Skip to content

May 4th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Rudy Provencio (Direct & Cross Examination), Part 4 of 4

August 11, 2014

In this excerpt, Provencio testified about his conversations with Cindy Montgomery about the surreptitiously recorded video of Jackson and his attorney Mark Geragos on their flight from Las Vegas to Santa Barbara, where he was to be arrested and formerly charged:

 

28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You mentioned someone 8892

1 named Stuart Backerman, right?

2 A. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

3 Q. And when did you first meet Stuart

4 Backerman?

5 A. When he was hired to come on for the “What

6 More Can I Give?” project. Or was it — no, he was

7 hired for the — for when he — he came on — excuse

8 me. He came on when Ronald brought him on to work

9 on the — the — kind of the fall-out of the Martin

10 Bashir thing. That’s when I believe he started

11 working.

12 Q. Did you work with him directly?

13 A. Yeah, he was in the office.

14 Q. How long did you work with him?

15 A. Couple months. Well, not really. I mean,

16 probably a month and a half maybe.

17 Q. Now, in your notebook, you have phone

18 numbers and fax numbers for Access Hollywood?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. MTV?

21 A. Uh-huh.

22 Q. Entertainment Tonight?

23 A. Uh-huh.

24 Q. Have you ever talked to anyone associated

25 with those organizations?

26 A. Yeah, they call — they were all calling us.

27 Q. About the case?

28 A. About the case? 8893

1 Q. Yes.

2 A. Not me. Marc did. But I just kept the

3 phone calls because they called in.

4 Q. Did you listen in on any of Marc’s calls to

5 the media?

6 A. A few of them. Like when he was — like I

7 said, he would have it on speakerphone, and you

8 would just sit there and you would just listen.

9 Q. Did you ever become aware of Marc’s efforts

10 to sell any information about Michael Jackson to the

11 media?

12 MR. ZONEN: Assuming facts not in evidence.

13 Objection.

14 THE COURT: Sustained.

15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember discussing

16 with Cindy Montgomery the possibility that she

17 secretly videotaped Michael Jackson on an Xtra Jet

18 flight?

19 A. Did I talk to her about it?

20 Q. Yes.

21 A. I just — I don’t remember it. But probably

22 did.

23 Q. Did you have a number of discussions with

 

24 Cindy Montgomery about the claim that she had

 

25 secretly videotaped Michael Jackson on an Xtra Jet

 

26 flight?

 

27 MR. ZONEN: Assuming facts not in evidence,

 

28 that she had secretly videotaped anyone. 8894

1 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember learning

 

3 about that issue?

 

4 A. Yes.

 

5 MR. ZONEN: Objection; vague. What issue?

 

6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Cindy Montgomery

 

7 videotaping Michael Jackson on an Xtra Jet flight.

 

8 Do you remember learning about that subject?

 

9 MR. ZONEN: Objection; assuming facts not in

 

10 evidence.

 

11 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever tell anyone

 

13 you thought Cindy Montgomery secretly videotaped

 

14 Michael Jackson on a flight?

 

15 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as

 

16 irrelevant; assumes facts not in evidence.

 

17 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

18 MR. ZONEN: And hearsay.

 

19 THE COURT: Overruled.

 

20 THE WITNESS: I don’t remember.

21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember talking

22 with her about that subject?

23 A. Of her videotaping?

24 Q. The claim that she had.

25 A. That she — what the news was reporting?

26 Q. Yes.

27 A. Yeah, I brought it up to her. I believe so.

28 Q. Did you ever tell anyone you thought she had 8895

1 done it?

2 A. I was uncertain.

3 Q. To your knowledge, how long had Cindy

4 Montgomery been friendly with Marc Schaffel?

5 A. Well, I found out many things, but I found

6 out that —

7 MR. ZONEN: Judge, I’m going to object.

8 Lack of foundation, personal knowledge, and hearsay.

9 THE COURT: Foundation; sustained.

10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: How many phone calls of

11 Cindy Montgomery — excuse me. How many phone

12 conversations with Cindy Montgomery did you record?

13 MR. ZONEN: That was asked and answered.

14 Objection.

15 THE COURT: Sustained.

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did anyone from the

 

17 sheriff’s department ask you to record a phone

 

18 conversation with Cindy Montgomery?

 

19 A. No. But like I said, it just came on, so it

 

20 was an accident. I acknowledge that.

 

21 Q. It was a what?

 

22 A. It was an accident. I acknowledge that.

 

23 Q. Okay. It was an accident that you recorded

 

24 her?

 

25 A. It was an accident that the thing — I

 

26 didn’t mean to record her.

 

27 Q. Okay. And how many times did you record her

 

28 in total, do you think? 8896

1 A. I think once or twice, because I wouldn’t

2 get to the thing and pick it up right away.

3 Q. Okay. And was this at your home?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Were you recording these phone conversations

6 out of your home?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Okay. Did the sheriffs give you some

9 equipment to use to record those conversations?

10 A. I went and got it.

11 Q. Yourself?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Had you ever done that before you began to

14 work with the sheriffs in this investigation?

15 A. Huh-uh.

16 Q. Did they tell you what equipment to buy?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Did you already know what kind of equipment

19 to buy for that purpose?

20 A. I just walked into Radio Shack.

21 Q. And when was that?

22 A. I don’t recall.

23 Q. You used to discuss entertainment projects

24 with Cindy Montgomery, right?

25 A. Correct.

26 Q. And why did you do that?

27 A. Because she had some good ideas.

28 Q. Was she involved with you in any 8897

1 entertainment projects?

2 A. Oh, yeah, we worked on Michael’s party

3 together.

4 Q. And when was that?

5 A. September of ‘03.

6 Q. Was that a party at Neverland?

7 A. Yes. The Romero-Britto party.

8 Q. And you worked with Cindy Montgomery on

9 that?

10 A. We did the — we did the thing for the

11 raffle, yes.

12 Q. And that was a charitable function?

13 A. I hope so. But, yes.

14 Q. It was a charitable function, correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Schaffel was involved in that, correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And you were working for Schaffel at that

19 time, right?

20 A. Well, no, I was working for Neverland Valley

21 Entertainment.

22 Q. And this was when, September of 2003?

23 A. Yes. They had asked me to — to — if I

24 would be willing to do another fund-raising thing

25 and basically — and help Michael raise some money.

26 And I thought maybe that might be a good idea.

27 Q. Were you suspicious at the time that the

28 money might not go to charity? 8898

1 A. Well, I was uncertain, but — I don’t want

2 to think the worst, but —

3 Q. Did you keep working for Neverland Valley

4 after that date?

5 A. No.

6 Q. You didn’t work after September of 2003?

7 A. Oh, September 2003. Neverland Valley

8 Entertainment, getting a check?

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. No.

11 Q. When was this event that you just described?

12 A. It was in September.

13 Q. Of what year?

14 A. I think 2003. 2003 or 2004. Maybe I’m

15 wrong. I have a reference here. May I look at it?

16 Q. Sure.

17 A. Okay.

18 Q. Just looking for that day.

19 A. Yes. Yes, September 13th, 2003.

20 Q. And that was how long after you were

21 relieved that the family escaped?

22 A. It was a while.

23 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as asked and

24 answered and argumentative.

25 THE COURT: Sustained.

26 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember telling

27 Cindy Montgomery in a recorded phone conversation

28 regarding the Debbie Rowe interview that it was a 8899

1 sheet full of questions, in reference — referring

2 to the script? Do you remember that?

3 A. Yes, there was — there was a few, in the

4 beginning, a sheet full of questions, and then it

5 turned into having answers on it.

6 Q. All right.

7 A. It wasn’t just one piece of paper, ever.

8 Q. During the time you worked with Marc

9 Schaffel, how many times do you remember him going

10 to Brazil?

11 A. Quite a few times.

12 Q. And over —

13 A. Four, five times, maybe.

14 Q. Over what period of time would that have

15 been?

16 A. Over a couple of years, that I knew of.

17 Q. To your knowledge, did Cindy Montgomery book

18 his trips to Brazil?

19 A. To my knowledge, yes.

20 Q. Do you know when you first talked to her?

21 A. About?

22 Q. Anything.

23 A. Probably not until the “What More Can I

24 Give?” project. Probably June, June 2001, when she

25 would call at the office.

Provencio told police additional information that was exculpatory, yet the prosecution went ahead and continued to insist that Jackson was the kingpin of the entire conspiracy. During his police interviews, Provencio repeatedly said that Jackson wasn’t told everything by everyone, and was outside of the loop on many important facts regarding the Arvizos:

26 Q. Do you remember giving the sheriffs your

27 handwritten notes about the taping of the Arvizos —

28 A. Right. 8900

1 Q. — where you said you saw the script

2 yourself. Questions only, no answers?

3 A. Yes. I wrote that.

4 Q. You gave those notes to the police, correct?

5 A. Right.

6 Q. You were referring to the taping of the

7 Arvizos, right?

8 A. Correct. And then later on, I believe, in

9 the notes I make another remark about it.

10 Q. Were you there during the taping of the

11 Arvizos?

12 A. No. That was at Hamid’s place.

13 Q. Did you ever meet Jay Jackson?

14 A. No.

15 Q. To your knowledge, has Ian Drew been

16 speaking to Marc Schaffel as of late?

17 A. No. They don’t like each other.

18 Q. Did they ever work together, to your

19 knowledge?

20 A. Yeah, on the Debbie Rowe rebuttal.

21 Q. Did they work on any other projects

22 together, to your knowledge?

23 A. The — the one that was — they were at,

24 which was the Debbie Rowe rebuttal. I think there

25 was something else, but — I think there was

26 something in regards to —

27 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object to lack of

28 foundation, unless it’s based on personal knowledge. 8901

1 THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation.

2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, you mentioned hearing

3 some conversations that involved Mark Geragos,

4 right?

5 A. Correct. He would call the office.

6 Q. Did you used to speak to Mark Geragos?

7 A. No, I didn’t speak to him.

8 Q. Ever spoken to him?

9 A. Just when he called the office.

10 Q. And did you ever actually have a

11 conversation with him?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Do you recognize his voice if you hear it?

14 A. It’s pretty distinctive, but —

15 Q. Did you ever listen in on any discussions

16 that Marc Schaffel had with Mark Geragos?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Well, in your response to the prosecutor’s

19 questions, you, I think, gave a number of how many

20 times you had — you recall Geragos calling

21 Schaffel, right?

22 A. Uh-huh.

23 Q. And how many times do you recall Geragos

24 calling Schaffel?

25 A. Well, he called quite a bit. When he —

26 Marc said that he only talked to him twice, but I

27 know he was calling often when Vinnie was there.

28 Q. Did you hear anything that Mark Geragos ever 8902

1 said in those conversations?

2 A. Just updates.

3 Q. You heard him giving updates?

4 A. No, he — he — Vinnie was giving him

5 updates.

6 Q. Could you hear Vinnie but not Geragos? Is

7 that the way it worked?

8 A. Well, yeah.

9 Q. Were you in the room?

10 A. And then he would hang up, and I would go,

11 “Who was that?” And he would go, “Oh, just Mark

12 Geragos.”

13 Q. Were you in the room listening to Vinnie

14 speak to Mr. Geragos?

15 A. Well, sometimes it’s — well, it’s an

16 office, so if you’re on the fax machine or you’re on

17 the computer, you can hear people talking. So —

18 Q. Could you hear what Vinnie was saying?

19 A. Well, you could hear Vinnie, yes.

20 Q. Did you listen to his conversations with

21 Mark Geragos?

22 A. I heard the conversation in a work setting.

23 Q. And was this one conversation?

24 A. No, there were a couple.

25 Q. And where did they take place?

26 A. At Neverland Valley Entertainment.

27 Q. Have you ever met Mark Geragos?

28 A. Huh-uh. 8903

1 MR. MESEREAU: Let me take just one second.

2 THE COURT: Yes.

3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You took notes — excuse

4 me. You’ve been writing notes about this case

5 almost up till the present, right?

6 A. Practically, uh-huh.

7 Q. And do you do this on a daily basis?

8 A. No.

9 Q. How often do you do it?

10 MR. ZONEN: Objection; asked and answered.

11 THE COURT: Sustained.

12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever tell any

 

13 representative of the sheriff’s department that

 

14 Dieter didn’t tell Michael Jackson everything?

 

15 A. None of them told everybody everything,

 

16 so — that’s an accurate statement, you know,

 

17 because they had their own deal — oops, sorry.

 

18 They had their own deals they would do, and if they

 

19 weren’t part of Michael, I don’t think they would

 

20 tell him.

21 Q. During the time you worked with Neverland

22 Valley, was it your perception that Schaffel was

23 working closely with Dieter and Konitzer?

24 A. And Michael, yes.

25 Q. Well, but you’ve made — excuse me. But

26 you’ve told the police that you didn’t think Michael

27 Jackson knew what they were doing, correct?

28 A. No, not what they were doing. Not every 8904

1 thing. There’s a difference.

2 Q. Do you recall anyone in the sheriff’s

3 department ever giving you a police report to read

4 and make corrections to?

5 A. Oh, I’m — yes, I made corrections.

6 Q. And when did you do that, if you remember?

7 A. One of the meetings.

8 Q. Pardon me?

9 A. One of the meetings.

10 Q. Do you know who you were meeting with?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Who were you meeting with?

13 A. Gordon and Steve — or was it — oh, it was

14 Gordon. It was Jeff Klapakis.

15 Q. And where did that meeting take place?

16 A. In their office.

17 Q. And did someone give you a police report

18 about your interview to look at?

19 A. At that time?

20 Q. Yes.

21 A. No. They gave me a police report to look at

22 later.

23 Q. When was that?

24 A. And I made corrections.

25 Q. When was that?

26 A. You know what? Honestly I don’t know.

27 Q. Were you given a copy of a police report

28 about a past interview you’d had for you to correct? 8905

1 A. Yes. Some of the words, like my name was

2 misspelled and other things like that. Plus, I’d

3 been getting phone threats, and I wanted to make

4 sure they knew that I had been getting some phone

5 threats lately.

6 Q. Well, my question is this: Who gave you a

7 police report from a past interview to look at and

8 make corrections?

9 A. Gordon.

10 Q. Gordon Auchincloss?

11 A. Yes, sir.

12 Q. All right. Did you do what he asked you to

13 do?

14 A. He said to look it over, “Are these things

15 spelled right? Are these things right?” And I did.

16 Q. And when did that meeting take place?

17 A. I told you, I don’t exactly remember.

18 Q. Was it recently?

19 A. No. It was a while — a while ago. Maybe a

20 couple months ago, yeah.

21 Q. A couple of months ago?

22 A. Yeah, probably a couple months ago.

23 Q. And what report were you — excuse me. The

24 report that Mr. Auchincloss gave you to look at —

25 A. Uh-huh.

26 Q. — concerned an interview that was very old,

27 did it not?

28 A. Yeah. Like I said to you prior, that, you 8906

1 know, when that interview was taking place, I was

2 very nervous, and I could expand on certain things a

3 little bit better, bring clarity to it.

4 Q. And is that what you and Mr. Auchincloss

5 discussed the purpose of your looking at that report

6 was?

7 A. No, he just said correct the spelling, and

8 if there’s something that’s totally wrong, just make

9 a mark on it.

10 Q. This is a report about an interview that had

11 happened a long time ago, correct?

12 MR. ZONEN: Objection; asked and answered.

13 THE COURT: Sustained.

Here is another example of the malicious motives that the prosecutors had in their hearts during their investigation, and how it affected their objectivity: in this excerpt, Provencio admits that he added Jackson’s name to a report that was based on a prior interview of his, in which he stated that he though Schaffel, Weizner, and Konitzer were doing things he thought was “wrong”. Provencio denied being told that he was told to add Jackson’s name, and insisted that he added it on his own initiative, well over a year after that particular interview. Sure……

14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember looking at

 

15 that report of your prior interview where you talked

 

16 about Schaffel and Dieter and Konitzer doing things

 

17 you thought were wrong?

 

18 A. Yeah. I always thought that.

 

19 Q. And while you were sitting with Prosecutor

 

20 Auchincloss, you decided to add the name “Michael

 

21 Jackson,” right?

 

22 A. No. God, no.

 

23 Q. Did you ever add “Michael Jackson” to any

 

24 report that he gave you to correct?

 

25 A. I added — added “Michael Jackson.” Yes, I

 

26 added “Michael Jackson,” because that’s what I knew

 

27 from those two conference calls. That’s it.

 

28 Q. He wanted you to add the name “Michael 8907

1 Jackson” because it didn’t appear in your original

 

2 interview, right?

 

3 A. No, he didn’t want me to add it.

 

4 Q. Well, that’s what you did, isn’t it?

 

5 A. I added it, because it was correct.

6 Q. So you were correcting a statement you made

 

7 well over a year ago where you said Schaffel,

 

8 Konitzer and Dieter were doing incorrect things?

 

9 A. Uh-huh.

 

10 Q. And suddenly, right before the trial, you

 

11 handwrote in an additional name, Michael Jackson,

 

12 right?

 

13 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as

 

14 argumentative; and narrative in the questioning.

 

15 THE COURT: Sustained.

 

16 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions at this

 

17 time, Your Honor.

18 Just one second, Your Honor. I’ve got a

19 bunch of stuff to move.

20 Thank you.

Under redirect examination, Zonen did damage control by having Provencio deny that he had ever changed his story to help the prosecution, and in doing so Provencio contradicted himself by stating that he thought Jackson had knowledge of what was going on with the Arvizos, based on a conversation that he overheard:

22 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

23 BY MR. ZONEN:

24 Q. Mr. Provencio, did anybody in law

 

25 enforcement ever ask you to change your testimony?

 

26 A. No.

 

27 Q. Did anybody in law enforcement ever ask you

 

28 to create facts to help this prosecution? 8908

 

1 A. Absolutely not.

 

2 Q. Would you have done such a thing?

 

3 A. No.

 

4 Q. Did Mr. Auchincloss ever ask you to change

5 any of the factual content in your report?

 

6 A. No.

7 Q. What exactly did he ask you to do with

8 regards to that report?

9 A. Look it over, make sure things are right,

10 that they’re spelled right. And my name was even

11 spelled wrong. And I didn’t give a taped recording,

12 so I know it was kind of handwritten-note-driven and

13 there was things missing. Because if you’re not

14 tape-recorded, then it can’t be like a transcript

15 form.

16 Q. And did you make changes on that report?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. All right. Did you believe that there was a

19 statement that missed Mr. Jackson’s name that should

20 have been included?

21 A. Yes. That’s why.

22 Q. What was it that you believed that Mr.

23 Jackson’s name should have been included on?

24 A. That he knew what was going on along with

25 everyone else, he knew what was happening.

26 Q. What did you base that on?

27 A. The conversation I heard.

28 Q. You had had many conversations with Mr. 8909

1 Jackson over the two years you worked for Neverland

2 Valley Entertainment; is that correct?

3 A. Not tons and tons, but many, yes.

4 Q. And had overheard many conversations that he

5 had with Mr. Schaffel?

6 A. That’s correct.

7 Q. Did you — was it your experience that Mr.

 

8 Jackson was actively involved in his own businesses?

 

9 A. He’s a brilliant businessman. He knows

 

10 what’s going on.

11 Q. And he would ask questions frequently?

12 A. He wanted updates.

Next, Zonen tried to get clarification about the altered passage from Provencio’s notes:

13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

14 THE COURT: Overruled.

15 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Do you have the notebook with

16 you that contains that note that you wrote on —

17 that is dated February 1, ‘03?

18 A. May I look?

19 Q. Please.

20 A. Okay. In regards to the conference call?

21 Q. It was a note that was shown to you by Mr.

22 Mesereau.

23 Could I approach the witness?

24 THE COURT: Yes.

25 THE WITNESS: Yes.

26 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Do you have that with you?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. Would you pull it out, please? 8910

1 A. Okay. Oh, here it is. Is it this one?

2 Yeah.

3 Q. Those are the original notes; is that

4 correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And may I take a look at it?

7 A. Sure.

8 Q. Now, you — are these the notes that you

9 refer to as the ones that went into a storage

10 locker?

11 A. Yes. And I have the storage locker thing to

12 show that that’s when I found them.

13 Q. Would this be the front of the notebook

14 here?

15 A. Yeah. It looks juvenile, but, yeah.

16 Q. That’s all right. We have “N-V-E” —

17 A. Right.

18 Q. — in kind of block letters. Is that

19 Neverland Valley Entertainment?

20 A. Right.

21 Q. All right. Now, as we proceed to the

22 section that has February 1, ‘03 — and you see that

23 page right here; is that correct?

24 A. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

25 Q. Now, let’s back up one, two pages.

26 A. Uh-huh.

27 Q. And this would be closer to the front of the

28 notebook; is that correct? 8911

1 A. Right.

2 Q. And here we have a date, February 17, ‘03?

3 A. Uh-huh.

4 Q. Can you explain how that is, that you have

 

5 an entry from February 17 closer to the front of the

 

6 notebook and this reference that Mr. Mesereau talked

 

7 to you about, February 1, ‘03, two full pages

 

8 beyond? How is that?

 

9 A. Well, my notebook’s random. I doodle in it.

 

10 I mean, I flick — open a page that’s open, and I

 

11 just write. Then there’s — it’s on both sides.

 

12 I’ve got horrible drawings, and that’s what —

 

13 that’s what my notebook is. It’s for me and my eyes

 

14 only, so it’s not really meant for other people to

 

15 see and care about it.

16 Q. I guess the question, then, is this: Should

17 we assume that the order in which we see the pages

18 is the order in which they’re entered?

19 A. Oh, no. For — if it’s — if the first page

20 is supposed to be January 1st and then the third

21 page, you know, or second page January 2nd, no, it’s

22 not written like a diary.

23 It’s written like a notebook would, from an

24 office. You just scribble on whatever you scribble

25 on. This is the notebook I just carried around.

26 Q. Now, this notebook ended up in a storage

27 locker; is that correct?

28 A. Yes. 8912

1 THE COURT: All right. We’ll take our break.

2 (Recess taken.)

3 MR. ZONEN: May I proceed?

4 THE COURT: Yes.

5 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: I’d like to go back to a

6 couple more inquiries about that notation in your

7 notebook that includes the reference to —

8 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Turn your microphone on,

9 sir.

10 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Let me go back to that

11 notation in your notes of February 1, ‘03. You had

12 testified as to the paragraph that was right after

13 February 1, ‘03, and then another paragraph that

14 followed after that, “Family in danger.”

15 A. Uh-huh.

16 Q. “Who are these killers? Nobody but the

17 press are calling.”

18 A. Uh-huh.

19 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not

 

20 that paragraph was written on February 1, ‘03?

 

21 A. Well, like I said to Mr. Mesereau, that’s a

 

22 different paragraph with the slant going different,

 

23 and it’s a different kind of writing. I have

 

24 different style writing, and like I showed

 

25 everybody, including Mr. Mesereau, I scribble and

 

26 write all over the place.

 

27 Q. Okay. But the question is, do you have an

 

28 opinion as to whether that paragraph was written on 8913

 

 


 

1 a day other than February 1, ‘03?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 Q. Okay. What is that opinion?

 

4 A. I just — I just wrote it as I heard it, and

 

5 it was later.

 

6 Q. At a later time?

 

7 A. Yeah.

8 Q. Do you have any way of knowing how much

9 later that was?

10 A. Not unless I put a date on it.

11 Q. And you didn’t put a date on it on this

12 occasion?

13 A. Huh-uh.

14 Q. Is your handwriting different in that

15 paragraph than the paragraph that precedes it, the

16 paragraph directly above it?

17 A. Yes, as in all — my whole book I have

18 different styles of writing based on urgency. And

19 if I take my time, I really write well, and if I

20 don’t, it looks like chicken scratch.

21 Q. Let’s go to the paragraph above it. There’s

22 some reference to Mexicans in that, and there are a

23 few references in your notes to that, correct?

24 A. Yes. Yes.

25 Q. When did you first hear that reference to

26 Mexicans?

27 A. It was when the family first came to the —

28 Neverland Valley Entertainment and Gavin came in and 8914

1 went down to the bathroom.

2 Q. All right. Was that after the 1st of

3 February?

4 A. That was — yeah, that would have been after

5 the 1st, but I had heard — I had heard them talk

6 about them —

7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Reference to

8 “them.”

9 THE COURT: Sustained.

10 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Who are you talking about,

11 “them”?

12 A. The family.

13 Q. The Arvizo family?

14 A. Yeah.

15 Q. All right. When was the first time you

 

16 heard Marc Schaffel speak in a derogatory fashion

 

17 about the Arvizo family?

 

18 A. Well, unfortunately, Marc is catty and spoke

 

19 in derogatory terms about everybody. And so the

 

20 first time, I think, was actually in January. But I

 

21 don’t think I wrote it down till later. You know,

 

22 not right when he said it, but when I heard it the

 

23 next time, I wrote it down.

24 Q. Were you hearing conversation from Marc

25 Schaffel about the Arvizo family as soon as you had

26 read the transcript that was delivered to you by

27 Kathryn Milofsky?

28 A. Yes. Oh, absolutely. 8915

1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

2 THE COURT: Sustained.

3 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: When did you first start

4 hearing commentary from Marc Schaffel about the

5 Arvizo family?

6 A. That day.

7 Q. What day?

8 A. The 24th of January.

9 Q. And the 24th of January was —

10 A. I believe it was the 24th of January.

11 Q. Was what?

12 A. Oh — oh, ‘03.

13 Q. When you received the transcript?

14 A. Right.

15 Q. Did the commentary from Mr. Schaffel about

16 the Arvizo family change over time?

17 A. Well, the —

18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague.

19 THE COURT: Sustained.

20 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: You told us that at some

21 stage they were speaking favorably of the Arvizo

22 family?

23 A. Right.

24 Q. Who is “they”?

25 A. Vinnie, Frank, Marc, you know, because Marc

26 had already started talking to — he had been

27 speaking to Frank for a while, trying to ingratiate

28 himself back into Michael’s world and stuff. And he 8916

1 was informed from Ronald and Dieter, and this is

2 what Marc had told me, that there was this family

3 that the boy had cancer. And so they were

4 wonderful, good people at that time. And so I heard

5 that early on.

6 Q. Did they discuss the family in a religious

7 context?

8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

9 THE COURT: Overruled.

10 You may answer.

11 THE WITNESS: Yes.

12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What did they say?

 

13 A. They were deeply religious, so — Catholic I

 

14 believe is what he said.

 

15 Q. Now, you’ve mentioned the term “crack

 

16 whore.”

 

17 A. Oh, yeah.

18 Q. And who used that term?

19 A. They all did.

20 Q. When?

21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection.

22 THE COURT: Sustained.

23 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Who are “all,” if that

24 sentence is even close to permissible?

25 A. Vinnie, Frank, Marc.

26 Q. I’m sorry?

27 A. Vinnie, Frank and Marc.

28 Q. Vinnie, Frank and Marc all used that term? 8917

1 A. Yeah. I double-checked, and I said, “Did

2 you see them smoke crack? On the ranch?” See, that

3 didn’t make any sense.

4 Q. Did anybody acknowledge actually seeing

 

5 anybody in the Arvizo family smoking crack?

 

6 A. No.

 

7 Q. Did you confront each of them with that?

 

8 A. Yeah, I asked them, because it just sounded

 

9 stupid.

 

10 Q. Did all three of them use that expression?

 

11 A. Yeah, they said that, “Oh, well, no, Marc

 

12 told me they were using crack.” And then, “No,

 

13 Frank told me she was using.”

 

14 And I was like, “Oh, whatever.” So it was

 

15 like —

 

16 Q. Did they say who in the Arvizo family was

 

17 using crack?

 

18 A. The mom.

19 Q. The reference on that note on February 1,

20 ‘03, to “Mom flipping out,” who was it who told you

21 that?

22 A. Marc did.

23 Q. Did he —

24 A. Because — oh. Sorry.

25 Q. Did he give you any other information about

26 that?

27 A. No, not really, because I don’t know what

28 she was flipping out about. I mean, she was kind 8918

1 of — as I said, she was kind of cuckoo, so it could

2 have been anything, I guess.

3 Q. And the reference to the subsequent

4 paragraph where it says, “Who are these killers?

5 Nobody but the press are calling” —

6 A. Uh-huh.

7 Q. — what does that mean, “Nobody but the

8 press are calling”?

9 A. Well, the 24th transcript comes, and the

10 press are already calling. They want to ingratiate

11 themselves to either Marc or whoever.

12 That’s the game. You know, you get there

13 first. You’re buddy-buddy.

14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; nonresponsive.

15 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did anybody from the press

16 mention anything about killers?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Did you receive any telephone calls from

19 people voicing threats against anyone?

20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

21 THE COURT: Overruled.

22 You may answer.

23 THE WITNESS: I never — I never heard any

24 threats coming in.

25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you know anything about

26 threats at all —

27 A. Huh-uh.

28 Q. — other than these statements about 8919

1 killers?

2 A. I was hearing about this. That’s why I

3 wrote it down. I was like, “What the hell? What

4 are the killers?”

5 Q. The conversation you had with Ian Drew where

6 the word “escape” came in, when was that

7 conversation?

8 A. Gosh. A while ago.

9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; assumes facts not

10 in evidence.

11 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer is in.

12 Next question.

Provencio was questioned again about the undercover informant work he did for the prosecution during their investigation:

13 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you begin recording

14 conversations with people prior to the involvement

15 of law enforcement?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Why did you record telephone conversations?

 

18 A. Well, I — everybody had been doing so much

 

19 shady crap, and I just was like — I was just tired

 

20 of it, you know. I was just tired, because it was

 

21 involving me still and ruining my career, and I just

 

22 figured, “You know what? I’m just going to do this

 

23 for the right people and I am going to do it.”

 

24 And, you know, I hem-hawed for a long time,

 

25 because I knew it would really — in Hollywood, that

 

26 would ruin your career.

27 Q. What do you mean by that?

28 A. Well, it’s — you know, it’s — you don’t 8920

1 want people to think that of you. But I did it

2 because I made a choice. You know, like I even told

3 my father on his deathbed. He said, you know, “You

4 have to live your life without regret.”

5 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive;

6 move to strike.

7 THE COURT: As to the last sentence, I’ll

8 strike it.

9 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Do you believe there’s going

10 to be a consequence for you in your profession for

11 having cooperated with law enforcement?

12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for

13 speculation.

14 THE COURT: Sustained.

15 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Have you had a consequence to

16 your profession because of your involvement in this

17 case?

18 A. Oh, yeah.

19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; calls

20 for speculation.

21 THE COURT: Sustained.

Here are questions about his LLC:

22 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What is Steal the Stage, LLC?

23 A. It was a company that basically Vinnie,

24 Marc — and I don’t remember if Frank was involved

25 or not, like I said before, but we decided that

26 maybe we should open an LLC. It was in the office.

27 It was early, whatever, but — so that we could

28 possibly do other things outside the realm of 8921

1 Michael Jackson. Not just use Michael Jackson’s

2 name for things, but do our own things.

3 Q. Did you ever begin working on such a thing?

4 A. No. Nothing ever happened with it.

5 Q. Was there any project that had ever actually

6 been commenced?

7 A. No.

8 Q. What did you mean by the statement “making

9 money off or with Michael Jackson” in reference to

10 Marc Schaffel?

11 A. Well, they would use his name to, you know,

12 make money. I mean, they would — you know, some

13 things he was included and did things with, and then

14 some things, you know, Marc was doing his own thing.

15 So —

16 Q. Like what?

17 A. You know, like him and Dieter wanted to put

18 out some book. You know, it was a table — coffee

19 table book or something. And it had Michael’s

20 authorization, but they were kind of doing it. You

21 know, but I wasn’t really — the details on exactly

22 who knew what, or whatever, isn’t clear to me. But

23 I knew that that was something that they were

24 pursuing, but it didn’t necessarily need Michael’s

25 involvement every day like something like working on

26 a charity single did.

27 Q. Did you believe that that was going to

28 profit somebody other than Michael Jackson? 8922

1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Calls for

2 speculation; leading; foundation.

3 MR. ZONEN: It’s in response to his

4 questions.

5 THE COURT: Overruled.

6 You may answer.

7 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Go ahead.

8 A. Everybody would have benefited I’m sure.

9 Q. Including Michael Jackson?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Did you see at any time Marc Schaffel

12 involved in any activity that you believed was done

13 for purposes of cheating Michael out of money?

14 A. I think — well, that’s why I kind of kept

15 on keeping track. I was trying to figure out what

16 the whole story was. So to answer yes or no, I

17 guess — I guess it would have to be probably — I

18 would say yes. He was doing things, and some

19 things —

20 Q. Like what?

21 A. Well, like I don’t know if that coffee table

22 book thing was on the level, you know.

23 Q. Okay.

24 A. And there was these MJ speakers. Like where

25 in the heck did those come from? You know, all of a

26 sudden —

27 Q. What is an MJ speaker?

28 A. I don’t know. They had some speakers that – 8923

1 Q. Are you speaking people speaking, or —

2 A. Like speakers for his home stereo system. I

3 was just like, “Where did those come from? And what

4 the world were those?”

5 Q. Did you ever inquire as to whether that was

6 a project that did or did not have Mr. Jackson’s

7 permission?

8 A. It had his name on it, and Dieter and Ronald

9 were practically living at the ranch, so when they

10 showed up, I just was like — also, they showed up

11 at the RMAs in Las Vegas.

12 Q. All right. But did you have any information

13 from any of them that these were projects that were

14 done to the exclusion of Michael Jackson?

15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

16 MR. ZONEN: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear.

17 THE COURT: All right. You may answer that

18 “yes” or “no.” Do you want the question read back?

19 THE WITNESS: Yes, please.

20 (Record read.)

21 THE WITNESS: No, not the exclusion. They

22 always said that Michael knew.

In this excerpt, Provencio is asked about Frank Cascio’s relationship with Michael Jackson:

23 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. What was Frank

24 Cascio’s relationship with Michael Jackson?

25 A. He was a family friend.

26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.

27 THE COURT: Sustained.

28 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: During the time that you knew 8924

1 both Frank Cascio and Michael Jackson, did you see

2 them together?

3 A. Yeah, at the ranch and at the studio.

4 Q. Did you see them interact with one another?

5 A. Yeah. Especially at the studio.

6 Q. Did Michael Jackson ever tell you about his

7 relationship with Frank Cascio?

8 A. No. Frank told me.

9 Q. Did — did — during the entirety of your

10 two years of dealing with Michael Jackson or

11 Neverland Valley Entertainment, was Frank Cassidy

12 involved?

13 A. Cassidy?

14 Q. Excuse me, Frank Cascio.

15 A. Okay. Was he involved?

16 Q. Was he involved?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. So was there any time during the time that

19 you were involved with Neverland Valley

20 Entertainment that you were not dealing at one point

21 or another with Frank Cascio?

22 A. Gosh, you know what? No, because he was

23 there bringing — he would come to the studio, and

24 then — and then, you know, when, you know, there

25 was the firing.

26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; nonresponsive.

27 THE WITNESS: Oh.

28 THE COURT: After “No,” I’ll sustain that. 8925

1 MR. MESEREAU: Move to strike.

2 THE COURT: Strike it after “No.”

Provencio didn’t believe that Debbie Rowe was being honest in her interview, despite what he said earlier:

3 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Mr. Mesereau had asked you if

 

4 you had made the statement in an interview that

 

5 Debbie Rowe was honest and sincere in her interview.

 

6 A. Uh-huh.

 

7 Q. Do you recall making that statement?

 

8 A. Not really, no.

9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; asked and

10 answered.

11 MR. ZONEN: Not by me.

12 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. And

13 he did answer the question.

14 THE WITNESS: I’m sorry —

15 MR. ZONEN: The answer is in?

16 THE COURT: The answer is in. He said, “No.”

17 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Do you believe that Debbie

 

18 Rowe was honest and sincere in her interview?

 

19 A. No.

20 Q. I’m sorry?

21 A. No.

Next, Provencio admitted that he gave an interview to police in his pajamas!

22 Q. Mr. Mesereau was asking you questions about

23 your answers to questions put to you by Detective

24 Sergeant Robel in the January 24, ‘04, interview.

25 A. Uh-huh.

26 Q. Did you have any pre-notice about that

27 interview?

28 A. Pre-notice? 8926

1 Q. Yeah. Did they call you in advance and say

2 they were going to be coming by to ask you some

3 questions?

4 A. In the very first time I meet them?

5 Q. That’s right.

6 A. No.

7 Q. Was that interview conducted on the very day

8 that you met them?

9 A. Yeah. They just asked me basic questions.

10 Q. How long was that interview?

 

11 A. God, not more than 30 minutes. I mean, it

 

12 was just like, “Where’s your car? Is this your

 

13 computer?” Things like that.

14 Q. And you did cooperate with them; is that

 

15 correct?

 

16 A. Yeah. I gave them my notes.

 

17 Q. Now, in the course of this interview, were

 

18 they interested in conversations that you had with

 

19 any of these other people that you’ve been

 

20 testifying about today?

 

21 A. Well, yeah, but, you know, I was outside in

 

22 pajamas, so it wasn’t like I was going to go very

 

23 far.

 

24 Q. Is it the case that you were giving them as

 

25 much information as you were able to recollect on a

 

26 moment’s notice in your pajamas —

27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

 

28 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: — about many people? 8927

 

1 MR. MESEREAU: Move to strike.

 

2 THE COURT: Yes. Stricken.

 

3 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Were you really in your

 

4 pajamas?

 

5 A. Yeah. I was — I was in my pajamas and

 

6 freaking out, yeah.

7 Q. And in this 30-minute conversation, did you

8 give them as much information as came to mind at

9 that time?

10 A. Yeah. I mean —

11 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

12 THE COURT: Sustained.

13 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What were the difficulties in

14 your being able to recall facts at that time?

15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

16 THE COURT: Overruled.

17 You may answer.

18 THE WITNESS: I was just extremely nervous.

19 Here was — here was one explosion — yet another

20 Neverland explosion, so — happening at my front

21 door.

22 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What does the expression “all

23 fingers point to Marc” mean?

24 A. He was organizing, informing. He was taking

25 care of some of the business of, you know, paying

26 Vinnie and Frank. You know, money, receipts. It

27 was a lot of, you know, that kind of business going

28 on. 8928

1 Q. There was a woman Mr. Mesereau asked you

2 about from Japan. There was a woman that Mr.

3 Mesereau asked you about from Japan. His question

4 suggested that Mr. Schaffel stole from that woman.

5 A. Uh-huh.

6 Q. Do you have information about that

7 encounter?

8 A. I just know that — that he had bragged and

9 said that — he didn’t brag, per se, but he just

10 said — later on I said, “Well, how did you get that

11 money?” And he said, “Oh, well, she died. It

12 doesn’t matter.”

13 Q. All right. What was the nature of the

14 transaction between this woman and Mr. Schaffel?

15 A. She was going to try to buy the rights to

16 “What More Can I Give?” I guess, and then — and

17 hopefully Marc was going to convince Michael to do a

18 show in Japan.

19 Q. All right. Did she advance money in that

20 effort?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And then she died?

23 A. Then she died.

24 Q. Was it your belief that Mr. Schaffel should

25 have returned the money to the family?

26 A. Absolutely. Absolutely.

27 Q. And he did not do that?

28 A. Yeah, and like I said, I didn’t know exact – 8929

1 you know, contract, maybe there was some clause in

2 there, but I just thought it was the right thing to

3 do. If somebody dies and you’re in it, in the

4 middle of an agreement, then you should give that

5 money back, especially like a million bucks.

6 Q. You gave your point back to Mr. Jackson,

7 didn’t you?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Did you have a conversation with Mr.

10 Schaffel at that time suggesting that he do the same

11 with his points?

12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

13 THE COURT: Overruled.

14 You may answer.

15 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you?

16 A. I thought — I thought we were all giving

17 our points back because that was the right thing to

18 do.

19 Q. Did he tell you whether or not he would do

20 that?

21 A. He never answered me, but then I didn’t care

22 anymore.

23 Q. Do you know whether or not he did that?

24 A. I don’t know.

25 Q. Do you know what your point was worth?

26 A. Well, I got an offer of a million bucks for

27 it from this guy from Korea.

28 Q. Did you turn it down? 8930

1 A. Oh, yeah. I turned it down.

2 Q. Why?

3 A. I mean, Michael gave it to me in the spirit

4 of good faith. And I thought it was — you know,

5 that was going to be worth a lot of money, so I gave

6 it back because I couldn’t miss what I didn’t have.

7 And I thought — I kind of felt sad for everybody.

8 I mean, I kind of felt sad. I loved them and at the

9 same time didn’t like what they were doing, but I

10 felt sad for them, and at the same time I kind of

11 figured, you know, I was a good person coming into

12 this, and I think that I’ll be an okay person

13 leaving, too, so –

In this excerpt, Zonen tried to harp on the absolute irrelevant fact that Jackson paid Marlon Brando one million dollars for his appearance at his 30th Anniversary concert in 2001:

14 Q. Are you intending on writing a book on this

 

15 matter?

 

16 A. No, I’m not intending to write a book.

17 Q. What was the meaning of the reference, the

18 statement to Cindy Montgomery?

19 A. The book just means this is a book. I mean,

20 this is like — this is like a story I don’t think

21 anybody would believe. I mean, this is just — it’s

22 outrageous. It’s really an outrageous, ridiculous

23 train wreck story.

24 Q. You said to Mr. Mesereau you weren’t allowed

25 to talk on the phone at Neverland. What did you

26 mean by that?

27 A. Oh. I was just told by everybody not to

28 talk on the phone. We were always monitored. 8931

1 That’s what I — that’s why I didn’t really feel bad

2 recording people. I was always monitored, so what

3 the heck.

4 Q. Who told you that?

5 A. Frank, Vinnie and Marc.

6 MR. MESEREAU: Object.

7 THE WITNESS: Because I would say something,

8 and they would shut me up and say, “Don’t say that

9 on the phone here.” And I was like, “Oh, okay.”

10 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: You told Mr. Mesereau that

11 Mr. Jackson gave one million dollars to Marlon

12 Brando. Is that true?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. When did that take place?

15 A. Right after the 30th Anniversary Special in

16 New York before September 11. But the check

17 actually didn’t get — you know, because we were

18 stuck there in New York. The check didn’t actually

19 get to Marlon Brando until afterwards.

20 Q. When was the direction from Mr. Jackson to

 

21 turn a million dollars over to Marlon Brando?

 

22 A. Well, he was upset that Marlon Brando got

 

23 booed and just said, you know, in that kind of

 

24 deeper voice, he just says, “You got to give him a

 

25 million dollars.” And we were just like, you know,

 

26 stunned.

27 Q. And where did this money come from?

28 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation. 8932

1 THE COURT: Sustained.

2 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Were you present at the time

3 Mr. Jackson made that statement?

4 A. Yeah, we were in the dressing room. We were

5 in the back.

6 Q. To whom did he make that statement?

7 A. To Marc.

8 Q. Were you there at that time?

9 A. Yeah, we were both standing there, because

10 we were both — our faces were set to stun, really.

11 You know, I wanted to get booed, so —

12 (Laughter.)

13 Q. Incidentally, do you know what Marlon Brando

14 did to warrant being booed?

15 A. Yeah.

16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; relevance.

17 THE COURT: Sustained.

18 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. Let’s go back to

19 the million dollars. Was he paid a million dollars,

20 Mr. Brando?

21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.

22 THE COURT: Sustained.

23 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you have an opportunity

24 to look at the bank records dealing with that

25 transaction?

26 A. I saw the check.

27 Q. You saw the check. The check was made on

28 whose account? 8933

1 A. Neverland Valley Entertainment.

2 Q. All right. How long after that encounter

3 was that check written on Neverland Valley

4 Entertainment?

5 A. Well, as soon as we got back, because we

6 flew back private jet. So as soon as we got back,

7 you know, he started working and complaining about

8 it.

9 Q. So was this part of the money that came from

10 the Parviz loan?

11 A. Oh, yeah.

12 Q. This was part of your operations money; is

13 that right?

14 A. Uh-huh.

15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

16 THE COURT: Sustained.

Zonen had a few more questions regarding Provencio’s police interview, and his knowledge of music industry customs regarding liner notes, and ended his redirect examination:

17 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: At the time the police came

18 to your house when you were in your pajamas, did

19 they have a search warrant?

20 A. They had one with them, but they didn’t need

21 to serve it.

22 Q. And why is that?

23 A. Because I believe — I believe that you

24 should work with law enforcement.

25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Objection.

26 Nonresponsive; relevance.

27 THE COURT: Sustained.

28 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: You’ve been in the music 8934

1 industry, I think you said, 20 years; is that right?

2 A. Yeah, 20 years. Started when I was 18.

3 Q. Have you been involved with albums before?

4 A. Yeah, plenty.

5 Q. Are you familiar with people putting credits

6 on the album jacket?

7 A. They’re called liner notes, yes.

8 Q. Called what?

9 A. Liner notes.

10 Q. Liner notes; is that right?

11 A. Uh-huh.

12 Q. All right. Is it generally the habit and

 

13 custom of artists to do that for people who they’re

 

14 close to or people who have a particular interest in

 

15 the production of that album?

 

16 A. Yeah. Oh, yeah.

 

17 Q. Is it generally the case that they hold them

 

18 in high regard?

 

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Would there be people contained —

21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation; move

22 to strike; and calls for speculation.

23 THE COURT: I’ll strike the last answer.

24 Sustain the objection.

25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Is there any expectation in

26 the record industry that a person would

27 automatically be included in one of these things?

28 A. Huh-uh. 8935

1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation; calls

2 for speculation; relevance.

3 THE COURT: Sustained.

4 MR. ZONEN: I have no further questions.

Under recross examination, Provencio was caught in another lie! Mesereau pounced on his earlier statement to Cindy Montgomery about not giving his lawyer his detailed notes because he could use them to write a book, yet subsequently denying that he planned on writing a book:

6 RECROSS-EXAMINATION

7 BY MR. MESEREAU:

8 Q. Now, Mr. Provencio, on cross-examination you

 

9 admitted having a discussion with Cindy Montgomery

 

10 about your notes and saying to her the following:

 

11 “I’ll give my lawyer the bullet points, overview,

 

12 but not giving him my detailed notes. Are you

 

13 kidding me? That’s a book, honey.”

 

14 A. Uh-huh.

 

15 Q. What is your explanation now for that?

 

16 A. It’s — it’s like — it’s like a really bad

 

17 fairy tale that — it’s like a book nobody would

 

18 believe. I mean, you wouldn’t believe it if you

 

19 read it. It’s kind of unbelievable. It’s an

 

20 unbelievable story, I think.

 

21 Q. Were you telling the jury when you made that

 

22 statement in a recorded phone call with Cindy

 

23 Montgomery you were not referring to your writing a

 

24 book?

 

25 A. Not at that time.

26 Q. Whose book were you referring to when you

27 said —

28 A. The tale. 8936

1 Q. — when you said, “That’s a book, honey”?

2 A. That’s a book. It’s a tale. It’s like an

3 unbelievable tale and a book.

4 Q. When you said, “I’ll give my lawyer the

5 bullet points,” which lawyer were you talking about?

6 A. An entertainment lawyer that I dealt with.

7 Q. You said, “I’ll give my lawyer the bullet

8 points, overview, but not giving him my detailed

9 notes. Are you kidding me? That’s a book, honey.”

10 A. Uh-huh.

11 Q. Are you telling — excuse me. Are you

 

12 testifying under oath that you were not referring to

 

13 your writing a book?

 

14 A. That’s true.

 

15 Q. Okay. All right.

Next, Mesereau went into further detail about the police interview report that Provencio edited and added Jackson’s name to. The interview took place at his home on January 31st, 2004, and during that interview Provencio stated that he believed that Schaffel, Weisner, and Konitzer were doing things that made him suspicious, but in April 2005 Provencio added Jackson’s name to that list.

Try to contain your laughter as you read Provencio’s explanation for this!

16 Now, the prosecutor for the government asked

17 you some questions about your interview with

18 Sergeant Robel of January 31st, 2004, correct?

19 A. Who’s the government? I’m sorry.

20 Q. These guys.

21 A. Oh. Okay. Law enforcement. Okay. So,

22 state your question again, please. I’m sorry.

23 Q. The prosecutor asked you about your

24 interview with Sergeant Robel of January 31st, 2004,

25 correct?

26 A. Correct.

27 Q. That’s when you say you were in your pajamas

28 and just don’t remember a lot of things, right? 8937

1 A. Well, when the police show up, you freak

2 out, so, yeah, that’s true.

3 Q. So you told Sergeant Robel in that interview

4 that you were going to tell him everything you knew,

5 but you didn’t want to be recorded, correct?

6 A. Oh, no, that was an interview — oh, the

7 2000 — wait. Hold on a second. So when they came

8 to my house and served me with a search warrant, are

9 you talking about that particular time, or are you

10 talking about —

11 Q. Excuse me. I’m sorry. Let me rephrase the

12 question.

13 A. Okay.

14 Q. You were interviewed by Sergeant Robel on

15 January 31st, 2004, correct?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. Is that the interview you claim you gave

18 while you were in your pajamas?

19 A. If that’s the interview at the hotel, I was

20 not in my pajamas. The time I was in my pajamas is

21 when they first came to my house with a search

22 warrant.

23 Q. There are nine pages of comments you made

24 about these events in that interview, right?

25 A. Uh-huh. I guess, if they’re there.

26 Q. Well, the interview took place January 31st,

27 2004, right?

28 A. Where? Does it say where? 8938

1 Q. It says “in Los Angeles area.”

2 A. Okay.

3 Q. Right?

4 A. Not Calabasas?

5 Q. You gave an interview on January 31st, 2004,

6 to Sergeant Robel, correct?

7 A. Right. Right.

8 Q. You said in that interview you were going to

9 tell him everything you knew, but you didn’t want it

10 tape-recorded, right?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. You were given that report recently to look

13 at, correct?

14 A. To correct spelling. I corrected the

15 spelling.

16 Q. Well, you did a lot more than that with it,

17 didn’t you?

18 A. Well —

19 MR. ZONEN: Objection; asked and answered.

20 THE COURT: Overruled.

21 You may answer.

22 THE WITNESS: Yes, I made — because it was

23 not taped, I guess not everything I know is in my

24 head made it on that piece of paper.

25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: So approximately two weeks

 

26 ago would be —

 

27 A. Uh-huh.

 

28 Q. — April of 2005, correct? 8939

 

1 A. Right.

2 Q. Prosecutor Auchincloss gives you a police

 

3 report about your interview on January 31st, 2004,

 

4 right?

 

5 A. Right. The book, or whatever.

 

6 Q. He says, “Read it and correct it,” right?

 

7 A. No. He says — he says, “Look it over.”

 

8 “Look it over. Is this information correct, to your

 

9 best ability?”

 

10 Q. And you started adding the name Michael

 

11 Jackson to statements you had made about Dieter,

 

12 Konitzer and Schaffel —

13 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Asked and answered;

14 exceeding the scope of the redirect.

15 THE COURT: Sustained.

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Was your memory of these

 

17 events better two weeks ago than it was on January

 

18 31st, 2004, Mr. Provencio?

 

19 A. No, it’s like riding a bike. You either

 

20 remember or you don’t remember. It’s in your head

 

21 or it’s not. Like I remember what people wear,

 

22 their shoes, if they smell. You know, weird things

 

23 like that.

In this excerpt, Provencio provides more testimony on his notes about the “Killers”:

24 Q. Now, let me get this straight, your comments

25 about your notes on February 1st, 2003.

26 A. Okay.

27 Q. You have a — you put down “February 1st,

28 2003,” on the pad, correct? 8940

1 A. Uh-huh. Straight up and down.

2 Q. You wrote a paragraph that goes how many

3 lines under that day?

4 A. Four. In — but the four — the four lines

5 are slanted to the right. So the “February 1st,

6 ‘03” slanted upward and it says, “Family-kids,” and

7 then there’s a couple lines and it slants to the

8 right.

 

9 Q. Okay. And in that paragraph you say

 

10 Schaffel made a derogatory comment about Mexican

 

11 people, right?

 

12 A. That’s correct. And I’m Mexican.

 

13 Q. And you talk about “Mom flipping out” in

 

14 that first paragraph, correct?

 

15 A. Correct.

 

16 Q. Right?

 

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. In the next paragraph, you talk about a

19 family, right?

20 A. Well, yeah, but it’s written in different

21 writing again, so it’s —

22 Q. You say —

23 A. It’s a different paragraph. It’s a

24 different paragraph. I’m scribbling at a different

25 time.

26 Q. You say “Who are these killers?” in that

27 paragraph, right?

28 A. Yes, uh-huh. Because the press are calling, 8941

1 and it’s after the 24th. So they were already

2 calling.

3 Q. And you wrote those words underneath the

4 date February 1st, 2003?

5 A. The first paragraph that you are referring

6 to —

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. — the first two lines —

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. — “Family-kids” is written under February

11 the 1st. There’s a paragraph there with different

12 kinds of handwriting, and then it shoots down to

13 another paragraph.

14 Q. Okay.

15 A. And that’s — that’s — you know, those

16 things are unrelated thoughts, and they’re just

17 scribbling thoughts.

18 Q. Sir, look at the last sentence that you

19 wrote —

20 A. Uh-huh.

21 Q. — on the first paragraph. Do you see that?

22 A. “I thought they used to be good people.”

23 Q. Right.

24 A. Uh-huh.

25 Q. Are you saying that that handwriting is

26 different from the handwriting in the next

27 paragraph?

28 A. It’s similar, but I know my handwriting 8942

1 enough to know when I write things, so —

2 Q. It’s the same style of handwriting, true?

3 MR. ZONEN: Objection; argumentative.

4 THE COURT: Overruled.

5 THE WITNESS: So answer?

6 THE COURT: Yeah.

7 THE WITNESS: Okay. I don’t believe so. I

8 think it’s different.

9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: How is it different?

10 A. Well, first of all, “family” is written

11 different. It’s a different paragraph. If you take

12 a look at the entire — if the jury could see the

13 entire thing, there’s many things on a piece of

14 paper, and it all looks like kind of a collision/

15 mess, because it’s not meant to be an exact

16 narrative. It’s meant for me to remember certain

17 things as they occurred.

Zonen questioned Provencio during the break, and then Mesereau continued to ask about the notes that he gave to police:

18 Q. During the break, the last break, did you

19 talk to Prosecutor Zonen about your testimony?

20 A. Yes. I asked about — I asked a couple

21 questions.

22 Q. Did he ask you any questions?

23 A. He wanted to know about the threatening

24 phone calls that I got.

25 Q. Did he tell you anything about what you had

26 testified to?

27 A. Yes, he asked me a question, “Did you tell

28 the truth?” And I told him, “Yes.” 8943

1 Q. Did he ask you anything — excuse me. Did

2 he tell you anything about what he was going to ask

3 you after the break?

4 A. No. He just asked me to clarify something

5 for him on the date.

6 Q. Did he discuss your police interview of

7 January 31st, 2004?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Isn’t it true that when you were interviewed

10 by the sheriffs on January 31st, 2004, you did not

11 hand over any notes?

12 A. I don’t know. Is that what it says? I’d

13 have to look at it, but I don’t — did I not hand

14 over notes at that time?

15 Q. You didn’t hand over any notes during your

16 police interview on January 31st, 2004.

17 A. When they came to my house? I sure did.

18 Q. When you were interviewed in the Los Angeles

19 area, you gave no notes, correct, to Sergeant Robel?

20 A. I did give him notes, because I even gave

21 him the address book. I remember that.

22 Q. So the report should reflect that, in your

23 mind, right?

24 A. It should, yeah.

25 Q. When did you discuss these notes you had

26 lost, the ones you took — you turned over a couple

27 weeks ago?

28 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Misstates the 8944

1 evidence, that they were lost.

2 THE COURT: Sustained.

3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When did you discover the

4 notes that you had kept in storage all this time but

5 I believe you said you forgot about?

6 A. I had stuck them in a box. I thought they

7 were just lost. Like I said, I just stuck them in

8 storage.

9 Q. And you found them when?

10 A. Do you want me to look? I can tell you

11 exact dates.

12 Q. Approximately.

13 A. I have the receipt right here. Do you want

14 me to look?

15 Q. Sure.

16 A. I believe I brought the receipt.

17 Mid-April.

18 Q. That’s this year?

19 A. Yes, this year.

Mesereau caught another discrepancy in Provencio’s story; in January 2004, he told police that Debbie Rowe was honest throughout her rebuttal interview, but under direct examination he told Zonen that Rowe was dishonest:

20 Q. Now, Prosecutor Zonen asked you a question

21 on redirect examination about whether you thought

22 Debbie Rowe was honest and sincere in her responses

23 during the interview, right?

24 A. Uh-huh.

25 Q. Did you discuss that issue with him during

26 the break?

27 A. No.

28 Q. But you admit that on January 31st, 2004, 8945

 

1 you told Sergeant Robel that Debbie Rowe was honest

 

2 and sincere in her responses, right?

 

3 A. Yes, some of it was. I think some of it

 

4 was.

 

5 Q. You didn’t say “some of it.” You said she

 

6 was honest and sincere in her responses?

 

7 A. Well, it wasn’t recorded. I know what I

 

8 meant is that some of it was sincere.

 

9 Q. Okay.

 

10 A. She wanted her kids back, to see them.

11 Q. Just to clarify something in your notes of

12 February 1st, 2003, you say that, “Mom’s flipping

13 out about something,” correct?

14 A. Uh-huh. Yes.

15 Q. And you’re referring to Mrs. Arvizo,

16 correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Whom, at that point, you had never met,

19 right?

20 A. No, just heard about.

21 Q. And that’s before the Bashir documentary

22 aired in the United States, correct?

23 A. And after the transcript was received on the

24 24th of January, correct.

25 Q. By you, right?

26 A. I received it. Marc received it.

27 Q. Do you agree that in every police interview

28 you’ve done, you’ve never mentioned the transcript 8946

1 of February 24?

2 A. I don’t know if I did or didn’t, but I know

3 when I got it, because I had the e-mail.

4 MR. MESEREAU: I have no further questions.

Under further redirect-examination, Zonen had a few more questions regarding how Provencio gave his notes too, and then quickly ended his questioning. Mesereau declined to further recross examine Provencio.

6 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

7 BY MR. ZONEN:

8 Q. Do you remember to whom you turned over your

9 notes when the police arrived at your door?

10 A. Who did I turn them over to?

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. The police officers.

13 Q. Do you remember which one that was?

14 A. Steve Robel and Jeff Klapakis — Klapakis.

15 Q. Do you know whether it was Lieutenant

16 Klapakis or if it was Sergeant Robel?

17 A. Yes, it was those two.

18 Q. It was those two, all right.

19 A. Uh-huh.

20 Q. Was that on the first occasion that they

21 came to your door?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. That was at the time they had a search

24 warrant?

25 A. Correct.

26 Q. All right. The interview that took place

27 was at a — was there some level of interview that

28 was done at that time, at the time of the search 8947

1 warrant?

2 A. Yeah, but it was like I’m outside, and it’s

3 cold, and I’m freaking out, there’s cops everywhere.

4 Q. Was there a follow-up interview that then

5 took place —

6 A. Oh, yeah.

7 Q. — soon thereafter?

8 A. Yep.

9 Q. Approximately how long after that was the

10 follow-up interview?

11 A. I don’t remember. I just remember it was in

12 the Calabasas area.

13 Q. Do you remember if it was longer than a week

14 or two after the initial arriv —

15 A. No, I think it was within the first two

16 weeks of that.

17 Q. Did you have additional notes to turn over

18 on that occasion?

19 A. Yeah, just stuff — you know, I mean, they

20 asked, “Where’s your computer?” You know, “Do you

21 have some notes?” And I said, “Yes, there’s some

22 right here.”

23 You know, “What other information” — “Can

24 we talk to you outside?” And I said, “That’s okay.”

25 And I agreed — you know, I mean, I was

26 scared, but I agreed to, because I just felt that

27 that was the right thing to do.

28 Q. Over the months that followed, did you take 8948

1 additional notes?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And did you turn those notes over

4 periodically to Detective Robel, Detective Sergeant

5 Robel or to Lieutenant Klapakis?

6 A. Yes.

7 MR. ZONEN: No further questions.

8 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.

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

10 step down.

11 THE WITNESS: Okay.

12 Where do I go?

13 THE COURT: Call your next witness.

14 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, at this time we

15 have some items to be moved into evidence.

16 (Off-the-record discussion held at counsel

17 table.)

Before resting their case, the prosecution requested that additional evidence should be admitted by the court:

18 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, we’re going to

19 start with a series of records that have been marked

20 as People’s 250 for identification purposes. It’s

21 one, two, three, four, five, six, seven — eight

22 pages, front and back. And I believe there’s a

23 stipulation that they may come into evidence.

24 MR. SANGER: Yes. So stipulated, Your

25 Honor.

26 MR. SNEDDON: In addition to that, Your

27 Honor, there are a series of records.

28 THE COURT: Just a moment. 8949

1 MR. SNEDDON: I’m sorry? I guess I should

2 wait.

3 THE COURT: 250 through 258?

4 MR. SNEDDON: No, 250 only, Your Honor.

5 That’s all one document.

6 THE COURT: Those are pages 1 through 8?

7 MR. SANGER: For the record, I think we

8 should say they’re records pertaining to Xtra Jet

9 and Chris Tucker.

10 MR. SNEDDON: That’s correct.

11 THE COURT: All right. No objection, 250 is

12 admitted.

13 MR. SNEDDON: And then there is a series of

14 records, Your Honor, from the Country Inn & Suites

15 which have been provided through the custodian of

16 records, and we’ve had a chance to look at them.

17 And we’re moving that People’s 219, 220, 221 and 222

18 be admitted into evidence. They’re all records

19 dealing with the Calabasas Inn.

20 MR. SANGER: No objection.

21 THE COURT: They’re admitted.

22 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, Mr. Provencio was

23 our last witness. However, there still remains the

24 outstanding issue of the documents that are before

25 the Court under consideration, and there are one

26 other set of records that just came in today that I

27 need to look at with counsel, but beyond that, we’d

28 be prepared to rest. 8950

1 And, oh, also we need to go over the

2 exhibits, because there are several exhibits that

3 you deferred ruling on, and we need to address

4 those.

5 So there’s some miscellaneous items that

6 need to be done, but other than that, in terms of

7 live witnesses, we’re prepared to rest once all

8 these are cleared up.

9 THE COURT: You’re resting subject to those

10 issues?

11 MR. SNEDDON: I am, Your Honor.

12 THE COURT: The Court will make the following

13 rulings on the 400 series, which I’ve been briefed

14 by both sides on and listened to the evidence:

15 401 is admitted.

16 402 is excluded as cumulative and restricted

17 financial information.

18 405 is admitted. 409 is admitted. 410 is

19 admitted. 413 is admitted.

20 And 423 is admitted — no, excuse me, I’m

21 excluding 423.

22 So then that leaves what issues?

23 MR. SNEDDON: I’m sorry.

24 THE COURT: I’m just waiting for —

25 MR. SNEDDON: We’re consulting. We don’t….

26 (Off-the-record discussion held at counsel

27 table.)

28 MR. SNEDDON: Judge, there are — do you 8951

1 have your court exhibit sheet handy, Your Honor?

2 THE COURT: Yes.

3 MR. SNEDDON: There are several items that

4 have been marked for identification but have not yet

5 been admitted into evidence. We would be moving —

6 MR. SANGER: I didn’t know he was going to

7 do that. Can I have a moment to get my sheet out?

8 MR. SNEDDON: Go ahead.

9 THE COURT: I was just thinking we could let

10 the jury go a few minutes early, because we can go

11 through the admitting of them.

12 MR. SNEDDON: That’s fine, Your Honor.

13 That’s —

14 THE COURT: Let me speak to the jury for a

15 second.

16 MR. SANGER: Excuse me. Just for

17 planning — I’m very sorry to interrupt, but there

18 will be a motion when the People rest. For

19 planning.

20 THE COURT: I understand that.

21 I wanted to tell the jury that next Tuesday,

22 the 10th, will be a half day. So we’ll stop at

23 11:30 on that day.

24 And then what you’re suggesting, I think, is

25 that they should come in a little later in the

26 morning, because you’re going to make a motion.

27 They’re really resting right now, and I don’t think

28 you have time to make the motion this afternoon. 8952

1 MR. SANGER: I — I don’t think so. We also

2 have a written brief which we did not, and should

3 not, file until they rest. So I have that.

4 THE COURT: Right.

5 MR. SANGER: They may want to take a look at

6 it, so it may be more efficient to do it tomorrow

7 morning.

8 THE COURT: Yeah.

9 (To the jury) So I think what we’ll do is,

10 court will start at the regular time and I’ll hear

11 the motion, and then I’ll have you come in at —

12 we’ll start with jury at 10:00. I don’t want you

13 frivolously wasting that time of your day.

14 All right. I’ll see you tomorrow morning.

15

16 (The following proceedings were held in

17 open court outside the presence and hearing of the

18 jury:)

After the jury was dismissed, Judge Melville heard additional arguments from the prosecution and defense:

20 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead, Counsel.

21 MR. SNEDDON: Judge, may I inquire of the

22 Court for just a moment before we start the process?

23 THE COURT: Yes.

24 MR. SNEDDON: With regard to the 418 that

25 you excluded, was that on the basis of a lack of

26 foundation or for some other reason? That’s the

27 check.

28 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: 418, page three. 8953

1 THE CLERK: You didn’t mention 418.

2 THE COURT: I didn’t rule on that. The

3 rulings were on 401, 402, 405, 409, 410, 413 and

4 423, which are the documents you took testimony on

5 today.

6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay.

7 THE COURT: That’s what I was keeping track

8 of today.

9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay.

10 THE COURT: In your briefs, you had covered

11 other exhibits.

12 MR. SNEDDON: And we’ll —

13 THE COURT: But they were not addressed

14 today, so I didn’t rule on them today.

15 MR. SNEDDON: Okay. I just was seeking

16 clarification. And will there be an opportunity to

17 address that, or are you going to rule on those

18 without argument?

19 THE COURT: Well, if you’re offering

20 something, you can offer it. I mean, that’s what

21 you’re doing now, is it not, offering the rest of

22 your exhibits?

23 MR. SNEDDON: Yes, sir. The ones that

24 haven’t been previously admitted.

25 THE COURT: Right. So just go ahead and

26 offer them, and we’ll see if there’s any —

27 MR. SNEDDON: I’ll do the ones that I know

28 about, and I’ll have Mr. Auchincloss do the 400 8954

1 series, if that’s okay with the Court.

2 The one I’d like to begin with is 294, which

3 for the Court’s recollection, it was a document that

4 was found inside of the briefcase that contained

5 several items of adult materials and was offered for

6 indicia of ownership and knowledge of the materials

7 inside. It was identified by the officer and

8 contains the initials of the defendant on the

9 document. So we’re moving that 294 be admitted.

10 THE COURT: All right. It’s admitted.

11 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I at this point —

12 THE COURT: You need to speak into the

13 microphone.

14 MR. SANGER: I just turned it on. I’m

15 sorry.

16 I was going to say, at this point, unless

17 the Court is absolutely clear, I don’t have an

18 absolute clear recollection, without looking at that

19 particular exhibit, and I — I have notes on some of

20 the items.

21 THE BAILIFF: No one can hear you.

22 MR. SANGER: Can’t hear?

23 THE BAILIFF: No.

24 MR. SANGER: It’s on. I’ve just got to bend

25 over. What happened is the cord got shorter.

26 All right. All I’m saying is, if the Court

27 has a clear recollection and is prepared to rule

28 without hearing from the defense, I understand that, 8955

1 but if not, I’d like to have a chance to look at

2 that exhibit.

3 THE COURT: I’m going to admit it. And if,

4 for some reason, you want to readdress that after

5 you look — find it — I think I do have a clear

6 recollection. But then I thought the break was at

7 quarter to 1:00.

8 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you.

9 MR. SNEDDON: The next item, Your Honor, is

10 349, which is the orange bottle that you took under

11 submission and we offered as demonstrative evidence.

12 And I believe there’s case law that —

13 THE COURT: There is. That’s admitted.

14 That’s clear to the jury that that’s not the — it

15 just looks like the bottle. It’s not the bottle.

16 MR. SNEDDON: Right.

17 MR. SANGER: We object there was a lack of

18 foundation, and I believe we did object, but if we

19 didn’t, I —

20 THE COURT: You did object, and that’s why I

21 took it under submission. And there is a couple of

22 cases on it, one I recall about a fire can that

23 carried gasoline to start a fire, and they lost the

24 can, and they brought a can just like it in, and

25 that was just to show the jury what it looked like,

26 and that’s admissible.

27 MR. SNEDDON: The next item, Your Honor, is

28 625, which is the series of letters between Mr. 8956

1 Geragos and Mr. Dickerman.

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

3 MR. SNEDDON: We’ll withdraw — I mean 630

4 we’re not offering, because that has not been

5 admitted.

6 THE COURT: Yes.

7 MR. SNEDDON: With regard to the series of

8 exhibits in 823 through 829, I believe we laid the

9 foundation when we put Detective Alvarez and Bonner

10 on to establish the foundation for these particular

11 exhibits that they’re the ones from which the DVDs

12 were made from, so — and seized by Detective

13 Caldwell, so we would move that they be admitted.

14 THE COURT: I believe the foundation was

15 laid. Is there any objection to that?

16 MR. SANGER: I just want to make sure that

17 we don’t have one in there — I understand that

18 there’s been a foundation for most of them, but I’m

19 not — I’m not sure that all of them have been —

20 there’s an independent relevance foundation laid.

21 In other words, there’s been a seizure foundation

22 laid, that they were obtained and in the offices of

23 Brad Miller, but there’s nothing that — as I sit

24 here, I don’t know which number, but there’s nothing

25 that lays the foundation for the relevance in this

26 case.

27 MR. SNEDDON: Judge, they’re the

28 surveillance tapes. 8957

1 THE COURT: They were all played to the jury.

2 They were your surveillance tapes.

3 MR. SNEDDON: That’s why we thought they

4 were in evidence.

5 MR. SANGER: Were they all played?

6 MR. ZONEN: All were except 829. 829 is a

7 duplicate of another one. It’s the micro-mini.

8 They made a copy of the micro-mini. We then played

9 it off of the more conventional form, but 829, it is

10 the micro-mini that was seized, and then the one we

11 played was the one that was duplicated onto to be

12 able to play it.

13 MR. SANGER: I didn’t understand that, quite

14 frankly.

15 THE COURT: They made it — they made one

16 from this exhibit, so he didn’t show this exhibit,

17 but he showed the copy they made from the exhibit.

18 MR. ZONEN: And the testimony was that

19 they’re identical.

20 MR. SANGER: Okay. I think they showed the

21 copies. They showed copies of all of these. They

22 didn’t show any VHS tapes. So that’s not the issue.

23 I believe there were two tapes that were similar,

24 and one of them was not shown and one of them was

25 shown.

26 MR. ZONEN: That’s 829.

27 MR. SANGER: So 829 was shown and 828 was

28 not? 8958

1 MR. ZONEN: 829 is the mini. That’s the one

2 that was not shown.

3 MR. SNEDDON: Excuse me. The DVD copy of

4 829 was shown, so this is the foundation to show

5 that this is the original.

6 MR. ZONEN: Yes.

7 MR. SNEDDON: And this was authenticated by

8 the officer.

9 THE COURT: Well, in terms of what the jury

10 should get, 828 has been authenticated. We’ll just

11 put in 828. We’ll leave out 829. It’s in as an

12 exhibit and it’s part of the —

13 MR. SNEDDON: Record.

14 THE COURT: — record.

15 MR. SNEDDON: That’s fine. That’s perfectly

16 acceptable to us, Your Honor.

17 MR. SANGER: There you go.

18 MR. ZONEN: I don’t believe that’s the

19 duplicate of 828. I believe it’s actually the

20 duplicate of 825.

21 THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Same ruling.

22 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, since everybody’s

23 still talking and we’ve only got a couple minutes, I

24 understand the Court’s ruling is that you’re not

25 going to let in both tapes of the same thing.

26 THE COURT: Right.

27 MR. SANGER: And with that ruling in mind,

28 if there’s some dispute, can we take it up later? 8959

1 THE COURT: Absolutely.

2 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you.

3 MR. SNEDDON: I believe, except for the 400

4 series, that covers all the issues, except for the

5 one that I mentioned to the Court about having to

6 check with the SDT records that just came in with

7 United Airlines. Other than that, I think we’re —

8 oh, wait a minute. That’s right.

9 I’m sorry, Your Honor, there are three

10 photographs —

11 THE COURT: Okay. What I’m going to do is —

12 MR. SNEDDON: Yeah. 45, 46 and 47 should be

13 admitted, Your Honor.

14 THE COURT: All right. Any objection?

15 MR. SANGER: No objection, Your Honor.

16 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Would you like me to

17 address the 400 series at this time, Your Honor?

18 THE COURT: Well, no. Just tell me what

19 other ones you want rulings on that I haven’t ruled

20 on.

21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I believe at this point

22 you’ve excluded 402; is that correct?

23 THE COURT: Yes.

24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. We would ask that

25 the remainder of the 400 series —

26 THE COURT: And 423.

27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And 423. Very well. We’d

28 ask that the remainder of the 400 series be 8960

1 admitted, with the exception of — the exceptions of

2 414 and 416.

3 MR. SANGER: When counsel says “the

4 exception,” Your Honor, does that mean they’re

5 withdrawn?

6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes.

7 THE COURT: I think they’re not offering

8 that.

9 THE CLERK: There’s numerous in the 400

10 series that haven’t even been identified.

11 THE COURT: The only ones I’m going to

12 consider are the ones that have been identified in

13 court, which are the 400 series up to 424. After

14 that, 425 through — just so you all know, 425

15 through 449 haven’t been identified; 460 through

16 469. But I think you were just talking about the

17 400 series ending with 423, because that’s what your

18 briefs covered.

19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: We have some additional

20 exhibits under the 400 series that — let me just

21 have a moment to look at the notebook.

22 MR. SANGER: While they’re looking, Your

23 Honor, you went so quickly through the numbers, when

24 I tried to write them down, I don’t think I got them

25 all.

26 402 was excluded. 401 was admitted?

27 THE COURT: 401 was admitted.

28 MR. SANGER: Okay. 8961

1 THE COURT: 402 was excluded. 405 was

2 admitted. 409 was admitted. 410 was admitted. 413

3 was admitted. And 423 was excluded.

4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And if your question was

5 are we offering at this time, concerning the 400

6 series, only up through 423, which, as you said, has

7 been excluded, that is correct.

8 THE COURT: Well, then I can make rulings on

9 the others.

10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You may. But the one

11 thing I’d request, Your Honor, if we have a dispute

12 about exhibits that can be remedied by additional

13 foundation, we’d just ask that the Court allow us to

14 reopen to handle that evidentiary issue, if

15 necessary.

16 MR. SANGER: Well, Your Honor, we had filed

17 a written brief, and I believe we objected to all of

18 these.

19 THE COURT: You did.

20 MR. SANGER: Okay. So the Court has ruled

21 on some, but not all of them.

22 THE COURT: The only ones I ruled on were the

23 ones that they laid foundation on today.

24 MR. SANGER: There you go. Okay. Now I

25 understand. We did object to everything else, and I

26 don’t believe there is a foundation —

27 THE COURT: Well, that’s true.

28 MR. SANGER: — as to the remaining ones. 8962

1 THE COURT: There are foundation problems as

2 to other documents, there’s no question.

3 MR. SANGER: Yes.

4 THE COURT: Other than these documents that

5 are hanging out here, what I would like to have us

6 do is to have you rest, subject to my rulings on

7 that, have you serve your 1118 motion, and be

8 prepared to argue that motion tomorrow morning, both

9 of you. And I’ll make rulings on the other

10 documents in the 400 series that have been

11 identified before you make your argument.

12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. My request is just

13 because, as you know, of the timing of the admission

14 of these documents, we’ve held off on them, but

15 normally during the course of the presentation of

16 our case, we would have an opportunity to lay

17 additional foundation if there was a foundational

18 issue on any of the documents. And there may be an

19 issue that could be remedied fairly quickly, so I’d

20 just make that representation to the Court, that

21 that may be a request, depending upon the outcome.

22 THE COURT: Okay.

23 MR. SANGER: Well, Your Honor, just so I’m

24 clear, I would like to be able to file — I’d like

25 to be able to serve and file the motion, and I think

26 the Court has asked us to do that. My concern —

27 I’m sitting because I’m worried about

28 getting too far away from that, so let me stand here. 8963

1 My concern is that these are documents

2 obviously — let’s put it this way. Obviously,

3 Count 1 is going to be the subject — significant

4 subject of our motion.

5 THE COURT: Right.

6 MR. SANGER: And these are documents that,

7 if they intend to reopen and call some more

8 witnesses, we are giving them a road map to our

9 objections, and they could then say, “Well, we said

10 we’re going to reopen,” so, you know, call in a

11 bunch of witnesses.

12 So I don’t want that to happen, and Mr.

13 Auchincloss was very vague in what he’s requesting,

14 so I’m going to object to what he’s requesting.

15 Either they rest or they don’t rest.

16 I understand the Court can say, “I’ll take

17 under submission whether these documents come in or

18 not.” That’s not a problem. I just don’t want to

19 file this and have them bring in another witness, or

20 two, or three.

21 THE COURT: Well, I am taking under

22 submission whether or not any of the other 400

23 series would be admissible under the present state

24 of the record. They’re resting subject to that.

25 They’ve said they may wish to reopen. I’m not

26 ruling on that issue. So as of right now, you have

27 a record. You have them resting, and all that’s

28 left is my ruling. 8964

1 MR. SANGER: Based on that — Your Honor,

2 thank you for clarifying that. Based on that, I

3 will serve in open court a copy of a Motion for

4 Judgment of Acquittal Under 1118.1, and I’ll file

5 the original and provide two copies to the clerk.

6 And we’ll expect to argue that tomorrow, if that’s

7 all right.

8 THE COURT: Right.

9 All right. Then court’s in recess. I’ll see

10 you tomorrow at 8:30.

11 MR. SANGER: Thank you, Your Honor.

12 Oh, Your Honor? Not to take time, but there

13 is one other motion that was still pending.

14 THE COURT: I’ll rule on that in the

15 morning. I haven’t had time — I got that late this

16 morning. I haven’t had time to — I read it.

17 That’s all I’ve done with it, so —

18 MR. SANGER: Okay.

19 THE COURT: That’s the motion to dismiss; the

20 mistrial.

21 MR. SANGER: The mistrial and the Griffin/

22 Doyle.

23 THE COURT: I’ll rule on that before you

24 argue in the morning.

25 MR. SANGER: Thank you, Your Honor.

26 THE COURT: Thank you.

27 (The proceedings adjourned at 2:40 p.m.)

28 –o0o—8965

To be continued: https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/may-5th-2005-trial-analysis-wade-robson-and-brett-barnes-part-1-of-4/ 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: