Desperate D.A. Tactic: Discredit DCFS Investigation? – MJEOL Bullet #57 UPDATE

In a last ditch effort to throw attention from their almost non-existent case against Jackson, the district attorney in the Michael Jackson case has reportedly called for an investigation into the DCFS investigation clearing Jackson of molestation.

Entertainment Tonight’s news division announced today (Jan 7) that there is no such investigation. District Attorney Tom Sneddon’s case has been largely panned by legal professionals and news organizations around the world after an incredibly damaging summary memo surfaced concluding that the allegations against Jackson are “unfounded.”

The Department of Children & Family Services (DCFS) investigation is by far not the only thing causing major problems with Sneddon’s case. Also making the case look even more of a fabrication is the ridiculous timeline attached to the charges. Jackson’s attorney, Mark Geragos, told MSNBC (Jan 6 2004) “Michael has a concrete, iron-clad alibi for the dates they are saying this abuse took place. The fact of the matter is, no abuse ever happened” (see Geragos: I’m in charge, Sheriff is a “moron”).

Despite reports that trained DCFS professionals talked to the family — more than once, separately from each other, and did an investigation into the family — reporters and news agencies sympathetic to the prosecution have made attempts to cast doubts on the validity of the DCFS investigation.

There are rumors coming out of NBC today saying “a lawyer”, possibly Larry Feldman, is asking for an investigation of the DCFS investigation. As you remember, the DCFS investigation was completed at the end of Feb 2003.

If there was a need to question the DCFS investigation, one has to wonder why alleged calls for an investigation into their investigation came almost a year after it was initially completed. In fact, if there were suspicions of child abuse at all, the DCFS would have concluded their investigation with “unsubstantiated.”

“Unsubstantiated,” in DCFS terms, basically means that the kid is denying it but they think he’s lying and/or hiding something. The very fact DCFS concluded their investigation with “unfounded” means there was no merit at all to the allegations of molestation.

Remember, the DCFS is a neutral, 3rd party not beholden to either the prosecution or the defense. It is a given that if the findings did not conclude the way the prosecution wanted, they would dismiss it as irrelevant. Even if the DCFS investigation did not exist, the prosecution would still have to contend with an improbable, impossible timeline.

Reportedly, Mark Geragos was called in Feb 3 2003 because Jackson and his advisors thought “something was going on with this family.” When this recent story broke, it was reported the mother was making threats of contacting tabloids and lawyer-shopping as early as Jan 2003.

This could explain why Jackson’s team brought in Geragos. Further, Geragos revealed in a recent interview that there was a specific system put in place to make sure this family was being watched at all times while at Neverland, and that Jackson was never alone with any member of the family without at least one other 3rd party present. Here’s a rough sketch of the timeline:

  • Feb 3 Mark Geragos is on the case
  • Feb 5 Jackson released statement saying how betrayed he feels about the Bashir documentary
  • Feb 6 So-called “documentary” aired in the US. Hailstorm of criticism from all sides began
  • Feb 7 DA says “abuse” began.
  • Feb 8 Reportedly, Ed Bradley waits the entire day at Neverland for an interview that never happened. He saw the accusing family there, who approached him about being interviewed to defend Michael Jackson.
  • March 10 Last day DA says “abuse” happened.

From Feb 5 on out, Jackson was all over the place: meeting with lawyers and advisors, filing complaints with the British tv watch-dogs over Bashir interview, etc. There are reports that Jackson was in and out of Florida looking at houses, recording new music, drawing media attention at shopping malls, stopping by fast food restaurants and chatting it up with their staff, etc.

He would certainly have documentation and possibly videotape evidence to prove it. If these reports are true, why would it be almost a year until someone called for an investigation? One possibility could be an incredibly weak case against Jackson being made evident by most in the media.

If the “unfounded” ruling is found to be inaccurate, where does that leave Jackson? From what’s been reported, it leaves him in the same position as he’s always been: innocent. Jackson is not depending solely on the DCFS investigation finding for his defense as it is unlikely, according to a prosecutor who appeared on MSNBC’s Abrams Report (Jan 7) that this memo would have even made it into court.

Is this a desperate attempt by the prosecution to throw attention away from their incredulous timeline? It’s looking more and more that way.

Stay tuned.

-MJEOL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *