Leak Investigation Too Little Too Late As Pros. Try to Shake Blame?– MJEOL Bullet #240 The Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Dept. is up to its old tricks, launching an “investigation” into who leaked the grand jury transcripts to the media. But could this “investigation” be too little too late, as some observers already think their pals in the DA’s office are responsible? Also, a desperate attempt by a tabloid reporter to take suspicion off of her “highly placed sources” JAN 27 2005 — The Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department (SBSD) has recently announced an investigation into who leaked sealed court documents to the ABC News’s Cynthia McFadden. This comes weeks after the leaks to the Court TV-backed website thesmokinggun and days after the ABC Primetime Live airing of the exact testimony from the grand jury transcripts. Both the prosecution and the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Dept. announced this “investigation” in a joint statement. Some criticize this move as “comical” and “absolutely ridiculous”. They claim to want to find a real culprit but give the appearance that the SBSD and the DA are teaming up to “investigate”. A great number of people see these leaks as coming from the prosecution. They are the total beneficiaries of these types of leaks. The reason some observers suggest that this apparent pairing is problematic is because if the leaks are coming from the prosecution, the SBSD won’t so much as give them a second look during their “investigation”. Others have bluntly stated they are concerned prosecutors may be trying to cover their asses on this issue. Some “case” observers have flat out said this selective “investigation” could be a major PR job on behalf of prosecutors because the leaks may have backfired for them. It is important to note these pro-prosecution leaks also…conveniently…came after people were coming out the woodwork to give interviews with the media concerning their own run-ins with the family, and info about the family’s incredibly shady, possibly felonious past. True, an enormous amount of information was leaked. But some of what was leaked, although salacious, showed blaring holes and illogical stories in the prosecution’s “case”. What’s more suspicious is that the SBSD did not announce an investigation into these leaks the same day or a few days after the big leak to thesmokinggun. Some suspect they seemed to have waited to see what kind of public opinion would be formed as a result. When certain media figures and other legal analysts started to publicly ask questions about the validity of the claims, now all of a sudden they want to start an investigation. Coincidence? Maybe not. What makes it all the more laughable is that recently someone leaked more information allegedly about the 1993 investigation to tabloid reporter Diane Dimond. Will leaks to her be included in their investigation? Don’t hold your breath. More telling is that there wasn’t an investigation launched into who leaked the mother’s police video interview to Art Harris and the show “The Insider”. That video appears to have come from one of two sources: the prosecution or the SBSD. The numerous leaking of pro-prosecution information to ABC, CBS, NBC, etc over the past months also never drew an investigation. It’s peculiar that whenever someone leaks damaging information about the family, like the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services summary memo clearing Jackson of these very molestation allegations (obviously leaked by someone in that office), authorities want to start an investigation. When it’s a pro-prosecution leak, like the very many leaks to Diane Dimond, the SBSD isn’t exactly chomping at the bit to launch an investigation. Some desperate to thrown off the stench coming from themselves, are even stupidly claiming that these pro-prosecution leaks could be coming from the defense. For the record, there has been zero evidence whatsoever that any pro-prosecution leak has ever and will ever come from the defense. This is a classic blame-the-defense-for-everything tactic. For example, the DA hires a PR firm and that is somehow the defense’s fault. One prosecution-sympathizer even suggested at the time that the DA had to hire a PR firm to fight against Jackson’s defense. Now I guess the prosecution gets to try their one-sided “case” in the court of public opinion without that little pesky thing called cross-examination or without the benefit of dealing with Jackson’s evidence against the family. And that’s somehow the defense’s fault? A person who feels screwed over by the accusing family goes to the media to do an interview, and I guess that’s the defense’s fault too? Some prosecution-sympathizers are so frenzied to clean up the prosecution’s image, especially after being talked about like a bunch of dogs by people like Bill O’Reilly (of all people), that they’ve taken it upon themselves to throw the attention onto “someone” around Jackson who “somehow” “may have” leaked the 1900 page grand jury transcripts to the media. Yeah right. If prosecutors or police have a leak in their office or a leak feeding information to people like Dimond, Art Harris, CBS, NBC, ABC or whoever, then that’s their problem; not the defense’s problem. There are at least four prosecutors on this “case”: Tom Sneddon, Gordon Auchincloss, Gerald Franklin, and Ron Zonen. Not to mention people that work in the respective offices dealing with the paperwork. _Spinning like a top_ Right on cue — and as predicted by some observers once they heard the SBSD was launching an investigation — tabloid reporter Diane Dimond has asserted that maybe someone on the defense’s side leaked this information in some ridiculous theory about getting bad info out to the public. Besides the theory being incredibly asinine, Dimond is all but accusing someone around Jackson of breaking the law. Although she takes care to say that she doesn’t know for sure where the leaks are coming from, she tries to lay blame with “someone” around Jackson. How she would know this is beyond me. I doubt anyone from the defense is cozying up to Dimond and telling her what leak may be coming from where. Some say this kind of reporting is irresponsible and possibly defamatory. But, some observers didn’t really expect anything more knowing such theories are coming from a tabloid reporter with a cable news platform. But why this sudden need to point the finger? And what does she use to back up her theory? Dimond pulled a tape made of Anthony Pellicano talking to a tabloid in 1993 to try to lay blame with Jackson’s side in a report for Court TV. That’s right….1993….Anthony Pellicano…talking to a tabloid. For the record, Pellicano has no link at all to Jackson’s current defense team or to Jackson currently. She tells Crier in dramatic fashion: “I can’t tell you where these leaks are coming from. I can tell you that there are people around Michael Jackson that do things on his behalf that are not necessarily very good for him….This is a felony to leak these grand jury documents but I think somewhere somehow someone around Michael Jackson may have thought ‘you know what? Like we did 10 years ago when Anthony Pellicano was around, let’s just throw it out there and get the shock value out’ ”. Dimond of course says this with no basis whatsoever. And could the “somewhere somehow someone around Michael Jackson” get any more vague?? Somewhere somehow someone should confront her about some of the nonsense from the prosecution she’s helped to spread. In this incredibly desperate attempt to get the heat off of her prized “highly placed sources”, she appears to be putting the blame on the defense or someone else around Jackson. Dimond, of course, doesn’t provide one shred of viable, believable or current evidence to sustain such a charge. She just talks about what could….might….may have happened. Not really the type of research worthy of someone who claims to be an Investigative Reporter. Those in the know have bluntly said that there is no way in the world anyone associated with Jackson’s defense would leak this information to the media, period. Attorney Joe Tacopina, who represents Frank Tyson, appeared on Crier Live yesterday (Jan 26 2005). Despite Dimond’s goading and Crier’s dismissive ‘just-being-a-good-defense-attorney’ attitude, Tacopina was firm in his position that these docs were not leaked by the defense and that his client, Tyson, is absolutely innocent. And he says he has the documents to prove it. From the show:

TACOPINA: … I believe the allegations against Frank to be wholly untrue. I have evidence that will disprove them if I’m ever called upon to challenge those allegation. (see Crier Live: Joe Tacopina responding to Dimond’s nonsense – Partial T. (Jan 26 2005) )

Dimond’s unpersuasive, insufficient and unconvincing argument is built on a weak foundation that since old private investigator Anthony Pellicano said something to a tabloid reporter in 1993, that it could…might….may mean the current defense or “someone” around Jackson has broken the law. And yes, she was serious. As for Dimond’s asinine ‘connect-the-dots-to-Anthony-Pellicano’ theory, Tacopina points out that Pellicano has absolutely nothing to do with this current case, with Jackson, or with the current defense team. He also says Pellicano’s theory is silly to boot. From the show:

TACOPINA: First of all, Anthony Pellicano has nothing to do with this case. He’s in jail. So the Pellicano theory may be his theory, but I don’t think it’s being applied here. He’s not working on this case. He’s not part of the defense team. But I think it’s a silly theory. This – these leaks were horrific for Michael Jackson. They weren’t positive. You know what it is? It’s not an allegation. It’s grand jury testimony that goes unchallenged and unrebutted…No one on the defense team, trust me, wanted this to happen. (Crier Live: Joe Tacopina responding to Dimond’s nonsense – Partial T. (Jan 26 2005))

Dimond also partially based these claims on the ‘oh Jackson doesn’t make good decisions’ theory; referencing the decision to allow Bashir to interview him a few times over the course of 7 or 8 months. Reaction to this report from some “case” observers drew stunned and dismissive laughter at the “desperation”. “Desperation” definitely seems to be the theme from the responses to her report thus far. Other “case” observers have unashamedly asked just what in hell does Jackson’s decision to allow “a liar like Bashir” to interview him have to do with the grand jury transcripts being leaked? They also bring up that Jackson certainly isn’t the only person Bashir has told elaborate lies to. For the record, Bashir has also been censured by the British Broadcasting Standards Commission for misleading/lying to another man to get an interview. One other Bashir interviewee publicly accused Bashir of blackmailing him into an interview, claiming he had inside information about the father’s missing daughter that he (Bashir) would only reveal if the father did an interview with him (see article). So this seems to be someone with master skills at manipulating and lying to people. One can hardly blame Jackson for whatever blatant lies were told to him, his staff, his advisers, and other people at Neverland. More about Bashir coming in later MJEOL Bullet. But getting back to Dimond’s ‘Anthony Pellicano’ theory, one observer commented “She must be out of her Jackson hating mind.” Another person writes, “Dimond doesn’t seem too bad. I have to say that she has been totally wrong on a lot of issues since I’ve began watching her coverage.” While another writes, “I’m not sure what’s going on with the leaks, but as desperate as she sounded, I would bet my last $1 prosecutors had something to do with it.” And yes, it does seem that the more stink she makes of it, the more suspicious she and her “sources” look. __Just one more ‘leak’ in the chain?__ As you are aware, this grand jury leak is by far not the first time pro-prosecution leaks have magically appeared by way of some of the most visible prosecution-sympathizers. Two of these visible sympathizers also got exclusive interviews with Tom Sneddon in 2003, by the way. One of the most notable leaks involved the police video reportedly taken of the accusing mother in June 2003 telling what she claims happened to her and her brood. She claimed Jackson was spying on her with her kids, and looking in her bedroom. She even claimed that the accuser shot her in the foot with a BB gun. No kidding. Hum…maybe he got tired of this charade and took it out on mama’s toe? That is, if she was even telling the truth about that. There was a 3 day special on The Insider via prosecution-sympathizer Art Harris, who obtained the video. The video was used to get more information out about the prosecution’s allegations. It more than likely also helped poison the jury pool. Where was the police investigation into that leak? Probably one of the biggest leaks in this “case” involved Dimond being given the tip off from her “highly placed sources” that Neverland was going to be raided by the police before it happened. Some observers have said it is definitely unethical if not illegal for the authorities to tip off anyone before a property is to be raided. It isn’t the first time the SBSD has been accused of tipping off the media to a raid, by the way. As reported by The Hollywood Reporter Nov 20 2003 in an article titled “Court TV coup: Dimond lands another scoop,” Dimond was leaked the information weeks before it happened. The article states she flew from New York to California to be in place to cover the raid. All thanks to her “highly placed sources”. From the report:

Dimond, a freelance anchor with Court TV, was at the Neverland ranch Tuesday morning with the cable network’s cameras trained on the cavalcade of police cars raiding Jackson’s property hours before any 24-hour news network got there – thanks to highly placed sources that tipped her to the pending search weeks beforehand. (see Court TV coup: Dimond lands another scoop, Nov 20 2003 (Hollywood Reporter))

WEEKS beforehand? No one is claiming Dimond may have had something to do with bringing this to fruition, but it seems obvious she knew this was coming and evidently must have been licking her chops in preparation. It seems prosecutors and/or police were leaking to the media, or at least to their favorites, long before this ever became a “case”. According to the report, she is quoted as saying to the CEO of Court TV that she had a “big, juicy story” that she couldn’t tell at the time. From the report:

The information about Tuesday’s raid was so sensitive that Dimond requested resources from Court TV to pursue the story without revealing what the story was about. She said: “I told them, ‘I want to go get you a big, juicy story, but I can’t tell you what it is; you just have to trust me. And you have to let me hire the camera crews because I don’t want anyone to know where I’m going.”‘ (see Court TV coup: Dimond lands another scoop, Nov 20 2003 (Hollywood Reporter))

The article also detailed how her “highly placed sources” leaked the information to her in enough time to get her two camera crews –- one stationed at the local police station – to get in position to catch the police’s arrival. More from the report:

Dimond flew from New York to Santa Barbara on Tuesday, arriving at 2 a.m., enough time to get three hours of sleep and have one of her two camera crews stationed at Neverland when the police arrived at 6 a.m. She was at the local police station with the other crew when the raid began just in case Jackson was arrested, but she soon sped back over to Neverland. Court TV had the police-raid story to itself until an unsuspecting camera crew with local station KCOY-TV just happened to be filming an unrelated story down the road. “They came over and asked if we were filming a commercial,” she recalled, laughing. (see Court TV coup: Dimond lands another scoop, Nov 20 2003 (Hollywood Reporter))

Interesting how she was even amused at recalling the story. The heffa must have been crushed when she found out Jackson wasn’t at Neverland and thus wouldn’t be dragged into the station all disheveled and confused; right in front of her waiting camera crew. Undoubtedly, Dimond’s career was somewhat revived off the back of Jackson’s legal entanglement and all thanks to leaks from either the prosecution or the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Dept. I wonder if they’ll investigate that. I wonder if she’ll find a way to blame that on the defense too. Maybe Pellicano had something to do with that as well? Ridiculous. Foolish theories that the defense is to blame for every leak to the media and that the prosecution is a bunch of law abiding angels won’t fly in light of certain facts. In retrospect, one could track these leaks against Jackson all the way back to 1993 and how the media, including Dimond, magically got their hands on the 1993 accuser’s unchallenged affidavit. What? No investigation for that either? Of course not. So excuse me – and a number of other people who have expressed their opinions thus far – if this latest “investigation” is too little too late, and incredibly suspicious in light of the plethora of uninvestigated leaks in the past. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

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