Posted by Pt 2: Past Scams, Nonsensical Claims & a Lying, Controlling Mother MJEOL Bullet #235 Children tell conflicting stories to the authorities about their father as major bombshells about past conflicting stories are revealed
JAN 9 2005 — There are new reports in the Michel Jackson case about police combing Los Angeles looking for someone who may not have even be an accuser; and from 1989 no less. These last minute searches directly conflicts with the prosecutions previous proclamations in court that they were ready to go forward. Obviously that isnt the case. But while the prosecution is out chasing down false tabloid leads and searching for mythical accusers based on unfounded rumors, they cant get away from having to deal with the history of the accusing family. We pick up with Part two of this special MJEOL Bullet discussing what some media analysts have openly called possibly felonious behavior, and information about other allegations the family has leveled against other people; including their own father. __History catches up with the family__ The public learned that the family already has a history with the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS). In October 2001, there was a domestic incident between the mother and father which sparked DCFS to get involoved. As a result, LA child services workers (CSW) investigated. According to these documents (docs), at least two CSW met with the children at the home during an unannounced visit when the mother wasnt present. The kids told the CSW that before the father left the home, he never hit them. They also said the mother takes the accuser to every doctors appointment and makes sure he gets his medication. He also, according to reports, only has one kidney. Keep a note of these two important facts (medication and one kidney) when it comes to the plied with alcohol allegation. From that Oct 2001 DCFS report:
The children were clean and appropriately dressed, and there were no visible injuries on them. The kids said the following. They have not seen the dad for about five months. Before dad left, there was no hitting, just yelling, and not a lot of yelling. There is no contact with dad now. CSW asked if mom takes them to the doctor when they need to go, and they said that _________ had cancer (a tumor), and mom takes him to every appointment and gives him his medication. (see Damaging Docs from 2001 DCFS investigation about accusing family)
No reports of abuse, or hitting, or beatings, or threats. After this first visit, CSW left a card with the children so the mother can contact them. They say when the mother called them, she was very defensive and angry and did not want to answer questions (pg 2 of .pdf) But by Nov 6 2001, the children were telling a completely different story to the DCFS. The kids all now claimed they saw the father beating the mother, and that they too were beaten by him. Similar to what theyre now claiming in the Jackson case, they alleged back in 2001 that the father threatened to kill them if they told anyone they were being abused. This always appears to be the card they play when trying to duck questions about why they told no one at the time the abuse was happening. See a pattern, here? From the docs:
The kids said that they have seen dad hitting mom. Sometimes ________ holds and protects mom, and dad ______, [and] she thinks he broke her tailbone because it hurt so much. Dad threatened ________ to not tell anybody, including mom, so she [did] not tell mom or anybody. Dad threatened that he would kill the kids and the mom if they said anything; dad said that his brother knows a lot of people who could kill them. One time, _______ had a concussion, and the dad hit ______ head, and it hurt _____ a lot. Dad punched ______ in the stomach. One time when _____ scar on his stomach was in the process of healing, dad slapped his stomach, and it hurt _____. Dad held moms head underwater Dad emotionally abused mom. (see pg 3 of doc)
With the mother present, all of these detailed allegations suddenly came flooding out. This is a far cry from what they had initially said to the CSW without the mother present. Suddenly, all of them are making claims that the mother was emotionally abused, and that the father would kill them if they told anyone? What a coincidence not. The attorney for the accusers biological father has called the mother very vindictive and deceitful. In a report from CNN dated November 25 2003, Russ Halpern says the father told him that the accusing mother gets her children to do whatever she wants them to do. From the article titled Court Papers Slam Jackson Accusers Dad:
“The father has told me in the past that his children will say and do whatever their mother tells them to do,” the lawyer told CNN. “In fact, we know that the children have been in the past, in my experience, said things that they had later retracted because they were not true, but were encouraged to say them from the mother.” (see Father’s lawyer: Mom is ‘very vindictive’)
Apparently she also filed papers saying that the father was a bad man who would have her and the children killed, according to the CNN report. In the Jackson case she claimed Jacksons people threatened her, and her children claimed that they would be killed if they told about the alcohol. Talk about a pattern of conduct! One has to wonder what else shes alleged in the past. Halpern also dropped more bombshell info about the mothers past history of coaching her children to lie to authorities. In fact, the fathers lawyer says, the older sister told the truth to a judge in chambers about one accusation their mother forced them to tell. In a report dated Nov 26 2003, titled Jackson Lawyer Says Money Behind Molestation Claims from the Associated Press, Halpern was also quoted. He says the mother filed for divorce from the father just a month before receiving a $140,000 settlement from JC Penney. See the first part of this MJEOL Bullet for info about that. From the report:
A month before the settlement, the boy’s mother had filed for divorce, beginning a bitter fight that would include criminal charges of abuse. The father’s attorney, Russell Halpern, said the mother had lied about the abuse and had a “Svengali-like” ability to make her children repeat her lies. Halpern said the father once showed him a script his wife had allegedly written for their children to use when they were questioned in a civil deposition. “She wrote out all their testimony. I actually saw the script,” Halpern said Tuesday. “I remember my client showing me, bringing the paperwork to me.” (see Article Highlight: Mother Coached Children to Lie in Court Before?)
So there are third parties who have accused this mother of 1) having a Svengali-like control over her children and 2) has coached them to lie in the past. And believe it or not, some dense media pundits have the audacity to ask how this past behavior negatively affects the current case for the prosecution. No kidding. Maybe some of the more knowledgeable observers can explain it to them like theyre in kindergarten. This is just as much fair game, if not more, as any unsubstantiated speculation from prosecutors about what Jackson may could might have done Remember, the allegations against the mother cant be written off by claiming they came from desperate defense attorneys. The people who were duped by this family all have similar allegations to lodge against the mother. More importantly, these explosive allegations against the mother are coming from people with no ties to Jackson at all. So prosecutors cant claim they were co-conspirators like theyve done with a number of Jackson witnesses who report negative behavior on the part of this family while they were still around Jackson. __Blame the father?__ In a recent controversy about defrauding celebrities, Jamie Masada asserts that the biological father was the one who took the money they raised for the family at The Laugh Factory. Now its blame the father time? The father isnt the one who had dealings with the Mid Valley News or with Fritz Coleman, or initially told their sob-story to the Los Angeles Police Dept. Scammed a whole Christmas and $200 from the LAPD, by the way. Sources close to the father told the TV show Celebrity Justice that he did not take any money raised by Masada. This isnt the first time the father has been made out to be a monster by the accusing family, as you have read above. Also at one point, one prosecution sympathizer claimed that it was the father who forced the children to shoplift merchandise out the JC Penney store which resulted in that lawsuit and settlement discussed previously. Not true, say sources close to the father. In a February 23 2004 Fox news report, director Brett Ratner had a few choice words to say about the mother. The accuser, according to the report, was a frequent guest on the set of Ratners Rush Hour 2 movie starring Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan. Ratner says that he always felt the mother would try to set Jackson up. He also says that it was the father who stayed with the accuser at the hospital, and that the mother claimed she couldnt handle it. From the report:
Interestingly, two sources who don’t know each other both told me stories about the early days of the family’s involvement with Michael Jackson. Both of these sources claim that initially it was the father who has appeared on TV under his first name, David and not the mother who seemed to be caring for the children. “She couldn’t deal with the boy’s illness,” my sources said. “It was the father who was there when he had the cancer treatments.” “I always had a weird feeling that the mother would set Michael up,” Ratner told me yesterday “I always liked the father. But the mother was an opportunist. (see ‘Rush Hour’ Director: ‘I Knew the Mother Would Set Up [Jackson]’ (Feb 24 2004) – Fox)
Again, these comments come from people who knew the family before the family met Jackson. They report, just as a number of other people have complained, that this mother was opportunistic and manipulative. She was off with her boyfriend, they say. At least two sources also confirm that the father seemed to care more about the kids than she did. The father and his attorney have done interviews and have let fly some explosive information about the mother; in some cases, with documents to back up their points. In an interview with MSNBCs Countdown with Keith Olbermann, dated Dec 2 2003, Halpern reports the father says Jackson never displayed any evidence of pedophilia and for that reason he was taken aback when he heard about the allegations. Halpern says his client–the accusers biological father known as David–has had experiences with the accusing mother that causes him to think twice about the validity of the allegations against Jackson. During that Dec 2 2003 interview, Halpern told the host:
HALPERN: Well, my client has had some experience with his ex-wife, and I have witnessed things that shes done in the past and spoken to many witnesses. He believes that she has the capability of coaching her child into making false accusations. He also knows that she is motivated a lot by money, and shes also a very erratic individual. Easily angered, has a– some mental issues that may cause her to act irrationally. So what her motive is, if in fact thats what occurring, and hes not saying that that has happened, would possibly be money or just some emotional problem that she might have. (see Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann: Russ Halpern + other info (Dec 2 2003))
Also during that interview, Halpern blasted Jamie Masadas claims that the boy was gravely ill and needed a new kidney. Halpern said at the time his sources reported the accuser was as healthy as hed previously been. From the transcript of the show:
HALPERN: He is not near death. He is not in need of any kidney transplant. That he is as healthy as he was six months ago, and Im sure that source is probably referring to the time that he was seen on television with Michael Jackson. And, so these reports from this person that owns the comedy factory, I dont know where he got his information. (see Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann: Russ Halpern + other info (Dec 2 2003))
Halpern, speaking on the changing stories they told the Dept of Children & Family Services (DCFS) in Oct 2001 about the father, also appeared on The Abrams Report Jan 8 2004. He says the documents, which illustrate the children telling two different stories at two different times, show the mothers pattern of controlling her children. From the transcript of that Jan 8 2004 show:
HALPERN: Well, I believe what they show is a pattern of the mother of controlling her children. If you review the documents, the Child Services were called to the home following a family disturbance and they spoke to the children without the mother being present. During that interview, they told Child Services that the father had never struck them, never struck their mother. And they came back, and when they came back, and the mother was present, they changed their story. (see Abrams Report: Russ Halpern (Jan 8 04) – TRANSCRIPT)
Halpern reports that the documents were so damaging to the mother that when he presented them to another prosecutor in support of his client in another case, that prosecutor had doubts about the believability of the mother. Halpern also says that the accusers sister actually confessedin closed chambers with the judge in another casethat the accusers father never threatened the mother like she had told the DCFS before. Halpern says this definitely shows a pattern of getting her kids to lie. From the report:
HALPERN: Well, it certainly was the case when I was representing the boys father. In fact, she not only influenced the boys in her family, but also the daughter at a later time also accused herthe father of making death threats to the mother and there was a hearing in chambers with the judge, in which the daughter admitted that that didnt happen. (see Abrams Report: Russ Halpern (Jan 8 04))
He further explained:
HALPERN: Well, there was twoactually two charges. The first was, he was charged originally with spousal abuse and three or four counts of child abuse. He ended up pleading no contest to spousal abuse. The child abuse charges were dismissed. Before he was sentenced on that case, the daughter came incame to the police and said that my client had threatened to kill the mother and then they filed whats called a terrorist threat against my client. They tried to put him in jail immediately at that time. And then the child was brought into the judges chambers at my insistence, spoken to without the mother being present, and she admitted that the father never had made such a threat. (see Abrams Report: Russ Halpern (Jan 8 04))
No wonder the prosecutors in the Jackson case are desperately trying to keep any third party from talking to these children without the intimidating eyes of prosecutors and the mother. Halpern has also been quoted by Fox news as saying the mother doesnt want the father to see these kids because shes afraid they are gong to tell him the truth about the Jackson allegations. In that May 19 2004 Fox report Jackson Case: Kids Parents at War, Halpern says the mothers only interested in keeping the boys away from him:
But it turns out, according to the father’s lawyer, that the daughter has seen and spoken to her father. “The mother doesn’t care whether she sees him or not,” says H. Russell Halpern. “She’s only interested in keeping the boys away from him. She’s afraid they’ll tell him that the whole Michael Jackson story is made up.” (see Mother Afraid Accuser will tell his Father Jackson Allegation is False – Fox)
Could that be the case? Could that be why these prosecutors helped the mother fight the father in family court to keep him away from the two boys? What would there be to hide? Wouldnt the father make a better ally if he too hears his childrens accounts? Obviously these prosecutors dont think so. As a matter of fact, that Fox article also confirms that it was the father, not the mother, who took special care of the accuser when he was in the hospital sick with cancer. It was the father, too, who accompanied them to Neverland in the early days:
In fact: sources have told me from the beginning that when the 14-year-old underwent chemotherapy treatments a year and a half ago, it was the father who took care of him. When the family first came to Neverland, it was the father, not the mother, who accompanied them. “When the boy got sick, the father took a leave of absence from his job and slept next to his bed. The boy wanted him there for comfort.” (see Mother Afraid Accuser will tell his Father Jackson Allegation is False – Fox)
__Mind ya business thats all, just mind ya business__ In that family law case mentioned previously, the mother produced letters where the boys claimed that they hated their father and that they never wanted to see him. They claimed the father threatened them so much that they still sleep with baseball bats next to their beds. They claimed their new stepfather was more of a father to them than their biological father. These detailed allegations directly conflict with the fathers actions as detailed above. Another elaborately detailed con-story to keep these kids away from the father? Some observers say this is most likely the case. Other observers who have viewed the signed letters posted at media websites, noticed how similar the handwritings were, and question whether or not these letters were actual written by these children. But certainly, when the father was there for his sons, there was none of these elaborate allegations of abuse against the father or against Jackson. Ron Zonen, one of the prosecutors in the Jackson case, sent a letter to the judge in the family law case where the father is seeking visitation rights. Halpern says these prosecutors are improperly interfering with the family law case. Why is that? Probably because they, too, want to keep a nosy father from finding out the truth about these molestation allegations. Appearing on Crier Live Feb 20 2004, with guest host tabloid reporter Diane Dimond of all people, Halpern says the prosecutors interfered with this family law dispute and that Mr. Zonen sent a letter saying he doesnt think the father should be given visitation. Halpern says the Jackson prosecutor didnt specify why and he found Zonens act extremely disturbing. __Crazy like a fox? Or just crazy__ The father and his attorney also confirmed that the mother has sought psychiatric treatment before. Halpern revealed on that Feb 20 2004 interview that in 1998, the mother was admitted to a lockdown facility. He also says his sources told him that she may have recently admitted herself into a mental hospital. From that interview:
HALPERN: Well we know in 1998 that she was admitted to a lockdown facility. And also weve we heard from people that are around her that she may have also recently admitted herself. Now were not sure of that at this time. However, I have observed her conduct more properly put, my daughter who is an attorney had witnessed her conduct out in a hallway during some of our court proceedings. And she exhibited conduct that was consistent with a person who suffers from a bipolar disorder. (see Crier Live: Russ Halpern (Feb 20 2004) – Partial Transcript: Court TV Crier Live)
Halpern isnt the first to say the mother seemed off-balance. And the mother has, at one point in 2001, told the police she had previously had psychological problems. Halpern also says that it was the mother who may have sold pictures or allowed a London tabloid to photograph the accuser for upwards of $200,000. Check out this exchange between Dimond and Halpern during that Feb 20 2004 interview:
And I might note that the ex-wife, I think, has permitted the London Sun to uh, take pictures of the children. Also DIMOND: Did you say the mother allowed that? Sort of like set it up or something? HALPERN: Well we Ive heard different reports from various reporters that the mother has received as much as $200,000.00. Now, that may or may not be true. And during the deposition of her, Im going to ask her these exact questions (see Crier Live: Russ Halpern (Feb 20 2004) – Partial Transcript: Court TV Crier Live)
Pictures did appear in one of the London tabloids. But no wonder the mother has been trying desperately to move the family law case back until after the Jackson case is over; and with the help of these prosecutors no less. She doesnt want to face questioning about her actions. __Sneaking suspicion that things are not what they appear__ The biological father appeared on Larry King Live and said he had always had a good relationship with Jackson. There, the father expressed questions about whether or not it was the son who initially made the allegations and not someone else in the family. Well those suspicions may have been premonitions because, as it turned out, it may not be the accuser making the allegations, but rather his brother and mother. According to recent reports, the brother will claim to have witnessed abuse while the so-called victim was passed out. The actual accuserthe person who this was supposed to have happened toapparently has no recollection of certain events. Hum, could it be because they never actually happened?? Jeez. And the father was suspicious of this a very long time ago. King said to him You have a son who has made the accusation and the father replied: I dont even know that much. King seemed a bit confused by his comment. The father explained that he hasnt talked to his son, so he has no idea who to believe considering his own problems with the mother. All of these bombshells from the accusers father and attorney prompted Sneddon to try to silence the attorney with a disingenuous letter claiming he (the attorney) was a witness. For the record, Halpern doesnt know Jackson nor was he around the mother or children during the prosecutions timeline. That didnt stop Sneddon from gagging Halpern, dragging him in front of the grand jury, and arguing with him on the witness stand. Back in Feb 2004, Halpern told King that the DA thats DA as in District Attorney and not the expletive hes become known as sent him a letter calling him (the attorney) a potential witness. Halpern tells what happened:
HALPERN: . I received a letter from Mr. Sneddon claiming that I was a potential witness. I called Mr. Sneddon, and asked him how he thought that, and he said, well, maybe you could be an impeaching witness, discrediting other witnesses. I said well which witnesses would I discredit? He named his own witnesses. I said so are you telling me you’re going to call me as a witness to discredit your own witnesses? Of course he didn’t have a real answer for that. (see Accuser’s father Talks to Larry King (Feb 13 04))
Halpern was called in front of the grand jury whereby Sneddon then began to argue with him, and substituted his own unsworn testimony for that of Halperns. This is one of the very many things the defense pointed out when they complained about the prosecutorial misconduct that has been allowed to run rampant in this case. It got to a point where Halpern was considering filing a lawsuit against the DAs office for violating his first amendment rights, according to a Fox news article. There are accusations flying back and forth. But one thing is certain: there have already been a number of people who have come out to say some very damning things about the mother. So far, the only people claiming negative things about the father are the mother and her convenient echoes; better known as the children. Coming up in Part three of this special MJEOL Bullet, Jamie Masada has said some incredible things during his media blitz. Some of those things have turned out to be contradictory to what the public now knows to be the truth. He may have also made a very telling slip in the story during one of his many interviews. Whether he is the mothers co-conspirator or a victim of the mothers lies, no doubt he is up to his eyeballs in this case. Stay tuned. -MJEOL