Prosecution Subpoenas Witnesses, Lies about Others on Their List? – MJEOL Bullet #231 Astonishing new court documents (docs) revealed recently show a prosecution team making up witnesses, badly misspelling the names of people on their witness list, not providing contact information for these “witnesses”, and dumping tens of thousands of pages of material on the defense very recently. There are also recent reports of Bob Jones and Debbie Rowe being subpoenaed by the prosecution. Jones could be among a number of witnesses subpoenaed by prosecutors who have not turned out to be prosecution witnesses. Rowe gave birth to two of Jackson’s children. It is important to note that just because a person may be subpoenaed by one side or the other does not mean that they are automatically testifying for or against Jackson. For instance, Ray Chandler was reportedly subpoenaed by the defense and cited as a “custodian of documents”. One can hardly call R Chandler a witness for the defense solely because it was the defense who subpoenaed him (see Ray Chandler Subpoenaed by the Defense? – MJEOL Bullet #205). On that same note, if you remember, there were reports of the accuser’s father’s attorney, Russ Halpern, being subpoenaed to testify by prosecutors in front of the grand jury. An argument between current DA Tom Sneddon and Halpern ensued, whereby Halpern, under oath, testified that he found the DA’s office to be “hostile” and “very uncooperative”. He testified: “I found your attitude, conduct to be very hostile, and not a office that would be wanting to hear from me, period” (see Massive Prosecutorial Misconduct during Grand Jury Process? – MB#162). Reportedly, the videographer who caught the accusing family on tape talking about what a wonderful person Jackson is—speaking glowingly of him right during the prosecution’s ‘kidnap/abduction’ timeline, mind you—was also subpoenaed to testify by the prosecution in front of the grand jury. The videographer was interviewed by Cynthia McFadden for ABCNews before he fell under the gag order. He says the family didn’t have one bad word to say about Jackson and even got angry with him for continuing to ask them about anything untoward happening between them and Jackson (see ET: Christian Robinson/Cynthia McFadden Feb 26 2004). Tabloid reporters are currently sending the Jones speculation into the stratosphere before they’ve read a word from Jones’s supposed book. And they are trying to make the most out of the fact that Bob Jones was subpoenaed by the prosecution as well. However, what he actually has to say—without the layers of speculation from reporters–remains to be seen. Jones has previously said of Jackson and society (“the system”) in a 1993 report written by Carolyn Bingham for the Los Angeles Sentinel titled “BOB JONES: The Man Who Stands Firmly Behind the Man in the Mirror”:

“They are frightened. The system becomes frightened if they see a black man with this kind of power, and especially a black man that they don’t have total control over…The system is not ready to conceive of this and who ( Michael) is like a pied piper to white youth… “He doesn’t deteriorate his body, his health. He’s a clean-liver, and if they could, I’m sure they would–well you read the press reports–they try to make him weird. [If they] find Michael Jackson with a marijuana cigarette, forget all the other stuff, they’d destroy him… “Anything that the system can’t control, it does not allow to exist. We’re not all of those who have dared challenge the system…It’s amazing how man no longer uses his mind to think, and the system is aware and the system knows it. So they take advantage of it. In politics. In everything else.” (see Insightful Words from Bob Jones)

Jones is also quoted as saying that Jackson doesn’t misuse his fame in any manner. From the report:

“It’s soothing to know that God has given him this kind of a strength, and he doesn’t misuse or abuse it in the wrong manner…” (see Insightful Words from Bob Jones)

So it remains to be seen what Jones is saying now, and how he holds up to possible cross-examination if it comes to that. __Called on account of rain…raining pages of documents, that is__ The attorneys for Michael Jackson have reluctantly asked for a delay of trial based on a number of reasons; one of those reasons being that the prosecution recently turned over 22,000 pages of material to the defense. These materials may or may not also include exonerating evidence or conflicting stories by the accusing family. Another major reason is that prosecutors continue to obtain and execute search warrants. Prosecutors and police ransacked Jackson’s Neverland Ranch November 18 2003. In just the last two months, defense attorneys say prosecutors turned over tens of thousands of pages of info to the defense. This last minute dumping of material was something that even Jackson’s previous attorneys, Mark Geragos and Ben Brafman, complained to the judge about. At one point, Geragos is reported to have told the judge that prosecutors turned over hundreds of pages of material less than 48 hours before a crucial pre-trial hearing. The prosecution’s actions also raise a number of questions about their preparedness for a possible trial. If they are so ready and so sure and have so much evidence against Jackson as they have tried to claim for the past year, why are they intentionally not handing over witness statements? Or material? Why dump their alleged “evidence” on the defense at the last minute? There has yet to be a credible explanation from prosecutors or prosecution-sympathizers. Another flashpoint is the fact that prosecutors may be intentionally misleading the defense by turning over a list of witnesses where some of those listed don’t exist. Seriously. The prosecution also included on their witness list non-names. Some of the prosecution’s alleged 164 “witnesses” had no address; nor did prosecutors include why these people–mythical or not—would be on their witness list in the first place. From the defense motion:

The prosecution provided a list of 164 “names,” some of which were not names at all. The list was defective in ways that have severely prejudiced the defense. The prosecution’s witness list does not include addresses, nor does it include, with one single exception, what the potential subject matter is of the witnesses. This is exacerbated by five inexplicable and unforgivable facts (Declaration of Robert M. Sanger.) (see Memorandum to Continue Trial | pg 6)

One, why in the world are prosecutors padding their witness list with people who don’t exist? What other reason, besides wanting to mislead the defense, could there be for this behavior? The defense, as they have stated, spent valuable manpower and resources on researching these non-existent people. Two, why aren’t prosecutors adding contact information for any of these “witnesses”? Did they just…forget? Or are they intentionally sending the defense on wild goose chases? In the background info section of the redacted court docs, defense attorneys say that in early 2004, there were discussions about a preliminary hearing scheduled, but prosecutors ran to a grand jury instead. The defense says the number of witnesses expanded to include over 100 people as a result of the grand jury indictment. Some observers say this also may have been because of the added “conspiracy” charge. They state that many of these listed “witnesses” live outside of California “and some of them live outside the United States.” (pg 5) How convenient for prosecutors. __…..Who??__ As mentioned above, the “prosecution’s witnesses list contained names of people who do not exist,” writes the defense. They state in the Court docs, “Number 65 [redacted] does not exist. Neither does number 110, [redacted].” And how did the defense find out? By essentially wasting their time investigating only to find out that these are mythical witnesses:

After spending a tremendous number of hours of staff time and investigating these two alleged people, the defense has now concluded that these are not names of actual individuals. We challenge the prosecution to come forward to explain who these witnesses are supposed to be. The cost and expense of this kind of unnecessary investigation is overwhelming, particularly, as it comes during this specific time during which the defense is preparing for trial. (Declaration of Robert M. Sanger.) (pg 6)

They also reveal that names on the prosecution’s witness list are “badly misspelled.” Some of these names the defense had to guess at, they say. Some suspicious case observers also called this a stall tactic, and a way to keep the defense from adequately investigating real witnesses on the prosecution’s list. From the motion:

For instance, _______ and ________ appear to be incorrectly spelled. It was easier to guess the identities of some of these witnesses compared to others. Suffice to say, it has taken the efforts of several lawyers and staff people over several days to determine to whom the prosecution was referring. Some, such as “______,” who’s name the prosecution followed with “(sp)”, have still not been identified. (pg 6)

Huh? Don’t prosecutors know how to spell the names of people they intend to call to testify against Jackson? Wouldn’t prosecutors have asked them how to spell their names when they spoke to them? If they talked to them at all? That is, IF they even exist?? I guess the kid’s invisible friends are also going to testify against Jackson too, huh? And all the wee leprechauns in Ireland? I wouldn’t be surprised if ‘Bubbles the Chimp’ was on the witness list. Hey, I hear he’s writing a tell-all book called “What the Chimp Saw: The Memoirs of Bubbles the Chimp” chronicling Jackson’s relationship with children…in “Jackoland”. Good grief. At least ten names on the prosecution’s witness list, completely redacted in the motion, were so badly misspelled that defense lawyers had asked the judge to force prosecutors to provide more information. Number 46 on the prosecution’s “witness” list has the defense trying to determine who one so-called expert is. They write that “once the identity of such an expert is revealed”, they will have to “determine what the subject matter of that person’s testimony would be” (pg 7). They would further have to find out that person’s qualifications and consult their own expert accordingly. What’s more, prosecutors also have names on the list for which they haven’t provided the defense with any witness statements or reports at all, the defense tells the judge. They say they have “no idea” why these people would even be on the prosecution’s “witness” list:

In addition to the alleged [redacted] experts referred to below, there are a number of other experts for whom absolutely no witness statements, reports, or any other information was furnished… However, we truly have no idea as to why some of them would be called in this case. (pg 7)

By doing this, they say prosecutors have failed to comply with the court’s order. The defense writes:

Furthermore, we cannot tell, from disclosure of [redacted info] and [redacted] who we learned through our own investigation are purported [redacted] experts, what their purpose is in calling these witnesses. It is impossible to determine whether the prosecution plans on calling these witnesses. (pg 7)

What is the purpose of hiding these supposed experts? Some “case” observers have grown exasperated with trying to figure out why prosecutors continue to be less than forthcoming with certain information. For months, we’ve heard about all this “evidence” they supposedly have. Yet they continue to try to hide info from the defense, say some observers. They write:

It is impossible to determine whether the prosecution plans on calling these witnesses because they are so worried about [redacted], whether they are trying to corner the market on _______ experts, or whether the prosecution is still attempting to determine which experts will testify at trial. (pg 7)

They are essentially left to speculate about what these experts have to offer in testimony and why they would potentially be called to testify in a possible trial anyway. __Desperate Prosecutor Tip #74: Search ad infinitum if you have no real evidence__ Believe it or not, the prosecution is STILL fishing for “evidence” in this “case”. Despite the excuses of ‘oh they had to have probable cause to get a search warrant,’ some are openly skeptical and question whether or not they have their act together. To add an extra layer of suspicion, the current judge in the case, Rodney Melville, is the one who has signed off on these very latest search warrants without so much as admonishing the prosecution—as of now–for not attempting to get a swab of Jackson’s DNA either through asking or through a court motion. Can the prosecution do no wrong with this judge? This troubling question was raised by a number of pro-prosecution “case” observers as well as pro-defense observers who say that it is a bit odd Melville would sign a search warrant where the public now knows nothing but Jackson’s DNA and measurements of his bedroom were taken. Quite frankly, all prosecutors need is someone—or the same set of people—adding to their story to get further search warrants, report legal observers. If the family makes further allegations, that’s all the “probable cause” necessary to get a search warrant. But just for the record, memory normally doesn’t improve over time. Thus, anything they ‘suddenly remembered’ should send up huge red flags. It will also be reminiscent of the entire family ‘suddenly remembering’ that the accuser’s mother was sexually abused two years after they filed a lawsuit against JC Penneys (see ‘The Abrams Report’ for March 4 2004: JC Penny lawyer speaks out). On the subject of new warrants, the defense says prosecutors have “abused the search warrant procedure” (pg 8) If you remember, prosecutors—instead of seeking a court order or just asking—ran to a judge and got another search warrant recently. The attention from a search warrant they would garner could be a reason for their decision. Some say that’s why they didn’t just ask Jackson’s attorneys to make arrangements to have a swab from Jackson’s mouth taken long before December 2004. That’s Dec 2004…in a “case” which publicly began Nov 2003. Since then, there have been over 100 search warrants issued in this “case”. “Case” observers have openly questioned these frenzied acts of desperation by prosecutors to string together a “case” built on speculation. __Wiseman: A good crook even knows how to use your successes against you__ Revealed in recently released docs is the fact of prosecutors threatening to use “witnesses” from a civil case that Jackson won. Abdool v Jackson is a civil case which included a number of witnesses and “25 bankers boxes” of material. Witnesses in that case were also fined thousands of dollars for lying to the court. From the motion:

The District Attorney’s witness list indicates that witnesses from the Abdool v Jackson civil case will be called at trial. The Abdool trial involved a significant number of witnesses and spanned several months. The plaintiffs not only lost the trial but were found by the court to have lied giving rise to approximately $60,000 in sanctions against them. Defense counsel must evaluate more than 25 bankers boxes of material related to that case in order to prepare to cross-examine and impeach these witnesses. (Declaration of Robert M. Sanger.) pg 8

Recruiting liars from previous cases now, are they? Sounds familiar? It should. There are also reports that prosecutors want to call the bodyguards from 1993 who sued Jackson and lost. The credibility of these guards was destroyed under cross-examination by Jackson’s attorneys during a deposition taken as a result of the 1993 investigation. They admitted under oath that they essentially lied to tabloid reporters like Diane Dimond, of Hard Copy fame—Hard Copy reportedly paid for their defamatory interviews. When questioned, they said they never saw Jackson doing anything untoward with children, and that they had gotten their information from press reports. The same press which were using their claims to give credence to the 93 allegation. Talk about a vicious cycle! This, along with excerpts from their depositions, were highlighted in the GQ article Was Michael Jackson Framed? The Untold Story in their October 1994 edition (see Was Michael Jackson Framed? 1994). Speaking of Abdool, sources say the Abdool case may involve Kassim Abdool a former Jackson employee. They also report that Abdool and other fired employees contributed to a disgusting book about Jackson around the 1993 investigation by Victor Guitierrez. That book was the subject of a lawsuit and was later banned from being sold in the U.S. The same defamatory book highlighted by Dateline NBC in a recent defamatory “special”. One of Diane Dimond’s “sources” back during the 1993 investigation was Guiterrez. When Jackson sued Dimond’s then-bosses at the now defunct Hard Copy, they gave up their source and got off the hook. Guitierrez—the reason why they were sued in the first place–lost the defamation case to Jackson. He was ordered to pay Jackson $2million+. Gutierrez reportedly tried to get out of it by filing for bankruptcy. When that didn’t work, he fled the country and continued to bash Jackson from overseas. Gutierrez, by the way, was also a contributing producer to a recent defamatory Dateline NBC episode (see Michael Jackson’s Victory – Victor Gutierrez (Apr 10 1998) – E! Online). Gutierrez’s past wasn’t fully disclosed on the Dateline episode of course. Small world, isn’t it? __Prosecution for Dummies 101: Imaginary people can’t be called to testify__ Back on the issue of these mythical “witnesses”: Are prosecutors really going to use these “witnesses?” Or are they padding their list with figments of their imagination and/or with people who wouldn’t possibly have anything to offer in the way of testimony relating to this “case”? In a lot of cases, the defense is always labeled as the one who wants to stall. In this “case”, it appears to be the prosecution who can’t get their acts together in time. They can only drag their feet up until a certain point when they will have to put up or shut up. Some “case” observers also question as to whether or not they want to have a trial within a trial, by trying to prove Jackson guilty of the 1993 allegation. And some “case” observers say if the prosecution’s “case” is nowhere near as “strong” as they claimed, all of this public slander and the leaking of information by “law enforcement sources”, as Dimond says, will come back to destroy what credibility they had before continuing to pursue this “case”. Others speculate that the prosecution’s recent formal request to be allowed to use the 1993 investigation is a sign that this current “case” is in trouble. It may also be misleading as well. The fact is that judging by previous court docs, prosecutors have already relied heavily on the 1993 investigation to get this current “case” this far. The previous settlement didn’t preclude prosecutors from pursuing a criminal case in 1993, so they will definitely have to explain why they didn’t pursue Jackson 11 years ago. Just out of the kindness of their hearts? I think not. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

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