Mary A Fischer, author of the October 1994 GQ article “Was Michael Jackson Framed? The Untold Story”, appeared on Fox news program “On The Record” with Greta van Sustren tonight (Dec 1 2003).
Fischer asserted that she thinks Jackson was indeed a target to extort money from him in 1993. Fischer, during an extensive 5 month investigation into the case for GQ magazine, says the accuser from 1993 only made an accusation of molestation against Jackson [b]after[/b] being given a “powerful, psychiatric drug.”
Up until then, Fischer emphasizes, the accuser never made any allegations against Jackson. She continues, “there was a lot of evidence that had not come out before which strongly suggested that Jackson was the target of extortion.”
Fischer describes the drug: “ it’s sodium amytal and it’s a powerful psychiatric drug when under the influence, a person is highly suggestible.”
She states the drug was administered to the accuser by the “father’s friend who was a dental anesthesiologist” in a dentist’s office. Because of the possible side effects, some doctors will only administer sodium amytal in a hospital. There are still questions as to why a dental anesthesiologist would administer the drug.
It is also unclear whether or not a psychiatrist was present to supervise this session during the administration of the drug. Further, the question as to why a child would need sodium amytal, if they have previously denied all allegations of abuse, has yet to be answered.
All three points beg the question as to why suspicions of child molestation would even occur if the child is not the one making the allegations in the first place, nor has ever shown any signs of abuse. In similar cases where sodium amytal was used to extract allegations of molestation, the California courts have thrown out such testimony saying that it has the affect of “producing false memories and confabulations” (see http://site.mjeol.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=329 – The California Courts & Sodium Amytal).
In the court case of Ramona vs. Ramona, the Court of Appeals held that the “testimony of a person whose memory has been affected by a sodium amytal interview” should be excluded given the problematic ramifications surrounding the creation of false memories while under the influence of sodium amytal.
In that case, the accused father ended up suing and winning a malpractice suit against the psychiatrist who administered the drug to his daughter. The jury held that the psychiatrist was “negligent in providing health care to Holly Ramona by implanting or reinforcing false memories that plaintiff [Gary Ramona] had molester her as a child” (see http://www.napanet.net/~moiraj/pressrelease.html – Ramona v Ramona: Press Release).
Fischer further clarifies and corrects media reports that suggest there was other evidence from the 1993 case that corroborated the first accuser’s story. She says, “There was no corroborating evidence as there often is in these cases of alleged molestation.”
This shoots down the claims that the description the first accuser gave of Jackson’s genitalia matched the photographs taken of him. This falsity is often used to counter information in Fischer’s reporting
. Confirming what most analysts have asserted, she says that it is very easy to make these types of accusations, but very difficult to defend against them. To further cast doubt on an already less than flimsy case from 1993, Fischer’s research revealed that the first accuser was “asked repeatedly if anything inappropriate happened and he would always say ‘no; “.
Adults leading a child into making certain allegations is given as a possible reason as to why allegations seemed to come out of thin air. She says,
“what happens in some of these cases and incidents’ is that a series of adults, whether it is police, the parents, psychiatrists surround the child and the child become influenced by these adults and often there are false accusations that come out of this.”
Fischer makes parallels to the 1993 case and the current accusations:
“ there was no other evidence. That was the case in 1993 and so far that seems to be the case now In the first case, the parents were involved in a bitter custody and divorce battle.
What also happened is that Jackson had befriended the father and the boy then got busy and moved on, and the father was disgruntled by the fact that Jackson was no longer as close to him as he’d once been. That seems to be a parallel in this in this new case. Uhm, and in this new case, the fact that the parents did not take the boy or call the police, but they took him to a lawyer; a civil lawyer.”
She also discloses that the lawyer representing the first accuser also represents the current accuser. Fischer: “Well, the lawyer, the civil lawyer from the boy in the first case is also the attorney who the parents, uh, the mother of this current boy took him to. That’s what’s in common.”
She also declares there are “so many similarities with the old case and this current case” that it’s imperative for the public to “reserve judgment before anyone comes to a conclusion” about Jackson’s guilt.