No DNA, Lies, Possible Welfare Fraud & A Trip to Australia – MJEOL Bullet #217

Stunning new revelations revealed in court during a two-day hearing

 

Extremely damaging information came out in court during a two day (Nov 4 and 5 2004) hearing in the Michael Jackson “case”.

Among the most explosive issue is the fact that there was no DNA of the accuser found on Jackson’s mattress. Police had seized the mattress in desperate hopes of confirming claims made by the accuser.

It was brought out in court that Tom Sneddon may have flown to Australia in search of another accuser and may have allowed civil attorney Larry Feldman to lie to grand jurors to secure an indictment.

Also the accuser’s mother may be guilty of welfare fraud as new revelations came out in court. Besides hail-Mary attempts to claim the defense is somehow “orchestrating” fan-organized events in an effort to get a change of venue, prosecutors showed other signs that they are beyond ‘removal’-status.

They are on a fast-track to needing a thorough investigation from a larger agency into their beyond-biased behavior, some observers have openly complained.

What’s worse is there has yet to be one sufficient reprimand for their behavior by the current judge in the case, Rodney Melville. This was discussed earlier in MJEOL Bullet #216: Judge Again Allows Prosecutors to Invade Defense Camp.

In court the revelations came as the defense tried to show how these prosecutors absolutely refuse to prosecute the “case” in an even-handed, forthright and honest manner.

Much hyped DNA testing on Jackson’s mattress revealed absolutely nothing as discussed in court. It was reported by the Santa Barbara News-Press in an article dated November 5 2004:

Mr. Mesereau told the court that the accuser’s DNA was not found on Mr. Jackson’s mattress seized during the Neverland raid. If the forensic tests had been positive, prosecutors would have had a physical link to the allegation. (see NO DNA found of the Accuser in Jackson's Bedroom; Mother depositing welfare checks)

If you remember, prosecution-apologists like tabloid reporter Diane Dimond made much of the fact that Jackson’s mattress was taken for DNA testing; complete with dramatic pauses and insidious insinuations as well.

Now that the testing has come up negative as some thought it would, prosecutors are throwing the media distracting speculation by claiming payments to Jackson’s employees must be evidence of something; enter the asinine speculation about Miko Brando. But I digress.

The lack of DNA of the accuser on Jackson’s mattress is one of the most explosive pieces of exonerating evidence which prosecutors had at least since April 2004 according to court documents. The defense had to file a Motion to Compel to get prosecutors to hand-over the information.

This begs the question: if grand jurors had known there was no DNA from the accuser found, would those who voted to hand down an indictment still have voted the same way? It’s an interesting question because the news broke April 21 2004 that an indictment was handed down.

So, did prosecutors have these negative test results before the grand jury’s decision? And if so, did they purposely keep the results from them to insure an indictment? If you remember, the defense filed a 127 page motion to toss out the indictment; called a 995 Motion.

The public only got to read about 47 pages of that 127 page motion. From the beginning there was a concern that these prosecutors would intentionally keep information from the grand jurors which showed Jackson’s innocence.

From court papers we learned that a great deal of what Jackson’s first attorneys (Mark Geragos and Ben Brafman) gave over to prosecutors was in fact blacked out when presented to the grand jury. Fat chance of the media going out of their way to stress this fact to the public.

No wonder, as this case drags on, some think that it is the prosecution who has lost touch with reality; something also said in court by Jackson attorney Tom Mesereau:

Mesereau, who described Sneddon as "losing touch with reality," said the district attorney and his staff encouraged witnesses to lie to the grand jury that indicted Jackson.
 
The defense lawyer said Sneddon was "obsessed" with the case, traveling to Australia at his own expense to locate other purported victims. (see Judge Refuses to Dismiss D.A.'s Office From Jackson's Trial

One of those reported lies involved civil attorney Larry Feldman. Yeah him again. Sneddon actually allowed Feldman to tell grand jurors that the accusing family would have less to gain by pursuing a criminal case against Jackson. This is simply illogical, say some legal analysts. As reported in an AP article titled “Judge refuses to remove Michael Jackson prosecutor from case” dated November 4 2004:

Mesereau said that Sneddon was so personally invested in pursuing Jackson's case that he misrepresented to grand jurors the potential motivation of a boy's family in accusing Jackson.

Mesereau said that Sneddon brought an attorney, Larry Feldman, before the grand jury and had him tell the panelists that a criminal prosecution of Jackson would diminish the chances for the boy's family to win compensation in a civil suit against the pop singer.

In truth, Mesereau said, a criminal conviction would mean that the family would be more likely to win a financial claim against Jackson.

(see Judge refuses to remove Michael Jackson prosecutor from case (Nov 4 2004) – AP

 

Mesereau lit into prosecutors for allowing Feldman to mislead grand jurors. Further from the AP report:

"It goes without saying that if you obtain a criminal conviction, that will establish liability," Mesereau said.

"Every lawyer here knows that if Mr. Jackson was convicted of these allegations, the alleged victims could walk into civil court and get a judgment."

He also cited Sneddon's personal role in investigating the Jackson case as well as his performance at a press conference announcing the singer's arrest.

(see Judge refuses to remove Michael Jackson prosecutor from case (Nov 4 2004) – AP

Another explosive revelation made was the fact that the accuser’s mother has been depositing welfare checks into her new husband’s account. The problem with this is that he makes $80,000 a year. From a Santa Barbara News-Press report dated November 2004:

Mr. Mesereau also said that the accuser's mother deposited her welfare checks into the account of her husband — who makes more than $80,000 per year. He was attempting to show that prosecutors had failed to look into her background and question her credibility.

(see NO DNA found of the Accuser in Jackson's Bedroom; Mother depositing welfare checks)

She was also receiving child support payments from the accuser’s biological father. If you remember, it was reported by Fox News that in March 2003 the mother went to court to get the father’s child support payments increased. There is an issue as to whether her receiving welfare checks constitutes welfare fraud. One certainly would not need a welfare check if they are married to someone who makes $80,000 a year. According to online resources, a person is committing welfare fraud if they:

*intentionally fail to report a change in the household composition, income or resources that would affect their eligibility for benefits.

*intentionally fail to report any changes in circumstances that would affect their eligibility for benefits
(see What is Welfare Fraud?)

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office’s website says that welfare fraud costs the public millions of dollars. According to their welfare fraud section:

The District Attorney’s Office is committed to combating welfare fraud and protecting the County’s welfare fund.

Criminals who live a life of luxury while receiving public assistance benefits and who violate the public trust in their jobs will have their assets seized and will be prosecuted.
(see Welfare Fraud Division in Los Angeles)

Will this mother be prosecuted or at least investigated for possible welfare fraud? We don’t know the answer to that question. Another revelation in court came when defense attorneys revealed that Sneddon flew all the way to Australia in search of alleged “victims”. Also, at least by 1999 sheriff’s deputies were still trying to find more accusers to accuse Jackson of molestation:

It was also revealed that Mr. Sneddon had traveled to Australia in search of other alleged victims of Mr. Jackson and that an alleged victim from the 1993 case had been interviewed in 1999 by a sheriff's detective.
(see NO DNA found of the Accuser in Jackson's Bedroom; Mother depositing welfare checks)

The very fact that Sheriff’s deputies were interviewing people, trying to bring allegations against Jackson in 1999–six years after the 1993 investigation—paints a far different picture than the one Sneddon pushed earlier in this current “case”. In an interview with tabloid reporter Dimond, back even before he filed initial charges against Jackson, Sneddon claimed he had better things to do than to go after Jackson. Yeah sure. In the interview, he said:

I have my life and what I do and I do my job. Anybody who thinks I’ve spent 10 years sitting here waiting to do something for Michael Jackson just has not got a clue.
(see Court TV interview link (approx 3:56min of it)

Well of course he hasn’t spent 10 years “sitting here waiting”. He’s been flying across the freakin’ world actively trying to find people! Score 1 for semantics. Sneddon can no longer claim he was “just doing his job” because last time we checked, Australia is way outside of his jurisdiction…to say the least. The article from the AP also notes Mesereau’s comments about this situation:

"They are too emotionally invested in getting a case against the celebrity…. They are blinded by zeal, blinded by emotion in deciding how to decide this case."
(see Judge refuses to remove Michael Jackson prosecutor from case (Nov 4 2004))

Besides being an obvious clue as to the bias of Sneddon, it is also interesting to note that sheriff’s deputies interviewed a person in 1999 who they probably wanted to level charges against Jackson, and it turned out not to be so.

Thus, this search was not put-to-bed, like Sneddon claims, in 1993 after the “case” dissolved because the accuser’s father refused to allow his son to cooperate with prosecutors both before and after the settlement.

Old reports from the 1993-94 period show that the accuser didn’t so much as testify in front of either of the grand juries that were convened at that time. Maybe he and his daddy flew to Australia. Geez.

From reports, the public has learned that some parents actually both filed formal complaints and/or orally complained about the way certain officers were lying to and badgering their children during the 1993 investigation.

At one point, police told bald-faced lies, like they had pictures of these children naked with Jackson, to some of these kids reported Jackson's lawyers at the time. None of these stories checked out and the children refused to make any accusation against Jackson at all.

Jackson’s attorney sent a letter to LA Police Chief Willie Williams and told him about this (see Redemption Excerpt : Police Lied to Young Children During 1993 Investigation?). It is just more evidence on top of the mountains of evidence already revealed to the public, that these prosecutors–or particularly Tom Sneddon–want to bring charges or convict Jackson or something…anything. And they have tried their damnedest, even flying across the world, to do so.

Stay tuned.

 

-MJEOL

Leave a Reply

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