Yet More Damaging Info about Prosecution’s Case -MJEOL Bullet #103
Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Dept. investigation yielded nothing
In an exclusive report, NBC’s Mike Taibbi revealed even more information about the goings-on before the Jackson allegations surfaced. Taibbi says the family gave two very detailed and very different stories in just a period of months to investigators.
Further, it’s also revealed that the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Dept began its own official investigation of the very same molestation allegations for which he’s now being charged. But here’s the kicker: They concluded, from their 2 month investigation, that no further action was required against Jackson and closed the case! Current district attorney Tom Sneddon’s own county police dept. investigated these allegations and obviously found nothing or else the case would not have been closed with no further action required.
Their investigation (begun sometime in Feb 2003) ended April 16 2003, which is months after the Los Angeles Dept of Children & Family Services investigation ended. This will definitely be something the prosecution can’t easily dismiss the same way they tried unsuccessfully to dismiss the findings of the DCFS investigation as “irrelevant”.
I guess he is now going to have to call his own Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Dept investigators incompetent or overworked, which is what he implied about the DCFS. But he can’t do that because these are the same investigators and officers who ransacked Jackson’s Neverland Ranch and is helping investigating the allegations against him. Jeez. Taibbi says the documents say:
“Based on the interviews with the children and their father, it was determined that the elements of criminal activity were not met. Therefore, this investigation was classified as a suspected sexual abuse indictment report, with no further action required. Case closed.”(see Mother of accuser initially said ‘I trust my children with him’ )
This now makes a second, independent 3rd party government agency to either clear Jackson or conclude that there was nothing to these allegations. Allegations of abuse never even surfaced until civil attorneys came into the picture.
According to reports, civil attorney Bill Dickerman was the first money lawyer the family ran to. Dickerman began to send threatening letters – suspected to be “intent to sue” lettersto Jackson’s attorneys. For whatever reason, that didn’t happen.
When he got no reply from Jackson’s attorneys about a settlement, Dickerman says he recommended the family see Larry Feldman. Feldman, the same civil attorney who represented the accuser from 1993, jumped on this. According to reports from prosecution sympathizers, the mother didn’t know her son was allegedly molested when she ran to those civil attorneys – the two we know about. So just why then was the accuser made to see psychologist Steve Katz, which is where these allegations of abuse surfaced?
Taibbi reports Katz is the psychologist on record as having gone to the Santa Barbara DA in June 2003 claiming this accuser told him Jackson molested him. If that name sounds familiar, you may remember this blurb about Katz:
JACKSON’S NEW LEGAL STRATEGY Marc S Malkin. Us Weekly. New York: Feb 9, 2004. , Iss. 469; pg. 38, 1 pgs Michael Jackson has more up his sleeve than those alleged bruises from the Santa Barbara, California, cops.
Hot Stuff has learned that Jackson’s defense team plans to discredit the expert testimony of one of the prosecution’s key witnesses, forensic psychologist Stan Katz.
According to a Jackson insider, the pop star’s legal team is thrilled that the Beverly Hills shrink was hired by the family of the 14-year-old accuser at the suggestion of its attorney, Larry Feldman, who also represented the child in Jackson’s 1993 child-molestation case. Why?
“There is going to be an issue of credibility,” says the source, who adds that the hiring of Katz is a clear sign that the family is after Jackson’s money. (Feldman and Katz helped the 1993 accuser win a multimillion-dollar settlement.)
Says the source, “He is a hired gun.” (Archive file. Note the Issue number and the page number)
The family will allege they were being threatened when they cleared Jackson in those TWO separate investigations and when they defended him on tape to Jackson videographer Christian Robinson; and when they talked about what a great person Jackson was to Ed Bradley in Feb 2003 while Bradley was waiting on an interview that didn’t happen; and when they signed documents under penalty of perjury that Jackson did nothing sexual or wrong to the accuser; and when the mother admitted on tape during a preliminary discussion with DCFS that the so-called “Jackson investigator” was there per her request.
Speaking of this April 2003 timeframe, the mother’s divorce lawyer told reporters Nov 24 2003:
Attorney Michael Manning said Monday he remembers the mother saying positive things about Jackson as recently as April or May. “‘He was really good to us’ – that’s what she said at the time,” Manning said. Asked if she had said anything else about Jackson, Manning added, “Nothing bad. … If it turned sour, I don’t know how.” (see Jackson Accuser Never Alleged Abuse)
The argument of “threats” being used to keep the family clearing Jackson’s name time after time after time simply doesn’t wash. Why would the mother have been threatened if she claims she didn’t even know until June 2003 that any abuse had occurred? What would be the point of threatening her at that time??
Further, if her story changes again saying she DID know, why didn’t she go to the police and file charges against Jackson? Why is her story changing now? Why, when she knew Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Dept was investigating, didn’t she admit she was allegedly being threatened?? Either way the story is told, it simply does not make sense.
Prosecution sympathizers can try to claim that the Santa Barbara investigation was relying on the DCFS findings. However, that doesn’t make sense either. Sneddon has publicly railed against this same LA department–all but calling them incompetent at one of his press conferences. So it is very highly unlikely he just took their word for it that no abuse occurred. No.
This is very damaging to the prosecutions case. These numerous, prior inconsistent statements will all but certainly be brought up in court to challenged the accusing family’s credibility. Now the question for potential jurors is which version of their story to believe?
You can view video of Taibbi’s report:
>> [url=http://site.mjeol.com/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?cid=17&lid=84 – Today Show: SBPD Investigated Abuse too/Accusing Fam’s 2 different stories-MJEOL