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
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
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,
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
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,
7 And if I may use the Elmo again, Your Honor.
8 Is that the chart for Monday, March 3rd of
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
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!
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.
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
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,
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
18 A. Yes, I believe we did.
19 Q. Was it a personal call or was it a telephone
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
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
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!
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
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,
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
23 Q. Did he go down to investigate and take
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
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
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
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
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
24 A. I have some knowledge of the investigation,
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,
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,
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
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,
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
22 Q. Every single one doing business in
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
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
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.
14 A. I interviewed Miss Palanker.
15 Q. Do you recall when that interview had
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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!
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
14 A. I didn’t deliver it, but I would assume this
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,
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
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,
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
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,
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
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,
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
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.
18 (The following proceedings were held in
19 open court outside the presence and hearing of the
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
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
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
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.)
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
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,
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. And you and, I believe it was Detective
25 Zelis, were present during this interview; is that
27 A. That’s correct.
28 Q. And it was surreptitiously tape-recorded, 8535
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
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
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,
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
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;
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
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,
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;
10 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, this is
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
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
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
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/