Letters Paint Different Picture than Earlier Prosecution Leaks – MJEOL Bullet #220 Correspondence show Dickerman may have tried to create an actionable situation where none existed For months, prosecution sympathizers have asserted that prosecutors will prove Jackson was keeping personal property from the accusing family. However, in recently released redacted court documents, correspondence between then Jackson attorney Mark Geragos and the accusing family’s attorney at the time, William (Bill) Dickerman, paint an totally different picture; with Dickerman leveling unproven allegations while Geragos kept continuing to attempt to give this stuff back to the accusing family. A gigantic red flag within these threatening and accusatory letters are their dates. Remember the family claimed to have been held hostage at Neverland and threatened? The family claims a conspiracy, but these letters were written at a time that makes a conspiracy improbable if not impossible. Most observers say it’s suspiciously odd that they would immediately hire a civil attorney to began writing accusatory letters to Jackson’s attorney about property, instead of pressing charges against Jackson for their alleged “kidnapping.” Other observers call it flat-out ridiculous and wonders how long the prosecution’s nonsensical “conspiracy theory” can last in the face of real evidence to the contrary. The background on this issue is that at some point the family wanted to move from their current residence to somewhere else. Many people who hated her for allowing her children anywhere near Jackson, for whatever misguided reason, were very vocal about their feelings. Reportedly she wanted Jackson to buy her a house in a town near Neverland Ranch. But in the meantime she wanted to move out of her apartment and she wanted her property from her old apartment to be stored until she found a house…or until Jackson bought her one, say sources. When that house was not forthcoming and once the money stopped coming, reportedly in comes the allegation of property theft. When that fell through, allegations of molestation suddenly appeared. The property theft part of the allegation was furthered by civil attorney Bill Dickerman. By all accounts, Dickerman is trapped like a rat in the middle of this situation regardless of what he tries to say now. He is the author of several of those letters with the first being dated March 26 2003. Keep the prosecution’s timeline in mind as well as testimony from the accuser’s stepfather. It’s important to note the atmosphere of all the denials from the accusing family. There were at least two, probably three simultaneous investigations into molestation allegations triggered by “concerned citizens” who neither had sufficient cause nor proof of any wrongdoing on Jackson’s part. Their concerns were suspicions only. For instance, the first Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department (SBSD) investigation was reportedly triggered by the suspicions of shrink Carole ‘repressed memory’ Lieberman. If you listen to the comments of attorney Jeff Fieger, the word “nutcase” would not be too harsh a word to describe Lieberman. She and Gloria Allred were also linked to another failed molestation claim against Jackson. Reportedly she was the shrink of a Los Angeles “nut-job” who claimed Jackson molested him in the 1980’s and Allred was his attorney (see Two Jackson Haters Collaborate to Set Him Up?-Bullet #126). LAPD investigated the claims and found them to be without any merit (see L.A. Investigators Clear Jackson of Abuse – Bullet #151 ). Another example is that the LA Child Services investigation was reportedly instigated by a complaint from one of the accuser’s teachers who watched the Bashir documentary. So it seems like Jackson’s attorneys wanted to get sworn statements, video and audio of the accusing family’s statements clearing Jackson of these third-party initiated investigations as well. This also may have been related to possible legal action to be taken against Bashir. In a March 26 2003 letter written from Dickerman to Geragos, there’s a question as to who the “Re _______ Jackson” is, cited at the top of the letter. Michael Jackson’s name would not be redacted, so this could be Major Jay Jackson. Jay Jackson is the accuser’s new stepfather. He was the mother’s boyfriend at the time. Dickerman, representing the family and perhaps Jay Jackson at the time, demanded that Jackson and everyone associated with him stop contacting the accusing family. While much of the information is redacted, there are statements like “My clients insist that Jackson leave them alone from this moment on.” Yeah sure. Remember, this was written in March 2003. We later found out through the testimony of the stepfather in a pre-trial hearing that the accusing family came and went, on their own, from Neverland as late as April 2003. Thus while Dickerman began sending threatening letters to Jackson’s attorneys, the accusing family seemed to still be trying to “worm” their way back into Jackson’s good graces, say observers. What is even more significant is that Dickerman sought to get his hands on the affidavits and other documents the accusing family had signed previously exonerating Jackson of any allegation of molestation. In that March 2003 letter, Dickerman writes that among other things, he wanted:

…(b) the papers they have signed, including passport/visa applications, school documents, documents in connection with the legal action in Britain concerning “Living with Michael Jackson,” and everything else bearing their signatures or purported signatures;… (see Letters Between Geragos and Dickerman Show No Theft of Property)

As revealed by ABC News months ago, Jackson’s employees also caught the family on tape absolving him of these allegations. Of those videos and audio recordings, Dickerman wrote in the March 26 2003 letter that he wanted all of the originals AND copies:

The ______ demand that Jackson immediately provide the originals and all copies of all tapes, files, audio recordings, photographs, and other physical representations of any of the ____ or their voices that were made by or on behalf of Jackson… pg 3

Dickerman also wanted to get his hands on “the tape or film of the _____ that was made in a home in the San Fernando Valley within the last two months, before the broadcast of the Jackson “rebuttal” of “Living with Michael Jackson” (pg 3). He wanted everything; from the originals and copies of all releases the accusing family signed to everything with their signatures on it. And he wanted all of these things delivered to his office. And what if Jackson didn’t comply with these demands? Well, he would be sued of course! No money motive? Please. Keep in mind, again, this was March 2003. One reason they could want these papers back was in preparation of a lawsuit they wanted to launch against Jackson; months before there were any allegations of alleged “abuse”. This is starting to smell more and more like a conspiracy; only the conspiracy involved the accusing family and possibly at least one attorney. This attorney seemed too eager to get his hands on certain specific documents, says some case observers who have read these redacted letters. April 3 2003 Dickerman writes a short letter to Geragos. In what looks to be April 8 2003, Dickerman writes to Geragos again saying that contrary to how Geragos described the number of items in storage, the mother had “very few possessions since she lived in a bachelor apartment. She does not believe that much if any furniture was removed” (pg 5). Well, why the stink over a few possessions? So if she didn’t believe there was a lot of furniture placed in storage (at her request), why in the world is she hiring a civil attorney to get it back at a time after she claimed to have been held hostage and threatened? Why worry with that at this crucial point in time? Some contend that it was never old furniture they were after, but rather those sworn statements, documents, videos, and audio. April 11 2003, Dickerman writes another letter, but on April 15 2003, Mark Geragos writes to ask Dickerman where they wanted him to send all of the family’s belongings—put into storage at the family’s request according to reports. From that April 15 2003 letter:

Dear Mr. Dickerman: We have retrieved various items from storage and would appreciate your advising us as to where they should be delivered. Very truly yours, Mark Geragos (see pg 10)

This is in direct conflict with the story pushed by prosecution-apologists. Earlier it was claimed that Jackson and “his people” were keeping the family’s belongings from them. This obviously was not the case as evidence by this short and to-the-point letter from Geragos. April 22 2003, Dickerman writes back demanding that Geragos hand over more specific items. In short, he wants Geragos to confirm in writing that said items exist and that he (Geragos) was going to turn them over. What Dickerman does seem to want to know is the location of the items. Why is that? Some observers speculate that it appears as if Geragos is being strung along. As a result, Geragos simply sends over the family’s belongings to Dickerman’s office through the use of movers they’ve hired. Dickerman inexplicably calls it a “stunt.” In a letter written to Gragos May 12 2003, Dickerman writes:

I though I had previously memorialized by letter your April 24 stunt with the movers, but I found I did not. This, then, will serve to confirm that on April 24, at about 9:30 a.m., you send purported movers to my office laden with a huge amount of furniture and, possibly, other items… (see pg 12)

Since when is it a “stunt” for an attorney to get what he asked for? No, there was more to this request, and Dickerman’s accusatory tone, than a simple return of property request. In a letter dated May 15 2003, Dickerman again levels condescending accusations against Geragos. At this point, he seems to be more upset that Geragos isn’t acknowledging the existence of the requested documents he wants. He certainly cannot be upset at not getting the family’s property because Geragos already had it delivered to Dickerman’s office. However, in a later letter from Geragos, it’s revealed that the landlord refused delivery of the family’s property. From a letter written to Dickerman from Geragos dated May 15 2003:

Thank you for your letter dated May 12 2003, in which you correctly note that movers appeared at your office on April 24 2003, to deliver property you claim belongs to your client. You also correctly note that “the movers left nothing at my premises.” As you know, the reason nothing was left was that your land lord refused delivery of the items because you had failed to advise them that you were expecting the delivery. I see _______ April 24 2003 email from ________ to Dickerman, Bill). Since it appears that you are not equipped nor willing to receive the property at your office, we suggest that a simple manner in which to resolve this situation is for your client to assume the $100/month charge for the rental units in which the property is being stored. Please advise me at your earliest convenience as to whether your client will accept this reasonable offer. (see pg 14)

This shows that not only was Jackson NOT trying to keep the family’s belongings, but movers tried to deliver the stuff back to them and were refused. Neither Geragos, nor his PI wanted to continue to pay for storing the property either. Again Geragos writes Dickerman as a result of another letter he receives on May 15 2003. Dated May 17 2003, Geragos’s letter to Dickerman reveals that they wanted the accusing family to take possession of the property immediately or pay for storing it themselves.:

Dear Mr. Dickerman: Thank you for your histrionic letter dated May 15 2003. Beyond your bluster and personal attacks, please remember that you have a duty to resolve this matter in the most efficient manner possible. In that regard, please advise us as to whether your clients will accept our offer that they assume payment on the two storage lockers. As to your request for an inventory of the property, our offer allows your clients immediate possession of all their property, period. We will waste no further time or resources of our client. You have caused us the unnecessary expense of one delivery attempt and we will not waste additional funds for the sole purpose of placating you. Lastly, please be advised that in the event your clients (1) refuse to assume the payments on the storage lockers, or (2) fail to promptly remove the property therein, the property may ultimately be subject to action by the storage facility. Govern yourself accordingly. (see pg 15)

In other words, it seems they had already washed their hands of the entire mess, wanted nothing to do with them or their property, tried repeatedly to get this stuff to them, and was refused. It looks as if Dickerman tried to create an actionable problem where none existed. After, Dickerman writes another letter dated May 30 2003 claiming that the family would take over payment for storage of the property, but not before he got his hands on that specific information he asked for earlier including the names, addresses, and phone numbers of everyone with access to the property. Why would he want to know what? Some speculate that they wanted this information for a host of other reasons and not because it was pertinent to know before they could make the transfer. This appears to be classic information mining. Perhaps the accusing family wanted to go after all the people involved by leveling some sort of theft civil lawsuit against them. Regardless of the reason, it is suspiciously peculiar that at this time they were using Dickerman to try to get information from Jackson’s lawyers only days after they claimed they escaped from being held ‘hostage’ (ha!) at Neverland. Rightly so, Geragos didn’t appear to be giving them information other than the required data to facilitate the agreed upon transfer concerning payment of the storage facility. In a letter dated June 2 2003 from Geragos:

Dear. Mr. Dickerman: Thank you for your letter dated May 29 2003. We will forward the information related to the storage lockers. Please arrange to have your clients assume responsibility for the lockers. You should also be advised that the June rent is paid. As such, your clients have until July 1 2003 to finalize the transfer. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. (see pg 18)

Some say that neither Dickerman nor the accusing family ever had a right to get signed originals and copies of documents pertaining to…whatever they signed that they regretted later. Other observers aren’t so polite, outright speculating that the family wanted to launch a major lawsuit against Jackson for whatever reason—stealing property or threats or molestation or whatever—and knew they were in deep trouble because of the sworn statements they made to Jackson’s attorneys earlier. Also among the redacted documents is a fax sent to Dickerman from Bradley Miller, Geragos’s private investigator. Even though some of the info is blacked out, Miller clearly tells Dickerman who packed the property, and that he (Miller) sent a payment for storage to pay for the months of May and June 2003. He also tells Dickerman who to call to make the arrangements to transfer storage from him to the accusing family. From the Miller fax dated June 12 2003:

…_____ belongings were packed and loaded by [redacted information]. They then placed the items in storage at their facility where they have remained since occupying I believe two (2) vaults. I just sent a check to _______ for storage payment (May and June). Please call ______ and make whatever arrangements are necessary to transfer the storage from myself to either you or your client. _____ they can FAX whatever paperwork is necessary for me to sign to ______. (see pg 19)

And at the bottom of this FAX right underneath Miller’s signature is blacked-out text. Right next to those redacted words are the words “Geragos & Geragos”. That blacked-out text is probably Miller’s printed name and there is a clear indication of a connection between Miller and Geragos. Or should I say, one would have to be stupid, or intentionally disregard the information, not to know Miller is working for Geragos. This further undermines sworn testimony from Sneddon when he claimed he “couldn’t believe” Mark Geragos would be involved in this situation. These letters are very telling and very interesting. They would also explain Dickerman’s previous resistance to testify in the pre-trial hearings. There is also other information about what Dickerman testified to in the grand jury and how he may have gotten on the stand later and told a different story…but that possible perjury, itself, is a whole other story. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

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