Year: 2004

Sneddon Stifling Speech & Lying to the Media about it? – MJEOL Bullet #168 Just when you thought the prosecution in the Michael Jackson “case” couldn’t look any more ridiculous, comes word out of Canada that the current district attorney of Santa Barbara may have been caught breaking the gag order in the Michael Jackson “case”, then later lying about it. Tom Sneddon, speaking at the National District Attorneys Association(NDAA) Summer conference in Vancouver, admitted to a number of things that now warrant further investigation and discipline from a higher authority. Veteran journalist for The Globe and Mail, Robert Matas, witnessed Sneddon breaking the gag order by talking about the case, admitting to sending out letters telling people they were witnesses in the case to keep them off TV, and who knows what else. Then allegedly lying about what he did to the media—namely to AP reporter Linda Deutsch.

Ridiculous ‘Quads’ Story Used as Distraction? – MJEOL Bullet #167 In a rather pathetic attempt to shift the focus off of the real bombshells in the actual Jackson “case”, some nut (or nuts) has convinced another set of nuts to run a story about Michael Jackson fathering quadruplets by some mystery woman in Florida. Without naming a source, the magazines featuring this ridiculous story–Us Weekly by way of the National Enquirer–claims that Jackson met recently with a surrogate who is pregnant with 4 children that he will become the father of. Everyone in a position to know such information is saying the story is complete garbage. That hasn’t stopped the speculation. What’s more, the timing is too incredibly suspicious to be ignored.

93 Settlement Was Not A Settlement for Molestation Claims – MJEOL Bullet #166 Yesterday brought further clarification of the 1993 settlement agreement from the transcript of the July 9 2004 hearing in the Jackson “case”. It seems that the 93 settlement agreement wasn’t as black and white as even we claimed. Initially, it looked as if Jackson had agreed to some unknown form of negligence not related to molestation. However, it turns out that he didn’t even agree to that much. There was absolutely no agreement of anything whatsoever; not even negligence. In short, to call the 1993 settlement a ‘molestation settlement agreement’ is erroneous and has no basis in fact at all.