93 Accuser Not Cooperating with Prosecution? – MJEOL Bullet #118

Remember all of the ominous discussions forecasting that Jackson’s 93 accuser was definitely ready to testify in front of this grand jury? Remember the speculations of doom and gloom and predictions of what he was supposedly going to say? Remember tabloid reporter Diane Dimond emphatically stating that there was a 99% certainty that the accuser would testify? Well it looks as though these certainties, and the speculation derived from those certainties, was more than a bit premature.

Celebrity Justice of all places, along with a number of other outlets, is now reporting that the 93 accuser will (or may) not testify after-all.

 

Tabloid reporter Diane Dimond had previously told at least 3 different media outlets that the chance of this 93 accuser testifying for the prosecution was a 99% certainty. In fact, she was on Court TV’s Catherine Crier (Crier Live; other guest was Joe Episcopo) when the following exchange occurred:

CRIER: …We’re talking about the 93 accuser. A lot of people think he – you think he actually might testify.

DIMOND: I think it’s about 99% that he will testify.

Keep in mind this is only one occurrence of her spreading her 99% figure around as if she knew for a certainty it would happen. On The Big Story Weekend w/ Rita Cosby (March 27) Dimond repeated her alleged 99% figure in this exchange:

COSBY: The other thing, the boy from the 93 case. Are you hearing, I’m hearing he’s probably gonna testify. Why is that critical?

DIMOND: 99% I hear that he is going to testify…

If we are to believe the newest reports, I guess the 1% won out as no one has seen or has any information about this accuser being anywhere near any grand jury proceedings in this case.

As a matter of fact, no one can say for sure if he’s even been subpoenaed. There could be a number of reasons why this is happening. No doubt prosecution sympathizers will attempt to make some excuse such as he is still emotionally scarred, or was threatened, etc. However, there may be a much more simple explanation: he doesn’t want to open himself up for perjury charges.

Many people feel like this accuser essentially took the money and ran or that he and his father successfully extorted this money from Jackson; money that his father attempted to get BEFORE any allegations of abuse were made. The media was in a tizzy last week, doing their usually exaggerated speculations about the 93 accuser being used to show an alleged “pattern”.

Now it seems obvious that the accuser may not have even remotely been about to testify, and the story was purposely pushed in the media by pro-prosecution analysts like Diane Dimond and Jim Thomas. In fact, there is strong speculation by some that the 93 accuser may not have been helpful to the prosecution anyway.

If you remember, according to sources that talked to Mary A Fisher  – the author of the exhaustive October 1994 GQ article about the 93 allegations – the 93 accuser never made any allegations until he was administered sodium amytal. Sodium amytal is hypnotic drug wrongly referred to as a “truth serum”.

Many courts, families, and psychologists/psychiatrists around the US have had huge problems with any sort of testimony and allegations originating from the administration of this drug. It is unclear if testimony derived while under the influence of this powerful drug is admissible in California courtrooms. The California Court of Appeals in 1997 gave its opinion in a case dealing with a man wrongly charged with molestation:

sodium amytal is, in some aspects, even more problematic than hypnosis in its affects of producing false memories and confabulations. If the patient is concerned about sexual matters, he or she will tend to recall sexual experiences. This is likely to forever distort the memory of the subject (see Press release from Richard Harrington, Attorney for Gary Ramona)

And this revelation is only one thing with which the 93 crowd would have to contend if they find themselves up to their eyeballs in this current case. There was much adu made about his involvement, but who’s to say the 93 accuser would even tell prosecutors what they want to hear?

As far as any of us know, the accuser has admitted that he was not molested by Jackson, that he was only saying what his father and his father’s attorney told him to say, and/or that he only said it because he loved his father and wanted to get money for him. This may be another reason why the 93 accuser won’t be allowed to step foot inside this grand jury room if prosecutors have their way.

In a discussion on Fox News Live (March 21), prosecutor John Kelly was specifically asked what value it would have if the 93 accuser was injected into this grand jury proceeding. In an exchange with Cosby, Kelly flatly said that the prosecution is in trouble if they have to use 11 year old testimony to get an indictment now:

RITA COSBY, HOST: John, I wanna start with you. How important is this first boy’s testimony to the case?

JOHN KELLY, PROSECUTOR: No value whatsoever. I mean…

COSBY: No value? Why is that?

KELLY: Well, first of all, if they can’t get indictments, secure an indictment without bringing up some testimony from 11 years ago, the prosecution is in big trouble. Secondly, If they’re gonna bring him in to show some pattern or course of conduct, and they don’t have anything between 11 years ago and now, it’s gonna be inadmissible, and they’ll probably move to quash the subpoena in the first place. And thirdly, you gotta remember this boy literally took the money and ran 11 years ago and he’s not gonna give any helpful testimony to bring himself back into this right now. (see Fox News Live-Former Accuser Discussion-TRANS )

Imagine that accuser being forced by prosecutors to take the stand – Sneddon not knowing what he’s going to say – and having to admit to this grand jury that his case was a scam or saying that he pleads the 5th on the grounds he may incriminate himself. This possibly nightmarish scenario would be avoided at all costs by the prosecution. There’s also a question as to whether or not unproven allegations can be used as a means to get an indictment in the first place.

During that same discussion, defense attorney Mel Sachs told Cosby:

Also the general rule is that uncharged crimes cannot be brought in against a defendant in court and there’s a balancing test: does the prejudicial effect outweigh the probative value. And here, this is highly prejudicial and inflammatory.

Kelly sums up his view on whether or not prosecutions should include anything remotely related to the 93 case by saying:

As far as the 11 years ago, I think they should just lose it.

And seeing as how reports of the 93 accuser testifying disappeared almost as quickly as they sprang up, you can bet there’s more to this part of the story than we will be let in on just now.

Today(April 2) on Crier Live, Dimond has backpeddled by saying that she can’t confirm whether or not the 93 accuser will testify. More about that later. Just a sidenote: Dimond also claimed that Mark Geragos was probably not going to be at today’s (April 2) hearing.

Well, she was wrong on that front as well. Both he and Ben Brafman were present today. You can read about the latest information and see the latest pics of Geragos and Brafman–Brafman carrying a binder reading in part “Evidence for Grand Jury”–at the MJEOL forums!

-MJEOL

Leave a Reply

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