|
昨天法庭实录：
April 28, 2005, Santa Maria, Ca -- Prosecutors were asserting as late as Monday that Debbie Rowe would testify to being scripted prior to filming the rebuttal video. The defense claims that the witness was brought to the stand under false pretense and that the prosecution lied to the court. As it is now apparent, it was merely a hope that prosecutors thought Rowe would corroborate their contentions, as well as the earlier testimony of the accuser’s mother, of being scripted right down to every laugh and smile.
Prior to her continued testimony on Thursday, defense attorneys retreated to the judge’s chambers in a bid to request the witness’s entire testimony be stricken. Court began without the jury present, as Judge Melville wished to address the motion at that time.
Judge Melville stated it was his sense that, “She hasn't testified long enough for me to know, really, what she's going to say, or anyone else. And your motion might be well-taken. It might not. But I -- I understand what she said yesterday, but I don't really understand what she has to say today. So I would want to really hear more testimony, I think. I understand your position. I just think the -- she barely got started yesterday. I mean, I really -- I think I'd have to let it -- well, I would have to know more about what she says than what I know already to know whether or not your motion is well-taken.”
It was Mr. Sanger’s position that his concern was to raise it at the earliest possible moment because, “if it goes too long, then we get into a position where it's hard to undo it.”
Judge Melville replied, “There is another side of the coin, though. I let the testimony in based on their representations in their written materials, which -- if the testimony is the exact opposite, I mean, isn't that the testimony that would be relevant to your side of the case?”
Mr. Sanger stated, “We thought about it, but the problem is that this will then lead to a tremendous amount of other collateral testimony to put whatever it is in context. And that's my concern. If we go too far down the road, then we pretty much are committed to doing the whole thing.”
It was the decision of Judge Melville to continue to hear more testimony before making a final ruling on the motion to strike. The jury then entered the court, and Mr. Zonen continued his direct examination of Debbie Rowe.
Examination continued where it had left off the previous day, with the discussion of the interview at Marc Schaffel’s home in Calabasas back in February of 2003. Ms. Rowe stated that she had been at the residence from early in the morning until 9:00 or 10:00 at night, around 9 or 10 hours. Her attorney was there the entire time. However, she was not in the presence of Ms. Rowe the entire time. They were separated at times because Ms. Rowe, “didn't want to see the interviewer before the interview. And the best way to do that was to leave where everything was that was happening in the living room off to the side of the main entrance of the house, so Mr. Schaffel and I went upstairs in his office.” While she had a conversation with Mr. Schaffel at that time, she stated that they did not discuss the interview.
Ms. Rowe as asked if she had, at any time, looked at a script. She said she did not. She did state that Mr. Drew had a number of pages of questions and asked her if she wished to see them, and she told him no. She was told there were 105 questions. It was her understanding that he went over all of the questions in the course of the interview.
It was established that Mr. Schaffel there the entire time. When asked if he had said anything to her, she stated, “He was hearing sounds in the background, thought it was being picked up on audio, wanted to make sure what the background looked like and everything. He occasionally – not "occasionally," frequently would interject to rephrase a question or an answer.”
TRIAL TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT:
Mr. Zonen: What kinds of comments did he make?
Ms Rowe: He would ask me if I would rephrase an answer or he would ask Mr. Drew to rephrase a question.
Mr. Zonen: Do you remember any specific questions that he asked you to rephrase?
Ms Rowe: I don't remember a specific -- there were so many, I don't remember any specific. I remember at the end he wanted us to add stuff to clarify what he thought might be misunderstood or something.
Mr. Zonen: And did you, in fact, make changes in your interview in accordance with his request?
Ms Rowe: Only if it didn't change the meaning of what I had to say.
Mr. Zonen: All right. What is it that you were intending to represent in this interview?
Ms Rowe: Michael as a wonderful person and as a great father and generous and caring.
Mr. Zonen: All right. Did you have information as to Michael Jackson as a wonderful father?
Ms Rowe: As I've known him? Yes.
Mr. Zonen: When was the last time you'd actually talked with him?
Ms Rowe: In 1999.
Mr. Zonen: All right. This was in early 2003; is that correct?
Ms Rowe: Correct.
Mr. Zonen: When was the last time you saw him interact with the children?
Ms Rowe: 1991. I'm sorry, 1999.
Mr. Zonen: In the course of this interview, did you represent yourself as still being part of the family?
Ms Rowe: Yes, I did.
Mr. Zonen: Was that true?
Ms Rowe: No, it was not.
Mr. Zonen: Why did you do it?
Ms Rowe: To protect the children and to try to keep the media and questions away and out of their focus. And to make sure that I could do whatever I could even at a distance.
Mr. Zonen: How did you approach this interview in terms of your affect?
Ms Rowe: I was excited to do it.
Mr. Zonen: Why?
Ms Rowe: Because I would get to see my children and possibly renew a relationship with Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Zonen: Why did you want to do that?
Ms Rowe: They're my family.
Mr. Zonen: Did you consider them your family?
Ms Rowe: Yes.
Mr. Zonen: Did you consider Mr. Jackson to be your family to the same extent as your children?
Ms Rowe: I don't think anyone is as much as your children, but, yes.
Mr. Zonen: How long had it been since you had seen your children?
Ms Rowe: About two and a half years.
Mr. Zonen: At the conclusion of the interview, did you have a conversation with anybody about when you would be able to see your children?
Ms Rowe: Mr. Schaffel said that he was excited, and that we'd be going up to Neverland soon. And I said, "Fine." I said, "Let me know as soon as you can."
Mr. Zonen: Was that something that you wanted to do?
Ms Rowe: Very much. Very much.
Mr. Zonen: When was the last time you had been to Neverland?
Ms Rowe: Years. I couldn't tell you. Probably '99, '98.
Mr. Zonen: Did you make any contact with anybody about seeing your children within the next, say, 30 days or beyond?
Ms Rowe: Mr. Schaffel. I would call him almost weekly. I didn't want to be a noodge, or piss him off, so I would call him and chat him up, and say, "By the way," you know, "Are they back?" You know, "When can I see them?" Because it was my understanding they were out of town.
Mr. Zonen: For what period of time did you continue to contact Mr. Schaffel about that?
Ms Rowe: About nine months.
Mr. Zonen: Did you ever see your children?
Ms Rowe: No, I did not.
Mr. Zonen: To this day, have you seen your children?
Ms Rowe: No, I have not.
Mr. Zonen: Have you gone back to court?
Ms Rowe: Yes.
Mr. Zonen: All right. Were you able to get a ruling in regards to your custody of your children?
Ms Rowe: Not regards to custody, but my parental rights were reinstated.
Mr. Zonen: Have you seen your children?
Ms Rowe: No, I have not.
Mr. Zonen: Are you still in court making an effort to do so?
Ms Rowe: Very much so. Actively.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Zonen: Did you ever receive any money for your participation in this interview?
Ms Rowe: No.
Mr. Zonen: What was your motivation to participate in this interview?
Ms Rowe: To see my children.
Mr. Zonen: Thank you. I have no further questions.
END TRIAL TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT.
Mr. Mesereau was then offered the opportunity to cross examine the witness. At that point, he stated that he would like to renew the motion to exclude testimony into those areas. Judge Melville replied, “I'll give you an indicated, subject to full argument, but at this point I would probably not grant that motion.” Mr. Mesereau then proceeded with his cross examination.
Source: MJJForum |
[复制链接]
发表于 2005-4-29 18:34:53
变色卡
显身卡
楼主
狗仔卡
发表于 2005-4-29 18:43:27
发表于 2005-4-29 21:02:51
Michael来喽~~！
据说迈阿密之行是Chris Tucker的注意~~和Michael没关系~~~
稍候带来详细消息~~
另外~可怜的Keen啊~~~希望他电脑中的资料都平安~~：（