Source: https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/march-17th-2005-trial-analysis-fritz-coleman-kiki-fournier-ruby-wolff-shawn-ogrady-jeffery-ellis-and-conn-abel-direct-cross-examination-part-3-of-3/
Timestamp: 2018-06-19 16:29:53
Document Index: 35657689

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 3', 'art 3', 'art-1', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2']

March 17th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Fritz Coleman, Kiki Fournier, Ruby Wolff, Shawn O’Grady, Jeffery Ellis, and Conn Abel (Direct & Cross Examination), Part 3 of 3 | Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0
March 17th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Fritz Coleman, Kiki Fournier, Ruby Wolff, Shawn O’Grady, Jeffery Ellis, and Conn Abel (Direct & Cross Examination), Part 3 of 3
tags: Conn Abel, Jeffery Ellis, Ruby Wolff, Shawn O'Grady
After being asked a few more general questions about her recollection of the events at Neverland in early 2003, Fournier was released, and the next prosecution witness that was called was Ruby Wolf, a detective with the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department who participated in the Neverland raid by searching for evidence and interviewing employees. Det. Wolf found “a card” next to a dresser next to a sink in the master bathroom in Jackson’s bedroom suite.
23 BY MR. SNEDDON:
24 Q. You’re employed by the sheriff’s department.
26 Q. You’re going to have to lean into that.
27 How long have you been employed by the
28 sheriff’s department. 2647
1 A. Six years.
2 Q. And what is your present duty assignment.
3 A. I’m a detective.
4 Q. And where are you assigned in your detective
5 responsibilities.
6 A. Santa Maria station.
7 Q. All right. And back in November 18th of
8 2003, were you assigned to participate in the
9 execution of a search warrant at Neverland Valley
10 Ranch.
12 Q. And specifically what was your duty
13 assignment at that time.
14 A. I was an interviewer and also a searcher.
15 Q. And during the course of the time that you
16 were a searcher, did you seize anything at the
17 location.
19 Q. And could you tell the ladies and gentlemen
20 of the jury, where was it that you seized the item.
21 A. It was in the master bathroom in Mr.
22 Jackson’s residence.
23 Q. And specifically what was it that you took.
24 A. It was a card.
25 Q. And where was the card located when you saw
26 it for the first time.
27 A. It was next to a dresser next to a sink in
28 the bathroom. 2648
1 Q. And what did you do with that card after you
2 seized it.
3 A. I took it to Detective Padilla.
4 Q. And he was what we call “the scribe”; is
5 that correct.
7 Q. You told him where it was located.
9 Q. Where you found it.
10 Do you have that exhibit with you.
12 Q. Let me identify it first.
13 No, the bag.
14 Your Honor, I have a brown bag with the
15 number “#310” in the upper right-hand corner in
16 black. And we’ve marked this as People’s 712 for
17 identification purposes.
19 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Now, would you just remove
20 the item that’s inside the bag. 712. And do you
21 recognize that.
23 Q. And was that the item that you seized and
24 gave to Detective Padilla.
26 Q. And is it in the same condition as it was at
27 the time that you seized it.
28 A. Yes, it is. 2649
1 MR. SNEDDON: All right. Move that 712 be
2 admitted into evidence, Your Honor.
3 MR. MESEREAU: May I look at it for one
4 second, Your Honor.
6 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.
7 No objection, Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: All right. It’s admitted.
9 MR. SNEDDON: No further questions, Your
10 Honor.
11 MR. MESEREAU: May I just look at the card,
14 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.
Mesereau began his cross-examination by questioning Det. Wolff about the card, which was written by Gavin to Jackson, and was addressed as “daddy”:
17 BY MR. MR. MESEREAU:
18 Q. Does — Detective, is that the —
20 Q. Okay. Thank you.
21 Detective, you found this card where.
22 A. In the master bathroom.
23 Q. Okay. And the card says, “I miss you, Daddy
24 Michael,” correct.
26 Q. Did you read the card when you found it.
28 Q. And what did you do after you read the card. 2650
1 A. Gave it to Detective Padilla.
2 Q. Okay. Now, this card says the following:
3 “Dear Daddy Michael. How are you. I can’t wait to
4 see you again and play with you at Neverland,
5 because we are going to be best friends and you are
6 my daddy forever,” right.
8 Q. It says, “You are the finest grown-up in the
9 world. I love you, Daddy Michael. And tell my
10 little brother and little sister that I love and
11 care about them. Thank you for everything, Daddy
12 Michael. Thank you for being my Daddy Michael.
13 Thank you for helping me be happy and beat cancer.
14 Happy Daddy’s Day, and I love you more. Love, your
15 Doo-Doo Head, Gavin Arvizo,” right.
17 Q. And then there’s a heart and there’s print
18 inside the heart that says, “I love my Daddy Michael
19 forever,” right.
21 Q. And then it says, “P.S.: Please give me
22 your new phone numbers, because I miss talking to
23 you.”
24 And then the writing continues, “My phone
25 number is 626-452-1693,” right.
27 Q. Now, this card was in the purple envelope,
28 right. 2651
2 Q. And the envelope was addressed to “Daddy
3 Michael, from your son Gavin,” right.
5 Q. And you see little faces that appear to be
6 sort of written on the envelope, correct.
Mesereau finished off a relatively short cross-examination by asking if other greeting cards from the Arvizos were found, but Det. Wolff denied it:
2 MR. MESEREAU: Last question.
3 Q. Your property report says you retrieved
4 other greeting cards, correct.
5 A. That’s not correct.
6 Q. Is that not correct.
7 A. That’s not correct.
8 Q. Okay. It was only one greeting card.
10 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. No further questions,
11 Your Honor.
12 MR. SNEDDON: Thank you. No further
14 THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down.
15 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
16 MR. SNEDDON: Let’s try O’Grady this time.
17 Detective. Did you walk off with the bag.
18 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. Sorry about that.
19 MR. SNEDDON: Thank you.
20 THE COURT: Come forward. When you get to
21 the witness stand, please remain standing. Face the
22 clerk and raise your right hand.
Deputy Shawn O’Grady was the next prosecution witness. He searched Jackson’s bedroom suite during the Neverland raid, and found a book with “sexually explicit material” in it, among several other items that he was asked to identify by Sneddon.
Under cross examination by Mesereau, Deputy O’Grady was asked if he knew of the book’s origins, and if he knew the name of the character on the cover of the book, to which he replied that he was unaware of the answer to both questions.
28 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. No further questions. 2665
The book that was seized is called “James Bidgood: Taschen’s 25th Anniversary Special Edition”, which consisted of various photographs taken by Bidgood throughout his career. As you can see from the link, it’s legal and commercially available for sale on Amazon!
The next prosecution witness was Investigator Jeffery Ellis, who participated in the raid of Neverland and seized several pornographic books from Jackson’s bedroom suite.
21 DIRECT EXAMINATION
22 BY MR. SNEDDON:
23 Q. Mr. Ellis, you’re employed by me.
24 A. That’s correct. By the District Attorney’s
26 Q. And how long have you been a detective/
27 investigator with the Santa Barbara District
28 Attorney’s Office. 2666
1 A. For four years.
2 Q. And prior to that, did you have any law
3 enforcement experience.
4 A. I did. I was a police officer in Lompoc for
5 nine years.
6 Q. Now, on November the 18th of 2003, you
7 participated in the execution of a search warrant at
8 Neverland Valley Ranch, correct.
9 A. I did.
10 Q. And during the course of your assignment
11 there, were you involved in doing some searching.
13 Q. And during the time that you were searching,
14 did you seize an item.
15 A. I did.
16 Q. And do you recall where that item was that
17 you seized.
18 A. It was in the lower — what I would describe
19 as the lower portion of the bedroom, Michael
20 Jackson’s bedroom, the downstairs.
21 Q. And where downstairs.
22 A. Near the fireplace.
23 Q. And was it on — sitting on something, or on
24 the floor, or do you recall.
25 A. It was in a bag, a B. Dalton book bag on the
26 floor, as I recall.
27 Q. And then when you seized that item, what did
28 you do with it. 2667
1 A. I gave it to the deputy that was logging in
3 Q. Would that be Detective Padilla.
4 A. Yes, Detective Padilla.
6 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’ve shown counsel
7 the two exhibits I would like to have marked. The
8 first one is a brown paper bag that contains the
9 number “#313” at the top. And it has an evidence
10 tag number 589 for identification purposes.
11 And a photograph, one-page photograph that
12 we’ve had marked as People’s 710 for identification
13 purposes.
14 MR. MESEREAU: No objection, Your Honor.
15 MR. SNEDDON: Well, let me get there first.
16 MR. MESEREAU: All right.
17 MR. SNEDDON: I appreciate the cooperation,
18 but….
19 Q. All right. Detective Ellis, first of all,
20 why don’t you take a look at the book, the Exhibit
21 589. You’re removing the book from the bag,
24 Q. Do you recognize that book.
26 Q. And was that the book that you seized from
27 Mr. Jackson’s downstairs bedroom area.
28 A. That appears to be the same book. 2668
1 Q. Now, with regard to the exhibit, is it in
2 the same condition as it was at the time you seized
4 A. It appears to be.
5 Q. All right. And with regard to the Exhibit
6 710 the photograph, do you see that.
8 Q. Does that photograph accurately depict the
9 front page of the Exhibit 589.
10 A. It does.
11 Q. All right. Thank you. Why don’t you hand
12 me just that.
13 Your Honor, now I’m going to move to admit
14 it into evidence.
16 THE COURT: Both items.
17 MR. SNEDDON: Please, Your Honor. 589 and
18 710.
19 THE COURT: They’re admitted.
20 MR. SNEDDON: And we’re going to display the
21 Item 710 on the Elmo, Your Honor.
22 Q. Detective Ellis, that’s the item that you
23 seized in the bag on the floor.
24 A. It is.
25 Q. That’s the front cover of it.
26 A. The front cover, yes.
27 MR. SNEDDON: No further questions, Your
28 Honor. 2669
Under cross examination from Mesereau, Investigator Ellis admitted that the material was not illegal, and could be purchased on Amazon:
8 Q. Is it detective.
9 A. It’s investigator.
10 Q. Investigator, okay. Okay.
11 Investigator, referring you to Item 313 —
12 A. Okay.
13 Q. — which was just in front of you.
15 Q. Whether you like this kind of material or
16 not, this is not illegal, is it.
17 A. Not as far as I know.
18 Q. Okay. In fact, you can get material like
19 this on amazon.com, correct.
20 A. I believe you can.
The next prosecution witness was Detective Conn Abel, a 30 year veteran of the sheriff’s department. During the raid, he searched the arcade and wine cellar, and here is how he described it:
18 Q. Now, going back to November 18th of 2003,
19 were you involved in the execution of a search
20 warrant at Neverland Valley Ranch.
21 A. Yes, I was.
22 Q. And were you assigned certain
23 responsibilities in connection with that search.
25 Q. And was one of the areas you were assigned
26 to search an area known as the arcade.
27 A. Yes, it was.
28 Q. And could you describe just basically to the 2673
1 ladies and gentlemen of the jury what the arcade
2 looked like, as you recall.
3 A. The bottom floor was a multitude of just
4 about every arcade game that you could possibly
5 think of, a photo booth.
6 The back of the arcade towards what I call
7 the north area of the arcade, was a storage room.
8 Outside the back door, there was some showers,
9 dressing rooms.
10 Upstairs in the arcade were a couple more
11 games. I believe there were a couple more games
12 upstairs.
13 And then as you walked through the door
14 up — which I believe was like the north door of the
15 upstairs, there was a library.
16 Q. Is there a room that is called a cellar.
17 A. Yes, there is.
18 Q. And did you go down into the cellar —
20 Q. — as part of your responsibilities.
22 Q. And in the cellar, can you tell us whether
23 or not you saw any alcoholic beverages down there.
24 A. Yes, there were.
25 Q. Would you tell the jury what you saw and
26 where you saw it.
27 A. On a wall in the back of the — what I call
28 the kitchen area, as you go down into the cellar, 2674
1 you would then make a right turn and go into the
2 main cellar area.
3 If you continued going right, you would then
4 go around another corner, and there was an entryway
5 into a little kitchen area. And in that kitchen
6 area there were bottles of wine on the wall, red and
7 white wine.
8 In a storage cabinet, there were just a
9 multitude of different types of liquor. Vodka,
10 whiskey, liqueurs. And then there were open bottles
11 of wine and liqueurs in the refrigerator.
12 Q. Do you remember the name of any of the
13 vodkas you saw there.
14 A. I do remember Smirnoff, Skyy, Grey Goose. I
15 think there was another one that was listed in the
16 report, Chopin. Maybe Chopin.
17 Q. Don’t look at me. I don’t drink that stuff.
18 A. I remember in the report, it said Chopin.
19 And I remember Skyy, Grey Goose, Smirnoff would be
21 Q. Okay. Now, during the time that you were in
22 the cellar, did you seize any items of literature —
23 or books.
Det. Abel went on to describe some of the articles of evidence that he found in the arcade, cellar, and library, including some art books. Here is his explanation of why he confiscated the book “Drew and Jimmy”, among others:
In this excerpt, Det. Abel describes the eavesdropping equipment that he found in Jackson’s closet, near his office. This evidence was used by prosecutors to back up their assertions that Jackson tried to monitor the phone calls of the Arvizos during their “imprisonment”:
26 You told the ladies and gentlemen of the
27 jury that you worked narcotics for a while; is that
28 correct. 2691
2 Q. Quite a while, actually.
4 Q. And in the course of working narcotics, did
5 you become familiar with surveillance equipment.
7 Q. Did you become familiar with equipment that
8 is used to monitor telephone calls.
10 Q. And with regard to the Exhibit 717 that you
11 found in Mr. Jackson’s closet in Mr. Jackson’s
12 office, with regard to that particular exhibit, when
13 you opened it up, did you recognize what was inside.
15 Q. And tell the ladies and gentlemen of the
16 jury what was inside.
17 A. There was a large tape-recorder capable of
18 accepting multiple headsets. There’s wire packages
19 in there. There’s a suction cup that would be
20 utilized to monitor phone calls. There’s wires that
21 would plug into it that have adapters that go into
22 phone receptors. There’s extendable — not
23 “extendable.” There’s small little, what we’d call,
24 to a degree, pinpoint, pinhole-type microphones that
25 are in there that have adapters or have the fittings
26 on it that fit into that type of recorder.
27 So in my opinion, it was used to monitor
28 activity, conversations on the phone and/or off the 2692
Under cross-examination, Det. Abel was asked by Mesereau if the equipment had been tested to see if it had been used, and if it was commercially available in stores. Det. Abel testified that it had not been tested, and he wasn’t sure if it was commercially available. He also testified that he didn’t know if Jackson had purchased it, or if it was given to him as a gift, among many other pertinent facts:
6 Q. With respect to that equipment you just
7 described —
9 Q. — did you ever determine if it had ever
10 been used.
11 A. It appears to have been, yes.
12 Q. Why do you say that. Did you test it.
13 A. I did not test it, no.
14 Q. Then how do you know it’s been used.
15 A. A lot of the wiring indeed has been
16 re-manipulated. It doesn’t appear to be new
17 condition. It appears to be scratched, appears to
18 be used. Appears to be in an older condition.
19 Q. You didn’t test to see if it’s ever been
20 used, did you.
22 Q. Do you know where that came from, that
23 equipment.
24 A. Came from the office area in Mr. Jackson’s
26 Q. Do you know where it was purchased.
28 Q. Do you know if it was lawfully purchased. 2695
1 A. I would only assume no.
2 Q. You can buy that equipment, can’t you.
3 A. Law enforcement can, I know.
4 Q. You don’t really know if you can buy that
5 lawfully or not, do you.
6 A. Possibly if I went to the appropriate store
7 I could maybe get some of that stuff.
8 Q. A citizen of the United States can go to a
9 store and buy that stuff, can’t they.
10 A. I — I’m not sure about the microphones.
11 No, sir, I don’t know about that.
12 Q. So what you’re saying is you don’t know,
14 A. About —
15 Q. Whether an ordinary citizen can lawfully
16 purchase that equipment or not, right.
17 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, object as
20 THE WITNESS: You could say that I guess I
21 really don’t know for sure.
22 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And you don’t know how
23 that equipment ever got to Neverland, do you.
25 Q. You don’t know if it was given to Mr.
26 Jackson or purchased, right.
27 A. There’s prices in there, so I could only
28 assume that it was purchased. 2696
1 Q. Well, if someone gave it to Mr. Jackson,
2 they’d have probably purchased it first, wouldn’t
3 they.
5 object. Assumes facts — calls for a conclusion.
7 THE COURT: It’s argumentative. Sustained.
8 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.
9 Q. You don’t know where that originated, do
11 MR. SNEDDON: Object; argumentative.
14 THE WITNESS: If you want — if you wanted me
15 to look inside there, there’s a company in there,
16 and I can tell you the name of the company.
17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Even if you knew the name
18 of the company, you wouldn’t know how that got to
19 Neverland, would you.
20 A. No, sir. But you asked me if I knew where
21 it was originated.
There was a business card included with the equipment, and it was associated with a Private Investigation company, so Mesereau used this information to disprove the prosecution’s theory that Jackson owned the equipment for nefarious reasons.
Det. Abel didn’t call the investigator to confirm that it was his equipment, or any perform any other due diligence, and he stated that it was because it wasn’t part of the scope of his activities. Mesereau sarcastically asked Det. Abel if it was because he wanted to just avoid the issue, but Sneddon objected before the question could be answered. Surprisingly, well actually not surprisingly, Det. Abel never met with any security personnel at Neverland to verify that the eavesdropping equipment was used for the ranch’s complex security system!
22 Q. That equipment appeared to be associated
23 with a private investigator, true.
24 A. I — I didn’t seize it. And when I opened
25 it up and looked at it, I didn’t seize it for that
26 purpose. And I didn’t know at the time it was
27 associated with a private investigator, no, sir.
28 Q. I’m not asking what the purpose was in 2697
1 seizing it. I’m just asking you if — from what you
2 saw when you looked at that equipment, did it appear
3 it could be associated with a private investigator.
5 object again. It calls for a conclusion and
8 THE WITNESS: At the time that I seized it,
9 I did not know that it was associated with a private
10 investigator, no, sir.
11 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: My question was different.
12 My question was, based on what you saw when you
13 examined that equipment, did you think you had
14 reason to believe it was associated with a private
15 investigator. Yes or no.
17 Q. What about the card you just described for
18 the jury. Tell them what was on the card, please.
19 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, there are two
21 THE WITNESS: You asked me two questions,
22 sir.
23 MR. MESEREAU: I did, and I’m sorry.
24 I’ll withdraw it, Your Honor.
25 Q. Please tell the jury what was on that card
26 that you found with the equipment.
27 A. Do you want me to open it up and look at it.
28 I can tell you exactly what’s on it. 2698
1 Q. Sure.
2 A. The exact wording on the card is “General,
3 Special and Electronic Investigations. California
4 License P19356. James A. Lupori, Private
5 Investigator, P.O. Box 4250, Culver City, California
6 90231. Telephone number (310)390-8384.” And “Fax,
7 (310)397-9563.”
8 Q. That was in the material. Is that where you
9 found the card.
11 Q. Okay. And for the jury’s benefit, the card
12 mentions a number on it. And I don’t mean the phone
13 number. It mentions a — what really appears to be
14 a license number, correct.
16 Q. For a licensed investigator, correct.
17 A. Could be, yes.
18 Q. Could be. What did you think it was.
19 A. There’s a license on there. But whether
20 it’s actually a license number for that individual
21 or not, I don’t know, because I didn’t investigate
23 Q. Well, putting an investigation aside, you,
24 as an investigating officer, look at a card like
25 that. It gives a name. It mentions investigations.
26 It gives a number.
27 Did it ever occur to you that might be a
28 license number for a California licensed 2699
1 investigator.
2 A. Could be.
3 Q. Did it ever occur to you that it might be.
4 A. It occurred to me that it couldn’t be also.
5 Q. Okay. All right. So basically you didn’t
6 care.
7 A. No, I did care. I just don’t know whether
8 P19356 is actually a license number that would be
9 associated with a private investigator, and/or this
10 individual, sir. That’s what I’m trying to say.
11 Q. Did you ever check out whether the name on
12 the card and the phone number worked.
14 Q. Okay. Did you think that was part of the
15 scope of your responsibilities.
17 Q. Okay. Did you prefer to just avoid that
18 issue.
19 MR. SNEDDON: Object as argumentative, Your
22 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever ask to have
23 anybody test the equipment at any stage of this
24 investigation.
26 Q. Based upon what you knew of Neverland Ranch,
27 did it ever occur to you that security might be a
28 concern to Mr. Jackson. 2700
2 Q. Now, let me ask you this: If you’re in your
3 house, and you have a phone system, and you pick up
4 your phone and somebody — you’re upstairs and
5 somebody downstairs is speaking on the phone and you
6 listen, have you committed a crime.
7 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to
8 object. Calls for a legal conclusion. That’s —
10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Are there any other
11 documents in that case.
12 A. Yes, there are.
13 Q. Would you please tell the jury what those
14 documents are.
16 The first document has handwritten, “Video
17 Briefcase Surveillance System with Audio.” It says,
18 “Video Briefcase.” It has a description of what
19 would be in a video briefcase. It has handwritten,
20 “$4,995,” tax, UPS, a total of $5,443.59, and the
21 word “Total,” and that is on one sheet.
22 The next sheet looks to be either off a
23 computer and/or a typewriter. It is printed
24 instructions for voice-operated telephone recording,
25 professional ten-hour recorder. It has Items 1
26 through 6 of how to, I believe, operate that type of
27 system.
28 The next one is “Equipment For Law 2701
1 Enforcement Agencies, Professional UHF Transmitters
2 and Receivers, Crystal Controlled.” It has a
3 multitude of — one, two, three, four, five, six,
4 seven — seven separate types of wireless
5 transmitters, and a list of optional equipment that
6 could be purchased.
7 And then it says “Other Equipment Systems
8 for Law Enforcement and Export.” And it talks about
9 vehicle tracking, video transmitters, specialized
10 video and optical systems, thermal imaging, et
11 cetera.
12 Q. Let me ask you this: Do any of those
13 documents appear to relate to a security system.
15 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor.
17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Sir, I’m showing you one
18 of the documents. It says, “Remote Room Audio
19 Monitor.” Do you see that.
21 Q. It talks about a phone jack, it talks about
22 an answer relay, it talks about a microphone,
24 A. Yes, it does.
25 Q. It says, “Call answer relay from any
26 telephone anywhere in the world.” Do you see that.
28 Q. You also see another — what appears to be a 2702
1 drawing, correct.
3 Q. Does it say on it “Video Surveillance System
4 with Audio”.
6 Q. Does it talk about how to set a video
7 monitor with three screens.
8 A. Part of it, yes, sir.
9 Q. Does it talk about an infrared light source
10 for a target area for night illumination.
12 Q. Does it refer to a video monitor with a
13 nine-inch screen.
15 Q. Does it refer to an infrared — excuse me.
16 Does it refer to a miniature camera with a
17 transmitter.
18 A. It does, yes.
19 Q. Does it talk about a clock video camera.
20 A. Let me — talks about that. Smoke alarm, et
21 cetera, cameras.
22 Q. Are you telling the jury it never occurred
23 to you that might relate to a security system,
24 Officer.
25 A. I’m not sure that it — in totality, no,
26 it —
27 Q. So you think that had nothing to do with
28 security at Neverland. Is that what you’re telling 2703
1 the jury under oath.
2 A. I don’t know what to tell you. It looks
3 like — I mean, this document here, telephone taping
4 system. I don’t know what to tell you, except I
5 know that that doesn’t relate to security. That
6 relates to the items that are in here for taping
7 telephone calls.
8 Q. The items you just agreed that are described
9 on that document do not relate to a possible
10 security system at Neverland.
11 A. I guess you could say — I could say yes, it
12 could.
13 Q. Okay. You never checked that out, correct.
14 A. No, sir. It wasn’t — it was not in the
15 rooms that I was associated with.
16 Q. Okay. Did you ever go to any security
17 personnel at Neverland, show it to them and say,
18 “Have you seen this before. Do you know why it’s
19 here.”
21 Q. Okay. Do you know if anybody ever did.
23 Q. Now, you certainly know that Neverland is a
24 rather large area, correct.
26 Q. You have a main gate with security personnel
27 when you enter, correct.
28 A. Yes. 2704
1 Q. It’s about a 2800-acre ranch, true.
3 Q. You have got security personnel working
4 throughout Neverland, correct.
6 Q. Did you ever see any surveillance-type
7 equipment at Neverland while you were there.
8 A. I don’t recall seeing surveillance
9 equipment, sir.
10 Q. Now, obviously you knew when you went there
11 that Michael Jackson is one of the world’s most
12 famous entertainers, right.
14 Q. And you knew that he routinely travels with
15 security personnel to protect him, correct.
17 Q. And did it ever occur to you that security
18 might be a real concern at Neverland.
19 A. Could be.
20 Q. Could be.
22 Q. But you’re not sure.
23 A. Well, he has a lot of people going there.
24 I don’t know exactly what kind of security he may
25 have. He has a multitude of people in and out of
26 there on a regular basis, so I don’t know what kind
27 of security he may have established.
28 Q. Did you ever sit down with any of the 2705
1 government prosecutors and discuss that equipment.
3 Q. Did you ever talk to Mr. Sneddon about what
4 you were going to say today when you took the
5 witness stand.
6 A. No, I did not.
7 Q. Did you just take the stand without ever
8 discussing your testimony at all with him.
9 A. I don’t think I discussed with him what I
10 was going to testify to, no, sir.
11 Q. Okay. When you found that equipment, what
12 is the first thing you did with it.
13 A. I looked at it, and gave it to the officer
14 to book as evidence.
15 Q. Okay. Which officer was that.
16 A. That was Detective Cooley.
17 Q. Do you know if the equipment was ever
18 fingerprinted.
19 A. No, sir, I do not.
20 Q. Did you ever request that it be
21 fingerprinted.
22 A. I was not in that part of the investigation.
23 Q. Have you ever learned at any point whether
24 or not it was fingerprinted.
26 Q. Okay. Now, when you were at Neverland, did
27 you investigate the kinds of security systems in
28 place at Neverland. 2706
2 Q. Do you know whether or not, for example,
3 there are cameras that might indicate whether or not
4 someone is entering or leaving.
5 A. I do not know that.
6 Q. Do you know whether or not there are cameras
7 that might indicate whether or not someone’s
8 entering or leaving the main residence.
10 object. He’s already said he didn’t do anything.
11 Lack of foundation.
12 I object. Immaterial.
13 THE COURT: I’m going home.
15 See you Monday.
To Be Continued: https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/march-18th-2005-trial-summary-1108-prior-bad-acts-evidence-hearing-no-witnesses-testified-part-1-of-2/
← March 17th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Fritz Coleman, Kiki Fournier, Ruby Wolff, Shawn O’Grady, Jeffery Ellis, and Conn Abel (Direct & Cross Examination), Part 2 of 3
March 18th, 2005 Trial Summary: 1108 Prior Bad Acts Evidence Hearing (No Witnesses Testified), Part 1 of 2 →
Linda LOL..Sneddon is truly disturbed.
,CAN I PLEASE HAVE YOUR WORKING PHONE NUMBERS, so I can talk to you..
How would they think that would help their case?
It really is quite hilarious Nan, that they even brought up that card. Isn’t it very obvious that Michael didn’t want him to have his number and was hiding from the kid? With all Sneddens experience and expertise, why would he do so many stupid things in this case? It make’s no sense. He knew he had no evidence from the start, and pretty much everybody he called for the prosecution did more to prove MJ’S innocence than guilt.
He had no case from the start and he had to know that he could not win, yet he went ahead with it. He made a real fool of himself and also the accusers. He made a mockery of the justice system, lied cheated and faked evidence, AND got away with it…so far.
I’m not sure what Wagener will accomplish, trying to bring him to task, but I really admire him for taking the time and trouble to at least try. Can’t wait to hear what comes from his attempt. But back to the why’s of Snedden. What was his intention, knowing he had a losing case and making such a fool of everyone, including himself?
My take, he was out to destroy MJ. He knew he wouldn’t win in court, but with the help of the media, he could degrade MJ, and hurt him financially. In that aspect, he did win. Yeah, he could jump up and down in front of the cameras in glee, looking stupid as hell, but he wasn’t stupid. He knew his goal, and in the end he would destroy MJ. What he didn’t know, is how many loyal fans Michael had all over the world that would fight for him, even 3 years after his death. The hater’s are still going strong with nothing to stand on, but the true fans are going stronger bringing out the facts.
People are listening and watching us. The haters are looking for any weakness in us, hoping for a division or a strife. I think we need to be really careful, not to give them any ammo. Everything we do needs to be done with love, because we are all being scrutinized, so we all need to work together for the common goal. I think we’re winning, we just have to watch out for distractions and not let anything come between us and our common goal, which is to vindicate Michael, and all other’s that are being bullied by the Snedden’s, the press and the public. We will win if we all stand together.
July 19, 2012 12:04 am
..I also get the sense that Sneddon thinks he is some kind of macho hero..Good vs evil ..How he” doesnt drink that stuff”, meaning vodka..Well I do, and I was a girl scout troop leader
That’s funny Nan. I am a grandmother, and recently became a great grandmother, a team leader at work, a responsible person and I drink “that stuff” most nights after I get off work. Don’t need it on the weekends, Lol. To me Sneddon came off as holier than thou. He was either very stupid, with so many years of experience, OR he was doing something a lot stronger than Vodka. Hmmm, maybe THAT’S a story the press should look into. Something is definitely amiss here, and it’s not Michael.
Linda LOL..Sneddon is truly disturbed..I really think he was excited that the press was watching him in action..ugh
I was rereading and maybe is was on something because I am rereading Det Wollf testimony again to try and figure out why he put that person on regarding finding a card, that Mesereau gets up and reads that Gavin called MJ daddy Michael, I love you , your the best grown up ,CAN I PLEASE HAVE YOUR WORKING PHONE NUMBERS, so I can talk to you..
How does that supposedly show MJ grooming this kid..It shows MJ is the one being groomed by this family..THEY want to stay in contact , not MJ.
I have to remind myself sometimes , these people arent DEFENSE witnesses..
You know when you read this stuff you really get the nuance of how deliberate the prosecution and their witnesses were in their bias against Michael. I mean this guy Det. Abel is suffering from an acute lack of curiosity. His answer to Mesereau’s question that “security might be a real concern at Neverland” – “Could Be.” Is this guy for real? Celebrities get stalked and harassed all the time, so it figures that the most famous man in the world would have his share, but this doesn’t seem to be an issue for this guy. He’s a 30 year detective and he doesn’t do the basics of checking to confirm the license number of the P.I. on the eavesdropping equipment. We know they didn’t challenge the Arvizos stories. They had their agenda and they were sticking to it. It is just unbelievable to read this stuff. Good God, I wouldn’t want to be issued a parking ticket in Santa Barbara – you might end up in prison. David, you must be shaking your head reading these transcripts. It’s frightening what they did to Michael.
I remember , that Aphrodite Jones was doing a book signing in that town and she was a little apprehensive because they appear to make their own rules and she was challenging them in her book.
I dont blame her …
You have an investigator who find the private investigator business card and license number and he doesnt go any further????
This guy answers that security “could Be” a concern.
An earlier detective told Sanger when he asked if she was aware his image is sought after all over the world said “no”
It is a travesty the mainstream media covered these peoples tracks for them ..
July 18, 2012 7:39 pm
July 18, 2012 9:33 pm
she told him? do you mean A Jones told Sneddon how she felt ?, or am I missing your point..
Btw , I cant wait for your essay on the motions by the prosecutors you were thinking of putting up..I had read some of them and they are so arrogant , totally unprofessional imo
This whole thing is/was shocking. They expected to get Michael’s neck in the noose by pulling every dirty trick in the book…Deliberately disregarding, ignoring, twisting, or covering up anything in Michael’s favour. Thank God for Mesereau having brains, cause the prosecution weren’t counting on that.
It’s just so shocking, and the way people are STILL blinded to this farce to this day…
This is why this blog is so important. People need to know the REAL truth about Michael Jackson…they can’t go on believing the ‘truth’ that haters, the media, the prosecution have pulled over their eyes.
This is incredible..There is no way investigators could be this stupid..They purposely didnt investigate.
I find it hard to believe that prosecutors didnt think the defense would have a comeback for this stuff.
Either the prosecutors were dropping acid when they formed this case , or they just thought , because they hated MJ , everybody else did too..And would just vote for conviction, because of tabloid stories..Must have been influenced by DD in their ear..I also get the sense that Sneddon thinks he is some kind of macho hero..Good vs evil ..How he” doesnt drink that stuff”, meaning vodka..Well I do, and I was a girl scout troop leader/ room mother all the while my child was growing up…..how stupid..
Another great job David, thanks for all your hard work
March 17th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Fritz Coleman, Kiki Fournier, Ruby Wolff, Shawn O’Grady, Jeffery Ellis, and Conn Abel (Direct & Cross Examination), Part 2 of 3 « Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0