Prosecutors Hiding Alleged Informants from the Defense? – MJEOL Bullet #209 Are prosecutors hiding people who they claim are “informants” from the defense team? Jackson’s lawyers filed a motion, dated October 4 2004, in which they say prosecutors have not been forthcoming in turning over the names of people who prosecutors claim gave them info about Jackson. As far as the defense knows, these people may not exist, they may have exculpatory evidence or they may not have even been around Jackson during the time prosecutors alleged a crime occurred. This is what the defense is trying to find out. The defense team states that they have received a “search warrant hodgepodge” of information with missing pages and missing supporting affidavits. Some search warrants they haven’t even seen at all yet. It is insanely preposterous that prosecutors still have yet to even produce all search warrants, supporting affidavits and their returns to the defense. More over, they have been trying to get the identities of these so-called “informants” since at least July 22 2004, as referenced in a letter written from Tom Mesereau to Sneddon. And, apparently, Sneddon lied to the defense about who this person(s) was. Jackson’s defense says that among the pile of disorganized and incomplete info, they were able to identify 10 search warrants probable cause statements that reference “confidential informants”. These informants are material witnesses and the defense has a right (obligation) to talk to these people and find out what they really know about this situation. Called everything from “Confidential Reliable Agent”, “Confidential Reliable Informant”, to “Credible and Reliable Sources”, these phantom people were used to get certain search warrants by prosecutors. Of course, as the defense points out in their motion, Jackson has plead not guilty and has always maintained his innocence against these false allegations. From the motion, we find out that a “confidential reliable agent” was used to obtain the Neverland search warrant. To the aforementioned letter dated July 22 2004, the defense says they received a reply letter from Sneddon dated August 12 2004 where Sneddon claims there was only one informant and named that person. However, that same person testified in a pre-trial hearing that he was not a confidential informant in the case. It would seem that prosecutors were lying to the defense or that particular person was lying under oath. From the motion:

On August 12 2004, Mr. Sneddon sent a reply letter to Mr. Mesereau, stating that there was only one “confidential reliable informant” and that such informant was [redacted] (Yu Decl. 13, Exhibit 12 thereto.) At his testimony on August 19 2004 during part 1 of the Penal Code Section 1538.5 hearing (ie. the “Miller” examination) [redacted] testified that he was not the confidential informant:

[Question by Mr. Mesereau] Q. Had you helped Mr. Robel with any other issues involving this particular case? A. No, sir. Q. Was this the first time you helped any police officer develop information in the case? A. That was the only time. Q. Okay. Have you been serving as a confidential informant in this case? A. No, sir. Q. Has, I know [sic] ever told you that you are in fact a confidential informant in this investigation or case? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. Now, did detective Robel call you and [say] he wants your help in [identifying] where Mr. Miller is located, correct? A. Correct. Q. Did he tell you how to do that? A. No, he just told me the building and just to go [to] that building and see if I could locate his office. (August 19 2004 Hearing Transcript, 55:7-27 (Livenote Version)

(see Motion Compelling Disclosure of Informant Identity pgs 6-7 | pgs 7-8 of .pdf file)

Now if Sneddon claims this person is mistaken, that person would be deemed a liar and a perjurer. If that isn’t the case, it may mean that prosecutors are purposely misleading the defense and hiding this person (or these people) from the defense in violation of the law. As the defense cites in their motion, prosecutors have a duty to tell the defense the identities of any informants or dismiss any charges/allegations that arose out of their “information”:

The rules governing the prosecution’s duty to disclose the identity of an informant are summarized by the Supreme Court in Twiggs v Superior Court…as follows:

This court has set forth the rule regarding the prosecution’s duty to disclose the identity of an informant. “When an informer is a material witness on the issue of guilt, the People must disclose his identity or incur a dismissal. (Roviaro v United States (1957)…) …What must be disclosed is the witness’s ‘identity’; not merely his name, but all pertinent information which might assist the defense to locate him”. Eleazer v. Superior Court, 1 Cal. 3d 847, 851, 83 Cal. Rptr. 586, 464 P. 2d 42 (1970). …Rather, we concluded that when “through police tactics or happenstance the informer becomes a material witness, the police should make such inquiries and arrangements as are reasonably necessary to enable the prosecution and defense to locate him. Moreover, the duty to disclose arises irrespective of the defendant’s ability to obtain the information through his own efforts…

(see Motion Compelling Disclosure of Informant Identity pg 7-8 | pg 8-9 of .pdf file)

On the issue of finding out whether a prosecution’s informants are/were around the person being accused of a crime, the defense cites four ways to tell: (1) person was a participant in the charged crime; (2) person was an eyewitness to the charged crime; (3) if the person was a “non-participant eyewitness” to the situation immediately before the crime; and (4) person is still a material witness if they have knowledge relevant to the charged crime. The defense says this person(s) could provide exonerating evidence for Jackson as well. Taken from Page 33 of the Neverland probable cause statement, the defense cites the passage related to what the informant allegedly did:

“A confidential reliable agent was asked to visit the building located at 211 South Beverly Boulevard, Beverly Hills. Around 11:00 a.m. on November 14 2003, that individual made contact with a female employee in the reception area of office No. 205, which was the number shown next to Mr. Miller’s name on the directory inside the entrance to the building. The receptionist stated that Private Investigator Miller was no longer in that office, but had moved downstairs to office No. 108. The individual proceeded downstairs to office No. 108 and observed the name “Bradley Miller” on the door. The door was locked. Pg 11 | pg 12 of .pdf

So whoever this person was, they too were involved in staking out Miller’s office. We know that Sneddon went to Miller’s office and took pictures on November 8 2003. We also know, from the accuser’s stepfather’s testimony that he staked out Miller’s office according to reports. Search warrant number 4914 also references a “Confidential Reliable Informant”. The defense cites an exception for the Probable Cause Statement. Much of it is redacted (blacked-out), but the “informant” claimed that a “typewritten multipage script of questions and answers were given” to someone in advance to taping an interview. This “script” may or may not exist. A reference to this alleged “script” shows up in Overt Act number 13 in the prosecution’s indictment against Jackson. So either the prosecution must allow the defense the opportunity to talk to this person or the prosecution must drop the allegation. And since prosecutors love to take information and spin it to claim guilt—like that financial magazine with Muhammed Al Fayed’s number on it—this person may also provide exonerating information as well. Or, this “informant” could be simply lying through his/her teeth. From the defense’s motion:

Indeed, this informant could testify (or provide documentary evidence), among other things, that: (1) he does not know the identity of [redacted information] during the taped interview at [redacted]; (2) the alleged taped telephone call with [redacted info] in fact, was not someone he knew; (3) he knows nothing about the existence of content of the alleged “multipage script questions and answers”; and (4) he has no information (direct or indirect, person or through third party sources) that would show Mr. Jackson had any involvement (direct or indirect) in the alleged script. (see Motion Compelling Disclosure of Informant Identity pg 14 | pg 15 of .pdf file)

Prosecutor’s also appeared to have lied in the search warrant no. 4915 Probable Cause Statement. They claimed that Jackson said he slept in the same bed with the accuser and “admission” was the basis for death threats leveled against the family:

The threats included death threats reportedly made towards the victim and his family stemming from Michael Jackson’s televised statement…wherein Jackson admitted he slept in a bed with the victim. -Page 3 of search warrant No. 4915 (Motion Compelling disclosure of Informant’s Identity pg 14 | pg 15 of .pdf)

Jackson never said he slept in the same bed with the accuser. He specifically said the accuser slept in the bed while he slept on the floor. This was confirmed by the accuser as well. He even identified (and corrected Jackson) about what kind of bedding (ie. blankets, pillows, sleeping bag) that Jackson lay on while on the floor. Thus, whoever told them that a threat arose out of a statement Jackson never made, was lying. Either that, or the prosecutors intentionally mislead—hoping no one would notice—to have a better chance to get the search warrant granted. Let me break that down one more time, this time using excerpts from the actual search warrant. Prosecutors claimed to have contacted “numerous witnesses, who provided information based on their personal knowledge and/or documentation.” Some of that “corroborated information”, according to the prosecution’s search warrant no. 4915, is that the accuser’s family “were obligated through the use of threats, to remain at Neverland, away from other family members, the public and authorities.” At least some of these threats were to have arisen out of that “statement” of “sleeping in the same bed” with the accuser. Only Jackson never said that! All they had to do was watch a tape of the damn Bashir “documentary” to catch that point. “These anonymous informants, creatively cloaked as ‘numerous witnesses’, are prima facie material to this case,” says the defense. But they also say that these cloaked, anonymous (to the defense anyway) witnesses could provide much more information about this “case”. From the motion:

Indeed, there is a reasonable possibility that these informants could provide evidence (by way of testimony or documentary evidence), to show, among other things, that: (1) the Doe family was never forced to remain at Neverland; (2) no threats of any kind were made to the Doe family to force them to remain at Neverland; (3) the Doe family remained at Neverland out of their own volition and thus was free to leave at any time; (4) Mr. Jackson had nothing to do with (directly or indirectly; passively or actively) the alleged conspiratorial acts. (see Motion Compelling Disclosure of Informant Identity pg 16 | pg 17 of .pdf file)

According to prosecutors, they have “informants” who have provided information of a “conspiracy”, yet this person’s allegations haven’t been challenged. These shadow people have leveled all kinds of claims which form the basis of the conspiracy charge. They prefer not to reveal themselves, but instead hide behind prosecutors in search warrants like no. 4946 (Confidential Reliable Informant), 4953 (Confidential Citizen Informant), 5006, 5007 and 5008 (Confidential Reliable Informant). What is more ridiculous is that they insinuate Jackson had some “broad conspiratorial scheme to be like a ‘fog’ “ while abducting, extorting and falsely imprisoning the accusing family. Get real. Jackson’s defense team says this person(s) could provide testimony concerning:

(1) What and how he/she knows (if any) about Mr. Jackson’s alleged desire to be like a “fog”; (2) What and how he/she knows about Mr. Jackson’s alleged use of credit cards and phones through others’ name; (3) What and how he/she knows about Mr. Jackson and Mr. Jackson’s day-to-day officers; (4) What information (other than the “fog” reference) he/she posses about Mr. Jackson; (5) What information he/she has about Mr. Jackson vis-à-vis the Doe family; and (6) Mr. Jackson’s innocence and non-involvement in the alleged conspiracy to abduct, extort and falsely imprison the Doe family. (see Motion Compelling Disclosure of Informant Identity pg 25 | pg 26 of .pdf file)

Also attached to the defense’s motion is the letter form Mesreau to Sneddon, dated July 22 2004, talked about earlier. In it, the defense not only asked for the above mentioned information, but much more data that prosecutors still hadn’t turned over to them. One thing the defense does want to know is the statements made to potential witness and/or informants along with their rapsheets:

MU = my understanding 18. Any and all informants (sworn and civilian) in this case. MU: (Person(s) secretly making claims against Jackson and the defense wants to know who they are.) 19. The records of all misdemeanor and felony convictions and/or rap sheets, including the existence of all pending charges and/or cases against any informant(s) involved in this matter. MU:(Trying to figure out if any of these people have charges hanging over their heads that prosecutors may drop or plead-down if they tell prosecutors what they want to hear about Jackson–whether it’s true or not.) 20. The records of all payments and/or deals given to any informant used in this case. MU: (I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine. Defense may be trying to make sure there is no quid pro quo deals for false allegations related to the alleged “conspiracy”.) 21. All information, in any form, of any indictments, promises, representations or assurances, where or not reduced to writing, given to any informant(s) involved in this matter, related to this matter, including but not limited to plea agreements, dismissals of charges, and agreements not to prosecute, related to either the informant or any third-party beneficiary. MU: (Trying to make sure that prosecutors/police aren’t giving incentives for being an “informant”.) See Mesereau letter – Motion Compelling Disclosure of informant pg 34 of .pdf file

This brings up another issue: What if “incentives” were used by police and prosecutors in exchange for these “informants” telling them what they wanted to hear? Could some of these “confidential reliable informants” have been threatened, or worse, blackmailed into being a shill to allow prosecutors access to obtain certain search warrants? Is that why it’s like mining for gold just to get simple information from prosecutors? Could there be a deeper cover-up going on? Could it be that people in league with prosecutors are the one’s really involved in a “conspiracy” around this “case”? Time will tell. Now that the defense has asked the prosecutors to either put up or shut up, we will see how they attempt to get out of this one. Perhaps they will try to run out the clock and wait until close to a possible trial to turn over this information. In the end, these alleged “informants” may be like the fog (pun intended): intentionally clouding the “case”, whose allegation(s) has little to no real substance at all. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

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