Civil Suit Cover-up? MJEOL Bullet #109 The bombshells keep falling in the Michael Jackson case. The latest report confirms what some have believed: Larry Feldman was not being truthful in previous interviews when hes said he was not planning to file a civil suit against Jackson in this case. If you remember, the prosecution and their sympathizers went out of their way to convince people that the reason the family hadnt filed a civil suit was because they did not want money from Jackson. Well, new information blows that lie right out of the water. And this information comes from the psychologist hired by Feldman to pull out the allegations of molestation in the first place. NBCs Mike Taibbi has revealed more information found within the documents obtained by them earlier. The psychologist, Stan Katz, told Santa Barbara investigators in June 2003 about the accuser and his siblings:
KATZ: Mr. Feldman actually referred these kids to me because they come to him in this lawsuit Feldmans going to file Whether the mothers motive is to do it for money, I cant tell you I mean, certainly theyre kind of a poor family.
By Katzs own admission to Santa Barbara County investigators, he was brought into this case by Feldman as a result of a planned civil lawsuit! If you remember, Feldman claimed during a June 15 2004 interview:
FELDMAN: I dont know where they got this idea that this is about money. It just simply isnt true. (at time 2:45 into the March 19 Today show video)
Well now we clearly know that it was all about the money, at least from the very beginning and before Katz even became involved. Katzs has said in no uncertain terms that the kids were referred to him by Feldman specifically because Feldman was preparing to file a lawsuit. The story in the media is that the family did not know anything about any abuse until after the accuser went through many sessions of therapy in which the psychologist had to drag the information out of the accuser. This brings up a number of questions: How in the world could Feldman have had grounds to file a civil suit BEFORE the accuser and family was even seen by the psychologist? If a civil suit was the plan before the sessions with Katz, does this indicate that the family had already conspired as to what they were going to do? Was Katz brought in as a fool-proof way to report allegations without the mother being on the hook for filing a false police report if the allegations are proven untrue? Why would Sneddon and Feldman essentially either cover-up the truth or flat-out lie as to whether or not a lawsuit was involved in the plans of the family? Santa Barbara Newspress reported earlier this month that Sneddon struck a deal with the familys current lawyer, almost pleading with him not to file a civil suit until after the criminal case had been dealt with so as to not make their individual motives look suspicious. Sneddon has previously said:
Theres no anticipation that therell be a civil case filed in this particular case.
However, in a Jan 29 article, staff writer Dawn Hobbs writes:
As he launched his investigation against Michael Jackson, District Attorney Tom Sneddon reportedly sought assurance that the family of the boy accusing the entertainer of child molestation would not make a multimillion-dollar deal like another young accuser’s family did a decade ago. A source close to the boy’s family in the current case told the News-Press on Wednesday that Mr. Sneddon asked the attorney representing the family to “solemnly swear” not to file a lawsuit against Mr. Jackson during the criminal investigation and prosecution of the singer. (see Sneddon reportedly asked boy’s family not to file civil suit )
Why was this information not volunteered when Sneddon was specifically asked to address questions regarding a possible money motive and a civil lawsuit? Why did they feel the need to conspire to halt a civil suit? Maybe someone should have asked him if he explicitly asked the familys current attorney not to file a civil suit. Although, Im not sure if he would have given a straight answer then either. If you will remember, earlier reports said that Johnny Cochran, who was currently an NBC analyst, revealed on the Today Show months ago that the reason the family hadnt filed a civil suit was because they were stopped by the district attorney. Thus, the all they want is justice theory, which was suspiciously ridiculous when it was first use, is now confirmed to be actually ridiculous seeing as the plan INITIALLY was indeed to file a civil lawsuit. Attorney Dana Cole spoke to Mike Taibbi about this story. He says Its a trite line, you know when they say its not about the money, it always is. He also converses with Taibbi about whether or not the prosecution is in major trouble in this case:
COLE: At this point in time, Id probably prefer to defend Michael Jackson than to prosecute him. TAIBBI: You think the prosecution is in that much trouble? COLE: I do.
Indeed Geragos and many others have been of the opinion that this case is nothing but a convergence of a vindictive prosecutor with a vendetta and a family who is trying ineffectively to shakedown Michael Jackson. How can you explain away a civil suit? In response to this news, prosecution sympathizer Jim Thomas appeared on the Abrams report via phone today (March 19) to try, unsuccessfully, to explain away the importance of this information. He basically says this information is no big deal and that the prosecution knew about it before they got an arrest warrant for Jackson. If that is the case, this is yet ANOTHER example of the prosecution completely ignoring pertinent information about the motive of the players involved in this case. Thomas also used a very tired argument to try to pooh-pooh this information. He says that Sneddon wouldnt have filed charges and pursued this case if he didnt have a strong case to prove Jacksons guilt. That is not a strong argument. It is tantamount to the ole Martha Stewart defense: smart people wouldnt have been that dumb. Nope. This excuse especially doesnt wash given some of the god-awful and stupid things Sneddon has done in this case. Do I need to remind you of that first jocular press conference in which he later had to apologize for his incredibly inappropriate and unprofessional behavior? Do you really need a rehash of him ranting about the LA DCFS investigation in which he responded I should have just shut up (see Sneddon says, “I should have shut up” )? Do you need a retrospective of interviews in which he gave (one to tabloid reporter Diane Dimond and the other to Art Harris), BEFORE he even pressed charges against Jackson, one in which he vouched for the credibility of the accusers? Something prosecutors should never do?? And especially before charges are even filed??? Hoping against hope that Sneddon has some secret information, and not making room for the possibility that maybe this guy jumped off a cliff hoping to find something that doesnt exist, is a very dangerous way to go about this. You dont let people off the hook because you think they have something that they may not have. There have been many people hoping and/or praying that the prosecution cannot be that stupid as to pursue this case without any corroborating evidence that can withstand cross-examination. Taibbi himself has admitted that Sneddon needs to have some corroborating evidence. I submit that if Sneddon did in fact have corroborating evidence, he would have charged Jackson under the regular 288 law in California, not the special 288a law where you dont need any corroborating evidence. Had he had this mythical evidence, Jackson would have been charged under the regular law. If that argument isnt enough to convince a person that they should think about whether or not Sneddon has anything, just remember the fact that he sent officers over to a Jackson (not Michael Jackson) memorabilia collection reportedly to pick up 20 year old underwearwhich probably does not even belong to Jackson–looking for DNA. Oh yeah, Im sure his case is so air tight and strong that he just wanted to add those old, dirty drawers into the mix for good measure. Yeah right. Stay tuned. -MJEOL :3pinned [url=http://forum.mjeol.com/index.php?showtopic=15299] Comments?[/url]