Jim Thomas Blows Prosecutions Claims? – MJEOL Bullet #106 Jim Thomas, long time friend of Tom Sneddon and former Sheriff of Santa Barbara, is an analyst for MSNBC. Partly through him, the media and public is being spun about the importance (or lack of importance according to him) of a two month investigation done by the Santa Barbara Sheriffs department that ultimately cleared Jackson of these allegations, finding “no criminal activity” occurred.

The investigation began Feb 18 2003 and ended April 16 2003, according to reports (see Mother of accuser initially said ‘I trust my children with him’ ).

The public was told nothing about this investigation during any of Sneddon’s interviews with Diane Dimond and Art Harris. Sneddon didn’t volunteer this information during any of his joking and insulting press conferences. Neither was the information published on the prosecution’s media website. Nor was it released in a statement though it’s PR firm Tellum Worldwide.

Currently Jim Thomas has appeared on the Abrams Report (March 12) trying unsuccessfully to put out this fire of doubt currently building in many media pundits who previously were absolutely sure-disgustingly so-that Jackson was guilty of a crime. Some are rethinking their preconceptions about this case and are actually asking questions about the situation instead of just accepting whatever nonsense prosecution sympathizers throw out.

Thomas said on the show:

They opened the case but at that point you had no victim. The child had not confided in anyone until June. So the mother didnt know. The siblings didnt know and the case was started only because of suspicions based upon Bashir’s [documentary]. Nobody had ever come forward at that point and specifically said that Michael Jackson had molested that child. Certainly, that child had not said that and did not say that until June. So in essence you really had no victim until June. (see Abrams Report-Explosive info about Santa Barbara investigation

Are you as utterly confused, shocked, bewildered, and flabbergasted, as a number of people watching the goings-on in this case are, given that bombshell? Jim Thomas just totally blew two prosecution claims out of the water with that information. He’s saying that the reason there was a two month investigation was because….because…why?

According to him, there was “no victim until June”. June was 2 months after Santa Barbara police closed their own investigation. But source says it is highly unlikely that there would be a two month investigation without a complaining alleged victim or witnesses. Are we getting the full story from Thomas? Is it customary to open a two month investigation without a complaining alleged victim in Santa Barbara?? Or is this a form of “special” treatment for Michael Jackson?

Mike Taibbi, the NBC reporter who broke this story, says the Santa Barbara police apparently never talked to the family to get their side of the story. He says they only relied on the interviews from the LA child services (DCFS). Remember those? This is the same LA child services that Sneddon all but called incompetent; saying:

To call that an investigation is a misnomer, it was an interview plain and simple and that’s all it was (see report)

It turns out that the Santa Barbara police may not have even done that much. There still may be something else unknown to the public about just what this 2 month investigation entailed. The most revealing point, though, is what is said by Thomas concerning who allegedly knew what, when.

Out of Thomas’s own mouth comes the allegation that neither family member knew anything about “abuse” at the time it was happening, and didn’t find out until June 2003 which is when Stan Katz and Larry Feldman ran to Sneddon with the family’s new story. If you remember, early reports have claimed that the brother and sister not only knew about it, but also claimed that the brother was a witness to this alleged abuse.

Now how in the world could the sister have known AND the brother have been an actual witness to the alleged “abuse” if they weren’t even aware anything happened until June 2003?! It is just one in a long list of incredibly bizarre and idiotic stories revolving around the family and this case.

This new tidbit also shoots down the theory that the family was threatened or intimidated to keep silent. As we now know through Thomas, they weren’t aware of abuse until June 2003. So why in the world would Jackson and/or his people need to threaten this family-so much so that they would totally and repeatedly clear him of any wrongdoing? What would be the point in intimidation is they knew nothing??

And I hardly doubt we would get a straight answer from Thomas or Sneddon as to why the mother was caught on tape defending the alleged Jackson investigator’s right to be in her apartment during at the least the preliminary meeting between the family and Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) investigators:

DCFS Rep #3:The only people that were suppose to see are you and your three children. And I understand that your security…

MOTHER: No, theyre here per my, per my invitation, my request (see transcript)

So how can this so-called Jackson investigator have been there to “intimidate” the family into clearing Jackson when, according to Thomas, neither member knew anything about alleged “abuse”? Further, it’s obvious the so-called Jackson investigator, often used as the scapegoat as to why the family didn’t implicate Jackson in any way, was informed of this DCFS investigation by the mother. Otherwise, how would he have known about it? Does it seem logical that a person who is being intimidated -for no reason at this point, if we are to believe Thomas-would call up the people allegedly threatening them to keep their mouths shut about these allegations? Not just call ’em up to invite them over, but wanting them to help you tape your “interview” with DCFS workers?? Simply ridiculous.


Siblings to Testify about
Abuse They Never Witnessed?
To review, Thomas says neither family member knew about any alleged abuse until after the accuser’s session(s) with psychologist Stan Katz, brought in by Larry Feldman, in June of last year. According to prosecution plants like tabloid report Diane Dimond and the personalities of Celebrity Justice, the brother of the accuser was suppose to have witnessed at least some of the alleged “abuse” and would testify to it in court. This is what Dimond told ABCNews Dec 5 2003:

Court TV anchor Diane Dimond said her sources have revealed that the ailing boy’s younger brother is providing information about his family’s visits to Jackson’s Neverland ranch. Dimond, who also worked on the 1993 Jackson investigation, told ABCNEWS’ Good Morning America that she has learned from sources that the alleged victim’s younger brother says he “witnessed at least one act of molestation.” (see BS:Brother of Jackson Accuser Saw Something Happen (OLD) )

We have conflicting stories here. How in the world could the brother have seen alleged “abuse”, AND not have known about any alleged “abuse” until months after it supposedly happened? In other words, how in hell can he testify to seeing something in Feb 2003 that he didn’t even know happened until June 2003??  It simply defies logic no matter what excuse or spin anyone tries to put on it.

Either Dimond was playing fast and loose with the truth–something certainly not foreign to her and some say she’s done it in the past-or someone fed her incredulous information. Thus, it’s weird that the collective media has yet to pick up on these blatant contradictions that only seem to make sense in the Twilight Zone.

As more and more damaging information comes out regarding the prosecutions so-called “case”, the more convoluted, bizarre, and incredulous this “case” seems to become.

Stay tuned.

-MJEOL

Leave a Reply

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