[b]Prosecution and Accusers Family Leaking Information? MJEOL Bullet #36[/b] The New York Times published a rather scathing article questioning whether or not the prosecution in the Jackson case actually [i]has[/i] a case against the singer. In the Times article, its reported that the tip line set up by the sheriffs department has yielded little to no viable leads and no new allegations against Jackson. Sgt Chris Pappas is quoted in the article as saying At this point in time, none [calls] have clearly identified new cases for independent investigation. A second issue surfacing now is reports saying this latest accusers brother actually witnessed the alleged molestation on one occasion. This new information is also being probed by some in the media who have already been snake-bitten by false information from faulty sources. In a discussion on MSNBCs Scarborough Country (Dec 5 2003), it is reported that Lisa Bloom actually let it slip that the accusing family contacted Court TV proclaiming that the brother of the accuser was going to testify that he witnessed the alleged abuse by Jackson once. It is incredibly suspicious why this family would be contacting any media outlets to begin with. There is also a question as to if the D.As office urged them to contact Court TV or if they acted on their own volition. These actions could have been set into motion in order to turn the media tide back in the prosecutions favor. Read Full Report >> Transcript of that show is now posted at the MJEOL forums: :arrow [url=http://forum.mjeol.com/index.php?showtopic=11595]Scarborough Country Dec 5-Lisa Bloom admits leak from family[/url] ============================================ FULL REPORT: ============================================ Prosecution and Accusers Family Leaking Information? MJEOL Bullet #36 The New York Times published a rather scathing article questioning whether or not the prosecution in the Jackson case actually [i]has[/i] a case against the singer. In the Times article, its reported that the tip line set up by the sheriffs department has yielded little to no viable leads and no new allegations against Jackson. Sgt Chris Pappas is quoted in the article as saying At this point in time, none [calls] have clearly identified new cases for independent investigation. Then news broke late last night that suddenly, out of the blue, there was supposedly another accuser from the 1993 case. This so-called breaking news came courtesy of the former sheriff of Santa Barbara, Jim Thomas. This new information actually raises more questions than it helps to corroborate any alleged abuse. Why did it take 10 years for this alleged new accuser to come forth? According to District Attorney Tom Sneddon, during that now infamous press conference, the law in California specifically changed as a result of the 1993 Jackson investigation, allowing the prosecution to compel a witness to testify in these types of criminal proceedings. If we are to believe Sneddon, then the next obvious question is wouldnt prosecutors have compelled this alleged new accuser from 1993 to testify against Jackson once the law changed? If you listen to sources close to the prosecution, the reason no charges were filed against Jackson in 1993 was because the first accuser accepted a settlement and refused to testify. If we are to believe that, why then didnt the prosecutors case still go forth with this second alleged accuser? The only accuser that fell under the confidentiality/settlement agreement years ago was the Chandler family, Jordan (accuser) and Evan (father). Jackson once filed extortion charges against Evan Chandler and his attorney at the time. The charges were later dropped as a condition to the settlement. The former sheriff says that there is an audio tape of this phantom 2nd accuser from 10 years ago. He, however, offered no proof of the tapes existence and either does not know or will not divulge what is on the alleged confession tape. Also questionable is the way in which this new information was put out to the media; coming from a former sheriff on the hills of a media outcry questioning the validity of the current case. The questions continue to roll in: Why is this information coming out now? Where was Jim Thomas weeks ago when the current story first broke? Why wasnt Jackson prosecuted in 1993? I could go on. The 1993 Jackson case went through months of investigations, with two grand juries interviewing upwards of 200 people including 30 children (see [url=http://site.mjeol.com/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=61]Was Michael Jackson Framed? The Untold Story[/url]). No charges were filed and no indictment was handed down by either jury. One juror, who served on one of the juries, admitted to CNN at the time that he did not hear or see anything incriminating against Jackson. Thomas did not indicate whether or not either grand jury at the time heard from this alleged new/old accuser. Thus, if the second accusers testimony was deemed faulty, unreliable, or untrue, it would have been dismissed as evidence against Jackson. The former Santa Barbara sheriff also does not disclose the outcome of any investigation into what came out of that alleged accusation. A second issue surfacing now is reports saying this latest accusers brother actually witnessed the alleged molestation on one occasion. This new information is also being probed by some in the media who have already been snake-bitten by false information from faulty sources. In a discussion on MSNBCs Scarborough Country (Dec 5 2003), it is reported that Lisa Bloom actually let it slip that the accusing family contacted Court TV proclaiming that the brother of the accuser was going to testify he witnessed the alleged abuse by Jackson once. It is incredibly suspicious why this family would be contacting any media outlets to begin with. There is also a question as to if the D.As office urged them to contact Court TV or if they acted on their own volition. These actions could have been set into motion in order to turn the media tide back in the prosecutions favor. However, the new claims may hurt the prosecution more than it helps because of the suspicious timing of the leaks and the manner in which the leaks occurred. According to another panelist that appeared on the MSNBC show, the D.A. could be breaking state law if they were urging the family to contact any media outlet. Transcript of that show is now posted at the MJEOL forums: :arrow [url=http://forum.mjeol.com/index.php?showtopic=11595]Scarborough Country Dec 5-Lisa Bloom admits leak from family[/url] -MJEOL
Prosecution and Accusers Family Leaking Information? Bullet #36
Posted by