Disturbing Details Not Believable?–Bullet #129

Posted by

Disturbing Details Not Believable? – MJEOL Bullet #129 It could have been an attempt to taint a possible jury pool when ABC decided yesterday (April 20) to usurp and report details about what the allegation against Jackson are suppose to be, over a month after another major network already aired the so-called “exclusive” story. These “exclusive” details, however, have an air of implausibility because of the way in which they came about, the way in which they have changed over time and the fact that they come from people with gigantic credibility issues. What can only be described as embarrassing boasting, concerning a mislabeled “exclusive” report, ABC’s Good Morning America aired details of what the accuser and his brother is alleging Jackson did. What they failed to tell the audience was that this information was warmed-over news first reported by NBC’s Mike Taibbi on March 12. These “exclusive new details” however only speak to what the allegation is. They provide no proof or corroboration of whether or not what the accuser and his brother said is true. This fact was pointed out by MSNBC’s Dan Abrams. During his show, The Abrams Report, yesterday (April 20), he not only pointed out the fact that the new ABC report was not an exclusive, but he also said that the details of the allegations being made may be the downfall of the prosecution’s case. Abrams also highlighted what many legal analysts seemed to miss: if the story changes in detail and the credibility of the people making the accusation is already non-existent, then it makes the entire story unbelievable regardless of the amount of detail presented. Reportedly, there were no allegations of abuse until the family sought the services of civil lawyer Larry Feldman, who arranged for the accuser to see the same shrink from the 1993 case. The details of what the accuser supposedly told the therapist is what NBC then ABC, a month later, reported. If the way in which the allegations came about isn’t suspicious enough, there’s the matter of previous investigations. On top of all of these “new, exclusive details” is the fact that the Santa Barbara sheriff’s Department did a two month investigation, roughly from Feb-April 2003, and found absolutely nothing: no criminal activity, no other accusers, and no corroboration of these current charges. During the March 12 report by Taibbi, he reported the following from documents obtained by NBC:

On April 16th, the Santa Barbara’s sheriff’s department reached a conclusion. “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 incident report, with no further action required. Case closed.” Case closed after a two-month investigation that took place much of the period when Jackson is said to have molested his alleged victim 7 times. (see Article)

Add another layer on top of this one with the “unfounded” conclusion from the L.A. Dept of Child and Family Services, it makes two independent investigations clearing Jackson of molestation before these charges by the current district attorney were filed (see Memo). Abrams also emphasized this:

I’m most disturbed about the fact that the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s department did it’s own official—forget about the LA Child Services investigation finding nothing. The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department began it’s own official investigation and according to Mike Taibbi, found nothing.

What could be more damning is the fact that these various details of what the accuser is alleging were either added or changed after statements were already made to different authorities. It is the details, Abrams says, that could end up really hurting the prosecution in this case:

ABRAMS: And Jacalyn [Barnett], won’t the defense end up cross-examining on each and every detail? I mean the more details there are the more the defense can use those specifics to attack the credibility of the accuser and his family. BARNETT: Exactly. And if you get enough inconsistent statements, as we all know, it only takes one juror to have the verdict go the other way. So I think that if there are a series of statements and a 9 year old to report it [the brother of the accuser] in the exact same manner, I think that’s going to make this a very significant weakness in the case.

Reportedly the accusing family’s story has morphed dramatically. In Feb 2003, they told Child services that Jackson was never alone with them. Yet, they now claim Jackson was apparently alone long enough with them to get them drunk and molesting the accuser. Only the claim is now that the alleged “victim” was passed out drunk. There have been a number of people stating that Jackson would never allow any children to drink liquor at all. According to the attorney for Vinnie Amen and Frank Tyson, who has known Jackson since he was 15, has absolutely no knowledge at all of Jackson giving alcohol to anyone. Tacopina told ABC’s Cynthia McFadden:

…he has no, absolutely no knowledge of Michael giving alcohol to any minor at all. And he would know. (see Video).

Tyson may not be the only employee who can confirm that Jackson would never give alcohol to children. Thus, it’s questionable that the accuser and his siblings were given alcohol. One of the allegations is that they were given alcohol in soda cans. This, however, causes more questions than it answers. For example, if Jackson was alone with them, why would he need to put liquor in a soda can to hide it? They reportedly knew it was alcohol, so why the need to put it in cans while they were getting drunk? Will the new assertion be that Jackson regularly gets kids passed-out drunk in front of witnesses? Speaking of the allegation of the accuser being passed-out drunk, more questions can be asked. If this is the case, in at least some instances in this convoluted story, the alleged “victim” isn’t the actual accuser—the brother is. He’s the one telling what happened while the brother was allegedly passed-out drunk. Now, will the story change to say that the alleged “victim” was both passed out drunk AND conscious to where he could be aware of someone molesting him?? As questionable as it sounds that a molester molests in front of witnesses, that’s the story now being floated around the media. Further, the accusations have grown to include the brother now saying he too was given alcohol. If so, was he drunk too? If he were drunk, how could he have witnessed any abuse? Why then wasn’t Jackson also charged with getting the younger brother drunk? And if he got the brother drunk, why didn’t he molest him also if the modus operandi the current DA is pushing is correct? These types of questions can go on and on because the story doesn’t add up no matter how you slice it. With the amount of detail being added by these people to bolster the claim and explain away previous statements, it only makes it murkier and more questionable. It is these sorts of detailed changes in the story that most disturbed the panelists and the host of the show. He expressed this feeling more than once during the program:

Yeah, but Jacalyn, look I know that in these cases that kids are initially reluctant to come forward. What makes me uncomfortable is the—and again its not almost the admissibility of what the parents have to say—but it makes the whole story seem difficult to accept because not only was that the child unwilling to say that anything happened, but also the mother as well.

Again, if you can’t believe what someone is alleging, it taints the entire believability of what the allegation is regardless of the changing details of the case. According to the Child Services report:

Both children expressed fondness for the entertainer and stated they enjoyed visiting his home, where they would often ride in the park, play video games, and watch movies.

Even if the argument is that they didn’t want to say anything, that doesn’t explain why they expressed a “fondness” for Jackson and recounted tales of enjoying being at his home. They were being held hostage, or so they now claim. Why wouldn’t they take this opportunity to seek refuge with Child Services? By all accounts, they were interview more than once by Child Service workers (CSW); at least once in their own apartment. Why didn’t they take the opportunity to “get away” and confess that they were being held hostage/intimidated/kidnapped/whatever? These are all very specific details about the story which simply make no sense. And when they finally “escaped” from Neverland, did they call the police? No, they ran to a “money lawyer” (civil attorney). Has the story morphed again to suggest that they thought a civil attorney could provide more protection from the big-bad-mean-Jackson employees than the freakin’ police?? The same police that had previously shown a willingness to believe the allegations against Jackson so much so that they opened up their own investigation?? To make matters worse, as previously reported, the story may have expanded to include accounts of being kidnapped and hostage plots—a disastrous way to explain away why they cleared Jackson repeatedly before being ejected from the Jackson gravy train. Probably the absolute worse thing they could have done was to expand this already convoluted story to include this ‘hostage/kidnapped’ allegation. What this does is to bring in a gaggle of employees, ex-employees, acquaintances and guests at Neverland at the time, who may all be able to testify that what the accuser is saying is false. They could also be able to talk about the demeanor of the accuser and his brother. If they are going to run with this ‘intimidated/held hostage’ story, and there are numerous people who were there and can testify that these people weren’t held hostage—and possibly given free reign to do whatever they wanted to do at Neverland including leave—each account could be a nail in a coffin of the prosecutions “case”. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply