Newsflash: Unidentified, Old Underwear is not Evidence MJEOL Bullet #137 Quick! Somebody send out a “facts” memo and circulate it to the various media newsrooms now claiming that the seizure of decade old, unidentified underwear constitutes as new evidence against Michael Jackson. And make sure to include that this story is over a month old. Jeez! The ever-resourceful tabloid reporter Diane Dimond hunted down and fingered these dirty old draws, now being reported about by various news agencies, in March 2004. She immediately called one of her sources in the district attorneys office, current DA Tom Sneddon, and alerted him to the existence of this pair of underwear. From there, Sneddon sent Santa Barbara investigators on the other side of the country to take possession of these unidentified dirty draws and bring them back to Santa Barbara. The sign of desperation has been hung around the prosecutions collective neck since they arrested Michael Jackson last year. As if it was new news, the NY Post (shocker!) reported about the seizure of this info recently. Like sheep to the slaughter, a number of other media outlets picked up on the old story and tacked on highly exaggerated headlines like Jackson Underwear Could be Evidence against Him, New DNA Evidence in the Jackson Case, and Photos, Underwear Seized in Jackson Case. Cue the dramatic music! To make matters worse, the person who had possession of these items, Henry Vaccaro, hit the talk show circuit as well. But what he fails to bring up is the fact that anything belong to Michael Jackson should not have even been in his possession in the first place. A little history about this: The Jacksonsminus Michael and Janetwent into bankruptcy while funding one of Vaccaros companies. As a result of the Jacksonss inability to pay, the judge allowed Vaccaro to keep all the items belonging to everyone who was a part of that bankruptcy. This didnt include the items belonging to Michael and Janet Jackson. That bankruptcy judge ordered, at the time, that Vaccaro return/turn-over any materials belonging to a 3rd party. These 3rd parties included Michael and Janet Jackson. Thus, Vaccaro should never have had possession of anything belonging to Michael Jackson in the first place. Thats why he is currently being sued for $10M by the King of Pop, who seeks the return of these items. This is also why a judge has recently granted an injunction on the pay-per-view website featuring pictures of these items, effectively shutting down its illegal activity. After all of this nonsensical speculation about what these decade old Calvin Kliens could mean, in comes a few breaths of fresh air in the form of a CNN legal analyst and a Jackson family spokesman. Kimberly Guilfoyle-Newsom appeared on CNNs Anderson 360 last night (May 3) to talk about what this could mean to the Jackson case. One of the first things she mentioned, as most regular people with common sense pick up on, is the fact that no one even knows if these underwear even belong to Michael Jackson:
Well, it has the potential, right, because if it a viable source of DNA, keep in mind it has not been determined it is, in fact, Michael Jackson’s, but my prediction this pair of Calvin Klein’s is never going to see a day in court. I think basically there’s other ways for them to get a source of DNA from Michael Jackson. (see transcript)
Its amazing how, out of all the attention devoted to this news, a former prosecutor was the one to point out this information. Newsom also pointed out another very obvious fact: many people have touched this item, including that tabloid reporter who found, and fingered, the underwear on camera:
Quite a few people have [touched these underwear] so that really interrupts the chain of evidence in terms of it being introduced as a viable piece of evidence if so many different people have handled it. And, again, we still don’t know that it is, in fact, his.
If the underwear were seized by the prosecution, as a result of Dimond placing a call to the DAs office, could she be a potential witness in this case? Could she then fall under the gag order? Possibly. In an appearance on Court TVs Crier Live yesterday (May 3), Firpo Carr, believe it or not, also shed light on some facts regarding this news. He seemed more informed, at least on this issue, than a number of other people who have been given free reign on the airwaves. Carr did clarify for those who may not have known, that he is not a spokesperson for Michael Jackson and does not work for him in any capacity. So he doesnt fall under the gag order. He also mentioned another item reported about in the NYPost article–a license plate reading All Boys:
Let me tell you how ridiculous that is. Everyone who wears underwear has trace DNA evidence there. What does that prove? Only that its your underwear. Thats how ridiculous this whole thing is. They act like this is big news now. Also there is a license plate, All Boys. Guess what? I hope your listeners–everyone listen to this carefully: thats from Tito, Michaels brother and DeeDee, Michaels late sister-in-law. Because guess what they have? 3Ts (children), all [of them] boys. That belongs to Tito, not to Michael! Thats how ridiculous this is! I cannot wait until we get more information out here to the public so that they can see this is all a witch-hunt. (see video)
The 3Ts referred to above is none other than the internationally known singing group, and sons of Tito Jackson: Taj, Taryll, and TJ or “3T”. (view their latest video). What the media has tried to do is go off half-cocked, as they do 99% of the time, without checking all the facts. The excuse is either that theyre careless or completely lazy. This non-story is more of an illustration of the total desperation both on the part of the prosecutors in this case, as well as the media, to incite a public feeding frenzy. It failed miserably. And as Im writing this still nobody knows if those old dirty draws even belong to Michael Jackson. For all we know, Bubbles the Chimp is somewhere, pissed off that the DA is analyzing his old underwear for DNA. Go figure. -MJEOL