James Fayed Murder-For-Hire Day 7

Note: This is the final day of testimony in the guilt phase of the Fayed trial. The only things I have left to edit are the closing arguments. Sprocket.

May 13th, 2011
I'm finally in Dept. 109 and set up next to Marjorie. When Werksman arrives, he asks Lori if there were any new messages.

She replies yes, but it’s not bad.

There’s more chatter by the clerk with Werksman. Werksman reads something at Lori’s desk and says, Juror #3. After he’s finished reading he says, “Well. That makes sense.”

There’s a new family member with Dawn, Greta and Scott. I’m guessing it’s Scott’s wife because of the body language. Marjorie is beside me and the courtroom is empty except for Lori, the bailiff Sean and the court reporter.

Jackson arrives and Werksman tells Jackson about the new note. Jackson says, “What!” Werksman says something to the effect that it’s “kind of” about the issue but neutral and recommends Jackson should read it.

Harmon asks Jackson for a conference and they go into the jury room. A few moments later they come back out.

Steve Meister, “Is that another note?” Jackson, “It’s another note.” He hands the note to Meister to read.

Jackson and Werksman confer in the well, possibly about evidence.

It’s 9:06 am and we haven’t seen a hint of Judge Kennedy.

The defendant is brought in. Lori asking if we are ready for jurors.

Counsel is going over something at the defense & prosecution tables. Fayed is in the same brown suit, yellow shirt.

I’m just hearing snatches of what the counsel are discussing. Something about “...she met a pizza delivery man...” but that may not have been what they said.

Harmon goes over to speak to the family and get them updated as to today's events.

Lori: Are we ready?

Both sides say “Yes.”

An attorney looking gentleman sits in the row behind the family and has been with them.

On the record. Judge takes bench.

One of the Dateline reporters came in

Judge Kennedy is obviously sick. Red nose, Kleenex.

It says it’s a note from Juror #3.

JK: Assume both sides have been able to review that? I think that maybe what we should have all of them go into the jury room and bring out selected jurors.

Lori just wants to make sure no one left anything in the jury room first.

JK: What have you guys been doing?

Lori says the prosecution's been back there.

AJ: Feeling any better?

JK: A little bit.

Judge Kennedy doesn’t look great. I commend Judge Kennedy for coming in while this sick.

JK: A okay?

Lori: It’s fine.

Dateline reporter and another Dateline person here.

All jurors are now in the jury room as well as the alternates.

JK: And we now need to deal with this issue of anonymous commutations (jurors) have made or claiming to be members of the jury made.

Judge Kennedy goes over the one note came today.

The note is from Juror #3. Judge Kennedy reads the note into the record.

JK: Good morning and thank you for taking the time to (?) this note. I am some what concerned about the admonishing may have created an aura of suspicion of doubt. I'm not sure this is the the best ??/ to have. Question I would feel more (confident?) in my fellow jurors. (?) I have neither seen or heard (details?) of discussion of the case in the halls or walking to the parking garage.

Juror #3

Judge Kennedy reads into the record the voice mail court received yesterday morning. (Transcript prepared by court reporter.)

JK: Left unidentified woman caller

I’m juror in 109 against case against Fayed. After morning questions about questioning (snip) I thought that I would bring it to (your?) attention, a few jurors, were taking about reading articles on line and things they are investigating themselves about the case. And I do not want this to factor into the case or the the fact when we have to deliberate. I (?) want it even to be known after we were notified. It seems to, kind of seemed to make certain jurors to discuss it more. Even after the discussion happened on the way to the parking garage and it (?) is very concerning to me, that if I have to go into deliberate Juror #6 & #9 with them.

JK: Other item E-mail sent to Mr. Werksman's office:

Counsel I wanted to state (to?) you and state I believe Mr. Fayed deserves new trial. Even after today’s jurors questioning including viewing web sites about trial. Please continue to express concerns. Thank you. No juror number.

JK: Received on evening of May 11 accessed May 12.

JK: Um, in light of these various communications I think that the court has to make various inquires. (snip) I think I would like to start with Juror #10 woman with short gray hair that I think might be the voice of that person. Why don’t we have juror #10 come in which I think might be the voice of that person. (snip) Short gray hair? You know the woman I’m talking about, with short gray hair.

Lori nods and goes into the jury room.

JK: Is there a way that, Mr. Harmon, that we can move that screen away little better? (The TV screen that is between the witness stand and the jury box.

Judge Kennedy Did you by any chance leave a voicemail on the court telephone.

Juror #10 The day (?). The next day when we got evacuated. I called got a recording and I hung up.

JK: Have you had since last time we spoke, heard the jurors discussing the case or make reference to leaving E-mails, posting E-mails or looking on the Internet on the case?

The juror answers no. Judge Kennedy asks if she feels she can still perform her duties as a juror. She still feels she can be a qualified juror.

Judge Kennedy tells Juror #10 not to discuss with the other jurors what we’ve discussed out here.

JK: Juror #7 please.

More people show up from DA’s office. Greg Fisher is here from CBS 48 Hours.

JK: Did you by any chance leave a voice mail on the courts telephone? Did you send an E-mail to any of the lawyers offices? Did you hear any discussion between any jurors since we last spoke?

Judge Kennedy asks her more detailed questions.

She answers no to sending the anonymous communications.

JK: Are you a person who still feels they are able to decide this case based exclusively on the evidence that is presented to you?

Juror #7: Yes.

JK: Send out Juror #11.

JK: Did you by any chance leave a voicemail message on the telephone? Did you send an E-mail to any of the attorneys associated with this trial?

Juror #11: No mam.

JK: Have you heard anyone discuss the case? (N0.) Do you feel you are an individual still able to judge the evidence of this case?

Juror #11: Yes.

JK: Send out Alternate #3.

JK: Did you leave a voice mail message on the court?

Alternate #3: No, no.

JK: Do you, have heard since we last spoke, any of the jurors and alternate jurors in this case (discussing the trial)?

JK: No, absolutely not. I haven't heard anyone say anything since the last incident.

She states she feels she can still deliberate.

JK: Send out Juror #3.

JK: Juror #3, have a seat.

JK: Thank you for writing me the note you sent me this morning. I intend to do exactly what you suggested.. Great minds think alike.

JK: You haven’t heard any discussions?

Juror #3: Correct.

JK: You’re not aware of any jurors sending E-mails to other jurors (or) accessing information?

Juror #3: No.

JK: Still able to deliberate?

Juror #3: Yes.

JK: Return to the jury room and please send out to me Juror #4.

This is a woman juror.

Judge Kennedy asks her the same questions she asked of the other jurors.

JK: You did not leave a voice mail?

She shakes head and says no. She states she did not send the E-mail.

JK: Have you seen or heard any other jurors in the case discussing the case?

Juror #4: No.

JK: Are you still able to be someone who can deliberate?

Juror #4: Yes.

JK: Please send out Juror #5.

Same thing. Juror #5 answers no to all questions.

The next juror called is Juror #1.

JK: Did you send an E-mail to either attorneys in this trial?

Juror #1: No mam.

JK: You have not heard any discussion or heard of anyone talking about the case? (No) Are you an individual prepared to discuss this case solely on the evidence of the case? (Yes.)

Judge Kennedy asks the juror to send out Juror #2.

Juror #2.

JK: By any chance did you send an E-mail to either of the attorneys office in connection with this trial? (No.) Have you heard any of the jurors discussing the evidence in this case? (No.) Have you heard anyone make a comment about sending an E-mail or doing Internet research?

Juror #2: No I have not.

JK: Still able to deliberate? (snip) You look like you are confused.

Juror #2: I’m confused.

(?) Just a little bit.

Juror #2: Yes.

The Judge explains to the juror that she is required to conduct an investigation.

(I’m betting the jurors are getting tired of this too.)

Judge Kennedy asks the juror to send out Juror #6.

JK: Sir I’d like to ask by any chance (did) you have sent an E-mail to any of the attorneys with this trial? Have you done any research ...? (snip) Discussions?

The juror states no to the inquiry questions and feels that yes, he can still deliberate.

Judge Kennedy asks for the next juror to be sent out, a particular number, Juror #9.

JK: Another gentleman with goatee. Youngish fellow.

Juror #6: I don’t even know who Juror #9 is.

JK: Man who is younger like you with a little bit of a goatee.

(?) Yes.

JK: Send out Juror #9.

Judge Kennedy looks tired.

Juror #9: Morning mam.

JK: Juror #9, by any chance have you sent an E-mail to any of the attorneys office?

Juror #9: No mam.

He shakes his head no. Judge Kennedy asks him about research. “No.”

JK: Particularly Juror #6

Juror #9: No mam. No mam. Yes I am (able to deliberate).

JK: Please send out Juror #12.

JK: By any chance did you send an E-mail to either of the attorneys office in conjunction with this trial? (N0.)

JK: Have you heard any of the jurors talking about the case on the Internet? (N0.)

JK: Are you prepared to refrain from making a decision on this case and base your (deliberations) exclusively on the evidence presented in the trial? (Yes.)

JK: Please send out Alternate #2.

JK: By any chance did you send an E-mail....

Alternate #2: I’m computer ignorant. Don’t have to worry, because I'm computer ignorant. No, No, honestly, no.

JK: Are you prepared if we do select you, to (fulfill your duties and base your decision?) exclusively on the evidence presented here in court while the trial is presented?

Alternate #2: Yes.

JK: Please ask Alternate #5.

JK have I spoken with all the jurors?

Lori: Alternate #1 you have not called.

Juror #11 came out. Used to be alternate #4 came out?

JK: Alternate #5 did you send an E-mail to any of the counsel in this trial? (No.) Have you head any of these jurors discussing the evidence in this matter? (No.)

(?) Not to know about any others doing research.

JK: Are you prepared to decide this case exclusively on the evidence?

Alternate #5: Yes.

JK: Until time to deliberate?

Alternate #5: Yes.

Alternate #6 is called.

Man in court speaks to Werksman briefly as and then leaves carrying a huge black binder.

Alternate #6 comes out.

JK: Did you send an E-mail to either of the attorneys in connection with this trial?

Alternate #6: No I did not.

JK: You have not (heard discussions) ...?

Alternate #6: No I have not.

JK: Sir are you an individual, that would be prepared to discuss the case exclusively on the evidence?

Alternate #6: Yes.

JK: And refrain from coming to a decision until the end of the case?

Alternate #6: Yes.

JK: All the jurors have been spoken to already. The state of the record is this: Every single juror had denied sending the E-mail. Has denied sending the E-mail (voice mail?) on the courts telephone. Every single juror has indicated that they have NOT heard other jurors expressing an opinion on this case. (snip) That includes those jurors who let us previously know of their concern. I don’t think there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate any of these jurors now, has engaged in misconduct.

(?) The E-mail that was sent from Mr. Werksman’s office is anonymous and didn’t sound like any of those folks.

JK: The voice mail that was left, all of the female jurors denied having left that voice mail, and I have no way of knowing who it’s from. But every single jurors seems to be doing what they are required to do.

JK: Mr. Werksman? Mr. Jackson?

(AJ?) (I have a memory that Mr. Jackson said this but my notes are not clear.) I have an offer to the court. I would ask the court consider (?) Number 1, you have already done. Number 2, the E-mail reportedly came from the juror was a hoax and the note was a hoax and didn’t come from any sitting juror. Number 3, the voice and, the phone number is public information. Based on the inquiry and interview, everyone who was female, ask the court to make a very clear finding, (the voice message) was not left by any sitting jurors. Then should (d0?) the following: Ask the court that the panel be placed in jury box in bank and explain what has happened. This is no reason to cloak this jury in some kind of secrecy or distrust.

AJ: Juror 3# articulated there is already mistrust. And Juror #2 through body language indicated the same kind of distrust. (Recommend the court) say the following four things: One of the attorneys received an E-mail? It did. The court received a voice mail. I’m convinced it did. It appears to be a little bit of a hoax going on and that appears to be (an occurrence in?) high profile cases. Based on this no one has done anything wrong. I think with that... they don’t have to sit next to one another wondering if anyone snitched.

Judge Kennedy is nodding her head.

MW: I would ask the court not to make such specific findings that the E-mail was a hoax. I’m not as concerned...

JK: But of course your not Mr. Werksman.

(?) I don’t know what on what basis the court could make a finding. Each is a very possible scenario.

JK: But some jurors did lie before but some were very honest and brought it to the courts attention. I’m, I’m not going to tell them it was a hoax. (I will conclude?) that there is insufficient evidence that that an E-mail or voice mail that was received by the attorney or the court came from the jurors.

JK: The court is under an obligation that when there is a question, there is an obligation to investigate, that’s what the court. has done.

MW: I object. It’s not really their concern. I don’t think that’s necessary to say you’re absolved and lock arms.

JK: Your objection is noted.

The jury files in.

JK: We’re back on the record. (snip) I don’t believe I spoke with Juror #8. Let’s have everyone go over to sidebar right now.

Over at the sidebar, I can hear Judge Kennedy ask the juror the same questions she asked of all the male jurors.

JK: I didn’t mean to ignore you. Did you send an E-mail...

Judge Kennedy asks the juror all the same questions as before. He never sent any of the communications in question. He states he is still able to deliberate. Judge Kennedy then addresses the jurors in bank.

JK: Why is the judge asking us all these questions.
Whenever there is some suggestion that there is, not just in this trial, there is something going on with jurors that isn’t right, the judge has to make an investigation. And the court’s job is to ensure that every defendant receives a fair trial.

JK: The court had received an anonymous voice mail. One of the attorney’s had received an anonymous E-mail that jurors were involved in some improper conduct. I have conducted an inquiry of every one of you. To my mind there is not sufficient evidence to give credence to that voice mail and E-mail, and that you are are adequately (? following my instructions???).

JK: Am I right ladies and gentlemen?

The jury jointly responds, “Yes, yes we are.”

JK: I think we can proceed. Let me see counsel at side bar for a moment.

Harmon speaks at sidebar. Werksman speaks and I can’t hear what he is saying either. Sidebar is over and Judge Kennedy addresses the jurors.

JK: There is a legal issue that I have to sort out with (she smiles) counsel. It’s not related to you!(She smiles at the jurors again.) Remember my admonition, (she smiles) you probably know it by heart now.

There’s laughter in the courtroom and the jurors exit.

JK: Mr. Harmon 1202 reference to evidence code?

EH: Yes your honor.

Judge Kennedy reads the law.

EH: (What) we're offering is an out of court statement that Mary Mercedes made in a telephone call. She denies, the statements made by the other sister. (The evidence code allows us to impeach (defense witness) via Mary Mercedes.

Werksman objection discovery issue.

MW: I’ve not been provided with any information or with any discovery issue.

JK: This is impeachment, they don’t have to give it to you in advance.

MW: Transcript of tape recording just received. It’s not dated. I don’t know when it was.

(EH?:) (She) appeared on April 25th and asserted the fifth.
Mary Mercedes. She was concerned that she might incriminate herself.

(MW?) They did not offer her immunity.

(?) When did she talk to them?

MW: I have no idea!

(?) She spoke with detectives before she invoked.

(EH?) I take great exception that any of this is underhanded. This is impeachment that we are allowed to present. Mary Mercedes made herself unavailable because she invoked. Evidence 1054 provides that we don't’ have to disclose this information because it’s impeachment. No valid objection to it (is) coming in.

(JK?) I don’t know if, Mr. Werksman, I don’t know.

(?) The statement is nine minutes.

EH: We have a (copy of the transcript) that contains the conversation. I’d like to mark that as court exhibit next in order.

Pat Dixon enters 10:10 am and sits in the back row. He picks up a small set of stapled papers (a memorandum?) and begins to read.

EH: Number eight and nine (court?) exhibits. would like them to be people’s exhibits #151 and #152.

JK: So marked.

(EH:?) The reason, let me say this. We’ll give Mercedes works the time .... (snip) The reason there is redacted and unredacted.

EH: Mary is very angry with Mr. Werksman. She says very angry things made to him. He doesn’t want disparaging statement, that (states?) that.

(?) The redacted copy contains...... the hearsay contains out of court statements.

MW: Your honor 1202 states that, if the hearsay is not....

Werksman argues whether this evidence really falls into 1202, because now he can’t cross examine MM.

JK: She’s not coming up on the stand.

MW: If she remains unavailable because of the fifth then this is......

JK: I haven't seen the statement unredacted or redacted.

EH: At the time of the statement, she asserted AFTER they made that statement.

JK: You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You had your cake!

MW: I had my cake but now....

Werksman can’t cross examine the tape recording!

AJ: Let me supply you with both copies.

The redacted transcript (and the unredacted).

A woman came in not long after Pat Dixon did and sits beside him. Possibly his staff?

Fayed was taken back into custody while Judge Kennedy’s off the bench to read the transcripts. Pat Dixon, the woman and Jackson step out into the ante chamber with Harmon and the detective. Interesting development.

JK: Back on the record court has reviewed both redacted and unredacted. And Mr. Werksman?

MW: I already argued why I believe it’s (unarguable?) hearsay.... considering an allowing (statements?) through a tape and denying me the right to cross examine her. There is some language that needs to be further redacted. There’s a lot of self laudatory remarks. That the DA’s are patting themselves on the back in the conversation that... I don't’ this is appropriate before the jury. (They are specific statements of the witness and not the (specifying? speech?) the witness.

JK: I think that, some of that has to come out. Can we go through on the record and what is to come out? (To Lori? Sean?) Can you do me favor to tell jurors (who are in the hallway, waiting) we are working and that.

(?) Are we going to redact?

JK: I do think that under 1202 they are entitled to (present this).

(MW?:) So if she had testified to that, the DA’s would have ben able to cross examine her about a denial of that.
That is a statement that she contained within the statement here.

Werksman argues.

Werksman claims that the prosecution silenced Mary Mercedes by threatening her with prosecution, so now they (get to have these statements without cross by him).

MW: This is a double whammy. And what is (?), they already interview her when she asserted the fifth. Why don’t they have her here? They could have her here in 15 minutes.

JK: It’s the constitution. It’s the fifth amendment.

MW: The DA, no, they will not give her immunity. When all along they expected to have her into court on the last. day. And this is a problem

JK: Well, I think you've made your record. What I was thinking that, we will cut out, eight, nine; anything after line two...

MW: Are we at the phase now, is prevent the DA from specifying....

JK: I’m going to admit some of this under 1202. I’m not going to allow all of it.

AJ: Not to put too fine a point on it, he specifying... (Jackson laughs) I don’t like that word.

(?) Right now they’re saying, from page eight, line two almost all of page eight, all (of page) nine, all (of page) eleven. They are already saying get rid of that.

(?) You don’t have any objection excluding that at the onset?

JK: Last three pages are gone. Now talk about what remains. Page two, line four. Mary Mercedes gives some speechifying.

MW: This stuff is off point your honor. It’s irrelevant.

JK: Page three, line twelve. What she is thinking where this may start....?

AJ: Part of the, page three, line twelve. I don’t have problem redacting the first interactions between Mary Mercedes and myself. Where Mary Mercedes beings, “I don’t understand I just want to tell the truth. I don't’ like lawyers playing these games.” (snip) It’s absolutely inconsistent with Pat Taboga. And about Mary Mercedes...

JK: But that’s an opinion. And the fact that Mary Mercedes opinion of herself is different is not an inconsistent statement.

Jackson concedes to Judge Kennedy’s opinion.

(?) Line 25 on that page and through the whole following next page.

Counsel and the judge go back and forth about what they feel should be admissible. Judge outlines what she feels should be admissible. Counsel are both going over the transcript and determining what else they can get in (prosecution) or out (defense). This will be it for rebuttal.

There will not be any sur-rebuttal case. Pat Dixon gets up to leave.

Werksman makes an 1118 motion. (I believe this is a standard motion at the end of the trial to dismiss charges.)

MW: (?)...upon close of peoples case. That no rational triers of fact could make the charge of murder. There’’s no evidence of preliminary intent to.... insufficient evidence of conspiracy evidence. (snip) If there was one he withdrew from it. He did not lie in wait and he didn’t cause anyone to lie in wait. (snip) There was no establishment for financial gain. He wasn’t able to specify in any specificity that there would be any (financial hit) against Mr. Fayed.

JK: Who want’s to respond?

Harmon responds.

Harmon gives case law where the people are not required to show that he himself killed the person. He gives case law where people are not required to show that he himself laid in wait. Harmon explains the special circumstance under the financial gain issue, that it’s both their, the hier-er, and hire-ee. (That it can be either person who gains from the lying-in-wait.)

JK: Motion under 1118 denied.

Now substituting newer redacted versions.

JK: 150 and 151 not offered into evidence... 150, 151 redacted versions (put into evidence).

MW: Objecting to (people’s exhibits) 2,3, 5 and 7 through 13. Pam Fayed with daughters at different times of their lives. #1 Pam Fayed and two daughters. (With the?) others, object on grounds that they are irrelevant will prejudice defense. Exhibits 2, 3, 5, 7-10.

JK: Who will respond?

AJ: There is ample evidence in this trial of Pamela’s relationship with her children and there was evidence from the defendants own mouth that she was a terrible mother, etc. Even Mr. Werksman asked who was on the other side of the camera and that it was James Fayed.

Judge Kennedy rules the photos are allowed in.

MW: People’s #31 & 32. Set of meetings that were filed in divorce documents.

As more of this goes on, I make a decision to not listen to jury instructions.

Harmon responds for people.

EH: People’s #32 is official court record that establishes a timeline and refereed to by divorce lawyer regarding the timeline and pleadings . That were things that (were) filed by Mr. Fayed and Mr. Fayed’s hand. (He) accuses Pam of fraud and embezzlement. and a check which is evidence of her embezzlement. (snip) Admission of by a point of what he felt about Pam and why he wanted her dead.

EH: I think it shows the extent of the dispute and clearly shows the financial issues involved and a list of their assets that are subject to division. So I think it’s relevant on the issue of special circumstances of financial gain.

EH: Next People’s 36A transcript of phone call between Mary Mercedes and James Fayed. Court requires that the court cannot admit an audio without transcript.

EH: People’s #113 set of documents collection of documents, sequestered by Ms. Fayed. (snip) Jim’s last E-mails several (?) (and a) hand written letter from Pam to her children. Completely hearsay no foundation.

(?) Court take a look at this.

EH: The foundation laid by FBI agent who said he recovered (the) documents themselves. Those are E-mails from Jim Fayed to Pam or to other people. And also indicated James Fayed knew that his company was involved in money transfer. And that she took these and put them in safekeeping is that she knew he was involved in criminal activity. We will not seek to admit the letter to her family at this time.

MW: Red tab. I put those on the post it. First one is extremely prejudicial, that has no clear indication as to who sent it. (snip) It’s prejudicial it’s irrelevant it has no foundation it has no clear (?) who was wrote it.

(JK:?) Not sufficient foundation for people’s #113 . People’s 113 won’t be admitted.

MW: Reserve my objection to (the) last exhibits to last....

EH: There are E-mails that are E-mails in there that are written by his own hand.

JK: You would have needed someone that verified that it was an E-mail that it was his account; that it came from his account. (snip) Just because someone has an E-mail that has his name on it.

MW. And someone could also send an E-mail that came from a juror...

JK: That could happen too.

Harmon goes over the evidence, still trying to get these E-mails in.

EH: This one, has the name of the person from who it was sent, that also has the phone number of the phone. (snip) It’s text message that went to someone’s E-mails. I would like to show you only one or two that I believe are relevant, that are admissions and then if the court could reconsider on the rest.

Judge Kennedy states, “You should have had someone testify to E-mail addresses. It’s not coming in for this.
All the E-mails are not coming in found in the storage facility.”

JK: I’m sorry your person is back whom I previously identified as “minion” (I apologized).

(This is the people’s female clerk. Although I identified her as a clerk throughout the trial, I found out at the end of the trial that she is an attorney in her own right.)

JK: Coming back on the record to introduce the taped recording. (The) detective will introduce this evidence.

Harmon and Werksman both step out, asking for one minute. Greg Fisher leaves. It’s not in my notes but I believe by the next statement, the jury is brought back in at this point.

Judge Kennedy addresses her jury.

JK: Just waiting for counsel to come back in. Of course, they walk out as you walk in.

The jury laughs. The people now present their rebuttal case to the defense’s single witness.

#20. DETECTIVE SALAAM ABDUL

Jackson presents the witness.

AJ: Did you engage in a telephone conversation between you, me and Mary Mercedes on March of this year:

Det. SA: Yes.

AJ: We were all in different places on different phones?

(Det. SA:?) A Conference call.

AJ: Were you on during the entire conversation?

Det. SA: Yes.

AJ: We will play the entire audio.

Judge Kennedy reminds the jury about transcripts.

JK: It’s to aid you only.

Judge Kennedy coughs and receives a copy of the transcript.

The people play the tape. I can hear Jackson’s voice on tape.

“Well you’ll have to ask my attorney about that.”

“Yes, I’m aware of this letter about the allegations. If she believes this, (it’s) ridiculous. Three years ago, then why did she invite me to her house? Why did (her husband) help Jim help get the firearms sold?”

“Everything was registered and proper (selling firearms).”

“None of this makes any sense. I’m sorry.”

(?) “I’m guessing the point you were trying to get across to the detective.”

(?AJ:) Did you have anything to do (with Pamela Fayed’s death)?

“Absolutely not. No.”

(?AJ:) When was the first time you heard or learned of this allegations?

“Through my attorney, yeah.”

(?AJ:) Was that at least in part of the conversations in part where you were privy to that conversation?

“ Yes.”

AJ: Is that a true and accurate recording that you and I had with Ms. Mercedes?

Det. SA: Yes.

Jackson is now asking about a bit of conversations of the wiretaps.

AJ: Did you ever listen to conversations between Mary and her sister Patty Taboga? (snip) Conversations of.... five of them? (snip) Of the (?) calls, were the length of the calls
8 minutes
19 minutes
52 minutes?

Wiretap conversations between Ms. Mercedes and her sister Patty Taboga?

On 9/1 two hours and 12 minutes
On 9/3 twelve minutes
On 9/3 18 minutes
On 9/6 3 hrs. and 32 minutes

AJ: Did you listen to all (these conversations)? (snip) During all that time did you hear Patricia Taboga and Mary Mercedes discuss anything about (the prior hiring plot?)

Det. AS: No.

AJ: The people rest.

JK: No further evidence from defense?

MW: Defense rests.

JK: We have not concluded all the evidence in this case (We will) work with the attorneys. We have more work to do this afternoon and finalizing jury instructions. I though we would be at final argument today but it will be Monday. I know that you've been waiting a lot of time today.

I’ve tried to minimize that kind of thing. I don’t like it. It makes me cross and the attorneys don’t like it when I’m cross. I’m Sending you folks home to come back on Monday. (snip) Everything will be ready for you at that time. Then the attorney will make their final arguments and hopefully we will be able to give all of that to you on Monday.

Smiling, Judge Kennedy tells the jurors, “I want to remind you one more time, the admonition....”

The jury exits and the attorneys go over what evidence they are going to admit.

JK: Back to defense exhibit A.

(?) Redacted?

Defense B letter Patty wrote to Jim. Hearsay. It’s not coming in.

Defense C cover letter to Holly .

(People) Objection! Hearsay.

JK: Sustained. Not in.

MW: Could I receive a redacted version of defense A? A redacted version? I will return with a redacted version.

JK: I suggest we break for the day. I’ve made a few changes. I’ve added (instruction?) 250 and that everyone comes back at 1:30 pm and we will discuss jury instructions.

MW: May we come back at 2:30?

JK: Can we come back at 2? What I really want to do is go home and go to bed.

Werksman says sure.

JK: Recess until 2 pm.

They are battling over jury instructions already and I decide to take off.