|
New Accuser from the 80s? You must be Kidding-Bullet #125 |
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Wednesday, 14 April 2004 |
|
New Accuser from the 80s? You must be Kidding-MJEOL Bullet #125
Reports are circulating the media right now about an investigation by the LAPD into an allegation made by an accuser. But get this: allegedly they claim “abuse” is suppose to have happened in the late 80s. Yep you read correctly: the late 80s. One thing is certain as of right now, everyone is either confused about what to make of it or are more suspicious that ever.
The LAPD posted a “press release” on their website confirming an “investigation.” They must have felt the need to further taint a possible jury pool, and the decision by a grand jury in Santa Barbara, by releasing just enough information to allow the media to spin into another orbit with all the speculation.
What could prove to be even more ridiculous about the allegations is that Jackson was on tour for most of the “late 80s.” Jackson was all over the world during this period of time. What? Will the allegation become more convoluted by claiming Jackson took a few hours off to fly back to LA from Karakuen Stadium in Japan, or somewhere else, to molest this kid, then hop a flight back, get on stage and perform? I don’t think so.
It is safe to say that Jackson’s lawyers won’t be taking this sitting down. When asked to comment about this information, co-lead counsel Mark Geragos did not mince words:
It appears to be nothing more than part of an ongoing campaign to smear Michael Jackson with unfounded, scurrilous and ridiculous accusations, and we fully intend to find out who’s behind it and take the appropriate actions (see New ‘Allegation” Ongoing Campaign to Smear Jackson).
In a phone interview with CNN, co-lead counsel Ben Brafman too was forceful in his rebuke of this “new allegation”:
Ben Brafman, one of Jackson's lawyers, predicted in a phone interview with CNN the new claims would be proven false.
"It is simply not possible, nor productive, to even try and respond to the dozens of baseless rumors and outrageous allegations that surface on almost a daily basis," Brafman said.
"In virtually all of these cases, once the facts have been objectively investigated, they have been found to be entirely without merit.
"My expectation is that this story, like so many others, will eventually prove to be false and in all likelihood [was] promoted by people who have their own selfish agendas or are otherwise seeking to compromise the right of Mr Jackson to a fair hearing on the charges presently pending," Brafman added. (see Article).
This new story, or one similar to it, was discussed by tabloid reporter Diane Dimond on Crier Live April 12. She claims a case involving a new accuser going around LA looking for representation was “a hoax” during that interview. She also claimed that the Santa Barbara sheriff’s department was in on the investigation of it as well. Given her penchant for bending the truth, it was a shock to actually hear the following exchange occur between she and Crier because one would think she would want to further this story; true or not:
CRIER: Alright. Tell us about the new accuser? I'm a little suspect of what I'm hearing.
DIMOND: Well after covering this story for more than a decade, I can tell you this is not the first time someone has come forward to say ‘oh I was a victim too’. In a nutshell, there is an 18 year old man out there with his mother making the rounds telling doctors, therapists, a prominent California attorney ‘I was a victim. Please represent me. Please give me therapy. Please help me’. They called in the Santa Barbara County sheriff’s department and others from law enforcement there and it has been determined that this was a hoax. There was very intricate detail. ‘I was molested between the ages of 10 and 14. I was taken to Neverland by my father and left there for long stretches of time. I was given jesus juice and drugs’. Then they put him under the guise of a forensic interrogator who said the story just does not hold up.
CRIER: That is sort of good news for all the people who think that they are piling on to any extent they can. Of course at the same time, someone like this would be, and I hate to use the term because it (unintelligible) validity of the claim. But the façade would be stripped away pretty easily I would think. The defense would take them to the cleaners.
DIMOND: I think that this prosecution team wants to be so careful and has so much other work on its hands. As one person told me not too long ago, uh ‘every rock we turn over, there are 5 more rocks underneath to turn’. So they have plenty of work on their hands and are able to spot phonies. And I think they believe this person is a phony. (see Video)
Now, is this the same “new allegation” being “investigated” by the LAPD? Was this some other opportunistic loser, stopped in his tracks from trying to profit off this case? Or did Dimond just get it wrong? Time will tell.
To make things more suspicious, according to an LA Times report out today (April 14), a source is saying that the investigators have not yet determined if this “accuser” even knows Jackson or was even with him at any time:
One source familiar with the investigation said that so far investigators had not determined that the accuser was with Jackson at any time. The man told investigators he had been abused at the Jackson family's Encino home, according to the source. (see Article)
It seems highly irresponsible of the LAPD to either confirm or deny this “investigation” without even having proved that this person even knows Jackson. A simple “no comment’ wouldn’t have sufficed? Again, if they have yet to even determine if this person knew Jackson in the “late 80s”, why the press release and the lack of detail? Jackson’s attorneys seem to have it correct: this wreaks of an attempt by people, who somehow got their hands on this information, to taint the jury pool currently hearing a case in Santa Barbara and a possible trial jury.
Besides being a cause for eye-rolling contempt, this “new allegation” from the 80s came just in time to take the focus off of a possibly dying case in Santa Barbara. It is now known that the 93 accuser has not and will not testify in front of the Santa Barbara grand jury. MSNBC’s Dan Abrams reported as much on his April 13 show (see Video). He is not cooperating with the prosecution and pro-prosecution media are still scrambling to explain away why that could be happening, after claiming a 99% certainty that he would testify. Some legal analysts were always highly skeptical of the 93 accuser testifying in front of a grand jury anyway.
This new media spin also comes on the heels of Jackson’s attorneys handing over boxes full of exculpatory (exonerating) material to the prosecution on April 2. Since then, there have been reports of the grand jury only meeting for half-days or skipping entire days of meeting altogether. For example, according to reports, the grand jury only met half-a-day Monday, did not meet Tuesday and will not meet today (April 14).
As more information is learned, stay tuned for further updates about this story.
-MJEOL
 |
|
News 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
