Skip to content

May 2nd, 2005 Trial Analysis: Beverly Wagner, Craig Bonner, and Paul Zelis, Part 2 of 2

June 28, 2014

Here’s another sign of the incompetence of the police department: Bonner stated that he had evidence of phone calls by Neverland employee Rudy Provencio prior to February 8th, 2003 (which is the day that Vinnie Amen transported Janet Arvizo obtain birth certificates for her family for the purpose of getting visas to travel to Brazil), but it wasn’t analyzed by him and his team, and was thus excluded from his phone chart:


23 Q. Okay. All right. One more overall question

24 here. You mentioned Rudy Provencio in your

25 analysis, correct?

26 A. Correct.

27 Q. And the first call that you show Rudy


28 Provencio was involved in was on February the 8th of 8397



1 2003; is that correct?


2 A. That’s correct.


3 Q. And there are some other references to Mr.


4 Provencio from time to time being involved in phone


5 calls after that date, correct?


6 A. That’s correct.


7 Q. But you have no phone calls showing that


8 Rudy Provencio was involved in making or receiving


9 calls from any of the people involved in this


10 investigation before February the 8th, 2003,


11 correct?


12 A. Not that has made it into these exhibits.


13 Q. Well, based on your analysis of the records


14 and everybody else that was helping you – right? —


15 A. Correct.


16 Q. — you have no indication that Rudy


17 Provencio talked to anybody on the phone associated


18 with this case before February the 8th, 2003; is


19 that correct?


20 A. Again, I’d have to — to say that it’s based


21 within these exhibits, no, there is not. However, I


22 am aware that there are some records that did not


23 make it into the computer to get analyzed with this,


24 and I can’t tell you whether or not there are or are


25 not calls in those records.


26 Q. Okay. So you’re saying — you’re leaving


27 the door open that, you know, there’s some other


28 records, but you did your best job at analyzing what 8398


1 you thought was important for this case, right?


2 A. That’s correct.

3 Q. Okay. And you tried to put in all the phone

4 calls that you thought would be important to the

5 investigation, right?

6 A. Correct.

After a series of questions regarding certain phone calls that were made by members of Jackson’s camp, Sanger sought to establish that Jackson didn’t have nefarious reasons for using aliases when checking into a hotel, and there were no efforts whatsoever to conceal the fact that Jackson stayed in those rooms:

21 Q. Okay? And before we talk about that

22 particularly, let me ask you some general questions

23 that will cover other entries as well.

24 In general, through your investigation in

25 this case, did you determine that when Mr. Jackson

26 travels, the people that arrange his travel often

27 will take a name that is not Mr. Jackson’s name and

28 use that for the purpose of booking hotels? 8408

1 A. That’s correct.

2 Q. And is that something common with

3 celebrities, to book rooms under other names,

4 whether it’s a staff person or just a fictitious

5 name?

6 A. I don’t have personal knowledge. This is

7 the only instance that I’ve personally been involved

8 in.

9 Q. All right. Have you ever seen other

10 celebrities book rooms?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Okay. All right. Anyway, it makes sense to


13 you. You don’t want to put your own name down there


14 if you’re going to attract a lot of attention,


15 right?


16 A. Correct.

17 Q. And sometimes in your investigation, just to

18 cover the big picture, you will see in the documents

19 that the name that is used appears to have — the

20 last name that’s used appears to have no relation to

21 anybody we know of, right?

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. So it just might be a name like “Mason” or

24 something like that; is that correct?

25 A. Could be, yes.

26 Q. On the other hand, sometimes you’ll see

27 rooms are booked in the name of somebody who is

28 actually working for MJJ Productions or in some 8409

1 other way associated with that organization, such as

2 Chris Carter?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. So Chris Carter might reserve rooms in his

5 name, right?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. You never saw rooms reserved in the name of

8 Michael Jackson himself, correct?

9 A. No.

10 Q. All right. And the records are kept openly

11 in that regard, correct? In other words, through

12 the records that you found both at Neverland and

13 from the various places where records were

14 subpoenaed or obtained by search warrants,

15 internally there was no effort to hide the fact that

16 these were Mr. Jackson’s rooms, right?

17 A. No.

18 Q. All right. So, going to these — we can

19 look at all these rooms down here. These are

20 basically a series of phone numbers that are

21 associated with rooms or suites at that hotel; is

22 that correct?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. And the Presidential Suite, or the top one

25 that we’re looking at here, was a multi-room suite;

26 is that correct?

27 A. I don’t know for certain. I just simply

28 went off the records themselves. 8410

1 Q. In your investigation, the course of your

2 investigation, did you determine that the

3 Presidential Suite was a multi-room suite?

4 A. Not personally, no.

5 Q. You heard that though?

6 A. I have heard that, yes.

7 Q. Do you know how many telephones were located

8 in that suite?

9 A. I do not.

10 Q. Do you know how many people associated with

11 MJJ Productions or with other people in this case,

12 or in or out of this case, how many people were

13 associated with that room?

14 A. I don’t know.

15 Q. Do you know how many people came in and out

16 of that room?

17 A. No, I do not.

18 Q. Do you know how many people — how many

19 people used the phone or phones in that room?

20 A. Of course not.

21 Q. Pardon?

22 A. Of course not.

23 Q. Yeah, okay.

24 That’s a question like Tuesday comes before

25 Wednesday. I just wanted to get it on the record.

26 Thank you.

Later on in his cross-examination, Sanger questioned Bonner about the events that took place on the night of February 11th, 2003; this is when Janet Arvizo ASKED to be given a ride home, which certainly undermines her claims of being held “hostage” at Neverland!

27 Q. Okay. Not a big thing. It’s just you

28 jump — 862 is for February the 8th, and then the 8414

1 next summary chart you have is for February the

2 12th; is that correct?

3 A. That’s correct.

4 Q. All right. So you did not do a summary

5 chart for February the 11th, correct?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Now, on February 11th, based on your


8 investigation, the night of February 11th, right at


9 the end of the night, were you aware that Janet


10 Arvizo had asked somebody to give her a ride?


11 A. The 11th or the 12th. I’m not sure which


12 day.

13 Q. And the ride actually occurred at — the

14 ride — the Rolls Royce left the ranch at about 1:52

15 in the morning; is that correct?

16 A. The person I interviewed wasn’t real certain

17 about times, so —

18 Q. You’re familiar with the gate logs, right?

19 A. Yes. But —

20 Q. Did you look at the entries on the gate

21 logs?

22 A. I did. But not having them in front of me,

23 I couldn’t state with certainty.

24 Q. Whatever time it was, it was sometime in the

25 early morning hours of the 12th when the Rolls Royce

26 left the property; is that your understanding?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. So my question was, were you aware that she 8415


1 was asking, around midnight, somewhere just before


2 midnight on the 11th, for a ride?


3 A. That is my understanding, yes.

4 Q. All right. There you go.


Next, Sanger questioned Bonner about his knowledge of the full scope of duties that Evelyn Tavasci performs during the course of her job as Jackson’s personal assistant and employee of MJJ Productions:

9 MR. SANGER: Okay. All right. I’ll take

10 that down now, Your Honor.

11 Q. All right. I want to go through just a few

12 of your summary charts here and try to do it in a

13 way that is representative, rather than going

14 through every single thing.

15 First of all, in your analysis of the phone

16 records, you determined that there are a lot of

17 telephone calls that are placed to phone numbers

18 associated with Evvy Tavasci; is that correct?

19 A. That’s correct.

20 Q. And you understand that Evvy Tavasci works

21 for MJJ Productions; is that right?

22 A. That’s correct.

23 Q. And she’s also responsible for securing

24 phones for a number of people; is that right?

25 A. Correct.

26 Q. She also has other people who assist her in

27 the office; is that your understanding?

28 A. One other person that I know of, yes. 8430

1 Q. Okay. And is it also your understanding

2 that Miss Tavasci tends to be the person that people

3 go to at MJJ Productions to obtain information, make

4 reservations, all that sort of thing?

5 A. I know that she is the administrative

6 assistant, but I think that’s what she does, based

7 on what she’s described to us.

8 Q. Okay. The District Attorney several times

9 referred to her as Mr. Jackson’s personal assistant.

10 Did you hear that?

11 A. I did.

12 Q. Okay. And in addition to that, she fulfills

13 the function of facilitating the purchase of

14 supplies, tickets, travel arrangements, all sorts of

15 things; is that right?

16 A. I would believe that to be the case.

17 Q. Okay. So she’s not just doing this for Mr.

18 Jackson. She is working for — or she is providing

19 these services to anybody associated with MJJ

20 Productions who needs to have such things; is that

21 right?

22 MR. NICOLA: I’ll object. Lack of

23 foundation. Compound.

24 THE COURT: Sustained.

25 MR. SANGER: On compound or lack of

26 foundation?

27 THE COURT: Lack of foundation.

28 MR. SANGER: Okay. 8431

1 Q. Based on your investigation, did you

2 determine what her duties were, what Evvy Tavasci’s

3 duties were?

4 MR. NICOLA: Objection. Relevance at this

5 point.

6 THE COURT: Overruled.

7 THE WITNESS: Based on the investigation, I

8 think we’ve seen a few different things that, in

9 addition to coordinating for Mr. Jackson’s personal

10 calendar, that she also is a coordinator for travel

11 arrangements for various other subjects.

In this excerpt, Sanger took a cheap shot at Nicola by asking Bonner to comment about Nicola’s “conspiracy theory with the phone company” regarding how the telephone company was able to charge three minutes worth of calls in under one minute, due to the fact that Anne Kite called Mark Geragos’ law office three times in under a minute, and each call counts as one minute:

14 Q. Again, we’ll just take a representative

15 instance here to talk about them, and rather than

16 going through all the phone calls. Looking at the

17 calls between Ann Kite and Geragos & Geragos, there

18 are four calls there, right?

19 A. That’s correct.

20 Q. Two of the calls were one minute long; is

21 that right?

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. Three of the calls — I may be wrong —


24 three of the calls were placed in the same minute;


25 isn’t that right?


26 A. Correct.


27 Q. So to add to Mr. Nicola’s conspiracy theory


28 with the phone company, they managed to charge for 8436


1 three minutes, all of the calls made in the very


2 same minute, right?


3 A. That’s correct.

4 Q. All right. That doesn’t mean that Ann Kite

5 actually talked to a lawyer at Geragos & Geragos

6 four times?

7 A. No. Two times.

8 Q. It strongly suggests that, at most, there

9 was — there was one or two phone calls that might

10 have gotten through to somebody; is that true?

11 A. Probably two that were conversations.

Next, Sanger questions Bonner about the 14 phone calls between Frank Cascio and Janet Arvizo (speaking on Jay Jackon’s phone line); Janet called Frank nine times on February 15th, 2003, which was after her first “escape” from Neverland!

2 Q. All right. I’d like to direct your

3 attention now to the phone calls here. We have Jay

4 Jackson and Frank Cascio. There are 18 calls. I’m

5 sorry — well, I’m not sure.

6 You have 14, and I have I guess an earlier

7 version that says 18. How many calls were there

8 between Frank Cascio and Jay Jackson’s phone, Frank

9 Cascio’s phone and Jay Jackson’s phone?

10 A. 14.

11 Q. Okay. Of those 14 calls, how many calls

12 were placed from Jay Jackson, Jay Jackson’s phone to

13 Frank Cascio’s phone?

14 A. Eight of the calls.

15 Q. I’m sorry, eight?

16 A. Eight.

17 Q. And of the five phone calls from the Ventura

18 phone, how many phone calls were made from the

19 Ventura phone to the Cascio phone?

20 A. There was one call from the Ventura phone to

21 the Cascio phone.

22 Q. And so one of the five, somebody in the

23 Ventura residence called Frank Cascio’s phone,

24 right?

25 A. Correct.

26 Q. And that call lasted for eight minutes and

27 22 seconds; is that correct?

28 A. Correct. 8438

1 MR. SANGER: All right. May I approach

2 again, Your Honor, just to compare a page?


4 MR. SANGER: Now, Detective — oh, excuse me

5 one second.

6 THE COURT: Counsel, it’s necessary to break

7 early. We’ll take our break early.

8 (Recess taken.)

9 THE COURT: Go ahead.

10 MR. SANGER: May I proceed?

11 Q. All right. Just for reference, we have

12 Exhibit 866 —

13 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Microphone, sir.

14 MR. SANGER: Oops.

15 Q. Just for reference, we have Exhibit 866 up

16 on the board, which is where it was when we took our

17 break. And we were talking about the 14 telephone

18 calls between the Cascio phone and the Jay Jackson

19 residence phone, correct?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. And you had told us that in your summary you

22 had identified eight of those 14 calls as being

23 placed by Jay Jackson’s phone or from Jay Jackson’s

24 phone to the Cascio phone, correct?

25 A. Correct.

26 MR. SANGER: All right. Now, with the

27 Court’s permission, I’ll put up the last page of

28 866, which is actually marked 3 of 3, but it’s the 8439

1 fourth page, because that’s the first page.

2 THE COURT: All right.

3 MR. SANGER: That’s a little crooked there.

4 Sorry.

5 Q. Okay. And on your summary page you

6 summarized the phone records by putting this into a

7 spreadsheet computer program, correct?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. And you have the eight phone calls here from

10 the phone at Jay Jackson’s house to the Frank Cascio

11 telephone, correct?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. And these eight phone calls, all on the

14 15th, right? They’re all on the 15th? That was the

15 question. Sorry.

16 A. That’s correct.

17 Q. And that would have been the day before the

18 Brad Miller interview; is that correct?

19 A. I believe so, yes.

20 Q. And these particular eight phone calls all

21 last a number of minutes; is that correct?

22 A. With the exception of the third to the last

23 one, which was less than one minute. I’m sorry.

24 And the three up from that is also less than one

25 minute. You have one for 47 seconds, and one for 57

26 seconds.

27 Q. Yes, absolutely. Actually, sorry, I was

28 looking at the wrong column. 8440

1 Okay. So let me point here. All right?

2 Let’s just go through very quickly, and we’ll just

3 round it off. We’ve got a six-and-a-half-minute

4 call; a three-and-a-half-minute call; a call that’s

5 three seconds short of a minute; eight seconds over

6 a minute; a minute and a half; 47 seconds; four

7 minutes and 15 seconds; two minutes and six seconds,

8 correct?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. And we also see that these telephone calls

11 were placed from 10 — that’s 10:17 in the morning

12 to 8:48 at night; is that correct?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. And then you also have the call that was

15 placed to Mr. Cascio’s phone from the Venturas’

16 residence. That was at 8:22 in the morning, and

17 that lasted for two minutes, correct?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. So basically you have more calls being made

20 from these phone numbers to Mr. Cascio’s phone than

21 you do from Mr. Cascio’s phone to these two numbers?

22 A. That’s correct.

23 Q. Looks like somebody was trying to get ahold

24 of Mr. Cascio and talk to him, or somebody at Mr.

25 Cascio’s phone, correct?

26 A. I don’t know that I can say what they were

27 trying to do, but I can say that they were calling

28 numerous times. 8441

1 Q. All right. Now, we have the — we have

2 these eight phone calls you just talked about. And

3 I’m going to put up — let me take off that page,

4 which is 866, and I’ll put it back together with the

5 exhibit and I’ll deliver that up to you in just a

6 moment.

7 Your Honor, with the Court’s permission, I’m

8 going to put up Exhibit 458. And this would be

9 page 2 of 458.

10 THE COURT: All right.

11 MR. SANGER: Is that going to work? Excuse

12 me one second. Can I borrow your stapler?

13 It’s on this podium here and kind of

14 bubbling up. See if that makes it any better. I

15 don’t know if that makes it better or worse. It

16 doesn’t, all right.

17 Q. The point of this is — I showed you this at

18 the break; is that correct?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. And you counted there are actually 12 phone

21 calls to the phone number of — associated with Mr.

22 Cascio from Mr. Jackson’s telephone; is that

23 correct?

24 A. 12 attempts or phone calls, yes.

25 Q. All right. And in essence, you eliminated

26 four of those and you only showed eight — I’m

27 sorry, Major Jackson, Jay Jackson’s telephone. When

28 we’re talking about Jackson here, we’re talking 8442

1 about Jay Jackson.

2 A. Understood.

3 Q. Okay. Make sure there’s no question.

4 And in fact, this Exhibit 458 is an exhibit

5 from the phone records of Major Jay Jackson,

6 correct?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. All right. And your understanding is this

9 was a land-based phone in his house?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Okay. So back to our story, it’s very hard

12 to read there because of the glassine envelope, but

13 it’s 2-15, February 15th. Those are all February

14 15th calls and there are 12 of them, correct?

15 A. There are 12 calls or attempts to call,

16 correct.

17 Q. And you did not include some of these in

18 your summary charts because you felt that they were

19 too short?

20 A. Yes, there were several of them that were

21 two, three seconds and less — and the other two

22 that were less than 30 seconds.

23 Q. So there are a couple that are just a couple

24 of seconds. And I can’t read it from here, but

25 there was one 15 seconds, I think.

26 Anyway, your criteria was if they broke it

27 down, if they broke it down into seconds less than a

28 minute, you would eliminate anything under 30 8443

1 seconds, correct?

2 A. We did that with all records, correct.

3 Q. All right. But if they didn’t break it down

4 and they said one minute, then you would record it?

5 A. We have no other way of doing it, correct.

6 Q. So using those criteria you eliminated four

7 of these calls, right?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. But nevertheless — as an evidentiary or as

10 a matter of your investigation, nevertheless, it

11 does show that somebody from Jay Jackson’s phone was

12 at least dialing the number for Mr. Cascio’s phone;

13 is that correct?

14 A. That is correct.

15 Q. And it was dialed a total of 12 times from

16 Jay Jackson’s phone and one time from David

17 Ventura’s phone, right?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. And more calls were dialed — in fact, more

20 calls were completed to the Cascio phone than were

21 made from the Cascio phone to those phones; is that

22 correct?

23 A. Correct.

Afrter establishing to the jury that Janet repeatedly called Frank Cascio during her first “escape”, Sanger segued into the topic of the error that Bonner admitted to earlier in his direct examination.

9 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Would you agree that there

10 would be more detail in the actual records than

11 shows up in the summary charts?

12 A. Correct. Yes.

13 Q. And you identified at least one chart where


14 the — there was actually an error, correct?


15 A. Correct. 3-9.

16 Q. Okay. And 879?

17 And may I approach? And I’ll exchange 866.

18 I don’t want to leave these things out of the book,

19 so if I may —

20 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.

21 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you. Oops. Yes.

22 879, that’s right.

23 I think it was offered. I think this was

24 received, 879? It was — it was shown and I think

25 it was found to be in error, but I’d like to put it

26 up.

27 THE COURT: It’s in evidence, I think. The

28 error was found later. 8445

1 MR. SANGER: Okay. May I put it up?


3 Q. BY MR. SANGER: And the error on 879 is that

4 there were not 12 calls between a phone associated

5 with Evvy Tavasci and Marc Schaffel, but instead,

6 between Evvy Tavasci’s phone and Neverland Ranch,

7 correct?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. And you — based on your review of the

10 records, you would expect, in the ordinary course of

11 business, that Evvy Tavasci’s phones would be in

12 contact with Neverland Ranch, right?

13 A. At minimum, occasionally, yes.

14 Q. And you understood that Miko Brando,

15 although he’s the son of Marlon Brando, was an

16 employee of MJJ Productions, correct?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. And he’s one of the longer-term employees.

19 He’s been there a number of years; is that right?

20 A. I don’t know.

21 MR. SANGER: May I have just a moment, Your

22 Honor, please?

23 THE COURT: Yes.

24 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

25 All right. We can take this down. And may

26 I approach to return it?

27 THE COURT: Yes.

28 MR. SANGER: And I have no further 8446

1 questions.

2 MR. NICOLA: May I have that exhibit again,

3 please? And 879, please.

Under redirect examination, Nicola asked Bonner to clarify that error that he made earlier, and if he also excluded phone calls from his chart that were made by Frank Cascio and Vinnie Amen to Janet Arvizo and were less than one minute long:



7 Q. Detective Bonner, during the break, did you

8 make a correction to another copy of Exhibit 879,

9 which is the chart for March 9th of 2003?

10 A. I did.

11 MR. SANGER: Do you have a copy for me, or —

12 MR. NICOLA: I don’t.

13 MR. SANGER: Okay. That’s fine.

14 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: I’d like to put the 879 on

15 the board that we’ve already moved into evidence.

16 And I’d like to show you Exhibit No. 883 and ask if

17 this is your corrected exhibit.

18 A. It is.

19 Q. Using the original 879, could you just point


20 out for the jury what — what the difference is?


21 And then we’ll show 883 in a moment.


22 A. I recognize that the mistake that was made


23 is that on Marc Schaffel, the records say “Neverland


24 Valley Entertainment,” and what we did is we


25 accidentally made a mix-up between Neverland Valley


26 Ranch and Neverland Valley Entertainment, so I have


27 relabeled “Neverland Valley Entertainment –


28 Schaffel” into “Neverland Valley Ranch,” and 8447


1 “Neverland Valley Ranch” into “Marc Schaffel – NVE.”


2 And this connection has gone from here to here and


3 we have erased or removed this connection right


4 here.


5 Q. You did that yourself?


6 A. I did.


7 Q. Okay. And is that depicted on Exhibit 883?


8 A. It is.

9 MR. NICOLA: We’d offer that into evidence

10 at this time, Your Honor.

11 MR. SANGER: No objection, but I’d ask,

12 since nobody has a copy of it, if we might be

13 allowed to have a copy, if the clerk can make one,

14 if that would be possible.

15 THE COURT: That’s fine. I’ll admit it.

16 The clerk will give you a copy.

17 MR. NICOLA: Thank you, Your Honor.

18 And with the Court’s permission, I’d just

19 publish it just briefly.

20 THE COURT: Go ahead.

21 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Okay. These are the changes

22 that you were talking about, Detective Bonner?

23 A. That’s correct. The switch of the name

24 here, and here, and then removing this connection

25 and making it go from here to here.

26 Q. Okay. Mr. Sanger was asking you about

27 dropping phone calls from your analysis that lasted

28 roughly 30 seconds or less. In particular with Jay 8448

1 Jackson’s phone records found in Exhibit 458, did

2 you follow that procedure for dropping numbers that

3 were in the 30-second range and less for everybody?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. So everyone who had seconds in their cell

6 phone records, you would drop those calls?

7 A. Correct.

8 MR. SANGER: Objection. Asked and answered

9 and actually misstates the testimony.

10 THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.

11 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Did you drop calls that were

12 30 seconds or less on Frank Cascio’s records?

13 A. Yes, we did.

14 Q. And Vinnie Amen’s records?

15 A. I don’t believe Vinnie Amen had any seconds

16 on his.

17 Q. Just the ones that were billed in seconds

18 that you could locate?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. Let me ask you about the minutes.

21 Specifically with respect to Exhibit 451, that’s the

22 exhibit that Mr. Sanger —

23 May I have your exhibit, please?

24 MR. SANGER: The ones we did?

25 MR. NICOLA: Uh-huh.

26 MR. SANGER: I gave them back to the clerk.

27 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Specifically with respect to

28 Exhibit No. 5011, now you testified under 8449

1 cross-examination that the call at 6:11 lasted four

2 minutes and the call at 6:14 also lasted four

3 minutes. And is it your understanding that a

4 four-minute call on those records can be anywhere

5 between three and four minutes?

6 A. Correct.

7 MR. NICOLA: Okay. I have no further

8 questions, Judge.

Sanger clarified to the jury that the reason Schaffel was calling Neverland Valley Entertainment (which Bonner incorrectly labeled as Evvy Tavasci’s phone line) is because Schaffel was running it as a separate entity apart from Neverland Ranch:



11 Q. You talked about getting Neverland Valley

12 Entertainment confused with Neverland Ranch.

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. And Neverland Valley Entertainment was a

15 separate entity, correct?

16 A. Yes, it is.

17 Q. And it seemed to have been run by Marc

18 Schaffel; is that correct?

19 A. Correct. Records came back to his home

20 address.

21 Q. And did it appear to you that Marc Schaffel

22 was attempting to use a similar name for the purpose

23 of suggesting that he was part of Mr. Jackson’s

24 business enterprise?

25 MR. NICOLA: Objection, Your Honor. Calls

26 for speculation. Beyond the scope of redirect.

27 THE COURT: Sustained.

28 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you. No further 8450

1 questions, Your Honor.

2 MR. NICOLA: No questions.

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

4 step down.

5 Call your next witness.

6 MR. NICOLA: We call Detective Paul Zelis,

7 Your Honor.

8 THE COURT: You may be seated. You’re still

9 under oath.

10 DETECTIVE ZELIS: Thank you.

The next prosecution witness was Det. Paul Zelis, who was recalled in order to testify about his participation in the analysis of the phone records, along with Det. Bonner and others.



18 Q. Good afternoon.

19 A. Good afternoon.

20 Q. Detective Zelis, did you participate with

21 the team analyzing certain phone records for certain

22 dates arising out of the records which were seized

23 in this case?

24 A. Yes, I did.

25 Q. And to that end, did you examine the records

26 pertaining to these following days: February 17th

27 of 2003, February 18th of 2003, February 19th of

28 2003, March 10th of 2003, March 11th, and March 12th 8451

1 of 2003?

2 A. Yes, I did.

3 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the phone

4 records to the left of me, sitting on the end of

5 counsel table? The other left.

6 A. Oh, I’m sorry. Yes, I am.

7 Q. Did you actually receive copies of all that

8 and go through and —

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. I’d like to begin with the date of February

11 17th of 2003, and ask if you’d turn to the exhibit

12 corresponding to that in the exhibit binder.

13 A. Okay.

14 Q. Is that Exhibit 868?

15 A. Yes, it is.

16 Q. And have you gone over the contents of both

17 the link chart on the front page and the supporting

18 documents behind it?

19 A. Yes, I have.

20 Q. And did you participate in creating both of

21 those documents in 868?

22 A. I did.

23 Q. And to your knowledge, do the contents of

24 868 accurately reflect your analysis of the phone

25 calls conducted on 2-17 of ‘03?

26 A. Yes, they do.

Here’s an important piece of testimony; Nicola asked Zelis how many times did Frank Cascio call Janet Arvizo prior to the first time that Janet called him on February 19th, 2003, and Zelis answered that Frank Cacsio didn’t call Janet Arvizo until AFTER she first called him!

Notice how Sanger corrected Nicola by stating that the phone records indicate which phone lines contacted each other, and not which individuals actually spoke to each other:

13 Q. Okay. Detective Zelis, if you could

14 proceed, please, to Exhibit No. 870 of the chart for

15 February 19th.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Does this chart show additional phone calls

18 between Rudy Provencio and Marc Schaffel?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. At least between their phones?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And included in the exhibit are phone calls

23 between the phones of Christian Robinson, Vince Amen

24 and Marc Schaffel, Neverland Valley Entertainment,

25 correct?

26 A. Correct.

27 MR. SANGER: I’m sorry, I’m going to object

28 that that’s — that’s compound. 8459

1 MR. NICOLA: I’ll rephrase.

2 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.

3 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: There are phone calls

4 between the Christian Robinson phone and the Marc

5 Schaffel phone, correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And also between the Christian Robinson

8 phone and the Vince Amen phone?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. And also between the Vince Amen phone and

11 the Marc Schaffel phone?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And three calls between the Vince Amen phone

14 and the Hamid Moslehi phone?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And three calls between Vince Amen and the

17 Jay Jackson phone, correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And in the lower left-hand corner — why

20 don’t you read it? Go ahead.

21 A. Frank Cascio to Marc Schaffel, there’s six

22 calls. Frank Cascio to Vincent Amen, ten calls.

23 Frank Cascio to Jay Jackson, nine calls. And Frank

24 Cascio to Neverland Valley Ranch, 13 calls.

25 Q. There appears to be one call from the Jay

26 Jackson phone to Neverland Valley Ranch?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. What time did that call occur? 8460

1 A. 1421 hours, which would be 2:21 in the

2 afternoon.

3 Q. How many of the calls between the Frank


4 Cascio phone and the Jay Jackson phone occurred


5 prior to the time Neverland was called from Jay


6 Jackson’s line?


7 A. From Frank Cascio to Jay Jackson?


8 Q. Yes. Please.


9 A. I’m not showing —


10 Q. They were all afterwards?


11 A. Correct.

12 Q. At 8:05 p.m., 2005, was there an 18-minute

13 call between Frank Cascio and Jay Jackson?

14 A. Yes, 18 minutes and 33 seconds.

15 MR. SANGER: Once again, it’s not between

16 the people, it’s between the phones. I haven’t

17 objected each time, but —

18 THE COURT: Sustained.

19 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

Zelis’ testimony ends with his description of the phone calls that took place on March 12th, 2003, the final day that the Arvizos were at Neverland. Janet Arvizo called Neverland six times, beginning at 7:35am, in order to lie to her kids and convince them to leave Neverland in order to visit their sick grandfather (who was actually in very good health):

23 Q. Okay. If you could proceed, please, to

24 Exhibit No. 882, I believe. Is 882 the chart for

25 March 12th of 2003?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. Can you tell us what’s occurring in this

28 exhibit, please? 8465

1 A. It shows Jay Jackson’s phone, or calling —

2 or calls between a Jay Jackson phone and Neverland

3 Valley Ranch. There’s a total of six calls. A

4 Neverland Valley Ranch to Tavasci, Evelyn/MJJ

5 Productions. There’s one call. Tavasci, Evelyn/MJJ

6 Productions to Christopher D. Carter, there’s seven

7 total calls.

8 Neverland Valley Ranch to Frank Cascio, a

9 total of 13 calls. Frank Cascio’s phone to Vincent

10 Amen’s phone, a total of four calls. Vincent Amen

11 to Marc Schaffel, four calls.

12 And Schaffel to Rudy Provencio, two calls.

13 And Schaffel, Marc, to Christian Robinson or Site

14 LLC, K. Robinson, one call. And Tavasci, Evelyn/

15 MJJ Productions to David Ventura, Janet Arvizo’s

16 parents, one call.

17 Q. With respect to the phone calls — with

18 respect to the phone calls initiated between the Jay

19 Jackson phone and the Neverland Valley Ranch phone,

20 can you tell us which direction they were going in?

21 A. All six calls were initiated by Jay Jackson

22 to Neverland Valley Ranch.

23 Q. And the calls from Jay Jackson’s phone began

24 at approximately 7:35 in the morning?

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. What about the calls between the Frank

27 Cascio phone and Neverland Valley Ranch, what time

28 did those begin, please? 8466

1 A. 1302.

2 Q. In the afternoon?

3 A. Correct. 1:02 in the afternoon.

4 Q. And the calls between the Rudy Provencio

5 phone and the Marc Schaffel phones, were both of

6 those calls from Mr. Provencio’s phone to Mr.

7 Schaffel’s phone?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And how long were those calls and at what

10 times?

11 A. The first call was for 12 minutes. The

12 second call for 20 minutes. The first call was at

13 1904, which is 7:04 in the evening. The second call

14 was at 2154, which is 9:54 in the evening.

15 MR. NICOLA: Thank you, Detective Zelis.

16 THE WITNESS: You’re welcome.

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

18 questions.

19 THE COURT: Cross-examine?

Sanger questioned Zelis about his knowledge of Hamid Moslehi’s original plan to shoot the rebuttal video at Neverland, and then the change of plans that took place once the decision was made to shoot it at his home. That is the reason for the numerous phone calls between Moslehi, Frank Cascio, Vincent Amen, and Janet Arvizo:



23 Q. Detective, Zelis, how are you doing?

24 A. Good afternoon.

25 Q. I’d like to go to Exhibit 870, so I’m going

26 to ask you to take that out of the book, if you

27 would.

28 And may I approach, Your Honor? 8467


2 MR. SANGER: May I put this on the screen?


4 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Okay. That’s Exhibit 870 up

5 on the screen. Now, you are one of the lead

6 investigators in this case; is that correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. All right. And based on your investigation

9 in this case, the day of the 19th of February, 2003,

10 was the day that Hamid Moslehi was attempting to put

11 together a video of the Arvizos; is that right?

12 A. He among others, yes.

13 Q. Okay. He was the videographer, right?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. And he had a crew, correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And you understand that that was originally


18 scheduled to take place at Neverland Ranch, correct?

19 MR. NICOLA: Objection; lack of foundation.

20 THE COURT: Overruled.

21 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Sir?

22 A. That is my understanding, yes.

23 Q. And then at some point they decided that


24 they had to do it in the Los Angeles area; is that


25 correct?


26 A. Yes.


27 Q. And that’s because Janet Arvizo was down


28 there and wanted to do it down there, correct? 8468

1 MR. NICOLA: Objection. Calls for hearsay

2 and speculation. It’s beyond the scope of direct.

3 THE COURT: Calls for hearsay; sustained.

4 MR. SANGER: All right.

5 Q. So you see that there is a good deal of

6 activity between Frank Cascio’s phone and the

7 Neverland Valley Ranch phone; is that correct?

8 A. On this particular date?

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. Yes. 13.

11 Q. And Frank Cascio’s phone and Vincent Amen

12 seem to be interacting with each other, correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And somebody at Jay Jackson’s number is

15 talking with somebody at Vincent Amen’s number?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. And also Frank Cascio’s number, correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And then Mr. Moslehi receives some phone

20 calls, I believe. Does he receive them or make

21 them?

22 A. He received them.

23 Q. All right. Now, you were aware that

24 Mr. Moslehi was also at the ranch during that

25 afternoon, correct?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. So if he was making phone calls, he could

28 have made phone calls from the Neverland Valley 8469

1 Ranch telephones; is that correct?

2 A. I don’t know.

3 Q. All right. He was at the ranch, right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And you see there’s some phone calls that

6 are made from various ranch numbers; is that

7 correct?

8 A. No, I don’t.

9 Q. Okay. All of the phone calls are made to

10 the ranch numbers; is that your understanding?

11 A. There are five calls from Neverland Valley

12 Ranch to Frank Cascio.

13 Q. Okay. That was my original question. So

14 some of the calls are made to Mr. Cascio’s phone,

15 and you don’t know who made those? They just came

16 from Neverland Valley, correct?

17 A. Yes.

Sanger attempted to ask a few additional questions, but Nicola’s objections were sustained, and Sanger ended his cross examination. Nicola declined to redirect examine Zelis:

18 MR. SANGER: All right. Now, I think I can

19 finish with this witness if I have another 45

20 seconds.

21 THE COURT: Go ahead.

22 Q. BY MR. SANGER: All right. At this time, on

23 February the 19th, you understood that Rudy

24 Provencio was working with Christian Robinson; is

25 that correct?

26 MR. NICOLA: Objection, assumes facts not in

27 evidence, Your Honor.

28 THE COURT: Sustained. 8470

1 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Let’s put it this way:

2 Your understanding from your investigation is that

3 both Christian Robinson and Rudy Provencio were

4 associated with Mr. Schaffel; is that right?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Okay. And as far as the production was

7 concerned, they were working on the production on

8 behalf of Mr. Schaffel, the production of the

9 rebuttal video; is that correct?

10 MR. NICOLA: Objection. Vague; assumes

11 facts not in evidence.

12 THE COURT: Sustained.

13 MR. SANGER: Okay. I have no further

14 questions.

15 THE COURT: All right. We’ll take our

16 afternoon recess. I’ll see you tomorrow morning.

17 MR. NICOLA: Your Honor — may the witness

18 be excused? I won’t have any redirect.

19 THE COURT: No redirect?

20 You may step down.

21 Call your next witness first thing in the

22 morning.

23 MR. NICOLA: Thank you.

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


To be continued:




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: