Prosecutorial Misconduct History Could Affect ‘Case’? – MJEOL Bullet #234

Prosecutorial Misconduct History Could Affect ‘Case’? MJEOL Bullet #234 The Jackson “case” isn’t the first one where this DA’s office has been accused of prosecutorial misconduct. And further information may be made public about past settlements, not with Jackson, but with this DA’s office and Santa Barbara sheriff’s department In the face of prosecutors and prosecution-sympathizers trying desperately to convict Michael Jackson in the court of public opinion, there seems to be a developing story surrounding the current Santa Barbara district attorney’s propensity to level criminal charges and allegations against people who, some say, are in the way of a case he’s attempting to prosecute. Renewed speculation of Jackson attorney Mark Geragos being called to testify at a possible trial is running rampant. Some observers have joked that if prosecutors are expecting Geragos to testify against Jackson, that they either must be on something or should have a doctor prescribe something. Prosecutors seem to be seeking to level “conspiracy” charges against everyone who was present to witness the accusing family’s “manipulative” and “threatening” behavior during the prosecution’s timeline in an attempt to keep them from testifying against the accusing family. If that’s now going to include Geragos, then they really must be on something. But there’s an undercurrent of information that is bubbling up to the surface. The DA’s office apparently has a history of ruining the reputations, practices, and lives of attorneys and others, who they deem as preventing them from pursuing a case, say some researchers. For example, months ago prosecution sympathizer and tabloid reporter Diane Dimond made claims on Court TV’s Crier Live that her sources say prosecutors are inclined towards bringing attorney Mark Geragos into this “conspiracy” charge against Jackson. Now the story has changed to Geragos possibly testifying. Some may not know what to make of this Geragos rumor. For all the public knows, it could be the ramblings of a desperate wanna-be-insider using a “lazy” and biased tabloid reporter to further their lies. Or there could be some semblance of truth to it.

Investigation Clears Jackson as Accuser’s Story Changes – MB #233

Investigation Clears Jackson as Accuser’s Story Changes – MJEOL Bullet #233 A look back at what the accusing family was doing at the time they now claim to have been “held hostage” at Neverland In MJEOL Bullet #232, some of the latest information around the Michael Jackson “case” was highlighted. The “case” is ripe with inconsistencies from the accusing family, and some highly damaging material that may make this “case” non-existent before too long. Aside from the huffing and puffing from current DA Tom Sneddon, the prosecution’s “case” may be shored up by rank speculation from the likes of defeated and fired ex-employees. But the questions permeating this “case” won’t go away by simply speculating or thinking up another lie to cover-up the original one. For those who have been living under a rock, Jackson is accused of first conspiring against a family, then kidnapping them, then allegedly molesting the accuser, and then conspiring some more. He’s also accused of plying the recovering cancer patient (possibly on medication) with wine and at some point showing the allegedly passed-out teenager heterosexual porn. Yeah sure. Uh huh. That makes sense. The new conspiracy charge originated to cover-up the fact that they had already exonerated Jackson numerous times during the time when they now claim they were abducted/kidnapped/molested. Remember, Jackson wasn’t originally charged with conspiring nor was there even talk of prosecution-alleged “co-conspirators.” None of these alleged “co-conspirators” have been arrested, indicted or charged as of this writing, by the way. Through court docs and published reports, the public has become aware of a number of things wrong with the prosecution’s set of events. This may be why there is renewed interest in the prosecution wanting to fall back on the speculation from the 1993 investigation.

Judge Hell-Bent on Jan 31 Date, Pros. Breaking Court orders – MB #232 UPDATE

Judge Hell-Bent on Jan 31 Date, Pros. Breaking Court orders– MJEOL Bullet #232 UPDATE Stinging new court docs released show prosecutors still up to their old tricks while the judge looks the other way While Court TV tries to publicly hang Michael Jackson with lies and speculation before he even steps foot inside a courtroom for a possible trial—doing a hatchet job with reporting the “facts” in the “case” today (Dec 22 2004)–it’s important to note that there have been some incredibly damning court documents (docs) and other evidence that has made its way to the public about the accusing family. The disgusting ‘guilty until proven guilty’ attitude held by Court TV anchors can’t change the fact that this “case” is full of incredulous allegations which make no sense given the prosecution’s own set of so-called events; not to mention holes in their story the size of the Pacific Ocean. During the December 20 2004 hearing, the public learned that some 70 names on the prosecution’s defective witness list are identical to names on the defense’s witness list. This slashes the speculation from hack-reporters who want to claim that everyone subpoenaed by prosecutors are going to testify against Jackson. In a decision that some “case” observers are openly calling “odd”, “surprising”, and “ridiculous”, the current judge in the Michael Jackson “case” has refused to delay the trial date from January 31 2005. Melville recently signed search warrants on Nov 24 2004, which prosecutors didn’t execute until Dec 3 2004; over a year after raiding Neverland on November 18 2003. Despite those last minute searches—tantamount to invasion of privacy, say the defense—the judge has refused altogether to delay the trial in any way. Most legal analysts had previously said that the defense’s request to delay the trial would be granted because of the prosecution’s last minute scrambling. This can be viewed two ways: Either prosecutors got what they wanted or the judge has essentially called their bluff in face of their declarations of being “ready” to go forward. But the questions being raised now are whether or not this judge is hell-bent on taking this case to trial regardless of the current circumstances around it.