MJJF - SULI MC CULLOUGH, May 24, 2005

The next witness on the stand was comedian Suli Mc Cullouogh who introduced himself as a stand up comedian working closely with the Jamie Masada owned Laugh Factory. Upon direct examination by defense attorney Robert Sanger Mc Cullough testified to two separate fund raisers organised at the Laugh Factory for Gavin Arvizo where the comedian was present during both events. Q. So at some point, you understood that Gavin Arvizo became sick; is that right? A. Yes, I did. Q. Was there a fund-raiser that was organized by Jamie Masada at The Laugh Factory? A. Yes, there was. We actually did two fund-raisers. Q. I was going to ask you how many. A. We did two, yes. Q. Were you there at the fund-raisers? A. I was there for both fund-raisers. Q. Did you see how they were put on? In otherwords, what happened? A. Yes, I did see how they were put on. I also participated in both of them. Q. So you participated as a comedian on the stage -- A. That’s correct. Q. -- is that correct? And did you see the actual fund-raising, the collecting of the money? A. No, I did not. Q. All right. Now, in the course of this fund-raising, were you told by Jamie Masada what the purpose of the fund-raisers were? A. Yes, I was. Q. And what did he tell you the purpose was? A. He told me the purpose -- MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay. MR. SANGER: It’s impeachment. THE COURT: All right. Overruled. THE WITNESS: Jamie told me that the purpose of the fund-raisers were to raise money to help pay for the medical expenses. MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object as irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. McCollough was also present with Jamie Masada when he held a press conference on the 1st of January 2005 claiming that the fund raisers organised at the comedy club was for medical expenses incurred by Gavin Arvizo. Sanger’s Questions about whether Mc Cullough was aware of the factual nature of the ststemenst made at the press conference was met with a lot of objections which were sustained. Q. All right. And did Mr. Masada at that press conference indicate that the fund-raiser for Gavin Arvizo was put on -- MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object as leading and hearsay. THE COURT: Sus -- I didn’t hear the whole question. Do you want to -- MR. SANGER: It may be leading. Rather than just blurt it out, let me rephrase it. THE COURT: Okay. Q. BY MR. SANGER: Did Mr. Masada speak at that press conference? A. Yes, he did. Q. And did he state the purpose of the fund-raiser for Gavin Arvizo at that press conference? A. I don’t remember if he did or not. Q. And did you? A. Did I state that? Yes, I did. Q. And you stated at that time that it was for raising money for medical bills, right? A. That’s correct. MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Leading and hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. BY MR. SANGER: All right. Did you state the purpose of the fund-raiser at that time? A. Yes, I did. Q. All right. And what did you say it was? A. I said -- MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. THE WITNESS: Can I continue? Q. BY MR. SANGER: Was Mr. Masada present at the press conference when you spoke? A. Mr. Masada was present, yes. Q. And you stated the purpose of the fund-raiser as you understood it, correct? A. That’s correct. MR. SANGER: Okay. I have no further questions. THE COURT: Cross-examine? During the short cross examination prosecutor Gordon Auchincloss questioned the witness about his knowledge about the accuser needing a special germ free room and whether he would consider the cost of building one to a medical expense. The witness answered yes. Recross by Mr Sanger proceeded in the following manner. Q. Were you aware that the germ-free room was paid for by Louise Palanker? MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Hearsay, foundation, and vague as to time, I would say. THE COURT: The objection’s sustained. Q. BY MR. SANGER: Were you aware that -- as of the time that you made this last statement in January of 2005 about the fund-raiser being for medical expenses, were you aware that Gavin Arvizo had full medical coverage through Kaiser Permanente as a result of his father’s long-time employment at Von’s? A. No, I was not aware of that. MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Hearsay; irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. The answer is in. MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.