Shocking Info from Accuser’s Father-Bullet #92

Posted by

Shocking Info from Accuser’s Father – MJEOL Bullet #92 The accuser’s father, David, and Russell Halpern, his attorney, appeared on Court TV’s Crier Live (Feb 20) and revealed some shocking information about the case. Among those bombshells was information about the current mental stability of the mother, a small admission about Michael Jackson’s relationship with the family, the DA’s office interfering with the child custody case, and the mother possibly recently selling pictures of the accuser to a London tabloid for upwards of $200,000.00. The father, David, is seeking visitation rights to see his kids. He and his attorney feel confident that the judge in the custody case will allow the father to have some form of visitation for his kids eventually. Halpern says that he and his client wished to settle the custody matter privately–instead of having a judge make a ruling–and set up a meeting with the mother and her attorney to discuss it. The mother did not show up to discuss the matter: “We had a hearing to see whether we could resolve the matter informally. Unfortunately, David’s wife [sic] chose not to appear.” Halpern says they have another hearing set for April 2 in the custody case, but “prior to that, we’re going to have some depositions taken. I’ve been speaking to her attorney to try to settle this matter because I believe eventually my client will be given visitation at the beginning.” Halpern confirms he has been informed by Mark Geragos, one of the attorneys for Jackson, that the accuser’s father will probably be called by them as a witness in the case. Up until now, there was speculation about whether the father would testify and for which side would be called as a witness. If the father has important information about the mother possibly coaching her children to lie in court cases before now, it will certainly hurt the prosecution’s “case” against Jackson. There is talk that the DA’s office in the Jackson case have gone so far as to interfere with the family law custody case, which they have nothing to do with. When asked by Dimond if this is what is happening, Halpern says the assistant DA did in fact send a letter to the attorney for the accuser’s mother in the custody case. That letter was presented to the judge and stated that the father should not be allowed to see his children. According to Halpern, the assistant DA gave no explanation as to why David shouldn’t be allowed to see his kids:

DIMOND: Do you somehow think that—not your wife, not talking about that—I’m talking about the district attorney in Santa Barbara, law enforcement. Do you think they’re trying to keep you away from your son for some reason? HALPERN: I can…let me speak to that. I can answer that better. They have interfered with this family law dispute. Mr. Zonen has sent a letter to the attorney for his [David’s] ex-wife. DIMOND: …he’s the assistant DA… HALPERN: Yeah. That’s the assistant DA who’s assigned to prosecute this case. In the letter he says he doesn’t think it’s a good idea for my client to see his son. He doesn’t specify why. And uh I find that very disturbing and so does my client obviously. But it’s extremely disturbing that he should be interfering with our case here. And I don’t know what his reasons are. I can only guess and I don’t want to speculate on that.

Halpern also reveals that his sources, who are close to the mother, say that she may have checked herself into a mental hospital “recently.” It is already known from court documents that the mother checked herself into a mental hospital in 1998. With this new allegation of institutionalization–which Halpern says he hasn’t verified for himself just yet–it could be devastating to the prosecution’s “case”. Here are Halpern’s exact words on that issue:

Well we know in 1998 that she was admitted to a lockdown facility. And also we’ve…we heard from people that are around her that she may have also recently admitted herself. Now we’re not sure of that at this time. However, I have observed her conduct…more properly put, my daughter who is an attorney had witnessed her conduct out in a hallway during some of our court proceedings. And she exhibited conduct that was consistent with a person who suffers from a bipolar disorder. And so uh, I’ve heard from other people that she also has that type of uh…characteristics that a person like that…

Contrary to what has been reported by Dimond and others in the media, David says both he and his ex-wife have known Jackson for a number of years and even before their divorce. The common practice with people such as Dimond is to claim they aren’t calling Jackson a “pedophile” but then attempt to imply just that with a general question about the behavior of pedophiles. Dimond got shut down cold by the accuser’s father because she obviously doesn’t know all the facts in this case, as illustrated with this section of the conversation:

DIMOND: None of that, however, would go to the fact whether her son, David’s son, has been sexually molested or not. Pedophiles—and I’m not saying Michael Jackson is one—but pedophiles often zero in on families who are in turmoil; on children who have parents that may be distracted by divorce. And that was the case with your family, wasn’t it David? DAVID: No! No. Michael’s been a long term friend. And we knew him well before our separation, our divorce. DIMOND: I thought it was a matter of just a year or so. DAVID: Oh no. We’ve known him for a while now. DIMOND: You’ve always known Michael Jackson to be an honest man, a good man with your children? DAVID: Yes.

This is very important because the misinformation of when Jackson started to help the family is used by those–who don’t know the situation–to try to paint Jackson as some sort of opportunistic child molester, ‘going after’ families in turmoil. If one were to only take the “theory” into consideration–and leave out the fact that Jackson is innocent–this blows a hole in their reaonsing because it was not the case with this family when Jackson stepped in. In response to an insult from Dimond that “skeptics” say the father only wants to get back in his children’s life to benefit from a possible upcoming civil suit, Halpern says he and his client have been offered a lot of money to sell their stories to foreign tabloids. He says they have refused every offer. They also have demonstrated an understanding of California law which would squash any skepticism surrounding the father’s motives. In California, any money from a settlement goes directly to the child and is held in trust until the child reaches majority. The parents cannot use any of that money for their own purposes. This specifically knocks down the theory by some “skeptics” that the father only wants to cash in at the end of this. It is unknown if the mother is aware of the law in California. Halpern also says his sources tell him the mother may have received as much as $200,000.00 from a London tabloid to sell pictures of the accuser. It is unclear if the pictures which recently appeared in one of the London tabloids are the same photos for which the mother was allegedly paid:

DIMOND: There are skeptics who would say that David might be trying to reunite with his family and this boy because there might be a pot of gold at the end of this case; if they decide to file a civil suit. DAVID: [sigh] HALPERN: Ok let me answer this in this way. We’ve been offered a lot of money from foreign newspapers to have his story be given and he has refused every offer. And I might note that the ex-wife, I think, has permitted the London Sun to uh, take pictures of the children. Also… DIMOND: Did you say the mother allowed that? Sort of like set it up or something? HALPERN: Well we…I’ve heard different reports from various reporters that the mother has received as much as $200,000.00. Now, that may or may not be true. And during the deposition of her, I’m going to ask her these exact questions. Also I might note that, if there is a lawsuit by the young man, the money that the boy gets goes only to the child. It does not go to either parent…under California law… DIMOND: Under California law, um hum. HALPERN: Under California law, it goes into trust until he reaches a majority. And the parents do not benefit at all from that lawsuit…

So, in the depositions before the custody hearing, the accuser’s mother will be asked whether or not she has received any money from selling pictures of the accuser to tabloids. This could easily be verified by the tabloid which paid the money to her, if this information is correct. If the mother lies during that deposition, it would be yet another illustration of the accusing family not telling the truth under penalty of perjury. David says he loves and misses all of his children and would very much like to be reunited with his family. You can listen to the audio of the interview for yourself. Or you can watch the [b]VIDEO[/b] of it. They’re both located in the [url=]MJEOL DOWNLOADS[/url] Section! -MJEOL

Leave a Reply