In an interview with Greta van Sustren (On the Record; Fox news) Nov 25 2003, Mary Fischer was interviewed. She is the author of the exhaustive article detailing the goings-on of the family and lawyers involve during the 93 case.
Fischer says that there was no corroborating evidence in that case. Unlike what has been reported by some media outlets, the lack of any evidence in the 93 casecoupled with there not being a Michael Jackson law' (288a) in which you only need the accusation itself to proceed-is the reason why there were no criminal charges then.
During the conversation, Sustren specifically asks Fischer if the 93 allegation was stripped away, was there anyone else backing up what that family claimed. Fischer replied that there was not:
There was no corroborating evidence. As there often is in these cases of alleged child molestation, it's easy for someone to make an accusation, but it's very hard to defend against it. And that's because often there's no other evidence (see transcript).
This is in contradiction to the unfounded information circulating certain media outlets about a phantom 3rd accuser from 1990. Fischer says the 93 allegation was in fact the only allegation made before this current case and, again, there was no corroboration to prove those charges.
This means that there was no pornography, no pictures, no other allegations, no physical evidence and no matching description of Jackson's genitalia. All of which has been misrepresented, intentionally or not, by the media since that first case. Fischer also discusses some of the odd similarities in each case.
Of the 93 case, Fischer says:
There's the say so of a child surrounded by adults who encourage the child to make these statements for their own motivations. And there's no other evidence. That was the case in 93 and so far that seems to be the case now.
Fischer says that like in the 93 case, the current case involves the same civil attorney, Larry Feldman. Feldman is the lawyer representing the family in 93 and the family in 2003.
Indeed, he is up to his eyeballs in this case. What is also incredibly odd is that both of these accusing families ran to a civil attorney first instead of getting law enforcement involved. Fischer points that out during her interview:
Also in this new case, the fact that the parents did not take the boy or call the police, but they took him to a civil lawyer.
She continues by commenting on what a great number of people have asked about both cases, which is just why the family didn't bother to go to the police first before running to money lawyers. But more importantly in this current case, there were previous investigations that we know of: a 2 month investigation by the Santa Barbara sheriff's department and a 2 week investigation by LA Child Services.
Both of these investigations turned up no criminal wrongdoing on Jackson's part and no other accusers. These investigations also couldn't have come to a surprise to this current family, so why didn't they contact the Santa Barbara police or the Los Angeles police first?
They couldn't have possibly thought that a money lawyer could provide them more protection than the police. Remember they claim, absurdly, that they were being harassed and held hostage by Jackson's people. But they never contacted the police. Some have speculated that by not contacting the police and pressing charges, the family wouldn't be held criminally responsible for filing a false police report if (when) they are unsuccessful against Jackson and if (when) Jackson proves they are lying.
One of the most devastating admissions Fischer makes is that the 93 accuser was given a psychiatric barbiturate while not under a doctor's or psychiatrist's care. It was only after the accuser was doped up on this drug that any allegation was made.
Sodium amytal is a drug shrouded in such suspicion by the courts that the California Court of Appeals had to become involved. Fischer explains during the interview:
it's a powerful psychiatric drug which, when under the influence, a person is highly suggestible. And that drug was given to the boy by the father of the boy and the father's friend who was a dental anesthesiologist. The dental anesthesiologist gave the boy the drug in a dentist's office.
Not only is it odd that the drug would be administered by someone who was not a psychiatrist, but it's suspicious how these two people--the 93 accuser's father and his dental anesthesiologist came to possess this drug in the first place.
Not to mention that because of the risks, this drug is often administered in a hospital, not a dentist's office. In her Oct 94 article, Fischer says a LA KCBS-TV newsman reported that:
Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son's tooth and that while under the drug's influence, the boy came out with allegations.Sodium amytal used the pull a tooth?? I don't think so. In the 94 article, Fischer quotes Cleveland psychiatrist, Dr. Resnick, as saying of sodium amytal:
It's a psychiatric medication that cannot be relied on to produce fact People are very suggestible under it. People will say things under sodium amytal that are blatantly untrue. It's quite possible to implant an idea through the mere asking of a question. The idea can become their memory, and studies have shown that even when you tell them the truth, they will swear on a stack of Bibles that it happened.Not exactly a drug used to pull teeth, is it? Fischer also asked Dr. John Yagiela, coordinator of the anesthesia and pain control department of UCLA's School of Dentistry about it. He said:
It's unusual for it to be used [for pulling a tooth]. It makes no sense when better, safer alternatives are available. It would not be my choice.
The accuracy of allegations made under the influence of this drug was questioned, finally, in a landmark case in Napa County, California.
The Gary Raymona case blew the lid off the lies surrounded the effectiveness (or lackthereof) of this drug. In that famous case, a daughter falsely accused her father of molestation after being administered the drug by a therapist she was seeing. As a result of that case, the California Court of Appeals said in their opinion filed August 19 1997 that:
sodium amytal is, in some aspects, even more problematic than hypnosis in it's affects of producing false and confabulations. If the patient is concerned about sexual matters, he or she will tend to recall sexual experiences. This is likely to forever distort the memory of the subject.
Now, couple the administration of this drug with the fact that there were no other accusers, and no corroborating evidence, and you have no case. The lack of a case, the absence of the new "Michael Jackson law"(288a)--passed as a result of the 93 case----and you have the result of prosecutors not being able to go forward with charges in the 93 case.
Just because Jackson settled the case, it didn't prevent a criminal trial for proceeding no matter what any hack journalist or prosecution crony says.
Add the lawyer of there not being any other accuser from 93 either, and we have a pile of may-bes and could-bes. This amounts to a pile of garbage. Thus if prosecutors want to try to use this 93 case so show some imaginary "pattern of behavior", they should be prepared for the consequences.
Outdated link - http://site.mjeol.com/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?cid=9&lid=114