Cross-examination Full of Questionable Testimony – MJEOL Bullet #250 MARCH 8 2005 – The first day of cross-examination of the accuser’s sister, Davellin Arvizo, was highly interesting to say the least. She was caught in lies before, she confessed that she’d made molestation allegation against her father at the mother’s urging, and she admitted that she was previously picked and chosen when to tell the truth and when to lie. Her cross-examination continued Monday, March 7 2005. Thanks to the powerhouse MJJFORUM.com, we have access to the official court transcripts and will be citing excerpts form the official transcripts of testimony while writing about this so-called “case”. But just what did she testify to under cross. What we’ve found out through the transcripts is that the interview with the three Los Angeles Dept of Child & Family Services (DCFS) social workers occurred in Major Jay Jackson’s house, reportedly Feb 21 2003. And yet, you got it, right in the middle of the timeline when they claim to had been kidnapped/held hostage at Neverland and various other places. This meeting with the DCFS took place after the rebuttal interview with them was filmed at Jackson’s videographer’s (Hamid Moslehi) house. Through cross-examination, the public learned that it wasn’t just Moslehi, the family and some family-alleged kidnapper watching over them. Also at the taping of that rebuttal interview was Chris Tucker’s girlfriend at the time, Aja. The Arvizo’s are no longer close to Tucker or Aja, according to the sister’s testimony. Under cross-examination, the defense attorney was able to bring out the fact that Santa Barbara sheriff’s deputy, Steve Robel, gave the accuser’s sister a copy of the interview they gave at Moslehi’s house to “refresh her memory”.

808 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. (pg 808 of March 4 2005 transcript)

To “refresh her memory”? I guess when you’ve told so many different stories, you need a reminder sometimes. Moving on. __Meetings to “refresh her memory”__ Another strange admission from the accuser’s sister revolves around Steve Robel. When asked if she met with any member of the prosecution before her testimony, she says she met with Sneddon. When asked how they came in contact with each other, she says Steven Robel’s wife picked her up and drove her to meet with Sneddon. Unless Mrs. Robel is also a member of law enforcement, it seems rather odd that 1) she would know where they were. The defense apparently doesn’t even know where they’re staying; and 2) she would be allowed to pick-up this allegedly threatened family. Aren’t they afraid that whoever is allegedly after this family could place his wife in danger too? I guess not. From the transcript:

809 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? 810 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. (see pg 809-810)

The defense may be implying, as some court observers thought, that the prosecution may have been the one who were directing her testimony. And maybe rightly so because she came off as a little bit too “credible” under direct in light of the way her testimony fell apart under cross-examination. Sneddon gave the sister grand jury transcripts to take home with her to “refresh her memory” at that meeting at well. She says she met with Sneddon for or five times. After that testimony, Mesereau got into asking her questions about whether or not she’s discussed this “case” or what she was going to say with any of her family members. Further from the transcripts:

816 1 Q. Did your brothers ever call you to talk 2 about what they were going to say? 3 A. No. 4 Q. So are you in contact with your brothers? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Regular contact? 7 A. Of course. 8 Q. Are you in contact with your mother? 9 A. Of course. 10 Q. Is it regular contact? 11 A. Yes, of course. 12 Q. And yet, during all of this regular contact, 13 nobody has even discussed what was going to happen 14 in this courtroom? 15 A. What’s more important to us is our feelings 16 and if we’re okay. That’s what’s important to us. 17 Q. So no one has even discussed it, right? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Not once? 20 A. Never. (pg 816)

Never? Not once?? No, that simply isn’t logical. Someone at some point would have had to talk about this so-called “case”, if only to ask if she was nervous about testifying. As Fox’s Adam Housley reported March 4 2005, the jury may not buy that at all. Mesereau even goes down the list of family she would have had the opportunity to discuss the “case” with. From her March 4 2005 testimony:

818 2 Q. Have you discussed what you were going to 3 say today with Jay Jackson? 4 A. No. 5 Q. At any time? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Have you ever discussed this case with Jay 8 Jackson? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Ever discussed this case with your mother? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Ever discussed this case with Gavin? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Ever discussed this case with Star? 15 A. No. 16 Q. At the home that you share with your mom, 17 Gavin and Star, have you ever seen any documents 18 about this case? 19 A. No. 20 Q. None? 21 A. Well, just what was given to us for us to 22 think, but we’ve never seen them. We just saw what 23 they came in, but we’ve never read through each 24 other’s stuff. (see pg 818)

Huh? Something was given to them to help them think? Something that they never looked at or read?? So Mesereau digs deeper to try to figure out what was going on with those documents. She testified that they all got separate packages and that each package had their names on them. And although she claims she never looked at them, she says there were about the “case”. Now, how did she know that unless she looked at them? And further, why wouldn’t she have looked at an important package with her name on it? She then goes on to testify that she’s “never” had an attorney before and “never” sought advice from a lawyer before. Well, we all know that both attorneys Larry Feldman and Bill Dickerman represented the family at one time. From the transcript:

821 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? 822 1 A. And we have a — a — I — against my 2 father. That’s the only attorney I know of. (see p 821-822)

During a visit to Kaiser Permanete Hospital for “headaches”, “due to, like, stress and stuff,” the sister told the doctor that she couldn’t’ give them any info about her family situation because a lawyer told her not to. But this doesn’t make sense because earlier she testify that she didn’t have a lawyer and “never” got advice from a lawyer. Mesereau finally got her to admit that she’d met with both Dickerman and Feldman. From the transcript:

823 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. 824 1 After meeting with Attorney Feldman, you 2 went to Kaiser, true? 3 A. Yes. (see pg 823-824)

The sister says in June 2003, she was living not with the mother, but with her grandmother. Jackson’s attorney asked her if she’d ever been to Kaiser Permanente hospital with the mother. Apparently the sister was involved in lying to that doctor she say and passing off her grandmother as her mother. She admitted she did it so that the grand mother could have authority to authorize certain things that only the mother would have. __Sister: Dieter made me do it__ The sister also points the finger at Dieter Weisner, a German business man who, sources have said, can barely speak English. During the rebuttal interview that was never aired as a part of “Take Two: The Footage you Were Never Meant to See,” the mother is heard on camera as saying “We went to hold hands like in the Bashir documentary.” This at the mother’s direction, and not at the direction of any of Jackson’s people. Now how in hell can she claim to had been scripted and directed to say certain things if she is the one, caught on camera, giving directions to her kids? What’s also incredibly interesting is, if you remember, they all – the sister, mother, brother and accuser – claim they’ve never seen the Bashir “documentary”. Thus, the question is how in the world could the mother have made a statement on Feb 19-20 2003 referencing something that happened in the Bashir “documentary” if she’s never seen it before? Well the sister tries to explain it away by putting the blame on Weisner. From her testimony:

828 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. (see pg 828)

For the record, Miller is Mark Geragos’s private investigator. He wasn’t hired by Weisner. And this sister knew it because she was caught twice on tape being told by Miller that he is a P.I. working after Mark Geragos during that Feb 16 2003 interview with the family at Jay Jackson’s apartment. __A picture doesn’t always tell a thousand words__ There was also clarification about Kobe Bryant was never a close friend of the family’s. He just met the accuser’s briefly and took a public picture with him probably like thousands of other fans that have done the same thing. The mother had previously told police officers that Bryant was helping her in some way, and that she could call on him if needed. From the sister’s March 4 testimony:

831 27 Q. Okay. The prosecutor showed a photograph of 28 your family with Kobe Bryant; do you remember that? 832 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Do you know when that photograph was taken? 3 A. That was during Gavin’s cancer. … 832 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. … 832 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. 833 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. (see pgs 831-833)

This is significant to note because some pro-prosecution pundits also tried to use the photo of the accuser with Bryant as some kind of proof of the mother’s honesty and a slam at the defense, if you can believe it. One know-nothing pundit actually reported something to the effect (paraphrasing): ‘The defense claims the family wasn’t close to Kobe Bryant but sure enough the prosecution produced a photo of the accuser with Bryant.’ Well, now we know the circumstances around this photo. And like so many other things, once cross-examination happens, you get a better understanding of the circumstances around certain situations. There’s a lot of information to digest! MJEOL will continue to break down some of the details from the transcripts and court documents that you may have missed thanks largely to the way some of the media has covered this so-called “case”. Stay tuned for more info from the sister’s cross-examination. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply