Skip to content

May 3rd, 2005 Trial Analysis: David Saunders, Jeff Klapakis, Craig Bonner, Paul Zelis, Steve Robel, John O’Bryan, John Duross, Rudy Provencio, Part 1 of 4

July 6, 2014

The next prosecution witness was David Saunders, the chief criminal investigator for the District Attorney’s office. He assisted Sergeant Bonner and Detective Zelis with their analysis of the telephone records of Jackson, his entourage, and the Arvizos from March 2nd through 4th, 2003.

Assistant District Attorney Mag Nicola began his direct examination of Saunders by asking him to go through the laborious task of describing each phone call on his charts and Excel spreadsheets, and defense attorney Robert Sanger objected because it would take up too much time, and was redundant, but Judge Melville overruled his objection:

 

1 DIRECT EXAMINATION

2 BY MR. NICOLA:

3 Q. Good morning. Would you please tell the

4 jury how you’re employed and what your position is?

5 A. Yes, I’m the chief criminal investigator for

6 the District Attorney’s Office.

7 Q. How long have you held that position?

8 A. About two and a half years.

9 Q. And prior to that, did you have other law

10 enforcement experience?

11 A. Yes. I’ve been a peace officer about — for

12 about 19 years.

13 Q. Turning your attention to this case, were

14 you asked to assist Sergeant Bonner and Detective

15 Zelis in the analysis of certain phone records

16 contained in telephone binders to my left and in

17 front of you?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Were you assigned the dates of March 2nd,

20 3rd and 4th of 2003?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. If you could turn your attention to Exhibit

23 872, please.

24 A. Okay.

25 Q. Do you recognize that exhibit?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. And could you tell the jury what that

28 exhibit is? 8478

1 A. Yeah, this is a diagram showing the relevant

2 telephone calls involved in this matter on March

3 2nd, 2003.

4 Q. And if you can flip to Exhibit 873.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Is that the diagram for March 3rd of 2003?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And Exhibit 874, please.

9 A. Yes. That’s the diagram for the 4th.

10 Q. Now, behind each of the diagrams marked 872,

11 873 and 874, are there spreadsheets which contain

12 the actual phone calls?

13 A. Yes, there are.

14 Q. Okay. And are those accurate?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Did you physically connect the phone calls

17 that are listed on that chart to the evidence in the

18 telephone binders that we’ve previously discussed?

19 A. Yes, for — on the spreadsheet for each row,

20 each one, I manually checked and compared it to the

21 exhibit to confirm the accuracy.

22 Q. Okay. And do Exhibits 872, 873 and 874

23 accurately reflect the analysis that you conducted?

24 A. Yes.

25 MR. NICOLA: Your Honor, at this time we’d

26 offer those three exhibits into evidence.

27 MR. SANGER: No further objection. We have

28 the objection to tying these up, but other than 8479

1 that —

2 THE COURT: All right. They’re admitted.

3 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: If you could turn to the

4 chart for Exhibit 872, please.

5 And, Your Honor, if I may have “Input 4” on

6 the Elmo.

7 Is that the diagram chart for Sunday,

8 March 2nd of 2003?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. If you could please start in the upper

11 left-hand corner and tell us when the call between

12 the Frank Cascio phone and the Evvy Tavasci home

13 phone occurred.

14 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I’m going to object

15 and also move under 352; the objection being the

16 documents speak for themselves. There’s been

17 inadequate foundation, and 352, undue consumption of

18 time going through each call.

19 THE COURT: All right. That’s overruled.

20 Go ahead.

21 THE WITNESS: The call between Mr. Cascio and

22 Ms. Tavasci occurred at 6:04 p.m., and lasted two

23 minutes or less.

The remainder of Saunder’ direct examination focused on several phone calls, primarily between Marc Schaffel, Frank Cascio, and Paul Hugo (who worked as Schaffel’s production assistant and called from Brazil). The prosecution emphasized Hugo’s calls because they corroborated their assertions that Jackson and his entourage were trying to fly the Arvizos to Brazil against their will:

24 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Okay. And generally can you

25 give us a time frame between the Cascio phone and

26 the icon marked “Evelyn Tavasci/MJJ Productions”?

27 A. Yes, the calls occurred between 6:03 p.m.

28 and 6:15 p.m. 8480

1 Q. Okay. And if you could direct your

2 attention to the bottom middle icon, the one that’s

3 marked “Paul Hugo.” And I’ve placed in front of you

4 Exhibit 453. If you could open that up, please.

5 Are the telephone records for that Paul Hugo

6 phone contained within Exhibit 453 at Tab No. 3?

7 A. Yes, sir.

8 Q. Do the records indicate where the calls from

9 the Paul Hugo phone originated on March 2nd of 2003?

10 A. Yes, Brazil.

11 Q. And can you tell us which page you’re

12 looking at in that exhibit?

13 A. Yes, sir, it’s page 8 of 12. As well as

14 page 9 of 12.

15 Q. I’m going to put page 9 of 12 up on the

16 screen briefly. I’ve highlighted a line in there.

17 Based on your review of the records, what

18 can you tell us about the call that is highlighted

19 up on the Elmo?

20 A. Mr. Hugo checked his voice mail at 10:32

21 a.m., Brazil time, and he was in Brazil when he did

22 so.

23 Q. And Brazil is five hours ahead of the

24 Pacific Coast?

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. So that’s 5:32 a.m., California time,

27 correct?

28 A. That’s right. 8481

1 Q. Is that the first call that you see in the

2 Paul Hugo records?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. Coming from Brazil?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Now, with respect to the calls – I’ll put it

7 back up – between the Paul Hugo phone and the

8 Vincent Amen phone, what time was the first call

9 placed from Brazil to the Vincent Amen phone?

10 A. 6:05 p.m., Brazil time.

11 Q. Okay. How long did that call last?

12 A. Three minutes or less.

13 Q. Immediately after that call to the Vincent

14 Amen phone from the Paul Hugo phone, was there a

15 call from the Frank Cascio phone to the Vince Amen

16 phone?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. How long was that call?

19 A. One minute or less.

20 Q. And immediately after the call between the

21 Frank Cascio phone to the Vince Amen phone, was

22 there also a call that’s not on this chart from the

23 Frank Cascio phone to the Paul Hugo phone?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Okay. I’m going to put that on the chart.

26 I believe this is page eight of the Paul Hugo phone

27 records; is that correct?

28 A. Yes, sir. 8482

1 Q. And were you able to confirm which of these

2 calls was the call between the Frank Cascio phone to

3 the Paul Hugo phone?

4 A. Yes, it’s the one item, number three.

5 Q. And that call lasted for eight minutes?

6 A. That’s right.

7 Q. The additional calls on this record,

8 specifically Call 4 and Call 9, do you recognize the

9 phone numbers associated with those calls being

10 dialed out from Brazil?

11 A. Yes. That’s Vincent Amen’s.

12 Q. Okay. And with respect to Call No. 7 and 8,

13 do you recognize those phone numbers? Are they on

14 your chart for Marc Schaffel?

15 A. Yes. Thank you. Yes.

16 Q. Now, before we finish with the Paul Hugo

17 phone record, I’d like to show you page 11 of 12.

18 Just briefly, is that page 11 of 12?

19 A. Yes, sir.

20 Q. Okay. I’m not going to project it, but

21 while you’re testifying, can you tell us whether

22 that call item contained within the Paul Hugo phone

23 records was the last call that you see from Brazil?

24 A. It was.

25 Q. And without telling us the actual phone

26 number, do you know from your review of the records

27 where that call was placed to?

28 A. The defendant’s home. 8483

1 Q. Neverland Valley Ranch?

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. And that call lasted for how long?

4 A. Two minutes or less.

5 Q. Okay. If we could turn to Exhibit 873,

6 please.

7 And if I may use the Elmo again, Your Honor.

8 Is that the chart for Monday, March 3rd of

9 2003?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And at the right-hand corner of the chart,

12 if you would focus on the calls labeled “Vincent

13 Amen” and “Neverland Valley Ranch,” if you could

14 give us the time range that those calls occurred

15 between those two phones.

16 A. The first call was at 3:17 p.m. and the last

17 call was at 6:49 p.m.

18 Q. And the same question with respect to the

19 calls between the Frank Cascio phone and the

20 Neverland Valley Ranch phone.

21 A. The first call was at 1:34 p.m., the last

22 call was at 8:28 p.m.

23 Q. The calls between Neverland Valley Ranch and

24 the marker marked “Evelyn Tavasci/MJJ Production,”

25 was that call — excuse me, was the phone number for

26 the Evelyn Tavasci line that you have up there

27 402-7087, Area Code (818)?

28 A. Yes. 8484

1 Q. Were all the calls in that link to that

2 particular phone?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. If we could turn, please, to the next

5 exhibit, 874. If we could start with the Paul Hugo

6 telephone line, I’d ask you whether the calls

7 between the Paul Hugo line and the Vince Amen line

8 were in one direction or whether the calls were

9 going both ways.

10 A. They were in one direction.

11 Q. And which direction was that?

12 A. Mr. Hugo was calling Mr. Amen.

13 Q. And are the calls being placed from the Paul

14 Hugo phone in Brazil?

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. The next link would be from Paul Hugo phone

17 to Marc Schaffel phone. Were those also all

18 initiated by the Paul Hugo phone?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Can you tell us what time the first call

21 between the Hugo phone and the Amen phone first came

22 in?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Please do so.

25 A. 1 a.m., Brazil time.

26 Q. Okay. And with respect to the calls between

27 Paul Hugo phone and Marc Schaffel phone, can you

28 tell us what time that first call came in? 8485

1 A. 1:12 p.m., Brazil time.

2 Q. Did the calls between the Vince Amen phone

3 and the Neverland Valley Ranch phone go both

4 directions or one direction?

5 A. One direction.

6 Q. Was there a call placed from the Vince Amen

7 phone to Neverland Valley Ranch at 1307 p.m.?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And did that follow a call — excuse me.

10 Was that the first call to Neverland Valley Ranch by

11 Vince Amen’s phone?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And the other two calls were at 4:14 and

14 2:34 p.m.?

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. If you could turn your attention to the

17 Frank Cascio phone.

18 A. Okay.

19 Q. Were all the phone calls from the Frank

20 Cascio phone inbound to Neverland Valley Ranch?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And what time was the first call?

23 A. 9:05 a.m.

24 Q. And how long did that call last?

25 A. Seven minutes or less.

26 MR. NICOLA: Thank you, Chief Investigator.

27 I have no more questions.

28 MR. SANGER: May I proceed? 8486

Sanger immediately clarified the fact that Neverland is 2,700 acres large, has multiple buildings, and multiple phone lines, and just because Paul Hugo called Neverland, it doesn’t mean that he spoke to Jackson. Sanger truly let Saunders have it!

3 CROSS-EXAMINATION

4 BY MR. SANGER:

5 Q. Investigator Saunders, how are you?

6 A. Fine, thank you.

7 MR. SANGER: Why don’t you leave those

8 there, please. Those are the originals?

9 MR. NICOLA: These are my copies.

10 MR. SANGER: Oh, the originals are up there.

11 Sorry.

12 Excuse me, Your Honor, I’m sorry.

13 Q. All right. I’m going to ask you to clarify

14 one thing, first of all. And we’re going to put

15 these exhibits up quickly. You said, your testimony

16 was, that a call was placed by Paul Hugo to the

17 defendant’s home. Do you remember saying that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Okay. You were out there at the search on

20 November 18th, 2003, were you not, sir?

21 A. That’s correct.

22 Q. And you’re aware that what you refer to as

 

23 the defendant’s home is, in fact, 2700 acres; is

 

24 that correct?

 

25 A. Yes.

 

26 Q. And you’re aware that not only is there a

 

27 large home, but there are a number of outbuildings;

 

28 is that correct? 8487

1 A. That’s right.

 

2 Q. And there is approximately 100 people who

 

3 are employed at that ranch; is that correct?

 

4 A. I don’t know if there are 100 people

 

5 employed.

6 Q. How many — what’s your best estimate,

7 having been out there?

8 A. You know, I — that’s beyond the scope of my

9 knowledge. I really don’t know how many employees

10 he has.

11 Q. Let’s just put it this way: You know that

12 there are dozens and dozens of people who work out

13 there; how about that?

14 A. That’s a fair assessment.

15 Q. All right. And do you know how many

16 telephone extensions there are out there?

17 A. I know there are multiple telephone

18 extensions. I don’t know the exact number off the

19 top of my head.

20 Q. Now, when you did the phone analysis, you

21 evaluated how many telephone numbers, in other

22 words, distinct telephone numbers for Neverland

23 Valley Ranch?

24 A. For the three dates in question I’d have to

25 go back and look at each date to add them up, but

26 there were multiple numbers.

27 Q. Okay. Are there at least eight distinct

28 telephone numbers? 8488

1 A. No, I don’t think there are that many.

2 Q. During the period you looked at, you looked

3 at about four of them; is that right?

4 A. That sounds more accurate, yes.

5 Q. Were you aware that there were more than the

6 four numbers that you looked at?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And then in addition to telephone numbers,

9 I’d asked you about extensions. In other words,

10 physical telephones located different places. And

11 you don’t know how many physical telephones are

12 located in different places on the ranch, do you?

13 A. I’m sorry, can you rephrase that question?

14 Q. Well, when I said “extensions,” I wanted to

15 clarify we’re talking about — there’s phone numbers

16 and then there are actual telephones. You can have

17 more telephones than extensions, I take it?

18 A. Sure. Sure.

19 Q. And so do you know how many actual telephone

20 extensions there were throughout that ranch?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Would you say dozens?

23 A. I — I’m not qualified to comment on how

24 many there are.

25 Q. Well, you were — you were out there during

26 the search, and you looked around, right?

27 A. No. I didn’t look around. I was at the

28 command post. 8489

1 Q. Were you in the house?

2 A. No, I was at the command post.

3 Q. I’m sorry?

4 A. I was at the command post.

5 Q. You were out on the front porch of the house

6 for a while?

7 A. Right.

8 Q. You’re in the photographs of the search,

9 right?

10 A. I haven’t seen my photographs.

11 Q. Okay. And then where did you go to? Where

12 is the command post?

13 A. It was parked in front of the residence.

14 Q. Okay. So you were outside — the command

15 post was the big van, or the big motorhome?

16 A. Motorhome-looking thing.

17 Q. You didn’t stay inside the whole time on

18 November 18th, 2003, did you?

19 A. Inside the mobile home?

20 Q. Right.

21 A. No, sir.

22 Q. All right. And it’s your testimony you did

23 not go into any of the buildings, any of the

24 structures anywhere?

25 MR. NICOLA: Objection, Your Honor, this is

26 beyond the scope.

27 THE COURT: Overruled.

28 THE WITNESS: At one point, I went in to get 8490

1 some of my personnel to check on them, and that was

2 a fairly isolated incident.

3 Q. BY MR. SANGER: All right. In any event,

4 your understanding is that there was certainly

5 several telephone extensions on that ranch, let us

6 say that.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And do you know who was at the ranch, which

9 employees were at the ranch, on March the 2nd, 2003?

10 A. Personal knowledge or what the investigation

11 has indicated?

12 Q. Well, start with personal knowledge.

13 A. No.

14 Q. You know there were employees there,

15 correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. All right. And you were there at the search

18 as a representative of the District Attorney’s

19 Office, correct?

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. Mr. Sneddon himself was there during part of

22 the search, correct?

23 MR. NICOLA: Objection, relevance, Your

24 Honor.

25 THE COURT: Sustained.

26 Q. BY MR. SANGER: All right. In any event,

27 you saw other district attorney’s employees besides

28 yourself there at the search, correct? 8491

1 MR. NICOLA: Objection, relevance, Your

2 Honor.

3 THE COURT: Sustained.

4 Q. BY MR. SANGER: So when you said Paul

5 Hugo — the phone call went to the defendant’s

6 home —

7 A. Uh-huh.

8 Q. — you have no idea who made the call, first

9 of all, Paul Hugo’s phone, right? You have no idea

10 who placed the call from his phone, correct?

11 A. I’d say it’s a reasonable inference that he

12 did. I wasn’t there and didn’t witness it.

13 MR. SANGER: Move to strike based on

14 speculation.

15 THE COURT: It’s a question you asked,

16 Counsel. I’m not going to restrict him.

17 MR. SANGER: It’s not responsive if it’s —

18 THE COURT: That’s responsive. You have no

19 idea. Well, he has an idea.

20 MR. SANGER: All right. Very well, Your

21 Honor.

22 Q. Beyond the fact that if somebody’s phone is

23 in their name, you could speculate that they may

24 have been the person using it. Beyond that, from

25 these records, can you determine who placed the call

26 from Paul Hugo’s phone?

27 A. No.

28 Q. Now, more importantly, with regard to the 8492

1 Neverland Valley Ranch, can you determine from the

2 phone records who answered the phone, if anybody, at

3 Neverland Valley Ranch when the call was made?

4 A. From the phone records?

5 Q. Right.

6 A. No.

After answering several questions about other phone calls, Saunders was questioned again on his knowledge of Hugo’s background:

14 Q. BY MR. SANGER: On page two of 872 that you

15 have that’s been admitted into evidence, you have a

16 number of calls from Mr. Hugo which are added on to

17 the analysis; is that correct?

18 A. They’re included in the analysis, yes, sir.

19 Q. When were they added on?

20 A. I don’t have an independent recollection

21 when they were added on. I know I was working on

22 this through the weekend confirming that everything

23 was completely accurate. And I believe they were

24 there at that time.

25 Q. All right. Now, as far as Mr. Hugo is

26 concerned, in the course of your investigation in

27 this case, you were aware that Mr. Hugo and — Mr.

28 Hugo was a production associate of Marc Schaffel, 8496

1 correct?

2 MR. NICOLA: Objection. Lack of foundation;

3 calls for hearsay.

4 THE COURT: Overruled.

5 You may answer.

6 THE WITNESS: Would you please repeat the

7 question?

8 MR. SANGER: Ask, Your Honor, if it may be

9 read back.

10 THE COURT: Yes.

11 (Record read.)

12 THE WITNESS: No.

13 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Were you aware that Mr. Hugo

14 had worked with Marc Schaffel in any capacity?

15 MR. NICOLA: Objection, lack of foundation,

16 Your Honor.

17 THE COURT: Overruled.

18 You may answer.

19 THE WITNESS: Yes, generally.

20 Q. BY MR. SANGER: All right. And you were

21 aware that at this time Marc Schaffel had traveled

22 commercially to Brazil; is that correct?

23 A. No.

Next, Sanger was able to expose an inherit flaw in the prosecution’s evidence: some of the individuals in Jackson’s entourage had multiple phone lines, and there were instances when two individuals would speak to each other using phone lines that belonged to the same person, and because it was impossible to determine who was actually speaking during each call, it made this evidence practically useless for proving anything other the fact that there were a lot of phone calls going on at this point in time!

Even Detective Saunders had to admit that Sanger made a good point!

19 Q. Okay. I don’t want to spend unnecessary

20 time on this, but you notice in your analysis of the

21 phone records here that there are several telephone

22 numbers that were associated with Evelyn Tavasci?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. In other words, there is the one you’ve

25 labeled “MJJ Production,” there’s one “Evelyn/MJJ

26 Prod, Unit 1,” there’s one “Evelyn Tavasci home,”

27 and there’s one “Evelyn Tavasci/MJJ Production” at

28 the bottom. Do you see that on the chart? 8498

1 Do we have our —

2 A. Yes.

3 MR. SANGER: Do we have our pointer, please?

4 MS. YU: Oh.

5 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

6 Q. There’s a technical term for this. “The

7 pointer thing.”

8 There we go. Just so we’re clear – I think

9 everybody is, but just in case – we have this one

10 that says, “MJJ Production”?

11 A. Right.

12 Q. And this one says, “MJJ Production” also.

13 But those are, in fact, two different phone numbers;

14 is that correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. The first — the first one at the top is —

17 ends in 9239, correct?

18 A. Let me double-check that.

19 That’s correct.

20 Q. And this one ends in 8984, correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And then there’s another one over here that

23 says, “Tavasci,” comma, “Evelyn/MJJ Production,” and

24 that’s yet another phone which, in fact, is a

25 different Area Code and ends in 7087, correct?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. All of these phones that we referred to that

28 say “Tavasci” and have some designation after them, 8499

1 sometimes the same, all of these five phones are

2 different phone numbers, right?

3 A. That’s right.

4 Q. And they’re either (310) or (818), which is

5 the Los Angeles area; is that correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And then you have this other phone down

8 here, “MJJ Production/Miko Brando,” which is yet a

9 different number; is that right?

10 A. That’s right.

11 Q. Now, in essence, you have somebody at — in

12 various places here — without going into excessive

13 detail, you’ve got somebody on one Evelyn Tavasci

14 phone calling somebody else on another Evelyn

15 Tavasci phone, correct?

16 A. Right.

17 Q. Now, you speculated before, so I’ll let you

 

18 do it again, if it’s all right. Do you therefore

 

19 assume it’s not Evelyn Tavasci calling herself on

 

20 the various phones?

 

21 A. That’s a good point. Thanks for giving me a

 

22 little latitude here. I think that example down at

 

23 the bottom, the seven calls going to Neverland, for

 

24 example, I know that’s Chris Carter calling the

 

25 ranch, and based on —

 

26 Q. I didn’t ask you if it was Chris Carter

 

27 calling the ranch. I asked you about these. I

 

28 didn’t say say anything you want. I was asking 8500

 

1 about these calls. You assume that it is not Evelyn

 

2 Tavasci calling Evelyn Tavasci; that in fact there

 

3 are other people calling —

 

4 A. Right.

 

5 Q. — on those phones?

 

6 A. Right.

 

7 MR. SANGER: All right. Okay. All right.

 

8 And I have no further questions.

 

9 MR. NICOLA: No questions.

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

11 step down.

12 Call your next witness.

13 MR. SNEDDON: Lieutenant Klapakis, Your

14 Honor.

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

16 under oath.

The next prosecution witness was Lt. Jeff Klapakis, who was recalled in order to testify about his conversations with Bradley Miller, who worked as Mark Geragos’ private investigator and surveilled the Arvizos on numerous occasions.

23 DIRECT EXAMINATION

24 BY MR. SNEDDON:

25 Q. Good morning.

26 A. Good morning.

27 Q. Are you familiar with the telephone number

28 Area Code (310) 490-0144? 8501

1 A. Yes, I am.

2 Q. And did you make a telephone call to that

3 particular phone number?

4 A. Yes, I did.

5 Q. When did you do that?

6 A. Yesterday morning.

7 Q. And when you made that telephone call — let

8 me go back for just a second. During the course of

9 this investigation, have you had an occasion to

10 contact a private investigator by the name of Brad

11 Miller?

12 A. Yes, I have.

13 Q. Do you remember when the first time you

14 contacted Mr. Miller was?

15 A. It was 2004.

16 Q. And you had a conversation with him at that

17 time?

18 A. Yes, I believe we did.

19 Q. Was it a personal call or was it a telephone

20 call?

21 A. It was a personal call. We were trying to

22 locate him to deliver some paperwork and stuff like

23 that, so —

24 Q. And were you able to make contact with him?

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. Now, with regard to the telephone number

27 that you called, it’s Area Code (310) 490-0144, you

28 called that number yesterday? 8502

1 A. Yes, I did.

2 Q. And did you talk to somebody on the other

3 line?

4 A. Yes, I did.

5 Q. Who was that?

6 A. Brad Miller.

7 Q. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Miller,

8 without going into the details of what was said?

9 A. Yes, I did.

10 Q. Were you satisfied that the person on the

11 other end of that line was Mr. Miller?

12 A. Yes, I am.

13 Q. Based on both the first conversation earlier

14 in 2004 and the content of the conversation

15 yesterday?

16 A. Yes.

17 MR. SNEDDON: Nothing further, Your Honor.

18 THE COURT: Any questions?

19 MR. SANGER: I’m sorry?

20 MR. SNEDDON: Nothing further.

21 MR. SANGER: Okay.

Under cross examination, Klapakis admitted that he didn’t determine if the phone number that he had for Miller was truly Miller’s until the day before he testified!

23 CROSS-EXAMINATION

24 BY MR. SANGER:

25 Q. Lieutenant Klapakis, how are you doing?

26 A. Fine, sir.

27 Q. You’ve been on this case since June or July

28 of 2003, correct? 8503

1 A. Actually, I believe it was prior to that.

2 February of 2003.

3 Q. You’ve been on this case since February of

4 2003?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And you were aware of Brad Miller’s

7 existence in this case since what time?

8 A. Prior to November 2003.

9 Q. And you say that because, among other

10 things, you all got a search warrant for Brad

11 Miller’s office before November 18, 2003, correct?

12 A. We obtained a search warrant before November

13 18th, yes, we did.

14 Q. And you were aware that Brad Miller was a

15 private investigator before November 18, 2003,

16 correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. In part, Mr. Sneddon himself went to Brad

19 Miller’s office before November 18, 2003, to

20 investigate and take photographs, correct?

21 A. Mr. Sneddon’s been by there, yes, that’s

22 correct.

23 Q. Did he go down to investigate and take

24 photographs?

25 A. He went down to take photographs of the

26 office, yes.

27 Q. And he looked in the phone book to see if he

28 had the correct address for Mr. Miller, correct? 8504

1 A. You know, I’m not sure if he looked in the

2 phone book, sir.

3 Q. He wrote a report, right?

4 A. Do you have the report? It would refresh my

5 memory.

6 Q. Somewhere.

7 A. All right.

8 Q. It’s a fair question, but I don’t have it

9 right in front of me. In any event — and Mr.

10 Sneddon actually went down and showed photographs of

11 Brad Miller to Janet Arvizo before the November 18,

12 2003, search, correct?

13 A. I believe that’s correct.

14 Q. And then you had officers search Mr.

15 Miller’s office in Beverly Hills on November 18,

16 2003, correct?

17 A. That’s correct.

18 Q. And they went through, to a certain extent,

19 his papers, records, and files within the scope of

20 the search warrant, correct?

21 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to

22 object as immaterial and irrelevant. Beyond the

23 scope.

24 THE COURT: Sustained.

25 MR. SANGER: All right.

26 Q. It’s your testimony that the first time you

27 figured out Brad Miller’s phone number was

28 yesterday? 8505

1 MR. SNEDDON: Object as argumentative.

2 THE COURT: Overruled.

3 You may answer.

4 THE WITNESS: No. We believed it was — from

5 other sources, we believed it to be Brad Miller’s

6 phone.

7 Q. BY MR. SANGER: When did you first believe

8 it was Brad Miller’s phone?

9 A. I believe that we were aware it was Mr. —

10 a phone that was linked to Mr. Miller through other

11 documents we had found through the various search

12 warrants that we had found from Mr. Schaffel’s

13 residence, I believe.

14 Q. And so if today is May the 3rd — which I

15 think it is. I was just verifying that. Is that

16 correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. All right. Time flies.

 

19 May the 2nd, 2005, is the first time that

 

20 you actually attempted to verify that this phone

 

21 number belonged to Brad Miller; is that correct?

 

22 A. That’s incorrect.

 

23 Q. When did you try to verify it before?

 

24 A. Well, one of my detectives has written

 

25 several search warrants to various phone companies

 

26 involved in this investigation. What we — as you

 

27 heard, there’s thousands of numbers. We’ve — we

 

28 were able to determine a couple of days ago that the 8506

1 phone number that we believed showed linked to Brad

 

2 Miller was actually linked to a subsidiary cellular

 

3 phone company that fell through — fell through the

 

4 cracks when we were putting everything together.

 

5 Q. All right. But in order to determine whose

 

6 phone it is, you concluded that you can call it and

 

7 find out who answers it, right?

 

8 A. That’s exactly what I did.

 

9 Q. And you concluded that yesterday and did

 

10 that yesterday, correct?

 

11 A. That’s what I did yesterday, yes, sir.

Under tough questioning by Sanger, Klapakis testified that he knew before raiding Miller’s office in November 2003 that Miller was working for Geragos as a private investigator, and this information is important because Sneddon violated the attorney/client privilege between Geragos and Miller by seizing confidential evidence from Miller’s office (which included exculpatory evidence, such as Miller’s interview with the Arvizo family at Jay Jackson’s home.) Legal analyst Jonna Spilbor wrote about this illegal raid on Miller’s office in this column titled “Looking for Clues in All the Wrong Places: Why The D.A.’s Search of Michael Jackson’s P.I.’s Office Was Unlawful, and What the Court Should Do About It” , and Julie Hilden also wrote about this in an article titled “Evidence of Prosecution Bias in the Kobe Bryant and Michael Jackson Cases: Why It’s Troubling, and What Role It May Play At Trial”.

12 Q. All right. Now, there’s no question, based

13 on your investigation at this point, that Brad

14 Miller was a licensed private investigator, correct?

15 A. I’m sorry, say that again.

16 Q. Based on your investigation — you’re in

17 charge — back to the foundation. You’re in charge

18 of the investigation; is that correct?

19 A. Yes, I am.

20 Q. And as a part of that, your responsibility

21 is to have a working knowledge of the investigation

22 that’s conducted by officers under you; is that

23 correct?

24 A. I have some knowledge of the investigation,

25 yes.

26 Q. And you are aware that Brad Miller is a

27 licensed private investigator, correct?

28 A. I’m aware of that. 8507

1 Q. And you were aware long before today that

2 Brad Miller was, in fact, working for Mark Geragos,

3 correct?

4 A. I’m aware of that.

5 Q. Okay. And you’ve been aware of that for

6 some time?

7 A. Yes, I have.

8 Q. And you would have expected that Mark

9 Geragos and Brad Miller would have been in

10 communication based on the fact that he’s a lawyer

11 and this was a private investigator working for him,

12 correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Okay. So you called yesterday?

15 A. Yes.

16 MR. SANGER: Okay. No further questions.

17 MR. SNEDDON: Nothing further.

18 THE COURT: You may step down.

19 Call your next witness.

20 MR. SNEDDON: Craig Bonner.

21 MR. SANGER: Do you have an exhibit number

22 for this?

23 MR. SNEDDON: I’m trying to find out when I

24 have the evidence.

25 MR. SANGER: Yes.

26 (Off-the-record discussion held at counsel

27 table.)

28 // 8508

The next prosecution witness was Det. Craig Bonner, who was once again recalled in order to testify about the search warrant that he executed to get Miller’s telephone records as evidence from several phone companies. As a result of this evidence, Bonner was able to help put together the list of phone calls that were used in several phone charts that were entered as evidence:

5 DIRECT EXAMINATION

6 BY MR. SNEDDON:

7 Q. Detective Bonner, one of the assignments

8 that you were given in this case and which you spent

9 considerable time on the witness stand the last

10 couple of days just testifying to phone records,

11 correct?

12 A. That’s correct.

13 Q. And in the — in the procurement of those

14 records, did you obtain a search warrant for the

15 telephone records of Brad Miller?

16 A. For the number that I associated with Brad

17 Miller, yes.

18 Q. Okay. And how many telephone companies was

19 that request sent to?

20 A. Every single one, by name and his personal

21 information.

22 Q. Every single one doing business in

23 California?

24 A. Correction — or, I’m sorry, correct.

25 Basically any phone company, ATT Wireless, all of

26 the cell phone companies, as well as Verizon

27 California and Pac-Bell. Anything that I thought

28 might have a telephone registered to Mr. Miller. 8509

1 Q. And as a result of the search warrants that

2 were returned, did you — did you get any

3 information from any of those carriers that the

4 private investigator Brad Miller had a telephone?

5 A. None of the information directly came back

6 directly to Mr. Miller.

7 Q. Now, with regard to the telephone number

8 Area Code (310) 490-0144, do you recognize that

9 number?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And when — and was there a return on the

12 search warrant associated with that number?

13 A. There was. It came back to a Payless

14 reseller with an associated name — last name of

15 like Mozaffarian.

16 Q. So Mr. Miller wasn’t in any way, with the

17 paperwork you’ve got, connected to that number?

18 A. No.

19 Q. As a result of the information that

20 Detective Klapakis was able to obtain about the

21 person that he talked to at that number, were you

22 asked to put together a list of phone calls that you

23 reviewed from the Exhibits 452, 456 and 450 that you

24 had previously testified?

25 A. Yes, I did that last night.

26 Q. And let me just show you the exhibit which

27 I’ve shown to counsel, Your Honor, and had marked as

28 884 for identification purposes. 8510

1 THE COURT: All right.

2 MR. SNEDDON: It’s a four-page document.

3 THE WITNESS: This is the materials I

4 prepared last night.

5 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: That’s a compilation of the

6 telephone records that are in evidence in this case

7 that reflect communications between that phone

8 number, Mr. Miller’s phone, and other parties in

9 this case, correct?

10 A. That’s correct.

11 Q. And is that particular exhibit, 884, listed

12 in the time in which those are — the sequence in

13 which those phone calls are made?

14 A. Yes, it does.

15 Q. And the individual names that are contained

16 on that particular exhibit?

17 A. Do you want me to list the —

18 Q. Just the people, yes.

19 A. The phones that are in this exhibit come

20 back to Vincent Amen, Frank Cascio, Evelyn

21 Tavasci/MJJ Productions, and Miss — or the Hamid

22 Mozaffarian phone number that we now believe or now

23 know comes back to Brad Miller.

During his investigation, Bonner was assigned the task of reviewing other pieces of evidence, including watching Hamid Moslehi’s outtakes from Jackson’s botched documentary with Martin Bashir. In one particular scene, Jackson mentioned “Jesus Juice” to Bashir, and the prosecution saw this corroborative to the Arvizos’ claim of being plied with “Jesus Juice”, AKA alcohol.

21 During the course of the investigation, were

22 you assigned to review items of evidence that were

23 seized from certain locations?

24 A. Yes, I was.

25 Q. And were you assigned to review some video

26 footage that was obtained in the residence of Mr.

27 Hamid Moslehi?

28 A. I was for Hamid also, yes. 8515

1 Q. And did you review a — some footage of a —

 

2 that was filmed between Mr. Jackson and Mr. Bashir

 

3 having a conversation?

 

4 A. Yes, I did. I should clarify that that

 

5 actually came from Schaffel’s residence.

 

6 Q. Oh, okay. It came from Mr. Schaffel’s

 

7 residence?

 

8 A. Correct.

 

9 Q. All right. So you reviewed that item?

 

10 A. Yes.

 

11 Q. And what is the item number of that

 

12 associated with the sheriff’s investigation?

 

13 A. Item No. 1360.

 

14 Q. And during the course of that conversation,

15 or during the course of the review of that, did you

 

16 actually see Mr. Jackson having a conversation with

 

17 Mr. Bashir?

 

18 A. I did.

 

19 Q. And did the subject of flying come up during

 

20 that conversation?

 

21 A. It did.

 

22 Q. And during the course of that conversation

 

23 between Mr. Bashir and Mr. Jackson, did you hear

 

24 anything said by Mr. Jackson with regard to alcohol?

 

25 A. I did.

 

26 Q. What did Mr. Jackson say?

 

27 A. I’ll go ahead and read it from my report. I

 

28 quoted it. Mr. Jackson’s statement was, “You don’t 8516

 

1 have, like, a little bit of Jesus Juice, a little

 

2 bit of wine.”

 

3 Q. Now, was there anywhere else on that video

 

4 that you reviewed that the term “Jesus Juice” was

 

5 used by anybody else?

 

6 A. No.

Finally, Bonner testified about having to review his videotaped interview with comedienne and Arvizo family friend Louise Palanker, who said during her earlier testimony that she was “misquoted” about something she said regarding Janet “selling” her kids at the Laugh Factory comedy camp:

7 Q. You were also assigned the responsibility —

8 give me a moment.

9 Are you familiar with an individual by the

10 name of Louise Palanker?

11 A. Yes, I am.

12 Q. How did you become familiar with Ms.

13 Palanker?

14 A. I interviewed Miss Palanker.

15 Q. Do you recall when that interview had

16 occurred?

17 A. Not offhand. I know it was in the middle

18 part of last year.

19 Q. And was it taped?

20 A. Yes, it was.

21 Q. And was that tape booked into evidence?

22 A. Yes, it was.

23 Q. And did you, at my request, review that

24 tape?

25 A. I did.

26 Q. And what were you asked to review, looking

 

27 for what?

 

28 A. I was asked to review any — to find if 8517

 

1 there was any statement to the effect that Janet

 

2 Arvizo had sold the kids at the comedy camp or sold

 

3 the kids at the hospital.

 

4 Q. Was the word “sold” or “seldom”?

 

5 A. The actual word used was “seldom”; that

 

6 Janet was seldom at the comedy camp. Janet was

 

7 seldom at the hospital.

 

8 Q. Could you spell that, please?

 

9 A. S-e-l-d-o-m.

 

10 Q. It was not s-e-l, apostrophe, i-m?

 

11 A. No.

 

12 Q. And you reviewed the tapes and ascertained

 

13 that to be correct?

 

14 A. Yes.

 

15 MR. SNEDDON: Nothing further, Your Honor.

Here is what Palanker said about that issue during her cross examination on March 22nd , 2005:

21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: But do you remember

22 telling the sheriffs the following: “I know that

23 Janet’s unbalanced. I think she’s totally bipolar.

24 Something — the behavior from the children from the

25 family was so over the top all the time”. Do you

26 remember saying that.

27 A. Yes, I do.

28 Q. Okay. Do you remember telling the Santa 3063

1 Barbara sheriffs when you were talking about letters

2 you received from the Arvizos, “You don’t just get

3 one letter from them. You get five letters from

4 them. You don’t get one phone call. You get five

5 phone calls. A message from Janet on your answering

6 machine can last five minutes.’ She mimics types of

7 messages on the phone.”

8 You mimicked for the sheriffs her messages

9 on the machine. Do you remember that.

10 A. Yes, I do.

11 Q. Is that something you said.

12 A. Yes. I was exaggerating. I didn’t know I

13 was being taped.

14 Q. Do you remember telling the Santa Barbara

15 sheriffs, when you didn’t realize that you were

16 being recorded, “Janet would sell them at the

17 benefits, then sell them at the hospital, and David

18 was never at The Laugh Factory when the children

19 were coming”.

20 A. “Sell them”. I don’t remember saying that,

21 no.

22 Q. Okay. Would it refresh your recollection if

23 I show you a transcript of your recorded statement.

24 A. Okay.

25 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor.

26 THE COURT: Yes.

27 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.

28 THE WITNESS: It says “inaudible,” and I 3064

1 don’t know what I was referring to.

2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Have you had a

3 chance to review that page.

4 A. Yes, I have.

5 Q. Do you recall telling the sheriffs —

6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Counsel, may I see that.

7 MR. MESEREAU: Sure.

8 Let me withdraw that question. Let me start

9 again.

10 Q. You’ve had some meetings with the

11 prosecutors before you came in to testify, true.

12 A. Over the phone.

13 Q. And you talked to some Santa Barbara

14 sheriffs over the phone as well, correct.

15 A. I talked to the sheriffs in person.

16 Q. Did — at any time, did any of them tell you

17 that your conversation with the sheriffs had been

18 recorded.

19 A. I don’t believe so.

20 Q. Okay. Is today the first time you ever

21 realized that they had recorded you without your

22 knowledge.

23 A. No, I found out a couple days ago.

24 Q. Who told you.

25 A. Ron.

26 Q. Prosecutor Zonen.

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. Okay. Okay. Do you recall telling the 3065

1 officer, “Janet would sell them at the benefits,

2 then sell them at the hospital, and David was never

3 at The Laugh Factory when the children were coming”.

4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Your Honor, I’m going to

5 object and ask counsel to notify the witness when

6 there are inaudible portions of the statement that

7 he is reading.

8 THE COURT: I don’t think he’s required to do

9 that. But the question is — all right. You may

10 answer the question, but I know you won’t remember

11 it, so I’ll have it reread.

12 THE WITNESS: I believe that the first

13 portion of that statement is mistyped.

14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

15 A. The second portion of that statement is

16 correct.

17 Q. Okay. So you don’t think you told the

18 sheriffs, “Janet would sell them at the benefits,

19 then sell them at the hospital”.

20 A. No, I don’t.

21 Q. Okay. Do you remember telling them that

22 Janet was never at the hospital.

23 A. Yes, I do. I think it may have been

24 “seldom,” now that I’m thinking of how they would

25 have mistyped it.

So according to Palanker, she originally said “Janet would seldom at the benefits, and then sell them at the hospital.” Yeah, that makes perfect sense!

Under cross examination, Bonner was asked by Sanger to summarize his process for analyzing the phone records. Pay attention to the fact that the prosecution didn’t fax this evidence to the defense until the day prior to Bonner’s testimony!

17 CROSS-EXAMINATION

18 BY MR. SANGER:

19 Q. Okay. Let’s start with your first topic.

20 You had three topics, the first one being the cell

21 phone records. The summary chart that was Exhibit

22 885 that Mr. Sneddon put up, I believe he put page

23 three up on the board, the summary charts?

24 A. Right here.

25 MR. SANGER: With the Court’s permission, I

26 could put up my copy, if that’s all right.

27 THE COURT: That’s fine.

28 MR. SANGER: And Mr. Sneddon, is this the 8518

1 most recent?

2 MR. SNEDDON: (Nods head up and down.)

3 MR. SANGER: Okay.

4 Q. I’m going to put up page three, because

5 that’s the one that was shown as a representative —

6 that was shown as a representative page and

7 there’s — actually, I forgot how many pages we were

8 told, but quite a number of pages to this, right?

9 A. 20 some-odd, I believe.

10 Q. 20 some-odd pages. When was this prepared?

11 A. Last night.

12 Q. And when was it delivered to defense

13 counsel?

14 A. I didn’t deliver it, but I would assume this

15 morning.

16 Q. This morning. Okay. Now, 884 —

17 May I just put up the first page of that?

18 It would be my copy, if that’s all right.

19 THE COURT: Yes.

20 MR. SANGER: Mr. Sneddon, this is the

21 correct —

22 MR. SNEDDON: Fine.

23 MR. SANGER: All right.

24 Q. 884 is a several-page — I think a four-page

25 exhibit that has the summary of all the records,

26 correct?

27 A. Correct.

28 Q. And those were faxed to my house last night 8519

1 by you, I believe; is that correct?

2 A. Yes, they were.

3 Q. And that would have been about 7:22 in the

4 evening?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. All right. On this summary chart —

7 And we can have lights again, if that’s all

8 right, Your Honor.

9 On this summary chart, you have a record of

10 phone calls that were made to and from what you’ve

11 now determined — what you’ve now labeled as the

12 Bradley Miller telephone, correct?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. Maybe it would be helpful, I’m sorry to do

15 that, but if I could put up 885, that one page

16 again. Because on these, you’ve now labeled which

17 way they were going and the number going each way,

18 correct?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. All right. There you go. And you show four

21 phones and those — that same graphic is used for

22 each of the pages; is that right?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. That’s why you have “0” here, because there

25 were zero —

26 A. Correct.

27 Q. — on this particular date.

28 On the other hand, this also tells us that 8520

1 what you were able to analyze were calls going to

2 and from what you’ve labeled as the Bradley Miller

3 telephone, to and from the Vincent Amen telephone,

4 the Evelyn Tavasci/MJJ PROD telephone, and the Frank

5 Cascio telephone; is that correct?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. Now, was there just one number to Evelyn

8 Tavasci that you looked at?

9 A. That’s the only number that came out.

10 Q. And that is a cell phone?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. All right. Now, did you do this by

13 analyzing just the records of the Amen, Tavasci and

14 Cascio telephone?

15 A. We looked at every record that we have with

16 the computer system, and these are the only three

17 records that came out with any calls to that

18 telephone.

19 Q. Okay. Do you have the records for what’s

20 called the Bradley Miller phone?

21 A. We only have a one-sheet piece of — if

22 we’re talking about toll records, no, we do not. We

23 do have a one-sheet page that tells us that it comes

24 back to Hamid Mozaffarian, a cellular.

25 Q. And just because we have two Hamids we’ve

26 talked about, Hamid Mozaffarian has nothing to do

27 with Hamid Moslehi, correct?

28 A. No. 8521

1 Q. I said, “Correct.” I’m sorry. Let me ask

2 the question, does Hamid Mozaffarian have anything

3 to do with Hamid Moslehi?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 Therefore, you did not have the records from

7 that Miller phone to see what numbers the Miller

8 phone called, correct?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. Nor to see what incoming calls, if any, were

11 recorded for that phone, correct?

12 A. Other than for these three telephones up

13 here, no.

14 Q. I’m sorry, I’m saying for the Brad Miller

15 phone itself, right?

16 A. No, but these records do show calls to and

17 from the Bradley Miller phone. We don’t have

18 Bradley Miller’s records, though.

19 Q. Thank you. That’s what I was getting at.

20 I understand you have the other records.

21 But for Brad Miller you have one page that showed

22 the subscriber information; is that correct?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. Has that page been marked as an exhibit in

25 this case —

26 A. I don’t know.

Next, Sanger questioned Bonner about the phone records of the law firm of Mark Geragos; Bonner was unable to seize these particular evidence because of attorney/client privilege between Geragos and Miller.

27 Q. — to your knowledge? Okay. All right. So

28 therefore — let me withdraw that. 8522

1 The Geragos records — you had records

2 pertaining to the Law Firm of Geragos & Geragos,

3 correct?

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. You didn’t have the toll records, did you?

6 Did you —

7 A. I believe — I believe they were actually

8 sent. However, those were not — we were not

9 supposed to receive those, so we have not included

10 those in any analysis.

11 Q. All right. Because Mr. Geragos’ law firm

12 has attorney-client privilege communications, I take

13 it?

14 A. And more specifically in the warrant that I

15 wrote, I laid out that we were not going to seek

16 toll records.

17 Q. All right. And you did that because you

18 understood that that might create a problem?

19 A. It could unless we were able to show him as

20 being a member of a conspiracy.

21 Q. All right.

22 A. And part of the crime that occurred.

23 Q. All right. So the point being, that you did

24 not have an opportunity to evaluate calls between

25 Mr. Miller’s phone, the one you’ve attributed to

26 him, and the Geragos law firm?

27 A. Correct.

28 Q. In other words, you didn’t have records 8523

1 going either way on that one, right?

2 A. We have records. We did not analyze them,

3 yes.

4 Q. When I say “have,” did you not have them to

5 look at and analyze and —

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. All right. And you did not have records

8 pertaining to any cell phones that Mr. Geragos might

9 have, correct?

10 A. Correct. Other than subscriber records. We

11 do see subscriber records on that also.

12 Q. And when you say that, that means it just

13 shows whose telephone number it is, right?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. So therefore, did you not have available to

16 you to analyze records to determine the — any calls

17 between Mr. Miller’s phone and Mr. Geragos’ cell

18 phone?

19 A. I’m having a slight problem with that,

20 because we did have the records. We simply set them

21 aside and did not use them with regard to the

22 Geragos records.

23 Q. And that was pursuant to the Court-ordered

24 search warrant that you requested; is that correct?

25 A. Right.

26 Q. So I think I used the word “have available

27 to analyze.”

28 A. I just want to clarify. They were sent, we 8524

1 just did not use them.

2 Q. Okay. All right. So what we have here —

3 it’s not a big thing, I just want to clarify this.

4 What we have here basically is the analysis of the

5 other records that — for which there are toll

6 records showing communications with this phone, but

7 not any phone numbers associated with Geragos?

8 A. Correct.

Prior to taking a break, the jury was excused from the courtroom so that the lawyers could address some issues before Judge Melville. First, because the prosecution quoted from Moslehi’s Bashir outtakes, the defense wanted to play the clip where Jackson mentions “Jesus Juice” in order to put it in its proper context. Second, the defense also wanted to play the police interview with Louise Palanker so that the jury could hear her statement about Janet Arvizo “seldom” her children, but Judge Melville denied both requests:

10 THE COURT: Can we take a break?

11 MR. SANGER: That would be fine. But, Your

12 Honor, we do need to address the Court on one matter

13 briefly before or after we take the break.

14 THE COURT: All right. Let’s let the jury go

15 ahead and take their break, I’ll remain a moment.

16 Officer, you may step down.

17

18 (The following proceedings were held in

19 open court outside the presence and hearing of the

20 jury:)

21

22 THE COURT: All right.

23 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I know this is the

24 fourth time, but I think you can see this coming.

25 The — what’s called the Hamid footage or the

26 outtakes footage that we had asked to play —

27 THE COURT: Yes.

28 MR. SANGER: — we now have — the 8525

1 government has now quoted from that footage, and

2 therefore we would ask to play the entire statement

3 to put that — those quotes in context.

4 And I know I’ve asked the Court before, and

5 I don’t mean to be rude.

6 THE COURT: I was just going to say, one more

7 time, if it’s the fourth time, you’re keeping track.

8 MR. SANGER: Yes.

9 THE COURT: Not in the People’s case.

10 MR. SANGER: Very well. I hope the Court

11 understands, there was a reason, because they quoted

12 from it.

13 THE COURT: Well, if you could isolate out

14 one piece that has to do with that one piece.

15 However, you have to remember that I watched all

16 those outtakes, and I know how many hours and how

17 much repetition is there.

18 MR. SANGER: Right.

19 THE COURT: So we’re not talking about

 

20 something I’m not totally familiar with. And if you

 

21 want to take the time to go and find the material

 

22 specifically that they’re relating to and show a

 

23 small portion that relates to that, that’s fine.

 

24 But that doesn’t give you license to play hours and

 

25 hours of that takeout — outtake, whatever it’s

 

26 called.

27 MR. SANGER: I think it’s like two hours and

28 45 minutes or something like that. 8526

1 THE COURT: Well, it seemed like — all

2 right.

3 MR. SANGER: The second one — I understand

4 what the Court said. And please, Your Honor,

5 understand we just learned this right now, that they

6 were going to quote that section. So I’ll have to

7 see if I can find it and maybe do it later.

8 The second thing I wanted to address is

 

9 there’s been now a quote from the Louise Palanker

 

10 tape. That is a shorter tape, and I do think it

 

11 would be appropriate to play that. That’s her

 

12 interview.

13 THE COURT: I don’t see that either. It’s up

14 to — if is there anything specific you want to

15 play, you know, in rebuttal to what they’ve just put

16 on, or if there’s some reason to play the whole tape

17 in your case, you may, but I’ll have to find out

18 what it is. But one — you know, just clarifying

19 that one word doesn’t call for the playing of the

20 whole tape.

21 MR. SANGER: So having moved, those are

22 denied and we’re on a break.

23 THE COURT: Yes.

24 MR. SANGER: All right. Thank you.

25 (Recess taken.)

26 –o0o–

27

28 8527

Upon returning from break, Sanger questioned Bonner about Moslehi’s Bashir outtakes that he watched and analyzed for the prosecution, and the police interview of Louise Palanker that was secretly recorded without Palanker’s knowledge or consent, and then he ended his cross examination.

1 THE COURT: Go ahead.

2 MR. SANGER: May I proceed? Okay.

3 Q. All right. We’re going to Point No. 2 of

4 your testimony, which was video footage that you

5 reviewed. And I think you established that you had

6 obtained this from the evidence bookings that

7 pertained to the Marc Schaffel residence; is that

8 correct?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. And what sheriff’s identification number was

11 on the item that you referred to?

12 A. Item 1316, 1-3-1-6.

13 Q. And Item 1316 is booked into sheriff’s

14 evidence, correct?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. And it remains booked into sheriff’s

17 evidence as we sit here right now, correct?

18 A. The original is, yes.

19 Q. The original. And you gave us a copy of

20 that, right?

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. And do you know if that’s the same as your

23 Sheriff’s Item 913, -10, -11 and -12?

24 A. I don’t know without reviewing materials.

25 Q. In any event, what you reviewed was — it

26 was a CD, or a DVD, or what?

27 A. The original, I believe, was either — it

28 was a cassette tape. I don’t recall if it was a 8533

1 Beta cassette tape or a regular cassette tape.

2 Q. Okay. And you provided that, a copy of

3 that, to us in the form of a DVD; is that right?

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. So the original is some kind of tape.

6 Now, what did you review? You didn’t review

7 a Beta cassette tape, did you?

8 A. I reviewed both, actually. I participated

9 in the process of changing it over to the DVD format

10 and watched it at that time.

11 Q. All right. But most recently when you

12 reviewed it for this quote that you — that you

13 recited on direct examination, did you review the

14 Beta cassette tape or the DVD?

15 A. The DVD.

16 Q. All right. And that’s because Beta cassette

17 tapes have to be played on some kind of a

18 professional machine; is that right?

19 A. Correct. And we only have one, and it’s in

20 Santa Barbara.

21 Q. All right. So to lay the foundation here

22 for something we’ll do in the future, I understand

23 that you will produce to the Court your Sheriff’s

24 Identification No. 1316, which is the original Beta

25 cassette tape; is that correct?

26 A. Correct.

27 Q. And then you have a DVD that is — how is

28 that labeled? 8534

1 A. It would be labeled “Item 1316,” and more

2 specifically the actual title that was on the

3 cassette tape in question.

4 Q. I’m sorry, I just want to make sure I’m

5 clear, and I’m not clear.

6 If we say at some future date we would like

7 to play this DVD that’s in sheriff’s evidence right

8 now, how do we refer to it? 1316, the DVD? Or is

9 there another number?

10 A. The most appropriate would be to say

11 Item 1316 and then also provide the title,

12 “MJ/Bashir, Summer 2003.”

13 Q. All right. So that’s what you reviewed.

14 Now, I understand you did not review

15 recently 913, -10, -11 and -12?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. Which were sheriff’s numbers. Did you ever

18 review those?

19 A. I may have. I’m not certain at this point.

20 Q. All right. And then going to your third

21 point, you referred to a Louise Palanker interview,

22 correct?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. And you and, I believe it was Detective

25 Zelis, were present during this interview; is that

26 correct?

27 A. That’s correct.

28 Q. And it was surreptitiously tape-recorded, 8535

 

 


 

1 correct?

 

2 A. Yes, it was.

3 Q. And how long did that interview last?

4 A. I believe it was approximately 40, 45

5 minutes in length.

6 Q. And that particular item is on a DVD; is

7 that right?

8 A. CD. Yes.

9 Q. CD. Was it recorded on a CD or —

10 A. It was recorded on a digital recorder and

11 downloaded into CD format.

12 Q. Okay. So the actual item that is Sheriff’s

13 Item 1790 is the original recording; is that

14 correct?

15 A. The CD recording.

16 Q. And that’s in sheriff’s evidence, booked

17 into sheriff’s evidence at the substation; is that

18 correct?

19 A. Right.

20 Q. And you — you agree to bring those to court

21 for whatever purpose we’ll use them in the future;

22 is that correct?

23 A. Absolutely.

24 MR. SANGER: All right. Thank you.

25 Based on that, I have no further questions,

26 Your Honor.

27 MR. SNEDDON: Nothing further.

28 THE COURT: All right. You may step down. 8536

1 MR. SNEDDON: Detective Robel.

2 THE COURT: You’re still under oath. You may

3 be seated.

The next prosecution witness was Detective Steve Robel, who was recalled in order to testify about his interview with Debbie Rowe. The prosecution tried to discredit Rowe’s testimony by having Robel confirm to the jury that Rowe didn’t mention Jackson’s good parenting skills, caring personality, or any other positive traits during her initial police interview. In fact, according to Robel, Rowe said that Jackson was a “sociopath” who viewed his children as “possessions”!

9 DIRECT EXAMINATION

10 BY MR. SNEDDON:

11 Q. Detective Robel, during the course of this

12 investigation, were you involved in an interview

13 with Debbie Rowe?

14 A. Yes, I was.

15 Q. And was that interview tape-recorded?

16 A. Yes, it was.

17 Q. And was it tape-recorded with her knowledge?

18 A. Yes, it was.

19 Q. And who else was present during the taping?

20 A. Lieutenant Klapakis.

21 Q. And do you recall where that took place?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Where was that?

24 A. In Los Angeles.

25 Q. Do you recall what day that took place?

26 A. I believe it was on March the 3rd, 2004.

27 Q. So over a year ago?

28 A. Yes. 8537

1 Q. All right. I’m going to ask you a few

2 questions about that interview. First of all, were

3 you asked to review that tape?

4 A. Yes, I was.

5 Q. And you were asked to review it in detail,

6 correct?

7 A. That’s correct.

8 Q. And did you do that?

9 A. Yes, I did.

10 Q. And when did you do that?

11 A. Yesterday.

12 Q. And did you compare it to a transcript?

13 A. Yes, I did.

14 Q. Now, during that conversation that you had

15 with Miss Rowe, did she at any time during the

16 course of that transcript describe the defendant as

17 a good parent?

18 A. No, she didn’t.

19 Q. At any time during that conversation that

20 you had with her over a year ago did she describe

21 him as a wonderful father?

22 A. No, she didn’t.

23 Q. At any time during the course of that

24 interview with her over a year ago, did she describe

25 him as a caring person?

26 A. No.

27 Q. And does she at any time during that

28 interview use the word “generous” to describe the 8538

1 defendant?

2 A. No.

3 Q. During the course of the conversation that

 

4 you had with Miss Rowe over a year ago, did she

 

5 express to you, during the course of that interview,

 

6 comments about her concerns of his parenting skills?

7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

8 THE COURT: Overruled.

9 THE WITNESS: Yes.

10 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: And in particular, what did

11 she say?

12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Opinion;

13 relevance.

14 THE COURT: Overruled.

15 You may answer.

16 THE WITNESS: She referred to Michael as a

 

17 sociopath and his children as being possessions.

18 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Did she at other points

19 during the conversation express any other areas of

20 concern —

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. — about the defendant and the children’s

23 relationship?

24 A. Yes, she did.

25 Q. How many different areas did she talk about?

 

26 Without going into the details of what she talked

 

27 about, the areas, how many areas of concern?

 

28 A. I recall there were three. 8539

1 Q. And did each one of those reflect negatively

2 upon the defendant’s parenting skills?

3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

4 THE COURT: Calls for a conclusion,

5 sustained.

6 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Were those three areas

7 discussed in the context of him being a good or a

8 bad parent?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And was it good or bad?

11 A. It was bad.

12 Q. During the course of the interview with

13 Miss Rowe, did you discuss the topic of whether or

14 not the comments that she made during the course of

15 her interview that was included in the Maury Povich

16 program were truthful?

17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

18 MR. SNEDDON: Let me rephrase that, Judge.

19 I need to rephrase it anyhow, to be correct.

20 Q. During the course of your interview with

21 Miss Rowe over a year ago, did you discuss with her

22 the topic of the truthfulness of her statements made

23 during the time — the nine-hour interview that

24 occurred at Mr. Schaffel’s house?

25 A. Yes, I did.

26 Q. And what did she say?

27 A. She told me that she had a plan since she

28 got divorced from Michael in 1999. 8540

1 Q. Did she tell you who made the plan up?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Who?

4 A. She and Mr. Jackson.

5 Q. Together?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And what was the plan?

8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance;

9 foundation.

10 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, this is

11 impeachment.

12 THE COURT: I’m going to sustain the

13 objection. I don’t understand how that question

14 could lead to an answer that would impeach something

15 she said in front of this jury.

16 MR. SNEDDON: That the comments were

17 truthful.

18 THE COURT: But that’s not the question

19 that’s been asked. You asked about a plan she had

20 with Mr. Jackson. So I’m sustaining the objection.

21 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Were you present during

 

22 Miss Rowe’s testimony here in court?

 

23 A. Yes, I was.

 

24 Q. And did you hear Miss Rowe testify about the

 

25 statements that she made during that nine-hour

 

26 interview?

 

27 A. Yes.

 

28 Q. And you heard her testify that those 8541

 

1 statements were — were truthful in court?

 

2 A. Correct.

 

3 Q. Now, did you have a conversation with Miss

 

4 Rowe over a year ago when she told you about the

 

5 comments — about the same comments that she made in

 

6 court here and whether they were truthful or not?

 

7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Misstates the

 

8 evidence, leading, and vague.

 

9 MR. SNEDDON: Let me rephrase it, Judge.

 

10 I might be able to solve the problem.

 

11 Q. During your conversation with Miss Rowe, did

 

12 she say anything to you that was inconsistent with

 

13 her statement in this courtroom that those

 

14 statements were true when she made them on the film?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. What did she say?

 

17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Calls for a

 

18 narrative; vague.

 

19 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

20 THE WITNESS: She said that she and Mr.

 

21 Jackson, when they got divorced, that they had a

 

22 plan —

 

23 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Same objection as

 

24 before. He’s trying to answer the same question,

 

25 Your Honor.

 

26 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

27 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. You told us all

 

28 about the plan. Tell us what she said after the 8542

 

1 plan.

 

2 A. She said she —

 

3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague.

 

4 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

5 You may answer.

 

6 THE WITNESS: That she stuck with her plan

 

7 to talk positive about Mr. Jackson, as she’s done

 

8 throughout news conferences that she’s had since

 

9 they were divorced.

10 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Did she indicate to you

11 during this conversation whether those statements

12 were true or false?

13 A. Yes, she did.

14 Q. What did she say?

15 A. And she says that they were false.

To be continued: https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/may-3rd-2005-trial-analysis-david-saunders-jeff-klapakis-craig-bonner-paul-zelis-steve-robel-john-obryan-john-duross-rudy-provencio-part-2-of-4/

Advertisements
2 Comments leave one →
  1. not again permalink
    July 9, 2014 10:58 pm

    This part:
    1 Q. And did you review a — some footage of a –
    2 that was filmed between Mr. Jackson and Mr. Bashir
    3 having a conversation?
    4 A. Yes, I did. I should clarify that that
    5 actually came from Schaffel’s residence.
    6 Q. Oh, okay. It came from Mr. Schaffel’s
    7 residence?
    8 A. Correct.
    9 Q. All right. So you reviewed that item?
    10 A. Yes.
    11 Q. And what is the item number of that
    12 associated with the sheriff’s investigation?
    13 A. Item No. 1360.
    14 Q. And during the course of that conversation,
    15 or during the course of the review of that, did you
    16 actually see Mr. Jackson having a conversation with
    17 Mr. Bashir?
    18 A. I did.
    19 Q. And did the subject of flying come up during
    20 that conversation?
    21 A. It did.
    22 Q. And during the course of that conversation
    23 between Mr. Bashir and Mr. Jackson, did you hear
    24 anything said by Mr. Jackson with regard to alcohol?
    25 A. I did.
    26 Q. What did Mr. Jackson say?
    27 A. I’ll go ahead and read it from my report. I
    28 quoted it. Mr. Jackson’s statement was, “You don’t 8516
    1 have, like, a little bit of Jesus Juice, a little
    2 bit of wine.”
    3 Q. Now, was there anywhere else on that video
    4 that you reviewed that the term “Jesus Juice” was
    5 used by anybody else?
    6 A. No.

    , doesnt prove anything other than MJ used that phrase freely in front of many people, including Bashir, who was interviewing him.
    This was no secret terminology. between him and Gavin

    Michael didnt want his small children to see him having drinks., on an airplane, .
    He didnt care if the Arvizo kid saw him having drinking Jesus juice..
    Those kids werent his responsibility to raise.
    The idea that DA and police have that this is significant , is ridiculous.
    Its like someone testifying that , the only person , they heard use the phrase Shamone , was MJ, so it is some kind of secret

Trackbacks

  1. May 2nd, 2005 Trial Analysis: Beverly Wagner, Craig Bonner, and Paul Zelis, Part 2 of 2 | Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0

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: