson since divorcing him on October 12th, 1999.

2. 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. Rowe confirmed that when she briefly talked to Jackson over the phone, before Bashir’s documentary aired, she stated that she wanted to see her children in exchange for participating in the rebuttal special, and Jackson agreed.

3. Zonen questioned Rowe about the specifics of the interview; 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.

4. Rowe continued to testify that she made attempts to visit the children, and eventually regained her parental rights through the courts. Zonen ended his direct examination after this line of questioning was through, and Rowe’s testimony did absolutely nothing for the prosecution.

5. Mesereau began his cross examination by asking Rowe to clarify her custody battle with Jackson, and then to clarify her relationship with Marc Schaffel, whom she didn’t meet until the day of her interview for the rebuttal documentary. Mesereau also questioned Rowe about how the prosecution obtained Rowe’s cell phone number from Schaffel, and they interviewed her on several occasions. Rowe agreed to work with them and participate in a few pretext phone calls, where Rowe would call Schaffel, Ian Drew (her interviewer during the rebuttal interview), Dieter Weisner (although she was unable to reach him), and the police recorded the phone calls without their knowledge.

6. During her 9 hour interview for the rebuttal documentary, Rowe refused to use the suggested answers that Drew offered her because she wanted her answers to be spontaneous and honest. Rowe had not seen Bashir’s documentary prior to her interview, and had no interest in seeing it or reading a transcript of it.

7. Next, Rowe gave her true thoughts on Schaffel, Konitzer, and Weisner! She told sheriffs during her interview with them that she thought that they were all liars in cahoots with each other, using and taking advantage of Jackson for their own financial benefit. She was also told by Schaffel several months before testifying that he would be suing Jackson for a million dollars. Rowe continued to portray Schaffel as a sleazy con-artist, based on her interactions with him and his statements to her.

8. Rowe also had negative feelings about Jackson’s former attorney Mark Geragos, who Jackson hired based on Schaffel’s recommendation. Before she could divulge her true feelings about him, Zonen objected based on hearsay and relevance, and his objection was sustained by Judge Melville.

Afterwards, Mesereau continued to question Rowe about her last interactions with Schaffel, Konitzer, and Weisner. Rowe made an astonishing comment that she felt that Schaffel was out to hurt Jackson, and in addition hurt her children as well!

9. Next, Mesereau questioned Rowe about her interview with Sgt. Steve Robel, during which she tried to explain how Jackson was being taken advantage of and manipulated by Konitzer, Schaffel, and Weisner. She also added more details about Schaffel’s shadiness and corruption by describing the information that he sold to the tabloids

10. Rowe met with Zonen the night before her testimony and watched the video of her rebuttal interview, but didn’t discuss with him what questions she would be asked. Mesereau ended his cross examination after this particular line of questioning.

11. Under redirect examination, Zonen tried to discredit Rowe’s assertions that Konitzer was using Jackson by making her admit that she hadn’t seen him interact with Jackson in years. Rowe testified about a lunch that she had with Schaffel and Weisner, and that she believed that it was a “set up” because paparazzi photographed them together as they ate, and the restaurant was in the vicinity of the hotel that Jackson and his other associates were meeting at, a meeting that Schaffel and Weisner were excluded from. After discussing this incident, she recounted how Konitzer initially met Jackson in the 90’s while working with him on tour, and Zonen tried again to discredit her by highlighting the fact that she wasn’t knowledgeable about the details of their business relationship, and only knew what she was told by Schaffel, who she called a liar earlier in her testimony. However, Zonen tried to insinuate that because Jackson had known Konitzer and Weisner for over 10 years, they couldn’t be the liars and manipulators that she thought they were.

12. Rowe clarified her earlier remarks about Schaffel having a plant at the tabloids; she testified that Drew was given information by Schaffel to rebut any negative stories that the tabloids printed, and he was selected because he was considered to be reputable.

13. Finally, Zonen asked Rowe if she believed that her inclusion in the rebuttal documentary would make it more marketable and help Jackson out of his PR crisis, and she confirmed that it did, and that was her reason for agreeing to do it (along with getting another opportunity to see her children), and Zonen ended his redirect examination. Mesereau declined to recross examine Rowe. 

To be continued: https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/april-28th-2005-trial-analysis-debbie-rowe-iris-finsilver-andrew-dietz-jeffrey-schwartz-crystalee-danko-jennifer-simmons-joe-corral-part-2-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: