More Questions about the 1st Santa Barbara Investigation?-MJEOL Bullet #138 Did the first Santa Barbara Investigation into the molestation charges against Michael Jackson really rely solely on the previous LA Child Services report or was there more to it than the prosecution is willing to admit? It was reported by NBC’s Mike Taibbi on March 12 2004 that the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department (SBSD) did their own 2 month investigation into these very molestation allegations against Jackson. This first investigation lasted from Feb 18 to April 16 2003. In the documents NBC News obtained about this issue, there was the following passage:

“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.” (see article)

Pay close attention to that quote because it will be discussed again. As a way to explain-away the importance of SBSD doing their own investigation and finding nothing, prosecution mouthpiece and the former Sheriff of Santa Barbara, Jim Thomas, told Dan Abrams (March 12) that there wasn’t a complaining “victim” until June 2003. As we learned in MJEOL Bullet #106, partly through Thomas, the media and public is being spun concerning the importance (or lack of importance according to him) of this two month investigation. During that show, he actually alleged that none of the family members knew anything about any alleged abuse–as a way to attempt to downplay the first investigation coming up empty:

They opened the case but at that point you had no victim. The child had not confided in anyone until June. So the mother didn‘t know. The siblings didn‘t 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 transcript)

Jim Thomas completely blew two of the prosecution’s claims out of the water with that information. And given the new indictment against Jackson alleging conspiracy–coupled with changing charges and a changing timeline—it is utterly ludicrous that this story is allowed to go unquestioned. Thomas is 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 approx. 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 to begin with or witnesses being interviewed. 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? What could be even more devastating to the prosecution’s case is that if no one in the family knew any “abuse” had happened until June 2003, how in hell could the brother of the accuser, Star #2, have actually witnessed the alleged “abuse” AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED? This “case” would only make sense in the Twilight Zone. Somebody call up Rod Serling on the Ouiji board! Jeez. In light of the fact that Thomas has said the only reason why that SBSD investigation turned up empty was because none of the family members knew about the alleged abuse until June 2003, why in the world would they—all of them—have been intimidated into repeatedly claiming that Jackson did nothing wrong? And the questions keep coming: How can the “conspiracy” happen? Why would they have needed to be intimidated in the first place? Why would the family have needed to be held hostage at Neverland (ha!) if they had no idea? What reason did they give for being “held hostage” at Neverland in Feb1-March 31 if they allegedly had no idea any “abuse” happened until June 2003?? And further, when they “escaped” (ha!), why did they run to civil attorneys instead of the police? Did they say, in hindsight, ‘oh yeah, we must have been kidnapped because Star #1 was being abused while Star #2 was watching’? If that’s the case, what’s the explanation as to why they didn’t contact the police and the district attorney immediately after March 31st 2003?? What happened in the month of April 2003 before they were made to see a psychologist at the behest of money lawyer Larry Feldman? 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 during their first 2 month investigation. He says he was told SBSD investigators only relied on the interviews of the family from the LA child services (or DCFS). Remember those? This is the same LA child services that Sneddon all but called incompetent during one of his press conferences, saying:

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

So can we really believe that the SBSD could have been as lazy as to not go out and interview the family members themselves for their own investigation? What’s the real story behind this? Did the SBSD in fact contact the family and was told that Jackson did nothing wrong? And is the prosecution trying to cover up the fact that the family, again, told a different story to the authorities before they hooked up with Larry Feldman? Now back to that quote found in the documents of the Santa Barbara investigation. Look at the first sentence: “Based on the interviews with the children and their father, it was determined that the elements of criminal activity were not met…” On first read, it may seem like nothing. But what’s even more perplexing is that the LA Child Services memo never mentioned that they interviewed the father. The only people mentioned are the mother, the current accuser, the brother and the sister. Nowhere is there anything about the father being interviewed in Feb 2003 with the rest of the family. But, as you just read, in the documents from the SBSD investigation, it mentions that the children and their father were interviewed. Now, how can this be if the SBSD only used the LA Child Services investigation notes? If they were only going by what they were told by LA Child services, where’s the info about interviewing the father? Is this a typo in the report? Could Mike Taibbi have been mistaken? Did the person who authored the memo simply choose not to include any information about the father? Or did something more disturbing occur? Did the SBSD previously interview all the members of this family during that Feb 18-April 16 2003 period, and also were initially told by them that Jackson did nothing wrong? These are questions sure to be asked by Jackson’s defense team. If in fact this family told the investigators that Jackson did nothing wrong—and depending on what date they relayed this information—this could be absolutely disastrous for the prosecution. For example, if the accuser and family were interviewed by Sheriff’s investigators any time between April 1 and June 2003, in which they cleared Jackson’s name, it means that after they “escaped” (ha!) from Neverland they were STILL defending Jackson–saying nothing happened. So how could this kidnap/abduction conspiracy be true if they were still clearing Jackson’s name to various authorities even after the alleged conspiracy was over? What’s the significance of these actions occurring after they “escaped” (ha!) but before they hooked up with money lawyer Larry Feldman? The prosecution has a lot of ‘splaining to do, that’s for sure. But many aren’t sure if they are going to be able to talk themselves out of this one, if true. No doubt Jackson’s extreme confidence should make us all wonder if the defense is sitting on information which could blow this “case” out of the water. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

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