Skip to content

March 4th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Direct and Cross Examination of Davellin Arvizo, Part 1 of 2

May 22, 2012

Davellin’s direct examination continued on March 4th, 2005 with Sneddon asking her for more information about the rebuttal video that the family shot at the home of Hamid Moslehi. Notice how when Sneddon asked for the video to be admitted into evidence, Mesereau immediately replied that the entire tape should be admitted!

5 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

6 BY MR. SNEDDON:

7 Q. Good morning.

8 A. Good morning.

9 Q. You told the ladies and gentlemen of the

10 jury that you and your mother and your brother and

11 your sister (sic) were part of a film that was done

12 at the house of an individual by the name of Hamid

13 Moslehi, correct.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And you remember that incident.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Now, on that particular evening, do you

18 remember the filming of the — the actual interview

19 that was done of the family.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Did you participate in all of the interview.

22 A. No.

23 Q. What happened — about how much of it were

24 you involved in; do you recall.

25 A. 20 minutes, half an hour.

26 Q. And was that the first part or the last

27 part.

28 A. I think that was the first part. 772

1 THE COURT: You need to speak a little

2 louder.

3 THE WITNESS: I think that was the first

4 part.

5 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: That’s just perfect. If

6 you can just keep that — just like that. We can

7 all hear.

8 And when you were no longer a participant in

9 the interview, what, if anything, did you do.

10 A. I don’t really remember, but I was just

11 there for like a couple minutes. Like standing on

12 the side.

13 Q. And then what.

14 A. I don’t remember. But I don’t remember

15 being right there watching.

16 Q. So you didn’t stick around and watch it.

17 A. No.

18 Q. Okay. Now, you have seen the footage, the

19 film of the interview itself, correct.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Of you and your family.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. You were asked to review that in connection

24 with your testimony, correct.

25 A. Yes.       

26 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, at this time I’d

27 like to have marked as People’s Exhibit No. 340 for

28 identification, there’s two CD disks, or DVD disks, 773

1 I’m sorry, of the rebuttal, what’s called the

2 rebuttal, or the Hamid interview. And I think

3 counsel and I would both agree it should come into

4 evidence. Correct.

5 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, the whole tape, Your

6 Honor.

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

Next, Sneddon asked Davellin to go into further detail about the death threats that Frank Cascio and Dieter Wiesner said the family was receiving, prior to the filming of the rebuttal video:

19 Q. Now, let’s go back to the time that we’re

20 talking about; you were at the ranch, at Neverland

21 Ranch. Okay.

22 A. Okay.

23 Q. Were you, at any time while you were on the

24 ranch, you personally – okay. – told anything about

25 any threats.

26 A. Like —

27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague; and

28 hearsay. 787

1 MR. SNEDDON: I didn’t ask her what they

2 said, Your Honor. I’m just trying to lay a

3 foundation, there was some conversations.

4 THE COURT: The question is ambiguous. I’ll

5 sustain the objection.

6 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: From the time that you got

7 back to the ranch, Neverland Valley Ranch, after you

8 left Miami – okay. – until the time that you left to

9 go to your grandparents’ house – okay. – did you

10 ever have a conversation with anyone at the ranch

11 about threats.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And with whom did you have that

14 conversation.

15 A. With Dieter and Frank.

16 Q. All right. With regard to Dieter, do you

17 recall when those conversations took place.

18 A. They were before the rebuttal video, but I

19 don’t know when.

20 Q. And do you recall what Dieter told you about

21 threats.

22 A. He said there were death threats on us.

23 Q. Do you recall what else he said, if

24 anything, about that.

25 A. I don’t remember. It’s too long ago.

26 Q. Okay. And you said, I believe, that there

27 was somebody else who talked to you about threats.

28 A. Yes. 788

1 Q. And who was that.

2 A. Mr. Tyson.

3 Q. All right. What did Mr. Tyson say to you.

4 A. He said the same thing; that there was death

5 threats on us.

6 Q. With regard to either one of those two

7 individuals, did they ever say that there were

8 threats against your family, threatened your family.

9 A. That’s what the death threats were, were on

10 our family.

11 Q. Now, with regard to the trip to Brazil –

12 okay. – did you ever have a conversation on the

13 ranch between the time that you had arrived there

14 from Miami till the time that you eventually left

15 for the last time, did you have a conversation with

16 Mr. Tyson about your mother and the trip to Miami.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And what did Mr. Tyson say to you in that

19 connection.

20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

21 MR. SNEDDON: Offered for the same reason.

22 1223.

23 THE COURT: I’ll admit it conditionally under

24 the instructions previously given to you.

25 THE WITNESS: He just said that my mom was

26 being really difficult, that I need to talk to her,

27 she’s not cooperating, and stuff like that.

28 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Did he call her a name. 789

1 A. Yeah, he called her a “B,” b-i-t-c-h.

2 Q. Did he spell it for you or did he just say

3 it.

4 A. He said it.

5 Q. Do you recall whether that statement was

6 made to you before or after the filming of the

7 rebuttal.

8 A. I think it was after the rebuttal.

9 Q. And do you recall where you were when you

10 had that conversation with Mr. Tyson.

11 A. All I remember is I was sitting down. I

12 don’t remember where it was at.

Davellin goes on to describe a few disturbing incidents that occurred with Jackson’s bodyguards after she temporarily left Neverland:

4 Q. Did anything happen to you within a few days

5 of leaving the ranch with regard to your comings and

6 goings at school.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of

9 the jury what happened.

10 A. I was walking home from school, because my

11 school, the Mountain View High School, is only a few

12 blocks from my grandmother’s house. And about the

13 block right before I got to my grandmother’s house,

14 a black car pulled up to me, and it was one of

15 Mr. Jackson’s bodyguards. He tried to ask me how —

16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

17 MR. SNEDDON: Offered for the same purpose,

18 Your Honor.

19 THE COURT: Accepted conditionally.

20 THE WITNESS: He said, “Oh, how are you

21 doing.” He was fidgeting a lot, like under the car.

22 I couldn’t see what was going on. I was just really

23 trying to get really quick, and I said, “I got to

24 go, I got to go.” And I just, like, walked really

25 fast to my grandmother’s gate. And when I was

26 closing the gate, I looked back and he was

27 videotaping me.

28 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Did you ever have any other 791

1 contact with that individual.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. What was that.

4 A. This was the night before that incident with

5 him driving next to me. I was laying down in my

6 grandmother’s room. This is the room that Gavin

7 used to sleep in. It faces towards the outside and

8 it has a big window.

9 All of a sudden, I heard rocks that were

10 falling on the roof, like someone was throwing them.

11 And I ran to my grandmother and I said, “Somebody’s

12 throwing rocks.” And we went to the front door, and

13 we just opened, like, the wood door, and we had the

14 screen door closed.

15 And then all of a sudden, one of the rocks

16 hit the glass. And my grandma screamed, “Hey,” and

17 she ran out. And I ran to go get my shoes to run

18 out, too.

19 And I — all I saw was the guy running to

20 his car and take off. And it was the same car that

21 I had seen the next day, so it was him.

Sneddon finished his direct examination on a powerful note; he asked Davellin if there were any obvious changes in Gavin’s behavior after he left Neverland, and if she ever witnessed any inappropriate by Jackson towards Gavin, and she answered in the affirmative to both questions:

7 Q. Now, you told the ladies and gentlemen

8 yesterday that while you were on the ranch, that, in

9 your opinion, there was some change in your

10 brother’s behavior. Remember that.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Now, at the point where you — the family

13 was back off the ranch, now, for the last time —

14 okay. —

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. — did your brother’s behavior change in any

17 respect from the way you described it.

18 A. Yeah.

19 Q. What was that.

20 A. Gavin’s a very affectionate little boy. He

21 loves to be kissed, he loves to be held, just

22 everything, his big sister.

23 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; this is asked and

24 answered.

25 THE COURT: Sustained.

26 MR. SNEDDON: This is a different point in

27 time. This is not on the ranch anymore. This is

28 after they left the ranch. 794

1 THE COURT: When was the point in time she

2 was talking about yesterday.

3 MR. SNEDDON: On the ranch. She was talking

4 about the isolation and the changes she saw on the

5 ranch. Now she’s talking about what happened after

6 they left the ranch.

7 MR. MESEREAU: If I may, Your Honor, I think

8 they said they were back and forth many times.

9 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.

10 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Yesterday, when we were

11 talking about how things were on the ranch –

12 okay. —

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. — and when you didn’t see too much of your

15 brothers at that point in time —

16 A. Yeah.

17 Q. — was the description that you gave your

18 brother at that time and the changes that you saw,

19 were those the changes that occurred on the ranch or

20 after the ranch.

21 A. On the ranch, he was more separate from me

22 and stuff. But when we were at my grandmother’s

23 house, I saw a lot more of how much he had changed.

24 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, with the Court’s

25 permission, I’d like to go into that.

26 THE COURT: You may.

27 MR. SNEDDON: All right.

28 Q. Now, would you describe to the ladies and 795

1 gentlemen of the jury what changes that you

2 observed, after he left the ranch, in Gavin’s

3 behavior.

4 A. He didn’t want nobody to talk to him. He

5 didn’t want to be hugged. He didn’t want to be

6 kissed. He didn’t want to do nothing. He just

7 wanted to be by himself. He didn’t want to talk to

8 me. He didn’t want to talk to anybody. It just

9 hurts, because I’m his older sister.

10 Q. Okay. Do you have some water up there.

11 A. Uh-huh.

12 Q. Go ahead. Take a drink of water. We got

13 all kinds of time.

14 A. Okay.

15 Q. Okay now. Okay. I’m almost done.

16 A. Okay.

17 Q. I want to take you back to the time that you

18 were on the ranch. Okay.

19 A. Okay.

20 Q. And I want to ask you, at any time while you

21 were on the ranch, between the time that you arrived

22 there from Miami till the time that you left for the

23 last time to your grandparents – okay. —

24 A. Okay.

25 Q. — did you ever see anything with regard to

26 the defendant in this case, Mr. Jackson, touching

27 your brother Gavin in an inappropriate way.

28 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; move to 796

1 strike.

2 THE COURT: Overruled.

3 You may answer.

4 THE WITNESS: He would constantly be —

5 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Just “Yes” or “No.”

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Okay. Now, where was that when you saw it.

8 A. Well, he would be constantly hugging Gavin

9 and kissing him. So anytime I saw them, really.

10 Q. Now, when you say “hugging” and “kissing,”

11 what do you mean by “kissing”.

12 A. On the cheek or on the head.

13 Q. Did you — were there any other occasions

14 that you remember that you saw things that you

15 thought were inappropriate.

16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

17 THE COURT: It’s overruled.

18 You may answer.

19 THE WITNESS: Well, when I was in the

20 bedroom that one time.

21 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: What did you see on that

22 occasion.

23 A. Well, he had his arm, and Gavin was laying

24 on his arm like this, and they were just hugging

25 over and over. And he just was kissing him over and

26 over on his head and —

27 MR. SNEDDON: All right. Thank you very

28 much. 797

1 THE COURT: Okay. Cross.

2 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, please, Your Honor. May

3 I just take a second to bring something up.

4 THE COURT: Yes.

5 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.

6 MR. SNEDDON: Would you mind if I got my

7 water, Your Honor, by walking around. Thank you.

8 MR. MESEREAU: May I proceed, Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: Yes.

10 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.

Mesereau’s cross examination began with him questioning Davellin about her family’s interview with the three social workers from the DCFS. Davellin told the Grand Jury that she meant everything that she said, but under cross-examination she said that she “remembered later on” that she really did not mean everything she said:

11 Q. Okay. When the meeting with the three

12 social workers from the Los Angeles Department of

13 Children & Family Services took place, where were

14 you living primarily.

15 A. Mostly with my grandparents, because she

16 really needed me.

17 Q. Okay. So you were spending most of the time

18 in El Monte at that point, correct.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Your mother was sort of splitting time

21 between Soto Street and Jay Jackson’s home, right.

22 A. This is what I can remember, yes.

23 Q. Okay. But the meeting with the three social

24 workers was at Major Jackson’s home, right.

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. And you went right from Mr. Moslehi’s home,

27 where the video that was just shown was filmed, to

28 Jay Jackson’s home for the interview, right. 801

1 A. Yes, because it was closer.

2 Q. And who drove you from Mr. Moslehi’s home to

3 Major Jackson’s home for that interview.

4 A. I think it was Vinnie.

5 Q. Okay. Did he drive all four of you to Major

6 Jackson’s home.

7 A. From what I remember, yes.

8 Q. Okay. Now, that interview with the three

9 social workers, was their desire — excuse me, let

10 me rephrase that.

11 The interview with the three women from the

12 Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services

13 took place because they were investigating whether

14 or not Mr. Jackson had done anything wrong and

15 whether or not your mother was fit to be a parent,

16 right.

17 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to

18 object.

19 THE WITNESS: I didn’t know —

20 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object. Lack of

21 foundation that she even knows what the reason for

22 the meeting was.

23 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll be happy to go into

24 that. I’ll withdraw the question, Your Honor.

25 Q. Do you know why the meeting with the three

26 social workers took place.

27 A. I didn’t know.

28 Q. Did you talk about that meeting with anyone 802

1 before you attended it.

2 A. Um, I think so. I forgot who it was, but

3 they had just said, “Just say nice things.”

4 Q. But your mother asked you to do that also,

5 didn’t she.

6 A. I don’t remember her asking me to say

7 anything.

8 Q. Well, but they were investigate — I mean,

9 did you think they were investigating your mother at

10 that time.

11 A. I don’t know.

12 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object; calls for

13 speculation.

14 THE COURT: She said, “I don’t know.” She

15 did answer the question.

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. At that meeting,

17 you said nice things about Mr. Jackson, right.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And you said those things because you meant

20 them, right.

21 A. Kind of.

22 Q. Well, do you remember appearing before a

23 grand jury in Santa Barbara County.

24 A. Yes, I do.

25 Q. Didn’t you tell the grand jury in Santa

26 Barbara County that you meant exactly what you said

27 about Mr. Jackson.

28 A. Well, yes. 803 

1 Q. You didn’t say these nice things about

2 Mr. Jackson because someone else asked you to,

3 correct.

4 A. Well, that’s why I say “I don’t know,”

5 because things — I just remember later on.

Here is what she told the Grand Jury on March 30th ,2004:

Q: Now, during the course of the conversatioin with the ladies, what did you tell them?

A: Told them nice things about him.

Q: About who?

A: Mr. Jackson.

Q: And why did you do that?

A: Because at that point I still felt that way towards him. And that’s why.

Q: All right. Were there any things that you said that were not truthful?

A: No, not – that’s the way I felt at that time.

Q: And with regard to – did you become emotional during that particular interview too?

A: No.

In this excerpt, Mesereau gets Davellin to admit that the nice things that she said about Jackson during her interview with the DCFS was her own honest opinion, and that she wasn’t forced to say them by anyone:

6 Q. Well, let me just try and explore that a

7 little bit.

8 A. Okay.

9 Q. You told the Santa Barbara Grand Jury that

10 you said nice things about Mr. Jackson, right.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And you were asked by the prosecutor why you

13 said those things, right.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. You said you said those things because you

16 felt that way towards Mr. Jackson, right.

17 A. At that moment in time I did, yes.

18 Q. So you didn’t say the things you said about

19 Mr. Jackson because somebody had told you to say

20 those things, correct.

21 A. I really don’t remember. It’s so long ago.

22 I mean, I can’t remember every little detail.

23 Q. But do you remember that meeting at all.

24 A. There was so many meetings. I don’t

25 remember.

26 Q. You don’t remember the meeting at Jay

27 Jackson’s house with the three social workers.

28 A. I remember that, yes. 804 

1 Q. Do you remember who was at the meeting.

2 A. It was me — who first arrived was Aja and

3 her little baby, and then Mr. Jackson’s bodyguard.

4 And then the three ladies.

5 Q. And did Aja arrive by herself or did someone

6 bring her there, to your knowledge.

7 A. She drove over there.

8 Q. So Aja drove to Jay Jackson’s home with her

9 child, right.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And Aja is Actor Chris Tucker’s girlfriend

12 at the time, right.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And do you know why Aja drove to Jay

15 Jackson’s home at that point.

16 A. For support. She’s our very close friend.

17 Q. Okay. Is she still your close friend.

18 A. No. Well, how can — all this is causing

19 friction. Nobody knows what to think.

20 Q. Okay. But is she still your close friend.

21 A. We don’t talk to her right now, no.

22 Q. Do you talk to Chris Tucker at all at the

23 moment.

24 A. Not right now.

25 Q. When did you last talk to Chris Tucker, if

26 you remember.

27 A. Don’t remember.

28 Q. When did you last talk to Aja. 805

1 A. When I was at the rebuttal film.

2 Q. Now, you testified yesterday that you saw

3 the three social workers arrive, right.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. You were there when they came into your —

6 to Jay Jackson’s apartment, right.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And did you introduce yourself to them.

9 A. Yeah.

10 Q. Did your mother introduce herself to them.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And did your brothers introduce themselves

13 to the three social workers.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And had you discussed with your mother

16 before that meeting anything that you were going to

17 say at the meeting.

18 A. I don’t remember that, no.

19 Q. You don’t remember that at all.

20 A. No.

21 Q. Do you remember discussing what you were

22 going to say at that meeting with anyone.

23 A. I don’t remember.

24 Q. Don’t remember at all.

25 A. No.

Mesereau then questions her about how she prepared for her testimony, and she admits that she was told to review the rebuttal tape to refreshen her memory:

26 Q. Okay. Well, you said yesterday you

27 remembered somebody with a tape-recorder in another

28 room, or something that looked like a recorder, 806

1 correct.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Had you gone over that question and answer

4 with the prosecutor before you testified.

5 A. Well, yeah, when they first asked me what it

6 was.

7 Q. And approximately when was that.

8 A. I don’t remember.

9 Q. Did you meet with any member of the

10 prosecution team last night.

11 A. No. Not last night, no.

12 Q. Did you meet with any member of the

13 sheriff’s department last night.

14 A. No.

15 Q. Did you meet with any attorney last night.

16 A. No.

17 Q. At any point, did you discuss how much of

18 that rebuttal video you were present at with anyone

19 from the prosecution team.

20 A. No.

21 Q. Well, at some point did you tell Mr. Sneddon

22 or anyone associated with Mr. Sneddon that you were

23 gone for part of what appeared on that tape.

24 A. Well, when I was at the rebuttal, I knew

25 there was a moment that I wasn’t there, because I

26 was there.

27 Q. When did you last discuss that with any

28 member of the prosecution team. 807

1 A. I — I called someone and told them that I

2 wasn’t in the next part and asked them if I was

3 going to be asked about that, because I don’t know.

4 Q. And when did you make that call.

5 A. Last night.

6 Q. And who did you call.

7 A. Steve Robel.

8 Q. And he’s a Santa Barbara Sheriff.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Did he call you or did you call him.

11 A. I called him. Because I was concerned,

12 because I didn’t want to be questioned on something

13 I don’t know about.

14 Q. Well, how did you know the rebuttal tape was

15 going to be shown today.

16 A. Well, because they gave me the CD to review

17 so I could refresh my memory. Nobody was sitting

18 there with me.

19 Q. And who was “they”.

20 A. Well, Steve Robel brought it over to me, and

21 I reviewed it.

22 Q. Was that last night.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Did he bring it to your home.

25 A. He brought it to where I was staying at.

26 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object to that

27 question, as to where the witness is, for purposes

28 of security and safety. 808

1 MR. MESEREAU: I’m not — I object to Mr.

2 Sneddon’s statement, that he’s suggesting things

3 that aren’t true, Your Honor. But I’m not going to

4 ask her her address anyway.

5 MR. SNEDDON: You asked where the home was.

6 THE COURT: No, he didn’t.

7 MR. MESEREAU: No, I didn’t.

8 THE COURT: Read the question back.

9 The objection is overruled. He didn’t ask

10 that. You misheard.

11 Read the question back.

12 (Record read.)

13 THE COURT: Okay.

14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And did you have a

15 discussion with this sheriff last night.

16 A. No, he just handed me the CD.

17 Q. Did he say anything to you at all.

18 A. No.

19 Q. Did he tell you it was likely to be shown

20 today.

21 A. Well, he said it was kind of going to be

22 shown eventually, so they just wanted me to review

23 it.

24 Q. And was that all he said.

25 A. Yeah.

26 Q. Did you ever meet with any member of the

27 prosecution team to discuss what you were going to

28 say in court in this case. 809

1 A. Yeah, we did meet once or twice.

2 Q. And who did you meet with.

3 A. Mr. Sneddon.

4 Q. And when did that take place.

5 A. Couple of days ago. Don’t remember.

6 Q. And did he come to where you were staying.

7 A. No, I went to where he was.

8 Q. Did someone pick you up and bring you to see

9 Mr. Sneddon.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And who was that, if you know.

12 A. I think it was Steve Robel’s wife.

13 Q. Okay. And was anyone in the meeting besides

14 you and Mr. Sneddon.

15 A. Mr. Robel would come in and out, but it was

16 mainly me and Mr. Sneddon.

17 Q. And was any other prosecutor there; do you

18 know.

19 A. No.

20 Q. Just you and Mr. Sneddon at times, and no

21 one else present.

22 A. No.

23 Q. Do you know if that conversation was

24 recorded.

25 A. No.

26 Q. Did anyone tell you it was going to be

27 recorded.

28 A. No. 810

1 Q. How long did that meeting with Mr. Sneddon

2 take place.

3 A. Like 15 minutes.

4 Q. Only 15 minutes.

5 A. Yeah.

6 Q. Did you discuss what you were going to be

7 asked in court.

8 A. No. He just — he just helped me refresh my

9 memory.

10 Q. Now, how did he help you refresh your

11 memory.

12 A. They just gave me what I said.

13 Q. Do you mean police reports.

14 A. No.

15 Q. Would it be transcripts.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Did he tell what you transcripts he was

18 giving you to read.

19 A. Just of the grand jury, and that’s all I

20 remember. That’s the only one.

21 Q. Okay. And did he give you any materials to

22 take home with you.

23 A. Well, that.

24 Q. Okay. So you took the transcript home with

25 you that Mr. Sneddon gave you.

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. And that was your grand jury testimony.

28 A. Yes. 811

1 Q. And did you read it.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Okay. Did you read anything else to prepare

4 for your testimony in court.

5 A. I don’t remember.

6 Q. Okay. How many times have you met with

7 Mr. Sneddon regarding this case.

8 A. Four times. Five times.

9 Q. And can you recall approximately when those

10 meetings were.

11 A. I don’t remember. But it wasn’t till a

12 while.

13 Q. Have they been in the last year.

14 A. Well, those two meetings that I had with

15 him, but I don’t remember.

16 Q. At your meetings with Mr. Sneddon, other

17 than the one you just described, has anyone else

18 been present.

19 A. At the beginning, they were the sheriff’s

20 department talking to us.

21 Q. Okay. How about the other meetings.

22 A. It was mainly just the officers.

23 Q. Other than the last meeting you described

24 where Mr. Sneddon was meeting with you at times

25 alone, have you ever met with him alone before.

26 A. No.

Mesereau begins to question Davellin about a June 2003 trip to the doctor, during which she told the doctors that she couldn’t describe her family situation to them due to the advice of her attorney Larry Feldman. Davellin claimed that she couldn’t disclose her family situation because she was afraid of her father David. Mesereau asked Davellin if her mother Janet accompanied her to the hospital, and Davellin denied it and said her grandmother went with her, but when Mesereau showed her a copy of the medical report that stated that Janet was indeed with her, Davellin said that she was young at the time, and she would always refer to her grandmother as “mother”:

19 Q. Okay. You’ve had attorneys before, correct.

20 A. No.

21 Q. Ever gotten advice from a lawyer.

22 A. No.

23 Q. Never at all.

24 A. No. Other than the city attorney that was

25 involved with the — the abuse my father put on us.

26 That’s all I’ve —

27 Q. That’s the only attorney you’ve ever spoken

28 to. 821

1 A. And we have a — a — I — against my

2 father. That’s the only attorney I know of.

3 Q. Okay. Do you remember visiting Kaiser

4 Permanente Hospital for a consultation with a doctor

5 on June 26th, 2003.

6 A. I don’t know what that is.

7 Q. Do you remember going to Kaiser Permanente

8 to complain about headaches.

9 A. Yeah.

10 Q. And you were with your mom, right.

11 A. No, that was the time that I was living with

12 my grandmother. And I went with my grandmother.

13 Q. Did your mother go to the hospital with you.

14 A. No, it was just me and my grandmother.

15 Q. Did you talk to a doctor.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Do you remember telling the doctor that you

18 had headache problems.

19 A. Yeah, it was due to, like, stress and stuff.

20 Q. And you told the doctor you got three hours

21 of sleep per week, right.

22 A. Yeah.

23 Q. And you told the doctor you got 12 hours of

24 sleep during weekends, correct.

25 A. Yeah.

26 Q. And when he asked you to explain your family

27 situation, you said you couldn’t do it because a

28 lawyer told you not to explain it, right. 822

1 A. Well, yeah. I was scared that somehow my

2 father would do something, so I just said that.

3 Q. Who was the lawyer that told you, “Don’t

4 tell the physician what’s going on at home”.

5 A. That’s what I’m telling you, I don’t know.

6 Q. Okay. But you told that to the physician,

7 didn’t you.

8 A. I don’t remember. Probably, yes.

9 Q. And your mother was with you with the

10 physician, true.

11 A. No, my grandmother was.

12 Q. Okay. You went to that physician because

13 you had a civil lawyer representing you at the time,

14 right.

15 A. Not that I remember. I don’t know.

16 Q. Well, had you spoken to an attorney named

17 Dickerman at that point.

18 A. We spoke once, yes.

19 Q. Do you know approximately when that was.

20 A. No.

21 Q. And after meeting with Mr. Dickerman, you

22 met with Attorney Larry Feldman, correct.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And after meeting with Attorney Larry

25 Feldman, you went to Kaiser, true.

26 A. That had nothing to do with it.

27 Q. I have to ask you, just — if you can, just

28 answer the question. 823

1 After meeting with Attorney Feldman, you

2 went to Kaiser, true.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And you went to Kaiser because you were

5 putting together a claim for damages, correct.

6 A. No. This had nothing to do with it. I

7 had — I still get those headaches to this day.

8 Those are headaches of lack of sleep. I don’t —

9 it’s hard for me to sleep.

10 Q. Why would you tell a physician, “I can’t

11 tell you the reasons because an attorney told me not

12 to”.

13 A. Because I’m afraid of my father. I don’t

14 know what he would do. I don’t know. I was scared.

15 I was little then.

16 Q. Okay. But your mom accompanied you, right.

17 A. No.

18 Q. Well —

19 MR. SNEDDON: Object as asked and answered.

20 THE COURT: Sustained.

21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Would it refresh your

22 recollection if I just show you the medical report.

23 A. That’s fine.

24 Q. May I show it to you.

25 A. I never saw it before. I only saw when the

26 doctor was writing it.

27 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor.

28 THE COURT: I’m not sure you’ve laid a 824

1 foundation yet.

2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Would it refresh

3 your recollection that your mother was with you when

4 you told the doctor, “A lawyer told me not to

5 discuss it”.

6 A. My grandmother was there. I was living with

7 my grandmother. My mom was not with me.

8 Q. Okay. So if I showed you the report that

9 says your mother was there, that wouldn’t change

10 your mind. Is that what you said.

11 A. Well, I call my grandmother my mother. And

12 because of like — because I was underage, they

13 wouldn’t allow my grandmother sharing things

14 because, like, she’s a grandmother and the mother

15 has to be present, so I would just say she’s my

16 mother.

In this excerpt, Mesereau questions Davellin’s assertion that nobody in her family watched Bashir’s documentary, when in fact Janet held Gavin’s hand and he leaned his head on her shoulder during the filming of the rebuttal tape, and said “We want to hold hands like in the Bashir documentary.” Davellin said that Dieter told them to do that:

1 Q. Okay. Now, you did testify before that no

2 one in your family watched the Bashir documentary,

3 right.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Do you recall on the videotape your mother

6 talking about her holding her hand with Gavin like

7 they did in the Bashir documentary.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. She must have learned that by watching the

10 Bashir documentary, right.

11 A. No.

12 Q. Well, how did she learn that, if you know.

13 A. Dieter had told us to — to do that somehow,

14 because they wanted to erase what everybody had saw

15 on the Bashir documentary.

16 Q. But her comment – and it seemed to be a

17 spontaneous comment – was, “We want to hold hands

18 like in the Bashir documentary,” right.

19 A. Yes, well, Dieter told her to do that.

20 Bradley Miller was standing right there, and she

21 knew anything that we didn’t do and say, that

22 Bradley Miller would go and tell Dieter.

Mesereau then questions Davellin about her family’s associations with NBA superstar  Kobe Bryant of the Los Angeles Lakers:

27 Q. Okay. The prosecutor showed a photograph of

28 your family with Kobe Bryant; do you remember that. 831

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Do you know when that photograph was taken.

3 A. That was during Gavin’s cancer.

4 Q. Okay. Do you know where it was taken.

5 A. At the comedy camp. Well, not the comedy

6 camp. At The Laugh Factory.

7 Q. Now, have you ever associated with Mr.

8 Bryant, other than having the picture taken.

9 A. I wasn’t there. I just knew because Gavin

10 was excited that he met him.

11 Q. But do you know if Gavin or your mother have

12 ever been with Mr. Bryant, other than when they had

13 a photo taken with him.

14 A. Well, David and Gavin and Chris Tucker had

15 went to a Laker game before too.

16 Q. To see Kobe play.

17 A. Yeah, and Chris had taken them.

18 Q. Taken them into where.

19 A. Taken them to the locker room, and they had

20 talked and stuff.

21 Q. But you consider — or at least at the time

22 you considered Chris Tucker to be a close friend,

23 right.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. You never considered Kobe Bryant to be a

26 close friend, did you.

27 A. No. Just — it made Gavin happy to know

28 that he knew that person. 832

1 Q. Right. But he never was somebody that your

2 family hung out with.

3 A. Not as close as Chris Tucker, no. We never

4 hung out.

5 Q. Never hung out with Kobe Bryant, right.

6 A. No.

Davellin is then questioned about her knowledge of the $20,000 dollars that comedian Louise Palanker paid to the family in order for them to renovate Gavin’s room to accommodate his illness, but the family never paid the men who were responsible or the renovation. Here is an excerpt from Mesereau’s opening statement on February 28th, 2005, where he describes this incident in detail:

19 A comedian named Louise Palanker was

20 approached by Janet, told they needed money for

21 medical bills and living expenses. She was not told

22 that insurance was covering all the medical bills.

23 She gave them $20,000, two $10,000 checks.

24 She then went to the home to check out the

25 room she thought she was contributing to, to redo

26 for Gavin when he came home to heal. She knew of a

27 builder who had gone to the home and redid the room.

28 She found out the builder had been stiffed, not 125

1 paid, and the money had been used for a huge T.V.

2 and DVD player. And she was upset.

3 This kind of behavior, we will prove to you,

4 went on and on and on.

Here is the excerpt from Davellin’s testimony:

10 Q. Did you ever go to Louise’s house at all.

11 A. No.

12 Q. Now, she gave your family $20,000.

13 A. No, she gave us ten.

14 Q. Two checks for $10,000, right.

15 A. I don’t know anything. You got to ask my

16 mom.

17 Q. Okay. But you knew she’d given a large sum

18 of money to your family, right.

19 A. Yeah.

20 Q. Was it your understanding that all that

21 money was spent on the room, to make it ready for

22 Gavin.

23 A. It was.

24 Q. Okay. Is that what your mother told you.

25 A. No. That’s what I saw.

26 Q. Okay. So you saw the money spent for that

27 purpose.

28 A. Yes. 834

1 Q. Did you ever talk to Louise Palanker about

2 whether the man who redid that room was actually

3 paid.

4 A. I don’t know. I wouldn’t talk to her about

5 that kind of stuff.

6 Q. You never saw anybody pay the person who

7 renovated that room, right.

8 A. I just saw him come, and he did the floors

9 and the closet and everything.

10 Q. Right. Right. But if he was paid or not,

11 you don’t know.

12 A. I don’t know.

13 Q. And you don’t know what the total cost was,

14 right.

15 A. Well, all the little stuff that was in

16 there, it was — I guess it was a lot.

17 Q. Okay. But you don’t really know how much,

18 right.

19 A. Like the air conditioning was, like, $2,000.

20 And the bed itself was a lot. And then the

21 linoleum, the closet, the stereo, the T.V., the DVD

22 player. The whole room was repainted. There was

23 blinds put up. There was everything redone in the

24 whole room. It’s totally different from the whole

25 house.

26 Q. Did you ever learn that the man who

27 renovated that room wasn’t paid at all.

28 A. I don’t know anything. 835

1 Q. Okay. Because you weren’t in charge of the

2 money, correct.

3 A. No.

4 Q. Okay. Do you know who was.

5 A. I think David was.

6 Q. And David was your father, right.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And he’s the man that your mother refers to

9 as “the biological father,” right.

10 A. Yes.

Mesereau goes on to ask Davellin if her mother Janet has ever solicited money from people for Gavin’s illness, and she said it was always her father David who asked for money! Janet’s role in solicitation schemes for Gavin will be proven later on in this trial.

13 Q. Do you know if George Lopez was involved in

14 any efforts by your mother to raise money.

15 A. Any efforts to raise money was by my father.

16 And I don’t know what he would do. He’s just a

17 crazy man. I don’t know.

18 Q. Did you — are you aware of whether or not

19 your mother and Gavin called Jay Leno on the phone

20 to ask for money.

21 A. I don’t remember that.

22 Q. Do you know anything about that.

23 A. I don’t remember that. I was never told

24 anything like that.

25 Q. Okay. Do you know anything about the Santa

26 Barbara Sheriffs recording that conversation.

27 A. I don’t remember that.

28 Q. Okay. So as far as you know, your mother 838 

1 never tried to raise money from anybody.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. You’re saying she never tried to raise money

4 from anybody, right.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Is that what you’re saying.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Okay. Your mother never asked for money

9 from anyone to help Gavin at any time, right.

10 A. No.

11 Q. Never saw that, never heard about it.

12 A. No.

13 Q. Okay. Are you saying, under oath, that the

14 only person in your family that tried to raise money

15 for Gavin was your father, David.

16 A. Yeah, he would pester a lot of people. And

17 then when my mom would find out, she would get kind

18 of upset about it.

19 Q. Really. Your mother would get upset if she

20 thought David was trying to raise money.

21 A. He’s just — I don’t know, he’s a weird man.

22 Q. Well, who asked Louise Palanker for money;

23 do you know.

24 A. She gave it to us. We never asked her for

25 anything. She gave it to us.

26 Q. She just volunteered it.

27 A. Yeah.

28 Q. Did you ever see your mother talking to 839

1 Louise Palanker.

2 A. Well, they would talk on the phone once in a

3 while, yeah, as friends do.

4 Q. Now, you saw the rebuttal video, obviously,

5 right.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And you’ve seen it before, right.

8 A. Well, yesterday I saw it.

9 Q. Yesterday. And you see your mother saying

10 that, “When we were” — words to the effect that,

11 “When we needed help, nobody would help us.”

12 Remember that.

13 A. Yeah.

14 Q. And she says, “Department of Children &

15 Family Services wouldn’t help,” right.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. She says, “Nobody would help and we had to

18 eat cereal,” right.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Are you telling the jury you’ve never seen

21 your mother ask for help.

22 A. No.

23 Q. Never in your lifetime.

24 A. No, she was just trying to make it more

25 dramatic, because that’s what they wanted.

26 Q. Okay. Okay. So your mother really wasn’t

27 being honest when she gave that talk about, “Nobody

28 would help us when we needed help”; is that right. 840

1 A. Yeah, she was just trying to make it more

2 dramatic, because that’s what they wanted.

3 Q. So are — okay. So as far as you’re

4 concerned, that was all memorized.

5 A. Not memorized, but everything — we had been

6 given a script. You can even see at the end, with

7 the guy holding it.

8 Q. Right. There’s a sheet with some questions

9 on it, right.

10 A. That was the script also.

11 Q. Okay. Are you saying that everything you

12 all said on that tape was memorized word for word.

13 A. It wasn’t memorized, but it was just things,

14 you know, “You got to remember this, you got to

15 remember that.” I’m not going to remember

16 everything right now.

17 Q. Well, did your mother, in your opinion,

18 volunteer any of the comments she made on that

19 video.

20 A. I don’t know. You gotta ask her.

 

In this excerpt, Mesereau catches Davellin in a series of lies that she told to the DCFS workers during her interview with them. When asked by Mesereau about statements that she made to the DCFS social workers about taking a girlfriend with her to Neverland, and about her mother Janet never neglecting her before, Davellin admitted that they were both lies. She also refused to glance through the transcript of the DCFS interview because she “didn’t write the transcript”:

24 Q. Ms. Arvizo, do you remember on December

25 20th, 2003 — excuse me, excuse me. Pardon me. Not

26 December. Pardon me.

27 Do you remember, in your meeting with the

28 social workers, saying that you often take a 845

1 girlfriend with you to Neverland to keep you

2 company.

3 A. No. No one ever went with me at Neverland.

4 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show

5 you the social workers’ report.

6 A. Well, I know I said that, but that’s not

7 true.

8 Q. But you did say that —

9 A. Yeah.

10 Q. — to the three social workers from the Los

11 Angeles Department of Children & Family Services.

12 A. Yes, I did.

13 Q. Okay. And you also told them that you

14 denied that your mother Janet had ever neglected

15 you, right.

16 A. My mom never neglected us.

17 Q. But my question is, you told the three

18 social workers that your mother had never neglected

19 you, right.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And you told the social workers your mother,

22 “Always knows what’s going on when she is at

23 Neverland with us,” right.

24 A. Yeah.

25 Q. You told them that.

26 A. Yeah.

27 Q. Was that true.

28 A. No. 846

1 Q. That was a lie.

2 A. Yeah.

3 Q. And you’re telling us today that when you

4 told those three social workers that you’d bring a

5 girlfriend with you to keep you company at

6 Neverland, that was a lie, right.

7 A. Yeah. There was no one to take, in the

8 first place.

9 Q. You told those social workers, “Michael is

10 like a father to all of us,” right.

11 A. Yeah.

12 Q. You told the social workers, “Michael is so

13 kind and loving,” right.

14 A. I don’t remember a lot of things I said. It

15 was a really long time ago.

16 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just

17 show you the report.

18 A. It’s not me writing it, so I don’t know.

19 Q. Well, would you want to give it a chance.

20 A. Okay.

21 Q. Do you want to see it.

22 A. It’s fine. You’re reading it anyways.

23 Q. You don’t want to see it.

24 A. No, that’s fine.

25 Q. Okay. So you don’t want to see if it

26 refreshes your recollection.

27 A. Well, the lady wrote it, so it’s not going

28 to refresh anything. 847

1 Q. You don’t want to try.

2 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to

3 object as argumentative.

4 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. I’ll move on, Your

5 Honor.

6 THE COURT: All right.

Mesereau was able to get Davellin to once again admit that she lied during the DCFS interview:

11 Q. Okay. All right.

12 Now, you told the jury that the first night

13 you and your family were at Neverland, you had

14 dinner in the main dining room and discussed whether

15 or not Gavin was going to sleep in Michael Jackson’s

16 bedroom, right.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Now, that was the first day you’d ever met

19 Michael Jackson, right.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. You had arrived in the afternoon, right.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. You said you had played at Neverland with

24 your brothers that afternoon, right.

25 A. I don’t remember what we did. All I

26 remember is me meeting him, and the rooms, and that

27 we ate dinner that day.

28 Q. So would you say you were there a couple of 852

1 hours before you had dinner.

2 A. Yeah.

3 Q. Okay. Was your mother in the dining room.

4 A. Yes, we were all in the dining room.

5 Q. And the subject at dinner came up, “Will

6 Gavin sleep in Michael’s bedroom,” the first dinner.

7 A. Yes, Gavin brought it up in the dining room,

8 yes.

9 Q. Okay. To your knowledge, did your father

10 approve.

11 A. I don’t remember. I think he did.

12 Q. To your knowledge, did your mother approve.

13 A. Yeah, I think she did.

14 Q. Okay. When you met with the social workers,

15 did you tell them that your father and mother had

16 approved Gavin sleeping in Michael Jackson’s bedroom

17 the first time you were at Neverland.

18 A. If they had asked me, I probably would have

19 said, “Yes.”

20 Q. Because you would have told them the truth

21 that day.

22 A. Yes, well, on certain things. Because —

23 Q. You would have told them the truth about

24 certain things, but not other things, right.

25 A. Well, yeah, because you already kind of knew

26 not to say what went on at Neverland.

27 Q. So you would have lied about some things and

28 not lied about other things, depending on what you 853

1 were asked, right.

2 A. Yeah.

3 Q. But you never discussed with your mother

4 what you were going to say if questioned by the

5 three social workers, right.

6 A. Not that I remember, no.

7 Q. Never did.

8 A. Not that I remember.

Mesereau then questions Davellin about her knowledge of Janet’s solicitation for money through a local newspaper, a charge that Davellin rejects, despite substantial evidence to the contrary that will be revealed later on in this trial:

28 Q. Now, has your mother ever told you to say in 856

1 court that she never tried to raise money for Gavin.

2 A. She’s never told me anything to say in

3 court.

4 Q. Okay. You’ve never discussed what you’ll

5 say in court with her at any time.

6 A. Never. Never.

7 Q. Okay. Do you have any knowledge of your

8 mother going to a newspaper in El Monte to place an

9 ad in the paper to raise money for Gavin.

10 A. No. What that was, was my aunt’s — that’s

11 her friend, and she wanted to do a story, because

12 they found out of Gavin’s illness.

13 Q. Do you have knowledge about that.

14 A. A little bit. Not really.

15 Q. Do you know if your mother ever spoke to

16 anyone with that newspaper about raising money for

17 Gavin.

18 A. No. Not that I remember.

19 Q. So you don’t think she did.

20 A. No.

21 Q. Never discussed that with your mom, as to

22 whether or not she approached them.

23 A. They just asked a couple of questions to my

24 mom about Gavin’s illness and stuff. That was it.

25 Q. Do you have any knowledge of your mother

26 calling the paper up and complaining that they

27 hadn’t put the bank account in the ad.

28 A. I don’t remember that. 857

1 Q. Never heard anything about that.

2 A. I don’t remember that.

3 Q. Okay. But as far as you know today, your

4 mother never approached that paper about raising

5 money.

6 A. No.

7 Q. Okay. Did you ever discuss that issue with

8 your mother.

9 A. No.

10 Q. Have you followed this case on television at

11 all.

12 A. Just when you’re flipping the channels and

13 you see something. But I keep going, because it

14 just upsets us.

15 Q. Have you watched any shows on television

16 that talked about the case.

17 A. No.

18 Q. Never.

19 A. Never.

20 Q. Okay. Have you watched any shows on

21 television that talked about your mom.

22 A. No.

23 Q. Never.

24 A. Never.

25 Q. Ever discuss with your mom any shows that

26 appeared on television about the case.

27 A. No.

28 Q. Never. 858

1 A. Never.

2 Q. Ever discuss with Gavin any shows that

3 appeared on television about this case.

4 A. Especially not, no.

5 Q. Have you ever discussed with your brother

6 Star any shows on television that appeared about the

7 case.

8 A. No.

9 Q. Ever discuss with Jay Jackson any of these

10 television shows that talked about this case.

11 A. No.

In this excerpt, Mesereau once again exposes Davellin by questioning her about her relationship with Carol Lamir, whom she met through an acquaintance who worked at a local dance studio. Davellin told Carol a lot of details about her family, including details of the physical abuse that Janet inflicted on her father David:

21 Q. Okay. Now, you know someone named Carol

22 Lamir, correct.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. How did you meet Carol Lamir.

25 A. At a dance studio.

26 Q. And approximately when was that.

27 A. I don’t know. We were really young.

28 Q. And at some point you moved in with Carol 861

1 Lamir, true.

2 A. I never moved in with her.

3 Q. You never lived at her place for a sustained

4 period of time.

5 A. I visited her for about a week.

6 Q. Just one week.

7 A. Well, it was several visits that she would

8 come and pick me up, but I never moved in with her.

9 Q. Did you ever live with her for a month at a

10 time.

11 A. No.

12 Q. How about a week at a time.

13 A. Maybe so, a week.

14 Q. How many weeks do you think you lived at her

15 place.

16 A. The longest I stood there at a time was

17 week. And I think it was like two or three times

18 that I stood with her.

19 Q. Well, you lived with her during the summer

20 of the year 2000, right.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. For how long did you live —

23 A. I didn’t live with her, though. I stood

24 with her in the year 2000.

25 Q. Pardon me.

26 A. I didn’t live with her. I stood with her in

27 the year 2000.

28 Q. You — 862

1 A. I never lived with Carol Lamir.

2 Q. Did you ever bring a suitcase with clothes

3 to Carol Lamir’s home.

4 A. Yeah, I was visiting. I took clothes.

5 Q. And you stayed weeks at a time, right.

6 A. Just one week at a time. That was the max.

7 I don’t remember staying any longer.

8 Q. How many times did you stay for

9 approximately a week at Carol Lamir’s home.

10 A. Probably like — I stood there a week at one

11 time, and then close to a week the other two times.

12 Q. You asked her if you could move in, didn’t

13 you.

14 A. No, I didn’t.

15 Q. Okay. You told Carol Lamir stories about

16 your mother, didn’t you.

17 A. No.

18 Q. You told her your mother would awaken you at

19 2:00 in the morning, correct.

20 A. No.

21 Q. You told her your mother would beat your

22 father, didn’t you.

23 A. No. I told her my — I tried telling her

24 that my father would beat my mother.

25 Q. You told Carol Lamir that your mother was

26 telling you to attack your father, when, in reality,

27 your mother was beating your father, right.

28 A. No. 863

1 Q. You never said anything like that to Carol

2 Lamir.

3 A. No.

4 Q. You constantly told Carol about Janet

5 hitting you and your brothers, true.

6 A. No.

7 Q. And at one point you told Carol Lamir that

8 your family was going to move into a big house in

9 the Hollywood Hills, correct.

10 A. I never told her that.

11 Q. Never said that at all.

12 A. No.

13 Q. Was it your understanding that Carol Lamir

14 asked Michael Jackson for a vehicle for your family

15 to use.

16 A. I don’t know.

17 Q. Don’t know anything about that.

18 A. I don’t know.

19 Q. Did you tell Mrs. Lamir that Michael Jackson

20 gave Gavin video games and players.

21 A. Yeah.

22 Q. Do you know when you told that to Carol

23 Lamir.

24 A. One of the times that I was staying there.

25 I don’t know.

26 Q. Okay. But you don’t remember how many times

27 you stayed there, right.

28 A. I don’t know. 864

1 Q. Has anyone discussed —

2 A. It’s not clear. It was too long ago.

3 Q. Has anyone discussed with you what you said

4 to Carol Lamir before today.

5 A. Not that I remember, no.

6 Q. Has any police officer discussed it with

7 you.

8 A. Not that I remember. I don’t know.

9 Q. Any sheriff.

10 A. Not that I remember. I don’t know.

11 Q. Mr. Sneddon.

12 A. Not that I remember. I don’t know.

13 Q. Mr. Robel.

14 A. All they have asked me is who she is. And I

15 told him who she was.

16 Q. And when did you last tell any of them who

17 she is.

18 A. A couple weeks ago. I don’t know.

19 Q. You don’t know when. Was it in the last

20 week.

21 A. No. It was farther than that.

22 Q. Okay. Did anyone ask you any questions

23 about Carol Lamir in the last week.

24 A. No.

25 Q. Okay. Has anyone told you I mentioned Carol

26 Lamir in my opening statement in this case.

27 A. No. Nobody talked to me about your opening

28 statement. 865

1 Q. Okay. Who did you discuss Carol Lamir with.

2 A. I don’t remember. One of the officers. I

3 don’t remember.

4 Q. Was that in the last month.

5 A. I think so.

6 Q. Okay. Did you ever tell Carol Lamir that

7 Janet would take her children places and

8 intentionally not feed them or bring food.

9 A. No.

10 Q. Did you ever tell Carol Lamir that it was

11 Janet’s intent that the children be fed by whoever

12 they were visiting.

13 A. No.

14 Q. Never said anything like that.

15 A. No.

16 Q. Are you saying you never complained about

17 your mother at all to Carol Lamir.

18 A. No. My mom’s a very, very, very good mother

19 to me.

20 Q. And you never complained about her one bit.

21 A. No.

22 Q. Never complained about her to Carol.

23 A. No.

On pages 7-11 of the defense pleading “MR. JACKSON’S OPPOSITIOIN TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA FOR MANUEL RAMIREZ”, Mesereau’s private investigator Scott Ross wrote a summary of his interview with Lamir on November 12th, 2004. During her interview with Ross, Lamir stated that Davellin started living with her in 2000 to escape the problems of her family, that Davellin complained about the abusive nature of her family, that they would get a big house in the Hollywood Hills, that Janet would intentionally not bring food so that whoever they were visiting would have to feed her children, that Janet forced the children to shoplift, and many other tales.

Carol Lamir concluded her interview by stating that Janet Arvizo belongs in a mental institution!

Mesereau’s cross examination continues in the next post!

18 Comments leave one →
  1. nannorris permalink
    May 24, 2012 8:03 am

    lynande51
    Thank you for the links..I dont know whether to laugh or cry…They were brought to Miami and they were blocked form watching the Bashir documentary??..and they put that in court papers ??its incredible
    The passports..Did the police investigators miss the part when about the press saying she was using MJ clout to cut the line..??
    Then the 3 million dollar bail because of course MJ is so fabulously wealthy , he is passing out a million out of petty cash to Frank, and yet he is so broke, he needs to hold the Arvizo against their will to repair his career..And the tone in these things “petty cash”.that is Sneddon jealousy..
    I remember reading his opening statement and him referring to the Turnberry Inn as a “swanky” place…and thinking …what has that got to do with anything? Is the jury supposed to hate him because he is able to get the presidential suite at the turnberry inn?
    He just hated his guts because he was a rich black guy that didnt know his place in Tom Sneddons world..
    Even when he refers to the inner city children coming to visit “our beautiful town or whatever “It always struck me as ..like ownership, like his possession, and MJ owned a whole lot more of it then he did ..I really think that frosted him a whole lot..
    Weitzman was right ..It was a show of how much power he had and who really was top dog in that county..
    ..

    .
    This thing is so ridiculous, I can not fathom how they really thought they would have ever got a conviction , .Or that any logical person would not see through this thing…
    Talk about drinking the kool aid.
    But these people are so scary because they had to have known this family was completely full of shit , they should have known Jason Francia interview with the police back in the day was going to show how the police essentially forced him to say something , because that kid wasnt getting out of the room until he did..
    They should have know Jordan Chandler was full of it back in 93 when the pictures didnt match the description.and refused to come in and testify with the infamous “I did my part” comment.
    They knew enough not to bring Evan Chandler into court even though supposedly he is that person his son supposedly told about the accusations..
    It just goes on and on..
    Every single time it showed MJ was innocent and he was the real victim, they completely ignored it and changed the game..
    These people just ran that town any way they saw fit..unbelievable ..
    .

    Like

  2. lynande51 permalink
    May 24, 2012 3:34 am

    Nan here is the Felony Complaint, the Arrest Warrant and the Indictment after the Grand Jury. As you can see the Arrest warrant is dated November 17th 2003 and the bail was set at that time. Then I will add a Motion for a Subponea allowing the Defense Investigator to Interview employees that were at the Federal Building On Feb.25th, 2003 when the Arvizos filed for the Passports and the Visa’s. Take note of page nine of the attorney’s declaration. It is interesting. Do you think if we showed that to Davelin it would help refresh her memory? Oh and we can add the actual costs of the Passports to the list of money that the Arvizo’s got out of MJ.
    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/120403warrantus.pdf
    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/121803complaint.pdf
    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/042104indictmentus.pdf
    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/112904expaopipoe.pdf

    Like

  3. nannorris permalink
    May 24, 2012 2:29 am

    people , sorry about my last link..i was goggleing matt tiabi on mj and came upon this article that just briefly mentions mike tiabbi, so it looks like a google page, but if you scroll down you will see what it says about the people in the local general store watching the verdicts come in.

    Like

  4. nannorris permalink
    May 24, 2012 2:23 am

    http://books.google.com/books?id=ofJ-PMPZYXEC&pg=PA12&dq=matt+taibbi+writing+on+michael+jackson&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tVO9T-ChAaqz6gG5rIhW&ved=0CGsQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false
    This is an excerpt of a book called sideways in neverland written by one of the locals and part of the excerpt is about MJ and the trail.
    I think he has a column in the local paper..
    The guy thinks mj is weird of course but he says his neighbors are just sad that Mj destroyed his career with his own bad judgement..
    On the verdict day , he talks about mj veterinarian saying ..”what did that cost us, 5 million”, so I dont get the sense from this guy that people thought MJ was guilty in that area , just that MJ Allowed himself to get into this jam, by hanging out with other people kids….
    And that is something that I want to rectify for the man also..
    This man was stalked and set up ..
    He was railroaded , more then anything by these prosecutors .and Bashir and a whole lot of other people.

    I will have to read that felony complaint..That is incredible…..where is that thing ?

    Like

  5. lynande51 permalink
    May 24, 2012 2:09 am

    And that is exactly why they said they were drunk. The funny thing is it was Janet that had the hardest times with dates and she wasn’t the one they said was drunk. That was where the “there are no clocks at Neverland came from”. Or better yet Star with his “they weren’t the right time”. Doesn’t that mean that if he knew they weren’t the right time he must have known the right time? See what their testimony was and people just have no idea do they?
    Davelin and her answers “I was just little”! Really? Little? Wasn’t she 16 almost 17 when this was happening? That is not just little.

    Like

  6. lynande51 permalink
    May 24, 2012 2:03 am

    Yeah I know when you see that Zonen is friends with these people still that tells you alot. The thing that people don’t seem to get is that a prosecutor works for the people. The people are you, me and even the accused because everyone has the presumption of innocence in the United States. It shouldn’t matter what Diane Dimond, Stacy Brown or Nancy Grace tell you you have to wait and see what the jury says about the evidence before you say that a person is guilty and that includes a prosecutor.
    When you read through the Motions presented by the Prosecution that level of equal balance is just plain missing. In one of the motions they presented to the court about the amount of bail they even say something along the lines of Michael making a settlement and that was an indication guilt so that is why his bail should be 10 times higher than anyone elses in the same circumstances. It was a little off too because they said something about garden variety molest cases and the garden of $20 million dollar settlements that grew it. They were hell bent on him being guilty and not because they thought he was or could prove that he was it was because they wanted him to be.
    When you read the original Felony complaint it had a bail amount set on the arrest and it was written on November 17th the day before the raid. So where was the presumption of innocence that they were supposed to have even before they ever searched anything?
    Also included in the felony complaint were too special laws added to it they were the one strike three strike laws that say that if he is found guilty there would be no plea bargain no parole. It is in all of the little things that Sneddon and company did that tells you he had a vendetta.
    And now we have Zonen out there with Star and Gavin Arvizo on his Facebook page. Is there any other case in history where that has occured? No you can bet that Marcia Clark doesn’t have the Brown and Goldman families on her Facebook.So does it look suspect? You bet it does!

    Like

  7. nannorris permalink
    May 24, 2012 1:06 am

    Lyndane51, thank you for the Larry Feldman explanation and David, thanks for taking the screen shots of Zonens friends. He and his wife might be flaunting their relationship with these people now , but in my opinion ..To be that close to people who had such a vested interest , like Dimond and Brown………….??.
    I just thinks it makes him look terrible..
    Hard to believe a smart guy like that cant see he and Sneddon were being used by Dimond , andd the Arvizos., but to me , it certainly has to cross his mind..
    Seems like he is stuck with all of them , and he is the one whose reputation was blemished by all of these associations…
    ..
    As far as time lines changing and allegations , I think that is why they had to say they were drunk, as if they couldnt recall details because of liquor..
    I think I even remember sneddon trying to blame some of Gavins mistakes on his cancer treatments , making him groggy and forgetful,, but the kid didnt catch the slow pitch sneddon was giving him., on the stand….lol

    Like

  8. stacy2 permalink
    May 23, 2012 11:53 am

    The fact that MJ had an iron-clad alibi explains why the Arvizos couldn’t nail down specific dates and why Gavin kept on changing his story.

    Like

  9. lynande51 permalink
    May 23, 2012 10:20 am

    I want to add one other profession to the list of mandatory reporters. That would be Dentists. If a Dentist makes a good faith report the person that is being accused cannot sue them if the claims are unfounded.Evan Chandler was a Dentist.

    Like

  10. TatumMarie permalink
    May 23, 2012 10:10 am

    Good job on this article. Oh my goodness, This trial was more corrupt and vicious than I originally thought.

    Like

  11. sanemjfan permalink
    May 23, 2012 7:17 am

    @Nan
    I will take screenshots of Zonen’s friends list for you! I just checked it and it has grown significantly over the last few months!

    Like

  12. lynande51 permalink
    May 23, 2012 7:03 am

    @ nan
    Yes Zonen should have known better. His reputation is ruined thanks to the Arvizo family.
    As far as how the whole thing went down let me acquaint you to something called a mandatory reporter. That would be me. There is a list of certain professionals that are required by law to report suspected abuse.I am one as are several others including officers of the court or lawyers.
    It goes like this. If I a mandatory reporter thinks that there is good evidence or the disclosure of abuse is real I make a good faith report to something called a Point of Entry or in this case it would be Social Services. Then if they find that the allegations are found (true) they report it to the police. If the police investigate it and find that there was probably abuse they will file charges. If the police investigate and there is no supporting evidence then the accuser can go to civil court for damages or whatever it would be if it was a custody case.That is not what happened here.
    Here the Arvizo’s went to see William Dickerman who had back and forth communications with Mark Geragos about the Arvizo’s belongings and the video and audio tapes that they made. Then even after Mark Geragos sent them back he refused them and sent the Arvizo family to Feldman. Feldman sent them to Katz who then went to Family services who asked him if the children were still in danger. He told them they were not and was told he had to report it to the police and then Feldman called Sneddon who had Paul Zellis call Katz. I should tell you that everyone of the people that I have listed above are mandatory reporters so anyone of them could have gone to Family Services to report this. They did not need to involve Katz at all because it isn’t just people in the health care field that are mandatory reporters, all officers of the court are mandatory reporters too. Like lawyers? So anyone of them could have reported it but they did it completely backwards when they did it the way it compared to the way it should be done if it was a legitimate claim.
    First the Arvizo family would have gone to Katz and made the disclosure. He would have called Social Services who would have investigated it and turned it into the police if their report was that it was found to be suspected abuse. Then the police would have investigated and if evidence was found that supported the allegation of abuse they would have filed charges. If no evidence was found to support the allegation of abuse they would decline to file charges but the claimant in the case could seek a civil attorney and sue the person for whatever the claim of injury would be.

    Like

  13. nannorris permalink
    May 23, 2012 3:34 am

    I think Mesereau made an excellent point of getting that across to the jury that she was going to say she was injured in some way due to MJ…..Then all three kids would have gotten money.
    What scumbags…
    Isnt it funny how the lead detectives wife is driving them around ..
    Everybody getting off on the proximity of Michael Jackson..I seem to remember Wm or someone telling me the wives would occasionally come in to court and sit behind their husbands , the prosecution team, while they kicked Mj around the playground., like a bucnch of bullies..
    I wish I knew more about the computer because i would take a picture of Ron Zonen friends list on Fb..
    Diane Diane

    Stacey Brown
    Gavin Arviso
    Star Arvizo.

    Notice there is only the bottom of the barrel.
    No Linda Deutch on his friend page…
    I think it looks terrible for his reputation as a former high profile govt prosecutors to be affiliated with these people..

    DD or SB dont care that his affiliation with them will taint his professional reputation.
    They dont have a conscience., or they wouldnt do the job they do.
    Zonen should have been held to a higher standard , and I sincerely hope some day he will be…
    I wonder if a smart guy like him has figured that out yet…..
    As far as Feldman , I do think he thought MJ would throw money at the Arvizo to go away , but perhaps because childrens services wouldnt go along with it , he had to go to Sneddon..???

    I am not sure how that went. down…..
    But he had lawsuits against the city , i believe , lined up , for releasing info about the Arvizo family as well..
    He was really ready to collect from everybody..

    Like

  14. lynande51 permalink
    May 23, 2012 12:01 am

    The testimony about her going to the hospital is very important. First it was on June 26th of 2003 just 12 days after Larry Feldman and Dr. Stan Katz reported the allegations to Sneddon and the Sant Barbara Sheriff’s Department. Then if you know how the law works you have to have an injury in one form or another from an accident to claim neglegence or a liability that the other person has. In other words she went in to report that she was not sleeping and she was getting headaches from it. That is an injury so she could file a claim against Michael for causing her lack of sleep so that she had the headaches. That was just one injury to one member of the family that they would have tried to pursue in a civil case. The fact that she was told by a lawyer that she couldn’t say anything about it also proves that there was an intention ot sue. There was also an intention on Feldmans part to “keep it quiet and go to them with what he had” because his experience with Michael’s lawyers in 1993 told him he would get money if he just told them that this family were making claims against him and he wouldn’t even tell him what those claims were. That is how you know that their intentions were money even from th every beginning. The date of the first meeting that Janet Arvizo had with William Dickerman was February 21st, 2003. The day after they made the video and long before they even quit trying to go back to Neverland. She stayed at Jay Jacksons house and when the kids went back to Neverland with Ajza Pryor they found out that Michael was not there. He was in Florida with the Malniks for Blanket’s first birthday and stayed there away from everything and everyone until March 2nd 2003 when he went home. That was the night that Rijo Jackson saw the Arvizo boys masturbating to porn in a guest unit and told his sister Simone. She was the one that told him to go tell Michael and he went to stay in his room but didn’t tell him because he was afraid to because he didn’t know if Michael would believe him. The Arvizo boys were not in Michael’s room but Aldo and Rijo were. Aldo and Marie Nichole were with Michael the entire time until the Arvizo’s finally let Neverland, they even went to Florida with him. Michael left Neverland to get away from them and went to stay at the Beverly Hilton from the March 5-9 and he went back when he thought they were gone but they showed up again. If that isn’t trying to set him up and planning to do it I don’t know what is!

    Like

  15. Julie permalink
    May 22, 2012 11:53 pm

    First of all – David – excellent work as always!!! Secondly, nanmorris I totally agree with you about Robel’s wife. It is so extremely weird that this one family was catered too by law enforcement and it’s even more weird that they are still hanging out with the Arvizos. I truly believe they promised the Arvizos they would pay for college or whatever to get them to go along with the case and that’s why you see Zonen, his old maid wife and the rest of the gang hanging out with the Arvizo boys.

    Dimond and Brown are patting each other on the back on twitter which is nauseating and Brown is blathering that Bob Jones’ book was honest. I honestly don’t know if he or Dimond have a clue what the word honest means.

    Like

  16. nannorris permalink
    May 22, 2012 9:53 pm

    Dont you just love how Steve Robels wife, Nancy, is driving the accusers around to meetings ..Was the rest of the sheriff dept back up at Neverland going through MJ hamper , again??LOL..LOL,,It must have been so exciting for all of them to somehow be involved in the famous Michael Jackson trial..
    How pathetic..And yes, yet another prosecution witness crashes and burns during cross examination..pfft
    Thanks David, I really think this is great of you to do this ..A lot of work , I know , but this is how people will see that he was set up and railroaded by the Arvizos and Feldman , being enabled by Sneddon and his henchman

    Like

  17. sanemjfan permalink
    May 22, 2012 8:44 pm

    @Rodrigo
    Thanks! Later this week I will post a final summary of Davellin’s testimony, and it will consist of 32 easy to read and reference bullet points! I’ll do the same to all of the major witnesses throughout the trial.

    Like

  18. Rodrigo permalink
    May 22, 2012 8:25 pm

    Brilliant work, David!

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: