May 2nd, 2005 Trial Analysis: Beverly Wagner, Craig Bonner, and Paul Zelis, Part 1 of 2
Before calling their next witness, the prosecution asked Judge Melville for permission to admit some additional exhibits into evidence. Those exhibits consisted of hotel records from the Turnberry Inn (where Jackson, his entourage, and the Arvizos stayed during their trip to Miami from February 5th through 7th, 2003), Calabasas Inn & Country Suites (where the Arvizos stayed temporarily on February 25th, 2003), and the Beverly Hilton Hotel (where Jackson met Gavin and his father at one point in time). There were no objections from the defense, and Judge Melville admitted the exhibits into evidence as requested:
1 Santa Maria, California
2 Monday, May 2, 2005
3 8:30 a.m.
5 THE COURT: Good morning, everyone.
6 THE JURY: (In unison) Good morning.
7 THE COURT: Call your next witness.
8 MR. SNEDDON: Good morning, Your Honor.
9 Before we get started this morning, we have
10 some records that we want to move into evidence.
11 I’ve discussed it with Mr. Sanger.
12 And the first set of records involves the
13 documents that have been marked as Exhibits 200
14 through 218 for identification. We have the
15 custodian of records certification from the
16 Turnberry Inn, and we would move at this time that
17 the documents 200 through 218 be admitted into
18 evidence as business records and duly certified.
19 MR. SANGER: No objection.
20 THE COURT: They’re admitted, 200 through
22 MR. SNEDDON: In addition to that, Your
23 Honor, we would be moving that the records that are
24 No. 255 through 258, which again bear the
25 custodian’s certification from the Beverly Hilton
26 Hotel, be admitted into evidence as Items 255
27 through 258.
28 MR. SANGER: No objection. 8309
1 THE COURT: They’re admitted.
2 MR. SNEDDON: And then one other item of
3 business, Your Honor, that we will complete at the
4 break, but I wanted to bring to the Court’s
5 attention, we have some records that have been
6 produced pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum from the
7 Calabasas Inn & Country Suites, which are documents
8 219 through 222. And while there are copies in the
9 Court’s original, we want to be able to check the
10 ones that came in to make sure they’re exactly like
11 the ones that are in the document, and we’ll do that
12 during the break.
13 And we’ll be offering those later after
14 Mr. Sanger and I have had a chance to review it, but
15 I’d like just a stipulation that the clerk can
16 provide that to us to examine during the course of
17 the break.
18 THE COURT: Do you agree, Mr. Sanger?
19 MR. SANGER: Yes, Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: All right. That will be the
22 MR. SNEDDON: Thank you very much, Your
24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Good morning, Your Honor.
25 The People call Beverly Wagner.
26 THE COURT: When you get to the witness
27 stand, please remain standing.
28 Look over here. Face the clerk, raise your 8310
1 right hand.
The next prosecution witness was Beverly Wagner, the manager of the bank where two large checks from a Neverland Valley Entertainment bank account were cashed on April 2nd, 2003. They were written in the amounts of one million dollars and five hundred thousand dollars, and they exceeded the approval authority of the local bank manager, so Wagner was notified that she must personally approve of the transactions. Marc Schaffel gave the bank seven days’ notice, and literally walked out with $1.5 million dollars in cold, hard cash!
The prosecution obviously thought that somehow this was related to the “conspiracy” to fly the Arvizos to Brazil, although Auchincloss failed to insinuate this during his direct examination, but he was sure to emphasize that only Schaffel and Jackson were approved signatories on that particular account (i.e., only they could withdraw money):
14 DIRECT EXAMINATION
15 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:
16 Q. Good morning, Miss Wagner.
17 A. Good morning.
18 Q. Who do you work for, please?
19 A. U.S. Bank.
20 Q. What do you do for U.S. Bank?
21 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Your microphone, sir.
22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m sorry.
23 Q. What do you do for U.S. Bank?
24 A. I’m the bank manager at the bank.
25 Q. Which bank?
26 A. Right now I’m at the 4th and Wilshire
28 Q. In the year 2003, did you work at a 8311
1 different branch?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What branch was that?
4 A. The 23rd and Santa Monica branch.
5 Q. And were you branch manager for that
6 particular branch?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. That second branch, what is the city that
9 that’s located in?
10 A. Santa Monica —
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. — California.
13 Q. What is the branch that you worked at in
14 2003? Where was that? What city was that in?
15 A. 2221 Santa Monica Boulevard in Santa Monica.
16 Q. In Santa Monica, all right. Very good.
17 May I approach, Your Honor?
18 THE COURT: You may.
19 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to show you
20 two exhibits, which appear to be copies of checks.
21 The first one has been marked as People’s Exhibit
22 418, page three. It appears to be a check from
23 Neverland Valley Entertainment dated April 2nd,
25 Do you recognize that check?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. How is it that you recognize that check?
28 A. From the name on the account and the routing 8312
1 number for U.S. Bank, and the account number.
2 Q. All right. Did you participate personally
3 in the cashing of that check as branch manager for
4 U.S. Bank?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And were you working at the Santa Monica
7 branch at that time?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And did you — how is it that you personally
10 participated in the cashing of that check?
11 A. This is way above the approval limit for a
12 branch manager, and I had to get authority to even
13 cash the check, so it had to come through my hands.
14 Q. How much is that check for?
15 A. One million dollars.
16 Q. And can you tell me in what manner that
17 check was cashed? In other words, was it deposited?
18 Was it — did the bank disburse those funds in other
19 methods? Tell me exactly how the individual cashed
20 that check.
21 A. Cash.
22 Q. They walked in with this check and walked
23 out with one million dollars in cash?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did the bank have to make any special
26 arrangements to put together that much money in
28 A. Yes. 8313
1 Q. How much advance time is necessary for an
2 individual to notify the bank that it will need to
3 have certain funds on hand for a large cash
4 disbursement like this?
5 MR. SANGER: Objection; relevance.
6 THE COURT: Overruled.
7 You may answer.
8 THE WITNESS: A minimum of about seven days.
9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.
10 THE COURT: What’s the exhibit number,
12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: It’s —
13 THE CLERK: 418.
14 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: — 418, page three.
15 THE COURT: Thank you.
16 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. I now show
17 you Exhibit 419, page three. Did you also
18 participate in the cashing of that check?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. That check is for how much?
21 A. $500,000.
22 Q. And did the same individual who cashed this
23 first check cash that second check?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Was this check also cashed for currency?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. So the individual walked in with this check
28 and walked out with $500,000 in U.S. currency? 8314
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. The individual who cashed these two checks,
3 what is his name?
4 A. Fred Schaffel.
5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: If I may ask Madam Clerk
6 to help me find a photograph.
7 If I can just have a moment, Your Honor.
8 Q. Miss Wagner, I show you People’s Exhibit 16.
9 Do you recognize that individual?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Who is that?
12 A. Fred Schaffel.
13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you. I have no
14 further questions.
15 THE COURT: Cross-examine?
16 MR. SANGER: Thank you, Your Honor.
17 Do you want to take your book there? Are
18 the exhibits up there?
19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yeah.
20 MR. SANGER: Excuse me one second.
21 May I confer with counsel?
22 Do you have the official exhibit book there?
23 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes.
24 (Off-the-record discussion held at counsel
26 MR. SANGER: May I proceed, Your Honor?
27 THE COURT: Yes.
28 MR. SANGER: Thank you. 8315
Under cross-examination, Sanger distanced Jackson from Schaffel’s transactions by asking Sanger to confirm that Jackson didn’t personally cash the checks, nor was he at the bank:
2 BY MR. SANGER:
3 Q. Miss Wagner, how are you?
4 A. I’m good, thank you.
5 Q. You were the branch manager at the 2nd and
6 Santa Monica branch, is that what you said?
7 A. The 23rd and Santa Monica branch.
8 Q. 23rd. I can’t read my handwriting. Sorry.
9 A. Okay.
10 Q. In any event, is that a branch where
11 Frederic Marc Schaffel had one or more accounts?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. How many accounts did he have?
14 A. I believe it was three.
15 Q. Okay. And you produced records for his
16 accounts, correct?
17 A. Pardon me?
18 Q. You produced records for his accounts to the
20 A. Um — what — I’m not sure what records
21 you’re talking about.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. Oh, yes. For — yes, we did. U.S. Bank.
24 Yeah. I’m sorry.
25 Q. Yes. I believe — the District Attorney
26 referred to you at one point as a custodian of
28 A. Yes. 8316
1 Q. Excuse me. So you were responsible for
2 having records sent to the Court —
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Q. — at some earlier time?
5 A. Uh-huh.
6 Q. And now you’ve identified two checks. And
7 you’re telling us on these two checks, Exhibits 418
8 and 419, page three in each one, that you personally
9 participated in those transactions?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. So you remember Mr. Schaffel coming in and
12 getting cash for those two checks; is that correct?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. All right. Now, you see my client, Mr.
15 Jackson, sitting there, correct?
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. Okay. Did Mr. Jackson come in the bank?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Have you ever seen Mr. Jackson before in
21 A. No.
22 Q. All right. Now, with regard to Mr. Schaffel
23 and the records you produced, is it true that in his
24 three accounts during, let’s say, the first six
25 months of 2003, that millions of dollars went
26 through his accounts?
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object to
28 reference to records that are not exhibits in this 8317
1 case as well as beyond the scope.
2 THE COURT: Sustained.
3 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Well, let’s put it this way:
4 You — as the branch manager and as the custodian of
5 records, you reviewed the records before they were
6 sent up here, right?
7 A. Not fully.
8 Q. Okay. Were you aware that Mr. Schaffel was
9 a customer of the bank?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. And you knew that personally; is that
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you knew it personally in part because
15 you cashed these two checks for him, right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did you have other dealings with him?
18 A. No.
19 Q. So the two times you really remember seeing
20 Mr. Schaffel in person were with regard to these two
21 checks; is that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. All right. A little hesitancy. You
24 may have seen them —
25 A. More than twice, yes.
26 Q. But the two that stick out in your mind were
27 these two, I take it?
28 A. Yes, sir. 8318
1 Q. I guess what I’m getting at is, to cash
2 these checks, you had to make sure he really was a
3 customer of your bank, right?
4 A. Yes, sir.
5 Q. All right. And had he been a customer of
6 your bank for a long time?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. All right. And during the course of his
9 being a customer for your bank, did you conclude
10 that he was trustworthy as far as dealing with him
11 on these two rather large checks?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, the checks were drawn on an account
14 that’s called Neverland Valley Entertainment; is
15 that correct?
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. And was it your understanding that Mr.
18 Schaffel was the signatore on that account?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Was there anybody else who was a signatore
21 on that account?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Who else?
24 A. Michael Jackson.
25 Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever sign any checks, to
26 your knowledge, or sign any documents whatsoever on
27 that account?
28 A. Yes. 8319
1 Q. Other than the signature cards?
2 A. I’m not sure.
3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; foundation.
4 THE COURT: Sustained.
5 MR. SANGER: All right.
6 Q. Did you review the records to determine
7 whether or not Mr. Jackson ever signed anything
8 other than the signature cards on that account?
9 A. No, sir.
10 Q. All right. And you did not verify Mr.
11 Jackson’s signature other than it was on the
12 signature card; is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. In other words, he didn’t come in and
15 sign in your presence?
16 A. No.
17 Q. You ended up looking in your records and you
18 saw a signature card that appeared to have a
19 signature for Michael Jackson; is that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. All right. And other than that, all of your
22 dealings, as far as you know, were with Frederic
23 Marc Schaffel, is that correct, on these accounts?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Were there other people that may have come
27 A. Not come in. But that I spoke with.
28 Q. Spoke with. Okay. All right. And you do 8320
1 not know what happened to this money after Mr.
2 Schaffel walked out of the bank with it; is that
4 A. No.
5 MR. SANGER: All right. And I have no
6 further questions.
Under redirect examination, Nicola attempted to get Wagner to disclose the contents of the conversations that she had with Jackson about that particular account, but she couldn’t she couldn’t remember, and Nicola ended his redirect examination. Sanger declined to recross examine Wagner:
8 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
9 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:
10 Q. Were Michael Jackson and Frederic Marc
11 Schaffel the only two authorized individuals as far
12 as to remove funds from this account?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you said you spoke to someone else other
15 than Marc Schaffel about these accounts. Who was
17 A. I think at one time I spoke with Michael.
18 Q. Do you remember what that was about?
19 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object. That
20 calls for hearsay. Calls for hearsay and there’s a
21 lack of foundation.
22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Offered as an admission.
23 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
24 You may answer.
25 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Do you remember what
26 that was about?
27 A. No. Not really.
28 Q. Did it have something to do with this 8321
2 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object. That’s
3 leading and no foundation.
4 THE COURT: Overruled.
5 You may answer.
6 THE WITNESS: Yes.
7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Thank you very
9 MR. SANGER: No further questions.
10 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may
11 step down.
12 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
13 THE COURT: Call your next witness.
14 MR. NICOLA: The next witness will be Craig
16 THE COURT: You may be seated. You’re still
17 under oath.
Sergeant Craig Bonner was recalled to the witness stand to testify about the phone records that he put together and analyzed for the prosecution:
23 DIRECT EXAMINATION
24 BY MR. NICOLA:
25 Q. Good morning, Sergeant Bonner.
26 A. Good morning.
27 Q. With respect to your investigation in this
28 case, did you have occasion to gather, sort and 8322
1 analyze telephone records and subscriber
3 A. Yes, I did.
4 Q. Do you see the stack of phone exhibits
5 sitting on counsel table? I believe they’re 450
6 through 459.
7 A. Yes, I’m quite familiar with them.
8 Q. Do you recognize those exhibits?
9 A. I’m quite familiar, yes.
10 Q. And did you play a role in putting those
11 exhibits together and analyzing the information that
12 was contained within them?
13 A. I did.
14 Q. Can you briefly and generally explain to the
15 jury the process that was used to — the initial
16 step used in getting a handle on the information
17 that’s in those exhibits?
18 A. Yes. Basically we obtained quite a number
19 of telephone records through search warrant and
20 subpoena. We amassed those records and brought them
21 into a computer database, used that computer
22 database to compile and sort those records into a
23 format where we could begin to see patterns of calls
24 and who was calling whom.
25 We then utilized that information to cut out
26 the unnecessary material, or the material which we
27 could not substantiate through other evidence, and
28 we have brought that together now into exhibits that 8323
1 will show just those phone calls that are pertinent,
2 and we have done that in a visual manner as well as
3 in a document that will back up that visual manner.
4 Q. Okay. I think we missed a step. With
5 respect to the information that was generated and
6 you created a spreadsheet from it, can you explain
7 to the jury how you verified the information that
8 was in your spreadsheets?
9 A. The computer database basically put together
10 a list of the calls that it said occurred between
11 our involved parties to ensure that that list was
12 correct. We then went into those records, which are
13 the actual records sent by the phone companies, and
14 we verified each and every call that the computer
15 said occurred, and we have noted where that call
16 occurs within those records.
17 Q. Okay. Did you prepare some exhibits for
18 court today to demonstrate your testimony?
19 A. I did.
20 Q. As soon as I finish marking the last of
21 these pages I’ll show you the exhibit, okay? I
23 I’ll ask you whether you reviewed the
24 records from the Turnberry Resort – and I’ll show
25 you those documents in a minute – while you were
26 conducting your phone analysis?
27 A. That’s correct.
28 Q. Did you review records from The Beverly 8324
1 Hilton? And I’ll also show you those exhibits in a
3 A. Yes, I did.
4 Q. Did you examine the record from Huntel with
5 respect to air-ground communication for a flight
6 occurring on February 7th of 2003?
7 A. Yes, I did.
Nicola spent the remainder of his direct examination asking Bonner to explain the complex, convoluted phone charts that indicate who called who, when they called, and how long each call lasted. This is arguably the most useless “evidence” that was presented during the trial, as it failed to implicate Jackson in any sort of “conspiracy”.
Here is an excerpt where Bonner describes in detail his phone charts, and the dates that each chart covers; notice how Exhibits 859 through 867, 871, and 875 through 879 are all introduced into evidence after Bonner confirms that he recognizes them. This is a very crucial aspect of this testimony, because later on Nicola will realize that there is a material error, and try to get an exhibit removed, which is just another example of the absurdity of this evidence, and the conspiracy charge, and the entire trial in general!
18 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: I ask if you recognize
19 Exhibit 859?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. What does 859 contain?
22 A. 859 is the visual chart documenting
23 telephone calls between the involved parties on
24 February 5th, 2003.
25 Q. Is there also a document behind the visual
27 A. There is. It’s an Excel spreadsheet, which
28 is the verification of each call that is claimed on 8325
1 the visual chart.
2 Q. And did you create or cause to be created
3 these charts?
4 A. I did.
5 Q. And did you cause to be created 859 through
7 A. I did.
8 Q. Okay. Now, with respect to testifying about
9 the contents of these exhibits, 859 through 882, did
10 you delegate some other of your colleagues to assist
12 A. I did.
13 Q. And which exhibits will you be testifying to
14 today, if you could please the tell jury now?
15 A. I will testify to 859, 860, 861, 862, 863,
16 864, 865, 866, 867, 871, 875, 876, 877, 878 and 879.
17 Q. Okay. With respect to Exhibit Nos. 859
18 through 867, are those telephone charts and
19 spreadsheets between the period of February 5th of
20 2003 and February 16th of 2003?
21 A. That’s correct.
22 Q. Exhibit 871, is that the chart and the
23 spreadsheet for February 20th of 2003?
24 A. That’s correct.
25 Q. And with respect to Exhibits No. 875 through
26 879, do those cover the dates of March 5th, 2003,
27 through March 9th of 2003?
28 A. That’s correct. 8326
1 Q. Turning your attention to Exhibit No. 859,
2 would you briefly describe for us in general terms
3 what is depicted on the chart?
4 A. This chart depicts a number of calls that
5 occur between various individuals that have came up
6 during this investigation, including Frank Cascio,
7 Marc Schaffel, Jay Jackson, Evelyn Tavasci, as well
8 as a number of telephones that come back registered
9 to the Turnberry Resort in Florida.
10 Q. Okay. And do the numbers and links on that
11 chart accurately reflect the information that you
12 gleaned from the telephone records you’ve testified
13 about previously?
14 A. That’s correct.
15 Q. And does the information supporting the
16 links you make on Chart 859 provided in the Excel
17 spreadsheets an accurate depiction of what is on the
19 A. That is correct.
20 MR. NICOLA: Your Honor, I would move 859
21 into evidence at this time.
22 MR. SANGER: I have a concern about
23 foundation and relevance as to all of the entries,
24 but I’ll submit it at this point subject to
26 THE COURT: All right. I’ll admit them.
27 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: I’d ask you the same
28 questions about Exhibits 860 through 867. Do each 8327
1 of those charts represent individuals that came up
2 in your investigation, including the people you just
3 mentioned, and link telephone calls between phones
4 registered in their names?
5 A. That’s correct.
6 Q. And do each of those exhibits also contain a
7 spreadsheet supporting the information you placed on
8 the flow chart?
9 A. That is correct.
10 MR. NICOLA: Your Honor, at this time we’d
11 move 860 through 867 into evidence as well.
12 MR. SANGER: Same objection, Your Honor.
13 THE COURT: All right. They’re admitted.
14 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: I have the same question
15 about Exhibit 871 and Exhibits 875 through 879. Do
16 each of the charts in those exhibits accurately
17 reflect the telephone calls between the phones
18 listed on the charts that are connected to
19 individuals in this investigation, and is there an
20 Excel spreadsheet accompanying each chart supporting
21 the information that’s in the charts?
22 A. That’s correct.
23 MR. NICOLA: We’d move 871 and 875 through
24 879 into evidence, Your Honor.
25 MR. SANGER: Same objection.
26 THE COURT: All right. They’re admitted.
On a funny note, Nicola’s true intentions were revealed when he asked Bonner to “indoctrinate” the jury about the people who made each call, and it was quickly objected to by the defense! It’s only fitting that the term “indoctrinate” was used, because that is exactly what both the prosecution and the media tried to do to both the jury and the general public, respectively; they wanted everyone indoctrinated with the belief that Jackson truly guilty of all of those accusations, but as we all know by now they failed miserably.
2 THE COURT: Go ahead.
3 MR. NICOLA: Thank you, Your Honor.
4 Q. Sergeant Bonner, with respect to the call
5 between —
6 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Microphone, sir.
7 MR. NICOLA: Thank you.
8 Q. Sergeant Bonner, with respect to the call
9 between the Cascio phone and the Neverland Valley
10 Ranch phones occurring at 1544, or 3:44 in the
11 afternoon, was that a four-minute call?
12 A. That was a four-minute call.
13 Q. Okay. And were there also calls between the
14 Cascio phone and the Neverland Ranch phone that
15 occurred from between 35 and 45 seconds, in addition
16 to that one?
17 A. I see two other calls.
18 Q. Okay. And did they last for that period of
19 time, between 35 and 45 seconds?
20 A. Correction, I’m sorry. There’s three other
21 calls. Yes, 35 seconds and 45 seconds.
22 Q. If you could turn to the next exhibit in
23 order, please, Exhibit 863.
24 MR. SANGER: Which is what, 2-12?
25 MR. NICOLA: 2-12.
26 Q. Is that 2-12, Detective?
27 A. That’s correct.
28 Q. Now, to your knowledge, was February 12th 8356
1 the day the Arvizos left Neverland Ranch the first
3 A. I believe it is about that time frame, yes.
4 Q. And beginning at the upper left-hand corner,
5 please, can you indoctrinate the jury as to the
6 individual names you have up there by those phones?
7 MR. SANGER: I’m not sure “indoctrinate” was
8 the correct word, so I object.
9 THE COURT: All you do is quibble.
11 THE COURT: Is that an objection?
12 MR. SANGER: It’s an objection.
13 THE COURT: All right. Sustained.
14 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Could you explain, please?
15 A. Absolutely. The first phone we have is a
16 telephone number that is registered to the Law Firm
17 of Geragos & Geragos. We then have a telephone that
18 is registered to Ann Kite, a telephone that is
19 registered to Azia Pryor. And the telephone number
20 that is registered to David Ventura, Janet Arvizo’s
21 parents. Again, we have telephones that are
22 registered to Frank Cascio and telephones that are
23 registered to Marc Schaffel. We also have a
24 telephone registered to Christopher Carter,
25 Neverland Valley Ranch, and a couple of telephones
26 associated with Evelyn Tavasci’s residence. One is
27 the primary, another is a secondary line. We then
28 have a telephone registered to Hamid Moslehi. 8357
1 Again, one registered to Christian Robinson under
2 the business name Site LLC. A telephone associated
3 with Vincent Amen. And a telephone associated with
4 David LeGrand.
Here is the testimony that I referenced earlier; in this excerpt, Nicola questioned Bonner about 12 phone calls that were placed between the Mark Schaffel and what Bonner thought was the home of Jackson’s personal assistant Evelyn Tavasci, beginning on March 7th, 2003. However, Bonner realized that he made an egregious error, and mislabeled the phone line of Neverland Valley Ranch as Evelyn Tavasci’s line on his phone chart! Nicola requested that the chart (Exhibit 879) be stricken from the record, but Sanger objected and suggested that it remain admitted as evidence, and replaced with a corrected chart:
9 Q. Sergeant Bonner, can you tell us about the
10 middle icon, The Beverly Hilton Kenneth Morgan room?
11 A. As with the Chris Carter room on the
12 previous day, this was a room at The Beverly Hilton
13 which was registered under the name Kenneth Morgan.
14 Q. And in which exhibit did you find the
15 Kenneth Morgan phone records from The Beverly
17 A. It was under Exhibit 256.
18 Q. Would you find those in the exhibit book,
20 A. Done.
21 Q. Done. When was the first call made from
22 that room and to what number?
23 A. The first call occurred on 3-7, 2003, at
24 9:21 p.m. to the Evelyn Tavasci home line.
25 Q. How many calls were placed to the Evelyn
26 Tavasci home line from the Kenneth Morgan room?
27 A. On the 7th?
28 Q. Yes, please. 8387
1 A. I have a total of four calls.
2 Q. And when was the last phone call between the
3 Kenneth Morgan room and the Evvy Tavasci home?
4 A. At 9:51 p.m.
5 Q. Is there a room charge visible on Exhibit
7 A. There is; in the amount of $850.
8 Q. Per night?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. I believe the next exhibit is 878.
11 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I’m going to move
12 to strike the last answer for the purpose of
13 objecting to the question. I didn’t know where he
14 was going, but it’s not going anywhere and violates
15 the Court’s rule — ruling, the room charge.
16 THE COURT: Sustained.
17 MR. SANGER: Stricken?
18 THE COURT: Stricken.
19 MR. NICOLA: Stricken?
20 THE COURT: Yes.
21 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Exhibit 878, is that March
22 8th? I haven’t put it up yet.
23 A. That’s correct.
24 Q. Okay. What do you have listed in Exhibit
26 A. Again, we have icons representing telephones
27 associated with individuals and/or locations that
28 have came up during this investigation; namely, 8388
1 starting on the left, Neverland Valley Ranch, Evelyn
2 Tavasci/MJJ Productions, MJJ Productions/Miko
3 Brando, Beverly Hilton, again the Kenneth Morgan
4 room, Evelyn Tavasci/MJJ Productions, and Evelyn
5 Tavasci, home.
6 Q. Are the phone calls between the Evvy Tavasci
7 home and the Kenneth Morgan room also contained in
8 Exhibit 256?
9 A. Yes, they are.
10 Q. And of the 12 calls you have listed, can you
11 tell us which direction they were going?
12 A. All of those are outgoing calls.
13 Q. And over what —
14 A. From the Kenneth Morgan room to the Evelyn
15 Tavasci room, or line.
16 Q. And over what period of time did those 12
17 phone calls span?
18 A. The first call I have occurs at 8:35 a.m. in
19 the morning and the last call occurs at 6:57 p.m. in
20 the evening.
21 Q. Were there calls from the Kenneth Morgan
22 room to two other phones registered to Evvy Tavasci
23 through MJJ Productions?
24 A. There were.
25 Q. And on the right-hand side of that exhibit
26 appears to be the number “3” in the middle of a
27 link. Can you tell us about that phone number,
28 please, between the Kenneth Morgan room and the 8389
1 Evelyn Tavasci MJJ Production phone?
2 A. Okay. That is the — the phone number is
3 (818) 402-7087. It comes back registered to Evelyn
4 Tavasci, MJJ Productions.
5 Q. And in the top center of the page, there’s
6 another telephone with the same icon. Is that a
7 different number with the four connections?
8 A. Actually, I’m sorry, that — the four is the
9 7087 number. The four calls were to that (818)
10 402-7087. And the three calls were to (310)
12 Q. The next exhibit in order, please, Exhibit
13 879. Is this the exhibit for Sunday, March the 9th?
14 A. Yes, it is.
15 Q. Can you tell us what time the phone call
16 between the Cascio phone and the Evvy Tavasci second
17 home line was?
18 A. It occurred at 11:34 p.m., and that was an
19 incoming call from Tavasci to the Cascio line.
20 Q. Can you tell us about the phone calls
21 between the Cascio phone and the Schaffel phone on
22 that day?
23 A. I have two telephone calls from the Cascio
24 phone to — correction, one from the Cascio phone to
25 the Schaffel phone. Another one that was an
26 incoming from Schaffel to Cascio. First one was one
27 minute prior to 7 p.m., and the second one was at
28 9:31 p.m. 8390
1 Q. Can you tell us about the 12 phone calls
2 between the Evvy Tavasci/MJJ Production phone and
3 the Schaffel phone, please? Do you know when the
4 first one occurred?
5 A. No. There appears to be an error.
6 Q. That should say “Neverland Valley Ranch”?
7 A. It should.
8 Q. Okay. Can you tell us what time the first
9 call to Neverland Valley Ranch occurred?
10 MR. SANGER: I’m just going to object for
11 the moment, that there is a reference to, “That
12 should be Neverland Valley Ranch,” and it’s not
13 clear what that reference is to.
14 THE COURT: Sustained.
15 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: The 12 phone calls I was
16 referring to should have been referred to as the
17 Neverland Valley Ranch, correct?
18 A. That’s correct.
19 Q. So the link between the Tavasci/MJJ
20 Productions phone and the Marc Schaffel phone is
21 incorrect; is that what you’re saying?
22 A. That’s correct.
23 Q. Okay. Were there any calls between the
24 Schaffel phone and the Tavasci phone for that day?
25 A. No.
26 Q. Okay. So the 12 calls between the
27 Tavasci/MJJ Production phone and the Neverland
28 Valley Ranch phone began at what time that day? 8391
1 A. 8:48 a.m.
2 Q. And what time did they cease?
3 A. At 8:19 p.m.
4 Q. Is the chart — excuse me, is the
5 spreadsheet behind the chart accurate, to your
7 A. Yes, it is.
8 Q. Okay. And is that how you realized the
9 actual chart that’s up on the screen is incorrect
10 with respect to the link between the Evvy Tavasci
11 phone and the Marc Schaffel phone?
12 A. That’s correct.
13 Q. The call between the Amen phone and the
14 Schaffel phone, what time did that occur, please?
15 A. At 1757 hours.
16 Q. And that was a one-minute call?
17 A. One-minute duration.
18 MR. NICOLA: Your Honor, I’ll move to strike
19 this chart, Exhibit 879.
20 It is 879, correct?
21 THE WITNESS: Correct.
22 MR. NICOLA: Pending correction.
23 MR. SANGER: Well, I object to that. It’s
24 been referred to in front of the jury, so it should
25 remain. And they can present a corrected chart if
26 they want.
27 MR. NICOLA: We can do that.
28 THE COURT: I think that’s the way to do it. 8392
1 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Did that take you through
2 your daily obligation?
3 A. It did.
4 MR. NICOLA: Thank you.
5 Your Honor, I have no further questions at
6 this time.
7 THE COURT: All right. We’ll take our break
8 and then you can do your cross.
9 (Recess taken.)
This is the falsified evidence that Jackson advocate William Wagener has repeatedly mentioned in his quest to get a criminal indictment against Tom Sneddon (along with the falsified fingerprint evidence from the Grand Jury proceedings).
Under cross examination, the very first point that Sanger sought to establish to the jury was that Jackson did not make or receive any of the dozens of phone calls that Bonner analyzed:
23 BY MR. SANGER:
24 Q. Okay. Some big-picture questions. First of
25 all — I don’t really want to go through the exact
26 times of minutes of everything, but there are some
27 big-picture questions.
28 First of all, in all these phone records 8393
1 that you analyzed, were you able to determine from
2 the phone records whether or not Michael Jackson was
3 ever on a single call?
4 A. No.
Next, Sanger goes over some other important topics in order to establish to the jury that Mark Schaffel had employees working for him from his home office, the steps involved in completing a phone call to a hotel, billing practices by phone carriers for calls that are less than a minute long:
5 Q. And as to some of the other records, for
6 instance, those pertaining to Marc Schaffel,
7 Frederic Marc Schaffel, there are several telephone
8 numbers associated with Mr. Schaffel, correct?
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. And you’re one of the lead detectives in
11 this case, correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Based on your investigation, during the
14 period of time February and March of 2003, Mr.
15 Schaffel had converted his house into an office; is
16 that right?
17 A. It’s the first I’ve heard of it, but —
18 Q. Were you aware that he had a number of
19 people working out of his house?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. All right. And they had different offices
22 set up in his house?
23 A. The interviews that I’ve conducted,
24 basically people were working — doing work out of
25 his house, but not necessarily separate offices.
26 Q. Okay. All right. Now, I notice on the
27 summary charts, sometimes, in fact most of the time,
28 you included one-minute calls? 8394
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Sometimes you did not, correct?
3 A. Usually — I mean, we tried to include
4 everything that was a one-minute call.
5 Q. Okay. For instance – and I’ll find the
6 chart here – but there was a chart, I believe, where
7 you had not shown two calls from Jay Jackson’s house
8 because apparently they were very short calls. They
9 were one-minute calls.
10 MR. NICOLA: Objection. The question is
12 THE COURT: Overruled.
13 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Do you recall that?
14 A. I think I can clarify that. The records
15 that were introduced into evidence show that those
16 calls were actually less than 30 seconds in length,
17 and that’s why we removed those calls from the
18 overall count.
19 Q. All right. So some of these phone
20 records — you looked at phone records from various
21 carriers and from hotels; is that correct?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. And some of the carriers bill a call as a
24 minute, no matter how long it takes?
25 A. Correct.
26 Q. If it’s under a minute, I should say, of
28 A. Yes. 8395
1 Q. And sometimes the carrier will show a
2 specific number of seconds; is that correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. All right. Now, another big-picture item,
5 if we can. There are some calls that you showed
6 were placed to the law firm of Geragos & Geragos?
7 A. That’s correct.
8 Q. And some of those calls — and we can go
9 through if you want, but some of those calls were a
10 minute or less, correct?
11 A. That’s correct.
12 Q. Do you have any reason to believe that the
13 caller was able to get through the receptionist and
14 to an attorney there?
15 A. I wouldn’t necessarily think an incoming
16 call less than a minute, but an out — I’m sorry, an
17 incoming call from Geragos to the cell phone could
18 result in a connection in less than a minute.
19 However, I would highly doubt that a call from the
20 cell phone to Geragos would probably result in a
22 Q. In other words, his law firm has a
23 receptionist; is that correct?
24 A. I would assume so.
25 Q. Okay. And there are a number of people that
26 work at his law firm besides Mr. Geragos himself?
27 A. That’s correct.
28 Q. All right. Another overall question. When 8396
1 there are phone calls that are placed to — they’re
2 coming into a place like the Turnberry or one of the
3 other hotels, those calls go to a switchboard; is
4 that correct?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. And then the switchboard would send the
7 calls to particular rooms or particular staff people
8 or guests or whatever, correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. And so, number one, you have no way of
11 determining where those calls ended up, correct?
12 A. Other than to say they went to the Turnberry
13 itself, no.
14 Q. That’s right. As far as you could trace it,
15 it got to the reception desk, and then where it went
16 from there we don’t know?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Okay. And once again, if there’s a
19 one-minute call to one of those hotels, there’s no
20 reason to believe that the call actually got
21 completed to a guest in the hotel?
22 A. Not necessarily, no.