MAY 2, 2005

8305

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

3 SANTA MARIA BRANCH; COOK STREET DIVISION

4 DEPARTMENT SM-2 HON. RODNEY S. MELVILLE, JUDGE

5

6

7 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

8 CALIFORNIA, )

9 Plaintiff, )

10 -vs- ) No. 1133603

11 MICHAEL JOE JACKSON, )

12 Defendant. )

13

14

15

16

17 REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

18

19 MONDAY, MAY 2, 2005

20

21 8:30 A.M.

22

23 (PAGES 8305 THROUGH 8351)

24

25

26

27 REPORTED MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR, CSR #3304

28 BY: Official Court Reporter 8305

1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:

2

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

4 District Attorney -and-

5 RONALD J. ZONEN, Sr. Deputy District Attorney

6 -and- GORDON AUCHINCLOSS,

7 Sr. Deputy District Attorney -and-

8 MAG NICOLA, Sr. Deputy District Attorney

9 1112 Santa Barbara Street Santa Barbara, California 93101

10

11

12 For Defendant: COLLINS, MESEREAU, REDDOCK & YU

13 BY: THOMAS A. MESEREAU, JR., ESQ. -and-

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

15 Los Angeles, California 90067

16 -and-

17 SANGER & SWYSEN BY: ROBERT M. SANGER, ESQ.

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

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8306

1 I N D E X

2

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. Nicola is listed as “N” on index. Mr. Mesereau is listed as “M” on index.

6 Ms. Yu is listed as “Y” on index. Mr. Sanger is listed as “SA” on index.

7

8

9 PLAINTIFF’S

10 WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

11 WAGNER, Beverly 8311-A 8316-SA 8321-A

12 BONNER, Craig

13 (Re-called) 8322-N

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8307

1 E X H I B I T S

2 FOR IN PLAINTIFF’S NO. DESCRIPTION I.D. EVID.

3

4 200-218 Turnberry Isle Resort & Club records 8309 8309

5 255-258 The Beverly Hilton records 8309 8310

6 418 Copy of check for

7 $1,000,000 8312

8 419 Copy of check for $500,000 8314

9 859 Visual chart documenting

10 phone calls 8325 8327

11 860-867 Linked phone calls record 8325 8328

12 871 Chart and spreadsheet for February 20, 2003 8325 8328

13 875-879 Charts for March 5, 2003,

14 to March 9, 2003 8325 8328

15 880 Linked phone calls and Excel spreadsheet 8325

16 881 Linked phone calls and

17 Excel spreadsheet 8325

18 882 Linked phone calls and Excel spreadsheet 8325

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8308

1 Santa Maria, California

2 Monday, May 2, 2005

3 8:30 a.m.

4

5 THE COURT: Good morning, everyone.

6 THE JURY: (In unison) Good morning.

7 THE COURT: Call your next witness.

8 MR. SNEDDON: Good morning, Your Honor.

9 Before we get started this morning, we have

10 some records that we want to move into evidence.

11 I’ve discussed it with Mr. Sanger.

12 And the first set of records involves the

13 documents that have been marked as Exhibits 200

14 through 218 for identification. We have the

15 custodian of records certification from the

16 Turnberry Inn, and we would move at this time that

17 the documents 200 through 218 be admitted into

18 evidence as business records and duly certified.

19 MR. SANGER: No objection.

20 THE COURT: They’re admitted, 200 through

21 218.

22 MR. SNEDDON: In addition to that, Your

23 Honor, we would be moving that the records that are

24 No. 255 through 258, which again bear the

25 custodian’s certification from the Beverly Hilton

26 Hotel, be admitted into evidence as Items 255

27 through 258.

28 MR. SANGER: No objection. 8309

1 THE COURT: They’re admitted.

2 MR. SNEDDON: And then one other item of

3 business, Your Honor, that we will complete at the

4 break, but I wanted to bring to the Court’s

5 attention, we have some records that have been

6 produced pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum from the

7 Calabasas Inn & Country Suites, which are documents

8 219 through 222. And while there are copies in the

9 Court’s original, we want to be able to check the

10 ones that came in to make sure they’re exactly like

11 the ones that are in the document, and we’ll do that

12 during the break.

13 And we’ll be offering those later after

14 Mr. Sanger and I have had a chance to review it, but

15 I’d like just a stipulation that the clerk can

16 provide that to us to examine during the course of

17 the break.

18 THE COURT: Do you agree, Mr. Sanger?

19 MR. SANGER: Yes, Your Honor.

20 THE COURT: All right. That will be the

21 order.

22 MR. SNEDDON: Thank you very much, Your

23 Honor.

24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Good morning, Your Honor.

25 The People call Beverly Wagner.

26 THE COURT: When you get to the witness

27 stand, please remain standing.

28 Look over here. Face the clerk, raise your 8310

1 right hand.

2

3 BEVERLY WAGNER

4 Having been sworn, testified as follows:

5

6 THE WITNESS: Yes.

7 THE CLERK: Please be seated. State and

8 spell your name for the record.

9 THE WITNESS: Sure.

10 My name is Beverly Wagner. B-e-v-e-r-l-y.

11 W-a-g-n-e-r.

12 THE CLERK: Thank you.

13

14 DIRECT EXAMINATION

15 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:

16 Q. Good morning, Miss Wagner.

17 A. Good morning.

18 Q. Who do you work for, please?

19 A. U.S. Bank.

20 Q. What do you do for U.S. Bank?

21 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Your microphone, sir.

22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m sorry.

23 Q. What do you do for U.S. Bank?

24 A. I’m the bank manager at the bank.

25 Q. Which bank?

26 A. Right now I’m at the 4th and Wilshire

27 office.

28 Q. In the year 2003, did you work at a 8311

1 different branch?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. What branch was that?

4 A. The 23rd and Santa Monica branch.

5 Q. And were you branch manager for that

6 particular branch?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. That second branch, what is the city that

9 that’s located in?

10 A. Santa Monica —

11 Q. Okay.

12 A. — California.

13 Q. What is the branch that you worked at in

14 2003? Where was that? What city was that in?

15 A. 2221 Santa Monica Boulevard in Santa Monica.

16 Q. In Santa Monica, all right. Very good.

17 May I approach, Your Honor?

18 THE COURT: You may.

19 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to show you

20 two exhibits, which appear to be copies of checks.

21 The first one has been marked as People’s Exhibit

22 418, page three. It appears to be a check from

23 Neverland Valley Entertainment dated April 2nd,

24 2003.

25 Do you recognize that check?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. How is it that you recognize that check?

28 A. From the name on the account and the routing 8312

1 number for U.S. Bank, and the account number.

2 Q. All right. Did you participate personally

3 in the cashing of that check as branch manager for

4 U.S. Bank?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And were you working at the Santa Monica

7 branch at that time?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And did you — how is it that you personally

10 participated in the cashing of that check?

11 A. This is way above the approval limit for a

12 branch manager, and I had to get authority to even

13 cash the check, so it had to come through my hands.

14 Q. How much is that check for?

15 A. One million dollars.

16 Q. And can you tell me in what manner that

17 check was cashed? In other words, was it deposited?

18 Was it — did the bank disburse those funds in other

19 methods? Tell me exactly how the individual cashed

20 that check.

21 A. Cash.

22 Q. They walked in with this check and walked

23 out with one million dollars in cash?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Did the bank have to make any special

26 arrangements to put together that much money in

27 cash?

28 A. Yes. 8313

1 Q. How much advance time is necessary for an

2 individual to notify the bank that it will need to

3 have certain funds on hand for a large cash

4 disbursement like this?

5 MR. SANGER: Objection; relevance.

6 THE COURT: Overruled.

7 You may answer.

8 THE WITNESS: A minimum of about seven days.

9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.

10 THE COURT: What’s the exhibit number,

11 Counsel?

12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: It’s —

13 THE CLERK: 418.

14 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: — 418, page three.

15 THE COURT: Thank you.

16 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. I now show

17 you Exhibit 419, page three. Did you also

18 participate in the cashing of that check?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. That check is for how much?

21 A. $500,000.

22 Q. And did the same individual who cashed this

23 first check cash that second check?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Was this check also cashed for currency?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. So the individual walked in with this check

28 and walked out with $500,000 in U.S. currency? 8314

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. The individual who cashed these two checks,

3 what is his name?

4 A. Fred Schaffel.

5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: If I may ask Madam Clerk

6 to help me find a photograph.

7 If I can just have a moment, Your Honor.

8 Q. Miss Wagner, I show you People’s Exhibit 16.

9 Do you recognize that individual?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Who is that?

12 A. Fred Schaffel.

13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you. I have no

14 further questions.

15 THE COURT: Cross-examine?

16 MR. SANGER: Thank you, Your Honor.

17 Do you want to take your book there? Are

18 the exhibits up there?

19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yeah.

20 MR. SANGER: Excuse me one second.

21 May I confer with counsel?

22 Do you have the official exhibit book there?

23 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes.

24 (Off-the-record discussion held at counsel

25 table.)

26 MR. SANGER: May I proceed, Your Honor?

27 THE COURT: Yes.

28 MR. SANGER: Thank you. 8315

1 CROSS-EXAMINATION

2 BY MR. SANGER:

3 Q. Miss Wagner, how are you?

4 A. I’m good, thank you.

5 Q. You were the branch manager at the 2nd and

6 Santa Monica branch, is that what you said?

7 A. The 23rd and Santa Monica branch.

8 Q. 23rd. I can’t read my handwriting. Sorry.

9 A. Okay.

10 Q. In any event, is that a branch where

11 Frederic Marc Schaffel had one or more accounts?

12 A. Yes, sir.

13 Q. How many accounts did he have?

14 A. I believe it was three.

15 Q. Okay. And you produced records for his

16 accounts, correct?

17 A. Pardon me?

18 Q. You produced records for his accounts to the

19 Court?

20 A. Um — what — I’m not sure what records

21 you’re talking about.

22 Q. Okay.

23 A. Oh, yes. For — yes, we did. U.S. Bank.

24 Yeah. I’m sorry.

25 Q. Yes. I believe — the District Attorney

26 referred to you at one point as a custodian of

27 records?

28 A. Yes. 8316

1 Q. Excuse me. So you were responsible for

2 having records sent to the Court —

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. — at some earlier time?

5 A. Uh-huh.

6 Q. And now you’ve identified two checks. And

7 you’re telling us on these two checks, Exhibits 418

8 and 419, page three in each one, that you personally

9 participated in those transactions?

10 A. Yes, sir.

11 Q. So you remember Mr. Schaffel coming in and

12 getting cash for those two checks; is that correct?

13 A. Yes, sir.

14 Q. All right. Now, you see my client, Mr.

15 Jackson, sitting there, correct?

16 A. Yes, sir.

17 Q. Okay. Did Mr. Jackson come in the bank?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Have you ever seen Mr. Jackson before in

20 person?

21 A. No.

22 Q. All right. Now, with regard to Mr. Schaffel

23 and the records you produced, is it true that in his

24 three accounts during, let’s say, the first six

25 months of 2003, that millions of dollars went

26 through his accounts?

27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object to

28 reference to records that are not exhibits in this 8317

1 case as well as beyond the scope.

2 THE COURT: Sustained.

3 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Well, let’s put it this way:

4 You — as the branch manager and as the custodian of

5 records, you reviewed the records before they were

6 sent up here, right?

7 A. Not fully.

8 Q. Okay. Were you aware that Mr. Schaffel was

9 a customer of the bank?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Okay. And you knew that personally; is that

12 correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And you knew it personally in part because

15 you cashed these two checks for him, right?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Did you have other dealings with him?

18 A. No.

19 Q. So the two times you really remember seeing

20 Mr. Schaffel in person were with regard to these two

21 checks; is that right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Okay. All right. A little hesitancy. You

24 may have seen them —

25 A. More than twice, yes.

26 Q. But the two that stick out in your mind were

27 these two, I take it?

28 A. Yes, sir. 8318

1 Q. I guess what I’m getting at is, to cash

2 these checks, you had to make sure he really was a

3 customer of your bank, right?

4 A. Yes, sir.

5 Q. All right. And had he been a customer of

6 your bank for a long time?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. All right. And during the course of his

9 being a customer for your bank, did you conclude

10 that he was trustworthy as far as dealing with him

11 on these two rather large checks?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Now, the checks were drawn on an account

14 that’s called Neverland Valley Entertainment; is

15 that correct?

16 A. Yes, sir.

17 Q. And was it your understanding that Mr.

18 Schaffel was the signatore on that account?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Was there anybody else who was a signatore

21 on that account?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Who else?

24 A. Michael Jackson.

25 Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever sign any checks, to

26 your knowledge, or sign any documents whatsoever on

27 that account?

28 A. Yes. 8319

1 Q. Other than the signature cards?

2 A. I’m not sure.

3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; foundation.

4 THE COURT: Sustained.

5 MR. SANGER: All right.

6 Q. Did you review the records to determine

7 whether or not Mr. Jackson ever signed anything

8 other than the signature cards on that account?

9 A. No, sir.

10 Q. All right. And you did not verify Mr.

11 Jackson’s signature other than it was on the

12 signature card; is that correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Okay. In other words, he didn’t come in and

15 sign in your presence?

16 A. No.

17 Q. You ended up looking in your records and you

18 saw a signature card that appeared to have a

19 signature for Michael Jackson; is that right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. All right. And other than that, all of your

22 dealings, as far as you know, were with Frederic

23 Marc Schaffel, is that correct, on these accounts?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Were there other people that may have come

26 in?

27 A. Not come in. But that I spoke with.

28 Q. Spoke with. Okay. All right. And you do 8320

1 not know what happened to this money after Mr.

2 Schaffel walked out of the bank with it; is that

3 correct?

4 A. No.

5 MR. SANGER: All right. And I have no

6 further questions.

7

8 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

9 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:

10 Q. Were Michael Jackson and Frederic Marc

11 Schaffel the only two authorized individuals as far

12 as to remove funds from this account?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And you said you spoke to someone else other

15 than Marc Schaffel about these accounts. Who was

16 that?

17 A. I think at one time I spoke with Michael.

18 Q. Do you remember what that was about?

19 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object. That

20 calls for hearsay. Calls for hearsay and there’s a

21 lack of foundation.

22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Offered as an admission.

23 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.

24 You may answer.

25 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Do you remember what

26 that was about?

27 A. No. Not really.

28 Q. Did it have something to do with this 8321

1 account?

2 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object. That’s

3 leading and no foundation.

4 THE COURT: Overruled.

5 You may answer.

6 THE WITNESS: Yes.

7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Thank you very

8 much.

9 MR. SANGER: No further questions.

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

11 step down.

12 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

13 THE COURT: Call your next witness.

14 MR. NICOLA: The next witness will be Craig

15 Bonner.

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

17 under oath.

18

19 CRAIG BONNER

20 Having been previously sworn, resumed the

21 stand and testified further as follows:

22

23 DIRECT EXAMINATION

24 BY MR. NICOLA:

25 Q. Good morning, Sergeant Bonner.

26 A. Good morning.

27 Q. With respect to your investigation in this

28 case, did you have occasion to gather, sort and 8322

1 analyze telephone records and subscriber

2 information?

3 A. Yes, I did.

4 Q. Do you see the stack of phone exhibits

5 sitting on counsel table? I believe they’re 450

6 through 459.

7 A. Yes, I’m quite familiar with them.

8 Q. Do you recognize those exhibits?

9 A. I’m quite familiar, yes.

10 Q. And did you play a role in putting those

11 exhibits together and analyzing the information that

12 was contained within them?

13 A. I did.

14 Q. Can you briefly and generally explain to the

15 jury the process that was used to — the initial

16 step used in getting a handle on the information

17 that’s in those exhibits?

18 A. Yes. Basically we obtained quite a number

19 of telephone records through search warrant and

20 subpoena. We amassed those records and brought them

21 into a computer database, used that computer

22 database to compile and sort those records into a

23 format where we could begin to see patterns of calls

24 and who was calling whom.

25 We then utilized that information to cut out

26 the unnecessary material, or the material which we

27 could not substantiate through other evidence, and

28 we have brought that together now into exhibits that 8323

1 will show just those phone calls that are pertinent,

2 and we have done that in a visual manner as well as

3 in a document that will back up that visual manner.

4 Q. Okay. I think we missed a step. With

5 respect to the information that was generated and

6 you created a spreadsheet from it, can you explain

7 to the jury how you verified the information that

8 was in your spreadsheets?

9 A. The computer database basically put together

10 a list of the calls that it said occurred between

11 our involved parties to ensure that that list was

12 correct. We then went into those records, which are

13 the actual records sent by the phone companies, and

14 we verified each and every call that the computer

15 said occurred, and we have noted where that call

16 occurs within those records.

17 Q. Okay. Did you prepare some exhibits for

18 court today to demonstrate your testimony?

19 A. I did.

20 Q. As soon as I finish marking the last of

21 these pages I’ll show you the exhibit, okay? I

22 apologize.

23 I’ll ask you whether you reviewed the

24 records from the Turnberry Resort – and I’ll show

25 you those documents in a minute – while you were

26 conducting your phone analysis?

27 A. That’s correct.

28 Q. Did you review records from The Beverly 8324

1 Hilton? And I’ll also show you those exhibits in a

2 minute.

3 A. Yes, I did.

4 Q. Did you examine the record from Huntel with

5 respect to air-ground communication for a flight

6 occurring on February 7th of 2003?

7 A. Yes, I did.

8 (Off-the-record discussion held at counsel

9 table.)

10 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Detective Bonner, with the

11 Court’s permission, I’d like to approach and show

12 you Exhibits No. 859 through No. 882.

13 MR. SANGER: Excuse me. Let me just see

14 what we have here.

15 (Off-the-record discussion held at counsel

16 table.)

17 MR. SANGER: All right. Go ahead.

18 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: I ask if you recognize

19 Exhibit 859?

20 A. Yes, I do.

21 Q. What does 859 contain?

22 A. 859 is the visual chart documenting

23 telephone calls between the involved parties on

24 February 5th, 2003.

25 Q. Is there also a document behind the visual

26 chart?

27 A. There is. It’s an Excel spreadsheet, which

28 is the verification of each call that is claimed on 8325

1 the visual chart.

2 Q. And did you create or cause to be created

3 these charts?

4 A. I did.

5 Q. And did you cause to be created 859 through

6 882?

7 A. I did.

8 Q. Okay. Now, with respect to testifying about

9 the contents of these exhibits, 859 through 882, did

10 you delegate some other of your colleagues to assist

11 you?

12 A. I did.

13 Q. And which exhibits will you be testifying to

14 today, if you could please the tell jury now?

15 A. I will testify to 859, 860, 861, 862, 863,

16 864, 865, 866, 867, 871, 875, 876, 877, 878 and 879.

17 Q. Okay. With respect to Exhibit Nos. 859

18 through 867, are those telephone charts and

19 spreadsheets between the period of February 5th of

20 2003 and February 16th of 2003?

21 A. That’s correct.

22 Q. Exhibit 871, is that the chart and the

23 spreadsheet for February 20th of 2003?

24 A. That’s correct.

25 Q. And with respect to Exhibits No. 875 through

26 879, do those cover the dates of March 5th, 2003,

27 through March 9th of 2003?

28 A. That’s correct. 8326

1 Q. Turning your attention to Exhibit No. 859,

2 would you briefly describe for us in general terms

3 what is depicted on the chart?

4 A. This chart depicts a number of calls that

5 occur between various individuals that have came up

6 during this investigation, including Frank Cascio,

7 Marc Schaffel, Jay Jackson, Evelyn Tavasci, as well

8 as a number of telephones that come back registered

9 to the Turnberry Resort in Florida.

10 Q. Okay. And do the numbers and links on that

11 chart accurately reflect the information that you

12 gleaned from the telephone records you’ve testified

13 about previously?

14 A. That’s correct.

15 Q. And does the information supporting the

16 links you make on Chart 859 provided in the Excel

17 spreadsheets an accurate depiction of what is on the

18 charts?

19 A. That is correct.

20 MR. NICOLA: Your Honor, I would move 859

21 into evidence at this time.

22 MR. SANGER: I have a concern about

23 foundation and relevance as to all of the entries,

24 but I’ll submit it at this point subject to

25 cross-examination.

26 THE COURT: All right. I’ll admit them.

27 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: I’d ask you the same

28 questions about Exhibits 860 through 867. Do each 8327

1 of those charts represent individuals that came up

2 in your investigation, including the people you just

3 mentioned, and link telephone calls between phones

4 registered in their names?

5 A. That’s correct.

6 Q. And do each of those exhibits also contain a

7 spreadsheet supporting the information you placed on

8 the flow chart?

9 A. That is correct.

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

11 move 860 through 867 into evidence as well.

12 MR. SANGER: Same objection, Your Honor.

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

14 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: I have the same question

15 about Exhibit 871 and Exhibits 875 through 879. Do

16 each of the charts in those exhibits accurately

17 reflect the telephone calls between the phones

18 listed on the charts that are connected to

19 individuals in this investigation, and is there an

20 Excel spreadsheet accompanying each chart supporting

21 the information that’s in the charts?

22 A. That’s correct.

23 MR. NICOLA: We’d move 871 and 875 through

24 879 into evidence, Your Honor.

25 MR. SANGER: Same objection.

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

27 MR. NICOLA: Madam Clerk, may I have the

28 Turnberry records that were just admitted, please? 8328

1 I believe they’re 200. Thank you.

2 May I approach the witness, Your Honor?

3 THE COURT: Yes.

4 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Detective Bonner, I’m going

5 to hand you a binder containing records from the

6 Turnberry, Exhibits 200 through 218, and I’d ask if

7 you’d review that.

8 And when you’re finished, please tell us

9 whether you recognize the contents and whether you

10 used the contents in generating your charts and

11 spreadsheets?

12 A. I recognize these charts as being the hotel

13 records for the Turnberry Resort. And we utilized

14 these charts in that they are the documents within

15 our charts, in that they contain telephone records.

16 Q. Okay. Do you recognize the exhibits?

17 A. Yes.

18 MR. NICOLA: Your Honor, may I have “Input 4,”

19 please, and may I publish?

20 THE COURT: Yes.

21 (Off-the-record discussion held at counsel

22 table.)

23 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Detective Bonner, I’m going

24 to place on the Elmo what appears to be Exhibit 859;

25 is that correct?

26 A. That’s correct.

27 Q. Okay. Just starting in the upper left-hand

28 corner, where there’s a little telephone symbol and 8329

1 the name “Frank Cascio,” can you just give all of us

2 a very general description of what is intended to be

3 depicted in this exhibit?

4 A. Absolutely. What we have again are a number

5 of individuals whom we have determined through our

6 investigation to be involved or associated with Mr.

7 Jackson, including Mr. Cascio, Mr. Schaffel, Evelyn

8 Tavasci, Chris Carter, Debbie Rowe, and these are

9 the hotels — the Turnberry Hotel records that we

10 have just spoke of, and these are calls between

11 these individuals.

12 Here we have telephones that belong to Frank

13 Cascio, telephones that belong to Mr. Schaffel, and

14 we have indicated that there are nine telephone

15 calls that occurred between telephones belonging to

16 Mr. Cascio and Mr. Schaffel, and each one of these

17 links tells the same information.

18 We have three calls that occurred between

19 telephones belonging to this, which is Evelyn

20 Tavasci’s home telephone number, and Frank Cascio’s

21 telephone numbers.

22 We have one call that occurred between Jay

23 Jackson’s telephone number and Evelyn Tavasci’s home

24 telephone number.

25 We have one call that occurred between the

26 Presidential Suite at the Turnberry, which was under

27 the name of Fred Macy, to Jay Jackson’s telephone

28 number. 8330

1 And again, each one of these links tells you

2 that there is a call that occurred between phones

3 belonging to this person and a phone over here, and

4 the number of calls is indicated in the link.

5 Q. Okay. I’m going to put up the first page of

6 the spreadsheet behind the chart for 2-5-03.

7 MR. SANGER: That’s part of —

8 MR. NICOLA: That’s a part of 859.

9 MR. SANGER: Part of 859.

10 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: I’m only going to put up a

11 portion of it, Detective, just so we’re not

12 publishing a bunch of home numbers.

13 Could you please describe what is intended

14 by the numbers and the headings across this exhibit,

15 please?

16 A. Okay. Starting over on the left, we have

17 this number right here, (702) 234-9059. That is a

18 telephone number that came back registered to

19 Christopher Carter, which is indicated in the next

20 one. And then we have the date of the call, which

21 is 2-5-2003. We have the time of the call, which is

22 at 2322 hours, 11:22 p.m. We have the duration of

23 the call, one minute. We then have the number that

24 he dialed, (201) 213-0763, which comes back

25 registered to Frank Cascio. This is the source of

26 that information that’s detailed right here, which

27 is — came from T-Mobile records. This is the

28 exhibit number which corresponds to one of those 8331

1 exhibits. This is the tab number within that

2 exhibit. And this is the page number at which this

3 record can be found within this exhibit.

4 Q. Okay. So the Chris Carter to Frank Cascio

5 call occurring at 11:22 p.m. on February 5th, 2003,

6 is found in the T-Mobile exhibit, which is 452,

7 under the first tab, and under the page marked 11 of

8 23?

9 A. That’s correct.

10 Q. Is that how all of the entries in all of

11 these spreadsheets work?

12 A. Fundamentally. Different records have

13 different means by which we were able to identify

14 specific calls. Some of them actually had an exact

15 call number to correspond to that call. And in that

16 case we gave that exact call number to go along with

17 it.

18 Q. Okay. Did you index the phone calls from

19 the hotel records the same way?

20 A. Similarly, yes.

21 MR. NICOLA: If I may, Counsel, the second

22 page.

23 MR. SANGER: Same exhibit?

24 MR. NICOLA: Same exhibit.

25 MR. SANGER: All right.

26 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Would you turn to page two

27 of your spreadsheet, and please go to the line with

28 the heading “Macy Presidential”? 8332

1 THE COURT: What number exhibit is the

2 spreadsheet?

3 MR. NICOLA: This exhibit is also Exhibit

4 859, Your Honor.

5 Q. Do you see on the bottom line up there?

6 A. I do.

7 Q. Is that the entry for the Presidential Suite

8 at the Turnberry Isle Resort?

9 A. That’s correct.

10 Q. I’m going to blow it up just a little bit so

11 we can see portions of it. This doesn’t want to

12 focus.

13 Okay. How about we do it like this,

14 Detective?

15 Okay. So the time of the call from the

16 Turnberry Isle, from the Presidential Suite to Major

17 Jackson, occurred at what time in the morning?

18 A. 0958 hours, or 9:58 a.m.

19 Q. And that’s Florida time, correct?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. And when you indexed the hotel records, you

22 referenced the exhibit, correct, 202 in this case?

23 A. That’s correct.

24 Q. And then what does the T794, page six, mean

25 in the last column?

26 A. T794 is a reference number that is on the

27 documents pertaining to the Fred Macy Presidential

28 Suite, and page six indicates that that particular 8333

1 telephone call is found on page six of the documents

2 labeled T794.

3 Q. Okay. Would you turn to the Turnberry

4 exhibit, please, 202, find the page where that phone

5 call is and remove it for me, please.

6 MR. SANGER: What exhibit number?

7 MR. NICOLA: This is 202, page six.

8 Q. I’m going to put on the screen Exhibit 202,

9 page six. And the call that you’re referring to, is

10 that the first entry for the date of 2-5 on this

11 exhibit?

12 A. Yes. The first telephone call entry.

13 Q. Okay. And that appears to have lasted for

14 27 minutes?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. And is that represented on your chart by the

17 link between Fred Macy Presidential Suite and Jay

18 Jackson?

19 A. Yes, it is.

20 Q. Okay. I’d like to flip this over to page

21 five, if I may.

22 These appear to be phone entries for the

23 date of February 4th, correct?

24 A. That’s correct.

25 Q. With respect to the bottom two telephones —

26 telephone entries ending in 6162, one at 1935 hours

27 and one at 2054 hours, do you recognize those

28 numbers from these exhibits? 8334

1 A. Yes, I do.

2 Q. And who do those belong to?

3 A. Those belong to David Ventura. That would

4 be Janet Arvizo’s parents.

5 Q. Okay. If we could go to the date of

6 February 6th, please. Just have that ready.

7 I’d like to finish discussing these records

8 for the 5th.

9 Finishing up with Exhibit 859, Detective,

10 with your pointer, please, and with respect to the

11 call from — the calls from Frank Cascio to Marc

12 Schaffel, over what period of time did those occur?

13 A. I’ll have to refer back to the spreadsheet.

14 Q. Please do.

15 A. Okay. The first call I have is in the early

16 morning hours, specifically right before 1 a.m., and

17 the last call I see is after 9 p.m.

18 Q. And did a number of these calls last for two

19 minutes or more?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And did one of them last 15 minutes?

22 A. Yes. One call at 1:00, a little after 1

23 p.m.

24 Q. How many times did Mr. Cascio call the home

25 of the defendant’s personal assistant, Miss Tavasci?

26 A. Three times.

27 Q. And over what period of time did those calls

28 occur? 8335

1 A. Again, the first call occurred — I’m sorry.

2 The first call occurred at 3:42 p.m. The last call

3 occurred a little after 9 p.m.

4 Q. So those are within the times that Mr.

5 Cascio was ringing Mr. Schaffel?

6 A. That’s correct.

7 Q. Or at least his phone was calling Mr.

8 Schaffel’s phone?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. Okay. In the bottom left-hand corner,

11 there’s a symbol that says, “Tavasci, Evelyn, MJJ

12 Prod, Unit 1.” Can you explain that for the jury,

13 please?

14 A. That is a phone record. We took the naming

15 of that right off of the phone record, which is a

16 Nextel record.

17 Q. Is that a telephone number of (310)

18 864-7791?

19 A. Yes, it is.

20 Q. And are all the calls either going to or

21 coming out of your flow chart for that telephone

22 number, the 7791 number?

23 A. I’m sorry, what was the question?

24 Q. Are all the numbers going to that Unit 1

25 number and going out to the same number, the 7791

26 number? Do you understand? You don’t.

27 A. No.

28 Q. The calls from Chris Carter — 8336

1 A. Okay.

2 Q. — to the Unit 1 number, and the calls from

3 Frank Cascio to the Unit 1 number, those are all to

4 the same number, the 7791 number, correct?

5 A. Correct, the one for — that’s indicated as

6 Unit 1.

7 Q. Okay. And there are other Tavasci, Evelyn,

8 MJJ Production phones later on that have different

9 telephone numbers, correct?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. That’s why I was asking about this one.

12 The calls in between Chris Carter and the

13 Turnberry Resort and Marc Schaffel going to the link

14 in the bottom right, the Turnberry Isle Resort, are

15 those incoming or outgoing calls; do you know?

16 A. Those are both outgoing from the individual,

17 i.e., Marc Schaffel or Chris Carter, going to the

18 Turnberry Resort.

19 Q. Okay. And the Andy Brandon room in the

20 middle, is that the only room where both the Cascio

21 phones and the Schaffel phones were connected during

22 this period of time?

23 A. On that date, that’s correct.

24 Q. Can you tell us the period of time in which

25 the calls between Schaffel and the Brandon room

26 occurred, please?

27 A. Okay. With regard to Andy Brandon room to

28 Marc Schaffel, I have the first call at about 10:40 8337

1 in the morning, and ending at right after 10 p.m.

2 Q. All day long?

3 A. All day long.

4 Q. With respect to the call between Major

5 Jackson and Evelyn Tavasci’s home, can you tell us

6 whether Mr. Jackson called Miss Tavasci or whether

7 it was the other way around?

8 MR. SANGER: Well, I’m going to object.

9 We’re referring to an individual making a call as

10 opposed to somebody at one phone calling somebody at

11 another phone.

12 THE COURT: Sustained.

13 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: With respect to the phone

14 call between the Evvy Tavasci phone and the Jay

15 Jackson phone, can you tell us which way that call

16 went?

17 A. Okay. That was Evelyn Tavasci’s telephone

18 calling Jay Jackson’s telephone.

19 Q. And how long did that — how long was that

20 call?

21 A. Three minutes.

22 Q. And was that after the call between the Fred

23 Macy Presidential Suite and the Jay Jackson phone?

24 A. That appears to be prior to.

25 Q. In Pacific time or Eastern time, Sergeant

26 Bonner?

27 A. That would have been Pacific time.

28 Q. So it’s listed as 7:27 Pacific time? 8338

1 A. It actually — yeah, 7:27 a.m. Pacific,

2 which would be after, I’m sorry.

3 Q. Okay. So the call from the Presidential

4 Suite came first, and then the call from the Tavasci

5 home came second?

6 A. That’s correct.

7 Q. Okay. If you could please turn to Exhibit

8 860. I’m going to put this chart up. And briefly

9 if you could summarize this chart for the jury,

10 using your laser.

11 A. Okay. As with the previous date, we’re

12 again showing the connections of telephone calls

13 between telephones belonging to various individuals

14 identified throughout this investigation. Again, we

15 have Frank Cascio, Marc Schaffel, Evelyn Tavasci,

16 Christopher Carter, Hamid Moslehi, David Ventura,

17 that’s Janet Arvizo’s parents, Jay Jackson, Deborah

18 Rowe, and again, telephones at the Turnberry Resort.

19 Q. Can you tell us, please, when the first call

20 between the Cascio phone and the Schaffel phone

21 occurred?

22 A. The first call that I have between the

23 Cascio phone and the Schaffel phone occurs slightly

24 before 1 a.m. at 0039 hours.

25 Q. And your chart indicates there were 19 calls

26 between the two phones?

27 A. That’s correct.

28 Q. And did those last essentially throughout 8339

1 the day?

2 A. Yes. The last call occurred a few minutes

3 before midnight at 2351 hours.

4 Q. With respect to the calls between the Cascio

5 phone and the rooms named “Stressler” and “Franklin”

6 at the Turnberry, starting with the Stressler room,

7 can you tell us whether that was incoming or

8 outgoing?

9 A. It’s an outgoing call from the Stressler

10 room to Frank Cascio’s telephone.

11 Q. What about the Franklin room?

12 A. Again, that would be an outgoing call from

13 the Franklin room to the Cascio telephone.

14 Q. And the calls between the Brandon room and

15 the Schaffel phone?

16 A. That is an outgoing call from the Brandon

17 room to Schaffel’s telephone.

18 Q. Do you have a time for the phone call

19 between the Schaffel phone and the Deborah Rowe

20 phone?

21 A. 2116 hours.

22 Q. Which direction was that call going?

23 A. That was from Deborah Rowe to Marc

24 Schaffel’s telephone.

25 Q. Okay. From Ms. Rowe’s phone to Mr.

26 Schaffel’s phone?

27 A. That’s correct.

28 Q. You show two calls between the Schaffel 8340

1 phone and phones registered to David LeGrand?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. And can you tell us when the first phone

4 call was?

5 A. The first phone call was at 1:48 p.m.

6 Q. And how long did that last?

7 A. Five minutes.

8 Q. And the second phone call?

9 A. Was at 2:30 p.m., again for five minutes.

10 Q. Okay. With respect to the calls from the

11 Gavin Franklin room to Janet’s parents and the Jay

12 Jackson phone, it’s a little blurry from here. Can

13 you tell us how many calls there were from the

14 Franklin room just to Janet’s parents?

15 A. There were eight calls.

16 Q. Were there two rooms registered under Gavin?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. Okay. And in your Excel spreadsheet, did

19 you separate the rooms out?

20 A. Yes, we did.

21 Q. Do you know how many calls came from either

22 room, and if you could give us the room designation?

23 A. There are two room designations. One would

24 be T597, the other would be T309. With regard to

25 T597, I have six of those calls to the Venturas’

26 residence coming from T597, and I have two of the

27 calls coming from T309.

28 Q. Is Room T597 Exhibit 216 in the Turnberry 8341

1 book?

2 A. That’s correct.

3 Q. Would you please remove the page that

4 contains the phone calls you’re referring to?

5 Sergeant Bonner, I’m going to put page one

6 of Exhibit 216 on the board and I’ll blow that up.

7 Okay. The calls, at least two of the calls, between

8 Room T597 registered under Gavin Franklin, are those

9 right in the middle of the exhibit?

10 A. Yes, right here.

11 Q. Okay. And the first call lasted four

12 minutes and the second one four minutes?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. Okay. And those are the first phone calls

15 for the 6th, correct?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. Showing you page two of the same exhibit,

18 the last call to the 6162 number on the 6th is 11:53

19 p.m., top line?

20 A. Yes. All this is — this one appears to be

21 at straight-up midnight, so depending on which day

22 you want to count that one to.

23 Q. I count midnight as tomorrow.

24 A. Either one.

25 Q. That will work, okay. And then the bottom

26 three numbers, those are Jay Jackson?

27 A. Correct.

28 Q. And they’re dated 2-6, but clearly they 8342

1 occur after midnight, right?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. So did you put those on the charts for 2-7?

4 A. I would have put these on 2-7, that’s

5 correct.

6 Q. Can you tell us, please, at what time the

7 Cascio phone and the phone registered to Mr.

8 Jackson’s personal assistant, Miss Tavasci, what

9 time those occurred?

10 A. The first call occurred at 5:34 p.m.; the

11 second call at 8:17 p.m.

12 Q. And shortly after getting — shortly after

13 the phone call between Cascio and Tavasci, after the

14 first one, were there two calls immediately to Mr.

15 Schaffel, 1750 and 1757?

16 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object, again.

17 MR. NICOLA: To the Schaffel phone, excuse

18 me.

19 MR. SANGER: No foundation.

20 MR. NICOLA: I’ll rephrase.

21 THE COURT: Is that the same objection as

22 using the phone instead of the person?

23 MR. SANGER: Yes, sir.

24 THE COURT: All right. Sustained.

25 MR. SANGER: There are actually several

26 numbers as well.

27 MR. NICOLA: Okay.

28 Q. Between — let me start this over. 8343

1 After the phone calls between the Cascio

2 phone and the Tavasci phone, were there two phone

3 calls immediately following — to the Schaffel phone

4 from the Cascio phone?

5 A. There were two calls, one to one number

6 associated with Schaffel and another to another

7 number associated with Schaffel. The first one at

8 1750. The second one at 1757 hours, or 5:50 and

9 5:57 p.m.

10 Q. Okay. So the 5:57 one lasted for seven

11 minutes?

12 A. That’s correct.

13 Q. If we could turn to Exhibit 861, those are

14 phone calls occurring on the 7th of February,

15 correct?

16 A. That’s correct.

17 Q. Okay. Again, you’ve mapped calls from the

18 Turnberry out to other individuals?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. There is a “Fred Macy, regular room,” kind

21 of in the middle of this exhibit. Can you explain

22 to us what you mean by that?

23 A. There were two different rooms that were

24 registered to Fred Macy. One was the Presidential

25 Suite that cost several thousand dollars a night.

26 There was also a Fred Macy room that was a room that

27 cost about $400 a night, which is what all of the

28 other rooms cost. These are two separate records, 8344

1 and to designate that, we had “Fred Macy

2 Presidential” and “Fred Macy regular room.”

3 Q. Okay. And the calls from the — the rooms,

4 the individual rooms at the Turnberry and the phone

5 registered to Mr. Christopher Carter, were all those

6 outgoing calls?

7 A. No. They are, with the exception of this

8 call right here, where there’s one call. That is an

9 incoming call from Carter’s — or a telephone

10 associated with Carter to the Turnberry Isle Resort.

11 Q. Okay. But the individual rooms are all

12 outgoing calls, correct?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. You can’t see incoming calls on the

15 individual room bills; isn’t that right?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Okay. And the Turnberry Isle Resort number,

18 that’s the main line?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. The calls from Schaffel — the Schaffel

21 phone, excuse me, to the Turnberry Isle Resort, are

22 all those going from Schaffel to the Turnberry Isle?

23 A. This specific connection right here, these

24 are calls from Schaffel to the Turnberry. However,

25 these two are not.

26 Q. Okay. And the call from the Chris Franklin

27 room to Neverland Valley Ranch, can you tell us

28 whether that occurred before or after the outgoing 8345

1 call to the Chris Carter phone? You can look at

2 your records.

3 A. Let me just clarify that. You want to know

4 whether or not this call here occurred before or

5 after that call there?

6 Q. No. There are two calls coming out of the

7 Chris Franklin room, correct?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. One to the Neverland Valley Ranch?

10 A. Okay.

11 Q. Okay. And the other one to the Chris Carter

12 phone?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. Which one occurred first, please?

15 A. Okay.

16 The first call occurred to the Neverland

17 Valley Ranch at 9:06 a.m.

18 Q. What time was the second call?

19 A. It occurred at 803 p.m.

20 Q. I placed in front of you Exhibit No. 850.

21 Do you recognize that document?

22 A. Yes, I do.

23 Q. What is that?

24 A. This is a billing record for air-to-ground

25 telephone calls that occurred on an Xtra Jet flight

26 on February 7th, 2003.

27 Q. And does it appear that calls were made from

28 that flight to the phone registered to Janet’s 8346

1 parents?

2 A. Yes, there were three calls.

3 Q. And did those occur in time after the ten

4 calls from the Gavin Franklin rooms to the phone at

5 Janet’s parents?

6 A. The telephone calls on the airplane occurred

7 after the telephone calls from the Gavin Franklin

8 room.

9 Q. Okay. Do those — did they occur — did the

10 phone calls from the aircraft occur after the phone

11 calls from the Gavin Franklin rooms to the Jay

12 Jackson phone?

13 A. They occurred after.

14 Q. And were there also phone calls placed from

15 that aircraft to numbers registered to Neverland

16 Valley Ranch?

17 A. Yes, there were.

18 Q. Two of them?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And how long did those calls last?

21 A. I have one for one minute. And one for two

22 minutes.

23 Q. And the three calls that were placed from

24 the aircraft to the phone at Janet’s parents’ house,

25 were they interspersed with the calls to the

26 Neverland phone or did one group come before the

27 other?

28 A. They were interspersed. 8347

1 Q. Sergeant Bonner, if you could turn to

2 Exhibit No. 862, please, and the supporting chart.

3 MR. SANGER: That’s 2-8?

4 MR. NICOLA: 2-8.

5 Q. Do you have this? If you could please

6 describe each one of the phones and monikers you’ve

7 given them on this exhibit, please, 2-8. Exhibit

8 862 for February 8th of 2003.

9 A. Okay. Starting in the top left, we have a

10 cellular telephone that came back — the records

11 said — indicated MJJ Productions, Miko Brando. We

12 then had another phone that came back to Evelyn

13 Tavasci, MJJ Productions, Unit 1. This one came

14 back to just MJJ Productions, Evelyn Tavasci,

15 without a unit number. This was a telephone

16 registered to Christopher Carter. These were

17 telephone lines that came back to Neverland Valley

18 Ranch. These are telephone lines that came back to

19 Marc Schaffel. Telephones associated with Debbie

20 Rowe. Telephones associated with Frank Cascio.

21 Telephones associated with Vincent Amen. Telephones

22 associated with Christian Robinson, under the

23 business name Site LLC. And a telephone associated

24 with Rudy Provencio.

25 Q. With respect to the contacts between the

26 Cascio phone and the Vince Amen phones, if you could

27 find those in your records, please.

28 A. Okay. I have those. 8348

1 Q. Could you tell us what time the first call

2 between those two phones occurred?

3 A. The first time is 11:13 a.m.

4 Q. And that was a call for three minutes?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. Which direction did it go?

7 A. From Amen to Cascio.

8 Q. And the second phone call?

9 A. Occurred at 2:47 p.m., again, from Amen to

10 Cascio.

11 Q. And that was a one-minute call, correct?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. With respect to the call between the Cascio

14 phone and the Neverland Valley Ranch number, would

15 you tell us what time that occurred?

16 A. The first call occurred at five —

17 correction, 11:48 a.m.

18 Q. The call between the Chris Carter phone and

19 the Neverland Valley Ranch phone, can you tell us

20 what time that occurred, please?

21 A. At four — or, correction, 2:44 in the

22 morning.

23 Q. Was there a call between the Cascio phone

24 and the phones at Neverland Ranch at around that

25 same time?

26 A. That’s correct. There was a call at 2:34

27 a.m. from Neverland Ranch to Cascio.

28 Q. And that showed as an incoming call on Mr. 8349

1 Cascio’s phone record, correct?

2 A. That’s correct.

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

4 (Recess taken.)

5 –o0o–

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8350

1 REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

2

3

4 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE )

5 OF CALIFORNIA, )

6 Plaintiff, )

7 -vs- ) No. 1133603

8 MICHAEL JOE JACKSON, )

9 Defendant. )

10

11

12 I, MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR,

13 CSR #3304, Official Court Reporter, do hereby

14 certify:

15 That the foregoing pages 8309 through 8350

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 May 2, 2005, and thereafter

20 reduced to typewriting by computer-aided

21 transcription under my direction.

22 DATED: Santa Maria, California,

23 May 2, 2005.

24

25

26

27 MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR, CSR #3304

28 8351

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

3 SANTA MARIA BRANCH; COOK STREET DIVISION

4 DEPARTMENT SM-2 HON. RODNEY S. MELVILLE, JUDGE

5

6

7 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

8 CALIFORNIA, )

9 Plaintiff, )

10 -vs- ) No. 1133603

11 MICHAEL JOE JACKSON, )

12 Defendant. )

13

14

15

16

17 REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

18

19 MONDAY, MAY 2, 2005

20

21 8:30 A.M.

22

23 (PAGES 8352 THROUGH 8472)

24

25

26

27 REPORTED MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR, CSR #3304

28 BY: Official Court Reporter 8352

1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:

2

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

4 District Attorney -and-

5 RONALD J. ZONEN, Sr. Deputy District Attorney

6 -and- GORDON AUCHINCLOSS,

7 Sr. Deputy District Attorney -and-

8 MAG NICOLA, Sr. Deputy District Attorney

9 1112 Santa Barbara Street Santa Barbara, California 93101

10

11

12 For Defendant: COLLINS, MESEREAU, REDDOCK & YU

13 BY: THOMAS A. MESEREAU, JR., ESQ. -and-

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

15 Los Angeles, California 90067

16 -and-

17 SANGER & SWYSEN BY: ROBERT M. SANGER, ESQ.

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

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8353

1 I N D E X

2

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. Nicola is listed as “N” on index. Mr. Mesereau is listed as “M” on index.

6 Ms. Yu is listed as “Y” on index. Mr. Sanger is listed as “SA” on index.

7

8

9 PLAINTIFF’S

10 WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

11 BONNER, Craig 8393-SA 8446-N 8450-SA

12 (Re-called)

13 ZELIS, Paul (Re-called) 8451-N 8467-SA

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8354

1 E X H I B I T S

2 FOR IN PLAINTIFF’S NO. DESCRIPTION I.D. EVID.

3

4 868 Linked phone calls and Excel spreadsheet 8452 8452

5 869 Linked phone calls and

6 Excel spreadsheet 8453 8453

7 870 Linked phone calls and Excel spreadsheet 8453 8453

8 880 Linked phone calls and

9 Excel spreadsheet 8325 8454

10 881 Linked phone calls and Excel spreadsheet 8325 8454

11 882 Linked phone calls and

12 Excel spreadsheet 8325 8454

13 883 Correction to People’s Exhibit No. 879 8447 8448

14

15

16

17

18 DEFENDANT’S NO.

19 5011 Hand-drawn diagram

20 re phone calls 8402 8404

21 5012 Hand-drawn diagram re phone calls 8419 8419

22 5013 Hand-drawn diagram

23 re phone calls 8427 8427

24

25

26

27

28 8355

1

2 THE COURT: Go ahead.

3 MR. NICOLA: Thank you, Your Honor.

4 Q. Sergeant Bonner, with respect to the call

5 between —

6 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Microphone, sir.

7 MR. NICOLA: Thank you.

8 Q. Sergeant Bonner, with respect to the call

9 between the Cascio phone and the Neverland Valley

10 Ranch phones occurring at 1544, or 3:44 in the

11 afternoon, was that a four-minute call?

12 A. That was a four-minute call.

13 Q. Okay. And were there also calls between the

14 Cascio phone and the Neverland Ranch phone that

15 occurred from between 35 and 45 seconds, in addition

16 to that one?

17 A. I see two other calls.

18 Q. Okay. And did they last for that period of

19 time, between 35 and 45 seconds?

20 A. Correction, I’m sorry. There’s three other

21 calls. Yes, 35 seconds and 45 seconds.

22 Q. If you could turn to the next exhibit in

23 order, please, Exhibit 863.

24 MR. SANGER: Which is what, 2-12?

25 MR. NICOLA: 2-12.

26 Q. Is that 2-12, Detective?

27 A. That’s correct.

28 Q. Now, to your knowledge, was February 12th 8356

1 the day the Arvizos left Neverland Ranch the first

2 time?

3 A. I believe it is about that time frame, yes.

4 Q. And beginning at the upper left-hand corner,

5 please, can you indoctrinate the jury as to the

6 individual names you have up there by those phones?

7 MR. SANGER: I’m not sure “indoctrinate” was

8 the correct word, so I object.

9 THE COURT: All you do is quibble.

10 (Laughter.)

11 THE COURT: Is that an objection?

12 MR. SANGER: It’s an objection.

13 THE COURT: All right. Sustained.

14 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Could you explain, please?

15 A. Absolutely. The first phone we have is a

16 telephone number that is registered to the Law Firm

17 of Geragos & Geragos. We then have a telephone that

18 is registered to Ann Kite, a telephone that is

19 registered to Azia Pryor. And the telephone number

20 that is registered to David Ventura, Janet Arvizo’s

21 parents. Again, we have telephones that are

22 registered to Frank Cascio and telephones that are

23 registered to Marc Schaffel. We also have a

24 telephone registered to Christopher Carter,

25 Neverland Valley Ranch, and a couple of telephones

26 associated with Evelyn Tavasci’s residence. One is

27 the primary, another is a secondary line. We then

28 have a telephone registered to Hamid Moslehi. 8357

1 Again, one registered to Christian Robinson under

2 the business name Site LLC. A telephone associated

3 with Vincent Amen. And a telephone associated with

4 David LeGrand.

5 Q. Beginning right in the middle of the

6 chart — maybe it will show clearer if I blow that

7 up. Well, that wasn’t the right button.

8 Is that a “38” between the phones of Mr.

9 Cascio and Mr. Schaffel?

10 A. That’s correct.

11 Q. Okay. When did the first of the 38 phone

12 calls between the two phones occur?

13 A. The first call that I have is at 0024 hours,

14 or shortly after midnight.

15 Q. And how long did that call last?

16 A. One minute in length.

17 Q. Was there another call from the Cascio phone

18 to the Schaffel phone immediately thereafter?

19 A. Yes, there was.

20 Q. And at what time?

21 A. 0025 hours. Four minutes.

22 Q. How long did that last?

23 A. Four minutes.

24 Q. Was there another one immediately after

25 that?

26 A. We then jumped to 0037 hours for one minute.

27 Q. Next?

28 A. 0039 for nine minutes. 8358

1 Q. Was that one outgoing or incoming to the

2 Cascio phone?

3 A. The last two were actually incoming calls.

4 Q. Okay. What about the next call?

5 A. That’s an incoming call at 0047 hours.

6 Q. How long did that last?

7 A. For seven minutes.

8 Q. And the next call?

9 A. Again, an incoming call at 0054 hours for

10 two minutes.

11 Q. And that’s going from the Schaffel phone to

12 the Cascio phone, correct?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. Is there another call from Schaffel phone to

15 Cascio phone?

16 A. Yeah, at 0056. I have a two-minute incoming

17 call from the Schaffel phone to the Cascio phone.

18 Q. Was there another call after that?

19 A. 0058 hours. Again, an incoming call from

20 the Schaffel phone to the Cascio phone for five

21 minutes.

22 Q. Can you tell us when the next call between a

23 Schaffel phone and a Cascio phone occurred?

24 A. We then skip to 10:52 a.m.

25 Q. And which direction is that call going?

26 A. That is, again, an incoming call from a

27 Schaffel phone to a Cascio phone for six minutes.

28 Q. Immediately after the incoming call from 8359

1 Schaffel phone to Cascio phone, was there a call

2 placed from the Vinnie Amen phone to a Marc Schaffel

3 phone? Take a look at 11:01.

4 A. That’s correct, I have a call at 1101 hours

5 for two minutes, and this is a direct call from

6 Vincent Amen to Marc Schaffel.

7 Q. You mean their phones, right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And at 11:02 p.m., was there a one-minute

10 call between Frank Cascio’s phone and Vince Amen’s

11 phone?

12 A. That’s correct. For one minute. Again,

13 this one would be Cascio calling Amen.

14 Q. And immediately after that, at 11:03, was

15 there a call from the Cascio phone to the Chris

16 Carter phone?

17 A. That’s correct. One minute. It’s an

18 outgoing from Cascio to Carter’s phone.

19 Q. Was there a phone call between the Cascio

20 phone and the Vince Amen phone at 11:06?

21 A. That’s correct. It’s an outgoing call from

22 Frank Cascio’s phone to Vincent Amen’s phone for

23 four minutes in length.

24 Q. And at the same time was there an incoming

25 call from the Marc Schaffel phone to Frank Cascio’s

26 phone, again at 11:06?

27 A. That’s correct. I have a three-minute

28 incoming call on Cascio’s phone from a phone 8360

1 registered to Marc Schaffel.

2 Q. When was the next call between Vince Amen —

3 Vince Amen’s phone, excuse me, and Frank Cascio’s

4 phone?

5 A. At 1113 hours for one minute.

6 Q. And that was from a Cascio phone to an Amen

7 phone?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. Okay. Was there a call placed between Marc

10 Schaffel phone and the phone belonging to Ann Kite?

11 A. Yes, there was.

12 Q. Do you also know her as Ann Gabriel?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. What time was that phone call and how long

15 did it last, please?

16 A. The first call was at 11:40 a.m. for 11

17 minutes in length.

18 Q. If you could find the record for Frank

19 Cascio/Marc Schaffel at 12:41.

20 A. Okay. I have that.

21 Q. You’ve got it? Okay. The call between

22 Frank Cascio’s phone and Marc Schaffel’s phone at

23 12:41, how long did that last?

24 A. Three minutes.

25 Q. Okay. And then at 1312, 1:12 in the

26 afternoon, was there a call placed between a phone

27 belonging to Frank Cascio and Chris Carter? Chris

28 Carter’s phone, excuse me. 8361

1 A. That’s correct, a one-minute call.

2 Q. And immediately after that, was there a

3 seven-minute call placed by the Frank Cascio phone

4 to Neverland Valley Ranch?

5 A. Correct, at 1313 hours for seven minutes.

6 Q. After that phone call, was there a call

7 placed from the Frank Cascio phone to the firm

8 Geragos & Geragos?

9 A. Correct. At 1333 hours.

10 Q. And after the phone call to Geragos &

11 Geragos, was there a call between Frank Cascio’s

12 phone and the home of defendant Jackson’s personal

13 assistant, Evelyn Tavasci?

14 A. Correct, at 1343 hours.

15 Q. How long was that call?

16 A. One minute in length.

17 Q. Was there another call placed exactly one

18 minute after that?

19 A. Correct. At 1344 for three minutes.

20 Q. To the home of Evelyn Tavasci?

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. After that three-minute phone call, was

23 there a call between the Frank Cascio phone and the

24 Marc Schaffel phone?

25 A. Which call were you interested in?

26 Q. 1348 hours.

27 A. That’s correct, for two minutes 11 seconds.

28 Q. So the call at 1344 to the home of Evelyn 8362

1 Tavasci from the Cascio phone lasted three minutes,

2 and then the next call from the Cascio phone was to

3 the Schaffel phone at 1338, which lasted for two

4 minutes, correct?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. With respect to the link between the Evelyn

7 Tavasci home number and the phone registered to

8 Mr. Moslehi, did that occur at 2:11 in the

9 afternoon, 1411?

10 A. Correct. 2:11 for one minute.

11 Q. Were there additional phone calls between

12 the Frank Cascio phone and the Geragos & Geragos

13 phone? Specifically at 1527 and 1542 in the

14 afternoon.

15 A. That’s correct. The first at 1527 was a

16 55-second incoming call. The second at 1542 was a

17 five-minute 54-second call.

18 Q. And in between those two calls to the

19 Geragos phones from the Cascio phone, was there a

20 call by the Cascio phone to the Marc Schaffel phone

21 at 1540?

22 A. That’s correct. I have a one-minute call

23 between the Cascio phone and the Schaffel phone.

24 Q. Was there a call placed from a Schaffel

25 phone to the phone of David LeGrand at 1547 hours?

26 A. That’s correct. Three minutes in length.

27 Q. And at 1727 hours, is that the next phone

28 call between the Cascio phones and the Schaffel 8363

1 phones?

2 A. That’s correct.

3 Q. Did that last for seven minutes?

4 A. Yes, that was seven minutes in length.

5 Q. And shortly after that phone call at 1742,

6 was there an incoming call from the second home line

7 of Mr. Jackson’s personal assistant to the phone

8 registered to Frank Cascio?

9 A. That is correct. For one minute and ten

10 seconds.

11 Q. Are there additional phone calls between Ann

12 Kite — between the Ann Kite phone and the Marc

13 Schaffel phone in the evening, approximately 8:24?

14 A. 6:24 p.m.

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

16 A. Four minutes in length.

17 Q. Now, with respect to the 19 calls between

18 the Cascio phone and the Amen phone, and the 38

19 calls between the Cascio phone and the Schaffel

20 phone, did one group of phone calls occur before,

21 after, or interspersed with the others?

22 A. They were interspersed.

23 Q. Throughout the entire day?

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. If you could turn your attention to the

26 phone call between the Christian Robinson phone and

27 the Moslehi phone. If you could find that.

28 A. I have it. 8364

1 Q. Which direction was that phone call in?

2 A. Christian Robinson contacting Hamid

3 Moslehi’s phone.

4 Q. Okay. With respect to the phone calls in

5 the upper right-hand corner between Janet’s parents’

6 phone and the phone registered to Azia Pryor, was

7 there a call placed at approximately eight o’clock

8 at night, 2000 hours?

9 A. Correct. At 8:06 p.m. for a little over one

10 minute.

11 Q. One minute, or one hour 33 minutes?

12 A. I’m sorry. One hour 33 minutes.

13 Q. Okay. Do you know which direction that call

14 went?

15 A. That call was from the Venturas’ residence

16 to Azia Pryor’s phone.

17 Q. Okay. If you could turn your attention to

18 Exhibit — 863 or 864, which one’s next?

19 A. 864.

20 MR. SANGER: What’s that, 2-13?

21 MR. NICOLA: That’s 2-13, Counsel.

22 Q. Without trying to indoctrinate, could you

23 explain for the jury what’s on that?

24 A. Again, we have telephone numbers that are

25 associated with the various individuals. I believe

26 all of these we’ve already spoke of. Hamid Moslehi,

27 Christian Robinson, Vincent Amen, Evelyn Tavasci,

28 David Ventura, Janet’s parents, Frank Cascio, 8365

1 Neverland Valley Ranch, Azia Pryor, Marc Schaffel,

2 Ann Kite, the law offices of Geragos & Geragos, and

3 Deborah Rowe Jackson.

4 MR. MESEREAU: Excuse me.

5 MR. NICOLA: Bless you.

6 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.

7 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: If we could go to the bottom

8 right-hand corner specifically with respect to the

9 phone calls between the Ann Kite phone and the

10 Geragos & Geragos phone, how many were there?

11 Because we can’t quite see it.

12 A. Four.

13 Q. And in which direction?

14 A. All four calls were from Ann Kite to the law

15 offices of Geragos & Geragos.

16 Q. Is that five calls between the Ann Kite

17 phone and the Schaffel phone?

18 A. That’s correct.

19 Q. With respect to the four calls between the

20 Ann Kite phone and the Geragos & Geragos phone, what

21 was the shortest call?

22 A. One minute in length.

23 Q. And there were two of those?

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. Was there also a six-minute call and a

26 two-minute call respectively?

27 A. Correct. At 10:05 and 3:48 p.m.

28 Q. Okay. So at 10:05 a.m., there is a 8366

1 one-minute call between the Ann Kite phone and the

2 Geragos & Geragos phone, correct?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. Also at 10:05 a.m. is another one-minute

5 call between the Ann Kite phone and the Geragos &

6 Geragos phone?

7 A. That’s correct.

8 Q. And also at 10:05 a.m., there’s a six-minute

9 call between the Ann Kite phone and the Geragos &

10 Geragos phone?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. Okay. And the last call between the Ann

13 Kite phone and the Geragos & Geragos phone?

14 A. Was at 3:48 p.m. for two minutes.

15 Q. Okay. And in between the time interval that

16 you’ve just testified about, how many times did Ms.

17 Kite’s phone contact the Schaffel phones?

18 A. Two times.

19 Q. Is one of those times at 10:11 in the

20 morning?

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. That was immediately after the 10:05 call to

23 the Geragos & Geragos firm?

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. How long did that 10:11 call to the Schaffel

26 phone last?

27 A. 11 minutes. Correction. 17 minutes.

28 Q. Was there another call at 11:30 to the 8367

1 Schaffel phone?

2 A. That’s correct. For 13 minutes.

3 Q. Okay. Was there a call at 7:06 a.m. between

4 the Ann Kite phone and the Marc Schaffel phone?

5 A. Correct. One minute in length.

6 Q. And immediately after that call, was there a

7 call between the Schaffel phone and Neverland Valley

8 Ranch?

9 A. There was also a call at 7:06 from Schaffel

10 to Neverland Valley Ranch for 17 minutes in length.

11 Q. After the call to Neverland Valley Ranch,

12 was there a call between the Marc Schaffel phone

13 going from the Marc Schaffel phone to the Ann Kite

14 phone?

15 A. Correct. At 0759 for 15 minutes.

16 Q. Do your records show a phone call between

17 the Frank Cascio phone and the David Ventura

18 phones — phone?

19 A. That’s correct. I have outgoing calls from

20 the Ventura to the Cascio phone.

21 Q. And what time are those two calls?

22 A. Two calls. The first one at 11:35 p.m. for

23 four minutes. Second one at 11:43 p.m. for three

24 minutes.

25 Q. Immediately preceding those two outgoing

26 calls from the Ventura phones to the Cascio phones,

27 were there a number of phone calls from the Ventura

28 line to the Azia Pryor line? 8368

1 A. I have three calls from the Ventura line to

2 the Azia Pryor line. The first one at 5:47 p.m. for

3 nine minutes. The second one at 6:37 p.m. for 14

4 minutes. And the last one at 7:21 p.m. for two

5 minutes.

6 Q. If you could turn your attention to the

7 calls surrounding Frank Cascio’s phone. With

8 respect to the one call going between the Frank

9 Cascio phone and the Evelyn Tavasci phone, what time

10 did that occur, please?

11 A. That occurred at 5:37 p.m., four minutes in

12 length.

13 Q. With respect to the 12 calls between the

14 Amen phone and the Cascio phone, can you tell us

15 generally what time of day those 12 calls occurred?

16 A. With the exception of one call, they

17 occurred in the afternoon to evening time frame.

18 Q. And was that first call the exception, at

19 054 in the morning?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. And how long did that last?

22 A. Four minutes.

23 Q. And which direction was that going?

24 A. Frank Cascio calling Vincent Amen.

25 Q. Immediately prior to that was a one-minute

26 call between the Frank Cascio phone and the Marc

27 Schaffel phone at 052 in the morning?

28 A. That’s correct. One minute in length. 8369

1 Q. Sergeant Bonner, if you could turn to

2 Exhibit 865, please. Could you please explain the

3 chart for February 14th of 2003, Exibit 865.

4 A. Again, as with the other ones, we have a

5 number of telephone numbers that are associated with

6 individuals that have came out during this

7 investigation. And we start with Vincent Amen,

8 Hamid Moslehi, David LeGrand, Frank Cascio, Marc

9 Schaffel, Christian Robinson, Ann Kite, the Law

10 Offices of Geragos & Geragos, Evelyn Tavasci, David

11 Ventura, and Azia Pryor.

12 Q. If you could begin in the center with the

13 Moslehi, Schaffel and Christian Robinson phones, can

14 you tell us first which direction the call from —

15 in between Moslehi and Schaffel occurred, between

16 their phones?

17 A. The Marc Schaffel phone contacted the Hamid

18 Moslehi phone for one minute in length at 8:42 p.m.

19 Q. What about the contact between the Christian

20 Robinson phone and the Marc Schaffel phone?

21 A. That was a call from the Christian Robinson

22 phone to the Marc Schaffel phone, one minute in

23 length, at 10:18 p.m.

24 Q. And in between the call from the Schaffel

25 phone to the Moslehi phone, and the Christian

26 Robinson phone and the Schaffel phone, were there

27 two calls placed to Frank Cascio, one from the

28 Ventura phone at 2105 hours? 8370

1 A. I have a phone call from the David Ventura

2 residence to a Frank Cascio phone at 2105 hours, two

3 minutes in length.

4 Q. And at 2130 hours, 9:30 p.m., was there a

5 call between the Vince Amen phone and a Frank Cascio

6 phone?

7 A. That’s correct. 2130 hours, one minute in

8 length.

9 Q. It’s not clear on the chart, from here

10 anyway, but how many times was there contact between

11 the Cascio phone and the Ventura phone, Janet’s

12 parents?

13 A. There were four calls.

14 Q. Can you tell us what time the first call was

15 made on Valentine’s Day 2003?

16 A. The first call I have is from the Ventura

17 residence to a Cascio phone at 4:45 p.m., one minute

18 in length.

19 Q. Okay. When was the next call, please?

20 A. The next call occurred at 7:29 p.m. This

21 one was from the Cascio phone to the Venturas’

22 residence, two minutes in length.

23 Q. And the next one, please?

24 A. Was at 7:45 p.m., again from the Cascio

25 phone to the Ventura residence, for 59 seconds.

26 Q. Is the next one the call that occurs at

27 2105, 9:05 p.m., between the Ventura residence and

28 the Cascio phone? 8371

1 A. That’s correct. Two minutes in length.

2 Q. Okay. Are there also a number of calls

3 between the Ventura phone and the Azia Pryor phone?

4 A. Yes, there are.

5 Q. And are they going in one direction or both

6 directions, generally?

7 A. They’re going in both directions.

8 Q. And what time is the first call between

9 those two phones, please?

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

11 at this point. I’ve been waiting, but it does seem

12 that this is cumulative, and the relevance in these

13 details — I’ll object on relevance.

14 THE COURT: Overruled.

15 THE WITNESS: The first call occurred at

16 2:20 p.m., one minute in length, from the Ventura

17 residence to the Azia Pryor telephone.

18 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Do you have an entry there

19 marked 1250 in the morning?

20 A. I’m sorry, that’s correct. That’s the first

21 one. 1250, one minute 30 seconds in length, from

22 Azia Pryor’s phone to the Ventura residence.

23 Q. One minute 30 seconds?

24 A. I’m sorry, one hour 30 minutes. They’re

25 numbers.

26 Q. You bill like phone companies, in reverse.

27 And when was the last call between the

28 Ventura phones and the Azia Pryor phones for the 8372

1 14th?

2 A. The last call I have is at 11:40 p.m. for

3 two minutes in length from the Ventura phone to the

4 Azia Pryor phone.

5 Q. Okay. And in total, there was contact

6 between the LeGrand phone and the Kite phone just

7 one time?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. And two times between the Kite phone and the

10 Geragos & Geragos phones that day?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. If you could please continue to Exhibit 866,

13 the chart for February 15th. And please explain

14 this exhibit for the jury, please.

15 A. It’s a little off center.

16 Q. Okay.

17 A. Okay. Again, we have a number of

18 individuals who we have identified as being

19 associated with this investigation, and these are

20 telephones that are associated with those

21 individuals: Hamid Moslehi, Rudy Provencio, Vincent

22 Amen, Marc Schaffel, Frank Cascio, Neverland Valley

23 Ranch, Ann Kite, Law Offices of Geragos & Geragos,

24 Evelyn Tavasci, Jay Jackson, a second line into

25 Evelyn Tavasci’s residence, David Ventura and Azia

26 Pryor.

27 Q. Was the first call between the Cascio phone

28 and the Jay Jackson phone at 2:11 in the morning? 8373

1 Look on page two, four up from the bottom.

2 A. The David Ventura phone.

3 Q. Oh, I’m sorry. Was that the first of five

4 calls to the David Ventura phone at 2:11 in the

5 morning?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. And can you tell us when the first call was

8 between the Cascio phone and the Jackson phone that

9 morning, that day?

10 A. The first call I show is at 10:17 a.m. from

11 the Jay Jackson phone to the Cascio phone.

12 Q. Of the 14 calls between the Jay Jackson

13 phone and the Frank Cascio phone, how many of them

14 lasted more than one minute?

15 A. 11 of them.

16 Q. Was there a call between the Frank Cascio

17 phone and the Geragos & Geragos phone that day as

18 well?

19 A. Yes, there was.

20 Q. And what time was that?

21 A. That occurred at 2:45 p.m., for 44 seconds,

22 from Cascio to Geragos phones.

23 Q. And prior to that phone contact between the

24 Cascio phone and the Geragos & Geragos phone, was

25 there a 15-minute phone call beginning at 1424 hours

26 between the Cascio phone and the Jay Jackson phone?

27 A. That’s correct.

28 Q. And immediately after the phone call between 8374

1 the Cascio phone to the Geragos & Geragos phone,

2 were there two more calls placed between the Cascio

3 phone and the Jackson phone?

4 A. Correct. At 1501 and 1502, first one for

5 one minute and the second one for three minutes.

6 Q. And at the end of the three-minute call at

7 1502 between the Cascio phone and the Jackson phone,

8 was there a call between Frank Cascio’s phone and

9 Marc Schaffel’s phone?

10 A. That’s correct, at 1505 hours for three

11 minutes.

12 Q. Of the three calls between the Cascio phone

13 and the Tavasci home phone, can you tell us what

14 time the first call was?

15 A. The first call occurred at 5:45 p.m., six

16 minutes in length.

17 Q. And which direction was that call going?

18 A. That was from Cascio to the Tavasci phone.

19 Q. At that same time, at 5:45 p.m., was there a

20 call from the Vince Amen phone to the same Frank

21 Cascio phone that dialed the Evvy Tavasci home

22 phone?

23 A. That’s correct. It was seven minutes in

24 length from Amen to Cascio.

25 Q. And at the same time, the Cascio phone

26 called the Tavasci home?

27 A. Correct.

28 Q. And that was for six minutes? 8375

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. Is that what’s known as a three-way call,

3 Sergeant?

4 A. It is potentially a three-way call.

5 Q. Immediately after that call between the

6 Amen/Cascio, Cascio/Tavasci phones, was there a call

7 placed from the Cascio phone to the Schaffel phone?

8 A. That’s correct. I have a two-minute call at

9 1755 hours from the Cascio phone to a Schaffel

10 phone.

11 Q. Okay. And then were there two calls after

12 that between the Cascio phone and one of the Evelyn

13 Tavasci home phone numbers and the Cascio phone and

14 the other Tavasci home number, the second line, at

15 1825 and 1843 hours?

16 A. That’s correct. I have the first call at

17 1825 hours for three minutes and 33 — correction,

18 three minutes and 36 seconds, and that is from the

19 Cascio phone to the Tavasci, Evelyn, home phone.

20 And the second call is at 1843 hours, one

21 minute 47 seconds in length, and that goes from the

22 Cascio to the Evelyn Tavasci second home line.

23 Q. At 1851 hours, was there a phone call

24 between the Cascio phone and the Jay Jackson phone?

25 A. That’s correct. Two minutes in length.

26 Q. This would be the call immediately after the

27 call from Cascio’s line to the second home line at

28 Evvy Tavasci’s? 8376

1 A. A few minutes later, correct.

2 Q. Okay. And that was a two-minute call?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. At the end of that phone call at 1853 was

5 there another call placed from the Cascio line to

6 the same Jay Jackson line?

7 A. That’s correct. We have a call at 1853, for

8 17 minutes in length.

9 Q. And at the end of that call, at 1910 hours,

10 was there another call placed from the Frank Cascio

11 phone to the Jay Jackson phone?

12 A. Correct. Three minutes 19 seconds in

13 length.

14 Q. And immediately after that call, was there —

15 excuse me. Were there two calls placed from the

16 Frank Cascio phone to the Frank Schaffel phone?

17 A. Okay. Yes, we have one at 7:14 p.m., one

18 minute in length. And another one at 7:16 p.m.,

19 four minutes in length.

20 Q. After the phone call at 7:16 p.m. between

21 the Cascio phone and the Schaffel phone, did the

22 phone belonging to Jay Jackson connect with a phone

23 belonging to Frank Cascio, in that direction?

24 A. That’s correct. At 8:43 p.m. for four

25 minutes 15 seconds.

26 Q. Was there another call between the same two

27 phones and in the same direction at 8:48 p.m. that

28 lasted for two minutes? 8377

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. And immediately after that phone call at

3 8:48, was there a call between the Frank Cascio

4 phone and the Evvy Tavasci home phone?

5 A. That’s correct, at 8:56 p.m., two minutes 28

6 seconds in length.

7 Q. Was there a call approximately ten minutes

8 later from the Cascio phone to the Amen phone at

9 2108?

10 A. Correct. Six minutes in length.

11 Q. At the end of that six-minute call, was

12 there a call between the Cascio phone and the

13 Neverland Valley Ranch phone?

14 A. That’s correct. 2126 hours. That’s an

15 incoming call from Neverland Valley to the Cascio

16 phone, three minutes 41 seconds in length.

17 Q. If you could turn to Exhibit 867, please.

18 And is that the chart for Sunday, February 16th, of

19 2003?

20 A. That’s correct.

21 Q. If you could explain to the jury what’s

22 depicted in this exhibit, please.

23 A. Once more, we have a number of telephones

24 that are associated with individuals that have came

25 up during this investigation; namely, starting on

26 the left, Chris Tucker, Vincent Amen, Rudy

27 Provencio, Evelyn Tavasci, Azia Pryor, Neverland

28 Valley Ranch, Marc Schaffel, Chris Carter, David 8378

1 Ventura, Jay Jackson, Frank Cascio, another call

2 from Marc Schaffel, and Christian Robinson as Site

3 LLC.

4 Q. With respect to the calls between the Cascio

5 phone and the Jay Jackson phone, the chart shows a

6 “2” over a “1.” Were there 21 calls between the

7 two, or what?

8 A. No, there was not. That should indicate

9 that there were two calls from one direction and one

10 call from the other direction.

11 Q. Which direction were the two calls from?

12 A. From Jay Jackson to Frank Cascio. And one

13 call from Frank Cascio to Jay Jackson.

14 Q. Okay. Can you tell us the time of the first

15 call between Jay Jackson and the Frank Cascio phone?

16 A. The first call occurred at 4:32 p.m., four

17 minutes in length, from Jay Jackson to Frank Cascio

18 telephones.

19 Q. And when was the last call between the two

20 phones?

21 A. At 11:26 p.m., two minutes 30 seconds in

22 length, from the Frank Cascio phone to Jay Jackson

23 phone.

24 Q. In between the first and last calls between

25 the Jay Jackson phone and the Cascio phone, was

26 there contact between the Cascio phone and the

27 Neverland Valley Ranch phone?

28 A. The only call I’m showing was at 0100 hours. 8379

1 Q. So there was not?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. When was the first call between the Vince

4 Amen phone and the Frank Cascio phone?

5 A. 0844 hours, or 8:44 a.m.

6 Q. If you could turn to Exhibit 871, I believe.

7 Is that the chart for February 20th?

8 A. That’s correct.

9 Q. Is it Detective Zelis who will have all the

10 fun with the charts on the 17th, 18th and 19th?

11 A. That’s correct.

12 Q. I placed Exhibit 871, or a reasonable

13 likeness, up on the board. Do you know whether this

14 date, February 20th, coincided with the filming of a

15 rebuttal video?

16 A. That is my understanding, correct.

17 Q. Okay. And explain to the jury, please,

18 what’s depicted in this exhibit.

19 A. Again, we have icons which are associated

20 with telephones registered to individuals that have

21 came up during this investigation. Starting at the

22 top left, we have Frank Cascio, Marc Schaffel, David

23 Ventura, Jay Jackson, Evelyn Tavasci second line,

24 Evelyn Tavasci’s home line, Neverland Valley Ranch,

25 Vincent Amen, the Turnberry Isle Resort, Christopher

26 Carter and Rudy Provencio.

27 Q. If you could begin, please, with the phone

28 calls between the Vincent Amen line and the Jay 8380

1 Jackson line, tell us what time the first call was

2 placed.

3 A. The first call occurred at 10:02 a.m., two

4 minutes in length, from Amen to Jackson.

5 Q. Would you look at the time stamp, 9:51 on

6 your chart, please?

7 A. I’m sorry, they’re out of order. 9:51 would

8 be the first call.

9 Q. And the second call would be at 10:02 a.m.?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. How many times did the Vince Amen phone

12 contact the Marc Schaffel phone that day?

13 A. I have five calls.

14 Q. And was the first call placed at nearly one

15 o’clock in the morning or just before one o’clock in

16 the morning?

17 A. Five minutes prior, at 0055 hours.

18 Q. And how many times was there contact between

19 the Vince Amen phone and the Frank Cascio phone that

20 day? You could refer to the chart itself if it

21 helps you.

22 A. I’m just double-checking. I have 31 calls.

23 Q. Was the first call a call that was placed

24 between Frank Cascio’s phone and Vince Amen’s phone

25 at 1:25 in the morning?

26 A. That’s correct.

27 Q. And how many times was there contact between

28 the Cascio phone and the Schaffel phone on the 8381

1 morning — on the day of the 20th?

2 A. I have 11 calls. And I have two — two

3 more, so a total of 13.

4 Q. Of the two calls between the Cascio phone

5 and the Evvy Tavasci home phone, can you tell us

6 whether they were going in one direction or both

7 ways?

8 A. It appears they were going just from Cascio

9 to Evelyn Tavasci.

10 Q. From the Cascio phone to the Tavasci phone?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. And what time is the first call from the

13 Cascio phone to the Tavasci phone?

14 A. At 1:26 p.m., three minutes in length.

15 Q. If you would please turn to the next exhibit

16 that you have, which is No. 875 — actually, before

17 we leave 871, the chart shows seven calls between

18 Neverland Valley Ranch and Frank Cascio’s number; is

19 that correct?

20 A. That’s correct.

21 Q. And what time did those calls begin and in

22 which direction were they going, please?

23 A. I believe each of these calls was an

24 incoming call. I’m sorry, they’re going both

25 directions. And they start at a little after 2 p.m.

26 and end a little after 9 p.m.

27 Q. Okay. Now you can turn to Exhibit 875,

28 please. 8382

1 MR. SANGER: Is that March 5?

2 MR. NICOLA: It’s March 2.

3 THE WITNESS: March 5th.

4 MR. SANGER: March 5 is what mine says.

5 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Is there an exhibit tag on

6 March 2nd?

7 A. Yeah. It’s not mine, though.

8 Q. Okay. I’m sorry. 875 is March 5th. And

9 who’s doing March 2nd, 3rd and 4th?

10 A. Chief Investigator Dave Saunders.

11 Q. I’m sorry. Is this a chart for Wednesday,

12 March 5th?

13 A. It is.

14 Q. Okay. Explain to the jury what’s on this

15 exhibit, please.

16 A. Okay. Again, we have a number of icons that

17 are associated with telephones that are registered

18 to individuals that have came up during this

19 investigation. Starting on the left, we have Frank

20 Cascio, Neverland Valley Ranch, Evelyn Tavasci/MJJ

21 Productions, another number, MJJ Productions/Miko

22 Brando, Evelyn Tavasci home, Rudy Provencio, Paul

23 Hugo and David LeGrand.

24 Q. Let’s talk about the Frank Cascio phone and

25 the Neverland Valley Ranch phone. Can you tell us

26 when they first — when they first begin and which

27 direction they went?

28 A. They first started at shortly before 2 a.m. 8383

1 in the morning, which was an incoming call from

2 Neverland to Frank Cascio, and it ended at 6:15

3 p.m., again with an incoming call from Neverland to

4 Frank Cascio. In between that we had two calls from

5 Cascio to Neverland.

6 Q. Okay. Can you tell us what time the call

7 between the Paul Hugo phone and the Rudy Provencio

8 phone was?

9 A. Okay. That was at 2109 hours for one minute

10 in length.

11 Q. And also between the Paul Hugo phone and the

12 David LeGrand phone, please?

13 A. That was 2134 hours, or 9:34 p.m., for two

14 minutes in length.

15 Q. Okay. If you could move to Exhibit No. 876,

16 please. And if you could explain to the jury what’s

17 on this exhibit?

18 A. Okay. As with the other exhibits, we have a

19 number of telephones associated with individuals

20 and/or locations that have came up during this

21 investigation. I’ll start on the left. We have

22 Paul Hugo, Marc Schaffel and Vincent Amen. We have

23 Frank Cascio, Neverland Valley Ranch. This was a

24 room at the Beverly Hilton that was registered under

25 Christopher Carter. We have the MJJ

26 Productions/Miko Brando phone, Evelyn Tavasci/MJJ

27 Productions phone, Evelyn Tavasci second home line,

28 and the Evelyn Tavasci home line. 8384

1 Q. Could you turn to the exhibit book on your

2 right, please, and find Exhibit No. 255? Are those

3 The Beverly Hilton records?

4 A. These are.

5 Q. Okay. Exhibit 255, is that the room bill

6 for Chris Carter, Room 429, from The Beverly Hilton?

7 A. Yes, it is.

8 Q. Okay. Did the phone charge — do the phone

9 charges on The Beverly Hilton records include

10 minutes?

11 A. I don’t immediately recognize anything as

12 being specific to length of call.

13 Q. And indeed, there are no minutes on your

14 chart for The Beverly Hilton calls, correct?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. Do you show three calls going from The

17 Beverly Hilton out of the Chris Carter room on the

18 6th to Ms. Evelyn Tavasci’s home or second home

19 numbers?

20 A. That’s correct.

21 Q. And what time is the first call?

22 A. I have two calls that occur at 1136 hours.

23 One to the home line; the second one to the second

24 home line.

25 Q. Okay. Can you remove the page you’re

26 looking at in Exhibit 255?

27 MR. SANGER: Which one?

28 MR. NICOLA: March 5. 8385

1 Q. Showing you page one of Exhibit 255, just

2 generally the time stamp in the middle column on the

3 left, for example, eleven-three — 11:36, that’s the

4 time that corresponds to the call in your charts,

5 correct?

6 A. That’s correct.

7 Q. And there’s nothing on the right that

8 indicates the length of the time; isn’t that right?

9 A. I don’t recognize anything as being a

10 length.

11 Q. Can you tell us at approximately what time

12 the call between the — between the Hugo phone and

13 the Schaffel phone was, please?

14 A. 15 — or 3:59 p.m.

15 Q. How long did that call last?

16 A. Two minutes in length.

17 Q. And can you tell us what time the calls

18 between the Amen phone and the Schaffel phone were?

19 A. At 12:21 p.m. and 12:17 p.m., four minutes

20 and three minutes respectively.

21 Q. And your records show the only place of

22 relevance to your investigation that the Cascio

23 phone called was the Neverland Valley Ranch line?

24 A. That’s correct.

25 Q. If you could move on to Exhibit 877, please.

26 And is 877 the chart for Friday, the 7th of March,

27 2003?

28 A. That’s correct. 8386

1 Q. Again, the only calls from Frank Cascio that

2 you registered were to Neverland Valley Ranch?

3 A. That’s correct.

4 Q. Can you tell us what time the first call was

5 and what time the last one was?

6 A. The first call occurred five minutes after

7 midnight, at 0005 hours, and the last call occurred

8 at 12:03 p.m.

9 Q. Sergeant Bonner, can you tell us about the

10 middle icon, The Beverly Hilton Kenneth Morgan room?

11 A. As with the Chris Carter room on the

12 previous day, this was a room at The Beverly Hilton

13 which was registered under the name Kenneth Morgan.

14 Q. And in which exhibit did you find the

15 Kenneth Morgan phone records from The Beverly

16 Hilton?

17 A. It was under Exhibit 256.

18 Q. Would you find those in the exhibit book,

19 please?

20 A. Done.

21 Q. Done. When was the first call made from

22 that room and to what number?

23 A. The first call occurred on 3-7, 2003, at

24 9:21 p.m. to the Evelyn Tavasci home line.

25 Q. How many calls were placed to the Evelyn

26 Tavasci home line from the Kenneth Morgan room?

27 A. On the 7th?

28 Q. Yes, please. 8387

1 A. I have a total of four calls.

2 Q. And when was the last phone call between the

3 Kenneth Morgan room and the Evvy Tavasci home?

4 A. At 9:51 p.m.

5 Q. Is there a room charge visible on Exhibit

6 256?

7 A. There is; in the amount of $850.

8 Q. Per night?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. I believe the next exhibit is 878.

11 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I’m going to move

12 to strike the last answer for the purpose of

13 objecting to the question. I didn’t know where he

14 was going, but it’s not going anywhere and violates

15 the Court’s rule — ruling, the room charge.

16 THE COURT: Sustained.

17 MR. SANGER: Stricken?

18 THE COURT: Stricken.

19 MR. NICOLA: Stricken?

20 THE COURT: Yes.

21 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Exhibit 878, is that March

22 8th? I haven’t put it up yet.

23 A. That’s correct.

24 Q. Okay. What do you have listed in Exhibit

25 878?

26 A. Again, we have icons representing telephones

27 associated with individuals and/or locations that

28 have came up during this investigation; namely, 8388

1 starting on the left, Neverland Valley Ranch, Evelyn

2 Tavasci/MJJ Productions, MJJ Productions/Miko

3 Brando, Beverly Hilton, again the Kenneth Morgan

4 room, Evelyn Tavasci/MJJ Productions, and Evelyn

5 Tavasci, home.

6 Q. Are the phone calls between the Evvy Tavasci

7 home and the Kenneth Morgan room also contained in

8 Exhibit 256?

9 A. Yes, they are.

10 Q. And of the 12 calls you have listed, can you

11 tell us which direction they were going?

12 A. All of those are outgoing calls.

13 Q. And over what —

14 A. From the Kenneth Morgan room to the Evelyn

15 Tavasci room, or line.

16 Q. And over what period of time did those 12

17 phone calls span?

18 A. The first call I have occurs at 8:35 a.m. in

19 the morning and the last call occurs at 6:57 p.m. in

20 the evening.

21 Q. Were there calls from the Kenneth Morgan

22 room to two other phones registered to Evvy Tavasci

23 through MJJ Productions?

24 A. There were.

25 Q. And on the right-hand side of that exhibit

26 appears to be the number “3” in the middle of a

27 link. Can you tell us about that phone number,

28 please, between the Kenneth Morgan room and the 8389

1 Evelyn Tavasci MJJ Production phone?

2 A. Okay. That is the — the phone number is

3 (818) 402-7087. It comes back registered to Evelyn

4 Tavasci, MJJ Productions.

5 Q. And in the top center of the page, there’s

6 another telephone with the same icon. Is that a

7 different number with the four connections?

8 A. Actually, I’m sorry, that — the four is the

9 7087 number. The four calls were to that (818)

10 402-7087. And the three calls were to (310)

11 717-8984.

12 Q. The next exhibit in order, please, Exhibit

13 879. Is this the exhibit for Sunday, March the 9th?

14 A. Yes, it is.

15 Q. Can you tell us what time the phone call

16 between the Cascio phone and the Evvy Tavasci second

17 home line was?

18 A. It occurred at 11:34 p.m., and that was an

19 incoming call from Tavasci to the Cascio line.

20 Q. Can you tell us about the phone calls

21 between the Cascio phone and the Schaffel phone on

22 that day?

23 A. I have two telephone calls from the Cascio

24 phone to — correction, one from the Cascio phone to

25 the Schaffel phone. Another one that was an

26 incoming from Schaffel to Cascio. First one was one

27 minute prior to 7 p.m., and the second one was at

28 9:31 p.m. 8390

1 Q. Can you tell us about the 12 phone calls

2 between the Evvy Tavasci/MJJ Production phone and

3 the Schaffel phone, please? Do you know when the

4 first one occurred?

5 A. No. There appears to be an error.

6 Q. That should say “Neverland Valley Ranch”?

7 A. It should.

8 Q. Okay. Can you tell us what time the first

9 call to Neverland Valley Ranch occurred?

10 MR. SANGER: I’m just going to object for

11 the moment, that there is a reference to, “That

12 should be Neverland Valley Ranch,” and it’s not

13 clear what that reference is to.

14 THE COURT: Sustained.

15 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: The 12 phone calls I was

16 referring to should have been referred to as the

17 Neverland Valley Ranch, correct?

18 A. That’s correct.

19 Q. So the link between the Tavasci/MJJ

20 Productions phone and the Marc Schaffel phone is

21 incorrect; is that what you’re saying?

22 A. That’s correct.

23 Q. Okay. Were there any calls between the

24 Schaffel phone and the Tavasci phone for that day?

25 A. No.

26 Q. Okay. So the 12 calls between the

27 Tavasci/MJJ Production phone and the Neverland

28 Valley Ranch phone began at what time that day? 8391

1 A. 8:48 a.m.

2 Q. And what time did they cease?

3 A. At 8:19 p.m.

4 Q. Is the chart — excuse me, is the

5 spreadsheet behind the chart accurate, to your

6 recollection?

7 A. Yes, it is.

8 Q. Okay. And is that how you realized the

9 actual chart that’s up on the screen is incorrect

10 with respect to the link between the Evvy Tavasci

11 phone and the Marc Schaffel phone?

12 A. That’s correct.

13 Q. The call between the Amen phone and the

14 Schaffel phone, what time did that occur, please?

15 A. At 1757 hours.

16 Q. And that was a one-minute call?

17 A. One-minute duration.

18 MR. NICOLA: Your Honor, I’ll move to strike

19 this chart, Exhibit 879.

20 It is 879, correct?

21 THE WITNESS: Correct.

22 MR. NICOLA: Pending correction.

23 MR. SANGER: Well, I object to that. It’s

24 been referred to in front of the jury, so it should

25 remain. And they can present a corrected chart if

26 they want.

27 MR. NICOLA: We can do that.

28 THE COURT: I think that’s the way to do it. 8392

1 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Did that take you through

2 your daily obligation?

3 A. It did.

4 MR. NICOLA: Thank you.

5 Your Honor, I have no further questions at

6 this time.

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

8 and then you can do your cross.

9 (Recess taken.)

10 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Sanger, you ready?

11 MR. SANGER: Yes.

12 Before we do, I was right in the middle of

13 trying to find Exhibits 451 and 458. They’re in a

14 binder.

15 MR. NICOLA: The originals? They’re all

16 right here.

17 MR. SANGER: There we go. All right. I’ll

18 get to them in a minute.

19 May I proceed, Your Honor?

20 THE COURT: Yes.

21

22 CROSS-EXAMINATION

23 BY MR. SANGER:

24 Q. Okay. Some big-picture questions. First of

25 all — I don’t really want to go through the exact

26 times of minutes of everything, but there are some

27 big-picture questions.

28 First of all, in all these phone records 8393

1 that you analyzed, were you able to determine from

2 the phone records whether or not Michael Jackson was

3 ever on a single call?

4 A. No.

5 Q. And as to some of the other records, for

6 instance, those pertaining to Marc Schaffel,

7 Frederic Marc Schaffel, there are several telephone

8 numbers associated with Mr. Schaffel, correct?

9 A. That is correct.

10 Q. And you’re one of the lead detectives in

11 this case, correct?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. Based on your investigation, during the

14 period of time February and March of 2003, Mr.

15 Schaffel had converted his house into an office; is

16 that right?

17 A. It’s the first I’ve heard of it, but —

18 Q. Were you aware that he had a number of

19 people working out of his house?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. All right. And they had different offices

22 set up in his house?

23 A. The interviews that I’ve conducted,

24 basically people were working — doing work out of

25 his house, but not necessarily separate offices.

26 Q. Okay. All right. Now, I notice on the

27 summary charts, sometimes, in fact most of the time,

28 you included one-minute calls? 8394

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. Sometimes you did not, correct?

3 A. Usually — I mean, we tried to include

4 everything that was a one-minute call.

5 Q. Okay. For instance – and I’ll find the

6 chart here – but there was a chart, I believe, where

7 you had not shown two calls from Jay Jackson’s house

8 because apparently they were very short calls. They

9 were one-minute calls.

10 MR. NICOLA: Objection. The question is

11 vague.

12 THE COURT: Overruled.

13 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Do you recall that?

14 A. I think I can clarify that. The records

15 that were introduced into evidence show that those

16 calls were actually less than 30 seconds in length,

17 and that’s why we removed those calls from the

18 overall count.

19 Q. All right. So some of these phone

20 records — you looked at phone records from various

21 carriers and from hotels; is that correct?

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. And some of the carriers bill a call as a

24 minute, no matter how long it takes?

25 A. Correct.

26 Q. If it’s under a minute, I should say, of

27 course.

28 A. Yes. 8395

1 Q. And sometimes the carrier will show a

2 specific number of seconds; is that correct?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. All right. Now, another big-picture item,

5 if we can. There are some calls that you showed

6 were placed to the law firm of Geragos & Geragos?

7 A. That’s correct.

8 Q. And some of those calls — and we can go

9 through if you want, but some of those calls were a

10 minute or less, correct?

11 A. That’s correct.

12 Q. Do you have any reason to believe that the

13 caller was able to get through the receptionist and

14 to an attorney there?

15 A. I wouldn’t necessarily think an incoming

16 call less than a minute, but an out — I’m sorry, an

17 incoming call from Geragos to the cell phone could

18 result in a connection in less than a minute.

19 However, I would highly doubt that a call from the

20 cell phone to Geragos would probably result in a

21 call.

22 Q. In other words, his law firm has a

23 receptionist; is that correct?

24 A. I would assume so.

25 Q. Okay. And there are a number of people that

26 work at his law firm besides Mr. Geragos himself?

27 A. That’s correct.

28 Q. All right. Another overall question. When 8396

1 there are phone calls that are placed to — they’re

2 coming into a place like the Turnberry or one of the

3 other hotels, those calls go to a switchboard; is

4 that correct?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. And then the switchboard would send the

7 calls to particular rooms or particular staff people

8 or guests or whatever, correct?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. And so, number one, you have no way of

11 determining where those calls ended up, correct?

12 A. Other than to say they went to the Turnberry

13 itself, no.

14 Q. That’s right. As far as you could trace it,

15 it got to the reception desk, and then where it went

16 from there we don’t know?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. Okay. And once again, if there’s a

19 one-minute call to one of those hotels, there’s no

20 reason to believe that the call actually got

21 completed to a guest in the hotel?

22 A. Not necessarily, no.

23 Q. Okay. All right. One more overall question

24 here. You mentioned Rudy Provencio in your

25 analysis, correct?

26 A. Correct.

27 Q. And the first call that you show Rudy

28 Provencio was involved in was on February the 8th of 8397

1 2003; is that correct?

2 A. That’s correct.

3 Q. And there are some other references to Mr.

4 Provencio from time to time being involved in phone

5 calls after that date, correct?

6 A. That’s correct.

7 Q. But you have no phone calls showing that

8 Rudy Provencio was involved in making or receiving

9 calls from any of the people involved in this

10 investigation before February the 8th, 2003,

11 correct?

12 A. Not that has made it into these exhibits.

13 Q. Well, based on your analysis of the records

14 and everybody else that was helping you – right? —

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. — you have no indication that Rudy

17 Provencio talked to anybody on the phone associated

18 with this case before February the 8th, 2003; is

19 that correct?

20 A. Again, I’d have to — to say that it’s based

21 within these exhibits, no, there is not. However, I

22 am aware that there are some records that did not

23 make it into the computer to get analyzed with this,

24 and I can’t tell you whether or not there are or are

25 not calls in those records.

26 Q. Okay. So you’re saying — you’re leaving

27 the door open that, you know, there’s some other

28 records, but you did your best job at analyzing what 8398

1 you thought was important for this case, right?

2 A. That’s correct.

3 Q. Okay. And you tried to put in all the phone

4 calls that you thought would be important to the

5 investigation, right?

6 A. Correct.

7 MR. SANGER: Okay. Now, let me ask if I can

8 retrieve from the District Attorney, I think I need

9 the original of 451 and 458.

10 MR. NICOLA: Help yourself.

11 MR. SANGER: May I walk around here?

12 THE COURT: Yes.

13 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Now, Detective Bonner, did

14 you prepare these charts, these actual charts that

15 you have shown?

16 A. I had them prepared, correct.

17 Q. Okay. And some of these were finalized just

18 this morning or late last night; is that correct?

19 A. Late last night.

20 Q. Okay. So we were handed the final versions

21 of some of them just this morning. They were handed

22 to the defense this morning, correct?

23 A. I don’t know when you were handed. I do

24 know that we finalized them late last night.

25 Q. All right. Did you do a chart for February

26 the 4th, 2003?

27 A. No.

28 Q. Were you aware that there were telephone 8399

1 calls relating to some of the people in this case on

2 February the 4th, 2003?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And specifically let me ask you if those

5 were from the SBC Pac-Bell phone records, or, I

6 don’t know anymore, AT&T phone records?

7 A. I’d have to refer to the records.

8 Q. Okay. I’m sorry, just one second.

9 Okay. Let me get you the original.

10 All right. May I approach the witness, Your

11 Honor?

12 THE COURT: Yes.

13 Q. BY MR. SANGER: I’m going to show you

14 Exhibit 451 and I’ve turned it to Tab No. 6, and see

15 if you’re oriented as to what that is.

16 A. Okay. This is a telephone record, a Pacific

17 Bell telephone record for the Jay Jackson line,

18 (213) 739-9279, and it shows two calls on February

19 4th to a phone number ending in 1861.

20 MR. SANGER: And, Your Honor, with your

21 permission, may I put a copy of that one page up?

22 THE COURT: Yes.

23 MR. SANGER: All right. This is 451, Tab 6.

24 Q. All right. And that — the two calls that

25 I’m referring to there say, “FE04.” Is that

26 February 4th? Is that correct?

27 A. Correct.

28 Q. 6:11 p.m. and 6:14 p.m.; is that correct? 8400

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. It says — oh, thank you. There’s a point

3 up there, I think we all know but — all right. And

4 it says, “Reseda.” Is that where it’s going or

5 where it came from?

6 A. I believe that’s where it’s going to.

7 Q. And that’s the phone number that it’s going

8 to, correct?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. And this is the phone number that it’s

11 coming from; is that correct?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. All right. And both of those phone calls

14 were four minutes apiece?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. All right. The phone that this was coming

17 from was Jay Jackson’s phone; is that correct?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. The phone number it’s going to is whose

20 phone?

21 A. I don’t immediately recognize that number.

22 Q. All right. Let’s see if we can figure it

23 out here.

24 If you turn to Tab 9, please, and look at

25 those documents and see if those are the types of

26 documents that would assist you in determining who

27 is assigned a particular phone number.

28 A. It is. That phone number, (818) 757-1861, 8401

1 comes back to Chris Tucker.

2 Q. Chris Tucker. Okay.

3 What I’m going to propose, with the Court’s

4 permission, is I’m going to write on a piece of

5 paper here illustrative of the witness’s testimony.

6 I’ll take it piece by piece, and if he agrees, I’m

7 going ask to admit it and publish it.

8 So I’m going to start with a blank piece of

9 paper, and I guess we should have that marked as

10 defense next in order, if we may.

11 THE COURT: That’s fine.

12 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

13 THE CLERK: That’s 5011.

14 MR. SANGER: 5011? Okay. Why don’t we go

15 ahead and mark that piece of paper.

16 Okay. Thank you.

17 Q. Okay. Now, you would agree that the phone

18 records that we just referred to up here, which is

19 from Tab No. 6 of Exhibit 451 – okay? – the one

20 that’s on the board – all right? – you would agree

21 that those relate to February 4th of 2003; is that

22 correct?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. So I’m going to write at the top “02-04-03.”

25 Now, your chart started — Exhibit 859 started on

26 02-05-03; is that right?

27 A. Correct.

28 Q. That was a Wednesday. So what day of the 8402

1 week would 04 be?

2 A. Tuesday.

3 Q. There you go. You paid attention in grammar

4 school and it paid off, all right.

5 All right. I’m going to write that on the

6 top of the page.

7 Now, the one telephone that we’re dealing

8 with here belongs to Jay Jackson; is that correct?

9 A. Correct. The 9279.

10 Q. Okay. So I’m going to draw a telephone.

11 And I’m going to put “Jay Jackson” under it. And

12 now that you’ve looked at the other phone records,

13 you determined that that call was placed to who?

14 A. Chris Tucker’s phone.

15 Q. Chris Tucker’s phone. I’m going to draw

16 another telephone, not very well, by the way, and

17 I’m going to put the number “2” on the bar. That’s

18 what you were doing if you were showing two calls,

19 correct?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. And these two calls go from Jay Jackson’s

22 telephone to Chris Tucker’s telephone, correct?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. So I’ll write “Chris Tucker.” And remind us

25 who Chris Tucker is.

26 A. He is an entertainer, comedian.

27 Q. And he was in the movies with Jackie Chan?

28 A. Yes. 8403

1 Q. There you go. And I’m going to do one other

2 thing, if it’s all right with you. I’m going to do

3 an arrow at the end of the bar to show which

4 direction those calls were going. Would that be all

5 right?

6 A. Sounds good.

7 Q. Does that make sense to you?

8 Okay. And can you tell us what time of day

9 those telephone calls occurred?

10 A. 6:11 and 6:14 p.m.

11 Q. Okay. So I’m going to write down 6:11 and

12 6:14 p.m. under the line.

13 May I approach the witness?

14 THE COURT: Yes.

15 MR. SANGER: I’ll show you what I did.

16 Who’s looking at this? Oh, that’s right. Sorry.

17 MR. NICOLA: That’s a beautiful chart.

18 MR. SANGER: Thank you. Others will be the

19 judge of that.

20 THE WITNESS: You appear to have paid more

21 attention in art class than I did.

22 Q. BY MR. SANGER: There you go. All right.

23 I want to ask you, does that appear to be an

24 accurate depiction?

25 A. Correct.

26 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I would move into

27 evidence 5011.

28 THE COURT: It’s admitted. 8404

1 MR. SANGER: Thank you. And I’d ask

2 permission to place that up on the board.

3 THE COURT: You may.

4 MR. SANGER: Thank you. Or on the screen.

5 Q. Okay. Did it the old-fashioned way.

6 Now, does that accurately represent — I

7 don’t want to beat this to death here, but does that

8 accurately represent the date at the top, right?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. And then we have a call from Jay Jackson’s

11 telephone, two calls, 6:11 and 6:14 p.m., to Chris

12 Tucker’s telephone, correct?

13 A. That’s correct.

14 Q. Okay. Thank you.

15 All right. Now I want to go to some other

16 telephone calls at the end. And let me take this

17 down. I’m sorry, not at the end. I want to go to

18 the middle, to 2-11. Excuse me.

19 Oh, I’m sorry, excuse me. Before I leave

20 that, you have the book up there with the 200

21 series, I believe; is that correct?

22 A. Appears to be from — correction. Or — it

23 is the 200 series.

24 Q. So if you look at Exhibit 223 —

25 And that’s already been received into

26 evidence, Your Honor, and I’m going to ask

27 permission to put that up.

28 THE COURT: All right. 8405

1 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

2 Q. There’s two pages to 223; is that correct,

3 sir?

4 A. That’s correct.

5 Q. Okay. The first page I’ll put up on the

6 board, and that’s the itinerary that we’ve seen —

7 you weren’t in the room, I don’t think, but we’ve

8 seen this before. It’s an itinerary for a flight

9 that apparently did not occur, no tickets were

10 issued on this. But it’s an itinerary. But do you

11 see that? Do you recognize that to be what it is?

12 MR. NICOLA: Objection; lack of foundation,

13 Judge.

14 THE COURT: Overruled.

15 You may answer.

16 THE WITNESS: I recognize it as an itinerary.

17 However, I’m not familiar enough with it to tell you

18 whether or not a ticket was issued or not.

19 Q. BY MR. SANGER: That’s fair enough. In any

20 event, there’s an itinerary there, and that’s for a

21 flight that’s scheduled to go at two o’clock in the

22 afternoon; is that correct?

23 A. It appears to be the case.

24 Q. All right. And if we look at — keeping

25 that in mind for a moment, if we look at page two

26 down at the bottom, there’s a fax transmittal that

27 shows this document was faxed or attempted to be

28 faxed at 11:31 in the morning on February 5, 8406

1 correct?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. It shows, “NG,” it didn’t go through, but at

4 least they were trying to fax it at that time,

5 correct?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. All right. Now, on your February 5

8 document, if we look at page — if the summary is

9 page one, then this would be page three. It’s the

10 second page of phone summary records.

11 A. Okay.

12 Q. All right. Did I tell you Exhibit 859?

13 A. That’s correct.

14 Q. Did I say that? Okay. So that’s for the

15 5th of February. And if you look down the list —

16 Your Honor, may I inquire of counsel?

17 Has this page been changed?

18 THE WITNESS: I don’t believe so.

19 MR. SANGER: Okay. May I inquire of the

20 witness? All right. Why don’t I just approach so

21 we don’t have a problem, Your Honor.

22 THE COURT: You may.

23 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Let me just make sure

24 we’re — maybe compare the top and the bottom to see

25 if they’re the same.

26 A. Yes.

27 MR. SANGER: Okay. May I publish this page?

28 It’s already been admitted. 8407

1 THE COURT: Yes.

2 Q. BY MR. SANGER: It actually says page two of

3 three at the bottom, sir?

4 A. That’s correct.

5 Q. It’s actually page three of the exhibit,

6 because the first page is your summary, right?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. All right. I’ll put that up. Let’s see if

9 it settles there.

10 All right. I’m hoping it’s going to get a

11 little clearer, but it doesn’t seem to want to do

12 that. I guess we cut off part of it here. Let’s

13 see if that….

14 All right. Before I refer to — I’m going

15 to refer to this particular line here.

16 A. Can you show me which one again?

17 Q. Yeah, it’s — there you go. You have to

18 hold it just right. I’m going to refer to this

19 particular line here, which is 2-5-03 at 9:58.

20 A. Okay.

21 Q. Okay? And before we talk about that

22 particularly, let me ask you some general questions

23 that will cover other entries as well.

24 In general, through your investigation in

25 this case, did you determine that when Mr. Jackson

26 travels, the people that arrange his travel often

27 will take a name that is not Mr. Jackson’s name and

28 use that for the purpose of booking hotels? 8408

1 A. That’s correct.

2 Q. And is that something common with

3 celebrities, to book rooms under other names,

4 whether it’s a staff person or just a fictitious

5 name?

6 A. I don’t have personal knowledge. This is

7 the only instance that I’ve personally been involved

8 in.

9 Q. All right. Have you ever seen other

10 celebrities book rooms?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Okay. All right. Anyway, it makes sense to

13 you. You don’t want to put your own name down there

14 if you’re going to attract a lot of attention,

15 right?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. And sometimes in your investigation, just to

18 cover the big picture, you will see in the documents

19 that the name that is used appears to have — the

20 last name that’s used appears to have no relation to

21 anybody we know of, right?

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. So it just might be a name like “Mason” or

24 something like that; is that correct?

25 A. Could be, yes.

26 Q. On the other hand, sometimes you’ll see

27 rooms are booked in the name of somebody who is

28 actually working for MJJ Productions or in some 8409

1 other way associated with that organization, such as

2 Chris Carter?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. So Chris Carter might reserve rooms in his

5 name, right?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. You never saw rooms reserved in the name of

8 Michael Jackson himself, correct?

9 A. No.

10 Q. All right. And the records are kept openly

11 in that regard, correct? In other words, through

12 the records that you found both at Neverland and

13 from the various places where records were

14 subpoenaed or obtained by search warrants,

15 internally there was no effort to hide the fact that

16 these were Mr. Jackson’s rooms, right?

17 A. No.

18 Q. All right. So, going to these — we can

19 look at all these rooms down here. These are

20 basically a series of phone numbers that are

21 associated with rooms or suites at that hotel; is

22 that correct?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. And the Presidential Suite, or the top one

25 that we’re looking at here, was a multi-room suite;

26 is that correct?

27 A. I don’t know for certain. I just simply

28 went off the records themselves. 8410

1 Q. In your investigation, the course of your

2 investigation, did you determine that the

3 Presidential Suite was a multi-room suite?

4 A. Not personally, no.

5 Q. You heard that though?

6 A. I have heard that, yes.

7 Q. Do you know how many telephones were located

8 in that suite?

9 A. I do not.

10 Q. Do you know how many people associated with

11 MJJ Productions or with other people in this case,

12 or in or out of this case, how many people were

13 associated with that room?

14 A. I don’t know.

15 Q. Do you know how many people came in and out

16 of that room?

17 A. No, I do not.

18 Q. Do you know how many people — how many

19 people used the phone or phones in that room?

20 A. Of course not.

21 Q. Pardon?

22 A. Of course not.

23 Q. Yeah, okay.

24 That’s a question like Tuesday comes before

25 Wednesday. I just wanted to get it on the record.

26 Thank you.

27 Okay. Now, as we look here, this appears —

28 this particular call appears to have occurred at 8411

1 9:58 in the morning, correct?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. That’s two minutes of 10:00, right?

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. And that would have been Florida time,

6 right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And Florida is three hours — what time

9 would it be in California if it was 9:58 in Florida?

10 A. It would be two minutes before 7 a.m.,

11 California time.

12 Q. All right. So there’s some call from

13 somebody at two minutes to 7:00 that lasts 27

14 minutes that was placed from the Turnberry and was

15 made to Jay Jackson, correct?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. Now, in the course of your investigation, I

18 think we’ve already shown you, and I won’t put it

19 back up, Exhibit 223. That at least has an

20 itinerary for people to fly commercially at two

21 o’clock on the 5th, right?

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. In the course of your investigation, you

24 determined that in fact, Chris Tucker was the person

25 who arranged for a private jet to take the Arvizos

26 to Florida; is that correct?

27 A. That is my understanding.

28 Q. And you do not have any other calls, other 8412

1 than those on the 4th, between members associated

2 with the Arvizos – that is, Jay Jackson and the

3 Venturas or anybody else associated with the Arvizos –

4 and Chris Tucker; is that correct?

5 A. I believe there was one call later on that

6 we covered.

7 Q. When was that?

8 A. It was in the March time frame.

9 Q. Okay. I’m sorry, I meant in this time

10 period, February the 4th and the 5th, regarding this

11 flight to Miami.

12 A. No. No.

13 Q. Okay. All right. Now I’d like to turn to

14 Exhibit 458, if we can, please, and I’ll take this

15 off in a moment. And 458 relates to whom?

16 A. You’ll have to bring me the record.

17 Q. Oh, I’m sorry.

18 May I approach, Your Honor?

19 THE COURT: Yes.

20 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

21 MR. SANGER: Sure.

22 Q. 458 relates to whom?

23 A. This appears to be a billing for Jay Jackson

24 telephone line.

25 Q. And what company?

26 A. I believe this is the Talk America records.

27 Q. And that would be the long-distance carrier

28 for Jay Jackson? 8413

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. Okay. So the phone records that we just saw

3 up on the board were the local phone records for Jay

4 Jackson; is that correct?

5 A. Or local toll or — yeah. Not long

6 distance.

7 Q. Not long distance. There are toll charges?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. But not technically long distance.

10 All right. So looking at 458, these appear

11 to indicate phone calls made long distance by Jay

12 Jackson. And if I’m correct — if you’ll bear with

13 me, just hold on to that. Don’t go anywhere for a

14 moment.

15 Look at your exhibits that you just talked

16 about today, Exhibits 859 through 881, whatever it

17 was, and you testified to some of them, but not all

18 of them, we know that, okay? And I’m going to ask

19 you to look in particular at 862 and 863.

20 While the witness is doing that, I’d like to

21 have marked next in order two more blank pieces of

22 paper.

23 THE COURT: You may.

24 MR. SANGER: Thank you. Separate numbers.

25 Q. All right. Are you looking at 862 and 863?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. Okay. Not a big thing. It’s just you

28 jump — 862 is for February the 8th, and then the 8414

1 next summary chart you have is for February the

2 12th; is that correct?

3 A. That’s correct.

4 Q. All right. So you did not do a summary

5 chart for February the 11th, correct?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Now, on February 11th, based on your

8 investigation, the night of February 11th, right at

9 the end of the night, were you aware that Janet

10 Arvizo had asked somebody to give her a ride?

11 A. The 11th or the 12th. I’m not sure which

12 day.

13 Q. And the ride actually occurred at — the

14 ride — the Rolls Royce left the ranch at about 1:52

15 in the morning; is that correct?

16 A. The person I interviewed wasn’t real certain

17 about times, so —

18 Q. You’re familiar with the gate logs, right?

19 A. Yes. But —

20 Q. Did you look at the entries on the gate

21 logs?

22 A. I did. But not having them in front of me,

23 I couldn’t state with certainty.

24 Q. Whatever time it was, it was sometime in the

25 early morning hours of the 12th when the Rolls Royce

26 left the property; is that your understanding?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. So my question was, were you aware that she 8415

1 was asking, around midnight, somewhere just before

2 midnight on the 11th, for a ride?

3 A. That is my understanding, yes.

4 Q. All right. There you go.

5 So on the 11th, I want to follow the same

6 procedure, with the Court’s permission, and I’m

7 going to write up at the top “02-11-03.” And since

8 the 12th was a Wednesday, the 11th had to be a

9 Tuesday. We learned that. Right?

10 A. Sounds good.

11 Q. Okay. And now I’m going to ask, with the

12 Court’s permission, to put up page two of Exhibit

13 458.

14 THE COURT: All right.

15 MR. SANGER: All right.

16 Q. Page two of 458. All right. Now, referring

17 to — I’m going to refer to these three calls down

18 here. Hit the line numbers, I’ll make it easier.

19 Referring to these three calls down here

20 that say “Santa Barbara,” so that looks like 17, 18

21 and 19, correct?

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. And I think you told us these are the phone

24 records of Jay Jackson, correct?

25 A. Correct.

26 Q. The long-distance phone records, correct?

27 A. Correct.

28 Q. And it appears that on line 17, on 2-11-03 8416

1 at 2322 hours — that would be 11:22 at night,

2 correct?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. Jay Jackson calls from Los Angeles, where

5 his phone’s located, to Santa Barbara, correct?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. And then you look right below it, at 2323,

8 in other words, one minute later, he makes another

9 call to Santa Barbara, correct?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. And then on the 19th — I’m sorry, on line

12 19, the same evening, at 2349 or 11:49 at night, he

13 makes another call to Santa Barbara, correct?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. So, once again, I’m going to draw one of

16 those little phones and I’m going to put “Jay

17 Jackson” under it, and I’m going to put — there’s

18 two different numbers that are called, right?

19 A. That’s correct.

20 Q. I’m going to put two arrows, do it a little

21 differently than your chart, but not much, and I’ll

22 put “1” for one number and “2” for the other

23 numbers, and then I will draw two phones quickly.

24 All right. Now, let me ask you if you

25 recognize the first number that was called on that

26 evening.

27 A. The 2300 number?

28 Q. Yeah. 8417

1 A. I’m not certain, but it may be the Santa

2 Barbara Police Department.

3 Q. The Santa Barbara — that’s the Santa

4 Barbara Police Department in downtown Santa Barbara,

5 correct?

6 A. The police department as opposed to the

7 sheriff’s department.

8 Q. Yes, sir. I was going to let you explain

9 that. For those who don’t know, but probably

10 everybody does, the police department has

11 jurisdiction over the City of Santa Barbara?

12 A. Within the city limits, correct.

13 Q. Within the city limits in the South County?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. Okay. The sheriff’s department has

16 jurisdiction over the entire county, but primarily

17 the incorporated areas; is that correct?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. And I guess by contract, some of the

20 unincorporated areas like Buellton, Solvang, so on?

21 A. A few of them, yes.

22 Q. Okay. So the first call we believe is to

23 the police department, right?

24 A. It’s my guess, based on the number.

25 Q. Okay. So I’m going to put a little

26 shield-looking thing there that says “SBPD,” and I’m

27 going to show you this in a minute.

28 The next two calls are made to what number? 8418

1 A. (805) 683-2724.

2 Q. What number is that?

3 A. I don’t know.

4 Q. Is that the sheriff’s department, by any

5 chance?

6 A. It’s not a number I recognize as being the

7 sheriff’s department.

8 Q. All right. So you don’t know that number at

9 this point?

10 A. No.

11 Q. So I’m going to just write “2724” on there.

12 I won’t put the whole number down. And then we’ll

13 deal with that later.

14 May I approach the witness, Your Honor?

15 THE COURT: Yes.

16 Q. BY MR. SANGER: I’m just going to ask you to

17 take a look at that.

18 THE COURT: State the exhibit number.

19 MR. SANGER: Yes, I’m sorry.

20 THE WITNESS: 5012. And it appears to be an

21 accurate representation.

22 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

23 MR. NICOLA: May I see that?

24 MR. SANGER: Oh, yeah.

25 MR. NICOLA: Thank you.

26 MR. SANGER: I’d move 5012 in.

27 THE COURT: It’s admitted.

28 MR. SANGER: Thank you. May I publish it? 8419

1 THE COURT: Yes.

2 MR. SANGER: By now everybody’s got it, all

3 right?

4 Q. So we have — on 2-11, we’ve got three calls

5 from Jay Jackson to numbers in Santa Barbara. One

6 is the Santa Barbara police, we believe, and the

7 other is a number ending in 2724?

8 A. That’s correct.

9 Q. Okay. Thank you.

10 All right. I’d like you to go to Exhibit

11 451, Tab No. 5.

12 And, Your Honor, I’m going to follow the

13 same procedure, with the Court’s permission, with

14 one variation. Rather than doing a separate page

15 for a number of days, one separate page for each day

16 over a number of days, I will do one page for a

17 series of phone calls over a series of days.

18 THE COURT: All right.

19 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

20 Q. I’m going to ask you to look at the — under

21 No. 5, tell me whose phone records those are.

22 A. These are the phone records for David

23 Ventura, Janet Arvizo’s parents.

24 Q. Now, you did not do all of the summary

25 charts in this case. I think we’ve established

26 that.

27 A. Correct.

28 Q. Would you agree that the last summary chart 8420

1 that was prepared and submitted, although you

2 haven’t testified to it – somebody else will – will

3 be Exhibit 882?

4 A. That’s correct.

5 Q. And so the last summary chart, then, was for

6 March the 12th of 2003?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. And what was the significance of the date

9 March the 12th, 2003?

10 A. The 12th was the day we believed the Arvizo

11 family left Neverland Ranch.

12 Q. All right. Now — may I approach just to

13 make sure we have the same pages here?

14 THE COURT: Yes.

15 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

16 Q. We’re looking at Exhibit — I shouldn’t talk

17 up here, so excuse me. I just want you to look at

18 these pages here.

19 A. 8-1.

20 Q. And dash 2.

21 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, if I may speak

22 loudly just briefly so I can get oriented.

23 THE COURT: All right.

24 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

25 Q. On these, I believe you have to look at the

26 date of the bill and then reference the page

27 numbers. Do you want to —

28 A. I just got to find it. 8421

1 Q. Okay. Excuse me one second.

2 A. Okay. I have them all.

3 Q. Why don’t you put a post-it sign on each one

4 of those that you just found.

5 All right. Now, Exhibit 882, the reason I

6 put post-its there, I need to flip back and forth a

7 little bit. So look at Exhibit 882, first of all,

8 8-8-2. 882, that’s the exhibit number. Sorry to

9 say it three times.

10 That’s a summary chart for 3-12-03, correct?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. On that summary chart – I realize you did

13 not prepare it, and I’m not going to go into any

14 detail except to ask, do any of the phone calls to

15 Buellton or Guadalupe that are shown on Exhibit 451,

16 Tab 5, the page that says March 26th, 8-1 — 8-1

17 of 9, that’s the first half — the first post-it.

18 Are any of those phone calls shown on that summary

19 chart?

20 A. Do you mean the calls from the —

21 Q. The David Ventura telephone to Buellton and

22 Guadalupe on the 12th.

23 A. On 2-12?

24 No, they’re not.

25 MR. SANGER: All right. Now, Your Honor,

26 may I put up that page of Exhibit 451-5, and it’s

27 the March 26th, 8-1 of 9.

28 THE COURT: Yes. 8422

1 MR. SANGER: And I did this before, Your

2 Honor, and I apologize. And I apologize, there’s

3 some little pen marks there that should be ignored.

4 They’re not on the original exhibit.

5 Q. But I’d like to direct your attention to the

6 telephone calls here to — on March the 12th. It’s

7 Line No. 4, March the 12th, 5:08 p.m. to Buellton.

8 Do you see that?

9 A. I do.

10 Q. About a four-minute call?

11 A. Four-minute call, correct.

12 Q. And March the 12th, a 7:02 call to Buellton,

13 a one-minute call, correct?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. And March the 12th at 11:25 p.m. to

16 Guadalupe, 35-minute call?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. All right. Now, I’m going to put at the top

19 of this page — there’s an overlap, because you

20 already have a 3-12 exhibit, but I’m going to

21 overlap and it’s going to be 03-12-03 to 03-21-03.

22 And then we’re going to start with the telephone

23 number that this comes from, and I’m going to risk

24 drawing another telephone here.

25 And whose phone do all of these calls come

26 from on those three pages that I’ve asked you to

27 look at on page Exhibit 451, Tab 5?

28 A. David Ventura. 8423

1 Q. I’m going to write “David Ventura. And

2 based on your investigation, by 3-12-03, you

3 believed that the children, as well as Janet Arvizo,

4 had left the ranch; is that correct?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. And they went to David Ventura’s house; is

7 that correct?

8 A. I’m not certain where they went, but I do

9 know they left.

10 Q. All right. Now, I’m just going to look at

11 the phone number that ends in 5002, which is shown

12 here on line 6, all right? It says “Guadalupe,”

13 line 6, 5002, okay?

14 Did you determine whose telephone that was?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Okay. I’ll put a phone there, and I’m going

17 to write the last digits of the number, “5002,” and

18 I’ll put “in Guadalupe.”

19 All right. Now what we’ll do is, we’ll

20 start here with what we have, and I’m going to put

21 arrows for these various phone calls from the David

22 Ventura telephone to the 5002 phone in Guadalupe.

23 And I’m going to put the date and time on each call,

24 because this chart is going to span several days.

25 So when’s the first call to Guadalupe?

26 A. The first call to Guadalupe was at 11:25

27 p.m.

28 Q. So I’ll put — it was on 3-12-03, correct? 8424

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. 11:25 p.m. All right. When’s the next call

3 to Guadalupe? I think if you look at the page

4 that’s on the screen there.

5 A. March 13th, 8:45 p.m.

6 Q. And while we’re at it, I’m going to put down

7 the duration here. So the first call was a duration

8 of 35 minutes; is that correct?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. The second call?

11 A. 64 minutes.

12 Q. 64 minutes. Okay. Now, I’m going to — are

13 there any other calls to Guadalupe on that page?

14 A. No.

15 Q. All right. With the Court’s permission,

16 I’ll go to the next page, 451, Tab 5. What’s the

17 next call to Guadalupe?

18 A. March 14th, 8:12 p.m.

19 Q. How many minutes?

20 A. One minute.

21 Q. The next call?

22 A. March 16th?

23 Q. Yes.

24 A. 26 minutes.

25 Q. What time was that?

26 A. 12:01 a.m.

27 Q. 12:01 a.m. So one minute after midnight?

28 A. Correct. 8425

1 Q. And how many minutes? I’m sorry.

2 A. 26 minutes.

3 Q. Okay. Next?

4 A. March 16th, 10:14 p.m., six minutes.

5 Q. Next call?

6 A. March 17th, 7 — 6:28 p.m., one minute.

7 Q. Next call?

8 A. March 17th, 8:51 p.m., one minute.

9 Q. Yes. Next one?

10 A. March 17th, 8:57 p.m., one minute.

11 Q. And again, when you say one-minute calls,

12 they could be less than that?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. Somebody picks it up and they say, “He’s not

15 here.”

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. Next call?

18 A. March 18th, 3:26 p.m., 22 minutes.

19 Q. Okay.

20 A. March 18th, 9:29 p.m., 26 minutes.

21 Q. 26 minutes.

22 All right. And then I’ll put up the last

23 page from — or the third page I identified from

24 Exhibit 451, Tab 5, and ask if that shows additional

25 calls and times.

26 A. It does.

27 Q. And if you’d go ahead, and we’ll continue to

28 add them here. 8426

1 A. 3-19, 1910, or 7:10 p.m., 36 minutes.

2 Q. Okay. Go ahead.

3 A. 3-19, 8:01 p.m., 17 minutes.

4 Q. Yes.

5 A. 3-19, 10:50 p.m., three minutes.

6 Q. Okay.

7 A. 3-20, 2:57 p.m., three minutes.

8 Q. Yes.

9 A. 3-20, 7:52 p.m., three minutes.

10 Q. Okay.

11 A. 3-20, 7:55 p.m., 20 minutes.

12 Q. So it looks like 7:52, there was a hang-up

13 and then a call back pretty much right away; is that

14 right?

15 A. Appears to be the case.

16 Q. And that last one was 20 minutes; is that

17 right?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. Okay.

20 A. And finally, 3-21, 9:37 p.m., one minute.

21 MR. SANGER: All right. May I approach the

22 witness —

23 THE COURT: Yes.

24 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Ask you to take a look at

25 this and see if that’s —

26 THE COURT: Give us the exhibit number.

27 MR. SANGER: Yes, I’m sorry, that’s Exhibit

28 No. 5013. 8427

1 THE WITNESS: It appears to be correct.

2 MR. SANGER: All right. May I retrieve the

3 exhibit?

4 THE COURT: Yes.

5 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

6 And I would move into evidence 5013 and ask

7 to publish it.

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

9 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

10 Q. All right. We won’t go over all this again,

11 but this is a summary of what you just testified to,

12 correct?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. All right. Now, we talked about that phone

15 number and — well, it ends in 5002. We don’t have

16 to say the whole number again here. Do you know if

17 anybody — as one of the detectives in the case, do

18 you know if anybody made an effort to find out whose

19 number that was?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Do you know if the defense turned over

22 information to the prosecution indicating whose

23 number that was?

24 A. I don’t know, no.

25 Q. Do you know if anybody tried to find a

26 number for a Mr. Vivanco?

27 A. I have — somebody has asked me to go in —

28 we went in and researched our record and found no 8428

1 record other than a Santa Maria number for him.

2 Q. You found a number for Mr. Vivanco?

3 A. Yes, but he gave our sheriff’s detectives,

4 when we served a search warrant in November of 2003,

5 he gave a Santa Maria number.

6 Q. And you — did you go along and interview

7 him at that time?

8 A. I didn’t interview him. I was at Neverland,

9 but that was the phone number that was given to the

10 detective who put it onto his report.

11 Q. Okay. So you checked that phone number from

12 November and it’s a different number than this

13 number; is that correct?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. Have you subsequently learned, from

16 information turned over from the defense, that there

17 is some relationship between Mr. Vivanco and that

18 number?

19 A. No. I —

20 MR. NICOLA: Objection, Your Honor. Asked

21 and answered.

22 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer was,

23 “No.” Next question.

24 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Have you done anything to

25 follow up on that, to your knowledge? And by “you,”

26 I mean your department.

27 MR. NICOLA: Objection, Your Honor, it calls

28 for speculation. And it’s asked and answered. It’s 8429

1 beyond the scope.

2 THE COURT: Overruled.

3 You may answer.

4 THE WITNESS: Again, I have not personally

5 had anything to do with attempting to find out what

6 that number comes back to. I was asked to research

7 Vivanco to find out what number he gave to us and

8 that’s what I did.

9 MR. SANGER: Okay. All right. I’ll take

10 that down now, Your Honor.

11 Q. All right. I want to go through just a few

12 of your summary charts here and try to do it in a

13 way that is representative, rather than going

14 through every single thing.

15 First of all, in your analysis of the phone

16 records, you determined that there are a lot of

17 telephone calls that are placed to phone numbers

18 associated with Evvy Tavasci; is that correct?

19 A. That’s correct.

20 Q. And you understand that Evvy Tavasci works

21 for MJJ Productions; is that right?

22 A. That’s correct.

23 Q. And she’s also responsible for securing

24 phones for a number of people; is that right?

25 A. Correct.

26 Q. She also has other people who assist her in

27 the office; is that your understanding?

28 A. One other person that I know of, yes. 8430

1 Q. Okay. And is it also your understanding

2 that Miss Tavasci tends to be the person that people

3 go to at MJJ Productions to obtain information, make

4 reservations, all that sort of thing?

5 A. I know that she is the administrative

6 assistant, but I think that’s what she does, based

7 on what she’s described to us.

8 Q. Okay. The District Attorney several times

9 referred to her as Mr. Jackson’s personal assistant.

10 Did you hear that?

11 A. I did.

12 Q. Okay. And in addition to that, she fulfills

13 the function of facilitating the purchase of

14 supplies, tickets, travel arrangements, all sorts of

15 things; is that right?

16 A. I would believe that to be the case.

17 Q. Okay. So she’s not just doing this for Mr.

18 Jackson. She is working for — or she is providing

19 these services to anybody associated with MJJ

20 Productions who needs to have such things; is that

21 right?

22 MR. NICOLA: I’ll object. Lack of

23 foundation. Compound.

24 THE COURT: Sustained.

25 MR. SANGER: On compound or lack of

26 foundation?

27 THE COURT: Lack of foundation.

28 MR. SANGER: Okay. 8431

1 Q. Based on your investigation, did you

2 determine what her duties were, what Evvy Tavasci’s

3 duties were?

4 MR. NICOLA: Objection. Relevance at this

5 point.

6 THE COURT: Overruled.

7 THE WITNESS: Based on the investigation, I

8 think we’ve seen a few different things that, in

9 addition to coordinating for Mr. Jackson’s personal

10 calendar, that she also is a coordinator for travel

11 arrangements for various other subjects.

12 Q. BY MR. SANGER: All right. Now, the summary

13 charts in general show that there’s a bunch of

14 people, or at least their telephones, talking to

15 each other here during a period of time. That’s

16 pretty much what you’re showing, right?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. You’re aware that a number of these people

19 were involved in putting together rebuttal videos,

20 correct?

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. Based on your investigation, there was the

23 first rebuttal video, the actual one that was aired,

24 that was hosted by Maury Povich; is that right?

25 A. Correct.

26 Q. And then there was a second one called,

27 “Michael Jackson Home Movies”; is that right?

28 A. I don’t know if that was a rebuttal, but I 8432

1 do remember that we have a video of that.

2 Q. All right. During the period of time that

3 Mr. Schaffel was involved, based on your review of

4 the records and as a lead detective in this case,

5 you were aware that he was working on doing a

6 three-television-show package surrounding Mr.

7 Jackson at this period of time; is that right?

8 MR. NICOLA: Objection, Your Honor.

9 Relevance to this testimony. Beyond the scope.

10 THE COURT: Sustained.

11 Q. BY MR. SANGER: All right. I’d like to go

12 to February the 7th and I would like to — I’m not

13 sure I have the absolute latest chart on each one of

14 these. I’m not saying it wasn’t given to me this

15 morning, but I’m not sure that I have the latest on

16 each one. So I’d like you to look at that and then

17 I’m going to take it away from you and put it on the

18 board, if I may.

19 May I approach for that purpose?

20 THE COURT: Yes.

21 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

22 THE WITNESS: Do you need the Excel sheets

23 also?

24 MR. SANGER: I’ll leave those with you.

25 I’ll just take this. Thank you.

26 Q. So this is the first page of 861, which is

27 the summary, and I’m putting that up on the board.

28 And again, I’m not going to go through all 8433

1 of these. I’ve skipped there. I’m going to skip a

2 few more places and then we’ll be done. But just of

3 interest, you had — there you go — you had

4 commented on these telephone calls that are in the

5 upper right-hand corner?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. Now, you do not have directions on your

8 lines. You don’t have arrows. You just have lines.

9 A. No.

10 Q. Hence, we were talking about whether it was

11 placed to or placed from a different number,

12 correct?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. You also — well, we’re going to have to use

15 this as — you also have some lines that go from one

16 place in a straight line down to another place.

17 This does not suggest that these are pass-through

18 calls or three-way calls or anything like that,

19 correct?

20 A. No, they do not.

21 Q. It’s just a chart that shows these phone

22 calls went there, and that phone was used to make

23 some other phone calls, right?

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. So the connections are — the important

26 connections in the chart are really just between one

27 phone and another, correct?

28 A. That’s correct. 8434

1 Q. All right. So let’s go back up to this

2 corner here where we’re at. And all of these calls,

3 there are 16 phone calls from the Gavin Franklin

4 rooms at the Turnberry — I’m sorry, let me

5 withdraw.

6 There are 13 phone calls from the Gavin

7 Franklin room at the Turnberry to Jay Jackson, or

8 Jay Jackson’s phone, and the grandparents’ phone or

9 Janet’s parents’ phone, right?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. All of those calls were made on Mr.

12 Jackson’s nickel, right?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. Okay. So in other words, they’re charged to

15 the room. There is also three phone calls from the

16 Xtra Jet flying up in the air to the Ventura

17 telephone number, correct?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. And once again, all of these phone calls

20 were placed to those two phones. There were no

21 calls that were made back to either the Turnberry or

22 to the Xtra Jet?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. And when we say “Turnberry,” if there were,

25 they would show up over here, correct, to the resort

26 main number?

27 A. Correct.

28 Q. So there are no phone calls from either the 8435

1 David Ventura phone or the Jay Jackson phone to the

2 Turnberry Hotel itself at all, to any phone number

3 there, correct?

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. Okay. Let me skip ahead here, and we’ll go

6 to 864.

7 May I approach to exchange documents?

8 THE COURT: Yes.

9 MR. SANGER: Let me give you 861.

10 Okay. Thank you.

11 May I put 864 up?

12 THE COURT: Yes.

13 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

14 Q. Again, we’ll just take a representative

15 instance here to talk about them, and rather than

16 going through all the phone calls. Looking at the

17 calls between Ann Kite and Geragos & Geragos, there

18 are four calls there, right?

19 A. That’s correct.

20 Q. Two of the calls were one minute long; is

21 that right?

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. Three of the calls — I may be wrong —

24 three of the calls were placed in the same minute;

25 isn’t that right?

26 A. Correct.

27 Q. So to add to Mr. Nicola’s conspiracy theory

28 with the phone company, they managed to charge for 8436

1 three minutes, all of the calls made in the very

2 same minute, right?

3 A. That’s correct.

4 Q. All right. That doesn’t mean that Ann Kite

5 actually talked to a lawyer at Geragos & Geragos

6 four times?

7 A. No. Two times.

8 Q. It strongly suggests that, at most, there

9 was — there was one or two phone calls that might

10 have gotten through to somebody; is that true?

11 A. Probably two that were conversations.

12 Q. Okay. All right. I’m going to skip ahead

13 to Exhibit 866.

14 And may I do the same thing, approach and

15 exchange here?

16 THE COURT: Yes.

17 MR. SANGER: May I put 866 up?

18 THE COURT: Yes.

19 Q. BY MR. SANGER: All right. Now, this is for

20 February the 15th, and this is the second time that

21 Rudy Provencio’s phone number shows up; is that

22 correct?

23 A. I believe so.

24 Q. All right. So for Rudy Provencio we had

25 oneth — “oneth,” sorry. Let me try it again.

26 For Rudy Provencio, we had one call on

27 February 8th, and then another call on February

28 15th? 8437

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. All right. I’d like to direct your

3 attention now to the phone calls here. We have Jay

4 Jackson and Frank Cascio. There are 18 calls. I’m

5 sorry — well, I’m not sure.

6 You have 14, and I have I guess an earlier

7 version that says 18. How many calls were there

8 between Frank Cascio and Jay Jackson’s phone, Frank

9 Cascio’s phone and Jay Jackson’s phone?

10 A. 14.

11 Q. Okay. Of those 14 calls, how many calls

12 were placed from Jay Jackson, Jay Jackson’s phone to

13 Frank Cascio’s phone?

14 A. Eight of the calls.

15 Q. I’m sorry, eight?

16 A. Eight.

17 Q. And of the five phone calls from the Ventura

18 phone, how many phone calls were made from the

19 Ventura phone to the Cascio phone?

20 A. There was one call from the Ventura phone to

21 the Cascio phone.

22 Q. And so one of the five, somebody in the

23 Ventura residence called Frank Cascio’s phone,

24 right?

25 A. Correct.

26 Q. And that call lasted for eight minutes and

27 22 seconds; is that correct?

28 A. Correct. 8438

1 MR. SANGER: All right. May I approach

2 again, Your Honor, just to compare a page?

3 THE COURT: Yes.

4 MR. SANGER: Now, Detective — oh, excuse me

5 one second.

6 THE COURT: Counsel, it’s necessary to break

7 early. We’ll take our break early.

8 (Recess taken.)

9 THE COURT: Go ahead.

10 MR. SANGER: May I proceed?

11 Q. All right. Just for reference, we have

12 Exhibit 866 —

13 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Microphone, sir.

14 MR. SANGER: Oops.

15 Q. Just for reference, we have Exhibit 866 up

16 on the board, which is where it was when we took our

17 break. And we were talking about the 14 telephone

18 calls between the Cascio phone and the Jay Jackson

19 residence phone, correct?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. And you had told us that in your summary you

22 had identified eight of those 14 calls as being

23 placed by Jay Jackson’s phone or from Jay Jackson’s

24 phone to the Cascio phone, correct?

25 A. Correct.

26 MR. SANGER: All right. Now, with the

27 Court’s permission, I’ll put up the last page of

28 866, which is actually marked 3 of 3, but it’s the 8439

1 fourth page, because that’s the first page.

2 THE COURT: All right.

3 MR. SANGER: That’s a little crooked there.

4 Sorry.

5 Q. Okay. And on your summary page you

6 summarized the phone records by putting this into a

7 spreadsheet computer program, correct?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. And you have the eight phone calls here from

10 the phone at Jay Jackson’s house to the Frank Cascio

11 telephone, correct?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. And these eight phone calls, all on the

14 15th, right? They’re all on the 15th? That was the

15 question. Sorry.

16 A. That’s correct.

17 Q. And that would have been the day before the

18 Brad Miller interview; is that correct?

19 A. I believe so, yes.

20 Q. And these particular eight phone calls all

21 last a number of minutes; is that correct?

22 A. With the exception of the third to the last

23 one, which was less than one minute. I’m sorry.

24 And the three up from that is also less than one

25 minute. You have one for 47 seconds, and one for 57

26 seconds.

27 Q. Yes, absolutely. Actually, sorry, I was

28 looking at the wrong column. 8440

1 Okay. So let me point here. All right?

2 Let’s just go through very quickly, and we’ll just

3 round it off. We’ve got a six-and-a-half-minute

4 call; a three-and-a-half-minute call; a call that’s

5 three seconds short of a minute; eight seconds over

6 a minute; a minute and a half; 47 seconds; four

7 minutes and 15 seconds; two minutes and six seconds,

8 correct?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. And we also see that these telephone calls

11 were placed from 10 — that’s 10:17 in the morning

12 to 8:48 at night; is that correct?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. And then you also have the call that was

15 placed to Mr. Cascio’s phone from the Venturas’

16 residence. That was at 8:22 in the morning, and

17 that lasted for two minutes, correct?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. So basically you have more calls being made

20 from these phone numbers to Mr. Cascio’s phone than

21 you do from Mr. Cascio’s phone to these two numbers?

22 A. That’s correct.

23 Q. Looks like somebody was trying to get ahold

24 of Mr. Cascio and talk to him, or somebody at Mr.

25 Cascio’s phone, correct?

26 A. I don’t know that I can say what they were

27 trying to do, but I can say that they were calling

28 numerous times. 8441

1 Q. All right. Now, we have the — we have

2 these eight phone calls you just talked about. And

3 I’m going to put up — let me take off that page,

4 which is 866, and I’ll put it back together with the

5 exhibit and I’ll deliver that up to you in just a

6 moment.

7 Your Honor, with the Court’s permission, I’m

8 going to put up Exhibit 458. And this would be

9 page 2 of 458.

10 THE COURT: All right.

11 MR. SANGER: Is that going to work? Excuse

12 me one second. Can I borrow your stapler?

13 It’s on this podium here and kind of

14 bubbling up. See if that makes it any better. I

15 don’t know if that makes it better or worse. It

16 doesn’t, all right.

17 Q. The point of this is — I showed you this at

18 the break; is that correct?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. And you counted there are actually 12 phone

21 calls to the phone number of — associated with Mr.

22 Cascio from Mr. Jackson’s telephone; is that

23 correct?

24 A. 12 attempts or phone calls, yes.

25 Q. All right. And in essence, you eliminated

26 four of those and you only showed eight — I’m

27 sorry, Major Jackson, Jay Jackson’s telephone. When

28 we’re talking about Jackson here, we’re talking 8442

1 about Jay Jackson.

2 A. Understood.

3 Q. Okay. Make sure there’s no question.

4 And in fact, this Exhibit 458 is an exhibit

5 from the phone records of Major Jay Jackson,

6 correct?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. All right. And your understanding is this

9 was a land-based phone in his house?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Okay. So back to our story, it’s very hard

12 to read there because of the glassine envelope, but

13 it’s 2-15, February 15th. Those are all February

14 15th calls and there are 12 of them, correct?

15 A. There are 12 calls or attempts to call,

16 correct.

17 Q. And you did not include some of these in

18 your summary charts because you felt that they were

19 too short?

20 A. Yes, there were several of them that were

21 two, three seconds and less — and the other two

22 that were less than 30 seconds.

23 Q. So there are a couple that are just a couple

24 of seconds. And I can’t read it from here, but

25 there was one 15 seconds, I think.

26 Anyway, your criteria was if they broke it

27 down, if they broke it down into seconds less than a

28 minute, you would eliminate anything under 30 8443

1 seconds, correct?

2 A. We did that with all records, correct.

3 Q. All right. But if they didn’t break it down

4 and they said one minute, then you would record it?

5 A. We have no other way of doing it, correct.

6 Q. So using those criteria you eliminated four

7 of these calls, right?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. But nevertheless — as an evidentiary or as

10 a matter of your investigation, nevertheless, it

11 does show that somebody from Jay Jackson’s phone was

12 at least dialing the number for Mr. Cascio’s phone;

13 is that correct?

14 A. That is correct.

15 Q. And it was dialed a total of 12 times from

16 Jay Jackson’s phone and one time from David

17 Ventura’s phone, right?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. And more calls were dialed — in fact, more

20 calls were completed to the Cascio phone than were

21 made from the Cascio phone to those phones; is that

22 correct?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. So you would agree that for the purpose of

25 getting down to the actual facts here, the original

26 exhibits being the exhibits of the actual phone

27 records, are going to be more detailed and more

28 reliable than the summary charts; is that correct? 8444

1 A. More detailed —

2 MR. NICOLA: I’m going to object. That’s

3 argumentative, Your Honor.

4 MR. SANGER: Let’s start with more detailed.

5 MR. NICOLA: They’re different records.

6 MR. SANGER: Let me withdraw it so it’s not

7 compound.

8 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.

9 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Would you agree that there

10 would be more detail in the actual records than

11 shows up in the summary charts?

12 A. Correct. Yes.

13 Q. And you identified at least one chart where

14 the — there was actually an error, correct?

15 A. Correct. 3-9.

16 Q. Okay. And 879?

17 And may I approach? And I’ll exchange 866.

18 I don’t want to leave these things out of the book,

19 so if I may —

20 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.

21 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you. Oops. Yes.

22 879, that’s right.

23 I think it was offered. I think this was

24 received, 879? It was — it was shown and I think

25 it was found to be in error, but I’d like to put it

26 up.

27 THE COURT: It’s in evidence, I think. The

28 error was found later. 8445

1 MR. SANGER: Okay. May I put it up?

2 THE COURT: Yes.

3 Q. BY MR. SANGER: And the error on 879 is that

4 there were not 12 calls between a phone associated

5 with Evvy Tavasci and Marc Schaffel, but instead,

6 between Evvy Tavasci’s phone and Neverland Ranch,

7 correct?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. And you — based on your review of the

10 records, you would expect, in the ordinary course of

11 business, that Evvy Tavasci’s phones would be in

12 contact with Neverland Ranch, right?

13 A. At minimum, occasionally, yes.

14 Q. And you understood that Miko Brando,

15 although he’s the son of Marlon Brando, was an

16 employee of MJJ Productions, correct?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. And he’s one of the longer-term employees.

19 He’s been there a number of years; is that right?

20 A. I don’t know.

21 MR. SANGER: May I have just a moment, Your

22 Honor, please?

23 THE COURT: Yes.

24 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

25 All right. We can take this down. And may

26 I approach to return it?

27 THE COURT: Yes.

28 MR. SANGER: And I have no further 8446

1 questions.

2 MR. NICOLA: May I have that exhibit again,

3 please? And 879, please.

4

5 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

6 BY MR. NICOLA:

7 Q. Detective Bonner, during the break, did you

8 make a correction to another copy of Exhibit 879,

9 which is the chart for March 9th of 2003?

10 A. I did.

11 MR. SANGER: Do you have a copy for me, or —

12 MR. NICOLA: I don’t.

13 MR. SANGER: Okay. That’s fine.

14 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: I’d like to put the 879 on

15 the board that we’ve already moved into evidence.

16 And I’d like to show you Exhibit No. 883 and ask if

17 this is your corrected exhibit.

18 A. It is.

19 Q. Using the original 879, could you just point

20 out for the jury what — what the difference is?

21 And then we’ll show 883 in a moment.

22 A. I recognize that the mistake that was made

23 is that on Marc Schaffel, the records say “Neverland

24 Valley Entertainment,” and what we did is we

25 accidentally made a mix-up between Neverland Valley

26 Ranch and Neverland Valley Entertainment, so I have

27 relabeled “Neverland Valley Entertainment –

28 Schaffel” into “Neverland Valley Ranch,” and 8447

1 “Neverland Valley Ranch” into “Marc Schaffel – NVE.”

2 And this connection has gone from here to here and

3 we have erased or removed this connection right

4 here.

5 Q. You did that yourself?

6 A. I did.

7 Q. Okay. And is that depicted on Exhibit 883?

8 A. It is.

9 MR. NICOLA: We’d offer that into evidence

10 at this time, Your Honor.

11 MR. SANGER: No objection, but I’d ask,

12 since nobody has a copy of it, if we might be

13 allowed to have a copy, if the clerk can make one,

14 if that would be possible.

15 THE COURT: That’s fine. I’ll admit it.

16 The clerk will give you a copy.

17 MR. NICOLA: Thank you, Your Honor.

18 And with the Court’s permission, I’d just

19 publish it just briefly.

20 THE COURT: Go ahead.

21 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Okay. These are the changes

22 that you were talking about, Detective Bonner?

23 A. That’s correct. The switch of the name

24 here, and here, and then removing this connection

25 and making it go from here to here.

26 Q. Okay. Mr. Sanger was asking you about

27 dropping phone calls from your analysis that lasted

28 roughly 30 seconds or less. In particular with Jay 8448

1 Jackson’s phone records found in Exhibit 458, did

2 you follow that procedure for dropping numbers that

3 were in the 30-second range and less for everybody?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. So everyone who had seconds in their cell

6 phone records, you would drop those calls?

7 A. Correct.

8 MR. SANGER: Objection. Asked and answered

9 and actually misstates the testimony.

10 THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.

11 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Did you drop calls that were

12 30 seconds or less on Frank Cascio’s records?

13 A. Yes, we did.

14 Q. And Vinnie Amen’s records?

15 A. I don’t believe Vinnie Amen had any seconds

16 on his.

17 Q. Just the ones that were billed in seconds

18 that you could locate?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. Let me ask you about the minutes.

21 Specifically with respect to Exhibit 451, that’s the

22 exhibit that Mr. Sanger —

23 May I have your exhibit, please?

24 MR. SANGER: The ones we did?

25 MR. NICOLA: Uh-huh.

26 MR. SANGER: I gave them back to the clerk.

27 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Specifically with respect to

28 Exhibit No. 5011, now you testified under 8449

1 cross-examination that the call at 6:11 lasted four

2 minutes and the call at 6:14 also lasted four

3 minutes. And is it your understanding that a

4 four-minute call on those records can be anywhere

5 between three and four minutes?

6 A. Correct.

7 MR. NICOLA: Okay. I have no further

8 questions, Judge.

9 RECROSS-EXAMINATION

10 BY MR. SANGER:

11 Q. You talked about getting Neverland Valley

12 Entertainment confused with Neverland Ranch.

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. And Neverland Valley Entertainment was a

15 separate entity, correct?

16 A. Yes, it is.

17 Q. And it seemed to have been run by Marc

18 Schaffel; is that correct?

19 A. Correct. Records came back to his home

20 address.

21 Q. And did it appear to you that Marc Schaffel

22 was attempting to use a similar name for the purpose

23 of suggesting that he was part of Mr. Jackson’s

24 business enterprise?

25 MR. NICOLA: Objection, Your Honor. Calls

26 for speculation. Beyond the scope of redirect.

27 THE COURT: Sustained.

28 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you. No further 8450

1 questions, Your Honor.

2 MR. NICOLA: No questions.

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

4 step down.

5 Call your next witness.

6 MR. NICOLA: We call Detective Paul Zelis,

7 Your Honor.

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

9 under oath.

10 DETECTIVE ZELIS: Thank you.

11

12 PAUL ZELIS

13 Having been previously sworn, resumed the

14 stand and testified further as follows:

15

16 DIRECT EXAMINATION

17 BY MR. NICOLA:

18 Q. Good afternoon.

19 A. Good afternoon.

20 Q. Detective Zelis, did you participate with

21 the team analyzing certain phone records for certain

22 dates arising out of the records which were seized

23 in this case?

24 A. Yes, I did.

25 Q. And to that end, did you examine the records

26 pertaining to these following days: February 17th

27 of 2003, February 18th of 2003, February 19th of

28 2003, March 10th of 2003, March 11th, and March 12th 8451

1 of 2003?

2 A. Yes, I did.

3 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the phone

4 records to the left of me, sitting on the end of

5 counsel table? The other left.

6 A. Oh, I’m sorry. Yes, I am.

7 Q. Did you actually receive copies of all that

8 and go through and —

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. I’d like to begin with the date of February

11 17th of 2003, and ask if you’d turn to the exhibit

12 corresponding to that in the exhibit binder.

13 A. Okay.

14 Q. Is that Exhibit 868?

15 A. Yes, it is.

16 Q. And have you gone over the contents of both

17 the link chart on the front page and the supporting

18 documents behind it?

19 A. Yes, I have.

20 Q. And did you participate in creating both of

21 those documents in 868?

22 A. I did.

23 Q. And to your knowledge, do the contents of

24 868 accurately reflect your analysis of the phone

25 calls conducted on 2-17 of ‘03?

26 A. Yes, they do.

27 MR. NICOLA: Your Honor, we’d offer 868 into

28 evidence. 8452

1 MR. SANGER: No objection.

2 THE COURT: It’s admitted.

3 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Detective Zelis, if you

4 would just save us a step and go to Exhibit 869 and

5 870, I’d ask if 869 corresponds to February 18th.

6 A. Yes, it does.

7 Q. And if 870 corresponds to February 19th of

8 2003.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Do both of those exhibits accurately reflect

11 your analysis of the phone calls on those particular

12 days?

13 A. Yes, they do.

14 MR. NICOLA: We’d offer 869 and 870 into

15 evidence at this time.

16 THE COURT: Admitted.

17 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: If you could turn to Exhibit

18 No. 880.

19 A. Okay.

20 Q. IS that one of your exhibits?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Okay. And what’s the date on that?

23 A. March 10th of 2003.

24 Q. And how about 882?

25 A. Yes, that reflects March 12th of 2003.

26 Q. And right in the middle is 881, right?

27 A. Correct.

28 Q. Does the information contained in Exhibit 8453

1 880, 881 and 882 accurately reflect the analysis

2 that you conducted on March 10th for the phone

3 calls — excuse me, for March 10th, March 11th and

4 March 12th of 2003?

5 A. Yes, they do.

6 MR. NICOLA: We’d offer those into evidence

7 at this time, Your Honor.

8 THE COURT: Admitted.

9 MR. SANGER: No objection.

10 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Detective Zelis, if you

11 could please turn back to Exhibit No. 868, we’ll

12 start with February 17th of 2003.

13 If I may have “Input 4,” Your Honor.

14 Is this Exhibit 868 that is in the book?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. If you could please describe the contents

17 for the jury, please.

18 A. It is a visual graph that shows the calls

19 between different parties on the date of February

20 17th, 2003.

21 Q. Could you be more specific and point to the

22 sections with your laser and tell the jury what

23 you’re trying to convey with that exhibit?

24 A. This exhibit basically shows different

25 parties involved, the number of calls between the

26 two telephone numbers and how they are connected.

27 Q. Starting in the upper left-hand portion, you

28 have a phone symbol, which we understand is 8454

1 connected to a Christopher Carter?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. That’s how these charts work, right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And you show 12 links between phones

6 belonging to Mr. Carter and Mr. Jay Jackson?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. Can you tell us when those phone calls first

9 began and who placed them?

10 A. I’d have to refer to the Excel spreadsheet.

11 Q. Go ahead. It’s attached, right?

12 A. Yes.

13 They began just shortly before ten o’clock

14 at night. It shows 2151 hours, which is military

15 for 9:51.

16 Q. And in which direction were those calls

17 going?

18 A. All 12 calls were in the direction of Chris

19 Carter to Jay Jackson.

20 Q. Were any of those 12 calls longer than one

21 minute?

22 A. No, they show that all of them were exactly

23 one minute long.

24 Q. And did they occur at a fairly regular

25 interval?

26 A. The 12 calls are approximately 10 to 15

27 minutes apart.

28 Q. After the first four calls and at 2224 in 8455

1 the evening, was there a phone call placed from the

2 Carter phone to Neverland Valley Ranch?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And how long did that call last?

5 A. Four minutes.

6 Q. Was there another call immediately

7 thereafter to Neverland Valley Ranch from the Chris

8 Carter phone?

9 A. Yes. At 2228.

10 Q. After that phone call to Neverland Valley

11 Ranch, did the calls from the Chris Carter phone to

12 the Jay Jackson phone continue?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And did they continue at the same interval

15 of frequency, approximately 10, 15 minutes apart?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And were any of those calls longer than one

18 minute?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Of the four phone calls between Marc

21 Schaffel and Rudy Provencio, can you tell us how

22 many were going in which direction, please?

23 A. It shows the direction is Rudy Provencio to

24 Marc Schaffel.

25 Q. All four calls?

26 A. Correct.

27 Q. And the calls between Frank Cascio and

28 Vincent Amen, it appears there were seven of them. 8456

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Were they in a predominantly one-sided

3 direction or were they mixed?

4 A. Predominantly in one direction. The

5 records — or the record source is from T-Mobile,

6 which belongs to Mr. Amen, and it shows five of the

7 calls being incoming. Five of the seven, I should

8 say.

9 Q. At what time were the calls between Jay

10 Jackson’s phone and Frank Cascio’s phone?

11 A. Did you want the times? I’m sorry.

12 Q. Yes, the times.

13 A. The first call was at 1441 hours, which was

14 at 2:41, and 1423, which is 2:23.

15 Q. And then which direction were the two calls

16 going?

17 A. One was outgoing and one was incoming.

18 Q. So one in each direction?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. Which one was first?

21 A. The call from Frank Cascio to Jay Jackson.

22 Q. How long did that call last?

23 A. Three minutes and 37 seconds.

24 Q. I’d like to turn your attention to Exhibit

25 869, please.

26 A. Okay.

27 Q. Is that the chart for February 18th?

28 A. Yes. 8457

1 Q. Can you tell us which phone initiated the

2 call for the Jay Jackson symbol in the middle?

3 A. Jay Jackson.

4 Q. And which phone did he call first?

5 A. Christopher Carter.

6 Q. That registered for 33 seconds?

7 A. Correct. At six o’clock in the morning.

8 Q. At 6 a.m.?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. When was the last call on the 17th from

11 Christopher Carter to the Jay Jackson phone?

12 A. 2331, which would be at 11:31 at night.

13 Q. Okay. At what time was the call between the

14 Jay Jackson phone and the Frank Cascio phone?

15 A. On the 18th?

16 Q. Yes. I’m sorry.

17 A. At 1806 hours, which would have been 6:06 in

18 the evening.

19 Q. Was there a phone call between Frank Cascio

20 and Vince Amen — excuse me, Vince Amen at 26

21 minutes after midnight?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And after that phone call — how long did

24 that call last?

25 A. Six minutes and 27 seconds.

26 Q. After that phone call, was there a call

27 between Frank Cascio’s phone and Evvy Tavasci’s home

28 phone? 8458

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And what time was that call?

3 A. 33 minutes past midnight.

4 Q. Okay. How long did that phone call last?

5 A. 15 minutes and 17 seconds.

6 Q. Was there a call placed after that

7 particular call between Frank Cascio’s phones and

8 Vince Amen’s phones?

9 A. I show another call between Frank Cascio and

10 Vincent Amen.

11 Q. At what time?

12 A. At 1:39 in the morning.

13 Q. Okay. Detective Zelis, if you could

14 proceed, please, to Exhibit No. 870 of the chart for

15 February 19th.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Does this chart show additional phone calls

18 between Rudy Provencio and Marc Schaffel?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. At least between their phones?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And included in the exhibit are phone calls

23 between the phones of Christian Robinson, Vince Amen

24 and Marc Schaffel, Neverland Valley Entertainment,

25 correct?

26 A. Correct.

27 MR. SANGER: I’m sorry, I’m going to object

28 that that’s — that’s compound. 8459

1 MR. NICOLA: I’ll rephrase.

2 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.

3 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: There are phone calls

4 between the Christian Robinson phone and the Marc

5 Schaffel phone, correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And also between the Christian Robinson

8 phone and the Vince Amen phone?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. And also between the Vince Amen phone and

11 the Marc Schaffel phone?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And three calls between the Vince Amen phone

14 and the Hamid Moslehi phone?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And three calls between Vince Amen and the

17 Jay Jackson phone, correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And in the lower left-hand corner — why

20 don’t you read it? Go ahead.

21 A. Frank Cascio to Marc Schaffel, there’s six

22 calls. Frank Cascio to Vincent Amen, ten calls.

23 Frank Cascio to Jay Jackson, nine calls. And Frank

24 Cascio to Neverland Valley Ranch, 13 calls.

25 Q. There appears to be one call from the Jay

26 Jackson phone to Neverland Valley Ranch?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. What time did that call occur? 8460

1 A. 1421 hours, which would be 2:21 in the

2 afternoon.

3 Q. How many of the calls between the Frank

4 Cascio phone and the Jay Jackson phone occurred

5 prior to the time Neverland was called from Jay

6 Jackson’s line?

7 A. From Frank Cascio to Jay Jackson?

8 Q. Yes. Please.

9 A. I’m not showing —

10 Q. They were all afterwards?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. At 8:05 p.m., 2005, was there an 18-minute

13 call between Frank Cascio and Jay Jackson?

14 A. Yes, 18 minutes and 33 seconds.

15 MR. SANGER: Once again, it’s not between

16 the people, it’s between the phones. I haven’t

17 objected each time, but —

18 THE COURT: Sustained.

19 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

20 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Was there another

21 seven-minute phone call between the phones of Mr.

22 Cascio and Mr. Jackson at 7:20 — excuse me, 2026?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And with respect to the phone calls between

25 the Vince Amen phone and the Jay Jackson phone, can

26 you tell us what time they began, please?

27 A. They began at 1050 hours, 10:50 in the

28 morning. And ended at 2125, 9:25 in the evening. 8461

1 Q. And were they all from the Amen phone to the

2 Jackson phone?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. With respect to the ten calls between the

5 Cascio phone and the Amen phone, can you give us a

6 time range of when those occurred?

7 A. A time range of 11:07 in the morning to

8 2345, 11:45 at night.

9 Q. Why don’t we proceed to the next exhibit in

10 your set, Exhibit No. 881, please. That’s March

11 10th.

12 A. Okay.

13 MR. SANGER: I have March 10th as 880.

14 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: Is that Exhibit 880?

15 A. Which date?

16 Q. Yes.

17 A. I’m sorry, which date?

18 Q. March 10th.

19 A. March 10th is 880. Eight-eight-zero.

20 Q. I’ll be with you as soon as I find my chart.

21 Why don’t you tell the jury what’s going on

22 in this exhibit for this day, please.

23 A. We have one call between Jay Jackson’s phone

24 and Vincent Amen. We have one call between Vincent

25 Amen and Rudy Provencio.

26 Q. Their phones, right?

27 A. Correct.

28 Q. Okay. 8462

1 A. One — or, I’m sorry. Five calls between

2 Vincent Amen’s phone and Marc Schaffel’s phone.

3 Four calls between Vincent Amen’s phone and

4 Neverland Valley Ranch phone. 13 calls between

5 Neverland Valley Ranch phone and Frank Cascio phone.

6 And one call between MJJ Productions/Miko Brando and

7 Evelyn Tavasci’s home.

8 Q. Can you tell us what time the call between

9 the Amen phone and the Jay Jackson phone occurred,

10 please?

11 A. At 1355 hours, which is 1:55. Afternoon.

12 Q. And with respect to the 13 calls from — or

13 between the Cascio phone and Neverland Valley Ranch

14 phones, could you give us an approximate time spread

15 of those?

16 A. From about 11:42 in the morning to 2320 at

17 night.

18 Q. About a 12-hour spread?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. How about the calls between the Vince Amen

21 phone and the Neverland Valley Ranch phones, what’s

22 the spread on those?

23 A. 1751 to 1918 hours.

24 Q. Of the five calls between the Marc Schaffel

25 phone and the Vincent Amen phone, can you tell us

26 how many were initiated by either phones?

27 A. Four calls were initiated by the Vincent

28 Amen telephone number, and one by the Marc Schaffel 8463

1 phone.

2 Q. Okay. Now we can go on to Exhibit 881,

3 please. That’s 3-11.

4 A. Okay.

5 Q. Can you explain this exhibit for the jury,

6 please?

7 A. This exhibit shows the telephone of Frank

8 Cascio and Neverland Valley Ranch. There’s a total

9 of 11 calls. Neverland Valley Ranch phone and

10 Tavasci, Evelyn/MJJ Productions, there’s four

11 telephone calls. Tavasci, Evelyn/ MJJ Production to

12 Tavasci, Evvy, home, second line, one call.

13 Neverland Valley Ranch to Vincent Amen telephones,

14 one call. Ventura David, Janet Arvizo’s parents,

15 and Vincent Amen telephone, there’s two calls.

16 Schaffel, Marc/Neverland Valley Entertainment and

17 Vincent Amen, there’s two calls. Rudy Provencio and

18 Vincent Amen, there’s one call. And Jay Jackson and

19 Vincent Amen, three calls.

20 Q. Beginning with the calls between the Jay

21 Jackson phone and the Vince Amen phone, can you tell

22 us what time they began?

23 A. 7:04 in the morning.

24 Q. And were those calls placed by the Amen end?

25 A. Two calls by the Amen end, and one call by

26 Jackson.

27 Q. What time was the call from the Jackson

28 side? 8464

1 A. 1503, which is 3:03 in the afternoon.

2 Q. Okay. What about the calls between the

3 Vince Amen phone and the David Ventura phone?

4 A. Two calls, one at 12:07, and the other at

5 12:29.

6 Q. The call at 12:07, which end was the Amen

7 end?

8 A. The front end. The initiating pend.

9 Q. Okay. And how long did that phone call

10 last?

11 A. 22 minutes.

12 Q. At 12:29, was there another call placed from

13 the Amen phone to the Ventura phone?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. How long did that call last?

16 A. Five minutes.

17 Q. With respect to the call between Amen and

18 Provencio, can you tell us what time that call was

19 placed and which end initiated it?

20 A. The time of the call was at 1710, which is

21 5:10 in the afternoon, and it was initiated by

22 Vincent Amen phone.

23 Q. Okay. If you could proceed, please, to

24 Exhibit No. 882, I believe. Is 882 the chart for

25 March 12th of 2003?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. Can you tell us what’s occurring in this

28 exhibit, please? 8465

1 A. It shows Jay Jackson’s phone, or calling —

2 or calls between a Jay Jackson phone and Neverland

3 Valley Ranch. There’s a total of six calls. A

4 Neverland Valley Ranch to Tavasci, Evelyn/MJJ

5 Productions. There’s one call. Tavasci, Evelyn/MJJ

6 Productions to Christopher D. Carter, there’s seven

7 total calls.

8 Neverland Valley Ranch to Frank Cascio, a

9 total of 13 calls. Frank Cascio’s phone to Vincent

10 Amen’s phone, a total of four calls. Vincent Amen

11 to Marc Schaffel, four calls.

12 And Schaffel to Rudy Provencio, two calls.

13 And Schaffel, Marc, to Christian Robinson or Site

14 LLC, K. Robinson, one call. And Tavasci, Evelyn/

15 MJJ Productions to David Ventura, Janet Arvizo’s

16 parents, one call.

17 Q. With respect to the phone calls — with

18 respect to the phone calls initiated between the Jay

19 Jackson phone and the Neverland Valley Ranch phone,

20 can you tell us which direction they were going in?

21 A. All six calls were initiated by Jay Jackson

22 to Neverland Valley Ranch.

23 Q. And the calls from Jay Jackson’s phone began

24 at approximately 7:35 in the morning?

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. What about the calls between the Frank

27 Cascio phone and Neverland Valley Ranch, what time

28 did those begin, please? 8466

1 A. 1302.

2 Q. In the afternoon?

3 A. Correct. 1:02 in the afternoon.

4 Q. And the calls between the Rudy Provencio

5 phone and the Marc Schaffel phones, were both of

6 those calls from Mr. Provencio’s phone to Mr.

7 Schaffel’s phone?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And how long were those calls and at what

10 times?

11 A. The first call was for 12 minutes. The

12 second call for 20 minutes. The first call was at

13 1904, which is 7:04 in the evening. The second call

14 was at 2154, which is 9:54 in the evening.

15 MR. NICOLA: Thank you, Detective Zelis.

16 THE WITNESS: You’re welcome.

17 MR. NICOLA: Your Honor, I have no further

18 questions.

19 THE COURT: Cross-examine?

20

21 CROSS-EXAMINATION

22 BY MR. SANGER:

23 Q. Detective, Zelis, how are you doing?

24 A. Good afternoon.

25 Q. I’d like to go to Exhibit 870, so I’m going

26 to ask you to take that out of the book, if you

27 would.

28 And may I approach, Your Honor? 8467

1 THE COURT: Yes.

2 MR. SANGER: May I put this on the screen?

3 THE COURT: Yes.

4 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Okay. That’s Exhibit 870 up

5 on the screen. Now, you are one of the lead

6 investigators in this case; is that correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. All right. And based on your investigation

9 in this case, the day of the 19th of February, 2003,

10 was the day that Hamid Moslehi was attempting to put

11 together a video of the Arvizos; is that right?

12 A. He among others, yes.

13 Q. Okay. He was the videographer, right?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. And he had a crew, correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And you understand that that was originally

18 scheduled to take place at Neverland Ranch, correct?

19 MR. NICOLA: Objection; lack of foundation.

20 THE COURT: Overruled.

21 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Sir?

22 A. That is my understanding, yes.

23 Q. And then at some point they decided that

24 they had to do it in the Los Angeles area; is that

25 correct?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. And that’s because Janet Arvizo was down

28 there and wanted to do it down there, correct? 8468

1 MR. NICOLA: Objection. Calls for hearsay

2 and speculation. It’s beyond the scope of direct.

3 THE COURT: Calls for hearsay; sustained.

4 MR. SANGER: All right.

5 Q. So you see that there is a good deal of

6 activity between Frank Cascio’s phone and the

7 Neverland Valley Ranch phone; is that correct?

8 A. On this particular date?

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. Yes. 13.

11 Q. And Frank Cascio’s phone and Vincent Amen

12 seem to be interacting with each other, correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And somebody at Jay Jackson’s number is

15 talking with somebody at Vincent Amen’s number?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. And also Frank Cascio’s number, correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And then Mr. Moslehi receives some phone

20 calls, I believe. Does he receive them or make

21 them?

22 A. He received them.

23 Q. All right. Now, you were aware that

24 Mr. Moslehi was also at the ranch during that

25 afternoon, correct?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. So if he was making phone calls, he could

28 have made phone calls from the Neverland Valley 8469

1 Ranch telephones; is that correct?

2 A. I don’t know.

3 Q. All right. He was at the ranch, right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And you see there’s some phone calls that

6 are made from various ranch numbers; is that

7 correct?

8 A. No, I don’t.

9 Q. Okay. All of the phone calls are made to

10 the ranch numbers; is that your understanding?

11 A. There are five calls from Neverland Valley

12 Ranch to Frank Cascio.

13 Q. Okay. That was my original question. So

14 some of the calls are made to Mr. Cascio’s phone,

15 and you don’t know who made those? They just came

16 from Neverland Valley, correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 MR. SANGER: All right. Now, I think I can

19 finish with this witness if I have another 45

20 seconds.

21 THE COURT: Go ahead.

22 Q. BY MR. SANGER: All right. At this time, on

23 February the 19th, you understood that Rudy

24 Provencio was working with Christian Robinson; is

25 that correct?

26 MR. NICOLA: Objection, assumes facts not in

27 evidence, Your Honor.

28 THE COURT: Sustained. 8470

1 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Let’s put it this way:

2 Your understanding from your investigation is that

3 both Christian Robinson and Rudy Provencio were

4 associated with Mr. Schaffel; is that right?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Okay. And as far as the production was

7 concerned, they were working on the production on

8 behalf of Mr. Schaffel, the production of the

9 rebuttal video; is that correct?

10 MR. NICOLA: Objection. Vague; assumes

11 facts not in evidence.

12 THE COURT: Sustained.

13 MR. SANGER: Okay. I have no further

14 questions.

15 THE COURT: All right. We’ll take our

16 afternoon recess. I’ll see you tomorrow morning.

17 MR. NICOLA: Your Honor — may the witness

18 be excused? I won’t have any redirect.

19 THE COURT: No redirect?

20 You may step down.

21 Call your next witness first thing in the

22 morning.

23 MR. NICOLA: Thank you.

24 (The proceedings adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

25 –o0o–

26

27

28 8471

1

2 REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

3

4

5 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE )

6 OF CALIFORNIA, )

7 Plaintiff, )

8 -vs- ) No. 1133603

9 MICHAEL JOE JACKSON, )

10 Defendant. )

11

12

13 I, MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR,

14 CSR #3304, Official Court Reporter, do hereby

15 certify:

16 That the foregoing pages 8356 through 8471

17 contain a true and correct transcript of the

18 proceedings had in the within and above-entitled

19 matter as by me taken down in shorthand writing at

20 said proceedings on May 2, 2005, and thereafter

21 reduced to typewriting by computer-aided

22 transcription under my direction.

23 DATED: Santa Maria, California,

24 May 2, 2005.

25

26

27

28 MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR, CSR #3304 8472

Advertisements