New Tape Hurts Prosecution’s Case-Bullet #98

Posted by

New Tape Hurts Prosecution’s Case – MJEOL Bullet #98 An audio tape was leaked to Dan Abrams (MSNBC), host of the Abrams Report recently (see Transcript and Screenshots here). On the tape, the mother of the accuser can be heard questioning whether or not she could be present when Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) workers question her children. She is also heard defending a so-called “Jackson investigator” to a DCFS worker about being there. Conversations on the tape take place before the actual questioning about alleged abuse, where DCFS workers would split the family members up and talk to each member on a one on one basis. What is most interesting is what the tape does to the theory of “intimidation” being used by the prosecution and prosecution sympathizers in the media. According to reports the prosecution will claim the mother and her children were intimidated into totally clearing Jackson of any and all wrongdoing while he was allegedly “abusing” the accuser. The mother’s own words on those portions of the tape that were played on the air shoots a big hole in her credibility no matter how one looks at it. Contrary to what was bandied about in the media, a Jackson employee was not there against the mother’s wishes. In fact she admits on tape to one of the DCFS workers that the person who was identified as a “Jackson representative” by Abrams was there at her own request. Now, one could ask why a “Jackson representative” was there in the first place. However, the question cannot be answered satisfactorily without first knowing how this person even knew Child Services would be at her apartment unless the mother informed him first. When DCFS workers informed her that they could only talk to her and her children without anyone else being present, the mother says:

No, they’re here per my, per my invitation, my request.

A much more important question to ask is if this person identified by Abrams as a “Jackson representative” (or “defense investigator”) is actually who he has been identified as. As of now, for all we know, the male person heard on the tape could have been someone working for Jackson’s defense team or someone working with the mother to help her cover her butt during the investigation. The male could have been a family friend helping her tape the conversations. Remember, she too was being investigated for neglect. Regardless of this person’s affiliation, it is clear that he is there in her apartment at the mother’s request. The prosecution will try to claim a number of things to explain away the actions of the family. The fact that a so-called “Jackson representative” was there per her invitation sounds like the more accurate reason. DCFS workers were adamant that there will be no one else present, regardless of whether or not they’re there per her request, during the actual interviews about the allegations. They had to tell the mother, more than once, that no one else will be allowed to be present while they’re interviewing the family. DCFS worker #2 says:

“Ok. This is what we’re going to do. I have to interview each one of you separately so um, it’s confidential so the other people are not going to be able to remain…”

At another point in the conversation, DCFS worker #3 says:

The only people we’re suppose to see are you and your three children…But what I’m saying to you is that because, we, of the way we work and the confidentiality laws that we have, we can only talk to you and your three children being present. We can’t have anybody else present during the interview process. They can’t know what the allegations are.

This would seem to shoot down the theory that DCFS workers weren’t doing their jobs during this investigation. Just from the segment of this tape that was played, it’s obvious the DCFS workers were following protocol and procedure, which is quite the opposite of what the DA has attempted to paint. If she was really being intimated, why then did she defend the alleged Jackson investigator’s reason for being there? Wouldn’t she have agreed with the DCFS worker immediately so that she could get out from under the control of her so called intimidator(s)? In a case where few things make sense on the prosecution’s side, this is just another one of those inexplicable “things” that don’t seem to make any sense at all. At one point on the tape, the mother and this alleged investigator could be heard wiring the mother for sound, so to speak, so she could tape her interview. Whether she actually went ahead and taped her interview is unclear. The prosecution will also have to account for the reason why the mother would allow such a taping to be done in the first place. If “intimidation” is used as a reason, they then are going to have to explain—when DCFS finally got her alone—why she didn’t take the opportunity to rat out her alleged intimidators, why her children didn’t mention anything about intimidation/hostage situation, and why she did not call the police at her first opportunity to do so. The rights of DCFS include the power to call police in at any point when needed during their investigations in the field. Surely, the mother knew this because DCFS previously investigated her family in Oct 2001. So why then, with three DCFS workers present (“three” according to the official transcript of the Abrams Report), did she not speak about her alleged intimidation/hostage situation?? The best guess would be because she in fact wasn’t being intimidated or being held hostage by Jackson’s people, but rather was asking them to help her during this time. The mother can be heard on tape expressing concern at the number of people calling her a “bad mother” for allowing her children to be around Jackson:

MOTHER: You know why I’m at the highest cautious[sic] because you know… DCFS REP. #2: I understand. MOTHER: Worldwide it’s in billboards—‘bad mother’ and all these things.

She admits that she is cautious about this entire situation. So it’s possible she may have actually turned to Jackson’s people for help while she was being investigated by DCFS. This would seem to fit with her own admission of the so-called Jackson representative being there at her request. Her being admittedly cautious about the situation would also explain how this so-called investigator knew DCFS workers were going to be at her apartment. Hostage theory shot down as well? According to the taped conversation, DCFS workers arrive at her apartment where she and her children are watching a video of Jackson. Now, wait a minute! Previously, it was reported that Jackson’s people allegedly moved the family into Neverland after the Bashir documentary, and then began to “molest” the accuser. Also according to the mother and Jamie Masada, Jackson’s people were keeping the family hostage right during this time. Now, the DCFS investigation started Feb 14 2003 and ended Feb 27 2003. This means that the investigation began AFTER the family allegedly claimed they were being kept at Neverland against their will. So how could they have been “held hostage” at Neverland AND living at her apartment–which is where DCFS workers went to interview her on at least one occasion that we know of?? The DCFS investigation lasted for about two weeks. In those two weeks, the mother never mentioned being “held hostage” or being “intimidated” by Jackson or his people. Regardless of what the mother is now claiming, she told DCFS workers the following:

“The mother stated that her children are never left alone with the entertainer. She further stated that her son has slept in the same room as the entertainer but they did not share a bed. The entertainer would sleep on the floor.” (see Allegations Unfounded summary memo)

Irrespective of how the mother felt, the children didn’t seem to disagree with the current situation. In fact, according to that same summary memo of the case:

“The child [the accuser] was interviewed by the CSW as to the allegations and he denied any form of sexual abuse. He denied that he ever slept in the same bed as the entertainer. The child [the brother] also denied sexual abuse. Both children expressed a fondness for the entertainer and stated they enjoyed visiting his home… The oldest sibling [the sister] was also interviewed by CSW. She stated that she had accompanied her brothers on sleepovers at the entertainers home and had never seen anything sexually inappropriate between her brothers and the entertainer.”

Again, these are more of those “things” that are inexplicable probably because someone isn’t being truthful. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply