Skip to content

May 5th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Wade Robson and Brett Barnes, Part 3 of 4

October 19, 2014

Here’s the prosecution’s response:

1 MR. SNEDDON: Be right with you, Your Honor.

2 First of all, Your Honor, let me address the

3 question that we began discussing with Mr. Sanger at

4 the beginning of his remarks.

5 I believe Mr. Sanger is wrong in the law.

6 I believe his interpretation of the law with regard

7 to what the Court’s responsibility is with regard to

8 this motion is incorrect. And while I believe

9 that — that that was a nice final argument that Mr.

10 Sanger made, unfortunately, the point that we are at

11 with regard to an 1118 motion is after a defendant

12 has been convicted. And at that point is there

13 substantial evidence to support the conviction,

14 drawing all favorable inferences in favor of the

15 jury’s verdict. That’s the standard.

16 And I cite to the Court two cases that

17 clearly set forth that standard. The first case is

18 People vs. Cuevas, C-u-e-v-a-s. It’s a 1995 case at

19 12 Cal.4 252. And then there’s a rather recent

20 case — and that’s at page 260, if I didn’t indicate

21 that, Your Honor.

22 And then there’s a more recent case which is

23 called People vs. Coffman, with a C, f-f-m-a-n, and

24 Marlo, M-a-r-l-o, which is found at 34 Cal.1 at page

25 90.

26 Both of those cases make it very clear that

27 the Court is not in a position on an 1118 to make

28 credibility issues and decisions, but only to decide 9059

1 whether or not there is substantial evidence that

2 the jury believe the evidence was credible. And so

3 that’s a considerably different matter than what

4 Mr. Sanger was urging upon the Court.

5 Having that in mind, what we have to do is

6 assume, it’s a starting point, that every argument

7 that Mr. Sanger just made to you, that he would have

8 made to the jury, and the jury didn’t believe it or

9 didn’t find it persuasive, and convicted the client

10 in any case, and are there reasonable inferences in

11 what remains in the testimony and the evidence that

12 supports the reasons that the jury found against

13 everything Mr. Sanger just stood here and told you?

14 That’s where we really are in this case.

15 Having said that, I’d like to begin with a

16 little bit of analysis, first of all. And I won’t

17 spend much time on it, but I think it’s important to

18 put things in perspective in terms of the law of

19 conspiracy in light of some of the things that Mr.

20 Sanger said.

21 There are three charges here. One charge of

22 conspiracy, with an allegation of three particular

23 crimes that were involved: Extortion, false

24 imprisonment and child abduction.

25 Now, I share, in one respect, Mr. Sanger’s

26 notion that there is a double agreement and a double

27 intent that’s required to commit this crime. And I

28 do not take exception with that. However, I do take 9060

1 exception with this little bit of selective memory

2 in terms of the rest of the law on conspiracy.

3 For Mr. Jackson to be guilty of the

4 conspiracy does not require him to be the puppet at

5 the top of this, moving all the strings to the

6 little puppets below. It requires that in whatever

7 role Mr. Jackson plays in the conspiracy, that he

8 does so with the intent to commit the crimes that

9 are alleged and he does so with the intent that

10 there be a conspiracy to commit those crimes. All

11 he needs to do is share in the overall goal of the

12 conspiracy; that is, that there was an attempt to

13 conceal or an agreement. Not an attempt, but it was

14 an agreement to conceal or to falsely imprison, to

15 abduct and to extort.

16 The crime of conspiracy is unique, because

17 it does not require that the crime actually be

18 committed or accomplished. And that’s why we have a

19 whole series of overt acts. And that’s why the law

20 of conspiracy is set forth in the instructions to

21 the jury as they need not find that these crimes

22 were actually committed, only that there was an

23 agreement and an intent and a conspiracy to commit

24 these crimes, and there was at least one — one

25 overt act done towards the commission of the goals

26 of that crime.

27 Now, that’s the law of conspiracy. That’s

28 the proper perspective for which this case and this 9061

1 1118 motion needs to be heard.

2 And it’s a fundamental principle of the law

3 of conspiracy that when you have many people

4 involved in a conspiracy, that many people have

5 different roles. And I don’t think we have to

6 stretch very far if you just take the common analogy

7 sometimes that I’m sure this Court is familiar with,

8 and I don’t mean this in any disrespect to Mr.

9 Jackson, but I’m only using it as an analogy. The

10 one that comes before us more often than not, if you

11 look at those cases that this Court has seen and if

12 you look at the cases on the laws of narcotics and

13 drug cases, and when you try to get to the top of

14 the cartel, you try to move to the top of the big

15 sellers, oftentimes what you’re talking about is

16 moving through other people through that syndicate

17 that’s reflective of what the agreement is at the

18 top. It doesn’t mean that the person at the top

19 doesn’t know or share in the agreement of what the

20 people are doing down below.

21 So I think that the attempt by the defense

22 to portray Mr. Jackson as somehow being the

23 mastermind behind the conspiracy is a false attempt.

24 It is not something that we’ve alleged during the

25 entire time that we’ve tried this case to the jury

26 and the time we put this case on to the grand jury,

27 or the time that we talked with you at the 995.

28 The fact of the matter is, Mr. Jackson had a 9062

1 role. The fact of the matter is, I’m going to point

2 to you evidence that shows that he was in agreement.

3 The fact of the matter is that he was the

4 beneficiary of everything that happened in this

5 case.

6 And it’s not necessary that the — that they

7 succeed in their attempts to falsely imprison, or to

8 abduct the children, or to extort something out of

9 someone, although I do believe that there is strong

10 evidence that they did succeed in certain extents in

11 all of those goals, as I will point out.

12 Now, I’d like to start, first of all, and I

13 want to say that there’s another thing that I think

14 needs to be said to the Court. There’s another

15 fundamental principle of the cases that interpret

16 the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a

17 conviction on appeal that deals with how you prove a

18 conspiracy.

19 Lord knows nobody is dumb enough to get

20 together and have five or six or seven or two or

21 three people sign a contract and say, “We’re going

22 to go out and commit these crimes, and I agree to do

23 this, and you agree to do this, and he agrees to do

24 this.” Nobody does that. I dare say that all the

25 time you’ve been on the bench, you’ve never heard of

26 a conspiracy where they had a contract and they

27 walked in here and showed you everybody agreed by

28 way of contract to do this. 9063

1 And that’s why the case law in California is

2 replete with cases that demonstrate over and over

3 and over again that the thing that you look for on

4 the substantial evidence review is, is there

5 association? Is there a way to link these people

6 together in some common purpose? Is there a motive

7 among the people? Are the goals and the acts of the

8 people reasonably calculated to accomplish what is

9 alleged to be the goals of the conspiracy?

10 And that’s where I think our starting point

11 has to be. What’s the motive in this particular

12 case?

13 The motive of Mr. Jackson is clear. The

14 Bashir tape, and even Mr. Sanger, to an extent,

15 admitted it in his argument to you, the evidence of

16 one thing has been proven in this case so far. The

17 evidence is overwhelming that this was a death

18 threat to his career. He was hemorrhaging

19 financially and had been for several years. He had

20 a cash flow problem. And for some reason — as Mr.

21 Duross indicated, for some reason he couldn’t get

22 out and market himself, and didn’t, or chose not to,

23 to try to do something about this debt.

24 But the Bashir filming was the thing that

25 was just the last stroke that was going to end his

26 career if something wasn’t done immediately to turn

27 that around.

28 Now, sure, some people are going to make 9064

1 money off that. There’s no reason that some of

2 these people involved in trying to resurrect his

3 career couldn’t make money in a venture trying to

4 resurrect it. There’s no reason why these people

5 involved in this couldn’t benefit from being

6 associated with whatever was left of Mr. Jackson’s

7 career, and to the extent that they were able to

8 resurrect his career, to benefit by being on the

9 inner circle.

10 But the motive was to resurrect his career.

11 And that’s what was clear, that the only person who

12 really benefited first, foremost, was the defendant

13 in this case, Michael Joe Jackson.

14 It’s totally unrealistic to believe that at

15 this particular point in time, when his entire

16 career, his entire financial situation, his entire

17 entertainment, his entire record career is on the

18 line, that Mr. Jackson is going to sit on the

19 sidelines, allow people to come in from the outside,

20 run his career, what’s left of it, and try to

21 salvage it without knowing what’s going on.

22 And one thing that has also been proven

23 here, I believe, that there’s substantial evidence

24 that Mr. Jackson is a hands-on person. He likes to

25 get involved to some extent and to be informed, and

26 likes to make the ultimate decisions as to what’s

27 going on. He’s been described as the captain of the

28 ship. And I think that the evidence that 9065

1 circumstantially has been shown here establishes

2 that just to be the case here, and I want to start

3 to just direct the Court’s attention to some of the

4 things that I think are important.

5 First of all, I think we need to comment on

6 the associates themselves. These are people that

7 came in from different places. One’s from Canada.

8 One’s from Germany. Mr. Schaffel is local. Mr.

9 Schaffel had a history. Mr. Tyson had been a

10 friend, a close family friend, and his family has

11 been a close family friend of the defendant’s for

12 years. Absolute years.

13 Now, who is it that’s involved the most in

14 actually executing many of the overt acts in this

15 case? Frank Tyson. Frank Tyson, the defendant’s

16 closest friend, is the person who’s out there doing

17 many, many, many of these overt acts. Who’s at the

18 ranch hanging out with the defendant while all this

19 conduct is being conducted? Frank Tyson. And his

20 friend, Vinnie, that he brought in to help him do

21 all of these things.

22 You look at the phone analyses that were

23 presented to the jury in this case, and you look

24 through the key times when things are going on, like

25 when the Arvizos left on the 12th, and the video on

26 the 19th and the 20th, there are very few phone

27 calls up there of Marc Schaffel. The majority of

28 the calls are going back and forth between the 9066

1 defendant’s closest friend, Frank Tyson, his cohort

2 Vinnie Amen, Neverland Valley Ranch, and phone calls

3 to Michael Jackson’s investigator’s cell phone. And

4 we have testimony from at least, I believe, three

5 different witnesses in this case that that’s how Mr.

6 Jackson communicated with people.

7 I think it’s significant that the Court in

8 this particular case also has to put into context

9 what happened here when this whole thing got

10 started, when the bad news came out, when they

11 learned about the transcript on the 24th, when

12 Schaffel went to Dieter and Ronald and when they

13 went to Miami where the defendant was. Those people

14 were called to Miami to be with the defendant to

15 consult. “What are we going to do to solve this

16 problem?”

17 What comes out of the product of that, Your

18 Honor? The product of that is the defendant is the

19 first one in this case who mentions “killers.” It’s

20 the defendant who is the first one in this case who

21 reaches out his hand across the nation through the

22 telephones to contact the Arvizos, who he has not

23 had a single solitary contact with for months, and

24 that last contact was simply to manipulate Gavin

25 Arvizo to participate in the Bashir tape. And he

26 hadn’t seen Gavin and the family for months and

27 months and months before that. It’s the defendant

28 who reaches out first. 9067

1 The Arvizos are minding their own time.

2 They’re getting bombarded by the media because of

3 the Bashir tape. But they’re not calling Jackson.

4 It’s Jackson calling them. It’s Michael Jackson who

5 says, “I want you to come to Miami.” It’s Michael

6 Jackson who said, “I want you to come here for a

7 press conference.”

8 Now, I think we have to stop and think about

9 something here, something that Rudy Provencio said

10 on the witness stand. Mr. Jackson said he didn’t

11 really like to do press conferences. Well, if he

12 wasn’t going to do a press conference, why did he

13 want those people in Miami? And why was there a

14 one-way ticket bought, or going to be bought, before

15 they put them on the charter jet with Chris Tucker?

16 A one-way ticket? They wanted those people out of

17 circulation. They wanted that family out of

18 circulation. And it was the defendant that reached

19 out to them and brought them to Miami, to him and to

20 the other members of the conspiracy in this case.

21 And who was it who speaks first in Miami?

22 It’s the defendant, Michael Jackson. It’s not

23 Dieter. It’s not Ronald. It’s not Marc Schaffel.

24 It’s not Frank Tyson. And it’s not Vinnie Amen.

25 And he sets the tone. Again, he says, “the

26 killers.” “And if you want to appease them, if you

27 want to appease them, the killers, do what these two

28 people who work for me tell you to do.” And he set 9068

1 the whole tone for the entire relationship and the

2 situation at that very point in time.

3 And we know for a fact, or there’s no

4 evidence to the contrary, that there were no

5 killers. There were no people to appease. It was

6 false. It was made — it was something that was

7 made up to induce a mother, who is fearful for her

8 children, who has no father figure in the family, to

9 go to somebody they thought was their friend, his

10 friend, Michael Jackson.

11 And it worked. And it worked.

12 And when they get there, what are the first

13 two things that Dieter and Ronald do? The people

14 that Janet Arvizo is instructed to rely on? The

15 people who are going to take her out of this

16 problem? The people who are going to appease the

17 killers? They don’t do anything to try to make

18 money off of Michael Jackson. What they do is, they

19 have her sign blank pieces of paper which are

20 eventually used to try to infer that she’s part of a

21 lawsuit with Michael Jackson against Bashir that she

22 says never — wasn’t on the sheet of paper when she

23 signed it in blank.

24 What else do they do when they’re in Miami?

25 They don’t try to do anything to take money from

26 Michael Jackson. They issue a press release, which

27 statement’s attributed to the family and to Janet

28 Arvizo and to Gavin Arvizo that they’ve never made. 9069

1 Who benefits by that? The defendant is the

2 only one that benefits by that.

3 When they decide to go back to California,

4 you can’t reasonably assume that Mr. Jackson didn’t

5 know that the Arvizos were going to come to the

6 ranch. It’s his ranch. It’s his charter plane. It

7 was his invitation. Why is he doing this? There

8 was no press conference. Why not take them home?

9 Why not let them go? Why take them to the ranch?

10 Again, the reason is clear. They wanted to

11 isolate these people. They wanted to keep them away

12 from the media. They wanted to convince them to do

13 a rebuttal film, all things that Mr. Jackson was

14 aware of. He was aware of it, because on the

15 conversation that Rudy Provencio tells us about, he

16 not only talks about Debbie Rowe doing the rebuttal

17 film, but he also talks about the fact that they

18 talk about the fact that the Arvizos were to be part

19 of that film. So he’s aware that that’s part of the

20 project. So why do they have to go the ranch? Why

21 do they have to stay on the ranch if that’s part of

22 the project?

23 And the defendant ‘s the one who’s involved

24 in making those kinds of decisions as to who can

25 stay at his ranch and under what circumstances and

26 who gets on his charter jet. That’s not a decision

27 made by Dieter Weizner. It’s not a decision that’s

28 made by Marc Schaffel, who’s in California. That’s 9070

1 not a decision that’s made by Ronald Konitzer. And

2 it’s certainly not a decision that would be made by

3 somebody like Frank Tyson.

4 I think the evidence is fairly clear in

5 this, by the way, this “killer” statement, that it

6 was false, was not true. We have from several

7 different witnesses in this case now that confirms

8 that. Not only through the — through Rudy

9 Provencio, but he said he heard the same thing from

10 Ian Drew. And so there’s several different sources

11 of the fact that this kind of language was used to

12 scare the Arvizos in this case.

13 Now, with regard to what happens in the next

14 12 days, whether you want to call it an escape or

15 not between lawyers, or whether you want to

16 categorize it as a situation where somebody was

17 there against their will, I don’t think we have to

18 quibble about it, because the people associated with

19 the defendant in this case clearly called it what it

20 was. It was Ronald Konitzer on the phone with Ann

21 Gabriel Kite, and it was the other people that

22 talked about the conversation that they escaped that

23 we heard about in this case. They used the word

24 “escape.”

25 Now, I don’t think any reasonable person

26 could understand the use of the word “escape” unless

27 somebody was being held against their will, unless

28 there had been a lack of an opportunity to 9071

1 voluntarily leave or — why would you use that term?

2 And just the circumstances itself that they have to

3 go to a person and speak in Spanish and then leave

4 in the middle of the night in a hurry and leave and

5 go back to Los Angeles bears that out.

6 But the thing I think that bears it out more

7 than anything else is the eventual telephone

8 conversation between Frank Tyson and Janet. And you

9 hear that conversation on the phone. And it

10 indicates several different things about the

11 continuing nature of that conspiracy.

12 It indicates — number one, it corroborates

13 the fact that there had been contact between Dieter

14 and Ronald and Janet; that those contacts had been

15 nasty, I guess is the easiest word you could use;

16 that she was upset about that; that she didn’t want

17 to be there anymore with those people there.

18 The second thing that it shows is that they

19 still wanted the rebuttal film. They still wanted

20 the Arvizos to participate in what they hoped to be

21 the FOX program at that time, because they committed

22 publicly to FOX to have the Arvizos on that program,

23 because Frank’s heard to say on that tape, “I want

24 you to say beautiful things about Michael. Come

25 back. Come back.” He says several times on that

26 tape — if you recall, Your Honor, several times he

27 alludes to the danger that they’re in. “Danger,”

28 over and over again. 9072

1 And he then tells her several times,

2 speaking on behalf of the co-conspirators, Michael

3 Jackson, “Michael misses you, Michael cares for you,

4 Michael wants you to come back.”

5 Now, it’s unreasonable to believe — now, we

6 have to understand, they leave on the 12th. This

7 conversation take place two, three days later with

8 Frank Tyson. It’s unreasonable to believe that the

9 defendant was not aware of the fact that that family

10 had left the ranch. For every day and every night

11 since that he arrived at that ranch on the 7th, he

12 had been in the presence of those children. At

13 least Gavin and Star. It’s unreasonable to believe

14 that he didn’t know for several days that they were

15 gone from the ranch, when they’d been sleeping with

16 him and playing with him, and doing whatever they

17 did the rest of the time of the day.

18 It’s just as unreasonable to believe that

19 Frank Tyson, his closest friend, would be making

20 representations to Janet that weren’t

21 representations made on behalf his closest friend,

22 Frank Tyson. Frank even lies to her to get her to

23 come back to the ranch by telling her that the

24 Germans are gone, that the problem’s over with, and,

25 “Come back.”

26 Janet makes it very clear on her behalf,

27 Your Honor, that she’s not interested in making any

28 money on this case. She makes it very clear in that 9073

1 conversation with Frank. She still cares very much

2 about Michael Jackson. She’s told on the tape, you

3 can hear it, “There are letters all over my mother’s

4 table in El Monte. We’re getting calls by the

5 press.” “If I wanted to make money,” she could have

6 made money, she said. “I didn’t want to make any

7 money off Michael Jackson.”

8 And then what happened? She goes back to

9 the ranch. And what did she see? She sees Dieter

10 and Ronald. She’s been lied to, and she leaves.

11 But who is it that says the children must stay?

12 It’s the co-conspirators, Dieter and Ronald, who are

13 there. And at that point she’s deprived of her

14 children. She says, “You can leave, but the kids

15 are staying here. They’re staying here, whether

16 they want to be here or not.”

17 The fact of the matter is, they did. She

18 couldn’t have taken them with her even if she’d

19 wanted to.

20 Now, the other thing I think we have to take

21 into consideration is that there is evidence that

22 Dieter and Ronald were at the ranch with Michael

23 Jackson during this whole period of time, not the

24 entire six weeks, but the entire time from around

25 the 8th or 9th through the 12th and then later. And

26 that Frank Tyson is there at certain critical points

27 and times and then later.

28 And to believe that the ranch is being used 9074

1 by these people without Michael Jackson knowing a

2 thing that’s going on I think is an unreasonable

3 inference to draw from the conduct of the parties,

4 from the fact that they’re seen together meeting.

5 And I think illustrative of this is the fact that —

6 and this wasn’t something that Gavin testified to on

7 direct examination. This was something Mr. Mesereau

8 brought out on cross-examination.

9 That at the very time before the video is

10 going to be filmed, Brett Ratner and Michael Jackson

11 were at the house trying to get Gavin to sign a

12 release to participate. It clearly shows that the

13 defendant is still actively involved in the project

14 to get the Arvizos on that rebuttal film, and knows

15 the significance of that in terms of the

16 preservation of his own career.

17 I don’t think there can be much doubt of the

18 fact that at that point in time, after the children

19 returned, with the case — and the state of the

20 evidence in this case, we have a witness, Barron,

21 who says there’s a sign that Gavin’s not to leave,

22 and we have logs that say that Gavin and Star, et

23 cetera, are not to leave. We have testimony from

24 Mr. Barron he never saw anything like that before or

25 after during his time he was employed there. We

26 have Hamid saying that Joe Marcus wasn’t going to

27 let the kids leave the ranch to do the rebuttal film

28 until it was cleared. I don’t think it can be 9075

1 argued that these children were free to go wherever

2 they wanted to go, or this family was free to go

3 wherever they wanted to go.

4 The trip to Brazil. The trip to Brazil.

5 They take them down to a hotel. And have you ever

6 heard anything more bizarre than that, than having

7 people sit in the hotel two to three doors down with

8 the door open so you can’t even walk by in the

9 hallway? And then a private investigator sitting in

10 the lobby? For what purpose, other than to confine,

11 and to intimidate, and to control, and to isolate

12 those people.

13 The trip to Brazil, I think, is also

14 illustrative, and then again, this is something Mr.

15 Jackson, the state of the evidence is, Mr. Jackson

16 knew about. You recall that Gavin testified that he

17 was present during a conversation where he and Frank

18 Tyson and Mr. Jackson testified that Mr. Jackson

19 said that he would join them later. To entice them.

20 So you can’t say he wasn’t aware that they were

21 trying to get this family out of the country.

22 Why are they trying to get this family out

23 of the country? What have they done that deserves

24 for them to be taken out of the country? And why

25 do, when they go to check him out of school, they

26 tell one person they’re going to Arizona? And why,

27 when they go to get passports, do they tell them

28 they’re going to Italy and France, and then they 9076

1 eventually get visas for Brazil, another country?

2 I think the only logical reason for that is

3 they’re trying to hide the trail so nobody can track

4 this family, ever. And take them down to Brazil

5 where at least two people connected with the

6 defendant are familiar with things down there. We

7 have testimony that Mr. Schaffel goes down there.

8 And Mr. Hugo, who was present at the rebuttal

9 filming, was down in Brazil and making phone calls

10 back to people during this particular point in time

11 that was critical to the trip to Brazil.

12 THE COURT: How much — I think we’ll take

13 our break. How much time do you need to finish?

14 MR. SNEDDON: I don’t think I need much

15 longer. Maybe 15 minutes. But counsel had an hour,

16 so —

17 THE COURT: I just was asking.

18 MR. SNEDDON: Okay.

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

20 (Recess taken.)

21 MR. SNEDDON: I’ll try to wrap this up

22 pretty quickly.

23 Oops, sorry.

24 THE COURT: They’re waving at you.

25 MR. SNEDDON: I heard. I could feel it back

26 there. It was like a breeze, a nice one.

27 (Laughter.)

28 MR. SNEDDON: I said, and so everybody can 9077

1 hear it again, I’ll try to wrap this up rather

2 quickly, I think. The break helped me do that.

3 I just want to go back and address a couple

4 other items on the conspiracy, and then I’ll turn my

5 attention — and I want to say this at the outset.

6 I believe that we correctly analyzed the state of

7 the law to the Court before we — when we started

8 this, but I think I’d be remiss if I didn’t address

9 at least some of the factual credibility issues that

10 were raised by the defense, but I really don’t

11 believe that that’s pertinent to this particular

12 proceeding, but there’s some things I think need to

13 be clarified about what was said. I’m not going to

14 do it in detail. I’m just going to hit some

15 highlights about things, so….

16 First of all, I just want to get back to the

17 conspiracy. I think there’s another thing that

18 needs to be noted about the associates that the

19 defendant was involved with in these particular

20 adventures that I think that bears some

21 noteworthiness or some reasonable inferences in this

22 case.

23 A lot has been made about the fact that Marc

24 Schaffel was a person of low credibility, and

25 there’s been evidence that he may have taken a

26 million dollars that he shouldn’t have taken from a

27 lady in Japan, and that Dieter and Ronald may have

28 taken money from Mr. Jackson, a lot of conversations 9078

1 about that.

2 But I got to tell you that the one thing

3 that stands out about that in relationship to this

4 case is that if you’re going to be involved in a

5 conspiracy to save your career, you’re not going to

6 go out and try to hire somebody to help you that’s

7 honest, if you’re going to try to extort something

8 out of somebody, if you’re going to try to control

9 and isolate individuals and falsely imprison them

10 and move them around and keep their kids away from

11 them.

12 You’re going to get the kind of people that

13 you know are willing to do things that are

14 dishonest. These are people that the defendant’s

15 been associated with for many, many years, and he

16 knows their character, and he knows what they’re

17 capable of. Or you can out and find somebody who is

18 blindly loyal to you, who you can trust implicitly,

19 because it’s somebody who will be at your side and

20 has been at your side and will always be at your

21 side no matter what you request of them. Somebody

22 like Frank Tyson. Those are the kind of people that

23 go to making up a conspiracy of this type with the

24 stakes that are this large.

25 And I think it needs to be clarified that

26 when — in relationship to Mr. Jackson knowing about

27 what goes on, Mr. Sanger glossed over the testimony

28 in this case where he said, “Even Rudy Provencio 9079

1 said that he doesn’t always know what’s going on

2 with Ronald and Dieter and Marc Schaffel.”

3 Well, that’s not exactly what his testimony

4 was.

5 What his testimony was is that in

6 relationship to what was going on from the crisis

7 from the Bashir tape, that Mr. Jackson was in the

8 information loop and in that loop regularly. That

9 the things — if you check the transcript, the

10 things that he said that Jackson didn’t know about

11 were the other ventures that these people had going

12 on that did not involve this particular crisis. But

13 he was very clear in his testimony that as to this

14 particular crisis, Mr. Jackson was in that loop, and

15 he was in that loop on a regular basis.

16 I think the other thing that needs to be

17 borne out about much that Mr. Sanger makes about

18 “scripted.” I guess the difference is, and I think

19 perhaps there’s some legitimacy to this, given the

20 fact that Mr. Jackson’s an entertainer, that there’s

21 a common-sense meaning for “scripted” and then

22 there’s an entertainment meaning for “scripted,” I

23 would think.

24 The fact of the matter is, whatever way you

25 want to put it, that Debbie Rowe interview was not a

26 legitimate, truthful interview by any stretch of the

27 imagination. And why it should take somebody nine

28 and a half hours to say something nice about the 9080

1 defendant is beyond me. And why they should have to

2 stop the tape and say that, “You didn’t cry well

3 enough, so we’ll go back and cry again,” now if

4 that’s not scripted in the common-sense term, I

5 don’t know what is.

6 And I think that proves just the point we

7 were trying to make with the Janet Arvizo tape is,

8 whether you talk about it’s written, or it’s not

9 written, and for Pete’s sake, look at the photograph

10 that’s in evidence. There’s papers all over that

11 room. You see Marc Schaffel sitting on the ground

12 writing. They weren’t doing their income tax

13 returns. Those were scripts of questions.

14 Now, whether you want to technically say

15 that they were — that something was told to be said

16 this way and that way, obviously they tried to do

17 that. They just weren’t successful with her. She

18 was going to tell the lie that she and the defendant

19 made up years ago. And she was going to stick to

20 that, and she was going to tell it her way. It

21 wasn’t that they didn’t want it another way.

22 I think another thing that needs to be borne

23 out with regard to something I said earlier this

24 morning, Your Honor, and that’s with regards to this

25 ranch sign, the one that said Gavin can’t leave, the

26 one that’s in the logs. I don’t think there’s a

27 shred of evidence in this case that indicates that

28 Marc Schaffel has the kind of power to tell Joe 9081

1 Marcus what to do at that ranch and to tell the

2 people what to put in those logs.

3 It was Joe Marcus who said the kids can’t

4 leave the ranch. And who does Joe Marcus report to?

5 He reports to the defendant in this case, not to

6 Marc Schaffel.

7 I’d like to just finish up by a direct —

8 addressing just a few, and I’m not going to go into

9 all of that, because I don’t think there’s any sense

10 in doing final arguments on a day like this,

11 particularly when I don’t believe the credibility

12 issues are on point. But I think there’s some

13 things that need to be clarified, and frankly, this

14 is a good opportunity to say this.

15 I am — I am offended and I’m sick and tired

16 of the defense standing up in this case, as they’ve

17 done for months and months and months and months,

18 saying that they don’t take it lightly when they

19 accuse somebody of perjury. They said this when

20 they accused me of perjury. They said that when

21 they accused me of suborning perjury. They accused

22 Mr. Auchincloss of that. And now they’re accusing

23 Mr. Zonen of some impropriety. I think they do take

24 it lightly, and the fact of the matter is, there’s a

25 common denominator. Anybody who stands in their

26 way, whether it’s Janet Arvizo, Gavin Arvizo, Star

27 Arvizo, Davellin Arvizo, Rudy Provencio or anybody

28 else in this case that says one thing bad about the 9082

1 defendant in this case are perjurers.

2 I don’t think the law of coincidence is that

3 high. None of us get anything out of this except a

4 lot of grief. So to say that they don’t take it

5 lightly I think is nonsense, and I’d like to show

6 you why some of these things are nonsense.

7 If Rudy — Rudy Provencio is a media guy. He

8 works in the media. He knows the media. Now, if he

9 wanted to go get a notebook and make up a bunch of

10 things about Michael Jackson and implicate him in

11 this case, all he has to do is go to,

12 download the grand jury transcripts, have an

13 accurate depiction of every single event that

14 occurred in this case and a date reference, and he

15 could have made up the greatest notebook in the

16 world and came in here and testify to it.

17 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, excuse me, I’m just

18 going to object to keep it on track. This argument

19 is limited to the evidence that’s before the jury at

20 the conclusion of the People’s case. So I don’t

21 want to object unnecessarily, but I think we’re

22 going afield from that particular issue talking

23 about “The Smoking Gun” and things that are not in

24 evidence.

25 THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.

26 MR. SNEDDON: He could have gone out and

27 constructed a notebook that would have been

28 devastating to the defense in every respect. Every 9083

1 date right, every event, every conversation. He

2 could have manufactured conversations that occurred

3 between he and Schaffel, or he and the defendant, or

4 any other parties to this conspiracy that occurred,

5 not only just the two he testified to. He could

6 have made up other conversations if he wanted to be

7 a hero in this case and a perjurer in this case and

8 to do the defendant in in this case. That just

9 doesn’t hold water, like the pay/owe with a big hole

10 in it.

11 If he wanted to be the hero — and one

12 thing, if you could tell, he’s not a dumb person.

13 He didn’t need to do it that way. And probably the

14 reason and likely — the more likely reasonable

15 inference is he did it that way because that’s the

16 truth and that’s the way it happened. And people do

17 things at certain points in time and they’re not

18 looking back that there’s going to be a trial.

19 There was no investigation going on when he took

20 these notes. There was just a crisis going in the

21 media over the defendant and his career.

22 This timeline change makes Gavin a liar.

23 Let’s put it in perspective, if we can.

24 First and foremost, this whole thing about

25 there’s no disclosure until after they go to the

26 lawyers and after they go to Dr. Katz, well,

27 actually there wasn’t a disclosure even with Dr.

28 Katz, so there was nothing for the lawyers to muck 9084

1 around with because he doesn’t disclose to Dr. Katz.

2 As you recall, Dr. Katz’ testimony is he got

3 very emotional, and he terminated the conversation

4 because he felt something had happened, but he

5 didn’t want to go any further.

6 The first disclosure was to law enforcement.

7 Now, what’s the testimony in that case about

8 the disclosure to law enforcement?

9 The testimony elicited by the defense, Mr.

10 Sanger himself did it, elicited from Sergeant Robel,

11 when he was testifying, was they — “they,” Santa

12 Barbara Sheriff’s Department, after having received

13 the information from Mr. Feldman that there had been

14 a report made, or that was the report, to be more

15 accurate — tried to get this family to come to

16 Santa Barbara in order to do an interview with them

17 to see whether or not anything had happened. In

18 other words, to follow up on that responsibility

19 because they had received a mandated report.

20 And what did he say? They didn’t want to be

21 involved. They didn’t want to come. They didn’t

22 want to do it.

23 And, now, does that sound like a family that

24 has a lawsuit on their mind? Or does that sound

25 like a family that just wants to be left alone,

26 that’s tied up in this thing now there was a

27 mandated reporter involved?

28 It just doesn’t hold water. 9085

1 And the timeline never changed. The

2 timeline was, as the testimony disclosed from Gavin,

3 that was consistent with his grand jury testimony,

4 which was consistent with his trial testimony, that

5 he told Sergeant Robel early on during the

6 investigation, that the crimes — the molestations

7 occurred during February and March. Gavin doesn’t

8 pick the time period. The prosecutors pick the time

9 period that’s involved.

Let me briefly interrupt Sneddon’s argument by pointing out that he is telling a bald faced LIE! Here is a comparison of the charges against Jackson when the initial complaint was filed in December 2003: when Tom Sneddon filed his initial felony complaint against Michael Jackson on December 18th, 2003, it consisted of the following allegations by Gavin, which allegedly occurred from February 7th through March 10th, 2003:

  • 7 counts of lewd acts upon a child (which Gavin Arvizo originally claimed happened to him BEFORE he and his family were “forced” to shoot the rebuttal video on February 20th, 2003)
  • 2 counts of administering an intoxicant

However, in the grand jury indictment that was filed on April 21st, 2004, the dates of the alleged offenses shifted to February 20th through March 12th, 2003, and the charges were materially altered as follows:

  • 4 counts of lewd acts upon a child (which Gavin Arvizo now claims happened to him AFTER he and his family were “forced” to shoot the rebuttal video on February 20th, 2003)
  • 1 count of an attempted lewd act upon a child
  • 4 counts of administering an intoxicant
  • 1 count of conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment, and extortion

The contrast between the initial charges and the indictment couldn’t be more stark! Now, back to Sneddon’s argument:

10 Now, before the grand jury, Gavin testified

11 to two incidents involving the defendant. And what

12 he told the grand jury and what he told the jury

13 here is, “I believe that I was molested on other

14 occasions. I have a feeling that I was,” which is

15 what he was talking about to Sergeant Robel in an

16 interview. “But,” he said, “I have to testify under

17 oath. Under oath, I only remember two.”

18 Now, does that sound like something that a

19 perjurer would do? My Lord, the only two people

20 present when all this happens is the defendant and

21 Gavin. He could have made up 20 allegations if he

22 wanted to. He could have made up more horrendous

23 things if he wanted to. Instead, the kid’s honest

24 enough to say, “I think it might have happened on

25 other occasions, but Lord, I’m not going to come in

26 here under oath and say something against Mr.

27 Jackson that I don’t believe that I can credibly say

28 without doubt.” 9086

1 And that’s what he did. And they want you

2 to believe that he’s a perjurer because he did that?

3 That doesn’t make sense, like a lot of the things

4 that the defense is urging in this case.

5 I just want to clarify two other things and

6 I’m about to sit down, Your Honor.

7 With regard to Janet — and I’m not going to

8 be an apologist for Janet Arvizo. I’m also not

9 going to sit here and tell you that I think that

10 she’s a perjurer or that she’s willfully false in

11 her testimony. I will tell you that, as I think has

12 been clear and from a lot of things that happened,

13 that she is a woman who projects a person who has

14 been involved in a domestic relationship with a lot

15 of abuse for 16 years, and it’s showing, and it

16 showed here in the courtroom.

17 And I think it’s a little unfair for counsel

18 to stand up here and say that Janet created false

19 information about her husband beating her up,

20 created false information about a molestation, just

21 like happened in this case, from what happened

22 before, when there is public records that exist that

23 show that her husband was publicly convicted, beyond

24 a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, of not

25 one, but two offenses of abusing not only her, but

26 her daughter. And that a Judge, a neutral

27 magistrate, was so offended by the conduct that he

28 took away visitation rights for that father for 9087

1 three years, along with a lot of other things that

2 happened.

3 Now, that’s a little unfair. That’s a tad

4 unfair to say somebody’s a perjurer and somebody’s

5 setting up the defendant, Michael Jackson, when

6 there’s objective proof of the fact that what she

7 said was truthful.

8 And this whole thing about the sexual

9 molestation, can anybody forget — can you forget?

10 I’m sure you haven’t. Can anybody forget, any of

11 these people who are sitting here, hearing Davellin

12 on the stand talk about that conversation involving

13 her mother and herself and her father where her

14 father confesses to her that he molested her when

15 she was a child and she breaks down and she cries?

16 Can anybody forget that? And that makes her a

17 perjurer? That makes Janet a perjurer for making up

18 something that actually happened?

19 I’d just tell the Court, you know, it’s

20 things like this, all the way through this case,

21 that when you look at this thing with the standard,

22 not only eventually, but right now, that’s required

23 of this Court, I could stand up here for another two

24 hours and make a final argument to you just like Mr.

25 Sanger did, and I could go through point by point by

26 point and show you the unreasonableness of their

27 position, and I think I’ve just given you some

28 isolated examples of just what I’m talking about. 9088

1 And I just submit to the Court that given

2 the standard in this case and given the evidence

3 before this Court, that this jury ought to be able

4 to be given the opportunity to decide for themselves

5 the credibility of these issues — of these

6 witnesses, given the totality of the circumstances,

7 and that’s the very standard that the Court of

8 Appeals and the Supreme Court sets out for an 1118

9 motion.

10 Thank you.

11 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

12 No, Counsel, you don’t need to stand.

13 MR. SANGER: Thank you, Your Honor.

After hearing the arguments of both sides, Judge Melville decided to deny the defense’s 1118 motion to dismiss the case based on insufficient evidence.

14 THE COURT: The Court’s going to deny the

15 1118 motion. The request to dismiss the charges is

16 denied.

17 I’m going to bring in the jury. Are you

18 prepared to call your first witness?

19 MR. SANGER: Yes, Your Honor.

20 THE COURT: All right.

21 MR. MESEREAU: Excuse me, Your Honor?

22 There’s a motion in limine that the prosecution made

23 about a couple witnesses we plan to call.

24 THE COURT: They don’t seem to be the first

25 two.

26 MR. MESEREAU: They’re not the first two.

27 THE COURT: So I’ll put that off.

28 Get the jury in. 9089

1 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Thank you.


3 (The following proceedings were held in

4 open court in the presence and hearing of the

5 jury:)


7 THE COURT: Good afternoon.

8 THE JURY: (In unison) Good afternoon.

9 THE COURT: You may proceed.

10 THE CLERK: Judge, we need to swear the

11 witness.

12 THE COURT: All right. Please raise your

13 right hand and face the clerk.



16 Having been sworn, testified as follows:



19 THE CLERK: Please be seated. State and

20 spell your name for the record.

21 THE WITNESS: My name is Wade J. Robson,

22 spelled W-a-d-e, initial J., R-o-b-s-o-n.

23 THE CLERK: Thank you.

24 MR. MESEREAU: May I proceed, Your Honor?

25 THE COURT: You may.

To be continued:


3 Comments leave one →
  1. lynande51 permalink*
    October 20, 2014 10:08 pm

    You Know it’s funny because I just tweeted the information about the conspiracy charge to someone today.I don’t think I have ever read the part where he says that there was no difference between what Gavin said to the cops in the initial interview and what he said in front of the Grand Jury.
    To quote him from the Grand Jury transcript he says exactly ” It felt like more”,Even that isn’t consistent with what Sneddon just argued here.
    I’m just not sure as to how this worked. Was it Sneddon that enabled the Arvizo’s or was it the Arvizo’s that enabled Sneddon?

    • sanemjfan permalink
      October 20, 2014 10:09 pm

      Was it Sneddon that enabled the Arvizo’s or was it the Arvizo’s that enabled Sneddon?

      I think it was an equal combination of BOTH!! lol


  1. May 5th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Wade Robson and Brett Barnes, Part 2 of 4 | Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: