April 25, 2005










9 Plaintiff, )

10 -vs- ) No. 1133603


12 Defendant. )







19 MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2005


21 8:30 A.M.


23 (PAGES 7326 THROUGH 7371)





28 BY: Official Court Reporter 7326



3 For Plaintiff: THOMAS W. SNEDDON, JR.,

4 District Attorney -and-

5 RONALD J. ZONEN, Sr. Deputy District Attorney


7 Sr. Deputy District Attorney -and-

8 MAG NICOLA, Sr. Deputy District Attorney

9 1112 Santa Barbara Street Santa Barbara, California 93101





14 SUSAN C. YU, ESQ. 1875 Century Park East, Suite 700

15 Los Angeles, California 90067

16 -and-


18 233 East Carrillo Street, Suite C Santa Barbara, California 93101

19 -and-


21 BY: R. BRIAN OXMAN, ESQ. 14126 East Rosecrans Boulevard

22 Santa Fe Springs, California 90670



25 Cynthia BY: ROBERT T. MOORE II, ESQ. Montgomery: 270 N. Canon Drive, Third

26 Beverly Hills, California 90210


28 7327

1 Santa Maria, California

2 Monday, April 25, 2005

3 8:30 a.m.


5 (The following proceedings were held in

6 open court outside the presence and hearing of the

7 jury:)


9 THE COURT: Good morning.


11 Good morning, Your Honor.

12 THE COURT: Let’s see. There was an issue

13 you wanted to address, Counsel?

14 MR. MESEREAU: Yes. Yes, please, Your

15 Honor. Thank you.

16 Your Honor, I was informed by the

17 prosecution this morning that they want to call

18 Cindy Montgomery as a witness. As the Court may

19 recall, the Court essentially disqualified Miss

20 Montgomery last week because she’s going to assert a

21 Fifth Amendment privilege on certain issues related

22 to a secret taping of Mr. Jackson on a plane.

23 The prosecution informed me this morning

24 after I got to court that they have decided to grant

25 her immunity. This is a surprise to the defense,

26 and I was not prepared to examine her today. I have

27 materials on Miss Montgomery that are not with me

28 today, and it would be prejudicial to the defense 7328

1 for them to suddenly decide to immunize her and call

2 her without us being aware of that.

3 The second issue, Your Honor, has to do

4 with a witness named Hamid, who the prosecution

5 intends to call today. We were given proper notice

6 that he was to testify, but we were notified last

7 night by Prosecutor Auchincloss that there is a tape

8 of an interview that we have not heard and certainly

9 have not had a chance to transcribe. So because we

10 have not been able to do that, we’d request that

11 Hamid not testify today.

12 I am told by Ms. Yu, who spoke to Mr.

13 Auchincloss, that the tape is apparently not that

14 lengthy, but we could not transcribe it in time,

15 obviously, and I would need that for

16 cross-examination. Based upon the information given

17 to Ms. Yu by Mr. Auchincloss, there could be some

18 significant information of value to us in that tape.

19 They’re the two requests, Your Honor.

20 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Your Honor, I’ll go ahead

21 and address the Hamid issue first. Mr. Nicola will

22 talk about Miss Montgomery.

23 Mr. Moslehi was interviewed on Saturday by

24 myself and Detective Robel, and he gave us

25 information on four points, basically that were

26 summarized in four sentences, that I provided to the

27 defense yesterday.

28 Detective Robel recorded that conversation 7329

1 on a digital recorder. He came back to Santa Maria

2 yesterday and downloaded it and made a CD copy of

3 that. And yesterday afternoon when he had finished

4 that, we contacted the defense and tried to set up a

5 meeting place where we could provide them with that

6 tape. That didn’t work out. It was — the evening

7 kind of became — it became somewhat late and Miss

8 Yu said she couldn’t make it to deliver that

9 document, or that tape. I also provided Mr. Sanger

10 an e-mail with a copy of the four bullet points and

11 I told Miss Yu yesterday the substance of those four

12 points. So that’s where we stand.

13 Mr. Moslehi is a witness that — probably

14 our lengthiest witness today. So he was anticipated

15 to take up most of the day. And I’ll just say that

16 the discovery was certainly timely in the fact that

17 we turned it over as soon as we — as soon as we

18 obtained it.

19 THE COURT: All right.

20 MR. NICOLA: Good morning, Your Honor.

21 I filed a declaration, a motion for

22 reconsideration, and had those documents served on

23 the defense by fax on Friday morning, and we filed

24 it with the Court Friday morning, as well, with

25 respect to Ms. Montgomery.

26 And essentially in the declaration I believe

27 I laid out that we received late notice on Wednesday

28 that Ms. Montgomery would assert the Fifth on 7330

1 Friday — or on Thursday, excuse me. We didn’t have

2 time to contact the U.S. Attorney and see their

3 stance. On Thursday, after the Court’s ruling, I

4 was in touch with both Miss Montgomery’s attorney

5 and the U.S. Attorney. A decision was made at that

6 time to offer use immunity for Miss Montgomery since

7 she was claiming the Fifth. And upon hearing

8 Thursday afternoon that everybody was okay with

9 that, including the U.S. Attorney, I filed my

10 motions as quickly as I could Friday morning. I

11 know we faxed them to Mr. Sanger’s office. I have

12 no knowledge whether he received them or Mr.

13 Mesereau did, but we did file it, and there is a

14 proof of service on file.

15 MR. SANGER: I see that we have six pending

16 matters and then I was handed some more material

17 just this morning. So we just may need time to sort

18 this out, Your Honor. I think we’re all trying to

19 do this as efficiently as possible.

20 On the Montgomery issue, we received

21 sometime on Friday — and I don’t think it was in

22 the morning. I didn’t see it until the end of the

23 day. Of course we were not in session, so it was

24 sent to me. But there was a motion to grant her use

25 immunity, which, as I understand it, is something

26 that the People are going to have to apply to the

27 Court for, and then the Court has to determine

28 whether or not to grant it, and the witness has to 7331

1 decide whether or not to testify based on use

2 immunity, because there’s a question as to whether

3 or not this Court can bind the U.S. Attorney.

4 I heard the prosecution just say something

5 about being in contact with the U.S. Attorney, and

6 my recollection is – and it may be faulty – that

7 that was not concluded as of the time they filed

8 their papers. The papers indicated that they were

9 intending to make the motion, but there was no

10 indication from the U.S. Attorney that they were

11 going to abide by any grant of immunity that this

12 Court made. So that is an issue that obviously

13 needs to be heard, and there’s several parts to it.

14 Our part, whether or not the Court grants

15 immunity — I mean, we’re not here to argue one way

16 or the other on a grant of immunity. The Court can

17 do that based on other criteria.

18 The — as far as the Hamid material is

19 concerned, I did not get the four points. I believe

20 Miss Yu got the four points just as of the end of

21 the day last night. We got the tape or the

22 interview just this morning, so obviously I don’t

23 know how long it is. If it’s an hour long, we need

24 an hour to listen to it. We have not heard his most

25 recent interview.

26 So I — I don’t think that we can proceed

27 with Mr. Moslehi without having an opportunity to

28 hear the latest interview or, you know, take some 7332

1 other — I think that’s all we can do is hear it

2 before he testifies.

3 I would indicate that, just so we’re all on

4 the same page, if I may, Your Honor, quickly, the

5 other matters that are pending would be the Marc

6 Schaffel matter, which I think the Court has. I was

7 given some new material for Exhibit 420 by the

8 prosecutor just this morning, at 8:30, which is one

9 of the exhibits that we have objected to, and so

10 there will need to be a hearing on all of that at

11 some point. And I don’t know if they intend to call

12 him later today or tomorrow or when, but before he’s

13 called. That was a matter from last week that has

14 been carried over, and we’ll need to have a ruling

15 on that.

16 And then we have the motion — the People’s

17 motion to present the testimony of Alexander

18 Manchester, to which we object, and we filed an

19 objection on Friday.

20 And by the way, we filed our objection – I

21 think the Court has it – on Thursday, on the first

22 motion I addressed, which is the Schaffel exhibits.

23 We addressed just now the Cindy Montgomery

24 issue of immunity.

25 The fourth one would be a motion by the

26 prosecution to present testimony of Debbie Rowe.

27 We filed an opposition — that was received

28 Thursday. We filed an opposition Friday. I take it 7333

1 the Court has that.

2 And then five, there was a motion for

3 reconsideration of admitting some material the Court

4 had excluded. That motion was filed on Thursday,

5 and we filed our opposition on Friday.

6 And then the last thing is there was a

7 proposed jury instruction on Chris Carter’s taking

8 the Fifth that we had discussed on Thursday. The

9 Court had discussed that and said we should present

10 something. We sent that to the District Attorney’s

11 Office on Friday for review and comment. We

12 received no response. So we filed our proposed jury

13 instruction this morning for the Court’s

14 consideration and I gave another copy to Mr.

15 Auchincloss.

16 So I show those six matters as still

17 pending, in addition to anything else that might

18 come up here.

19 THE COURT: I didn’t see the proposed jury

20 instruction.

21 Did we get that?

22 I haven’t seen it.

23 MR. SANGER: We wanted the prosecution to

24 have an opportunity to respond, so we gave it to

25 them on Friday. We just filed it this morning, and

26 gave it to your secretary, Ms. Wagner, this morning,

27 I think 15 minutes ago.

28 MR. SNEDDON: Judge, I wouldn’t worry about 7334

1 it. Mr. Carter is not going to be testifying.

2 THE COURT: Okay. I won’t worry about it.

3 (Laughter.)

4 MR. SANGER: Five matters, then.

5 THE COURT: On the issue of the Attorney

6 General, who spoke to the Attorney General on the

7 use immunity?

8 MR. NICOLA: The U.S. Attorney’s Office,

9 Your Honor, and Cindy Montgomery?

10 THE COURT: Yes.

11 MR. NICOLA: I spoke to them. They are not

12 offering her use immunity. They didn’t oppose us

13 offering use immunity. Our contact with them is

14 merely a formality between offices.

15 THE COURT: What rights does that give her

16 with them?

17 MR. NICOLA: Well, I believe that a state

18 court’s grant of use immunity under the legal

19 standard that we set forth in our brief covers her

20 in federal court. They’re not allowed to use her

21 statements, her derivative evidence from that

22 against them.

23 Her attorney is here today, and he would, of

24 course, oppose her being compelled to testify on

25 that very basis. But we served him as well with

26 that motion. He won’t contest that. I spoke to him

27 this morning. And whatever the Court’s ruling is

28 with respect to that, then that’s the Court’s 7335

1 ruling.

2 THE COURT: Is he here right now?

3 MR. NICOLA: He is not.

4 MR. SNEDDON: He’s upstairs.

5 MR. NICOLA: Shall I bring him down?

6 THE COURT: I think he should be here if

7 we’re discussing his client.

8 MR. NICOLA: Certainly.

9 It will be just a moment, Your Honor.

10 Your Honor, do you wish the witness to be in

11 here as well?

12 THE COURT: Yes.

13 MR. NICOLA: Your Honor, they are present.

14 THE COURT: All right. Just a second.

15 All right. On the testimony on Cindy

16 Montgomery, is counsel for Miss Montgomery present?

17 MR. MOORE: Yes, I am, Your Honor. Bob

18 Moore. Good morning.

19 THE COURT: Mr. Moore, the issue that I had

20 talked to the District Attorney about before I

21 realized you weren’t in the courtroom was what the

22 U.S. Attorney’s position was on your client’s use

23 immunity through the state court.

24 MR. MOORE: I don’t believe he’s taken a

25 position.

26 THE COURT: What’s your position, then?

27 MR. MOORE: My position is if she testifies

28 here, she’s exposing herself to prosecution. I’m 7336

1 not saying a crime was committed or that she was

2 involved in it, but she might say something that’s

3 incriminating.

4 THE COURT: Is there any protection under the

5 federal court system once a use immunity is granted

6 here?

7 MR. MOORE: The People have cited a couple

8 of cases, which perhaps support that. However, I’m

9 concerned about the language in the code, 1324. It

10 says, and I quote, “The Court shall order the

11 question answered or the evidence produced unless it

12 finds that to do so would clearly — would be

13 clearly contrary to public interest or could subject

14 the witness to a criminal prosecution in another

15 jurisdiction.” And I think that language is

16 meaningful.

17 We have the federal jurisdiction. If a

18 crime occurred, it may have occurred in Los Angeles

19 County. It may have also occurred in Riverside

20 County and in Las Vegas. And those are additional

21 jurisdictions which have not been addressed.

22 THE COURT: Isn’t the use immunity provision

23 clear in terms of prosecution under California law?

24 I mean, we’re really one jurisdiction under

25 California law. It’s the federal jurisdiction that

26 I would — that I’m concerned about.

27 MR. MOORE: And so am I.

28 THE COURT: There’s no federal statute 7337

1 similar to the California statute that covers this?

2 MR. MOORE: 1324, do you mean?

3 I’m not sure, Your Honor.

4 THE COURT: Have you yourself discussed it

5 with the U.S. Attorney’s Office?

6 MR. MOORE: Yes, I spoke with him on Friday.

7 And he took no position, which leads me to believe

8 that there could be a prosecution down the road.

9 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

10 MR. MOORE: Thank you, Your Honor.

11 MR. NICOLA: May I address the Court on that

12 legal issue, Your Honor?

13 THE COURT: Yes.

14 MR. NICOLA: May I borrow your brief?

15 MR. MOORE: Sure.

16 MR. NICOLA: Your Honor, I also left my —

17 the papers I filed on Friday upstairs. And Mr.

18 Moore has allowed to let me use the one I faxed to

19 him Friday.

20 Your Honor, we believe our authorities are

21 directly on point with respect to this issue. The

22 Supreme Court ruled quite some time ago that the

23 Fifth Amendment privilege is of Constitutional

24 significance, obviously. And immunity from

25 prosecution for a witness who’s compelled to testify

26 under a grant of use immunity or derivative immunity

27 or even transactional immunity transcends between

28 the state courts and the federal courts. The case 7338

1 is absolutely clear about that issue. And when —

2 when the Supreme Court looked at the federal

3 statutes, they analyzed them within the context of

4 one jurisdiction granting use immunity to a witness

5 who may further be subject to prosecution or an

6 investigation in federal court. It was very

7 specific to that. And congress has passed other

8 statutes which are not inconsistent with California

9 law.

10 With respect to the California courts,

11 they’ve been following the Supreme Court line of

12 cases now for quite some time. The case in

13 particular was Nelson, and the fact pattern in

14 Nelson is fairly identical to the one that we’ve —

15 we have confronting us in here; a witness believes

16 that part of their activity with respect to what

17 they may testify to could subject them to some kind

18 of prosecution federally. And the Nelson court

19 ruled that because of the Waterfront case,

20 Murphy v. Waterfront, the issue has been well

21 settled. The same kind of fact pattern, a witness

22 in state court testifying to something they’re

23 worried about in federal court. And the Nelson

24 court upheld the contempt order for those witnesses

25 refusing to testify.

26 So we believe that we’re on pretty firm

27 ground here. And we’d request that the Court sign

28 that use immunity order. 7339

1 MR. MOORE: May I respond briefly, Your

2 Honor?


4 MR. MOORE: As I mentioned earlier, to the

5 extent that if the crime occurred, it may have also

6 occurred in the State of Nevada, which is a separate

7 jurisdiction. And the code — the language in the

8 code says if you believe that the prospective

9 witness could be exposed to prosecution in a

10 different jurisdiction, that’s a different

11 jurisdiction. Federal court is a different

12 jurisdiction. The People have cited cases that seem

13 to indicate — and they’re somewhat old, but

14 indicate that that immunity would be respected by

15 the federal court. They cited nothing to say that

16 the State of Nevada, if a crime occurred there, is

17 bound by the immunity you might give her today.

18 Thank you, Your Honor.

19 THE COURT: Do you want to address the Nevada

20 issue, Counsel?

21 MR. NICOLA: May I, Judge?

22 The United States Supreme Court authority is

23 binding on every court in the country, whether it’s

24 in Nevada, Alaska or California. The Waterfront

25 holding is good law and has been for, I believe,

26 nearly 40 years. And part of the reasoning, the

27 broad reasoning that the Supreme Court gave it back

28 three or four decades ago – I forget the exact date 7340

1 of the publication of that opinion – was that to

2 require every jurisdiction within the umbrella of

3 the United States jurisprudence to grant use

4 immunity before any prosecutorial agency could use

5 the testimony of that witness in their case is

6 unduly burdensome on government in its most

7 legitimate function, which is the prevention of

8 crime and justice.

9 So given that being the state of Supreme

10 Court law in this country, we believe that Mr.

11 Moore, if charges were filed against his client,

12 based on anything she may say from this witness

13 stand under compelled testimony by the Court, he

14 should have no problem whatsoever avoiding that

15 evidence from being used against her, if, in fact,

16 it does incriminate her for something. That’s all

17 speculation, but we understand the statute invites a

18 small amount of speculation with the Court.

19 We believe that your grant of use immunity

20 compelling her to testify will preclude any

21 jurisdiction, including Nevada, although I can’t

22 cite a case aside from the Supreme Court case that

23 we cited previously, from using that testimony or

24 any derivative evidence from that against her.

25 THE COURT: There’s one area of the law that

26 concerns me if I compel her to testify, and she

27 testifies, and the law is that that testimony cannot

28 be used against her, which I think that is what the 7341

1 law is.

2 What is the law in regards to impeachment in

3 the federal court? If she testifies and testifies

4 contradictory in a federal proceeding, is the

5 testimony that was compelled here admissible for

6 impeachment in substantive purposes against her?

7 MR. NICOLA: Your Honor, my understanding of

8 federal law is unless it’s a voluntary statement,

9 she can’t be impeached in a federal court. It

10 cannot be used against her in the federal court.

11 THE COURT: They can’t hear you in the back.

12 MR. NICOLA: I’m sorry, Your Honor. I

13 thought I was speaking up.

14 The use immunity — the use immunity law

15 essentially and intellectually merges all the

16 courts. The Supreme Court fails to see the

17 distinction between any jurisdiction. So

18 essentially a grant of use immunity makes that —

19 that statement or any use of it, even impeachment

20 purposes or getting a search warrant based on the

21 statement that was given in court, completely

22 untouchable. It cannot be used, period. It’s not a

23 voluntary statement. It’s a compelled statement.

24 And it’s protected under the U.S. Constitution

25 according to Waterford (sic). It cannot used

26 against Miss Montgomery in any fashion, by anyone.

27 THE COURT: All right. Anything you want to

28 add, Counsel? 7342

1 MR. MOORE: I’m not sure that’s an accurate

2 statement. If she were to say something

3 inconsistent, it could be used. It’s my opinion.

4 Perhaps I’m wrong, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: What do you base your opinion on?

6 MR. MOORE: Well, I’m kind of shooting from

7 the hip right now. It’s a question I didn’t expect.

8 So I apologize.

9 THE COURT: That’s called lack of authority.

10 MR. MOORE: Perhaps. No authority I can

11 think of at the moment, though.

12 And with respect to counsel’s statement

13 earlier about the federal case law he cited

14 governing all the states, what the case says, in

15 Daly I think it was, it says that the testimony

16 given in state — compelled testimony given in state

17 court cannot be used in a federal prosecution.

18 That’s what it says. Doesn’t say it can’t be used

19 in a federal prosecution or in any other

20 jurisdiction.

21 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

22 MR. MOORE: Thank you.

23 THE COURT: Let’s take up the motion to

24 present testimony of Alexander Montague.

25 MR. MOORE: Just before I leave, Mr. Sanger

26 has been kind enough to give me a case,

27 Harris v. New York, that says that impeachment can

28 be used. 7343

1 THE COURT: Do you have a citation on that?

2 MR. MOORE: No. U.S. Supreme Court. I’m

3 sorry.

4 THE COURT: That’s the old Harris case.

5 (Laughter.)

6 MR. MOORE: Yes, Your Honor, the old Harris

7 case.


9 MR. MOORE: We all know it well.

10 THE COURT: Maybe you’d like to run out –

11 we have a law library here – find it, and come back.

12 I’ll withhold any ruling until you find that.

13 MR. MOORE: I will do my best.

14 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, the motion is a

15 motion by the People to present the testimony of

16 Alexander Manchester. We’ve outlined in the brief

17 what it is we expect that Mr. Manchester will be

18 testifying to. The relevance deals with three

19 specific aspects of his testimony.

20 First, he’ll be testifying as to dozens and

21 dozens of telephone calls that were made by the

22 defendant to his child, this was back in, I believe,

23 1998 or 1999, I don’t recall which, at the earliest

24 stages of his becoming acquainted with this child.

25 Telephone calls that were made all hours of the day,

26 all hours of the night.

27 And that testimony is entirely consistent

28 with the testimony of both Gavin Arvizo, his mother, 7344

1 about the telephone calls received by Gavin, as well

2 as the testimony of June Chandler in terms of the

3 level of obsessiveness with which the defendant

4 pursued a relationship with her child, Jordan

5 Chandler, back in 1993. In that regard, the

6 testimony of Mr. Manchester is entirely

7 corroborative of those three witnesses.

8 Secondly, he was prepared to testify to a

9 visit that he had with Mr. Jackson at Neverland

10 Ranch where he was in the theater and lost track of

11 his child and Mr. Jackson, for an hour and a half he

12 spent looking for his child, and eventually found

13 the child up in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom under

14 circumstances outlined in the brief.

15 That, plus his statements to Mr. Jackson

16 thereafter complaining about that particular event

17 resulting in Mr. Manchester being threatened,

18 physically threatened, physically confronted by a

19 couple of Mr. Jackson’s security people. And the

20 notifying Mr. Jackson of that particular event

21 certainly places Mr. Jackson on notice of the fact

22 that staff at Neverland have been and continue to be

23 vigilant in their protection of Mr. Jackson to the

24 extent of using violence and threatening violence.

25 Specifically, Mr. Manchester was threatened that

26 harm could come to him and his family from fans in a

27 manner that is entirely consistent with the threats

28 that were given to Janet Arvizo. 7345

1 We believe that those three specific areas

2 of testimony are relevant for purposes of

3 corroboration and are not so uniquely remote in time

4 from the events that took place in this case, and

5 are right on point in terms of the types of

6 testimony given by a number of witnesses in this

7 case.

8 Submit it.

9 MR. SANGER: We filed a brief response to

10 this, but — and I think we really covered it. I

11 mean, the fact of the matter is that this is offered

12 as 1101(b) evidence, not as 1108. It obviously

13 could not come in under the Court’s prior rulings on

14 1108. It is a big stretch on all of those points to

15 say that this is conduct that would qualify under

16 1101(b). It is extremely remote in time. This is a

17 witness who has been, in essence, clamoring to be a

18 part of this case. And there are people like that,

19 and they should be viewed with some distrust.

20 This man’s child was interviewed and

21 consistently denied that anything inappropriate had

22 happened. There’s no evidence that anything

23 inappropriate had happened. And yet we have this

24 man, who is a self-proclaimed, perhaps actually is

25 some sort of royalty down the line, who just insists

26 he wants to be a part of this case. And I don’t

27 think this qualifies under any stretch of the

28 imagination. It’s way too remote in time. Despite 7346

1 Mr. Zonen’s rhetorical efforts to make it similar,

2 it isn’t similar. The fact that some security guard

3 did something in 19 — in the 1990s, and Mr. Jackson

4 may or may not have been aware of it, doesn’t mean

5 that it can be used against Mr. Jackson in this

6 case.

7 And it really comes down, in essence, to one

8 thing. And I was almost just going to submit it

9 without saying anything, but I want to —

10 THE COURT: But you just couldn’t do that.

11 MR. SANGER: I couldn’t do that. Now I’m

12 trying to justify it.

13 THE COURT: I knew you couldn’t do that.

14 MR. SANGER: Some of these last-minute

15 motions share something in common, and that is sort

16 of a desperation to come in and dirty up the case

17 and make Mr. Jackson look bad as opposed to really

18 bear on something that is actually relevant to this

19 case.

20 The Court has now heard the testimony of

21 Janet Arvizo and some of the other testimony that

22 makes the story of the complaining witnesses in this

23 case highly improbable, to say the least. And it

24 just isn’t right to allow the government to come in

25 at the last minute and try to pull in strings on

26 things that are not relevant and are not proper

27 1101(b) or 1108 evidence.

28 So I’ll submit it on that, Your Honor. 7347

1 MR. ZONEN: Mr. Manchester — it’s our

2 desire that Mr. Manchester be a witness in this

3 case. It’s hardly Mr. Manchester’s desire. He’d be

4 happy to be left well enough alone. He has been on

5 our witness list from day one. He was subject to an

6 interview at the earliest stages of this

7 investigation. And we’re talking about within weeks

8 after the execution of the search warrant at

9 Neverland. This information has been turned over to

10 the defense. It’s been well over a year, probably

11 closer to a year and a half, that they’ve had this

12 information, or longer. We certainly indicated that

13 we intended on calling him from the very earliest

14 stages, if not just the investigation, but certainly

15 the trial as well, and he was on our witness list

16 from day one.

17 Now, this motion is being filed at this

18 stage because it is corroborative of the testimony

19 of other witnesses, and it was appropriate to wait

20 and see how they testified before doing this, but

21 nothing comes as a surprise. These materials and

22 reports were turned over to the defense early on.

23 And it is corroborative of all of them. It

24 is — does come in as well under 1101, but also it

25 is, under California’s constitution, that all

26 relevant evidence is admissible, and this is clearly

27 relevant evidence. It’s corroborative of each of

28 the three different witnesses. 7348

1 Submit it.

2 THE COURT: All right. The Court’s going to

3 deny the motion to introduce Alexander Manchester’s

4 testimony. It doesn’t comply with my previous

5 ruling that there had to be some connection of

6 evidence of grooming activities with actual

7 molestation, and there’s no consistency in the other

8 parts of it that would lead the Court to admit it

9 under 1101. So that motion is denied.

10 The motion that — on the admissibility of

11 Gavin’s statement to Chris Carter, that’s no longer

12 an issue, is it?

13 MR. SNEDDON: You ruled on that already,

14 Your Honor. You ruled that it was admissible, but

15 it’s no longer an issue.

16 THE COURT: I think I said I intended to

17 admit it at the end of the court day, didn’t I?

18 MR. SNEDDON: Yes, Your Honor.

19 THE COURT: But I didn’t want to rule out a

20 statement from someone, or an argument if someone

21 wanted to make it.

22 MR. SANGER: Chris Carter —

23 MR. SNEDDON: It’s not necessary, Your

24 Honor.

25 THE COURT: It’s not necessary.

26 MR. SNEDDON: It’s not at this point.

27 THE COURT: I just wanted to be sure.

28 Okay. And the issue on the admissibility of 7349

1 the defendant’s adult books from 1993 seizure, have

2 you responded to that?

3 MR. SANGER: Yes, sir, we filed something on

4 Friday on that.

5 THE COURT: Do you wish to add anything more

6 to that? Either side?

7 MR. ZONEN: I’m sorry, was the Court

8 addressing the prosecution?


10 MR. ZONEN: Only to the extent of saying

11 that it is our recollection that the Court had

12 indicated that the Court would reconsider the issue

13 with regards to the .93 seizure subject to

14 resolution of the 1108 motion. That, of course, has

15 been resolved. These books were seized — we are

16 only asking to introduce two books of all the items

17 that were seized during that period of time.

18 THE COURT: Where are those books?

19 MR. ZONEN: We have them here in Santa

20 Maria. We could have them before the Court within

21 an hour, if the Court would like to see them.

22 THE COURT: I’d like to see them.

23 MR. ZONEN: All right. We’ll make

24 arrangements to get them over here to you.

25 MR. SANGER: And, Your Honor, your comments

26 suggest that you don’t have the opposition in front

27 of you. Could I give you —

28 THE COURT: I don’t have it in front of me. 7350

1 Thanks.

2 MR. SANGER: Let me just give you a copy.

3 THE COURT: I’m going to reserve ruling on

4 that until I see the books.

5 The testimony of Debbie Rowe. Do you wish

6 to be heard on that?

7 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, very briefly.

8 The facts are outlined in the People’s brief

9 on that matter, but Miss Rowe had — virtually at

10 the same time that Miss Arvizo was submitting to a

11 tape-recorded interview or videotaped interview for

12 purposes of rehabilitating the damages to the

13 defendant caused by the Bashir documentary, Miss

14 Rowe was doing exactly the same thing. It was also

15 a highly scripted interview that was being

16 conducted. And there was the virtual identical

17 incentive for her to do so, participate in the

18 interview. And not just participate in the

19 interview, but participate in the interview with

20 enthusiasm was the suggestion in statement that she

21 would be allowed to have visitation with her

22 children. Something she did not have at that time.

23 That was, in part, of course, an incentive for her

24 to participate in that interview.

25 We believe that the fact that they used the

26 same types of scripted questioning for purposes of

27 conducting this interview, that her performance was

28 the same level of over-the-top type of performance 7351

1 that we saw from Miss Arvizo, and the fact that the

2 children were used as pawns to create that level of

3 incentive is relevant in this case.

4 Submit it.

5 THE COURT: What about the fact that the

6 defense raises that the Maury Povich footage has not

7 been seen by the jury?

8 MR. ZONEN: Well, nor — the Maury Povich

9 tape is not relevant in this proceeding as having

10 anything to do with her interview, except to the

11 extent that segments of her interview are in it.

12 We’re not planning on playing the Maury Povich

13 interview. If we wish —

14 THE COURT: How does the jury understand the

15 context of what you’re presenting?

16 MR. ZONEN: Well, they have the — we have

17 the interview of Debbie Rowe separate. The entire

18 interview was about three hours long. We haven’t

19 decided if we intend on playing all of it, any of it

20 or none of it.

21 THE COURT: The interview by —

22 MR. ZONEN: The Ian Drew interview of Debbie

23 Rowe, which was done at the same time. Marc

24 Schaffel was present, Rudy Provencio was present. A

25 number of the people who were involved in the

26 interview with the Arvizo family were involved in

27 this interview as well. And a number of them were

28 present at that time, and there was discussions 7352

1 about what to do and how to do it. Many of them are

2 witnesses to those events as well, including Debbie

3 Rowe’s attorney, Iris Finsilven.

4 But it’s not necessary to play the Maury

5 Povich film in that most of it has nothing to do

6 with the Debbie Rowe interview. It’s simply other

7 information about Michael Jackson, his history, his

8 life, his performances, his music, other people in

9 his life, his father and allegations of abuse,

10 things like that.

11 But there is a separate video of the

12 entirety of the Debbie Rowe interview. Only

13 segments of it were actually shown on the Maury

14 Povich film. But we have the entire thing on video

15 and are able to play the entire thing if it’s

16 appropriate to do so, if it’s requested by either

17 side, if the Court feels its appropriate. Or we

18 could do it in segments, or we could do none of it

19 and just have testimony about it. The interview is

20 about three hours and two minutes, I believe, in its

21 entirety.

22 THE COURT: Counsel?

23 MR. SANGER: This, once again, is reaching.

24 First of all, Debbie Rowe gave up her parental

25 rights, which is a totally different situation than

26 we have here. There’s an ongoing family law matter

27 that persists, even as we speak today, in Los

28 Angeles over this, over the relationship and her 7353

1 attempt to get some — possibly some visitation or

2 some other benefit from that.

3 However, we keep hearing “scripted

4 performances,” and there are no scripts. The only

5 thing that has ever come up in this case, and will

6 be clearly shown, if it isn’t already, by the time

7 we get through, is that there were questions that

8 were written out in advance. And anybody that does

9 any kind of an interview for television is going to

10 script out questions in advance, just as lawyers

11 script out questions or question areas before they

12 get up and ask witnesses on the stand, so

13 interviewers script out their questions. There’s

14 nothing untoward about that.

15 There was no scripted response to anything,

16 despite Janet Arvizo’s preposterous testimony on

17 that. Everybody else will testify consistently with

18 common sense that there was no script of answers.

19 So it doesn’t show a darned thing in that regard.

20 And as we pointed out, and the Court’s

21 already commented, the Maury Povich show is not in

22 evidence. I don’t think there’s any way we can get

23 it into evidence. We don’t intend to offer it. And

24 as a result, unless Debbie Rowe testifies, of

25 course, so how is her performance on that tape

26 relevant, as much as the prosecution would like to

27 make it relevant. And I’m hearing they’d like to

28 play parts of her tape, which just creates, under 7354

1 352, if we even get to that point, if there is any

2 probative value to this, it’s far exceeded by the

3 consumption of time, the confusion of the jury and

4 the prejudicial effect. Because if they bring that

5 in and they play even part of the Debbie Rowe tape,

6 we’ll play the three hours. There’s no question

7 that Debbie Rowe was spontaneous in her remarks, and

8 it goes on and on. I think the Court saw the Maury

9 Povich part of it, where she even answers at one

10 point, “Look,” and she uses some term that would not

11 ordinarily be appropriate on television, kind of

12 laughs about it, and says, “I just want to get to

13 the point. Here’s what it’s all about.” That is

14 her demeanor on the rest of that tape. She is

15 giving an interview based on how she felt at the

16 time.

17 However, if the Court allows the prosecution

18 to get into this, besides playing the three-hour

19 tape or a large portion of it – not as a threat, but

20 because it will show the context of her answering

21 questions in a very spontaneous fashion – we will

22 have to get into this whole business with Ian Drew,

23 and his fight with Marc Schaffel, and Marc

24 Schaffel’s fight with Ian Drew, and all these —

25 the — all that surrounded this.

26 Debbie Rowe’s on tape. In fact — and she

27 surreptitiously tape-recorded conversations that she

28 had with Ian Drew that go on for hours where she is 7355

1 not upset at Michael Jackson, doesn’t say anything

2 bad about Michael Jackson as far as this — the case

3 is concerned. She says a few callous things, I

4 might point out. But other than that, her focus is

5 she doesn’t like Marc Schaffel. And so she’s

6 fighting with — or working with Ian Drew to fight

7 about Marc Schaffel. All of this will come out to

8 show — it will have to come out because it shows

9 the context in which she would be testifying here.

10 She has been extremely upset with Marc Schaffel for

11 some other reason and has had an agenda that’s clear

12 on all of her taped remarks, including the ones she

13 taped of herself talking. It’s very clear that she

14 has some agenda with regard to Marc Schaffel that

15 has nothing whatsoever to do with Michael Jackson.

16 She regards him as just being pretty much a victim

17 in Marc Schaffel’s machinations.

18 So if she’s going to testify, we’re going to

19 have to bring that out. Again, it’s not a threat.

20 But I want the Court to understand the context.

21 There really is a tremendous amount of material,

22 tape-recorded material, by Debbie Rowe and by others

23 in the group that the prosecution is trying to

24 present here which indicate that there are — there

25 are many other agendas on this case.

26 I don’t know if you get to 352 because I

27 just plain don’t see the relevance, forgetting about

28 the giant can of worms that it would open. I just 7356

1 don’t see the relevance to these proceedings.

2 So I’d submit it, Your Honor.

3 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, all of these people

4 are interconnected in a number of different levels

5 throughout this case. And the Court has been very

6 good over the last number of months as we’ve

7 proceeded through this trial in being able to

8 separate what’s relevant and what’s not relevant and

9 keep everybody on point, and on focus, and I think

10 that we can do that in this case as well.

11 I mean, the fact is, is that she had a

12 scripted interview that she gave. And part of the

13 incentive for that interview was the suggestion that

14 she would be able to have visitation with her

15 children. Yes, it is true that some years ago, she

16 gave up her parental rights. She had misgivings

17 about doing that, particularly after this Indictment

18 came down. She went back to court and was

19 successful at reversing that decision. So her

20 parental rights have been reinstated since then and

21 now the litigation that they’re involved in is

22 compelling visitation with these children. To that

23 extent, the children have been appointed counsel and

24 that counsel has not yet had an opportunity to visit

25 with them, to my understanding.

26 I don’t see that that’s an issue that would

27 or necessarily should come into evidence in this

28 particular case, except to the extent that she was 7357

1 promised visitation with her children if she did

2 this video. That hasn’t been given to her and is

3 something she wanted to have. She did want to see

4 those kids.

5 To that extent, it’s one more example of how

6 this group of people used children as a pawn to

7 compel not just participation in these videos for

8 Mr. Jackson’s benefit, but an enthusiastic response

9 as well.

10 Now, there will be obviously some level of

11 questioning as to what’s enthusiastic within reason,

12 what’s enthusiastic outside of reason. We expect

13 that. But that’s part of the give and take of the

14 litigation process. We think that we can control,

15 with fair measure, how far afield we go in terms of

16 relationships between Schaffel and Ian Drew or any

17 of the other people who are involved in this case.

18 And at some point in time, some of these things

19 become too collateral. And the Court has been very

20 good at recognizing that and putting the kibosh on

21 it, and I expect that will happen in this case as

22 well.

23 I think that I’ve mentioned in the pleading,

24 and it’s worth mentioning again, her participation

25 in this video was at the behest of Mr. Jackson

26 personally. Initially she was contacted by Mr.

27 Konitzer, one of the co-conspirators, but ultimately

28 it was Mr. Jackson who made the initial phone call 7358

1 and brought her into this.

2 THE COURT: All right. I think we’ve argued

3 every issue except the problem with the foundation

4 of documents of Marc Schaffel, the ones seized from

5 his office. On those, it seems to me that we have

6 to sort of do admissibility on a case-by-case basis

7 as the documents come up as opposed to — some of

8 the offers are made without evidentiary — I mean,

9 they’re just that, they’re offers without true

10 evidentiary basis. I find it kind of hard just to

11 go through and make rulings on all of them in

12 advance.

13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Well, our primary

14 foundation will be laid with the officers who seized

15 those documents in Mr. Schaffel’s home. And as I

16 mentioned in our brief, I think that authentication

17 will be sufficient when the Court looks at each

18 document and considers where it was found.

19 As to putting on separate foundations for

20 each document, those foundations are going to be

21 primarily laid in terms of hearsay – certainly

22 secondary evidence is really not an issue here –

23 hearsay and relevance in light of the totality of

24 the circumstances of the case, which the Court has

25 before it. And most of those arguments will be —

26 will be handled in consideration of the evidence

27 that is presently before the Court as to how they

28 specifically are relevant. 7359

1 THE COURT: Well, my example would be

2 Exhibit 401, you say Rudy Provencio will verify the

3 signature.


5 THE COURT: Those are the kind of items that

6 you say are going to happen.

7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And that’s fair.

8 THE COURT: We don’t know if they’re going to

9 happen.

10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: But there really are only

11 a couple of witnesses left that will testify with

12 any specificity about these documents. Mr.

13 Provencio is one of them. So he’s certainly one

14 person who’s going to figure in on these

15 foundations.

16 So if you’d like —

17 THE COURT: I understand the basic seizure

18 issue that you’re raising, but that’s not the — you

19 know, that just says they’re seized legally. Now

20 you have to prove the connection to the case.

21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Except for —

22 THE COURT: It seems to me that you’re going

23 to be able to do that, but I’m not going to rule in

24 advance based on your representation that that’s

25 going to happen, that they’re all admissible. It’s

26 like any other evidentiary issue. It’s not till I

27 hear the actual foundation and I hear the witness

28 that I make that ruling. 7360

1 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes. Well, I guess I’m

2 just preparing the Court for the fact that we have

3 basically only — I mean, the first foundation —

4 first foundational step is the one which we —

5 THE COURT: The seizure.

6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: — is the seizure. And

7 we’ll go from there and deal with it piecemeal, if

8 that’s the Court’s desires.

9 THE COURT: And that allows you to — unless

10 you want to address something separate from that.

11 MR. SANGER: Let me just address a little

12 more of a generic concern that I have, because the

13 way we saw this, and given the fact that the Court’s

14 of course very familiar with this case by now, but

15 Your Honor has not had a chance to see everything

16 that we’ve seen. Okay?

17 So I just want to share with the Court, my

18 belief is that if the prosecution is allowed to

19 start going down this road in front of the jury,

20 that we’re going to have a lot of wasted time and

21 we’re going to have some potentially prejudicial

22 material get in front of the jury just to have the

23 Court say there’s no foundation. We understand that

24 this stuff was by and large seized — maybe all of

25 it in this segment 400 to 420, was seized by law

26 enforcement, in one form or another.

27 We’re now told that there was a disk of hard

28 copies as opposed to a disk of direct e-mails, but 7361

1 that was this morning. We’ll take a look at that.

2 But assuming for the moment that it was all seized

3 from Mr. Schaffel’s possessions somewhere, do we go

4 to the point where we start marking things? We have

5 somebody like Rudy Provencio giving a lot of

6 testimony about his alleged connections with Mr.

7 Schaffel, which would otherwise be irrelevant, only

8 to find out that — and I think it’s — it would be

9 a fairly — let’s take a fairly easy ruling.

10 There’s a Pendaflex file label that — as I

11 understand, it’s a Pendaflex file label that says

12 something like, “Fires Burning.” How in the world

13 could that be admissible unless — it’s not

14 admissible. I mean, it just doesn’t make any sense

15 that that would come in at all. That’s hearsay. We

16 don’t know who made the file label. The fact it’s

17 in Mr. Schaffel’s possession in an office that he

18 shared with a number of people, so what? It just

19 doesn’t come in. But are we going to have testimony

20 about that and spend a lot of time?

21 For the most part, and I think entirely

22 really, these exhibits are based on that kind of

23 speculation. It’s stuff found in Mr. Schaffel’s

24 files in an office which the government knows was

25 shared by a number of people during the relevant

26 time period. So there’s no way to authenticate it.

27 And Rudy Provencio is apparently the person they’re

28 going to rely on. He’s the person that volunteered 7362

1 to be an informant for the government, and

2 tape-recorded conversations ad nauseam with all

3 sorts of people that meant nothing, turned the tapes

4 over to government. And one little thing they want

5 to call him in here for is really speculation that

6 somehow these documents, which he’s not going to say

7 he saw before, are probably legitimate because they

8 came from Mr. Schaffel’s stuff.

9 And I think if the Court has a chance to see

10 that in the big picture, we save a lot of time by

11 resolving it now. If the government had one or two

12 or three things that they thought did not come

13 within that category, then maybe we should hear that

14 and we should focus on those. But I see this is

15 taking quite a bit of time for no apparent reason.

16 That’s why we tried to address it up front.

17 Thank you.

18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Just one final remark.

19 This case, the conspiracy case, the evidence

20 of the conspiracy deals with words, just as in a

21 drug case, the evidence in a drug case is the drugs.

22 You find the drugs in the home of the individual,

23 those drugs come in as evidence of the crime.

24 In a conspiracy, we’re dealing with

25 communications between the parties, with the

26 knowledge that the individual parties have, the

27 relationships between the parties, the various

28 motives that may be pushing them forward through 7363

1 this conspiracy, and evidence of the criminal act

2 itself. So that’s where these documents come in.

3 And I don’t think it’s very genuine to say that we

4 don’t know whose documents these are. They’re Mr.

5 Schaffel’s documents, found in his personal files,

6 found with all his other files in his home, in his

7 filing cabinet, in his office, and in his locked

8 closet. So there’s no issue as to whose records

9 these are.

10 And we’ve gone through the records and taken

11 out the ones that are relevant to this case showing

12 the relationship between the parties, showing the

13 evidence of the conspiracy and the communications,

14 and the criminal acts themselves, the Arvizos,

15 specific involvement with the Arvizos. So that’s

16 the nature of the relevance and where we’re headed

17 with all this evidence.

18 THE COURT: The attorney is not back yet

19 on — that was looking for the Harris case? Does

20 anyone — I’d like someone to communicate with him

21 and have him come back in.

22 MR. SANGER: We could ask —

23 MR. SNEDDON: I’ll take that responsibility,

24 Your Honor.

25 MR. SANGER: We won’t fight over that. I

26 was going to offer. But that’s all right.

27 MR. SNEDDON: Mr. Nicola has gone to get

28 him, Your Honor. 7364

1 MR. MESEREAU: Excuse me, Your Honor.


3 MR. MESEREAU: We have found the citation,

4 Your Honor, if the Court wants it.

5 THE COURT: Counsel?

6 MR. MOORE: Yes.

7 THE COURT: Did you find your case?

8 MR. MOORE: I did. If the Court would like

9 the citation, it is 401 U.S. 222. Would you like

10 the lawyer’s edition?

11 THE COURT: No, that’s fine.

12 MR. MOORE: Thank you.

13 THE COURT: What’s the —

14 MR. MOORE: What the case says — and I

15 apologize, a rather quick read, Your Honor — but

16 Ms. or Mr. Harris was not properly mirandized, and

17 ultimately the decision is that the nonmirandized

18 statements can’t be used to convict, but they can be

19 used to impeach. And I think that’s the holding in

20 the case.

21 THE COURT: Well, that’s the underlying case

22 that caused me to —

23 MR. MOORE: Yes, Your Honor.

24 THE COURT: — raise the issue.

25 But does the case go to the issue of

26 immunity or is that just the —

27 MR. MOORE: It talks about Miranda.

28 THE COURT: Okay. That’s — all right. 7365

1 Thank you.

2 MR. MOORE: Anything further, Your Honor?


4 MR. MOORE: Thank you.

5 Does Your Honor want me to remain at counsel

6 table, or —

7 THE COURT: Just for a moment.

8 MR. MOORE: Thank you, Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: All right. The Court is going

10 to grant the People’s motion and grant the request

11 for use immunity as to Cynthia Montgomery.

12 I do not know if I have the original

13 document for signing of the use immunity that you

14 provided but….

15 Do you have that, Lorna?

16 THE CLERK: No, I don’t. Carrie has it.

17 MR. NICOLA: I believe Carrie has two

18 copies, Your Honor. We’d request two original

19 copies so that I may serve the United States

20 Attorney in Los Angeles with that, so they’re clear

21 on that issue.

22 THE COURT: Okay.

23 MR. NICOLA: I believe defense counsel also

24 wanted to delay her testimony. I didn’t hear the

25 Court address that issue.

26 THE COURT: I don’t think they did. They

27 wanted to delay —

28 MR. SANGER: Mr. Moslehi. 7366

1 THE COURT: — Mr. Moslehi’s testimony.

2 MR. MESEREAU: Also Miss Montgomery’s, Your

3 Honor. I didn’t know she was even an issue. I

4 didn’t come here today prepared to examine her. If

5 I could have a day —

6 THE COURT: They can’t hear you.

7 MR. MESEREAU: If I could have just a day,

8 Your Honor, I’d be prepared to do her tomorrow. I

9 just didn’t know it was even an issue.

10 THE COURT: They say they served you last

11 week. They served me. Why didn’t you —


13 Did you get it?

14 MR. SANGER: We got it Friday at the end of

15 the day.

16 MR. MESEREAU: I was not notified of it.

17 MR. SANGER: I got it Friday at the end of

18 the day. That’s all I can say. And —

19 THE COURT: So what witnesses are you

20 prepared to go forward on?

21 MR. SNEDDON: We have Mr. Abdool here and

22 ready to testify. He will be the first witness,

23 Your Honor.

24 THE COURT: How long will that be?

25 MR. SNEDDON: I’m expecting direct

26 examination to be in the neighborhood of a half

27 hour, 40 minutes at the most.

28 After that, we intended to call Mr. Moslehi, 7367

1 and then we intended to call Cynthia Montgomery, and

2 then we intended to put on the officers with regard

3 to the search of the Schaffel residence and the

4 items that they took. And we felt that would take

5 the entire day and probably — if probably not more

6 than that, frankly, given we knew that the Court was

7 going to have to spend some time on rulings today.

8 But at this point, clearly we have one witness here

9 ready to go, and that’s Mr. Abdool. And then the

10 rest is contingent upon what — the position that

11 the Court takes on the defense request.

12 I should say we’re also ready to go forward

13 to get the officers here on the Schaffel search.

14 And we could do that during the time that Mr.

15 Abdool’s on the stand. We were going to put them

16 after the civilian witnesses, but we can get those

17 people here, Your Honor. So — and we would,

18 obviously, if you told us. So that would — those

19 are the options available to the Court.

20 THE COURT: All right. Well, I think I will

21 give the defense time that they have requested on

22 both the witnesses so that they can hear the tape

23 and prepare their examinations.

24 So I’ll have Cynthia Montgomery testify

25 tomorrow — I mean, I’ll put off her testimony one

26 day, and the same with the other witness that you

27 have the tape on.

28 MR. SNEDDON: Mr. Moslehi, Your Honor? 7368

1 THE COURT: Mr. Moslehi. I’ll put that off

2 until tomorrow to give the defense time to review

3 that.

4 So we’ll go forward with Abdool and then the

5 officers today.

6 MR. SNEDDON: All right. We’ll get those

7 officers in here, and —

8 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: This is our — Counsel?

10 MR. MOORE: I was just going to inquire,

11 Your Honor. Ms. Montgomery is up from Los Angeles

12 and flew me up this morning. Can we get some sort

13 of a time indication as to tomorrow? Would it be

14 first off?

15 THE COURT: What would be most convenient for

16 you – since I’m putting it over till tomorrow – to

17 be first or later?

18 MS. MONTGOMERY: First thing tomorrow.

19 MR. MOORE: Most convenient would be to do

20 it today, Your Honor. But not having that as a

21 choice, first up tomorrow would be —

22 THE COURT: Can you accommodate him there?

23 MR. SNEDDON: I would say that’s okay. We

24 haven’t checked with the other civilian witness, but

25 we can do that.

26 THE COURT: Well, if you can’t, let him know.

27 MR. SNEDDON: I will. I will check at the

28 break. But as of right now, let’s just assume that 7369

1 that is correct. We’ll put her on first and

2 Mr. Moslehi second. Okay?

3 THE COURT: All right. This is the normal

4 time for our break. We’ll take our break, and then

5 we’ll expect to have the jury in at….

6 (Recess taken.)

7 –o0o–





















28 7370






6 Plaintiff, )

7 -vs- ) No. 1133603


9 Defendant. )




13 CSR #3304, Official Court Reporter, do hereby

14 certify:

15 That the foregoing pages 7328 through 7370

16 contain a true and correct transcript of the

17 proceedings had in the within and above-entitled

18 matter as by me taken down in shorthand writing at

19 said proceedings on April 25, 2005, and thereafter

20 reduced to typewriting by computer-aided

21 transcription under my direction.

22 DATED: Santa Maria, California,

23 April 25, 2005.





28 7371









9 Plaintiff, )

10 -vs- ) No. 1133603


12 Defendant. )







19 MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2005


21 8:30 A.M.


23 (PAGES 7372 THROUGH 7520)





28 BY: Official Court Reporter 7372



3 For Plaintiff: THOMAS W. SNEDDON, JR.,

4 District Attorney -and-

5 RONALD J. ZONEN, Sr. Deputy District Attorney


7 Sr. Deputy District Attorney 1112 Santa Barbara Street

8 Santa Barbara, California 93101




12 -and- SUSAN C. YU, ESQ.

13 1875 Century Park East, Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90067

14 -and-


16 BY: ROBERT M. SANGER, ESQ. 233 East Carrillo Street, Suite C

17 Santa Barbara, California 93101

18 -and-


20 14126 East Rosecrans Boulevard Santa Fe Springs, California 90670








28 7373

1 I N D E X


3 Note: Mr. Sneddon is listed as “SN” on index.

4 Mr. Zonen is listed as “Z” on index. Mr. Auchincloss is listed as “A” on index.

5 Mr. Mesereau is listed as “M” on index. Ms. Yu is listed as “Y” on index.

6 Mr. Sanger is listed as “SA” on index. Mr. Oxman is listed as “O” on index.





11 ABDOOL, Kassim 7379-SN 7413-M 7461-SN 7465-M

12 KLAPAKIS, Jeff 7467-A 7472-SA (Re-called)

13 BONNER, Craig 7476-A 7493-SA 7505-A 7510-SA

14 (Re-called) 7512-A

15 (Further)

16 ALVAREZ, Victor 7513-A

17 (Re-called)











28 7374

1 E X H I B I T S




4 400 Marc Schaffel files 7468

5 401 Marc Schaffel’s Rudy Provencio file 7468

6 402 Marc Schaffel’s payroll

7 records file 7468

8 403 Marc Schaffel’s fire brewing file 7468

9 404 Mark Schaffel’s Stuart

10 Backerman file 7468

11 405 Marc Schaffel’s files 7468

12 406 Marc Schaffel’s Fox contract 7468

13 407 Marc Schaffel’s Ronald file 7468

14 408 Marc Schaffel’s file 7468

15 409 Marc Schaffel’s Christian Robinson file 7468

16 410 Marc Schaffel’s address book

17 file 7468

18 411 Marc Schaffel’s Enterprise rental file 7468

19 412 Marc Schaffel’s artist

20 releases file 7468

21 413 Marc Schaffel’s model releases file 7468

22 414 Marc Schaffel’s expenses

23 file 7468

24 415 Marc Schaffel’s files, black notebook 7468

25 416 Marc Schaffel’s file

26 (provided by Schaffel’s attorney Chris Cheney)

27 417 Marc Schaffel’s David LeGrand

28 file 7468 7375

1 E X H I B I T S



4 418 Marc Schaffel’s file 7468

5 419 Marc Schaffel’s files,

6 blank folder 7468

7 420 Marc Schaffel’s file 7468

8 420-A Complete copy of Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 420, including

9 missing pages 7509

10 421 Ten-page document; Armstrong Hirsch, et cetera,

11 fax with attached agreement 7491

12 422 Letter of intent from

13 Royalty Advanced Funding 7491

14 423 Seven-page document; 7492 e-mail and various

15 correspondence

16 843 Envelope containing photographs of grand

17 jury exhibits 7478 7480











28 7376

1 (The following proceedings were held in

2 open court in the presence and hearing of the

3 jury:)


5 THE COURT: Good morning.

6 THE JURY: (In unison) Good morning.

7 THE COURT: (To the jury) Sorry to keep you

8 all waiting back there, but we just had a lot of

9 legal issues to take up this morning, and because of

10 that, I’m not sure, but the day may be somewhat

11 shortened.

12 Do you expect us to go the entire day today,

13 or —

14 MR. SNEDDON: I would think — I would think

15 that would be probably not the case. But you never

16 know.

17 THE COURT: Okay. That’s what I thought.

18 You never know.

19 MR. SNEDDON: I’d hate to raise somebody’s

20 expectations and then have them looking at me at

21 2:15 saying, “Why are we still here?”

22 THE COURT: I understand.

23 (To the jury) Some of the witnesses that

24 were going to testify today I put off until

25 tomorrow, is basically what we’re dealing with. And

26 so they’re calling some witnesses that were going to

27 appear later in the day, and we’re not exactly sure

28 how much time it will take. 7377

1 MR. SNEDDON: I will say this, Your Honor.

2 I think we’re going to have a full week, though,

3 from here on out.

4 THE COURT: Full week?

5 MR. SNEDDON: Yes, sir.

6 THE COURT: All right. Let me just — so

7 that — before you start, let me just give you a

8 ruling on the motion on — I’ll call it the motion

9 regarding Rowe. That motion is granted. I will

10 admit testimony in that case. I will look for ways

11 to restrict the length of that testimony. We’ll

12 talk about that later.

13 MR. SNEDDON: All right. That would be

14 fine, Your Honor. Thank you.

15 THE COURT: All right. You may call your

16 next witness.

17 MR. SNEDDON: Kassim Abdool.

18 Mr. Abdool, would you come forward, please.

19 THE COURT: When you get to the witness

20 stand, please remain standing.

21 Face the clerk here and raise your right

22 hand.



25 Having been sworn, testified as follows:



28 THE CLERK: Please be seated. State and 7378

1 spell your first and last name.

2 THE WITNESS: My name is Kassim Abdool.

3 K-a-s-s-i-m; A-b-d-o-o-l.

4 THE CLERK: Thank you.




8 Q. Mr. Abdool, I think you’re going to have to

9 scoot up as close as you possibly can to the

10 microphone so everybody can hear you.

11 A. That okay.

12 Q. Sounds a little better. You have a very

13 soft voice, so try to keep it up. Thank you.

14 Mr. Abdool, you live in Lompoc; is that

15 correct?

16 A. Yes, sir.

17 Q. And you’re employed with the school

18 district?

19 A. Yes, sir.

20 Q. And did you at one time used to work at

21 Neverland Valley Ranch?

22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. And from what period of time did you work at

24 Neverland Valley Ranch?

25 A. .91, .92, .93.

26 Q. Do you recall when in .91 you came to work

27 there?

28 A. No. It may be about the middle of the year. 7379

1 I’m just guessing.

2 Q. And do you recall when in 1993 or .94 was it

3 that you left?

4 A. It was part of .94. In the middle of .94.

5 Q. When you worked at Neverland Valley Ranch,

6 what were your — what was your position there?

7 A. When I left or when I —

8 Q. No, during the time that you were employed

9 at Neverland Valley Ranch, what was your position at

10 the ranch? What were your job responsibilities?

11 A. To secure the ranch, to provide security for

12 Mr. Jackson.

13 Q. So you were part of his security team?

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. Did you have a rank at that point in time?

16 A. I started off as a basic security guard and

17 I went up to the head of security.

18 Q. What were the range of responsibilities that

19 you had at the ranch during the time, let’s say —

20 let’s narrow it down now to 1993 and 1994, okay?

21 A. Okay.

22 Q. Were you the head of security at that point

23 in time?

24 A. Just part of .93, I think. Maybe a few

25 months.

26 Q. What were your responsibilities during .93

27 and .94?

28 A. To supervise, make sure the buildings are 7380

1 locked. Make sure whatever Mr. Jackson wants, to

2 provide for him. Provide security for the guests.

3 Sometimes they may need luggages to their units.

4 We’d help with that. Make sure no intruders come on

5 property. Those type of things.

6 Q. Now, what was the time — during .93 and

7 .94, what were the hours that you worked?

8 A. I think during most of my employment at the

9 ranch, I worked the graveyard shift. Almost for all

10 those years.

11 Q. And “graveyard shift” means — what time do

12 you come on and what time do you leave, generally?

13 A. Generally from about 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.

14 I work most of the time that shift.

15 Q. Now, during the time that you worked at

16 Neverland Valley Ranch, did you become acquainted

17 with an individual by the name of Ralph Chacon?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. In what capacity? How did you get to know

20 Mr. Chacon?

21 A. He was also a security officer at the ranch.

22 And he worked on the shift I worked on also.

23 Q. Did you know Mr. Chacon prior to the time

24 that you came to work at Neverland Valley Ranch?

25 A. No, sir.

26 Q. And since the time that you left the

27 employment of Neverland — well, let me save that

28 question for later, okay? 7381

1 Was Mr. Chacon, to your knowledge, employed

2 at the ranch during the same period of time that you

3 were employed there?

4 A. Yes. I think he started working at the

5 ranch maybe a couple of months after I started in

6 .91.

7 Q. And was he working there during .93 and .94?

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 Q. Part of .94?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. During the time that you were employed in

12 security for — at Neverland Ranch, did you get to

13 know a young child by the name of Jordan?

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. Did you know Jordan’s last name?

16 A. Chandler.

17 Q. And did you see the child Jordan Chandler on

18 the ranch on more than one occasion?

19 A. Yes, sir.

20 Q. And can you give us an idea approximately

21 how many times you saw him on the ranch?

22 A. He was there — he was there for many times.

23 I can’t give a number of times.

24 Q. During the time that the child Jordan

25 Chandler was on the ranch, was the defendant in this

26 case, Mr. Jackson, on the ranch?

27 A. Yes, sir.

28 Q. During the times that Mr. Jackson and the 7382

1 child Jordan Chandler were on the ranch, were the

2 Chandler parents present on all occasions?

3 A. No, sir.

4 Q. How many occasions do you believe that

5 Jordan Chandler, to your knowledge, was on the ranch

6 with Mr. Jackson only?

7 A. Only?

8 Q. Yeah.

9 A. Maybe a couple times, I think. Two, three

10 times. I’m talking about coming on the ranch with

11 Mr. Jackson alone.

12 Q. So arriving with Mr. Jackson —

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. — alone?

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. During the time that you were on the ranch,

17 could you describe — well, when the child Jordan

18 Chandler was on the ranch, did you have an

19 opportunity to see him on a number of occasions?

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. Could you describe his general behavior

22 while he was on the ranch?

23 A. I don’t think he ever spoke to me. He just

24 kept, you know, a distance. I don’t recall ever

25 speaking to him.

26 Q. All right. Did you have an opportunity

27 to — to observe how he acted on the ranch?

28 A. Well — 7383

1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague.

2 THE COURT: Sustained.

3 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Did you have — do you have

4 carts on the ranch?

5 A. Golf carts?

6 Q. Golf carts.

7 A. Yes, sir.

8 Q. Did you have any problems with Mr. — the

9 child Chandler and the golf carts?

10 A. Yes. I remember one problem, yes.

11 Q. What was that?

12 A. I think he crashed it once.

13 Q. Were there any other occasions that you had

14 problems with Mr. Chandler, the child Chandler?

15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; asked and

16 answered.

17 THE WITNESS: No, I don’t recall —

18 THE COURT: Just a moment.

19 Overruled.

20 You may answer. Go ahead.

21 THE WITNESS: What’s the question, sir?

22 MR. SNEDDON: Let me rephrase it.

23 Q. During the time that you had an opportunity

24 to observe the child Jordan Chandler on the ranch,

25 how would you describe his behavior?

26 A. Kind of wild. Kind of wild behavior. You

27 know, driving — driving wild a little bit.

28 Q. Anything else? 7384

1 A. He would keep to himself. He would not

2 associate with the security members or talk to them.

3 Q. During the time that you were employed at

4 Neverland Ranch, did you meet a child by the name of

5 Wade Robeson?

6 A. Yes, I know him.

7 Q. And during the time that you were at the

8 ranch, did the child Wade Robeson visit the ranch?

9 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. And when he did, was Mr. Jackson on the

11 ranch?

12 A. Yes, sir.

13 Q. And with regard to Mr. — with regard to the

14 child Wade Robeson, would you describe his behavior?

15 A. Same type of behavior. You know, driving

16 around wild, but they would not have conversation

17 with us.

18 Q. With regard to — do you know a child by the

19 name of Brett Barnes?

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. Did the child Brett Barnes visit the ranch

22 while you were there?

23 A. Yes, sir.

24 Q. On more than one occasion?

25 A. Yes, sir.

26 Q. And was Mr. Jackson there on those

27 occasions?

28 A. I don’t recall all the occasions, but I know 7385

1 that Mr. Jackson was there when Brett Barnes was

2 there, sir.

3 Q. Do you recall whether or not Brett Barnes’

4 parents were always present when he was on the ranch

5 with Mr. Jackson?

6 A. No, I don’t recall that, sir.

7 Q. With regard to your capacity as security for

8 Mr. Jackson at the ranch, were you given

9 instructions with regard to how you were to interact

10 with the children who misbehaved on the ranch?

11 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

12 THE COURT: Just a moment.

13 Overruled.

14 You may answer.

15 THE WITNESS: I don’t understand your

16 question.

17 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Were there rules that were

18 given to you as an employee at the ranch in terms of

19 what you were or were not to do when children

20 misbehaved at the ranch?

21 A. No, I don’t recall rules.

22 Q. Were you given any — can you tell us

23 whether or not you were given any instructions as to

24 what to do when somebody did something?

25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague.

26 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Did something wrong.

27 THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

28 MR. SNEDDON: All right. I’ll start all 7386

1 over again.

2 Q. Were there any instructions given to you

3 during the time that you worked at the ranch as to

4 what you were to do to try to control any children

5 who got out of control at the ranch?

6 A. I don’t recall instructions. I don’t recall

7 any instructions, sir.

8 Q. During the time that you were at the ranch,

9 do you recall an incident that involved you and Mr.

10 Chacon with regard to some French doors being left

11 open?

12 A. Yes, sir.

13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

14 THE COURT: Overruled.

15 You may answer — he did answer, “Yes.” Go

16 ahead.

17 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Now, with regard to that

18 particular night – okay? – did you see Mr. Jackson

19 that night?

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. Did you work the graveyard shift that night?

22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. Was Mr. Chacon working with you that night?

24 A. Yes, sir.

25 Q. And do you recall approximately when it was

26 you saw Mr. Jackson for the first time on that

27 particular evening?

28 A. It would have been after 10:00, 10:15 or so. 7387

1 Q. At some point that night did you see Mr.

2 Jackson go to the Jacuzzi?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. And where is the Jacuzzi located?

5 A. The Jacuzzi’s located outside the house, in

6 the back of the house, near the swimming pool area.

7 There’s a barbeque area, and a Jacuzzi and a

8 swimming pool area, and an arcade room on the other

9 side.

10 Q. And when you saw Mr. Jackson going to the

11 Jacuzzi area, was he alone or was he with somebody?

12 A. No, he was with the boy.

13 Q. What boy?

14 A. Jordie.

15 Q. And could you see how they were dressed?

16 A. Yes, sir.

17 Q. How were they dressed?

18 A. They were dressed with bathing — you know,

19 bathing pants. But they were bare back. And they

20 had like bathing trunks. Pants that reached just

21 above the knee.

22 Q. That went down to the knee?

23 A. Yeah, like loose-fitting pants.

24 Q. Do you recall where you were at the time

25 that you saw Mr. Jackson and the child Jordan going

26 towards the Jacuzzi?

27 A. I was —

28 Q. Where were you? 7388

1 A. I was near the office area, somewhere closer

2 to the back of the house.

3 Q. Now, at some point — let me ask you this:

4 At the time that you saw Mr. Jackson and the child

5 Jordan walking towards the Jacuzzi, did you know

6 where Ralph Chacon was situated or positioned?

7 A. I — I had an idea where he was, but he was

8 more in the barbeque area, I think.

9 Q. Was that his ordinary assignment?

10 A. Yeah. Normally they would go in that back

11 area where no one could pretty much see them.

12 Q. What were the lighting conditions like at

13 this particular point in time at night out around

14 the swimming pool and the Jacuzzi?

15 A. It — you know, like around the pool, you

16 have these pool lights. Around the Jacuzzi, you

17 have the Jacuzzi lights, and maybe some small lights

18 in the flowers. I would say it would be like dim

19 lighting.

20 Q. Now, at some point later, did you hear Mr.

21 Jackson say something to someone?

22 A. Yes. Mr. Jackson called me.

23 Q. And did you respond to him?

24 A. Yes, sir.

25 Q. As a result of what Mr. Jackson told you,

26 did you do something?

27 A. Yes, sir.

28 Q. What did you do? 7389

1 A. I went to the chef, his name is Bucky Black.

2 Bucky.

3 Q. Okay.

4 A. I went to the chef. He was still on

5 property that night, and I asked him to get two

6 sodas for Mr. Jackson.

7 Q. All right. Did you take the sodas to Mr.

8 Jackson or —

9 A. No, I did not take them.

10 Q. Now, later, when was the next time that you

11 saw Mr. Jackson?

12 A. I saw Mr. Jackson going to the bathroom

13 area.

14 Q. What bathroom area are you talking about?

15 A. It’s — it’s a bathroom maybe that’s kind of

16 joined — you know, joined onto the arcade room.

17 Q. And when he was going to the bathroom area,

18 was he alone or was he with someone?

19 A. I recollect he was with Jordie.

20 Q. And do you recall how they were dressed?

21 A. No. I don’t recall exactly how they were

22 dressed. My best recollection, they were in bathing

23 trunks, but to be specific, no.

24 Q. And did you see them actually go into the

25 rest room area or were they just walking towards

26 that area?

27 A. I recall they were walking towards the rest

28 room area. 7390

1 Q. Now, at some point in time, did you see Mr.

2 Jackson again later that evening?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. And where was he when you saw him?

5 A. He was near the back door of the main house.

6 About — about maybe five, eight yards or so from

7 the back door.

8 Q. And was he alone or was he with somebody?

9 A. He was with Jordie.

10 Q. And where was Mr. Jackson in relationship to

11 Jordie? Where was Jordan?

12 A. He was like piggybacking. You know,

13 piggyback, when you put someone on your back.

14 Q. Who was on whose back?

15 A. Jordie was on Mr. Jackson’s back.

16 Q. Do you recall what Mr. Jackson was wearing,

17 if anything?

18 A. He was wearing — he was bare back and he

19 had a towel around his waist.

20 Q. And how about the child?

21 A. The child had like a towel-like robe, you

22 know, like a bathrobe. Like, you know, it’s towel

23 material. It was thrown over him, over the child.

24 Q. And where were they when you first saw them?

25 A. I’d say five, eight yards from the back

26 door.

27 Q. Okay. And did you see where they went?

28 A. They went into the house. 7391

1 Q. And did you see or hear anything at that

2 point in time?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. What?

5 A. I heard the two locks on the back door, the

6 screen door and the back door lock. You know,

7 “clack,” when someone close it.

8 Q. Now, was that — anything unusual about

9 that?

10 A. Yes, sir.

11 Q. What?

12 A. I never recall Mr. Jackson locking the

13 house. We normally go and lock the house. We go

14 and lock the theater, lock the game room when he

15 goes to bed.

16 Q. So that’s your responsibility?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And you’re familiar with how that door

19 locks?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And that there’s a double — that there’s a

22 double lock there to secure it?

23 A. It’s not a double — from my — from what I

24 remember, it was two doors, like a screen door and a

25 solid door. And the two doors — I heard the two

26 doors, you know, lock.

27 Q. So it’s not a double door — double lock on

28 one door. It’s two doors that have separate locks, 7392

1 as you recall?

2 A. I don’t know it had a double lock. I can’t

3 remember. But I remember it was two doors. That’s

4 my recollection.

5 Q. All right. And each had a lock?

6 A. Yeah.

7 Q. Okay. Now, what I’d like to know is, from

8 the point that you saw Mr. Jackson —

9 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. — walking towards the bathroom area that’s

11 attached to the arcade – okay? – with Jordan, to the

12 time that you saw him later with Jordan on his back,

13 just before he entered the door to the house –

14 okay? – how much time had elapsed, approximately?

15 A. I would say maybe half an hour or so. Half

16 an hour. That’s an average. Could be a little bit

17 more. But I would say half an hour.

18 Q. Now, after you saw Mr. Jackson and the child

19 enter the house, and the door was — the doors were

20 locked – okay? – did you have an occasion where you

21 went to the rest room area that you had — that’s

22 attached to the arcade?

23 A. Yes, sir.

24 Q. And why did you go there?

25 A. I was securing the arcade room and the rest

26 room area, locking them up.

27 Q. And did you actually physically go into the

28 rest room? 7393

1 A. Yes, sir.

2 Q. And when you went into the rest room, what

3 did you see?

4 A. The lights were on, as far as I recollect.

5 Q. Okay.

6 A. And it’s — the ground is like — I don’t

7 think it’s like concrete. It’s like cobblestone,

8 you know, the blue cobblestone.

9 Q. Okay.

10 A. That’s my recollection.

11 And the ground was wet, and there were two

12 bathing pants on the ground close to each other.

13 Q. Now, were these the same trunks that you had

14 seen Mr. Jackson and the child Jordan Chandler

15 wearing?

16 A. Yes. It seemed to be the same trunks.

17 Q. And could you explain to the jury, where

18 were the trunks in relationship to each other?

19 A. The trunks were like maybe about this far

20 apart.

21 Q. You’re indicating about —

22 A. About three —

23 Q. — a foot and a half, three feet?

24 A. They were this far apart. Two feet apart.

25 Two, three feet. And they were near to — closer to

26 the door area when you walk in.

27 Q. Close to the front door, the entrance door?

28 A. Yeah. That’s what I recollect, yeah. 7394

1 Q. Did you notice anything with regard to the

2 floor?

3 A. Yeah, the floor was wet.

4 Q. Now, I think in the beginning or earlier on

5 in your testimony, you indicated that there was an

6 incident about the French doors being unlocked –

7 okay? – that particular evening where there was some

8 French doors or some big doors that were unlocked?

9 A. Yeah, there were some doors unlocked in the

10 house.

11 Q. Was this, again, part of your security

12 routine, to check —

13 A. Check and secure, yes.

14 Q. Where are these doors located in terms of,

15 if you were to walk through these doors, what room

16 in the house would you be in?

17 A. If you walk — if you were to walk through

18 the ones that were open?

19 Q. Yes, sir.

20 A. You would come into a big living room area,

21 and then there’s a little corridor, and then Mr.

22 Jackson’s bedroom is right there.

23 Q. And with regard to these particular doors,

24 how — could you describe them to the jury?

25 A. They’re like — you know, like tall doors.

26 Not regular – what would I say? – rectangular doors.

27 They were like tall doors, like ten feet tall with

28 an archway. 7395

1 Q. Okay.

2 A. Huge doors. And they were — so they had

3 like bolts, you know, big bolts. I don’t recall

4 them having locks, these doors —

5 Q. Okay.

6 A. — like the other doors that I found

7 unlocked. And so you would probably have to climb

8 up and, you know, bolt these heavy copper bolts into

9 the frame, and to bolt the bottom. So each door —

10 if you have two doors opening like that, each door

11 would have two bolts. One on top, one below.

12 Q. So you’d have to go inside the house to

13 actually secure the house?

14 A. Yes, you have to go inside.

15 Q. And then you have to walk through of the

16 house to get out of the house?

17 A. You have to walk through the house, yes.

18 Q. Was Mr. Chacon with you when you observed

19 these to doors to be unlatched?

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. And did you give Mr. Chacon some

22 instructions with regard to what you wanted him to

23 do with these doors?

24 A. Yes, sir.

25 Q. What was that?

26 A. I told him that we were going inside to

27 secure the doors. We need to go in and lock them.

28 Q. And did he do that? 7396

1 A. No, sir.

2 Q. Did you ask him on more than one occasion to

3 do it?

4 A. I think a couple times, from what I

5 remember, yeah.

6 Q. Did he say why he wouldn’t do it?

7 A. He said he’s not going in the house.

8 Q. Was that unusual for him to disobey an order

9 from you?

10 A. Yeah. Yes, sir.

11 Q. Do you recall any other occasion where he

12 ever did that?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Now, with regard to the incident that you’ve

15 just described for the ladies and gentlemen –

16 okay? – the one with Jordan, the child Jordan

17 Chandler, and the Jacuzzi and going into the arcade

18 rest room – okay? —

19 A. Okay.

20 Q. — do you have an idea of approximately when

21 that occurred?

22 A. That would have been somewhere in the middle

23 of .93 or so.

24 Q. Was Mr. Jackson, to your knowledge, just

25 returning from some trip?

26 A. Oh, yeah, he had returned from a trip

27 overseas.

28 Q. Do you know where? 7397

1 A. No. He was on a tour, I guess.

2 Q. Where?

3 A. He was singing overseas and he came back.

4 He was over there for a long time.

5 Q. Okay. Now, on the ranch during the time

6 1993 – okay? —

7 A. Okay.

8 Q. — was there a thing called a Peter Pan

9 display?

10 A. Yes, sir.

11 Q. And where was the Peter Pan — I can’t even

12 say it. Where was the Peter Pan display located?

13 A. It was in the back of the house outside Mr.

14 Jackson’s office. He had an office in the back of

15 the house.

16 Q. Okay.

17 A. You know, a — how would I describe — you

18 have the main house. You have a breezeway.

19 Q. Okay.

20 A. You have Mr. Jackson’s office there.

21 And then on the other side, you have the

22 arcade room, the swimming pool, the Jacuzzi, the

23 barbeque area.

24 So the display, I don’t recall if it was

25 inside of the window or outside of the window, you

26 know, but it was like on a short — like a — when

27 you look in the window, it was like a lighting

28 display. But it’s been so long, I can’t recall if 7398

1 it was inside of — inside of the office or outside

2 of the office.

3 Q. Now, on an occasion while you were working

4 at Neverland Valley Ranch, did you see an incident

5 occur involving the defendant Michael Jackson and

6 the child Jordan Chandler?

7 A. Yes, sir.

8 Q. And was this incident before or after the

9 incident that you’ve described or the occasion which

10 you described finding the swimming trunks basically

11 next to each other in the rest room?

12 A. I don’t recall, sir. I don’t recall if it

13 was before or after.

14 Q. All right. Now, on that particular day or

15 on that particular occasion, did you see Mr. Jackson

16 and the child Jordan Chandler together before you

17 saw them at the display?

18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

19 THE COURT: Overruled.

20 You may answer.

21 THE WITNESS: I don’t recall.

22 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Where were —

23 A. Are you talking on this particular evening?

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. I don’t recall if I saw them before I saw

26 them at that time.

27 Q. Okay. And so, then, what would have been

28 the first time you saw them? 7399

1 A. It probably would have been when I came onto

2 the night shift, so I would guess approximately

3 after 10:00. 11:00, 12:00.

4 Q. All right.

5 A. It was pretty late in the night.

6 Q. And when you saw them at the Peter — did

7 you see them at the Peter Pan display?

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 Q. Now, prior to them being at the Peter Pan

10 display, did you see where they came from?

11 A. Okay. Yes.

12 Q. Where did they come from?

13 A. They had come down from the hill area,

14 probably from where the theater was, and they drove

15 down a small hill and drove in the back of the

16 house. The back of the security area there’s a

17 garage, and then swung around, and that’s where the

18 Peter Pan display is. So they drove in the back of

19 the house.

20 Q. You say they “drove.” What were they

21 driving?

22 A. As far as I remember, it was a small golf

23 cart.

24 Q. And were they both in the same cart or in

25 different carts?

26 A. My recollection, they were in the same cart.

27 Q. Now, at the time that you saw them in front

28 of the Peter Pan display, could you tell us what 7400

1 you observed?

2 First of all, let me ask you this: Let’s —

3 where was the child Jordan Chandler in relationship

4 to Michael Jackson? Where were they positioned?

5 A. Jordan was standing in front of Mr. Jackson,

6 and Mr. Jackson was standing behind him. You know,

7 like if I’m standing here and someone is standing

8 here, but we are both facing the same direction.

9 They were looking at the — at the display.

10 Q. And what did you observe about Mr. Jackson’s

11 conduct in relationship to the child at that time?

12 A. When I turned — you know, I turned to walk

13 away. I went to ask him a question. When I turned

14 to walk away, and on the side, I saw Mr. Jackson

15 giving him a little kiss on the side here, and he

16 was kind of like hugging him. I just saw that maybe

17 a couple seconds.

18 Q. And then you kept going?

19 A. Yeah, I kept going.

20 Q. You didn’t watch what happened after that?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Now, was Mr. Chacon working that night?

23 A. Yes, sir.

24 Q. Now, in May of 1994, you were subpoenaed to

25 appear before the Los Angeles grand jury?

26 A. Yeah, okay. I think that’s the time.

27 Q. You recall going down to Los Angeles?

28 A. Yes, sir. 7401

1 Q. And you recall testifying in front of the

2 grand jury?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. You recall receiving a subpoena before you

5 were to go down there?

6 A. Yes, sir.

7 Q. And what was your attitude towards receiving

8 the subpoena to go to the grand jury?

9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague; relevance.

10 MR. SNEDDON: Goes to his bias, Your Honor,

11 his motive for testifying.

12 THE COURT: Overruled.

13 You may answer.

14 THE WITNESS: You want me to answer?

15 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Yes.

16 A. I didn’t want to go.

17 Q. Now, prior to going down to Los Angeles to

18 testify, did you have a meeting with attorneys who

19 represented Mr. Jackson?

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. And who were those attorneys?

22 A. It was Mr. Steve Cochran, Mr. Jackson’s

23 attorney. It was also a private investigator.

24 Q. And do you recall where that meeting

25 occurred?

26 A. Yes, sir.

27 Q. Where was that?

28 A. Mr. Bob Sanger’s office in Santa Barbara. 7402

1 Q. And at the time that you were at that

2 meeting, did the attorneys for Mr. Jackson offer you

3 certain services?

4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Misstates the

5 evidence. One attorney was mentioned.

6 MR. SNEDDON: Okay. I’ll rephrase it if

7 that’s the problem.

8 Q. At the time that you met at Mr. Sanger’s

9 office with the private investigator and Mr. Steve

10 Cochran, did he offer you services?

11 A. I don’t recall. But he gave me some advice.

12 Q. Well, did you have a lawyer representing you

13 at that time?

14 A. No, sir.

15 Q. Did they offer to represent you?

16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

17 THE COURT: Overruled.

18 You may answer.

19 THE WITNESS: He offered to be down with the

20 grand jury if we needed advice, attorney.

21 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Can you tell us —

22 A. I think — I vaguely remember now that — I

23 think he remembered — he offered, you know, to

24 represent us, represent me.

25 Q. Do you recall whether or not you were ever

26 offered any transportation down there?

27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

28 THE COURT: Overruled. 7403

1 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

2 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Were you?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. Did you ever use Mr. Steve Cochran’s

5 services?

6 A. No, sir.

7 Q. Were you asked what you were going to say in

8 front of the grand jury by Mr. Cochran?

9 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. Did you tell them?

11 A. I don’t recall telling him, sir.

12 Q. Did you tell them what you were going to do?

13 A. I told him I was going to say what I know.

14 I speak the truth.

15 Q. Now, between the time that you received the

16 subpoena to appear before the Los Angeles County

17 Grand Jury and the time that you actually testified

18 at the Los Angeles — before the Los Angeles County

19 Grand Jury, did you receive a raise?

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. And how much of a raise did you receive?

22 A. About a thousand dollars a month more. Or

23 maybe a little bit more than that.

24 Q. Was this a proposal that you had made to

25 them? Had you requested the raise?

26 A. Yes, sir.

27 Q. And how long prior to the time that you went

28 down to Los Angeles to testify had you requested 7404

1 that raise?

2 A. A few months. Couple months, maybe. I’m

3 guessing. I — it was before.

4 Q. Now, after you testified in front of the Los

5 Angeles County Grand Jury, did you receive any

6 threats?

7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading;

8 foundation.

9 THE COURT: Overruled.

10 You may answer.

11 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

12 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: In what fashion? In what

13 form did you receive threats?

14 Mr. Abdool, there’s some water up there if

15 you’d like some water. Take your time.

16 A. Yes, sir.

17 Q. What were the nature — describe what

18 threats you received.

19 A. People would call at home and threaten to

20 kill me and my family. A lot of phone calls coming

21 to the house.

22 Q. Was there always somebody on the other end

23 of the line when you picked the phone up?

24 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

25 THE WITNESS: They would stay on the line

26 sometimes.

27 THE COURT: Overruled.

28 You may answer. 7405

1 THE WITNESS: They would stay on the line

2 sometimes, yes. Just stay on the line.

3 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Did you report these

4 threats to law enforcement at the time that they

5 occurred?

6 A. Yes, sir.

7 Q. Mr. Abdool, do you know what the witness

8 protection program is?

9 A. I know — I heard about it. I don’t know

10 exactly what it entails.

11 Q. Did you ever request to be — for you and

12 your family to be put in the witness protection

13 program?

14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; move to

15 strike.

16 THE COURT: Stricken. It’s leading.

17 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: At any time did you ever

18 request of law enforcement protection?

19 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection.

20 THE COURT: Overruled.

21 You may answer.

22 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

23 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: And what did you request?

24 A. I requested to be put in that program, the

25 witness protection program.

26 Q. Now, with regard to the — with regard to

27 the Neverland Valley Ranch, was there a change in

28 terms of additional security people who were brought 7406

1 onto the ranch during the time that Mr. Jackson was

2 under investigation back in 1993?

3 A. There was not a change. There was addition,

4 some more people came on.

5 Q. And did you folks on the ranch have a name

6 for those people, or was there a name that was

7 associated with them?

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 Q. What was that?

10 A. The OSS, Office of Special Services.

11 Q. Were they armed?

12 A. Yes, sir.

13 Q. Were you armed?

14 A. No, sir.

15 Q. The regular security staff was not?

16 A. No, sir.

17 Q. How would you describe the atmosphere at the

18 ranch with these people who are armed on the ranch?

19 A. It was very tense. I would say in the

20 beginning — you know, they were big people, and

21 they were armed. And I’ve seen them drink on

22 property, so you’d be concerned about your security

23 on the ranch.

24 I also heard them make threats to people on

25 the ranch.

26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection.

27 MR. SNEDDON: Well, that was going to be my

28 next question. 7407

1 MR. MESEREAU: Move to strike.

2 THE COURT: Stricken. Next question.

3 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Did you at any time ever

4 hear them make threats to people on the ranch?

5 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay; move to

6 strike.

7 THE COURT: Overruled.

8 You may answer.

9 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

10 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: And did they do that to you

11 also?

12 A. Not directly, no.

13 Q. Okay. Did they do it indirectly or what you

14 thought was indirectly?

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. In what fashion?

17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection.

18 MR. SNEDDON: Oops. Sorry. I’ll wait.

19 THE COURT: You said, “Objection.” I didn’t

20 hear your —

21 MR. MESEREAU: Leading and calls for

22 speculation.

23 THE COURT: Sustained.

24 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: In what fashion?

25 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection.

26 THE COURT: That was your last question.

27 MR. SNEDDON: That —

28 THE COURT: Really, you have to take the 7408

1 last two questions to understand my ruling that you

2 were leading.

3 MR. SNEDDON: I thought the first one was,

4 but I didn’t think the second would be, “In what

5 fashion?” But I’ll start over, Judge. That’s no

6 problem.

7 Q. You indicated that you thought that you had

8 been intimidated indirectly. Could you describe for

9 the jury in what fashion that occurred?

10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Misstates the

11 evidence, leading, and foundation, and calls for

12 speculation.

13 THE COURT: I think what I’m asking you to do

14 is to go back and form a foundation for the question

15 you’re asking before you ask in what fashion.

16 MR. SNEDDON: Okay.

17 Q. Were you ever indirectly intimidated on the

18 ranch?

19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading;

20 foundation.

21 THE COURT: Overruled.

22 You may answer.

23 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: You may answer. Were you

24 ever indirectly intimidated on the ranch?

25 A. Yes, sir.

26 Q. And do you remember who the person or

27 persons were that were involved?

28 A. Yes, sir. 7409

1 Q. Who were they?

2 A. On couple occasions it was one person, and

3 at other times it would be two, three of them, of

4 the OSS officers.

5 Q. Could you describe in what manner you were

6 indirectly intimidated by these people?

7 A. Are you saying things that they would say?

8 Q. You tell us. What was the nature of it?

9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation and

10 hearsay.

11 THE COURT: Overruled.

12 You may answer.

13 THE WITNESS: I remember one of them, his

14 name was Van Norman. He would say how they would

15 beat people when they were overseas. You know, when

16 they were on tour with Mr. Jackson, how they would

17 beat people, and he knew a hit man in Europe.

18 And I remember once there was a fan at the

19 front gate and he came down and put his gun and

20 pointed it at her head. She was outside the gate.

21 And also —

22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; narrative.

23 THE COURT: Sustained.

24 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Was there any other

25 indirect incidents directed directly at you?

26 A. Yes, sir.

27 Q. All right. What was that?

28 A. After I testified at the grand jury, when 7410

1 I’m sitting in my office, they would just pass

2 outside my office and just stare at me. They would

3 not come in and talk to me. They would just walk

4 past outside the door.

5 Q. Are there occasions they displayed their

6 firearms to you?

7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

8 THE COURT: Sustained.

9 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Let’s move on to another

10 subject, if we can.

11 Were you involved in a civil lawsuit against

12 Mr. Jackson?

13 A. Yes, sir.

14 Q. And do you recall approximately when that

15 lawsuit was filed?

16 A. .95, .96. Something around there.

17 Q. So this was at least a couple of years after

18 your testimony, or at least one year after your

19 testimony before the Los Angeles County Grand Jury?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. During the course of the time that you were

22 involved in that lawsuit, did you give a statement

23 to the media?

24 A. Yes, sir.

25 Q. And describe how that came about.

26 A. I think it was in the attorney’s office.

27 Q. The attorney?

28 A. Our attorney’s office, yes. 7411

1 Q. Who’s that?

2 A. Mr. Ring.

3 Q. Okay. And that’s where the interview

4 occurred?

5 A. Yes, sir.

6 Q. And was it your idea to have the interview?

7 A. No, I don’t think so. I don’t recall that.

8 Q. Did you understand that as a result of the

9 interview, that someone was going to pay someone

10 some money?

11 A. Yes, sir.

12 Q. Did you receive any of the money?

13 A. No, sir.

14 Q. Did you understand how that money was going

15 to be used?

16 A. Yes, sir.

17 Q. For what purpose?

18 A. To carry on the civil case.

19 Q. Against Mr. Jackson?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And do you know who it was that set up that

22 interview?

23 A. No, I don’t recall.

24 Q. Now, one last question. Between the time

25 that you received your subpoena to appear before the

26 Los Angeles County Grand Jury – okay? —

27 A. Okay.

28 Q. — and — let me go back and start over 7412

1 again, okay?

2 You received a subpoena to appear before the

3 Los Angeles County Grand Jury, correct?

4 A. Yes, sir.

5 Q. Now, between the time that you received that

6 subpoena and the time that you actually appeared

7 before the grand jury to testify, okay?

8 A. Okay.

9 Q. We’re talking about that time frame.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Chacon,

12 Ralph Chacon, about what he saw the night that you

13 found the swimming trunks side by side in the rest

14 room?

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. And did he tell you what he saw?

17 A. Yes, sir.

18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

19 MR. SNEDDON: I haven’t asked that yet.

20 I’m sorry, Your Honor.

21 THE COURT: Overruled.

22 MR. SNEDDON: Okay. No further questions.

23 THE COURT: Cross-examine?

24 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, please, Your Honor.




28 Q. Good morning, Mr. Abdool. 7413

1 A. Good morning, sir.

2 Q. My name is Thomas Mesereau. I speak for Mr.

3 Jackson.

4 A. Okay.

5 Q. If anything I ask you is unclear, if you

6 don’t understand it, please don’t answer and just

7 ask me, and I’ll try and rephrase it, okay?

8 A. Okay.

9 Q. Now, you told the prosecutor that on one

10 occasion you met at Mr. Sanger’s office in Santa

11 Barbara, correct?

12 A. Yes, sir.

13 Q. And you told the prosecutor that present

14 were Attorney Steve Cochran, correct?

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. And an investigator, right?

17 A. Yes, sir.

18 Q. And you told the prosecutor that in response

19 to questions asked of you by Mr. Cochran and the

20 investigator, you said you would tell the truth,

21 correct?

22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. In your discussions with them, you told the

24 truth, correct?

25 A. I don’t recall having discussions with them.

26 Q. Well, you met at the office, true?

27 A. Yes, sir.

28 Q. Approximately how long was the meeting? 7414

1 A. There were two meetings that day.

2 Q. Do you know when these meetings took place?

3 A. A date are you talking about? I don’t

4 recall the date.

5 Q. Okay. Do you recall approximately when

6 those meetings took place?

7 A. It was just within a week before going to

8 the grand jury.

9 Q. And do you know approximately when you went

10 to the grand jury?

11 A. It was a Monday.

12 Q. Was it in 1993, do you think?

13 A. .90 — early .94 maybe.

14 Q. Would it be approximately May of 1994, do

15 you think?

16 A. Okay.

17 Q. And you met with Mr. Cochran and the

18 investigator at some point before you testified

19 before the Los Angeles County Grand Jury in May of

20 1994, right?

21 A. Yes, sir.

22 Q. How many meetings did you have with any

23 representatives of Mr. Jackson before you testified

24 before the Los Angeles County Grand Jury in May of

25 1994?

26 A. Two meetings.

27 Q. Okay.

28 A. Three. Three meetings. 7415

1 Q. And you told the truth —

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. — in all of your discussions at those

4 meetings, correct?

5 A. Yes, sir.

6 Q. You told the truth about what you had

7 observed at Neverland, right?

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object, Your

10 Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence that he said

11 anything to them.

12 THE COURT: Sustained.

13 MR. SNEDDON: Move to strike.

14 THE COURT: Stricken.

15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In any of those three

16 meetings, did you utter a word?

17 MR. SNEDDON: That’s vague.

18 THE COURT: Sustained.

19 MR. SNEDDON: Object.

20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In any of those three

21 meetings, did you speak?

22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. Did you speak about what you had observed at

24 Neverland?

25 A. I don’t recall speaking about what I

26 observed.

27 Q. Do you recall speaking about Mr. Jackson in

28 those meetings? 7416

1 A. No.

2 Q. Do you recall speaking about your employment

3 at Neverland?

4 A. I don’t recall, sir.

5 Q. Do you recall speaking about your background

6 before you ever worked at Neverland?

7 A. I don’t recall. I may have. I don’t

8 recall.

9 Q. Do you remember signing a statement, Mr.

10 Abdool, in one of those meetings?

11 A. No, I don’t recall that.

12 Q. Do you recall signing a statement on January

13 13th, 1994?

14 A. No, sir.

15 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show

16 you —

17 A. Sure.

18 Q. — a statement?

19 May I approach, Your Honor?

20 THE COURT: Yes.

21 MR. SNEDDON: Can I see it first, Counsel?

22 Okay. Thank you.

23 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, it’s a two-page

24 statement. Could I request that the witness just

25 read it to himself?

26 THE COURT: Yes.

27 THE WITNESS: Yeah, okay.

28 MR. MESEREAU: There’s another page, too. 7417


2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Abdool, have you had a

3 chance to look at and read that statement?

4 A. Yes, sir.

5 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what

6 you signed?

7 A. Yes, sir.

8 Q. And that is your signature on this

9 statement, correct?

10 A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

11 Q. In fact, in the beginning of the statement,

12 you corrected the spelling of your last name in your

13 own handwriting, correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. You said you’d worked at Neverland Ranch

16 since June of 1991, correct?

17 A. Okay.

18 Q. Is that approximately when you started work?

19 A. Yes, sir.

20 Q. You said during your employment at the

21 ranch, you worked in the security department and

22 that you were currently working as a shift

23 supervisor, right?

24 A. Yes.

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

26 object to the use of the reading of the statement

27 into the record. It’s hearsay and it’s not used to

28 refresh his recollection. 7418

1 THE COURT: Sustained.

2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember signing a

3 statement?

4 A. Yes, sir.

5 Q. Do you remember what you said in the

6 statement?

7 MR. SNEDDON: Well, vague as to — he stated

8 it’s two pages long, so it’s —

9 THE COURT: Do you mean outside of his having

10 just read it now, or what?

11 MR. MESEREAU: Yes. Well —

12 THE COURT: You gave it to him to refresh

13 his memory.

14 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, I did.

15 Q. Does the statement you read refresh your

16 recollection about the statement you signed?

17 A. Yes, sir.

18 Q. Okay. And that is your signature on the

19 statement, correct?

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. You told representatives of Mr. Jackson that

22 you’d never seen Mr. Jackson touch any child in a

23 sexual manner or in any way that could be construed

24 as sexual, correct?

25 A. That’s what I wrote, yeah. I signed to

26 that, yes.

27 Q. You said you’d never seen Mr. Jackson

28 unclothed or in the company of unclothed children, 7419

1 correct?

2 A. Yes. I mean, when I say “unclothed,” naked.

3 If you have on pants, that’s not unclothed.

4 Q. But you said you’d never seen Mr. Jackson

5 unclothed or in the company of an unclothed child,

6 correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. You said you’d seen Mr. Jackson play with

9 children, right?

10 A. Yes, sir.

11 Q. You said he plays as if he’s a child

12 himself, correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object to reading

15 the document into — it’s hearsay.

16 THE COURT: Sustained.

17 MR. MESEREAU: Cross-examination —

18 impeachment, Your Honor.

19 THE COURT: Well —

20 MR. MESEREAU: I believe on

21 cross-examination —

22 THE COURT: Some is and some isn’t. You’re

23 reading the whole thing, so you’re not being very

24 discerning in your impeachment.

25 MR. MESEREAU: Well, I’m not going to read

26 the whole thing.

27 THE COURT: There was certain questions that

28 he was asked that you can do that with. You’re 7420

1 reading a lot more into it. You’d have to lay the

2 foundation for each remark.

3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Do you remember

4 signing a statement that discussed what you’d seen

5 of Jordie Chandler at Neverland?

6 A. I remember signing a statement. I believe

7 that statement that I signed was not at Mr. — when

8 I met with the attorneys. That was a statement that

9 was prepared by the investigator in his handwriting.

10 Yes, I did sign it.

11 Q. And you also corrected the statement before

12 you signed it, true?

13 A. My name, I corrected it, yes.

14 Q. You said you’d never seen Mr. Jackson engage

15 in anything sexual with Jordie Chandler, correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And you said that no one working at the

18 ranch had ever complained about Mr. Jackson doing

19 anything sexual with children, correct?

20 A. Right. No, that was before I went to the

21 grand jury, before I think, before I met with Mr. —

22 in Mr. Sanger’s office.

23 Q. The date was January 13th, 1994, right?

24 A. Right.

25 Q. Okay.

26 A. So that was about — months before I think I

27 went to the grand jury.

28 Q. You said you were the father of two 7421

1 children.

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. That you had no problem leaving them alone

4 with Mr. Jackson, correct?

5 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object to the

6 question. It’s hearsay. It’s an improper use of

7 the document.

8 THE COURT: Sustained.

9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: At any time did you ever

10 tell any representative of Mr. Jackson that you are

11 the father of two children, ages 9 and 13, and you

12 would have no problem leaving them alone with Mr.

13 Jackson?

14 MR. SNEDDON: Same objection, Your Honor.

15 THE COURT: Overruled.

16 THE WITNESS: I probably did. I have no

17 reason to say no.

18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Would it refresh your

19 recollection if I just show you that portion of it?

20 A. If it’s there, it’s there, yeah.

21 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?

22 THE COURT: Yes.

23 THE WITNESS: Right. Okay. Yeah, I signed

24 to that.

25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You’ve had a chance to

26 look at that document?

27 A. Yeah, I’ve looked at it, sir.

28 Q. And you did make that statement, that you 7422

1 were the father of two children, 9 and 13, and they

2 had both visited the ranch, right?

3 A. I signed it, the statement. It’s not my

4 writing. It’s — I didn’t write that statement.

5 Q. But you signed it?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. After correcting it, correct?

8 A. I corrected my spelling of my name. I

9 didn’t sign — I didn’t write that statement, sir.

10 That’s not my writing.

11 Q. Does your signature appear on both pages of

12 that statement?

13 A. Yes, that’s my signature. I signed that

14 document.

15 Q. Okay. Now, the prosecutor alluded to a

16 lawsuit that you and Ralph Chacon and Adrian McManus

17 and others filed against Michael Jackson, correct?

18 A. Yes, sir.

19 Q. In that lawsuit, you also sued the security

20 guards that you called “the OSS,” right?

21 A. Yes, sir.

22 Q. And one of the security guards you sued was

23 James Van Norman, right?

24 A. Yes, sir.

25 Q. He’s the fella you just testified to

26 threatening you, correct?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. Okay. And that was the longest civil trial 7423

1 in the history of this courthouse in Santa Maria,

2 California, right?

3 A. I don’t know.

4 Q. It was a six-month trial, approximately, was

5 it not?

6 A. Yes, sir.

7 Q. And at the conclusion of that trial, Mr.

8 Jackson prevailed, right?

9 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. And you ended up with a judgment against you

11 for $1,473,117.61, correct?

12 A. I don’t know the figure, but that sounds

13 correct.

14 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just

15 show you the judgment?

16 A. It’s fine. I accept it.

17 Q. All right. And the security guards that you

18 sued also prevailed —

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. — in that lawsuit, correct?

21 A. Yes, sir.

22 Q. And it’s your understanding that Mr. Jackson

23 won the case, was awarded costs, and was awarded all

24 of his attorney’s fees against you, correct?

25 A. Yes, sir.

26 Q. All right. Did you ever pay him any of that

27 money?

28 A. No, sir. 7424

1 Q. Do you know approximately when you filed

2 that case?

3 A. I think maybe .95, 1995. I’m not sure.

4 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just

5 show you the Complaint? It has a date of December

6 2nd, 1994. Does that sound correct?

7 A. Okay.

8 Q. You sued Mr. Jackson for many different

9 claims, correct?

10 A. Yes, sir.

11 Q. You sued him for emotional distress,

12 correct? Right?

13 A. If it says that. I don’t recall all the

14 complaints.

15 Q. Well, you said you’d been intimidated during

16 your employment, right?

17 A. Yes, sir.

18 Q. And you testified in the case, correct?

19 A. Yes, sir.

20 Q. And you testified that you had suffered

21 emotional distress and various medical problems

22 because of the way you were treated at Neverland,

23 true?

24 A. Yes, sir.

25 Q. And your attorney was a gentleman named Mr.

26 Ring, correct?

27 A. That’s correct.

28 Q. When did you first go to Mr. Ring to talk 7425

1 about suing Mr. Jackson and the security people of

2 the ranch?

3 A. It would be after I — we stopped work at

4 the ranch. That’s my recollection.

5 Q. And approximately when was that?

6 A. I don’t recall, sir.

7 Q. Do you know the year you left your

8 employment?

9 A. .94.

10 Q. Okay. Do you remember being disciplined

11 while you were working at Neverland for stealing Mr.

12 Jackson’s gasoline?

13 A. For stealing Mr. Jackson’s gasoline?

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. No, first time I — no.

16 Q. You were counseled by a security chief named

17 Mr. Wegner, spelled W-e-g-n-e-r, correct?

18 A. That’s his — yeah, that’s the correct

19 spelling.

20 Q. Do you remember being disciplined because

21 you had filled your car up with Mr. Jackson’s

22 gasoline?

23 A. Mr. Jack — where would I get his gasoline

24 from to fill my car up? No.

25 Q. Would it refresh your recollection to show

26 you that disciplinary report?

27 A. Sure. Yeah.

28 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach? 7426


2 THE WITNESS: Okay. Yeah.

3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to

4 look at that disciplinary report?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about that

7 issue?

8 A. Right. I remember that, yeah.

9 Q. Okay. A report was filed to that effect,

10 correct?

11 A. Right. Right.

12 Q. That you had improperly filled your own

13 vehicle with Mr. Jackson’s gasoline.

14 A. No, not improperly fill my vehicle. I used

15 my vehicle to go to — I think to Solvang to run an

16 errand, and I — it was replaced for me, the three

17 gallons of gasoline.

18 Q. Okay.

19 A. I remember that, yeah. I did not steal the

20 man’s gasoline. And that’s why I refused to sign

21 it, because I was having problem with the chief at

22 that time.

23 Q. You were counseled on the violation, true?

24 A. Yes. I told you I went — I used my vehicle

25 and — and —

26 Q. You were told a violation would be part of

27 your permanent record of employment at Neverland,

28 true? 7427

1 A. I don’t recall. Probably.

2 Q. Okay. There are gasoline pumps on the

3 ranch, true?

4 A. Yes, sir.

5 Q. Okay. Staff, particularly security staff,

6 are not supposed to be filling their own vehicles

7 with Mr. Jackson’s gasoline, correct?

8 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object as

9 argumentative.

10 THE COURT: Sustained. It’s a foundational

11 sustaining.

12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you know the policy on

13 whether or not security staff are supposed to use

14 Mr. Jackson’s gasoline for their own personal use?

15 A. I don’t know if there’s a policy, but of

16 course you can’t use his gasoline for your personal

17 use. And as I said, sir, I did not use it for my

18 personal use.

19 Q. You’re not supposed to fill your tank with

20 it, correct?

21 A. I didn’t fill my tank. I put, what, three

22 gallons of gasoline. I vaguely remember that, yes,

23 that happened.

24 Q. All right.

25 A. I’m not denying it.

26 Q. Were you ever disciplined on any other

27 occasion that you recall?

28 A. I don’t recall. 7428

1 Q. Okay. Do you know one way or another

2 whether you were disciplined on any other occasion?

3 A. I don’t recall. That one he told me, it

4 even surprised me. I had forgotten about it. It

5 was a nonissue as far as I was concerned.

6 Q. Now, you claimed in your lawsuit that you

7 had been disabled because of what happened to you at

8 Neverland, true?

9 A. Disabled — emotionally disabled, yes.

10 Q. Yes. And you obtained a number of what are

11 called disability certificates from a physician

12 because of your disability, correct?

13 A. Yes, sir.

14 Q. And did you apply for state disability; do

15 you know?

16 A. What is state disability? I —

17 Q. Well, there are various ways to file for

18 disability, correct?

19 A. Well, like unemployment?

20 Q. Or disability. You claimed that you could

21 not work because of all the emotional problems you

22 had resulting from your work at Neverland, correct?

23 A. Yes, sir.

24 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, excuse me, I’m

25 going to object that the question is vague as to

26 whether he’s talking about — I don’t want to go any

27 further, but it’s vague as to what point in time or

28 what document he’s referring to. 7429

1 MR. MESEREAU: I’m not referring to a

2 document, Your Honor.

3 MR. SNEDDON: Well, then it’s vague.

4 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll rephrase.

5 Q. It was your position when you filed the

6 lawsuit against Mr. Jackson and the security guards

7 that you should get millions of dollars because you

8 had been emotionally disabled, correct?

9 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. You claimed you were so distraught and

11 depressed that you couldn’t work, true?

12 A. Yes, sir.

13 Q. And you were actually examined by physicians

14 in that regard, true?

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. And at one point an insurance company

17 refused to pay you any benefits because they said

18 you weren’t disabled, right?

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

20 object. It’s hearsay.

21 THE COURT: Sustained.

22 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember TIG

23 Insurance concluding that you, Mr. Abdool, are not

24 medically disabled?

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

26 object and I’m going to ask the Court to admonish

27 counsel. That’s the same question, and he just

28 asked it with a new start to it. 7430

1 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.


3 Q. The jury in your civil suit completely

4 rejected your claims that you were emotionally or

5 medically damaged by anything at Neverland, true?

6 A. Yes, that’s correct.

7 Q. And you never got the millions you were

8 seeking, correct?

9 A. That’s correct, sir.

10 Q. Do you know approximately when that suit

11 ended?

12 A. I know it was five, six months. I don’t

13 have the date, no.

14 Q. Now, as head of security at Neverland, you

15 were concerned about media people coming on the

16 property, true?

17 A. Yes, sir.

18 Q. And one of your jobs was to try and keep

19 media people away from Mr. Jackson, right?

20 A. Keep anybody away from — from the property,

21 any intruders.

22 Q. But you were particularly concerned about

23 tabloid-type people, correct?

24 A. I would say generally anyone, any type of

25 intruder.

26 Q. But weren’t you particularly concerned about

27 media attempts to get to Mr. Jackson?

28 MR. SNEDDON: Object; asked and answered. 7431

1 THE COURT: Overruled.

2 You may answer.

3 THE WITNESS: I — we were concerned — I was

4 concerned with any intruder on the property.

5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. And would that

6 include the media?

7 A. Yes, sir.

8 Q. Would that include people who write for

9 tabloids?

10 A. Yes, sir.

11 Q. And was it your understanding that Mr.

12 Jackson was very concerned about his privacy when it

13 came to the media?

14 MR. SNEDDON: Lack of foundation; object.

15 THE COURT: Overruled.

16 You may answer.

17 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Were you still employed at

19 Neverland when you first spoke to representatives of

20 the media about Mr. Jackson?

21 A. No, sir.

22 Q. How long after you left your employment did

23 you talk to representatives of the media about Mr.

24 Jackson?

25 A. I don’t recall, sir.

26 Q. You talked to somebody named Gary from an

27 organization called Splash, correct?

28 A. Right. 7432

1 Q. And it was your understanding that you would

2 be quoted in a tabloid called The Star, right?

3 A. It wasn’t me. It was the attorney’s office.

4 Q. But your understanding was that you were

5 going to be quoted in an article in a tabloid called

6 The Star, right?

7 A. Okay, yes.

8 Q. And you were interviewed along with Ralph

9 Chacon, correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. You were interviewed with Adrian McManus,

12 correct?

13 A. Yes, sir.

14 Q. How many meetings did you have with that

15 tabloid?

16 A. I think it was just one meeting.

17 Q. Okay. Do you know what they paid for the

18 interview?

19 A. No, sir.

20 Q. Did you ever hear they paid $15,000 for that

21 interview?

22 A. I probably did. I don’t recall that

23 exactly.

24 Q. And what you chose to do was rather than not

25 put the money in your pocket, you chose to use it to

26 fund your lawsuit against Mr. Jackson where you

27 wanted to get millions, right?

28 A. Yes, sir. 7433

1 Q. Obviously, it turned out to be a poor

2 investment, right?

3 MR. SNEDDON: Objection, Your Honor.

4 Argumentative.

5 THE COURT: Sustained.

6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Does July 31st, 1994,

7 sound like the approximate time you stopped working

8 at Neverland?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Okay. How long after you stopped working do

11 you think you and Chacon and McManus got together

12 and met with the attorney about filing a lawsuit?

13 MR. SNEDDON: Object; assumes facts not in

14 evidence.

15 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll rephrase it.

16 Q. Did you and Ralph Chacon and Adrian McManus

17 at some point get together and decide to jointly

18 file a lawsuit against Mr. Jackson?

19 A. I don’t recall Adrian McManus. I recall

20 Melanie Bagnall.

21 Q. Do you know who Adrian McManus is?

22 A. Yeah, she — she probably came on at some

23 time after we spoke. That’s my recollection.

24 Q. And all of you sued the private security

25 people that you called “the OSS,” right?

26 A. Yes, sir.

27 Q. And you all claim that these people had

28 terrorized you and caused damages to you, right? 7434

1 A. Yes, sir.

2 Q. And that claim, again, was rejected

3 completely by the jury, right?

4 A. Yes, sir.

5 Q. Who were the other people that you claim

6 were causing severe distress to you and Ralph Chacon

7 and the others who joined in your lawsuit?

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

9 object to the question as compound with regard to

10 “other people.”

11 THE COURT: I’m not sure what you meant,

12 Counsel.

13 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll rephrase.

14 Q. You testified earlier that one of the things

15 you were concerned about was private security guards

16 of Mr. Jackson consuming alcohol, correct?

17 A. One of them I saw drinking alcohol.

18 Q. One individual?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. And who was that?

21 A. Van Norman.

22 Q. Okay. And you also complained about someone

23 carrying a firearm, correct?

24 A. I — I don’t recall specifically. I

25 probably did.

26 Q. Well, you testified that you saw somebody

27 point a firearm at a fan, correct?

28 A. Yes. Yes. 7435

1 Q. And who was that?

2 A. Van Norman. That’s my recollection.

3 Q. Now, you never complained to Mr. Jackson

4 about Mr. Van Norman carrying a firearm, true?

5 A. No. Never.

6 Q. And you never complained to Mr. Jackson

7 about Mr. Van Norman drinking alcohol, correct?

8 A. Never. No.

9 Q. And you never complained to Mr. Jackson

10 about any of these private security guards

11 threatening anyone, right?

12 A. That’s correct.

13 Q. And, in fact, you never complained to Mr.

14 Jackson about any of them doing anything wrong at

15 any time, true?

16 A. True.

17 Q. Did you, if you remember, sign a

18 confidentiality agreement when you went to work at

19 Neverland?

20 A. Yes, I think I recall — I think I did one,

21 yeah.

22 Q. And was it your belief that as a condition

23 of your working at Neverland, that you were not

24 supposed to take information about Mr. Jackson’s

25 life and exploit it in the media?

26 A. That’s correct, sir.

27 Q. Yet, when you left your employment, that’s

28 exactly what you did, correct? 7436

1 A. Yes, sir.

2 Q. Did you and Ralph Chacon discuss what

3 tabloid you were going to sell a story to?

4 A. I don’t recall, no.

5 Q. Did you ever get together with Adrian

6 McManus and discuss what information you and she

7 were going to sell to a tabloid about Mr. Jackson?

8 A. Oh, I don’t think so. I think we just gave

9 an interview and she spoke and I think I probably

10 spoke, too.

11 Q. Did you learn that any of the information

12 you sold had actually been printed about Mr.

13 Jackson?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And how did you learn that?

16 A. I recall — I think I saw the tabloid. I

17 think I saw it, yeah.

18 Q. Now, you actually hired a guy named Gary to

19 be an agent to get more tabloid opportunities,

20 correct?

21 A. Yes, we — we used him as a broker or

22 something like that.

23 Q. Yeah, he was a broker to go to various

24 tabloids around the world to see if he could sell

25 stories, correct?

26 A. Yes, sir.

27 Q. Now, to your knowledge, did Gary get a

28 commission from whatever he brought in; do you know? 7437

1 A. No.

2 Q. But you did this with the approval of your

3 attorney, right?

4 A. I wouldn’t use “approval.” But he explained

5 to us that we needed the money. So if you say

6 “approval,” yes.

7 Q. And part of the reason for doing all this

8 was to put pressure on Mr. Jackson to settle that

9 case and give you people money, right?

10 A. No. I don’t think so, no. We needed the

11 money. We had no money to go ahead with the case.

12 Q. The plan was to do what you could to make

13 Mr. Jackson want to get rid of this case, right?

14 MR. SNEDDON: Object as asked and answered,

15 Your Honor.

16 THE COURT: Sustained.

17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And you actually had your

18 photograph taken by Gary, true?

19 A. I don’t recall. But probably, yeah.

20 Q. And the purpose of the photograph was to

21 have that photograph appear in tabloids, right?

22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. Now, did you and the other plaintiffs in

24 that civil case have a nickname that you used for

25 yourselves?

26 A. No, I don’t think so. I don’t recall that.

27 Q. Well, did you ever call yourselves “The

28 Neverland 5” or something like that? 7438

1 A. No.

2 Q. Did you ever see an article with a name like

3 that?

4 A. I’ve heard that, yeah.

5 Q. But that’s not a nickname you people were

6 using yourselves, correct?

7 A. No, I didn’t give myself that name.

8 Q. Okay. You also gave interviews about Mr.

9 Jackson in front of this courthouse, true?

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

11 object as vague as to when in time.

12 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll rephrase it, Your Honor.

13 Q. Around the time you were pursuing your civil

14 lawsuit against Mr. Jackson, you had to come to this

15 courthouse from time to time, right?

16 A. Yes. Yes, sir.

17 Q. And you did give some interviews to

18 reporters at this courthouse, right?

19 A. I vaguely remember I think I spoke to

20 reporters outside, yes.

21 Q. Okay. And do you remember meeting with your

22 broker in a lawyer’s conference room in this

23 courthouse?

24 A. No, I don’t recall that.

25 Q. Do you remember meeting with Gary in a

26 lawyer’s conference room here when your photograph

27 was taken?

28 A. No, I — I would think that the photograph 7439

1 was taken in our attorney’s office in Santa Barbara.

2 Q. Okay.

3 A. It may have. I don’t recall, but I would

4 think it was Santa Barbara.

5 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just

6 show you a —

7 A. No, it’s fine.

8 Q. — a page of your deposition?

9 A. It’s fine. If I said it, I said it, yeah.

10 Q. You remember your deposition being taken in

11 that case, true?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. In fact, there are volumes of that

14 deposition, right?

15 A. What I’m saying is, if it’s there, then

16 that’s correct, but I couldn’t recall.

17 Q. Now, the plan initially when you hired the

18 broker named Gary was to put together a fund of

19 money to pay costs in the litigation, correct?

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. And to your knowledge, that’s what your

22 lawyer spent that money on, right?

23 A. Yes, sir.

24 Q. Okay. Do you remember what you were

25 interviewed about by the tabloids?

26 A. No, it’s been a long time. I don’t recall.

27 Q. Do you remember being interviewed about Mr.

28 Jackson’s relationship with Lisa Marie Presley? 7440

1 A. Specifically me, I don’t recall that, no.

2 Q. Do you recall being there when Chacon and

3 McManus were talking about that?

4 A. I don’t —

5 MR. SNEDDON: Object as immaterial, Your

6 Honor.

7 THE COURT: Overruled.

8 You may answer.

9 THE WITNESS: I don’t specifically recall

10 exactly what questions and answers were given, no.

11 It’s been over 13 years. I don’t recall. But,

12 yeah, there was an interview.

13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Was Gary at the interview?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Okay. Who else was there, if you remember?

16 A. I think Melanie Bagnall, Ralph Chacon,

17 myself, Adrian McManus. I’m not sure about Sandy

18 Domz. I’m not sure.

19 Q. Okay.

20 A. I don’t recall anymore.

21 Q. And do you remember you were quoted in an

22 article entitled, “Kinky Sex Secrets of Michael and

23 Lisa Marie’s Bedroom”?

24 A. I don’t recall being quoted in that article.

25 But if it’s there, the article — it may not be me

26 saying it, but if it’s there, if it’s quoted there,

27 it’s quoted there.

28 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just 7441

1 show you the title?

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

3 object. It’s immaterial. He stated he didn’t have

4 anything to do with it. Lack of foundation. It’s

5 hearsay.

6 THE COURT: Well, I will let him refresh his

7 recollection with it, but we’ll take a break first.

8 MR. MESEREAU: All right.

9 (Recess taken.)

10 THE COURT: Counsel?

11 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

12 Q. Mr. Abdool, you described for the prosecutor

13 what you say you observed of Mr. Jackson’s behavior

14 with Jordie Chandler, right?

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. Now, when you saw what you’ve described, you

17 did not automatically call any police officer,

18 correct?

19 A. That’s correct.

20 Q. And you were a former police officer

21 yourself, correct?

22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. You had been a police officer in — was it

24 Trinidad?

25 A. Yes, sir.

26 Q. How long were you a police officer in

27 Trinidad?

28 A. Three, four years or so. 7442

1 Q. Okay. And you were trained to use firearms,

2 et cetera, correct?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. And at one point you carried a concealed

5 weapon, right?

6 A. Yes, sir.

7 Q. Were you carrying a concealed weapon during

8 the time you worked at Neverland?

9 A. No, sir.

10 Q. Approximately when do you recall seeing Mr.

11 Jackson with Jordie Chandler? Can you tell me

12 approximately when you say you saw this?

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

14 object as to which occasion. Vague.

15 THE COURT: Sustained.

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Let’s take the first

17 occasion you described – okay? – dealing with the

18 Jacuzzi, all right?

19 A. Uh-huh.

20 Q. Approximately when do you think you saw

21 that?

22 A. I can’t give an exact date, but I recollect

23 when he came back from overseas. So it would have

24 been probably around the middle of .93 or so.

25 Q. Okay.

26 A. I’m just guessing. I —

27 Q. And you described another incident.

28 A. Yes. 7443

1 Q. The prosecutor asked you about the Peter Pan

2 statue, right?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And approximately when do you think that

5 happened?

6 A. I don’t recall, but it would be in that time

7 frame, you know, maybe after. I don’t recall.

8 Q. Okay. This is sometime in .93, do you

9 think?

10 A. .92, .93, yes. It’s difficult for me to

11 give you a date.

12 Q. Now, are you familiar with a — an event at

13 Neverland called Family Day?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And what is Family Day at Neverland?

16 A. Family Day is when the employees are invited

17 to bring their family.

18 Q. And you participated in Family Day with your

19 family, correct?

20 A. Yes. On maybe two, three occasions, yeah.

21 Q. You participated on Family Day at Neverland

22 with your family in 1994, didn’t you?

23 A. I don’t — I think it was Appreciation Day.

24 Employee Appreciation Day it was called.

25 Q. Okay. And you brought your family to

26 Neverland in 1994 to participate in that, correct?

27 A. Yes. Yes, sir.

28 Q. This was after the events you claim you saw 7444

1 that you have just described?

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. Do you know someone named Sandy Domz?

4 A. Yes, sir.

5 Q. Who is Sandy Domz?

6 A. Sandy Domz used to work at the ranch

7 administration office.

8 Q. And did you work with her?

9 A. I worked on the ranch, but not with her.

10 Q. Was she working at the ranch while you were

11 working at the ranch?

12 A. Yes, sir.

13 Q. Okay. And you and Sandy Domz met with a

14 T.V. show called Inside Edition, did you not?

15 A. It’s possible, yeah.

16 Q. Do you remember doing that?

17 A. I know we gave interviews. Maybe

18 television, yes. It’s been about 13 years.

19 Q. I’m sorry?

20 A. It’s difficult to remember.

21 Q. She was the spokesperson for a group, that

22 included you, that gave various interviews, right?

23 A. I don’t recall, but that’s probably correct,

24 yeah. I’m not going to deny that.

25 Q. And one of them was with the T.V. show

26 Inside Edition, right?

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

28 object to the question. It calls for lack of 7445

1 foundation that he was — that he was involved.

2 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, he said he was

3 involved.

4 MR. SNEDDON: Well —

5 THE COURT: Overruled.

6 You may answer. Do you want the last

7 question read back?

8 THE WITNESS: Yes, please.

9 (Record read.)

10 THE WITNESS: What I’m saying is, if that’s

11 a fact, yes, I don’t deny it. But I don’t recall

12 specifically Inside Edition or who. But I’m

13 saying —

14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You recall various T.V.

15 shows, correct?

16 A. T.V. shows or T.V. show, or newspapers or

17 newspaper, I don’t — yes. But I gave interviews or

18 interview, yeah.

19 Q. And you and Sandy Domz split some of that

20 money, right?

21 A. What’s the word? “Sweat”?

22 Q. You and Sandy Domz split some of the money

23 that you got from television, did you not?

24 A. No, sir.

25 Q. Did it all go to the attorney fund?

26 A. As far as I know.

27 Q. But Sandy Domz was not — excuse me. Did

28 Sandy Domz arrange these meetings or did they all go 7446

1 through Gary, to your knowledge?

2 A. I don’t recall.

3 Q. Okay. All right. Do you remember meeting

4 for several days with a book author named Gutierrez?

5 A. I met once with him. Not several. Just

6 once.

7 Q. It was a long meeting, was it not?

8 A. Probably, yeah. Two, three hours.

9 Q. Now, these meetings with various

10 representatives of the media, were they going on

11 during the lawsuit?

12 A. I don’t recall the specific one, but — I

13 gave interviews during the lawsuit, yes. I don’t

14 deny that.

15 Q. While you were doing this in 1994, you knew

16 that security guards at the Jackson family home in

17 Encino had gotten $100,000 for selling stories,

18 correct?

19 A. No, I don’t recall that.

20 Q. You never discussed that with your cohorts?

21 A. No. I may have. I don’t recall. I don’t

22 recall that one, no.

23 Q. Okay. You’ve indicated you never spoke a

24 word with Jordie Chandler, right?

25 A. Yeah. I mean, I may have said — you know,

26 he asked for something, but conversation-wise, I

27 don’t recall having any conversation with him.

28 Q. Did you ever see his mother at Neverland? 7447

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Did you see her on a number of occasions?

3 A. Yes, she’s been there on a few occasions,

4 yes.

5 Q. You said you worked with Ralph Chacon,

6 correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And how long did you work with Ralph Chacon?

9 A. I worked most of my time at the ranch on the

10 graveyard shift. Ralph Chacon may have worked a

11 substantial time, too, graveyard shift. But he was

12 on another shift, also.

13 Q. Was he a friend of yours?

14 A. Yeah, we got along pretty good. I would say

15 a friend, yeah.

16 Q. You mentioned someone named Brett Barnes,

17 right?

18 A. Yes, sir.

19 Q. Did you ever see relatives of Brett Barnes

20 at Neverland?

21 A. I don’t recall. Maybe —

22 Q. Do you recall his mother?

23 A. — maybe yes; maybe no. I don’t recall.

24 Q. Do you recall ever seeing his sister?

25 A. No, I don’t recall.

26 Q. Okay.

27 A. I may have.

28 Q. Now, you indicated that you didn’t know if 7448

1 there were any rules should a child get out of line,

2 or wild, or anything like that. You said there were

3 no rules that you were supposed to follow?

4 A. I recall there were no procedure if a

5 child — I don’t recall anything like that.

6 Q. Well —

7 A. Of course, if they’re doing something really

8 bad, you know, you have to stop that, but —

9 Q. Well, you said Jordie Chandler crashed a

10 golf cart at one point, right?

11 A. Yeah, I remember he hit the golf cart at

12 one —

13 Q. Did you take care of him?

14 A. I think there was an accident report

15 written. That’s what I — vaguely.

16 Q. Well, what did you consider your

17 responsibilities as head of security to be?

18 A. To provide security for Mr. Jackson and his

19 guests, you know, the property and so on. Make sure

20 that intruders don’t come on the property. That

21 type of thing.

22 Q. Now, the prosecutor asked you if you had

23 been head of security, right?

24 A. Yes, sir.

25 Q. And you answered yes, right?

26 A. Yes. For the last part of my employment,

27 yes.

28 Q. And how long a part of your employment were 7449

1 you head of security?

2 A. Maybe three months. Three months, four

3 months.

4 Q. Three months?

5 A. Yeah.

6 Q. So that would be the last three months that

7 you worked in 1994, right?

8 A. Yeah.

9 Q. Okay. So you became head of security long

10 after you claim you saw Mr. Jackson act this way

11 with Mr. Chandler, correct?

12 A. That’s correct.

13 Q. And before you were head of security, what

14 was your position?

15 A. I was a sergeant, supervisor of the — of a

16 shift.

17 Q. Now, you said that the Jacuzzi is located

18 outside the house, right?

19 A. The one I’m talking about. Maybe there’s

20 one inside. I don’t know.

21 Q. But there’s one outside the house?

22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. Is that in the back of the house?

24 A. It’s in the back of the house.

25 Q. Okay. And what else do you see near the

26 Jacuzzi in the back of the house?

27 A. There’s the Jacuzzi. There is a large

28 swimming pool. On the other side, there is a huge 7450

1 barbeque area with a roof, but it’s not, you know,

2 boarded, no sides.

3 Q. That Jacuzzi is in open view, right? It’s

4 not hidden by anything?

5 A. There’s some little shrubs in that area.

6 But it’s not hidden, no.

7 Q. Yeah. It’s a pretty open area, isn’t it?

8 A. Pretty much, yes.

9 Q. And guards who are walking around Neverland

10 or driving, can see it, correct?

11 A. No. If you’re driving, you probably cannot

12 see it.

13 Q. But if you’re walking around, you can?

14 A. Well, how can I answer you? We were told

15 not to go near Mr. Jackson and his guests, so we

16 would not walk where he was.

17 Q. There are hills above, correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. You could actually look down, can’t you?

20 A. If you look down with binoculars or so, you

21 could probably see.

22 Q. And there are offices on the hill, true?

23 A. Not in that area, no.

24 Q. Which area are you talking about when you

25 say “a hill”?

26 A. You said Jacuzzi?

27 Q. Yes.

28 A. In relation to the Jacuzzi, if you go way 7451

1 down, maybe 2-, 300 yards, in that area, there is

2 the administration office, the gardeners.

3 Q. Right.

4 A. But they cannot see the Jacuzzi area.

5 Q. They can see the pool area, can’t they?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Can’t see it at all, even if they look?

8 A. Even if they look. Because the arcade and

9 the trees in that area are going to be blocking that

10 area.

11 Q. The pool area is a pretty wide open area,

12 isn’t it?

13 A. Yeah, but there’s a big building blocking

14 it. You can’t see through.

15 Q. But guards do walk around, do they not?

16 A. Yes, when — but not when we have guests

17 and stuff. They don’t want us walking around when

18 they’re swimming.

19 Q. Okay. But you stay there when guests are

20 there because you’re supposed to protect the guests,

21 true?

22 A. Generally if guests are around there, you

23 don’t stay close where — you know, to watch them.

24 You would stay maybe like in the breezeway or in a

25 dark area. But you don’t — you know, you don’t go

26 close to the guests.

27 Q. But part of your responsibility was to make

28 sure that guests are properly treated, true? 7452

1 A. Yes, but we were instructed not to have

2 close contact with Mr. Jackson or his guests, to

3 keep away, give them distance.

4 Q. Well, to observe what you say you observed,

5 you would have had to get close to Mr. Jackson,

6 true?

7 A. Are you talking about the Peter Pan display?

8 Q. Talking about the Jacuzzi.

9 A. Yeah. Well, he called me for a couple of

10 drinks, for a couple of sodas.

11 Q. Right.

12 A. I was walking and he says, “Security,

13 security.” So I went to him, and he said, “Can you

14 bring two sodas?” And I spoke to the chef about it.

15 Q. Obviously, Mr. Jackson didn’t seem to be

16 afraid to have you see what he was doing.

17 A. I did not go near him. I was a distance

18 when he asked me for the sodas.

19 Q. He called you, right?

20 A. He called me, that’s correct.

21 Q. Okay. Now, typically how many hours would

22 you work on a shift?

23 A. How many — pardon me?

24 Q. How many hours would you work on a shift?

25 A. Areas?

26 Q. No, hours, time.

27 A. Hours. Eight hours. Maybe a little bit

28 more if it’s needed, if we’re short. 7453

1 Q. And at the time that you say Mr. Jackson

2 locked his house, what shift were you working?

3 A. The night shift, the graveyard shift. I

4 think it was from like 10:00 to 6:00 in the morning.

5 Q. 10:00 to 6:00 in the morning?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Now, how often did you work that graveyard

8 shift?

9 A. I worked that graveyard shift, I’m just

10 estimating, pretty much all my employment. I would

11 say 75, 80 percent of my employment.

12 Q. And do you recall ever seeing Mr. Jackson

13 outside in the evening?

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. Did you ever see Mr. Jackson walking late at

16 night?

17 A. Yes, sir.

18 Q. Ever see Mr. Jackson driving late at night?

19 A. Yes, sir.

20 Q. And you would sometimes see Mr. Jackson at

21 3:00 in the morning, correct?

22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. Because Mr. Jackson’s known to be by himself

24 sometimes at 3:00 in the morning, right?

25 A. I don’t recall seeing him by himself three

26 o’clock in the morning.

27 Q. He would take walks or he would drive,

28 correct? 7454

1 A. I don’t recall him by himself at three

2 o’clock in the morning.

3 Q. But you’ve seen him late at night on his

4 property, true?

5 A. Not alone, but with guests.

6 Q. Have you seen him late at night on his

7 property?

8 A. That’s correct.

9 Q. Have you ever seen him driving on his

10 property alone late at night?

11 A. No, I don’t recall. But I really don’t

12 recall Mr. Jackson driving alone.

13 Q. And you’ve seen him with guests late at

14 night, right?

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. 3:00 in the morning was not unusual at

17 times, right?

18 A. I would say not unusual. That would be

19 unusual. Hardly ever. Maybe all my employment I’ve

20 seen him outside that time maybe two or three times

21 or so.

22 Q. And, sir, he has gone back into his house

23 late at night and locked it, hasn’t he?

24 A. That evening, that night? Before?

25 Q. He has done that at various times when he

26 goes out late at night, hasn’t he?

27 A. I don’t recall that, sir.

28 Q. Okay. 7455

1 A. He may have, but I don’t recall.

2 Q. But you didn’t check every time he went out

3 late at night to see if he locked the door when he

4 went back into the house?

5 A. Yes, you have to check. You have to check

6 the whole property to make sure the property is

7 secured.

8 Q. But he routinely locks that door when he

9 comes back in the wee hours of the morning, sir?

10 A. No. No, sir, I’m telling you.

11 Q. Okay.

12 A. I know that is a fact.

13 Q. So when he brings guests back into his house

14 at 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning, he never locks it,

15 is what you’re saying.

16 A. Mr. Jackson doesn’t lock the property, even

17 his house. We walk around and lock the house.

18 Q. Sir, you didn’t check every time he went

19 back into his house late at night to see if it was

20 locked?

21 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object as

22 argumentative and asked and answered.

23 MR. MESEREAU: All right.

24 THE COURT: Sustained.

25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, where is the Peter

26 Pan display in relation to the house?

27 A. If you have the — you have the house, the

28 main house — 7456

1 Q. Yes.

2 A. — there’s a breezeway. On like a big

3 archway, there’s Mr. Jackson’s office. So the Peter

4 Pan display would be if you’re driving to the back

5 of the house, and you come around to the side of Mr.

6 Jackson’s office —

7 Q. Uh-huh.

8 A. — the Peter Pan display, as far as I can

9 recall, would be on that window. So it would be to

10 the back of the house. Would be 10, 15 yards or so.

11 Q. Okay. Now, you indicated you had requested

12 a raise several months before you got one, right?

13 A. That’s what I recollect, yeah.

14 Q. And you had requested a raise to a Mr. Bray,

15 correct?

16 A. I remember requesting a raise to the

17 administration. I’m not sure if it’s directly to

18 Mr. Bray, you know, but to the head of Mr. Jackson’s

19 company. I knew he had put Mr. Bray in there.

20 Q. I’m sorry.

21 You had complained that you were very

22 underpaid, true?

23 A. Well, I said I should be paid the amount

24 that the last chief of security was being paid.

25 That’s what I recollect.

26 Q. Right. And didn’t you also complain that

27 others were getting paid more than they should, like

28 the private security guards? 7457

1 A. I don’t recollect that. I recall telling

2 them that some officers were working for more money

3 than some, and they should come up to be equal. So

4 the new officers were making more money than the old

5 officers we hired on. I think it’s fair that they

6 should get the same amount of money.

7 Q. Did you put the request in writing?

8 A. I recall so, yes. I vaguely recall that.

9 Q. And were you interviewed about that request?

10 A. By Mr. Bray, yes.

11 Q. Okay. Now, people in your security group

12 did not like Mr. Jackson’s private security people,

13 did they?

14 A. I can’t speak for everybody. But in the

15 beginning, I got along with them in the beginning.

16 Q. But didn’t a lot of tension develop between

17 the two groups?

18 A. Yeah. It developed as time went on, yes.

19 Q. And your group would not travel with Mr.

20 Jackson, right?

21 A. No. We were just security for the ranch.

22 Q. The other group would travel with him when

23 he went on tour, right?

24 A. That’s correct. That’s my understanding.

25 Q. They would travel with him to various

26 cities, correct?

27 A. That’s my understanding, yes.

28 Q. And when they returned — excuse me. When 7458

1 Mr. Jackson returned, they would come with him,

2 right?

3 A. No, that’s the first time they came on

4 property.

5 Q. Well, sometimes one or two would travel on a

6 flight with him, correct?

7 A. I don’t know. I’ve never been on a flight

8 with him. But I’m talking about Neverland Valley

9 Ranch.

10 Q. Right.

11 A. When Mr. Jackson came back in .93 or .94,

12 that’s the first time I’ve seen any one of his OSS

13 officers there.

14 Q. But he had security people in the past when

15 he went on tours, throughout his life, providing

16 security for him?

17 A. That’s my understanding, yes.

18 Q. Okay. And he’s had security problems his

19 whole career because he’s so famous, right?

20 A. Yes, I know that.

21 Q. Now, you said Van Norman pointed a gun at a

22 fan; is that true?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Did you watch that?

25 A. Yes. He, like, put — like through the

26 gate.

27 Q. And you were upset with that?

28 A. I was frightened, you know. 7459

1 Q. And never made a complaint to anybody?

2 A. No. Who can you complain to?

3 Q. Well, you’re a former police officer. You

4 could call the local police, couldn’t you?

5 A. Yes, I could have. But in the conditions

6 there, you can’t talk. When you’re in that ring of

7 that employment, you don’t talk.

8 Q. Where were you living at that time?

9 A. Lompoc.

10 Q. On one of your trips back or forth to

11 Lompoc, you could have called a police officer,

12 correct?

13 A. That’s correct.

14 Q. Now, do you remember in your civil trial a

15 tape was produced that you claim had some threats on

16 it?

17 A. I vaguely remember. I remember there was a

18 tape, yes.

19 Q. And it turned out to be a tape involving

20 your son and some music. Do you remember that?

21 A. Could be, yeah.

22 Q. There was no threat at all, correct?

23 A. Probably, yeah. I don’t recall, but it’s

24 fine.

25 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. No further questions,

26 Your Honor.

27 //

28 // 7460



3 Q. Mr. Abdool, with regard to those occasions

4 where you saw Mr. Jackson out at night at 3 a.m.,

5 was he with little boys on any of those occasions?

6 A. Yes, sir.

7 Q. Mr. Mesereau asked you why you didn’t

8 complain to Mr. Jackson about certain events that

9 were happening on the ranch with regard to these OSS

10 individuals. Do you recall those series of

11 questions?

12 A. Yes, sir.

13 Q. Why did you not complain to Mr. Jackson

14 about that?

15 A. I felt they were more like attached to him,

16 because he’d be talking with them and they would go

17 meet him personally and talk to him. So I was — I

18 was scared to, you know, go to him and complain

19 about the people who were close to him.

20 Q. Now, Mr. — Mr. Mesereau asked you about

21 this gasoline incident.

22 A. Yeah.

23 Q. And do you remember he showed you the form,

24 it was December of .93?

25 A. Yeah. Okay.

26 Q. And was it after that point, after this

27 incident where you wouldn’t sign for having done

28 anything wrong, that you became — they promoted you 7461

1 to head of security?

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 May I explain about the gasoline?

4 Q. Pardon?

5 A. May I explain about the gasoline?

6 Q. If you’d like to.

7 A. Yeah. What happened, I remember going to

8 work that evening, and I had very little gas in my

9 car. And I ran an errand, you know, to somewhere in

10 Solvang with my personal car. And when I came back,

11 I put three gallons of gasoline to — you know, for

12 whatever I used, because I had very little gas to go

13 home after.

14 And I told Mr. Wegner about it. I told him

15 about it. I told him I took three gallons of gas.

16 I didn’t hide it. And, you know, we had — in the

17 ending, we had — our relationship was not good.

18 Q. But in any case, after that incident they

19 still promoted you?

20 A. To head of security, yes.

21 Q. Okay. Now, with regard to some timing

22 issues here, were you still employed at the ranch at

23 the time that you testified before the Los Angeles

24 County Grand Jury?

25 A. Yes, sir.

26 Q. Mr. Mesereau asked you a lot of questions

27 about interviews that you gave and your

28 participation in a joint interview with some — with 7462

1 a magazine.

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. Did you ever say anything during those

4 interviews that you said that was untrue?

5 A. I don’t recall the interviews. It’s hard —

6 it’s 13 years ago. It’s hard for me to recall what

7 I said or what was — what I was quoted as saying.

8 Q. Well, I’m not interested in what you were

9 quoted, because we all know how we can be misquoted.

10 But with regard to what you have said, would you

11 have said anything that was untrue?

12 A. No, no.

13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Calls for

14 speculation

15 THE COURT: Sustained.

16 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Do you have a recollection

17 of ever saying anything to any of those people,

18 interviews, that was untrue?

19 A. No.

20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection.


22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance;

23 foundation; calls for speculation.

24 THE COURT: Overruled.

25 You may answer.

26 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: That means you can answer.

27 A. Can you say the question again?

28 THE COURT: He said, “No,” so — 7463

1 MR. SNEDDON: So just leave the answer in,

2 Your Honor? That’s fine.

3 Q. And lastly, since this case has been in the

4 news – okay? – the present case —

5 A. The .9 —

6 Q. This case.

7 A. Okay.

8 Q. The current case against Mr. Jackson.

9 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. And before you were subpoenaed to testify in

11 this case, were you approached by members of the

12 press to give interviews?

13 A. Within the last year and a half, yes.

14 Q. And were you offered substantial amounts of

15 money to do that?

16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading;

17 foundation.

18 THE COURT: Overruled.

19 You may answer.

20 THE WITNESS: People have not talked money

21 figure. They have come to my house. They have

22 called me at work. They want to do interviews.

23 They want to write books. Many reporters in the

24 last year and a half have approached me.

25 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Have you talked to any of

26 them?

27 A. I pretty much chase them away. I tell them,

28 “I don’t want to talk about it. I don’t want to get 7464

1 involved in this.”

2 Q. And you’re here today because you were

3 subpoenaed to come, correct?

4 A. Yes, sir.

5 MR. SNEDDON: Nothing further.




9 Q. Mr. Abdool, you’re subject to a gag order in

10 this case, correct?

11 A. That’s correct.

12 Q. You’re not allowed to talk to the media,

13 right?

14 A. That’s correct.

15 Q. You were informed of the gag order by the

16 prosecution, correct?

17 A. Yeah. About two, three months ago, yes.

18 Q. Well —

19 A. I’m talking about before that.

20 Q. Well, even before that, you knew that you

21 were a potential witness in the case, didn’t you?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. When did you first talk to any prosecutor

24 about your testifying in the case?

25 A. Mr. Sneddon called me about three weeks ago,

26 I think.

27 Q. Did you ever talk to any sheriff about this

28 case? 7465

1 A. No. No.

2 Q. Never gave interviews at all?

3 A. Yes, I talked to sheriffs long ago. 12, 13

4 years ago, I think.

5 Q. Okay.

6 A. But recently, no. Mr. Sneddon called me

7 about three weeks ago. That’s the first contact I

8 had with the sheriffs.

9 Q. Did he tell you there was a gag order on the

10 case?

11 A. The officer that serve me —

12 Q. Yes.

13 A. — the subpoena at my house told me there

14 was a gag order.

15 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. No further questions.

16 MR. SNEDDON: Nothing further, Your Honor.

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

18 step down.

19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: We’ll call as our next

20 witness, Your Honor, Lieutenant Jeff Klapakis.

21 THE COURT: When you get to the witness

22 stand, you may be seated. You’re still under oath.



25 Having been previously sworn, resumed the

26 stand and testified further as follows:

27 //

28 // 7466



3 Q. Good afternoon, Lieutenant Klapakis.

4 A. Good afternoon.

5 Q. You’ve previously testified that you were

6 assigned to the case of People v. Michael Jackson as

7 the lead investigator?

8 A. I was the lieutenant in charge of the case,

9 yes.

10 Q. All right. And I think where I left off

11 questioning you, I asked you if, in the month of

12 January, 2004, you served a search warrant on the

13 home of Frederic Marc Schaffel?

14 A. Yes, I did.

15 Q. And what day was that?

16 A. I believe it was January 31st, .04.

17 Q. Who was with you when you served that

18 warrant?

19 A. I had several of my detectives, John

20 McCammon, Craig Bonner, Vic Alvarez, Sergeant Robel.

21 They arrived at differing times. I believe Sergeant

22 Robel was doing something else and he arrived

23 shortly thereafter. Paul Zelis.

24 Q. And were you directed by the Court to seize

25 certain documents pursuant to that search warrant?

26 A. Yes.

27 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object to the

28 Court directing him. He was permitted by the Court 7467

1 to do that.

2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: It was an order is what it

3 is.

4 THE COURT: Well, you’re both right. Next

5 question.

6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Thank you.

7 If I may approach, Your Honor.


9 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Lieutenant Klapakis, I

10 show you a notebook that is marked as original

11 exhibits 400 to 420, F. Marc Schaffel files.

12 Under the Tab 400, there appears to be a

13 single page that says — entitled, “Work Agreement

14 with Neverland Valley Entertainment.” Can you

15 identify that document for me, please?

16 A. Yes, this is a document we found pursuant to

17 that search warrant at Schaffel’s house, and it’s a

18 work agreement between Michael Jackson —

19 MR. SANGER: Objection, Your Honor. That’s

20 nonresponsive. Motion to strike.

21 THE COURT: Stricken.

22 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And this document is

23 noted as Exhibit 400 on the first page; is that

24 correct?

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. Where was this document seized from?

27 A. It was found in a master bedroom closet in

28 Mr. Schaffel’s house. 7468

1 Q. Okay. Was there any box or file cabinet,

2 anything of that nature that you located that file

3 in?

4 A. No, I believe it was loose in the closet.

5 Q. And now I show you Exhibit 401. It appears

6 to be a four-page document; has Exhibit Tab 401 on

7 the front page, and there appears to be a fax sheet

8 on the front of that to Tom Byrne.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Can you identify that document for me,

11 please?

12 A. Yes. This is a document I found in a locked

13 closet within a guest bedroom of Mr. Schaffel’s

14 house. And it was in a filing cabinet.

15 Q. Okay. Was there anybody living in that

16 guest bedroom?

17 A. No.

18 MR. SANGER: Calls for speculation.

19 THE COURT: Sustained.

20 MR. SANGER: Move to strike the answer.

21 THE COURT: Stricken.

22 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Did you see

23 anybody else’s personal belongings in that room?

24 A. No.

25 Q. And you said that the closet was locked.

26 Tell me about that.

27 A. It was — I believe it was a deadbolt lock

28 on a closet in that bedroom. 7469

1 Q. How did you get into the closet?

2 A. One of my detectives is familiar with how to

3 pick locks, and he picked the lock.

4 Q. And tell me about the filing cabinet that it

5 was seized from.

6 A. There were, I believe, seven filing cabinets

7 in this closet. And I believe it was in the sixth

8 filing cabinet, one of the drawers.

9 Q. And can you identify for me the nature of

10 documents that were found in those filing cabinets

11 along with this document?

12 A. Yes.

13 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object. Calls for

14 hearsay.

15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m asking for a

16 generality.

17 MR. SANGER: Then it’s vague.

18 THE COURT: Sustained.

19 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Were you able to

20 determine the identity of the individual whose

21 documents were in those cabinets based upon the

22 totality of everything that you searched?

23 And maybe I’ll back away from that and ask,

24 first of all, did you have occasion to peruse the

25 contents of those various file cabinets?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. And was there any indicia of ownership

28 located in those file cabinets? 7470

1 MR. SANGER: Objection. Calls for

2 speculation.

3 THE COURT: Calls for a conclusion.

4 Sustained.

5 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Was there anybody’s

6 name associated with the documents in those file

7 cabinets?

8 A. Yes.

9 MR. SANGER: Objection. Vague; calls for

10 speculation; lack of foundation.

11 THE COURT: Sustained.

12 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did you have any

13 indication that those file cabinets belonged to

14 anybody other than the owner of that home?

15 MR. SANGER: Objection, Your Honor. This

16 calls for speculation. There’s a lack of foundation

17 proven. It’s an opinion or conclusion.

18 THE COURT: Well, I’ll sustain the objection.

19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.

20 Q. Did you know if — could you tell, based

21 upon your — well, let me strike that.

22 Did you do a walk-through of that house?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Did you locate any other occupants?

25 A. No.

26 Q. Any occupants whatsoever?

27 A. The house was vacant. Not vacant, but

28 nobody was there. Unoccupied. Excuse me. 7471

1 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you. I have no

2 further questions.

3 MR. SANGER: I’ll let you take your stuff.

4 May I proceed, Your Honor?





9 Q. Okay. Now, first of all, you said something

10 in response to a question about a search warrant.

11 Your office applied for a search warrant, correct?

12 A. Several.

13 Q. Okay. We’re talking about this particular

14 case.

15 A. Then yes.

16 Q. And what date was the search warrant applied

17 for?

18 A. I believe it was applied for on the same

19 date.

20 Q. What date was that?

21 A. I believe it was January 31st, .04.

22 Q. And at that time, when you applied for the

23 warrant, you understood you were asking the Court’s

24 permission to search a private area, right?

25 A. A residential home.

26 Q. Which would be a private — otherwise a

27 private area, correct?

28 A. Yes. 7472

1 Q. All right. And that is not — you were

2 not — let me withdraw that.

3 It was not your understanding that any

4 court, on its own volition, told you you ought to go

5 search this area; is that right?

6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Calls for a

7 legal conclusion.

8 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.

9 You may answer.

10 THE WITNESS: I’m not quite sure I — could

11 you repeat the question?

12 MR. SANGER: Okay. Could we ask it be read

13 back?

14 THE COURT: All right.

15 (Record read.)

16 THE WITNESS: If I understand your question

17 correctly, did the Court ask us to go do this? The

18 answer is no.

19 Q. BY MR. SANGER: All right. As part of law

20 enforcement, you decide where you want to go, you

21 ask permission, and you either get it or you don’t

22 when you ask for a warrant, correct?

23 A. Yes. That’s an easy way to say it, sure.

24 Q. All right. Now, when you searched the —

25 these premises, approximately how many documents

26 were ultimately booked into evidence?

27 A. Do you want a guesstimate?

28 Q. Your best estimate, yes. 7473

1 A. Hundreds.

2 Q. Thousands?

3 A. It’s very possible there were thousands.

4 Q. Now, you’re the lieutenant in charge of this

5 investigation, correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And therefore, your — part of your

8 responsibility is to know what is booked into

9 evidence, correct?

10 A. That’s pretty vague. I mean, it’s — I’m

11 not going to know everything that — on every

12 document that goes in, no. The answer would be no.

13 Q. But you have a general idea of how many

14 documents were seized in January, correct?

15 A. Generally? And I said hundreds, possibly a

16 thousand.

17 Q. Hundred, possibly a thousand?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Were any other documents seized from Mr.

20 Schaffel on any other occasions?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And how many documents were seized?

23 A. No, actually we seized — I’m not sure we

24 seized documents, but we seized computers on a

25 different occasion.

26 Q. All right. And when was that?

27 A. I believe it was a few days afterwards. But

28 again, I’m not sure. I wasn’t present during that 7474

1 search.

2 Q. And your understanding, as the lieutenant in

3 charge of this investigation, that the computers

4 contained tens of thousands of documents?

5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Beyond the

6 scope, and relevance.

7 THE COURT: Sustained.

8 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Okay. Now, based on your

9 role as the lieutenant in charge of this

10 investigation, were you aware from your

11 investigation that Mr. Schaffel had employed other

12 people?

13 A. I’m aware that he worked with other people,

14 yes. Whether they were employed by him, that —

15 Q. Were you aware from your investigation that

16 other people had been given office space within Mr.

17 Schaffel’s house?

18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Foundation;

19 hearsay.

20 THE COURT: Overruled.

21 You may answer.

22 THE WITNESS: I’m aware that Mr. Schaffel

23 also used his home as an office at times.

24 Q. BY MR. SANGER: And he had other people

25 working for him there in his house?

26 A. I believe that they did work out of his home

27 at times, yes.

28 MR. SANGER: There you go. Thank you. No 7475

1 further questions.

2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I have no further

3 questions.

4 THE COURT: You may step down.

5 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Call Detective Craig

7 Bonner as our next witness.

8 THE COURT: When you get to the witness

9 stand, you may be seated. You’re still under oath.



12 Having been previously sworn, resumed the

13 stand and testified further as follows:




17 Q. Good afternoon, Detective Bonner.

18 A. Good afternoon.

19 Q. Before I begin asking you about some files

20 regarding a search warrant, I’m going to cover a

21 couple of other items.

22 Pursuant to your — you previously testified

23 you’re a detective in the People v. Jackson case,

24 correct?

25 A. That’s correct.

26 Q. And pursuant to your investigation, were you

27 asked to compare a sheriff’s office item number, a

28 tape, Item No. 817, with a Court Exhibit No. 827? 7476

1 This would be a phone call that has been admitted

2 into evidence referred to as the “Frank/Janet phone

3 call.”

4 A. That’s correct.

5 Q. Did you compare those items as to their

6 similarity or identical — the identical information

7 on those two — I shouldn’t say documents. I

8 believe they’re two tapes, right? Or CDs?

9 A. That’s correct. Well, the original is a

10 tape. The exhibit is a CD.

11 Q. Okay. So the S.O. No. 817 is a tape that

12 was seized pursuant to this case?

13 A. That’s correct.

14 Q. And you compared that with the Court CD,

15 Item No. 827?

16 A. That’s correct.

17 Q. Are they one and the same, as far as the —

18 as far as the voices and information that’s on those

19 two audio medias?

20 A. Yes, they are.

21 Q. Same question for Sheriff’s Office Item No.

22 818, and Court Exhibit No. 828, which is the Miller

23 interview of the Arvizo family. Did you compare

24 those two items?

25 A. Yes, I did.

26 Q. Again, was 818 a tape?

27 A. Yes, it was.

28 Q. 828 is a CD? 7477

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And they’re one and the same in terms of the

3 information that’s on them?

4 A. Yes, they are.

5 Q. Okay.

6 (Off-the-record discussion held at counsel

7 table.)

8 MR. SANGER: Could we have just a moment,

9 Your Honor, please?

10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I need an exhibit number.

11 Q. Detective, pursuant to your duties in this

12 case, were you asked to do a photographic

13 documentation of grand jury exhibits?

14 A. Yes, I was.

15 Q. And what was the nature of that task?

16 A. On July 20th, I went to the Superior Court

17 in Santa Barbara where the exhibits that were lodged

18 into the court from the grand jury proceedings were

19 being held. I then photographed certain exhibits at

20 that location, including every page of magazines

21 that were booked in.

22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. And if I might

23 approach again, Your Honor.

24 THE COURT: Yes.

25 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Detective, I show you a

26 envelope with “Exhibit 53, GJ Pics” written on the

27 outside. It appears to contain a document with

28 Item 317 on the top. It is held together by a green 7478

1 paper clip and there’s three pages to it.

2 And then there appear to be a number of

3 photographs that are following that, along with

4 photographs of the contents of Exhibit 470 face

5 page.

6 Can you identify that for me?

7 A. Yes, I can.

8 Q. What is it?

9 MR. SANGER: Well, there’s one problem. I

10 think I missed the court exhibit number for what is

11 being shown the witness.

12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Exhibit 843.

13 Q. All right. Can you please identify that for

14 me, Detective?

15 A. Yes, I can. When I went to the court,

16 specifically one of the items that I photographed

17 the contents of was Item 317, the black briefcase.

18 That’s also the Grand Jury Exhibit No. 53. I did

19 that with a digital camera.

20 All of those photographs were downloaded

21 onto a CD. These pictures are the printed

22 photographs that I took of the materials. This

23 document corresponds to these pictures and tells the

24 reader which picture corresponds to which item, and

25 to what the current exhibit number is for this

26 trial.

27 In addition to that, I also went in and I

28 handwrote in the sheriff’s department item number 7479

1 for each picture.

2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. Ask to admit

3 Exhibit No. 843 at this time, Your Honor.

4 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object to it.

5 Number one, it contains some extraneous material,

6 other than the photographs of the grand jury

7 exhibits.

8 Number two, that it’s cumulative. These

9 pages of these magazines have already been marked

10 and shown to the jury countless times in different

11 contexts or for different reasons. This being yet

12 another set, it’s cumulative.

13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And I’m willing to make an

14 offer as to the specific reason for this, if you

15 wish.

16 THE COURT: Okay.

17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Shall we do it at sidebar?

18 THE COURT: All right.

19 (Discussion held off the record at sidebar.)

20 THE COURT: All right. Based on the offer of

21 proof, I’ll admit it.

22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. If I could

23 have the Elmo, please.

24 Q. All right. So what was the date that you

25 conducted this photo essay of evidence?

26 MR. SANGER: Asked and answered, and “photo

27 essay” is vague and ambiguous.

28 THE COURT: Sustained. 7480

1 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: When did you do these

2 photographs?

3 A. July 20th.

4 Q. All right. All of them were taken on that

5 day?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And I show you the first page of the

8 three-page document that I previously identified.

9 And if you’d tell me what this, explain this

10 document to me, please.

11 A. This is — I prepared this by order sequence

12 of the pictures. It will tell you the evidence item

13 number, that’s the sheriff’s department number, as

14 well as the trial exhibit number for the item that

15 is pictured.

16 Q. Okay.

17 A. That’s by sequence of the pictures.

18 Q. All right. And there’s three pages of that,

19 correct?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. Two and a half? Well, almost three.

22 A. They’re the same material. They’re in

23 different order for researching purposes.

24 Q. All right. I need you to explain that for

25 me. I’ll show you the first one again.

26 MR. SANGER: Actually, Your Honor, I

27 apologize, I should have brought this up, but we

28 have not been provided a copy of this, of these, of 7481

1 any of this, but specifically these three pages.

2 And it appears that counsel’s not familiar with them

3 either. Could we please have a copy so we can look

4 at them closely while we go through here?

5 THE COURT: Do you have a copy for them?


7 THE WITNESS: I have an extra copy.

8 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you, Detective.

9 THE COURT: Go ahead.

10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: May I proceed?

11 Q. Okay. Now, this one has the notation in the

12 right-hand portion of the document, “Order by

13 picture sequence”?

14 A. That’s correct. So —

15 Q. And what does that mean?

16 A. It means that if you follow along with the

17 pictures, this document is going to follow as the

18 pictures go along.

19 Q. Do you mean in terms of the —

20 A. So if you start, page one, with the first

21 picture, it’s a picture of Item 317-J.

22 Q. Okay. And did you make that notation on

23 each of the pictures that is in this exhibit?

24 A. Yes, I did.

25 Q. Okay. The second page, that’s, “Order by

26 S.B.S.O. item number.” What does that mean?

27 A. It’s the same data that has been

28 reconfigured so that if somebody wants to go and 7482

1 quickly look based upon the sheriff’s department

2 item number, that they can do that, and they can

3 correspond that with the trial exhibit number.

4 Q. Okay. And then lastly, you have, “Order by

5 criminal trial exhibit number.”

6 A. Again, the same data. This time it had been

7 arranged so that you can quickly look, based upon a

8 trial exhibit number, and know what the sheriff’s

9 department number is.

10 Q. Okay. So all of these three documents have

11 the same information in different configurations?

12 A. That’s correct.

13 Q. All right. Now, I’m just going to show you

14 the first page of this group of exhibits and just

15 ask you to explain to me what you did.

16 Okay. These are an example of the

17 photographs you took?

18 A. Yes, they are.

19 Q. And explain this exhibit to me.

20 A. The easiest way — it’s a printout in order

21 of the pictures as they were taken. You can’t

22 really see it too well, it’s a little fuzzy, but

23 317-J is written above this picture.

24 Q. We’re going to give you a laser pointer so

25 it’s a little easier for you, and I’ll blow this up

26 a little bit.

27 A. Okay. This is Item 317-J. I have notated

28 that above the picture. Same thing for this one. 7483

1 If you were to — I’ll skip down to this picture

2 right here. This is 317-A, and the order goes like

3 this.

4 Q. And these are — this is the — I believe

5 you testified to this, but this is the grand jury

6 exhibit that was presented to the grand jury?

7 A. That’s correct.

8 Q. All right. Detective, did you participate

9 in the execution of a search warrant in the case of

10 People v. Jackson on January 31st, 2004?

11 A. Yes, I did.

12 Q. And whose home did you serve that search

13 warrant on?

14 A. Marc Schaffel or Frederic Schaffel.

15 Q. And did you seize documents pursuant to that

16 search warrant?

17 A. Yes, I did.

18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: If I might approach again,

19 Your Honor.

20 THE COURT: Yes.

21 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Detective,

22 I show you the notebook that I’ve mentioned as

23 Exhibit 400 through 420. And showing you Exhibit

24 402, which appears to be a Neverland Valley

25 Entertainment — “What more can I give” is at the

26 top of it.

27 I’m sorry. I’m a little ahead of myself

28 here. 7484

1 I’m going to first show you Exhibit 404,

2 which appears to be a two-page document —

3 three-page document. The first page appears to be

4 entitled, “Messages.” Did you seize that document

5 pursuant to the warrant?

6 A. Yes, I did.

7 Q. Then there are two more pages attached to

8 that or behind that, the first of which is entitled,

9 “MJJ Productions Working Group List.” Appear to be

10 phone numbers.

11 Did you also seize those documents, those

12 two documents?

13 A. Yes, I did.

14 Q. Where did you seize those?

15 A. Those were seized from an upstairs bedroom

16 closet. It was a small walk-in closet that was

17 locked, and within that were a number of filing

18 cabinets.

19 One of these cabinets in particular had a

20 drawer that was pretty much filled with materials

21 related to this case. We seized — or I seized that

22 entire drawer, and that is where this document came

23 from.

24 Q. Did it come out of a specific file?

25 A. I believe it came out of the Stuart

26 Backerman file.

27 Q. A file that had Stuart —

28 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object to hearsay 7485

1 content. There’s no foundation for any of this.

2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m just asking where it

3 was located.

4 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.

5 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Moving to 405; let’s

6 see, it appears to be a one-page document with “Bell

7 Yard” at the top of it.

8 Did you seize that pursuant to the execution

9 of this warrant?

10 A. Yes, I did.

11 Q. And where was that document seized?

12 A. This came out of the same file drawer.

13 Q. Moving on to 406, it appears to be a 14-page

14 document. The first document has “Hale Lane” at the

15 top of it. Appears to be a fax sheet.

16 Did you seize this 14 — these 14 pages?

17 A. Yes, I did.

18 Q. And where did they come from?

19 A. Again, out of the same file drawer.

20 Q. 407, it appears to be a ten-page document,

21 and the first page appears to be an e-mail entitled,

22 “Spain Deal.”

23 Can you look through those documents and

24 tell me if you seized those pursuant to the search

25 warrant that you’ve been discussing in this?

26 A. Yes, I did.

27 Q. And where were those documents seized from?

28 A. Those were on top of the filing cabinets. 7486

1 Q. Okay. Were they located inside any

2 particular file?

3 A. There was a file titled, “Ronald.”

4 Q. 408 appears to be four pages, and I think

5 we’ve withdrawn that, so I’ll move on.

6 409, that’s my next witness.

7 410, did you seize that document? This

8 appears to be a four-page document, starts off with

9 a phone number sheet, two pages of yellow paper,

10 lined paper, and then a — looks like a fax.

11 A. Yes, I did.

12 Q. Were those seized pursuant to the warrant?

13 A. Yes, they were.

14 Q. And where were they seized from?

15 A. They were seized from, again, on top of the

16 filing cabinets and they were in a file-held address

17 book.

18 Q. Moving on to 411. This is a two-page

19 document. Appears to be some kind of a computer

20 printout with “Enterprise Rent-A-Car” on the top

21 page of each one. Did you seize those documents?

22 A. Yes, I did.

23 Q. Where did they come from?

24 A. They came from that large filing drawer that

25 we seized, and a — specifically a file in that

26 drawer that said, “Enterprise Rental.”

27 Q. From the locked closet?

28 A. Yes. 7487

1 Q. And the file said, “Enterprise Rental”?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Moving on to 412, it appears to be a

4 five-page document, a Hale Lane fax sheet on the

5 first one; “Gabriel Media” on the second one;

6 “Appearance and Consent,” third; “MJJ Productions”

7 on the fourth. The fifth appears to be a signature

8 page.

9 BAILIFF CORTEZ: They can’t hear you, sir.

10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: The fifth appears to be a

11 signature page.

12 THE WITNESS: I seized these documents.

13 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Where did you seize

14 them from?

15 A. These were seized from within that same file

16 drawer. Specifically a file titled, “Artist

17 Release,” or “Artist releases.”

18 Q. Okay. Moving on to 413, it appears to be a

19 ten-page document. The first page — the first five

20 pages appear to say, “Appearance, Consent and

21 Release” on them. The next page is a yellow lined

22 page. And the next page appears to have six pages

23 paper-clipped together, all contained in one plastic

24 liner, all right? So we’ve got, looks like, 11

25 pages total in there.

26 Did you seize those documents?

27 A. Yes, I did.

28 Q. Okay. Where did they come from? 7488

1 A. They came from within that large filing

2 drawer and in a file folder titled, “Model

3 Releases.”

4 Q. And showing you what’s noted as page seven,

5 there appears to be several documents that are

6 paper-clipped together. Were those documents

7 paper-clipped in that fashion when you found them?

8 A. I believe so, yes.

9 Q. All right. Moving on to 414, it appears to

10 be an eight-page document that — and we have — I

11 believe we’ve withdrawn that.

12 So I’ll go to 415, which appears to be 47

13 pages of various records. The first one appears to

14 be — has “Living with MJ, Take 2” at the top.

15 Did you seize those 47 pages, Detective?

16 A. Yes, I did.

17 Q. And where did those come from?

18 A. These were contained within a black binder

19 which I found on a shelf above the filing cabinets.

20 Q. Moving on to 417, skipping 416, it appears

21 to be a 12-page document, at least 12

22 plastic-lined — or, I’ll double-check this. It

23 does appear to be 12 pages.

24 All right. Can you identify that for me,

25 please? Or I should say, did you seize those pages

26 from the home of Marc Schaffel during the execution

27 of this warrant?

28 A. Yes, I did. 7489

1 Q. Where did they come from?

2 A. They came from that same locked walk-in

3 closet in a folder that was up above the filing

4 cabinets.

5 Q. And going now to — oh, one question that I

6 neglected to ask you. Did that come from a

7 particular file?

8 A. I believe it was the David Gardner LeGrand

9 file.

10 MR. SANGER: Can we just specify for the

11 record what “that” meant?

12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: My question went to

13 Exhibit 417. Its location was in the file drawer.

14 My question was —

15 MR. SANGER: I understand. You pointed to a

16 page, and I didn’t know if you were singling out a

17 page or you meant the whole exhibit.

18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: No, I meant the whole

19 exhibit.

20 MR. SANGER: I’m sorry to talk directly to

21 counsel, but we worked it out.

22 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Is that clear to you —

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. — that all those documents came from the

25 David Gardner LeGrand file?

26 A. Yes, it is.

27 Q. Skipping 419 for the time being, going to

28 420, which appears to be a 28-page document, or 28 7490

1 separate pages, various — look to be various

2 e-mails, did you seize those documents pursuant to

3 the warrant on Mr. Schaffel’s home?

4 A. Yes, I did.

5 Q. Where did they came from?

6 A. They came out of the same large filing

7 drawer from the locked closet.

8 Q. Moving on to 421, it appears to be a

9 ten-page document. First page says at the top, “Law

10 Office” — “Law Offices of Armstrong, Hirsch, et

11 cetera.” It appears to be a fax sheet with an

12 agreement attached to it. Did you seize those

13 items, Detective, pursuant to your warrant?

14 A. Yes, I did.

15 Q. Where did they come from?

16 A. They came from on top of the filing

17 cabinets.

18 Q. That were in the locked closet?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. 422. It appears to be a letter of intent

21 from Royalty Advanced Funding.

22 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Still can’t hear you, sir.

23 You have to —


25 Q. It appears to be a letter of intent from

26 Royalty Advanced Funding. Let’s see. I’m going to

27 have to count these pages. It appears to be 19

28 pages. 7491

1 Did you seize those documents pursuant to

2 your search warrant?

3 A. Yes, I did.

4 Q. And where were they seized from?

5 A. They were also on top of the file cabinets.

6 Q. And same location, locked closet?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Did they come out of any specific file?

9 A. I believe they came out of a file titled,

10 “Royalty.”

11 Q. And lastly, 423, it appears to be seven

12 pages. The face page looks to be an e-mail followed

13 by various correspondence.

14 Did you seize those documents?

15 A. Yes, I did.

16 Q. Where did they come from?

17 A. They came out of the large filing drawer

18 that we seized.

19 Q. Okay. Once again, the locked file closet?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And were they associated with any particular

22 file?

23 A. I believe it was called “Foreign Rights.”

24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Thank you,

25 Detective. No further questions.

26 MR. SANGER: May I have one moment, please,

27 Your Honor?

28 May I proceed, Your Honor? 7492





5 Q. Let’s talk about the grand jury pictures

6 here, first of all.

7 Are you aware that one of the fingerprints

8 that was identified sometime ago in this trial was

9 located on a magazine that was in that briefcase?

10 A. I don’t know. I’ve heard that. I don’t

11 know which one.

12 Q. Okay. You’ve heard that?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And so you did not go through to compare

15 your numbers to see if the 317 sheriff’s exhibit

16 number matched up with the particular item on which

17 a fingerprint was identified?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Basically what you’re saying here with

20 regard to all these grand jury pictures that we’ve

21 just heard about is, you went to the grand jury

22 clerk, right?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. And you had her pull out the briefcase,

25 correct?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. And this — this was theoretically the way

28 the briefcase was delivered to her by the grand jury 7493

1 when they were through; is that right?

2 A. Theoretically, correct.

3 Q. And so if she did her job, she would have

4 kept it intact, and then it would be there, you

5 would open it up, and the contents would be the way

6 that she got it from the grand jury, correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. There was no way for you to know what was

9 done with the briefcase at or during the grand jury

10 proceedings; is that correct?

11 A. No.

12 Q. I’m sorry, I said, “Is that correct?” So

13 that’s my fault.

14 Was there any way for you to know what was

15 done to the briefcase and the contents at or during

16 the grand jury?

17 A. No, there’s not.

18 Q. All right. And when you recovered the

19 briefcase from the clerk, did you ascertain from her

20 that she and staff members had gone through the

21 exhibit without wearing gloves?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Did you do anything to, from that moment

24 forward, preserve the exhibit so that fingerprints

25 could be analyzed?

26 A. Yes, I wore gloves.

27 Q. And did you ask that the clerk wear gloves

28 in the future when handling that exhibit? 7494

1 A. I didn’t know that she hadn’t.

2 Q. Okay. All right. Very well.

3 Let me ask you — Miss Frey, we’re fine on

4 that.

5 THE CLERK: Okay.

6 MR. SANGER: Thank you. Thank you for

7 looking.

8 Q. Let me ask you about some of these exhibits

9 that you had identified from the residence of Mr.

10 Schaffel. And I want to ask you, first of all, if

11 you were aware that persons other than Mr. Schaffel

12 had been working out of his house.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, you identified most of the exhibits in

15 this book that’s placed before you; is that correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And by that I mean, just now you went

18 through and you said, “Sure enough, I seized those

19 items,” correct?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. What percentage, if you can give us an

22 estimate, of the materials that you seized does this

23 book represent?

24 A. 5 to 10 percent.

25 Q. Okay. So there were thousands of pages —

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. — that you seized, correct?

28 A. Yes. 7495

1 Q. And you seized thousands of pages from tens

2 of thousands of pages of documents and materials,

3 maybe more than that, that were in these various

4 offices or file cabinets or whatever the location

5 was within this house, correct?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. Now, you indicated in your direct

8 testimony — for instance, if you would look at

9 Exhibit 421, please. It’s in front of you there.

10 421 in the book. You indicated that this was a fax

11 with a number of sheets attached to it.

12 The first thing I want you to do is ask you

13 to turn to page two of that exhibit, 421, and note

14 that there’s a handwritten number on the top.

15 A. 8012?

16 Q. Yes, sir. Is that a number that was there,

17 or is that something that was placed there?

18 A. That number has been there. We didn’t put

19 that there.

20 Q. All right. So that’s a number that just was

21 on the document. You seized it. There it was.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. All right. The District Attorney asked you

24 if the document was attached to the fax. Was the

25 document, in fact, attached to the fax cover?

26 A. I don’t know.

27 Q. Okay. In fact, if you look at it, can you

28 tell whether or not the document actually belongs to 7496

1 that fax?

2 A. Being that it didn’t get — or it was not

3 sent to me, I wouldn’t absolutely know that. I know

4 that I seized all of these documents from that

5 file —

6 Q. All right.

7 A. — in his residence.

8 Q. And I’m just trying to clarify the question

9 about the document attached to the fax. It’s

10 attached as it’s sitting there. You don’t know

11 whether or not it was physically stapled or attached

12 at the time, correct?

13 A. No.

14 Q. And if you look, there’s no fax header on

15 the first page and there are fax headers on the

16 subsequent pages, correct?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. Now, I want to go back to an exhibit. Let

19 me just find it here. 414. Let me see if I have

20 the right one. Yes. 414.

21 Now, the District Attorney indicated — when

22 you got to 414, he started to ask you about that and

23 he said, “We’re withdrawing that exhibit,” or

24 “That’s withdrawn”; is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. I’d like to ask you about 414, and so I’m

27 going to ask that it be marked for identification as

28 414. In other words, it’s already been premarked by 7497

1 the prosecution, but I think I need to say on the

2 record that we’re asking this be identified on the

3 record, if that’s acceptable to the Court. And it

4 starts out with what appears to be a Xerox of — at

5 least the one I have is a Xerox of two —

6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object to the

7 admission of any evidence on that document on the

8 basis of hearsay, including the document’s name.

9 THE COURT: All right. As to 414, it is a

10 marked exhibit, and it cannot be unilaterally — how

11 do you say that?

12 THE JURY: (In unison) Unilaterally.

13 THE COURT: All right. Let’s take a break.

14 Withdrawn.

15 (Recess taken.)

16 THE COURT: As for the rest of the

17 objection, he’s doing the same thing.


19 THE COURT: He’s laying a foundation, which

20 he’s allowed to do.

21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And I have no objection to

22 that. I’ll just ask — I’ll stipulate to

23 identification and ask —

24 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Your mike is off, sir.

25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Stipulate to

26 identification and ask that counsel not read the

27 name of the exhibit. The Court can look at that

28 exhibit and appreciate my reasons for that. 7498

1 MR. SANGER: Didn’t the Court just rule I

2 could do it? I’m confused.

3 THE BAILIFF: Is your microphone on?

4 MR. SANGER: It was, but I guess I wasn’t

5 close.

6 THE COURT: Say that again. You’re confused?

7 MR. SANGER: I’m confused.

8 THE COURT: Okay.

9 MR. SANGER: And I think the District

10 Attorney was going to stipulate to that. That’s

11 what he said.

12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: So stipulated.

13 THE COURT: You may proceed.

14 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you.

15 Q. The question pending was — or I don’t know

16 if there was a question pending, but let me ask you,

17 look at 414. The first page has what appear here to

18 be copies of — what do we call those these days?

19 Floppy disks?

20 A. That will work.

21 Q. That’s beginning to be like an 8-track these

22 days, I suppose.

23 Anyway, it’s — you have the actual disk

24 there; is that correct?

25 A. That’s correct.

26 Q. And there’s a notation on those two disks

27 that say —

28 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And that’s what I’m 7499

1 objecting to. I’ll stipulate they’re two disks that

2 he found.

3 THE COURT: Actually, you are not allowed to

4 proffer stipulations in open court if the —

5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.

6 THE COURT: Go ahead, Counsel.

7 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Did the disk say on them

8 “Janet expense backup” and “Janet cash expense”?

9 A. Yes, they do.

10 Q. That’s followed by a number of pages that

11 indicate “Register” at the top —

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. — is that correct?

14 Now, as to 414 and the two disks, where did

15 you locate those?

16 A. 414 — well, the only thing I located was

17 the two disks.

18 Q. I see. All right. Where did you locate the

19 two disks?

20 A. They were in that same filing cabinet drawer

21 that was seized from the upstairs locked closet.

22 Q. All right. And you see 414, the printed

23 pages. Are those pages that were printed out from

24 the disk subsequent to your seizure?

25 A. In a manner of speaking. They had to be

26 imported into Quicken and bring it up as a check

27 register, and then print that.

28 Q. Did you do that? 7500

1 A. Yes, I did.

2 Q. All right. Good. So the rest of 414 — you

3 have the two disks, and then the rest of it, the

4 printed pages, is it your opinion that these pages

5 accurately reflect at least a part of the content of

6 the two disks?

7 A. That’s correct.

8 Q. Now I’m going to refer to Exhibit 416. That

9 is another one, if I’m not mistaken, that the

10 District Attorney indicated that he was not going to

11 address. And let me ask you to take a look at 416.

12 It’s been marked for identification, and the first

13 page on 416, it says, “Summary of petty cash

14 expenditures”; correct?

15 A. Yes. Yes.

16 Q. And that’s approximately two pages. And

17 then it appears that the subsequent pages are

18 receipts and other evidence of expenses that were

19 incurred; is that correct?

20 A. That’s correct.

21 Q. Did you find these documents from 414 — let

22 me withdraw that.

23 Did you find these documents that are — I’m

24 going to withdraw that.

25 Did you find these documents which comprise

26 416 in your search?

27 A. No.

28 Q. Did somebody else find it? 7501

1 A. No.

2 Q. Do you know where they came from?

3 A. I believe they came —

4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. That’s a “yes”

5 or “no” question.

6 THE COURT: That’s true. “Yes” or “no.”

7 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Do you know where they came

8 from?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Where did they come from?

11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. No foundation.

12 THE COURT: Sustained.

13 Q. BY MR. SANGER: How do you know where they

14 came from?

15 A. In meetings that we’ve had, I’ve came to

16 know where these items came from.

17 Q. Okay. As a part of your job being an

18 investigator in this case, you’ve determined where

19 these items were originally obtained; is that

20 correct? Is that what you’re saying?

21 Let’s put it this way: Did you personally

22 seize these from any location anywhere?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Did you witness them being seized?

25 A. No.

26 Q. So you were informed where they were seized

27 from?

28 A. Yes. 7502

1 Q. There you go. All right.

2 Now, you wanted to — at the break, you

3 indicated you wanted to clarify part of your

4 testimony.

5 A. Uh-huh. Yes.

6 Q. And I believe it was with regard to we had

7 made reference to Exhibit 421, and I believe you

8 wanted to clarify part of your testimony with regard

9 to Exhibit 421.

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Are you turned to it there?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. That’s the exhibit where I asked if the

14 cover went — the fax cover went with the document.

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. And you were not sure. And then I had asked

17 you about the numbers on the top of the document,

18 number 8012, and then it seems to be successive

19 numbers up to 8020, with a number sign in front; is

20 that correct?

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. Just handwritten at the top, right?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Did you determine, during the break, whether

25 or not those numbers were in fact on the documents

26 when you actually seized them?

27 A. Yes, I did.

28 Q. And were they on the documents when you 7503

1 actually seized them?

2 A. No, they were not.

3 Q. Do you know who put those documents (sic)

4 on?

5 A. District Attorney personnel.

6 Q. So you seized them, booked them into

7 evidence; is that right?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. Sometime, apparently, they were withdrawn

10 from evidence, from the booking — I’m sorry, from

11 the sheriff’s evidence, right?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. And the District Attorney at some point had

14 them and wrote numbers on them; is that right?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. And I take it, if you look at 422, there are

17 numbers again written on the top, which are not

18 necessarily in sequence. In fact, I could drop the

19 word “necessarily.” They’re not in sequence at all,

20 it appears; is that correct?

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. But there are numbers that I think all start

23 with the number “8”?

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. Four-digit numbers. Were those numbers on

26 those documents when you seized them?

27 A. No, they were not.

28 Q. And your understanding is that they were 7504

1 later added by the District Attorney’s Office?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. If we turn to 423, would that similarly be

4 the testimony on 423?

5 I see that the first few pages do not have a

6 number, but it appears that maybe starting on page

7 five, there’s a number starting with seventy —

8 well, it’s actually 7802 is the number. And there’s

9 some numbers following that that are not in

10 sequence.

11 Those numbers all starting with “7,” are

12 those numbers that also were added in that same

13 fashion, to your knowledge?

14 A. Correct.

15 MR. SANGER: Okay. I have no further

16 questions.




20 Q. As far as those numbers go, Detective, do

21 you know if those numbers were added to the original

22 documents?

23 A. No, they were not.

24 Q. Okay. So these — do you know if these

25 documents were ever scanned into a CD format?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. Were they assigned JPEG numbers, or numbers?

28 A. Yes. 7505

1 Q. And do you know if those numbers coincide to

2 the scanned numbers?

3 MR. SANGER: That’s leading.

4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: “Do you know?”

5 THE WITNESS: I don’t.

6 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer?

7 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Do you know?

8 A. I don’t.

9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. As far as Exhibit

10 420 goes, Your Honor, I spoke with counsel about

11 this earlier. And I asked to have marked as an

12 additional exhibit 420-A. I neglected to ask this

13 witness about those particular changes that were

14 made to that exhibit when I had him on direct, and

15 with the Court’s permission, I’d just like to ask a

16 foundation about 420-A.

17 THE COURT: Okay.

18 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Let me

19 bring up the notebook as well, or you still have the

20 original?

21 A. I have it.

22 Q. Okay. Detective, we’ve established that

23 some of these documents are scanned duplicates of

24 documents that were seized; is that correct?

25 A. This is the end of it.

26 Q. Did you hear my question?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. Is that correct? 7506

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And as far as 420 goes, do you know if 420

3 was also scanned into a CD format?

4 A. Yes, it was.

5 Q. Okay. And did you do that? Or, actually,

6 not scanned. I believe pictures were taken. Do you

7 know whether it was scanned or pictures?

8 A. Both.

9 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object as leading

10 and asked and answered, actually.

11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll — well —

12 THE COURT: Overruled. Next question.

13 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Do you know if it was

14 scanned or pictures?

15 A. Both.

16 Q. Okay. Some were scanned; some were taken

17 pictures of?

18 A. Some were taken pictures of. All of them

19 were scanned.

20 Q. Did you have anything to do with the

21 picture-taking?

22 A. Yes, I did.

23 Q. What did you have to do with that?

24 A. During a review of these evidence items

25 after having seized them, I took photographs of

26 certain ones which we thought were pertinent to the

27 investigation.

28 Q. All right. Did you download those 7507

1 photographs to a CD?

2 A. Our forensics personnel did.

3 Q. Okay. Do you know if those were provided to

4 the D.A.’s Office?

5 A. Yes, they were.

6 Q. And when you took photographs of those

7 documents, do you know if you photographed every —

8 for instance, let me give you an example. When you

9 had a picture of — or a document that comprised

10 more than one page, did you always photograph each

11 page of that document?

12 A. No.

13 Q. And why was that?

14 A. I would have only taken photographs of the

15 ones that appeared pertinent. In other words, if

16 there were multiple pages stapled together or

17 multiple pages together and only one of them was

18 pertinent, I only took a photograph of that one

19 pertinent page.

20 Q. Okay. And during the course of the review

21 of this notebook, did you look at 420 to see if each

22 of those e-mails or documents that are in that

23 exhibit contained all relevant pages for each of

24 those documents? Do you understand the question?

25 A. Can you ask that again, please?

26 Q. The question is, did you review the —

27 these — the evidence notebook in this case that

28 deals with Exhibits No. 420 through — 7508

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. I believe we’ve got 440; is that right? 420

3 through — 400 through 422, I think, at this point.

4 A. Yes, I did.

5 Q. Okay. And did you find that Exhibit No. 420

6 had some pages missing?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And did you then go back to the evidence and

9 cull out the missing pages so that it would be a

10 complete exhibit?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. I show you Exhibit 420-A. Can you identify

13 that for me, please?

14 A. These are the pages that I went and pulled

15 out of the actual evidence item to correspond with

16 these photographs or images.

17 Q. Okay. So is 420 pretty much an identical

18 copy of 420-A, except for 420-A has some additional

19 missing pages?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. All right. Thank you.

22 I’d ask — actually, we’re going to hold off

23 on admission of this additional evidence at this

24 time. Those are all the questions that I have right

25 now, Your Honor.

26 MR. SANGER: Do you want to take your book?

27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yeah. Thanks.

28 // 7509



3 Q. Okay. 420-A is now what you feel to be a

4 more complete set of documents than 420; is that

5 correct?

6 A. Correct. And they are the original

7 documents.

8 MR. SANGER: All right. May I approach,

9 Your Honor?

10 THE COURT: Yes.

11 MR. SANGER: I was given a copy.

12 Q. All right. So 420-A are original documents.

13 In other words, they were documents that you found

14 in the condition they were actually in —

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. — during the search. They aren’t

17 photocopies. They aren’t photographs.

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. They aren’t scanned.

20 A. No.

21 Q. All right. There are paper clips on there.

22 Why are the paper clips on them? Does that mean

23 anything? Let me put it this way: Did you put the

24 paper clips on them?

25 A. No, these paper clips aren’t on the

26 documents themselves. They’re on the sleeve.

27 Q. All right. Did you put the paper clips on

28 the sleeves? 7510

1 A. Did not.

2 Q. Okay. Now, with regard to 420, how did

3 you — where did these come from? You photographed

4 them? Or you scanned them, or what? I’m not clear.

5 A. These are either the photographs or the

6 scans. All of the Schaffel evidence was scanned.

7 We also took certain photographs of them.

8 Q. Okay. I must say, I looked in there, and

9 maybe I’m wrong, but I didn’t see anything that

10 looked like a photograph of a document as opposed to

11 a photocopy or scan. Am I wrong? In 420.

12 A. Well, I don’t know what — how these

13 items — this was done by the District Attorney’s

14 Office that put together the court exhibit book

15 here.

16 Q. Okay.

17 A. What I did is, I went and found the actual

18 evidence item that I seized to correspond with this

19 exhibit book.

20 Q. Basically you’re saying you don’t know how

21 420 was generated at all; is that correct?

22 A. I know where the items came from. I don’t

23 know how they got into here.

24 Q. All right. And then you don’t know what the

25 paper clips mean on 420-A?

26 A. No.

27 MR. SANGER: All right. Thank you. No

28 further questions. 7511



3 Q. Would you look at those documents and see if

4 you can ascertain any reason for the paper clips to

5 be on those documents?

6 MR. SANGER: I’m going to ask — that calls

7 for speculation and asked and answered. He says he

8 doesn’t know.

9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: He’s reviewed the

10 documents as far as completeness, and he’s testified

11 as to that issue as to whether the documents had

12 missing pages, and I’m — my question goes to that

13 issue.

14 MR. SANGER: And I object to a speaking —

15 THE COURT: Yeah. I’ll sustain the

16 objections.

17 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. I have no

19 further questions.

20 THE COURT: Anything further, Counsel?

21 You may step down.

22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Call Detective Vic

23 Alvarez, Your Honor, and he will be our last witness

24 today.

25 THE COURT: Come forward, please. When you

26 get to the witness stand, you may be seated. You’re

27 still under oath.

28 // 7512


2 Having been previously sworn, resumed the

3 stand and testified further as follows:


5 THE COURT: You may be seated.




9 Q. Good afternoon, Detective Alvarez.

10 A. Good afternoon.

11 Q. If I may approach, Your Honor.

12 Detective Alvarez, did you participate in

13 the search of the home of Fred Marc Schaffel in

14 Calabasas, California, on January 31st, 2004?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Did you seize certain documents pursuant to

17 that search?

18 A. I did.

19 Q. Calling your attention to the black notebook

20 which contains an exhibit that is marked as 402,

21 there is a document that’s dated 11-12-01 and

22 appears to be a balance sheet. It’s two pages. And

23 as soon as I locate it, I’d like to ask you if this

24 was a document that you seized.

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. And you tell me, where — did you seize that

27 pursuant to the warrant of Mr. Schaffel’s home?

28 A. I did. 7513

1 Q. Where did you seize it from?

2 A. It was in the upstairs office area of the

3 residence.

4 Q. Okay. Was that area locked at all?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Okay. And from where in that upstairs

7 office did you seize that document?

8 A. This was in the desk area of the upstairs

9 office.

10 Q. Did it come from a file with any specific

11 notation, if you recall?

12 A. I don’t think so.

13 Q. Okay. Looking at Exhibit 403, which appears

14 to be — I believe we have 13 pages, plus a — 12

15 pages, plus a — looks to be a file divider. Did

16 you seize that file divider and those documents

17 pursuant to your search of Mr. Schaffel’s home?

18 A. Yes, I did.

19 Q. Where did they come from?

20 A. These were also on — in the office area

21 upstairs on the desk.

22 Q. There appears to be a file divider, a

23 plastic file divider, with “Fires Brewing” on it.

24 Did you seize that as well?

25 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object to that,

26 because they already laid the foundation without

27 bringing in content, so this is irrelevant, and no

28 foundation for content. 7514

1 THE COURT: Overruled. Proceed.

2 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did you seize that as

3 well?

4 A. That’s correct.

5 Q. And where did that come from?

6 A. This was also on the top of the desk in the

7 office area, second floor of the residence.

8 Q. Do you know where the contents of that

9 file — were there documents inside that file?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And can you tell me their relationship to

12 the documents that you just identified?

13 A. Yes. They appear to be e-mails.

14 Q. Do you know if those documents came from

15 that file?

16 A. Yes, they did.

17 Q. Okay. The one designated with that

18 particular file marker?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. That’s my question.

21 A. Correct, yes.

22 Q. Moving on to 409, which appears to be a

23 one-page document, that has at the top “Phone

24 Number,” singular. It appears to have some phone

25 numbers on it. Did you seize that document,

26 Detective?

27 A. Yes, I did.

28 Q. And you seized that from Mr. Schaffel’s 7515

1 home?

2 A. I did.

3 Q. Where did it come from?

4 A. This was also on top of — in the office

5 area, second floor of the residence, near — on top

6 of the desk, the desk in the room there.

7 Q. Okay. And then finally call your attention

8 to Exhibit 419, which appears to be three pages of

9 plastic sleeves with a check — checkstub and check

10 copy, it appears to be. Did you seize those

11 documents at the search of Mr. Schaffel’s home on

12 that day?

13 A. I did.

14 Q. And can you tell me where they came from in

15 Mr. Schaffel’s residence?

16 A. They also came from the office, the second

17 floor of the residence.

18 Q. Okay. Whereabouts?

19 A. These were also on the desk area of the

20 residence, or of the room.

21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. Thank you. No

22 further questions.

23 Actually, I do have one additional question,

24 I’m sorry.

25 Q. On a different matter, Detective, pursuant

26 to your investigation in this case —

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. — did you interview a witness by the name 7516

1 of Cindy Bell?

2 A. I did.

3 Q. Did you question her concerning her

4 involvement as a witness in this case?

5 A. I did.

6 Q. Did you question her specifically about the

7 issue of serving alcohol as part of her duties as a

8 flight attendant for Xtra Jet?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Did she tell you whose idea — well, first

11 of all, let me ask you a question. Did she tell you

12 anything about Coke or about wine in Diet Coke cans?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. What did she tell you?

15 A. She said she serves white wine in a Diet

16 Coke can for Mr. Jackson.

17 Q. When he’s a client of Xtra Jet?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. Did she tell you whose idea that was to put

20 white wine or wine in a Diet Coke can?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. What — whose idea did she say it was?

23 A. She said it was either Michael Jackson’s or

24 Dr. Farshshian’s.

25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. Thank you. No

26 further questions.

27 You know, I do have one additional question I

28 neglected to ask. 7517

1 MR. SANGER: I was going to say “No

2 questions” so we can go home, so I’ll have to wait

3 and see what happens.

4 THE COURT: He was going to say “No

5 questions.”

6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Oh, I’m sorry.

7 Q. I neglected to ask you the date of that

8 interview, if you can approximate it.

9 A. I don’t remember.

10 Q. Do you remember the approximate month?

11 A. I don’t.

12 Q. Okay. Was it —

13 A. It’s on — it’s documented on my report.

14 Q. Do you have your report with you?

15 A. I don’t.

16 Q. You don’t. Well, you might get to come back

17 and tell us what date that was, then.

18 MR. SANGER: Move to strike, Your Honor.

19 THE COURT: Stricken.

20 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll withdraw it. Okay.

21 Thank you.

22 MR. SANGER: In light of those questions,

23 Your Honor, I have no questions.

24 THE COURT: All right. Pretty good. That

25 must end the day; is that right?

26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: That’s right.

27 THE COURT: All right. And you heard what

28 they said this morning, that it will be — the rest 7518

1 of the week will be a full week, so we’ll see you

2 tomorrow morning at 8:30. Remember the admonition.

3 (The proceedings adjourned at 2:00 p.m.)

4 –o0o–
























28 7519






6 Plaintiff, )

7 -vs- ) No. 1133603


9 Defendant. )




13 #3304, Official Court Reporter, do hereby certify:

14 That the foregoing pages 7377 through 7519

15 contain a true and correct transcript of the

16 proceedings had in the within and above-entitled

17 matter as by me taken down in shorthand writing at

18 said proceedings on April 25, 2005, and thereafter

19 reduced to typewriting by computer-aided

20 transcription under my direction.

21 DATED: Santa Maria, California,

22 April 25, 2005.