Questionable Testimony Catalyst for Conspiracy Charge? – MJEOL Bullet #172 In MJEOL Bullet #170, we learned about some of the completely asinine theories and allegations prosecutors are claiming in the Michael Jackson “case”. There is a great deal of information found in the defense’s rebuttal motion (Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside the Indictment). The defense continues to deconstruct the odd theories around this “case,” and blast the misconduct by prosecutors involving the searches, the grand jury process and a witness who couldn’t possible have known anything to which she testified in front of the grand jury.

The defense tells Judge Rodney Melville that there was a complete lack of probable cause presented to the judge who issued the search warrants.  That judge, Thomas Adams, is said to be the one who has issued dozens of search warrants—last count was 57—to prosecutors in this “case”. Defense lawyers say that insinuations arising from information must be reasonable and cannot be “speculative”:

Lack of probable cause exists where there is no rational ground, based on evidence before the magistrate, for assuming the possibility that an offense has been committed and that the defendant is connected with the charged crime (Williams v Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal. 3d 1144, 1147-48). The inferences drawn from the evidence must be reasonable. If they are “speculative,” it is the reviewing judge’s duty to discard those inferences that “derive their substance from guesswork, speculation, or conjecture.” (Birt v Superior Court (1973) 34 Cal. App. 3d 934, 938). (see case file)

The lawyers say that there is absolutely nothing on which to base the conspiracy charge; that prosecutors fail to even prove that there was any agreement at all between Jackson and any of the unnamed alleged “co-conspirators.” In fact, the less than 3-week ‘veteran’, Ann Gabriel, is the one who “established” for prosecutors Jackson’s alleged intent to conspire. So on her word comes, either partially or wholly, the “conspiracy” nonsense. This “bit player’s” role is highlighted by the defense:

The District Attorney points to _______ as the key witness who established Mr. Jackson’s intent to participate in a conspiracy. (Plaintiff’s Opposition 4:18-26). ______ had no personal knowledge regarding Mr. Jackson’s specific intent to do anything. She worked for _________ for 3 weeks before she was terminated. (RT 1453:26; 1470:23-24). (pg 8 (pg12 in .pdf file))

We learn from ex-Jackson spokesman Stuart Backerman, by way of Fox news, that Gabriel didn’t even work a full 3 weeks, but rather, 10 days.

Her dates of employment, in fact, ended before the time Jackson is accused of anything by the district attorney. “This is a woman scorned,” said Backerman, who noted that Gabriel, who’d been hired to help out with some p.r. duties in Las Vegas following the airing of the TV special “Living with Michael Jackson,” was fired for cause. (see article)

The reason Gabriel was fired? Apparently she wanted to be more important that she actually was. Backerman says:

“She was going to go on ‘Access Hollywood’ and read a press release, without any authorization,” Backerman told me. “We stopped it, and then we let her go. She was probably gone by February 18 or 19. She never met Michael Jackson or spoke to him. She knew nothing. She just wanted to be on TV.” Backerman added: “She was aggressive, rude, and curt.”

So this “aggressive, rude, and curt” woman was the major basis for this “conspiracy” nonsense. Some observers say that because of the major problems with the prosecution’s theories, it seems as if they didn’t do their homework on Gabriel, and may have been led to believe she knew more about Jackson than she really does. Ya think!? The defense confirms her short employment and that fact that Gabriel, whose name is blacked out in the court documents, has never even met Jackson. So how in hell could she have known anything in regards to what Jackson may or could do? From the defense’s rebuttal motion:

__________ never even met Mr. Jackson. (RT 1465: 23-24). _________ was a peripheral, bit player who, after the fact was willing to give testimony about anything to be important. __________’s testimony lacked foundation and was based on hearsay, speculation and conjecture. Even if it was admissible, ___________’s testimony fails to support the prosecution’s inference that Mr. Jackson had the specific intent to participate in a conspiracy. ___________’s testimony, at best, is conjecture and speculation, and thus, cannot be considered. (pg 8 (pg12 in .pdf file))

Gabriel was apparently allowed to even speculate about Jackson’s finances and earning potential, in an effort to talk grand jurors into thinking that he had anywhere between $500-700M to lose–as a way to speculate about a motive to engage in a “conspiracy.” Gabriel told grand jurors about possible revenue from cell phone ring tones, in which she claimed they alone could be worth $500-700M, without any foundation whatsoever that any of this was even true according to the defense. Besides this being completely out-of-the-blue information, sources say she has and would have had no way of knowing what a possible deal for Jackson’s music with cell phone companies would be worth. She also couldn’t possibly be privy to this type of information. The defense says:

No foundation was laid to establish how _________ developed this opinion or what facts, if any, she based it on. Ms. __________ also was not qualified as an expert to offer an opinion regarding the economic impact of the release of “Living with Michael Jackson,” let alone Mr. Jackson’s personal views of the film. (pg 9 (pg13 in .pdf file))

She was not even testifying under her real name, but rather her “professional name” (RT 1450:16-18). WTH? Is it normal practice to swear someone in and allow them to testify under a different name other than their real name? Or is this only more “special treatment” for Michael Jackson? The defense also makes the distinction between what a conspiracy requires, and what the prosecution is alleging. Legal experts say that one cannot conspire to do “something”. It must be specific and must show an intent to commit a crime. The defense of course points this out to the judge as “classic innuendo”:

Furthermore, conspiracy requires a specific intent to agree to conspire and the specific intent to commit the underlying crimes, not to do “something”. This is classic innuendo. The District Attorney relies on __________’s testimony to assert that the making of the “rebuttal video” was so important that Mr. Jackson must have wanted to do “something”. The unfounded speculation of ___________ does not support such a contention, and, even her speculation falls far short of establishing that Mr. Jackson intended to participate in a conspiracy.

Either partly or wholly as a result of the speculations from Gabriel, prosecutors ran with this “conspiracy’ theory. From her, prosecutors get the claim that Jackson had a so-called intense desire to “salvage” his reputation. Nevermind that Jackson has since—after the Bashir “documentary”—vehemently and steadfastly stuck by his idealism and decisions. That seems to have gotten overlooked in the “conspiracy to do something” theory from prosecutors. Jackson’s defense team, further, says that no one—not any witness who testified in front of the grand jury—was in a position to testify as to Jackson’s state of mind at that time. Nor was anyone called to testify with admissible evidence as to what economic damage could have occurred because of the Bashir “documentary”. As a matter of fact, speaking on the economic issue, Jackson’s CD sales actually rose in the aftermath of that “documentary”. So to what alleged intense desire to do “something” to “salvage” his career is prosecutors referring? I guess it was one of those asinine theories….. or speculation….or innuendo….or nonsense furthered by Gabriel. Good grief. They may as well have had Diane Dimond testifying. Stay tuned for more information about the “conspiracy” charge. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

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