Skip to content

April 28th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Debbie Rowe, Iris Finsilver, Andrew Dietz, Jeffrey Schwartz, Crystalee Danko, Jennifer Simmons, Joe Corral, Part 2 of 3

March 1, 2014

The next prosecution witness was Debbie Rowe’s family law attorney Iris Finsilver, who has represented her since 1996.  She helped to write the waiver that allowed Rowe to break her confidentiality agreement in order to participate in the rebuttal documentary, and she was also present during that interview. Here are her recollections of the interview:

15 DIRECT EXAMINATION

 

16 BY MR. ZONEN:

 

17 Q. Miss Finsilver, good morning.

 

18 A. Good morning.

 

19 Q. You’re not used to being on that side of the

 

20 witness stand, are you?

 

21 A. No, I’m not.

 

22 Q. What is your occupation?

 

23 A. I’m a lawyer.

 

24 Q. How long have you been an attorney?

 

25 A. I was admitted to the bar of Michigan in or

 

26 about 1986.

 

27 Q. In then California?

 

28 A. In California, I believe I was admitted in 8052

 

1 1989.

 

2 Q. What kind of a practice do you have?

 

3 A. Family law.

 

4 Q. And family law means what?

 

5 A. Divorce, custody, child custody, support,

 

6 family matters.

 

7 Q. All right. Is Debbie Rowe Jackson your

 

8 client?

 

9 A. Yes.

 

10 Q. How long has she been your client?

 

11 A. Since in or about 1996.

 

12 Q. Did you represent her in her divorce with

 

13 Michael Jackson?

 

14 A. Yes, sir.

 

15 Q. Do you continue to represent her?

 

16 A. Yes, sir.

 

17 Q. Were you present at the filming of an

 

18 interview that took place in Calabasas at the

 

19 residence of Marc Schaffel back in February of 2003?

 

20 A. Yes, sir.

 

21 Q. Prior to doing that, had you engaged in any

 

22 legal work to be able to allow Deborah Rowe to

 

23 participate in that interview?

 

24 A. Yes, sir.

 

25 Q. What was the purpose of that?

 

26 A. It was — she had signed a confidentiality

 

27 agreement, and in order for her to speak of Mr.

 

28 Jackson, she would have to be released from the 8053

 

1 confidentiality agreement for the express purpose of

 

2 speaking about Mr. Jackson.

 

3 Q. Did you draft that waiver of

 

4 confidentiality?

 

5 A. I think it was a mutual effort between Mr.

 

6 Jackson’s lawyers and myself. It was in fact, yes.

 

7 Q. But it was one that was drafted as a

 

8 document?

 

9 A. Yes, sir.

 

10 Q. And was it one that required signatures?

 

11 A. Yes, sir.

 

12 Q. Whose signatures were required on that

 

13 document?

 

14 A. Mr. Jackson’s and Deborah Rowe Jackson’s.

 

15 Q. And did Debbie Rowe sign the document?

 

16 A. Yes, sir.

 

17 Q. And to your knowledge, did Mr. Jackson sign

 

18 the document?

 

19 A. Yes, sir.

 

20 Q. And following the signing of that document,

 

21 did Miss Rowe participate in an interview?

 

22 A. Yes, sir.

 

23 Q. Were you present during the interview?

 

24 A. Yes, I was.

 

25 Q. Were you present during the entirety of the

 

26 interview?

 

27 A. Yes.

 

28 Q. Approximately how long did that interview 8054

 

1 last?

 

2 A. Well, I can tell you the whole day was about

 

3 nine hours. And I can’t exactly tell you how long

 

4 the filming took place. It was many hours of

 

5 filming throughout a nine-hour day.

Finsilver confirmed that Schaffel was present during the interview, and made suggestions to certain questions and answers, and Zonen quickly ended his direct examination. Mesereau declined to cross examine Finsilver.

6 Q. All right. Was there a man by the name of

 

7 Marc Schaffel present?

 

8 A. Yes, sir.

 

9 Q. Did you know Marc Schaffel prior to that

 

10 day?

 

11 A. I had never met him prior to that day.

 

12 Q. Did you know his name prior to that day?

 

13 A. I believe I did.

 

14 Q. In what context?

 

15 A. In that he would be —

 

16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance and

 

17 foundation.

 

18 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

19 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Go ahead.

 

20 THE COURT: Go ahead.

 

21 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Oh, you don’t need to be told

 

22 that, do you?

 

23 A. In that he would be part of the interview

 

24 that was going to be taking place, so that’s how I

 

25 heard of his name. And I knew that we were going to

 

26 be going to Marc Schaffel’s home, where the filming

 

27 was conducted.

 

28 Q. And was that where it was conducted, at his 8055

 

1 home?

 

2 A. Yes, sir.

 

3 Q. Was he present during the interview?

 

4 A. Yes, sir.

 

5 Q. Was he present during the entirety of the

 

6 interview?

 

7 A. Yes.

 

8 Q. Did he periodically make comments with

 

9 regards to the answers or questions that were given?

 

10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

 

11 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

12 You may answer.

 

13 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

 

14 Yes.

 

15 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you hear any

 

16 representations from Mr. Schaffel at any time during

 

17 the course of the filming that dealt specifically

 

18 with the subject of Ms. Rowe’s children?

 

19 A. Yes.

 

20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

 

21 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer was,

 

22 “Yes.” Next question.

 

23 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What were those

 

24 representations?

 

25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

 

26 MR. ZONEN: Relevant for prior stated

 

27 purposes.

 

28 THE COURT: Overruled. 8056

 

1 You may answer.

 

2 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Go ahead.

 

3 A. I heard him, in connection with her answers,

 

4 when she would give a favorable answer, “Oh, Michael

 

5 will be very, very pleased about this. You’re

 

6 really helping him out of a big jam, and you’ll go

 

7 to Neverland and you’ll see Michael and your kids.”

 

8 Q. On how many occasions did he give an answer

 

9 of that nature?

 

10 A. I recall two specific times. There may have

 

11 been more. I just —

 

12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; move to strike.

 

13 THE COURT: The last sentence is stricken.

 

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

 

15 questions.

 

16 THE COURT: Mr. Mesereau?

 

17 MR. MESEREAU: No examination, Your Honor.

 

18 THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down.

 

19 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.

 

20 THE COURT: Call your next witness.

 

21 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I want to get an

 

22 exhibit book.

 

23 THE COURT: All right.

 

24 MR. SNEDDON: I was going to ask permission

 

25 to go between there, but I’ll….

 

26 MR. ZONEN: I apologize, Your Honor.

 

27 I thought it would be a little faster than we

 

28 expected, but we are moving ahead of schedule. 8057

 

1 THE COURT: That’s fine.

 

2 MR. SNEDDON: Call Andrew Dietz, Your Honor.

 

3 THE COURT: Come forward, please.

 

4 When you get to the witness stand, remain

 

5 standing. Face the clerk and raise your right hand.

The next prosecution witness was Andrew Dietz, the owner of a retail travel agency called “Air Apparent, Inc.” Jackson’s company “MJJ Productions” had been a client of Dietz for over 15 years, and as a result of this business relationship the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department executed a search warrant on Dietz’s business in 2004 in order to obtain travel records for MJJ Productions for February and March 2003.

16 DIRECT EXAMINATION

 

17 BY MR. SNEDDON:

 

18 Q. Good morning.

 

19 A. Good morning.

 

20 Q. Mr. Dietz, you have a business — you’re

 

21 going to have to lean into that mike. Okay?

 

22 A. Good morning.

23 Q. Good morning. Do you have a business?

 

24 A. Yes, I do.

 

25 Q. And what is the name of your business?

 

26 A. Air Apparent, Inc.

 

27 Q. And where is your business located?

 

28 A. Los Angeles, California. 8058

 

1 Q. And what is the nature of the business?

 

2 A. It’s a retail travel agency.

 

3 Q. And basically could you describe for us what

 

4 that means? What’s a retail travel agency do?

 

5 A. We arrange transportation.

 

6 Q. And any other services you provide in

 

7 addition to transportation?

 

8 A. Not that I can think of.

 

9 Q. In connection with that transportation, you

 

10 make reservations at hotels and things like that?

 

11 A. Yes. Certainly.

 

12 Q. Now, in that particular business, what is

 

13 your position?

 

14 A. I’m the president.

 

15 Q. And how long have you been associated with

 

16 that business?

 

17 A. Since 1980.

 

18 Q. Now, is one of your clients MJJ Productions?

 

19 A. Yes.

 

20 Q. And how long has MJJ Productions been a

 

21 client of yours?

 

22 A. I believe around 15 years.

 

23 Q. And what is the nature of the business

 

24 services that you provide to MJJ Productions?

 

25 A. We arrange hotel, air transportation,

 

26 commercial air transportation, car reservations for

 

27 many of the people that he employs and engages in

 

28 work for himself. 8059

1 Q. What is the — can you describe to the jury

 

2 what the business relationship is in terms of how

 

3 the services, once they’re provided, how they’re

 

4 invoiced and paid and how that works?

 

5 A. A call — I think if you’re asking how is

 

6 business conducted —

 

7 Q. Yes.

 

8 A. — a call’s typically made and a reservation

 

9 is usually made, a ticket is usually generated.

 

10 It’s then invoiced and sent to the client.

 

11 Q. Now, at the time that the ticket is made,

 

12 do you have to — do you have to pay for the ticket

 

13 yourself?

 

14 A. The minute the ticket is issued, it’s my

 

15 obligation to pay the carrier.

 

16 Q. Okay. I guess that was the question. And

 

17 then you pay it and then invoice the client?

 

18 A. Correct.

 

19 Q. And then the client repays you?

 

20 A. Correct.

 

21 Q. Was that the type of business arrangement

 

22 that you had with MJJ Productions?

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. Now, at some point back in 2004, did members

 

25 of the sheriff’s department come to your business

 

26 and execute a search warrant with regard to your

 

27 records?

 

28 A. Yes, they did. 8060

 

1 Q. And those records involved MJJ Productions;

 

2 is that correct?

 

3 A. Yes.

 

4 Q. And the time period covered by that was

 

5 March — February and March of 2003?

 

6 A. I believe that’s correct.

The remainder of his direct examination consisted of him identifying travel records for Jackson during the time period of February and March 2003. For the most part, it was uneventful (and even rather boring!), but in this excerpt, Sanger became suspicious of Sneddon’s evidence, and asked Judge Melville for permission to engage Dietz in what is called a “voire dore” examination. Sneddon asked Dietz if the official Client Summary Form that he displayed in front of open court were official transactions that occurred between MJJ Productions and Air Apparent, and Dietz gave a very lukewarm confirmation, so Sanger became suspicious that Sneddon was trying to use transcations that belonged to another client as evidence against Jackson:

4 Q. Mr. Dietz, with regard to the Exhibit 853 –

 

5 okay? – that’s the one that has the void tickets on

 

6 it.

 

7 A. Yes.

 

8 Q. — does your business maintain information

 

9 that would reflect the adjustment as to whether or

 

10 not the original invoice is sent to your client for

 

11 payment or some subsequent amount is sent to reflect

 

12 the voids?

 

13 A. The original invoice may have definitely

 

14 been mailed out. Actually, no, I know that it was

 

15 not mailed out. It was adjusted to reflect that one

 

16 passenger — that only one e-ticket was issued.

 

17 Q. Now, going to the Client Summary form, okay?

 

18 A. Yes.

 

19 Q. Do the Client Summary forms contain

 

20 information maintained by your business in the

 

21 normal course of business to reflect the

 

22 transactions that occurred on the exhibits that I

 

23 showed you, 223 to 249?

 

24 A. Yes.

 

25 Q. And that information is kept in the normal

 

26 course of your business, correct?

 

27 A. The information on that summary is.

 

28 Q. Yes. 8089

 

1 A. Yes.

 

2 Q. And with regard to the mode and time of the

 

3 preparation of that information as it’s placed into

 

4 your computer, it’s made at or about the time of the

 

5 transactions; is that correct?

 

6 MR. SANGER: Objection. That — there’s a

 

7 lack of foundation. That’s the connection. Lack of

 

8 foundation.

 

9 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

10 You may answer.

 

11 THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question?

 

12 THE COURT: Yes.

 

13 (Record read.)

 

14 THE WITNESS: Yes and no.

 

15 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Yes and what?

 

16 A. Reservations can be made. It’s only — an

 

17 invoice is generated only when the reservation is

 

18 turned into a ticket.

 

19 Q. Right. And that’s what we’re talking about

 

20 here.

 

21 A. Okay.

 

22 MR. SANGER: Objection. Move to strike

 

23 counsel’s comment.

 

24 MR. SNEDDON: Well —

 

25 THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.

 

26 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Just so there will be no

 

27 question about it, the exhibits we’re talking about,

 

28 except for the one exhibit, 223, all reflect 8090

 

1 transactions that occurred, correct, tickets were

 

2 issued?

 

3 A. Except for —

 

4 MR. SANGER: I’m sorry, I have to object.

 

5 What exhibits are we talking about, except for 223?

 

6 Vague.

 

7 MR. SNEDDON: I’ll clarify it.

 

8 Q. I asked you to look at the documents 223

 

9 through 249, and then I asked you to look at 852 and

 

10 853, correct?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. All right. Are those all transactions that

 

13 occurred between you, Air Apparent, your company,

 

14 and MJJ Productions?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. And with regard to the information contained

 

17 on those transactions, is that the information

 

18 that’s downloaded to your computers?

 

19 A. Yes.

 

20 Q. And you use that for your business purposes?

 

21 A. Yes.

 

22 Q. And with regard to the exhibits, now getting

 

23 back to 854 and 855 – all right? —

 

24 A. Yeah.

 

25 Q. — they contain a client summary – correct? —

 

26 A. Yeah.

 

27 Q. — of all of those transactions from

 

28 information that was loaded into your computers at 8091

 

1 or about the time of the transactions?

 

2 A. Correct.

 

3 MR. SNEDDON: All right. I move they be

 

4 admitted.

 

5 MR. SANGER: And I would object.

 

6 MR. SNEDDON: Let me ask one more question.

 

7 I want to ask one more question, and this may take

 

8 care of it.

 

9 Q. With regard to the Client Summary form –

 

10 okay? – and the information that’s on that form –

 

11 okay? – does that information — from that

 

12 information, are you able, in the due course of your

 

13 business, to be able to provide invoices to clients

 

14 to be paid that may be different than the original

 

15 invoices that were sent out?

 

16 A. Yes.

 

17 MR. SNEDDON: All right. Now I move they —

 

18 THE WITNESS: But not in that form.

 

19 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: I understand that. But

 

20 that’s what the information is used for, correct,

21 the information that’s in your computer?

 

22 A. Yes.

 

23 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object. It’s

 

24 leading; argumentative; statements of counsel.

 

25 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

26 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: I think the point you’re

 

27 trying to make — and I think you made it, but let’s

 

28 just make sure that the jury understands. What 8092

 

1 you’re —

 

2 MR. SANGER: Move to strike comments of

 

3 counsel, Your Honor.

 

4 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

5 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: The Client Summary form was

 

6 a form that was produced specifically to respond to

 

7 the search warrant, correct?

 

8 A. Yes.

 

9 Q. That form itself is not something that you

 

10 use ordinarily, correct?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. All right. But the information on the form

 

13 is all information that you house at your place of

 

14 business to conduct business, correct? It was just

 

15 downloaded into a different format?

 

16 A. I — yes.

 

17 MR. SANGER: Objection. Well — I was going

 

18 to object, compound.

 

19 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

20 MR. SNEDDON: All right. We’ll break it up.

 

21 Q. Is it information that you maintain at your

 

22 place of business to conduct business?

 

23 A. Is what, the —

 

24 Q. The information on those forms.

 

25 A. Yes.

 

26 Q. Is that input into your computer?

 

27 A. Yes.

 

28 Q. All right. And is that information – 8093

 

1 A. That’s the output. That is the output from

 

2 input.

 

3 Q. Well, let’s go back. It’s a matter of

 

4 semantics.

 

5 A. Okay.

 

6 Q. The information on the form is the output?

 

7 A. Correct.

 

8 Q. The information that went into the computer

 

9 is the input?

 

10 A. Correct.

 

11 Q. The information that’s input is information

 

12 that you keep in the normal course of your business?

 

13 A. Yes.

 

14 Q. It happened to be output into this format

 

15 for this trial?

 

16 A. Yes.

 

17 Q. But reflects information that you keep?

 

18 A. Yes.

 

19 MR. SNEDDON: All right. Now I move that

 

20 they be admitted.

 

21 MR. SANGER: And I object and request either

 

22 to have an opportunity to voir dire or ask the Court

 

23 to reserve ruling until cross.

 

24 THE COURT: Well, I think he needs to ask him

 

25 some questions about this, so I’ll let you voir dire

 

26 now, rather than wait. I don’t think that’s

 

27 productive.

 

28 MR. SANGER: That’s fine. That’s why I 8094

 

1 offered. Thank you.

 

2

 

3 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION

 

4 BY MR. SANGER:

 

5 Q. Mr. Dietz, how are you doing?

 

6 A. Good. How are you doing?

 

7 Q. I’m doing fine, thank you.

 

8 On 854 and 855, it’s my understanding that

 

9 you had not seen those document before they were

 

10 shown to you by the District Attorney; is that

 

11 correct?

 

12 A. Um, before last evening?

 

13 Q. Yes.

 

14 A. I might have looked at them in preparation

 

15 for coming up here.

 

16 Q. You’re not sure?

 

17 A. I’m not sure.

 

18 Q. And those are not documents that you

 

19 downloaded from your computer; is that correct?

 

20 A. I don’t believe I downloaded them. I

 

21 believe one of my accounting staff did.

 

22 Q. Okay. So you’re assuming that that was

 

23 something somebody on your accounting staff did; is

 

24 that correct?

 

25 A. I’m pretty certain that it’s something that

 

26 somebody did on my accounting staff.

 

27 Q. You have not had an opportunity to verify

 

28 whether or not the billing amounts, the invoice 8095

 

1 amounts to the particular client, are accurate in

 

2 each regard on those two exhibits; is that correct,

 

3 sir?

 

4 A. Do you mean the invoices to the statement?

 

5 Q. Yes. In other words —

 

6 A. To the Client Summary that’s been presented?

 

7 Q. Let me withdraw it. Your question indicates

 

8 that my question was not clear.

 

9 A. All right.

 

10 Q. On 854 and 855 —

 

11 A. Yeah.

 

12 Q. — these client billing summaries —

 

13 A. Yeah.

 

14 Q. — they show invoice amounts to the client,

 

15 correct?

 

16 A. Correct.

 

17 Q. You have not had an opportunity to determine

 

18 whether or not the invoice amounts shown on those

 

19 documents are accurate in each case; is that

 

20 correct?

 

21 A. Not in each case.

 

22 Q. And these documents, as far as you knew,

 

23 were prepared for the purposes of this litigation;

 

24 is that right?

 

25 A. Yes.

 

26 MR. SANGER: I have no further questions on

 

27 voir dire, and I object.

 

28 THE COURT: Does that material on the 8096

 

1 printouts on 854, 855, is that a compilation of the

 

2 material that’s in your computer on this particular

 

3 account?

 

4 THE WITNESS: Yes.

 

5 THE COURT: All right. Your objection is

 

6 overruled. They’re admitted as a compilation. But

 

7 after that —

 

8 MR. SNEDDON: I should have let you ask the

 

9 questions, Your Honor. We’d be way ahead of the

 

10 game.

 

11 THE COURT: Well, I’ve just got to start

 

12 this break early. That was so painful.

 

13 (Laughter.)

 

14 (Recess taken.)

15 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Sneddon, go

 

16 ahead.

 

17 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Mr. Dietz, I placed in

 

18 front of you the document that’s in evidence.

 

19 That’s 853, all right?

 

20 And does that document have or bear an

 

21 invoice number?

 

22 A. Yes, it does.

 

23 Q. What is that invoice number?

 

24 A. 0143505.

 

25 Q. And the amount of money that’s indicated on

 

26 that invoice number is what?

 

27 A. $6,644.

 

28 Q. For four tickets? 8097

 

1 A. Correct.

 

2 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to place on the

 

3 Elmo, Your Honor, if I might have it for just a

 

4 moment, page six of Exhibit 855.

 

5 No, the other one. Back. Back. There.

 

6 All right.

 

7 Q. The information contained on page six of

 

8 Exhibit 855 has the date in the far left-hand

 

9 corner; is that correct?

 

10 A. Correct.

 

11 Q. And moving down the date to March 1st, 2003,

 

12 in the second column over, what does the number

 

13 143505 refer to?

 

14 A. The invoice number.

 

15 Q. And with regard —

 

16 MR. SANGER: Excuse me.

 

17 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: — to the far right-hand

 

18 side of the exhibit at the top, it bears the word

 

19 “fare,” correct, f-a-r-e?

 

20 A. Yes.

 

21 Q. And with regard to the flight on Invoice No.

 

22 143505, you billed $1,661, correct?

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. Is the invoice number and trip reflected on

 

25 page six of the Exhibit 855 the same trip that’s

26 represented by the invoice number on 853?

 

27 A. You got me there. Where is 855?

 

28 Q. 853, the one in your hands. 855 is the one 8098

 

1 on the board.

 

2 A. Okay.

 

3 Q. Is that the same trip?

 

4 A. That is the same trip, but the invoice

 

5 was — the ticket was issued the weekend. It was

 

6 changed over the weekend, or reservations were

 

7 cancelled. Flights were issued, e-tickets were

 

8 issued. Three of the passengers did not travel —

 

9 Q. So this —

 

10 A. — on this itinerary.

 

11 Q. Okay. So 855 reflects the fact that only

 

12 one person traveled on that itinerary that’s been

 

13 marked as 853 that’s in your hand, correct?

 

14 A. Correct.

 

15 Q. I couldn’t hear you.

 

16 A. Correct.

 

17 MR. SNEDDON: All right. No further

 

18 questions.

 

19 MR. SANGER: Can I have the exhibits,

 

20 please?

 

21 MR. SNEDDON: I was going to put them back

 

22 together again. If you want to have them, here.

 

23 MR. SANGER: Why don’t we keep them out for

 

24 now, please.

 

25 MR. SNEDDON: The rest of them are up there.

 

26 MR. SANGER: May I approach to retrieve the

 

27 exhibits?

 

28 THE COURT: Yes. 8099

 

1 MR. SANGER: I’m just a little concerned,

 

2 Your Honor. Mr. Sneddon said he was going to put

 

3 them back together, so I think I will give them to

 

4 Mr. Sneddon so they get in the right position there.

 

5 MR. SNEDDON: They’re all in order except

 

6 for the one that was taken away from me.

 

7 MR. SANGER: All right. There it is.

Sanger began his cross examination by asking Dietz if he could assume that Jackson travelled on a particular day in which the Cascio’s voided their trip, and Dietz answered that there wouldn’t be any way for him to know:

9 CROSS-EXAMINATION

 

10 BY MR. SANGER:

 

11 Q. All right. First of all, on — with regard

 

12 to these summaries you just saw up on the board,

 

13 particularly you took a look at one of the pages, I

 

14 think it was page six, and it showed the amount that

 

15 was billed, and it showed it was billed for one

 

16 person to travel, right?

 

17 A. Yes.

 

18 Q. Say a word so the court reporter can get it

 

19 down.

 

20 A. Sorry.

 

21 Q. That’s okay.

 

22 You are assuming that that record was

 

23 accurately placed into the computer database by

 

24 whoever entered these things; is that correct?

 

25 A. Correct.

 

26 Q. All right. And you noted from the other

 

27 actual tickets that it appeared that three of the

 

28 tickets, the ones for the Cascios, I believe, were 8100

 

1 voided?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 Q. Okay. There was the Cascios and LaPerruque,

 

4 correct?

 

5 A. Yes.

 

6 Q. They were voided. You look at that, and you

 

7 pretty much figure, well, as far as your company was

 

8 concerned, the person that traveled on that

 

9 particular day was Mr. Jackson?

 

10 A. I would not necessarily assume that.

 

11 Q. Okay. I was going to ask you how you would

 

12 come to that conclusion. So you’re saying you don’t

 

13 know that?

 

14 A. Correct.

In this excerpt, Dietz explains how Jackson’s travel arrangements were made:

15 Q. All right. Now, I want to show you — you

 

16 have the book in front of you there —

 

17 A. Yeah.

 

18 Q. — with the exhibits in the 200 series. And

 

19 I’d ask you to turn to Exhibit 223, and I believe

 

20 that that is a two-page exhibit; is that correct?

 

21 A. Yes, it is.

 

22 MR. SANGER: All right. And, Your Honor,

 

23 with the Court’s permission, I would like to put the

 

24 copy I was given of those two pages up on the — on

 

25 the board, if I may.

 

26 THE COURT: Okay.

 

27 MR. SANGER: Or up on the machine.

 

28 Q. And I’m going to show you the first page of 8101

 

1 exhibit — the 223. And that’s already been up

 

2 there before, but I’ll ask you to look at that

 

3 again. And this appears to be an itinerary that was

 

4 generated somehow, correct?

 

5 A. Yes.

 

6 Q. That’s not your usual format for itineraries

 

7 that are generated, is it?

 

8 A. For itineraries, I believe it is.

 

9 Q. Okay. All the other itineraries that you

 

10 have shown for Exhibits 224 through 249 are

 

11 generated on letterhead, with a different font, in a

 

12 different format; isn’t that correct?

 

13 A. Yes, they’re associated with an invoice.

 

14 Q. All right. Now, this particular one was not

 

15 associated with an invoice because it was not

 

16 sent — an invoice was not sent for payment on this

 

17 flight; is that correct?

 

18 A. I cannot tell from what I see here.

 

19 Q. All right. Do you know whether or not that

 

20 flight took place?

 

21 A. I do not know.

 

22 Q. All right. And ordinarily when flights are

 

23 booked through your agency by MJJ Productions, who

 

24 is it that contacts you to book the flights?

 

25 A. Evvy.

 

26 Q. All right. And I’ll tell you what. I’m

 

27 going to ask you to just turn around and look this

 

28 way, and I’ll direct your attention to the board in 8102

 

1 a second when we put the next one up, but it’s hard

 

2 for everybody to hear you.

 

3 A. Okay.

 

4 Q. So Evvy Tavasci is ordinarily the person who

 

5 would be contacting your agency, correct?

 

6 A. Yes.

 

7 Q. All right. And she contacts your agency not

 

8 just for Mr. Jackson’s travel arrangements, but for

 

9 other employees of MJJ Productions, correct?

 

10 A. Definitely.

 

11 Q. Okay. And to your knowledge, if some other

 

12 employee of MJJ Productions needs to travel for some

 

13 business-related purpose, they would contact her,

 

14 and she would in turn contact you; is that correct?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. When you make a flight arrangement for Evvy

 

17 Tavasci, or at her — at her request, do you fax a

 

18 confirmation?

 

19 A. I’m not sure. I don’t know our daily

 

20 practices.

 

21 Q. You’re not the person that actually does it?

 

22 A. Not at all.

 

23 Q. You just own the place?

 

24 A. Yes.

 

25 Q. There you go. All right. Well, let me show

 

26 you this anyway and see if this is — this is the

 

27 second page I’m going to put up of this exhibit, and

 

28 I’d like you to read the top — no, I’m kidding. 8103

 

1 (Laughter.)

Sanger questioned Dietz about the authorization process when it comes to making travel arrangements for MJJ Productions, and Dietz confirmed that most transactions had Evvy’s Tavasci’s authorization.

5 Q. If you look at these two documents that are

 

6 marked as 223, is there any way to determine the

 

7 time of day on February 5th that these tickets were

 

8 requested?

 

9 A. Requested?

 

10 Q. Yes.

 

11 A. No. Prior to 11:31.

 

12 Q. You know it’s prior to 11:31, because that’s

 

13 when the fax first was attempted, the fax that

 

14 didn’t work, correct?

 

15 A. That’s correct.

 

16 Q. And ordinarily, your people would be pretty

 

17 prompt if they were setting up a ticket for the same

 

18 day. And I believe this is a ticket for the same

 

19 day, right? You can take a look at your —

 

20 A. Yes, it looks like that way. Yes, for a

 

21 flight at two o’clock in the afternoon.

 

22 Q. The flight was to depart at two o’clock in

 

23 the afternoon of February the 5th?

 

24 A. Correct.

 

25 Q. So if somebody were doing this and faxing it

 

26 out at 11:51 in the morning, they probably had made

 

27 the arrangements very shortly before that; is that

 

28 correct? 8105

 

1 A. That is correct.

 

2 Q. All right. Now, the fact that on the top

 

3 of — you keep looking at what you’re looking at

4 there.

 

5 A. They didn’t necessarily make the reservation

 

6 at the time they called it in. I mean, on this day.

 

7 They could have — they could have made the

 

8 reservation prior to this date.

 

9 Q. Okay.

 

10 A. If that’s the question.

 

11 Q. Well, that’s fair enough.

 

12 You look — well, you’re looking at your

 

13 copy there. You’re on the first page?

 

14 A. Uh-huh.

 

15 Q. And at the top — at the top there, it says,

 

16 “To MJJ Productions,” and “Attention: Evvy,

 

17 Personal and Confidential”?

 

18 A. Uh-huh.

 

19 Q. Does that mean that Evvy was actually the

 

20 person that called this in?

 

21 A. Not necessarily.

 

22 Q. Somebody could have called it in and then

 

23 you would be dealing with Evvy Tavasci at MJJ

 

24 Productions, correct?

 

25 A. Yes.

 

26 Q. So, in essence, from the records that you

 

27 have before you, you do not have any idea who called

 

28 in this request for tickets? 8106

 

1 A. Let me clarify. Most of the tickets, to my

 

2 knowledge, were ordered or confirmed by Evvy.

 

3 Q. I understand.

 

4 A. Some of them were called in by other

 

5 employees of MJJ Productions.

 

6 Q. Okay.

 

7 A. But nothing was done without, typically,

 

8 getting Evvy’s authorization.

 

9 Q. So theoretically, before this flight —

 

10 before the tickets would actually issue on this

 

11 flight, you would need to have Evvy’s confirmation,

 

12 correct?

 

13 A. Typically, yes.

 

14 Q. Maybe Narcisse, who also worked there,

 

15 correct?

 

16 A. I’m not sure if Narcisse is on the — she

 

17 definitely is calling some things in. I’m not sure

 

18 if she’s a part of the approval process.

 

19 Q. But going back to my question originally,

 

20 here, you cannot tell who actually called this in.

 

21 In other words, somebody else — somebody else

 

22 entirely different could have called it in?

 

23 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object. Calls

 

24 for speculation, Your Honor.

 

25 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

26 THE WITNESS: I cannot tell who called this

 

27 in.

 

28 Q. BY MR. SANGER: All right. And then if you 8107

 

1 look at the air fare there, that’s economy air fare,

 

2 $1,180.50 per person, right?

 

3 A. Yes.

 

4 Q. Does that tend to indicate to you that this

 

5 was a flight that was scheduled at the last minute?

 

6 A. I — I can’t speculate on that. I think it

 

7 was — I mean, my gut feeling is yes, but —

 

8 Q. All right.

 

9 A. I don’t know if it was called in last

 

10 minute.

 

11 Q. Okay. I’m going to take that down for a

 

12 moment.

 

13 A. You know, it might have been

 

14 contemporaneously, only because ticket fares are

 

15 good for only, you know, for a 24-hour period per

 

16 se. So the fare is only good for — for a certain

 

17 time frame, and then it will move on. So —

 

18 Q. Now, you testified to some other documents

 

19 as to who might have been — I’m sorry, you

 

20 testified to other documents as to whose names were

 

21 on particular tickets or potential tickets. You do

 

22 not actually know who flew on a particular day; is

 

23 that correct?

 

24 A. I do not.

 

25 Q. And, of course, if you — if somebody booked

 

26 flights independent of your agency, you would not

 

27 know about those flights; is that correct?

 

28 A. That is correct. 8108

 

1 MR. SANGER: Okay. I have no further

 

2 questions. And I have the exhibits that were handed

 

3 to me. I’m just going to leave them here.

The next prosecution witness was Jeffrey Schwartz, a custodian of records for Talk America, a long distance internet telephone provider.  Mag Nicola asked Schwartz to confirm that the phone records that were introduced in court belonged to Jay Jackson:

13 DIRECT EXAMINATION

 

14 BY MR. NICOLA:

 

15 Q. Good afternoon, sir.

 

16 A. Good afternoon.

 

17 Q. Would you tell the jury, please, who you’re

 

18 employed with?

 

19 A. My employer is Talk America.

 

20 Q. And what is Talk America?

 

21 A. We’re a C-lite local and long-distance

 

22 Internet telephone provider.

 

23 Q. Are you here to testify today as their

 

24 custodian of records?

 

25 A. I am.

 

26 MR. NICOLA: May I approach the witness,

 

27 Your Honor?

 

28 THE COURT: Yes. 8110

 

1 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: I’ve placed in front of you

 

2 Exhibit 458, and I ask you if you recognize that

 

3 document, and if you do, what is it, please?

 

4 A. I do. It’s subscriber information from a

 

5 customer of Talk America, Jay Jackson.

 

6 Q. And does that Exhibit 458 also contain toll

 

7 records for the period of January, February and

 

8 March of the year 2003?

 

9 A. It does.

 

10 Q. Is the information contained within that

 

11 exhibit material that is generated within the

 

12 regular course and scope of the business of Talk

 

13 America?

 

14 A. It is.

 

15 Q. Okay. And is the material that is in there,

 

16 the information that is in that exhibit, collected

 

17 at or near the time of the individual toll calls?

 

18 A. Yes, it is.

 

19 Q. And is it relied upon to conduct the

 

20 business of Talk America?

 

21 A. Yes, it is.

 

22 MR. NICOLA: Your Honor, we would offer 458

 

23 into evidence at this time.

 

24 MR. SANGER: I just have a technical

 

25 question. There’s a different 458 that we were

 

26 provided. Has that been withdrawn or —

 

27 MR. NICOLA: That was never identified.

 

28 MR. SANGER: Never provided to the Court? 8111

 

1 MR. NICOLA: No.

 

2 MR. SANGER: Oh, okay. I’m just now

 

3 informed by counsel that what was provided to us was

 

4 not provided to the Court or marked. So….

 

5 MR. NICOLA: We used a different exhibit

 

6 number for this.

 

7 MR. SANGER: So based on that, I have no

 

8 objection.

 

9 THE COURT: It’s admitted.

This particular telephone information may seem insignificant, but pay attention because it’s huge blow to the prosecution’s case! Most of the telephone calls that are discussed in the excerpt below are from Jay Jackson’s phone to Frank Cascio or Neverland! Janet Arvizo was in steady contract with Frank and Neverland during the time period of February 18th and 19th (the day before the shooting of the rebuttal video), and this is consistent with the defense’s assertion that Janet kept trying to weasel her way back to Neverland, and she was never held against her will!

10 MR. NICOLA: Thank you, Your Honor.

 

11 May I please have “Input No. 4,” Your Honor?

 

12 Q. Mr. Schwartz, I would just like to go to the

 

13 first page of the toll records of that exhibit. I’m

 

14 going to project a few items up onto the screen, and

 

15 if you could please explain them to the jury once

 

16 they’re up there, okay?

 

17 A. Okay.

 

18 Q. Let’s begin with the headings in the columns

 

19 entitled A, B, C, D, et cetera. And I’m just going

 

20 to point with the laser. If you can speak next to

 

21 that second mike, please, it would be more

 

22 convenient for you, and everyone will be able to

 

23 hear you.

 

24 Could you tell the jury what’s in this

 

25 section, the first line, Section A, please?

 

26 A. That’s a number where the call would

 

27 originate from.

 

28 Q. Is that the number that corresponds to the 8112

 

1 subscriber?

 

2 A. Yes, it does.

 

3 Q. The customer?

 

4 A. Yes, that’s correct.

 

5 Q. Okay. And is that a mobile phone number or

 

6 is that a landline?

 

7 A. That’s a landline.

 

8 Q. Do you provide local service for that, or

 

9 did you during the time period in question?

 

10 A. We did not.

 

11 Q. Okay. What kind of service did you provide

 

12 to that particular landline?

 

13 A. We provided LD service only.

14 Q. And LD, for those of us who don’t know?

 

15 A. Long distance.

 

16 Q. Long-distance service.

 

17 What’s in Column B?

 

18 A. Column B is where the call would have

 

19 terminated.

 

20 Q. What does that mean?

 

21 A. That means where the receiver would have

 

22 been picked up on the other end.

 

23 Q. The number that was dialed by the person at

 

24 the 9279 number?

 

25 A. That’s correct.

 

26 Q. Okay. Column C, is that the date of the

 

27 call?

 

28 A. The date and the time. 8113

 

1 Q. Do you know whether the time stamp is based

 

2 on a particular time zone?

 

3 A. It is on the time zone where the call

 

4 originated from.

 

5 Q. So if the phone number is registered in Los

 

6 Angeles, it’s going to be in Pacific Coast time,

 

7 correct?

 

8 A. Correct.

 

9 Q. The next column seems to indicate a place.

 

10 A. That is the origination column date.

 

11 Q. Okay.

 

12 A. That is the origination which corresponds to

 

13 the Column A.

 

14 Q. Column E appears to be the state, obviously,

 

15 correct?

 

16 A. Correct.

 

17 Q. Correct?

 

18 A. Correct, I’m sorry.

 

19 Q. And of course there’s Column H and Column I.

 

20 What is Column H, please?

 

21 A. Column H is actually the duration of the

 

22 call, from the time the call is received until the

 

23 call was terminated.

 

24 Q. So that’s the actual time that the call

 

25 lasted?

 

26 A. Correct.

 

27 Q. And what is this over here, Column I?

 

28 A. That would be the time that the call was 8114

 

1 billed for.

 

2 Q. Okay. For example, in this column, H, on

 

3 the second line, a 34-second call results in one

 

4 minute worth of billing?

 

5 A. Correct. That is correct. Common practice

 

6 in the telecommunications industry.

 

7 Q. We’ve heard that, yes.

 

8 I’d like to direct your attention, please,

 

9 to the middle of this chart, if I may.

 

10 Beginning with the entry on line 25 —

 

11 A. Okay.

 

12 Q. — this would be the calling number, Mr.

 

13 Jackson, correct?

 

14 A. That would be the origination of the call

 

15 for Mr. Jackson, correct.

 

16 Q. And this number here, (201) 213-0763, is the

 

17 number that was placed — or dialed by whoever was

 

18 using this phone?

 

19 A. Placed and terminated at that number,

 

20 correct.

 

21 Q. Okay. And does this call on Item No. 24 —

 

22 excuse me, Item No. 25 indicate the call was a

 

23 completed call?

 

24 A. Yes.

 

25 Q. How can you tell that?

 

26 A. By the duration of the call.

 

27 Q. Over here, the 6:32?

 

28 A. That’s correct. 8115

 

1 Q. Which on the bill appears to be what, seven

 

2 minutes?

 

3 A. What line are we looking at? 25?

 

4 Q. Yes, right where the pointer is.

 

5 A. That’s correct. Well, six minutes and 32

 

6 seconds. Billed for seven minutes.

 

7 Q. Okay. And that’s how Cingular bought AT&T.

 

8 Okay. Here we go. Line No. 27, same

 

9 number, to Morristown, New Jersey?

 

10 A. Correct.

 

11 Q. And that call lasted 15 seconds, correct?

 

12 A. Correct.

 

13 Q. Now, is that a completed call, if it lasts

 

14 15.3 seconds?

 

15 A. Yes. Any call — I’m sorry.

 

16 Q. Explain that, please.

 

17 A. Well, any call that is entered into the

 

18 record, if the call was not answered, if there was

 

19 not an answer on the telephone, there wouldn’t be a

 

20 record for the call because the call would not have

 

21 terminated. But once the call is received and

 

22 answered, regardless of one second or 20 seconds, or

 

23 as far as ten minutes, there would be a record of

 

24 the call.

 

25 Q. Okay. So does that mean that this call was

 

26 either answered on the other end or it got forwarded

 

27 to voice mail or something like that?

 

28 A. Any one of those possibilities is possible, 8116

 

1 correct.

 

2 Q. Okay. And this 15 seconds also costs a

 

3 minute, right?

 

4 A. That is correct also.

 

5 Q. Going down the list to Item No. 28 on the

 

6 left, same number was dialed to Morristown, New

 

7 Jersey, at 11:53?

 

8 A. That’s correct.

 

9 Q. Is this military time?

 

10 A. Yes.

 

11 Q. So the next call down here at 1320 hours,

 

12 that’s actually 1:20 p.m., correct?

 

13 A. That’s also correct.

 

14 Q. And the 1:20 p.m. call lasted one minute and

 

15 eight seconds?

 

16 A. And billed for two minutes, if that’s what

 

17 you’re asking, yes. Yes, it did.

 

18 Q. This is my favorite one right here.

 

19 The next call appears to be the same number,

 

20 is that correct, on line 30?

 

21 A. Yes. That’s correct.

 

22 Q. And that call was placed at 1324, 1:24 in

 

23 the afternoon, correct?

 

24 A. Yes, that’s correct.

 

25 Q. To Morristown, New Jersey, for a period of

 

26 2.4 seconds?

 

27 A. That’s correct.

 

28 Q. Immediately thereafter, at 1334 hours, that 8117

 

1 number was called again, correct?

 

2 A. That’s correct.

 

3 Q. And that call lasted 3.1 seconds?

 

4 A. That’s also correct.

 

5 Q. And in total, that was two minutes, in

 

6 telephone company time, right?

 

7 A. That’s also correct, yes.

 

8 Q. You can tell I enjoy this, huh?

 

9 The remainder of these calls, at 1539 hours,

 

10 Item 32, Item 33 at 1407 hours, Item 34 at 2036

 

11 hours, Item 35 at 2043, and Item 36 at 2048, were

 

12 all to the same phone number in Morristown, New

 

13 Jersey, right?

 

14 A. That is correct.

 

15 Q. And they were all completed calls?

 

16 A. That is correct also.

 

17 Q. Now, I believe I misspoke and called 1359

 

18 1539. So Item 32 is actually a call placed at 1359

 

19 or nearly two o’clock in the afternoon, right?

 

20 A. That’s correct.

 

21 Q. Okay. Now, beginning with Item 36 — 37,

 

22 excuse me, on February 16th, 2003, at 4:07 in the

 

23 afternoon, was a call placed to a phone number in

 

24 Wyckoff, New Jersey?

 

25 A. That’s correct.

 

26 Q. And what does your record reflect that phone

 

27 number to be?

 

28 A. (201) 847-7576. 8118

 

1 Q. Now, you have no way of knowing whether the

 

2 receiving phone call — excuse me, the number dialed

 

3 is a cellular phone or a landline, correct?

 

4 A. You could gather the information. I do not

 

5 know. You could gather the information if you had

 

6 to gather it. You could do that.

 

7 Q. By some kind of a cell site?

 

8 A. Or a customer service record. You could

 

9 request what we call a “CSR,” which would be a

 

10 Customer Service Record, for the receiving call.

 

11 Q. How long are those records kept?

 

12 A. I believe a record should be kept for eight

 

13 years, is what a telephone record is required to be

 

14 kept, so —

 

15 Q. Okay. Would the subscriber information on

 

16 this end of the phone call also tell you whether

 

17 it’s a cell phone or a landline?

18 A. Yes, it could.

 

19 Q. Okay. Now, beginning with Item 37, and

 

20 continuing down to Item 41, there appear to be

 

21 four — four calls in a row between four o’clock in

 

22 the afternoon and approximately 10:23 the following

 

23 day, February 17th, to the same number in Wyckoff,

 

24 New Jersey; is that correct?

 

25 A. That’s correct.

 

26 Q. And were those completed calls?

 

27 A. Yes, they were.

 

28 Q. Proceeding to Item 42, was a different 8119

 

1 number called on February 17th of 2003 at 11:24 in

 

2 the morning?

 

3 A. Yes. Different between 41 and 42 is what

 

4 your — is the question?

 

5 Q. Yes.

 

6 A. Yes, different.

 

7 Q. Is that the same phone number that was

 

8 called on the 15th to Morristown, New Jersey?

 

9 A. Yes, it is.

 

10 Q. Okay. And was that a completed phone call?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. And how long did that one last?

 

13 A. Item 42?

 

14 Q. Yes, please.

 

15 A. It looks like 17 minutes and 39 seconds,

 

16 billed for 18 minutes probably.

 

17 Q. There you go. Okay.

 

18 And the item right below 42 is 43.

 

19 A. Right.

 

20 Q. Could you tell us about that phone call

 

21 including the location and duration, please?

 

22 A. It looks like it was 26 minutes and 15

 

23 seconds to Wyckoff, New Jersey. The (201) 847-7576

 

24 number.

 

25 Q. Would you turn the page, please? Okay. I’m

 

26 trying to get this up there. How about we just do

 

27 it verbally.

 

28 Items 45 through 48 — excuse me, 45 through 8120

 

1 47, are they all telephone calls placed from the

 

2 Jackson residence, Jay Jackson residence, to the

 

3 7576 telephone number in Wyckoff, New Jersey?

 

4 A. Yes, they are.

 

5 Q. And were they all completed phone calls?

 

6 A. Yes, they were.

 

7 Q. And did they occur between February 18th of

 

8 2003 and February 19th of 2003?

 

9 A. Yes, they did.

 

10 MR. NICOLA: Your Honor, I have no further

 

11 questions of this witness.

To be continued: https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2014/03/08/april-28th-2005-trial-analysis-debbie-rowe-iris-finsilver-andrew-dietz-jeffrey-schwartz-crystalee-danko-jennifer-simmons-joe-corral-part-3-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: