Created: Tuesday, 26 April 2005
Tuesday, April 26, 2005 On day 39 a travel agent testifying under immunity in Michael Jackson’s trial said Tuesday she booked a flight to Brazil for the family of the accuser at the request of one of his business associates.
Cynthia Montgomery testified that she arranged a $15,000 flight to Sao Paulo at the request of Marc Schaffel, who is named by prosecutors as one of the unindicted co-conspirators in the Jackson case.
Prosecutors contend Mr. Jackson’s associates planned to keep the family in Brazil indefinitely in the aftermath of the Feb. 6, 2003, airing of the TV documentary “Living With Michael Mr. Jackson.”
Montgomery was granted immunity because the FBI is investigating her in relation to the secret videotaping of Mr. Jackson and former attorney Mark Geragos during a charter jet flight she booked. The charter flight brought Mr. Jackson from Las Vegas to Santa Barbara where he surrendered to authorities.
Montgomery said she booked, but did NOT purchase tickets for the accuser’s family on a flight scheduled to depart for Brazil on March 1, 2003. Montgomery told jurors the plane tickets were never purchased because Shaffel later informed her he “had a change of plans.” She also said she never spoke to Mr. Jackson, or the accuser’s family about the trip.
She said Schaffel asked her to book a one-way trip but she had to arrange a round-trip flight because Americans are not allowed to enter Brazil with one-way tickets. She said she arbitrarily chose a return date.
The family never made the flight and prosecutors did not discuss the reason why in court.
(Excerpt from Court Transcript)
MR. MESEREAU: You and Mr. Schaffel discussed a round trip to Brazil involving the Arvizos, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. MESEREAU: And you put together an itinerary for that round trip, right?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I made a reservation for that trip.
MR. MESEREAU: And in the course of making the reservation, you actually had an itinerary with dates, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. MESEREAU: There was a departure date, true? And there was a return date, right?
MS. MONTGOMERY: True.
MR. MESEREAU: The trip you were arranging was for how many people?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Four.
MR. MESEREAU: You separately had arranged a Brazil trip for Mr. Schaffel, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. MESEREAU: You arranged a separate trip for Mr. Schaffel around the time that you and he discussed arranging a trip for the Arvizos, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. MESEREAU: And when you used to get tickets for Mr. Schaffel, how would you typically arrange to pay for those tickets?
MS. MONTGOMERY: He would send me a check or put it on his credit card.
MR. MESEREAU: Did he ever send you a check involving a trip for the Arvizos?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I couldn’t tell you for sure. I’d have to look at documents.
MR. MESEREAU: To your knowledge, was there ever a charge made on any credit card for a trip to Brazil involving the Arvizos?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Not to my knowledge.
MR. MESEREAU: Okay.
MS. MONTGOMERY: No.
MR. MESEREAU: And at no time did you ever arrange any trip to Brazil for Mr. Jackson, right?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That’s right.
MR. MESEREAU: And at no time did you ever speak to Mr. Jackson on the phone about any trip to Brazil, right?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I’ve never spoken to Mr. Jackson on the telephone.
MR. MESEREAU: And you’ve never spoken to him in person about any trip to Brazil at any time?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That’s correct.
MR. MESEREAU: I have no further questions
(End of Excerpt)
On cross-examination, defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. immediately noted that Montgomery was testifying under immunity granted by Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville.
Mr. Jackson’s lead lawyer launched a blistering attack on Montgomery’s credibility, laying bare a bitter legal battle that she is fighting against Mr. Jackson.
He revealed that Montgomery had received legal immunity for her testimony as she is involved in a Federal Bureau of Investigation probe over the illegal video bugging of Mr. Jackson’s chartered private jet.
Mr. Mesereau suggested that Montgomery’s request for immunity “grew out of concerns of a possible prosecution over the secret taping of Michael Mr. Jackson on that private flight” that brought Mr. Jackson to California for his high-profile arrest on November 20, 2003.
Mr. Jackson has sued the travel agent for invasion of privacy on the flight from Las Vegas, while Montgomery last year countersued the star for 50,000 dollars in unpaid bills from the flight.
Legal analysts said Montgomery scored some points for the prosecution, but warned that her credibility may have been damaged.
“The jury’s got to think was she behind the videotaping” said former prosecutor Craig Smith said. “Does she have an axe to grind?”
As prosecutors wind up their nine-week case against Mr. Jackson, Mr. Jackson’s former personal videographer Hamid Moslehi took the stand to tell how he made videos after the broadcast of the TV documentary on February 6, 2003.
Moslehi said he filmed the accuser and the boy’s family praising Mr. Jackson as a father figure on February 20, 2003 and an interview with Mr. Jackson’s ex-wife Debbie Rowe, who is expected to testify later this week, on February 5.
But in lengthy questioning Tuesday, Moslehi failed to directly support prosecutor’s claims that both Rowe and the family were coerced into making what they have tried to claim were carefully-scripted films.
While Moslehi was not directly asked whether the videos were scripted, he said the demeanor of the alleged victim’s mother appeared normal during filming, although she was upset about having to sign a standard release form.
Adding to the string of cash ‘donations’ she received, the accuser’s mother took $2,000 from Moslehi and never repaid this loan either.
(Excerpt from Court Transcript)
MR. MESEREAU: You got the impression that Janet and her family could use some financial help. That’s why you made a loan, right?
MR. MESEREAU: Okay. You based your conclusion that Janet needed financial help on what she had said to you from time to time, right?
MR. MOSLEHI: Could you repeat that one more time?
MR. MESEREAU: Sure. Let me restate it completely. You didn’t just give her $2,000 for no reason, right?
MR. MOSLEHI: That’s correct.
MR. MESEREAU: You thought she could use it, right?
MR. MOSLEHI: That’s correct.
MR. MESEREAU: You thought she needed it based on things she had told you about she and her family, right?
MR. MOSLEHI: Sure.
MR. MESEREAU: She didn’t directly ask for it at any time, right?
MR. MOSLEHI: No, she never asked for it.
MR. MESEREAU: But she led you to believe that their lives had been turned upside down and she needed some financial help, right?
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Compound;misstates the evidence; asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Could you repeat that one more time? I’m sorry.
MR. MESEREAU: Yes, okay. At some point — let me restate the question. I’ll withdraw the previous question.
MR. MOSLEHI: Okay.
MR. MESEREAU: At some point after numerous discussions with Ms. Arvizo, you formed the conclusion that she and her family could use some financial help from you, right?
MR. MOSLEHI: After one conversation with her that night, February 19th, on the phone, I felt that they could use some financial assistance.
MR. MESEREAU: Okay. And because you had reached that conclusion, you gave her $2,000, correct?
MR. MOSLEHI: That’s correct.
MR. MESEREAU: You called it a loan, but you didn’t expect to be repaid, correct?
MR. MOSLEHI: Well, actually, I’ve been expecting to be paid. But if not, I can live without it.
MR. MESEREAU: Okay. I mean, realistically when you gave it to her, did you expect her to repay it?
MR. MOSLEHI: I did.
MR. MESEREAU: Did you —
MR. MOSLEHI: I mentioned, “This is not a gift. It’s a loan. It’s from me.”
MR. MESEREAU: Okay.
MR. MOSLEHI: “And pay me whenever.”
MR. MESEREAU: Okay. And has she ever repaid it?
MR. MOSLEHI: No.
MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Now, is the conversation where you spoke to her and then concluded she could use some financial help the 25-minute conversation?
MR. MOSLEHI: Approximately.
MR. MESEREAU: Okay. And to your knowledge, where was Janet Arvizo when you had this approximately 25-minute conversation?
MR. MOSLEHI: At what location she was, you mean?
MR. MESEREAU: Yes. If you know.
MR. MOSLEHI: I don’t remember.
MR. MESEREAU: And did she call you?
MR. MOSLEHI: No.
MR. MESEREAU: Did you call her?
MR. MOSLEHI: No.
MR. MESEREAU: Where were you when you had the 25-minute conversation?
MR. MOSLEHI: At Neverland.
MR. MESEREAU: Okay. And do you know approximately what date that conversation took place?
MR. MOSLEHI: I believe it was February 19, 2003.
MR. MESEREAU: Okay. So the impression you got that Janet could use a little help was formed before the rebuttal video was filmed at your home, true?
MR. MOSLEHI: That’s true.
MR. MESEREAU: The rebuttal video was filmed at your home the next day, right?
MR. MOSLEHI: Well, the morning after.
(End of Excerpt)
Recent Comments