More Bombshells & Insights as Jury Pool Narrows – MJEOL Bullet #242 Conspiracy and molestation charges conflict with each other in light of the behavior of the accusing family and new information. Certain media figures are questioning the validity of the allegations, while others are expressing doubt about the logic. This, while reports surface of contaminated evidence and a shopping DA Feb 5 2005 — As the first phase of the Michael Jackson trial is finished–a jury pool of 250 people has been chosen — more insight into this current “case” and the 1993 investigation is revealed. Some legal analysts are publicly expressing a few doubts about the logic in this “case”, while others have been calling a spade a spade for months now. The face of this “case”, Tom Sneddon, didn’t bother to show up for the first two days of trial. Whether this first phase of jury selection is housekeeping or not, it did seem odd to a number of observers that he wouldn’t so much as make an appearance. He had nothing better to do when he was holding joking press conferences, so why did he suddenly become too busy to make an appearance at the start of the actual trial? Maybe he was busy taking the accuser shopping? More on that report later. This is Sneddon’s trial. This is what he’s wanted. Every since 1993, he may have been wishing for another chance at Jackson. This “case”, however, gives new meaning to the phrase, “Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.” Future MJEOL Bullets will discuss some of the bald-faced lies and half-truths around the 1993 Jackson investigation that has found it’s way into the media thanks largely to a bunch of history revisionists; revisionists whose bread-and-butter notoriety is linked to the 1993 investigation. But before getting into that, more interesting information about this current “case” is coming to light. Finally some in the media, like TV lawyer Dan Abrams for example, may have actually gotten off of the their collective asses long enough to do a bit of in-depth research, and now have the guts to publicly express some major doubts about the logic of this current “case” in a more comprehensive way. What is obvious now is that the conspiracy charge and the molestation charge are at odds with each other. They are conflicting in such a way that makes one thing impossible or improbable if another thing is alleged to have happened. The two charges are in essence fighting with each other for credibility. Their fight may end up sinking this “case”…that is, if Jackson’s attorneys don’t do that first with their exonerating evidence. A developing and devastating bombshell comes by way of Celebrity Justice (CJ). In a Feb 1 2005 report, CJ says they have found out that the accuser actually touched/handled one of the adult magazines while testifying on the stand in front of the grand jury. The problem with this is that the magazines had not been tested yet for fingerprints. CJ reports that when one of the grand jurors asked whether or not the magazines the kid was touching had been tested, the answer was “No.” If this report is correct, this blows a gigantic hole in prosecution sympathizers’ argument. Some have claimed that since a fingerprint of the accuser was found on one of the magazines, then that’s proof of guilt. Not so, if the CJ report is correct. Of course the accuser’s fingerprints would be on the magazine. He allegedly handled them on the stand! To the surprise of certain observers, TV lawyer Dan Abrams actually devoted an entire segment highlighting a few of the gigantic problems with the prosecution’s allegation. As we have been discussing since the allegations became known, one of the most important points involved the prosecution’s timeline. One observer characterized the timeline as “a snake that is choking the life out of this case.” That may be a more fitting description of the mother, but I digress. The implausible timeline claims that right in the middle of at least two independent investigations—one by the Dept of Children & Family Services and a first 2-month investigation by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s dept—that Jackson would START molesting the accuser. We have all become familiar with the DCFS investigation. But what also came out via NBC was a report that the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Dept also began what turned out to be a two month investigation into this allegation, sparked by Carole Lieberman, on Feb 18 2003. This is BEFORE prosecutors are alleging any molestation occurred. What the public found out from the report about that SBSD investigation is that the father, too, was interviewed about this. From an article about that SBSD report:

The father, interviewed separately, says “there’s no reason to suspect any wrongdoing” by Jackson, adding that he too “attributed (his son’s) recovery to Jackson.” (see Mother of alleged victim initially said, “I trust my children with him” (March 16 2004) )

This investigation lasted until April 16 2003, right through the entire set of charges with days to spare. Remember, in March 2003 the mother had allegedly “escaped” from Neverland, hired civil attorney Bill Dickerman, and had the attorney send threatening letters to Jackson’s attorney about their furniture and other property. So, after she escapes, she runs to a lawyer. She doesn’t run to the SBSD – whose investigation was still ongoing in March 2003 – to tell them she saw her kid being sexually abused on a plane, or about them being held hostage, or about being threatened or anything. Keep in mind, the mother and brother are also claiming to be witnesses to some of this abuse. Thus the excuse ‘oh well the kid hadn’t told anyone yet’ simply won’t fly and doesn’t hold water in this regard. And all of this was supposed to have occurred right at the time when the entire world was focused like a laser on Jackson’s relationship with children –particularly this kid– and the media dissecting his entire life. Add to that, the fact that a number of people around Jackson became suspicious of this family and started to document their behavior. __Witnesses all over the place__ Months ago when this “case” first broke, Fox news reported that the mother was making threats about going to tabloids and telling them “things.” It’s unclear if Jackson himself knew of these threats at the time. What is clear is that this family sought shelter with Jackson and, as a result, was taken care of, taken shopping, contacting the DA’s office, flown across the country to be with other celebrities, etc. right when they now claim to be held hostage/threatened/kidnapped. Contacting the DA’s office? Well, yes, according to a report from the King of ‘I told you so’, Fox news’s Roger Friedman. The April 22 2004 article titled “ [Jackson] Case: Did DA Contact Family Early On?” states:

I saw some of this evidence a few months ago, and I can tell you that District Attorney Tom Sneddon is walking into a buzz saw if he thinks this pair [Frank Tyson and Vincent Amen] can help his case. In fact, I am told, Tyson and Amen will recount how, when they returned the family to their own apartment in East Los Angeles on Feb. 16, 2003, a business card belonging to Sneddon had already been slipped under the door of their apartment. The mother — fresh from the uproar 10 days earlier caused by her two sons being featured in the Martin Bashir special “Living with Michael Jackson” — picked up the card and called Sneddon, they will say. And that could suggest that Sneddon, long before there was any accusation against Jackson of child molestation, was already looking for a case that might develop into something more. (see [Jackson] Case: Did DA Contact Family Early On? (April 22 2004) – Fox)

What the hell kind of kidnappers would allow their hostages to contact the office of the District Attorney of Santa Barbara about anything?? And why wouldn’t the family have told the current DA that they were being threatened and held hostage? Remember, the prosecution won’t be able to get out of this fact by claiming the alleged molestation hadn’t began yet and somehow that’s why they didn’t say anything. Prosecutors are claiming the alleged “conspiracy” began BEFORE the alleged molestation. So while she was chatting it up with the DA’s office on the phone, she said nothing; no claims of threats, extortion, furniture-stealing, or kidnapping. As mentioned above, these aren’t things only the children would have known at this point in time. The mother is making allegations of her own which she claimed she witnessed at the time. According to press reports, by Feb 16 2003, she had allegedly already seen Jackson “abusing” her son on a plane ride between California and Florida. And still, with her direct access to the DA’s office, she said nothing. And we haven’t even scratched the surface of all the things wrong with the logic, the timeline, and the credibility of the accusing family. While Friedman is a master of the ‘I told you so’, he is now recently reporting that the defense is seeking to talk with other defense witnesses he claims they had no contact with before. If this report is true, some “case” observers have raised the point of the defense possibly being wary of their specific defense strategy being revealed by contacting these people early on. With all of the attorneys and communication going back and forth, something would have certainly been leaked. Add on top of that, a desperate and vengeful prosecution who may stoop to new lows to keep this “case” afloat, and you would probably have a wary defense team who wants to keep the enormous bombshells for the courtroom and keep prosecutors from accusing Jackson of witness tampering or some other kind of ridiculous nonsense. Regardless of who the defense is or isn’t in contact with, some of these people have been squarely behind Jackson from day one. For example, attorney Joe Tacopina who represents Frank Tyson has been as vocal as he can about this situation. He says his client has always stood behind Jackson’s innocence based on the evidence he (Tyson) purportedly has against the accusing family. __Zeroing in on problems__ Despite what the defense will do or has done, some observers say the prosecution’s “case” already seems to be crippled before an actual trial starts. Others, as well, have picked up on a number of huge problems. For example, Dan Abrams (The Abrams Report) devoted a whole segment of his “usually superficial” reporting about some of the pitfalls of the “case”. Whether or not he goes off a cliff from here remains to be seen. But he asked one of his guests during a recent show, Kimberly Guilfoyle, what she would be concerned the most about. Guilfoyle brought up an audiotape interview that she got to hear through sources before Mesereau was Jackson’s lawyer. The audiotape of the family was made in mid February 2003 at the stepfather’s residence with the stepfather present, by Mark Geragos’s private investigator Brad Miller. Please note that they were at the stepfather’s residence being interviewed by Miller when they now claimed to have been held hostage at Neverland. Of the tape, Guilfoyle says:

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM: I‘ll tell you, the thing I think about every single day is the audiotape that I heard, Dan. It was prepared in light of the Martin Bashir documentary where I heard the accuser in this case and his little brother repeatedly saying that Michael Jackson never touched them in any way that was inappropriately, that he was a father figure to them, that they were lucky that he came into their lives. Over and over again denying any wrongdoing on the part of Michael Jackson. They also have that in sworn affidavits as well. That is going to be powerful tools for cross-examination and impeachment in that courtroom. (see Abrams Report: Prosecution Pitfalls segment (Jan 31 2005))

On another interview with Catherine Crier, Guilfoyle says that tape was approx. 24 minutes long. So it wasn’t just some quick little Q and A session. It was an actual discussion done under the protective eye of now-stepfather Major Jay Jackson, at his own residence in mid Feb 2003. The audiotape was the subject of some legal wrangling when Mark Geragos was still Jackson’s attorney. It’s clearly work product, but the judge at first told prosecutors they can’t hear it, then changed his mind. (I wonder why…) and told prosecutors they could get a copy. This was before the grand jury indictment, but after Sneddon had already filed charges. So in a short-sighted attempt to explain away why they repeatedly denied anything happened, they tacked on this elaborate conspiracy nonsense. But, as more info becomes known, adding this conspiracy charge has only made the “case” worse, admitted some pro-prosecution observers. A conspiracy charge is normally something prosecutors tack onto a case to make it easier for them to get a conviction on something, anything. But taken with only the small amount of info the public has been made aware of, it directly conflicts with the family’s actual behavior. Something the defense is sure to highlight. Another point brought up by the Abrams panel was that devastating Los Angeles Dept. of Children & Family Services investigation done right in the middle of their alleged kidnapping. The investigation, spanning two weeks from Feb 14 to Feb 27 2003, was sparked by a third-party who called in with “concerns” after watching Bashir’s hatchet-job of a “documentary”. DCFS concluded that the allegations were “unfounded”. The accusing family, all of them, denied any form of abuse and more importantly they said nothing about being threatened or being held hostage. Normal procedure during these types of investigations dictates that each family member will be isolated from the other and they will be interviewed without the interference or intimidation of anyone, including the parent. According to the summary memo, “the mother stated that her children are never left alone with the entertainer” (see DCFS Memo). This would also corroborate what attorney Mark Geragos revealed during that CBS 60 Minutes interview when he said there were precautions in place to where Jackson would never be alone with any kid. Was someone else in the room when the accuser and Jackson were in the same room, as Jackson slept on the floor and the accuser in the bed? Were there surveillance cameras? Time will tell. And the answer may not be pretty for prosecutors if we are to believe how they’ve described Neverland as being literally wired for sound with video surveillance. Even during that DCFS investigation, the mother said:

She further stated that her son has slept in the same room as the entertainer but they did not share a bed. The entertainer would sleep on the floor. (see DCFS Memo)

__Conflicting charges compete for credibility__ The accuser also denied to Child Services that anything untoward had ever happened between he and Jackson (alleged molestation). He never said he was being threatened or kidnapped either (alleged conspiracy). What both he and his brother did say was detailed in the summary memo:

The child, _______, was interviewed by the CSW as to the allegations and he denied any form of sexual abuse. He denied that he ever slept in the same bed as the entertainer. The child, ________, also denied sexual abuse. Both children expressed a fondness for the entertainer and stated they enjoyed visiting his home, when they would often ride in the park, play video games, and watch movies. (see DCFS memo)

The brother, who claimed to have witnessed some of the prosecution-alleged “abuse” also denied any abuse (alleged molestation). He never said anything to DCFS about being kidnapped, threatened, or held hostage (conspiracy). The sister also talked to Child Services. She says she accompanied her brothers to Neverland and never saw any untoward behavior between Jackson and either one of her brothers. From the report:

The oldest sibling, ________ (age 16) was also interviewed by the CSW. She stated that she had accompanied her brothers on sleepovers at the entertainers home and had never seen anything sexually inappropriate between her brothers and the entertainer. (see DCFS memo)

Not a witness to anything. She says she had never seen anything untoward between Jackson and her brothers. She also never said anything about being given alcohol (alleged molestation). She never complained about being threatened, kidnapped, or held hostage at Neverland to any one of the child services workers wither (alleged conspiracy). Abrams actually said on his Feb 1 2005 show:

ABRAMS: …Diane, you know, this is a problem. I mean—and let‘s throw in the timeline also. I‘m going to ask my producers to put up the graphic of this. The timeline here is a huge problem I think for prosecutors. The notion that they make this Martin Bashir‘s documentary, the Jackson team freaks out, decides all right we need to make a rebuttal video, and then Michael Jackson decides, you know what? This is a good time to start abusing the boy. (see Abrams Report: Prosecution Pitfalls segment (Jan 31 2005))

Even tabloid reporter Diane Dimond was forced to take her fangs out of Jackson’s neck (thanks to Matt Drudge for that analogy) long enough to admit that these are very serious problems for prosecutors. Her stint with reality seemed a pained one, though, as she still tried unsuccessfully to explain-away the DCFS investigation conclusion with what prosecutors may claim. She at first told Abrams:

You know, when you talk about the tape that Kimberly heard earlier and the affidavit she saw, the prosecution will counter that they were made early on, and after, the child started going to a psychologist and finally revealed, that’s when the truth was known. (see Abrams Report: Prosecution Pitfalls segment (Jan 31 2005))

However, the argument about the alleged “molestation” doesn’t hold water because of the “conspiracy” charge and because the sister and mother both claimed to have seen Jackson either abusing the accuser in Feb 2003 or being given alcohol. From recent public reports, it was revealed the mother now claimed to have seen Jackson abusing the accuser on a plane ride between California and Florida apparently before the DCFS investigation began in Feb 2003, but said nothing to DCFS about it. The accuser’s sister claims she and her brothers were given alcohol right around that time as well yet she said nothing about this. And, again, they all claimed they were being held hostage at this time, yet were allowed to be repeatedly interviewed by DCFS workers, taken shopping, contacting the DA’s office etc., but said absolutely nothing to any of these people. Dimond also brought up something about which not a lot of people have been made aware. Certainly if it were a bombshell for the prosecution, she would have been spreading it all over the place. But since it goes to the credibility of the mother, it’s taken this long to get around it, I suppose. She told Abrams that this isn’t a “slam dunk” “case”. She also talked about what Mesereau revealed in court, saying the mother once filed a resume for a job where she (the mother) said she wanted to be a “private investigator type” and would “make a good witness if she was put on the stand.” Here’s the direct quote:

DIMOND: … So I think you‘re right. This is not a slam-dunk case, not by any means. Tom Mesereau has dropped hints in here that he‘s going to attack this mother for lying, for getting her children to lie, for filing past suits, she and her husband, against deep pockets, J.C. Penney‘s. He‘s going to talk about a resume she filed once for a job where she said she wanted to be a private investigator type and that she would make a good witness if she was put on the stand. There‘s a lot that… ABRAMS: Yes… DIMOND: … a lot of ammunition in Tom Mesereau‘s belt. (see Abrams Report)

So she had hopes of being a private investigator. This directly conflicts with her previous denial that she was just a simple woman with no intelligence (remember that police video?). __If prior lawsuits are fair game, then so are the family’s__ Another pitfall revolved around the family’s behavior regarding the $3 million JC Penney lawsuit they filed. Security caught the family stealing merchandise out of a JC Penney store. They were stopped in the parking lot by security, at which time, according to reports, the mother became irate, and claimed her children were only modeling the clothes…in the parking lot…outside of the store…yeah sure. You can’t make this stuff up, folks…….well…..judging from the family, I guess you can. The incident later turned into a $3M lawsuit where the mother alleged she was brutally beaten by the guards for no reason. NBC News obtained over 100 additional pages of information about that incident, including a defense deposition. NBC’s Mike Taibbi actually spoke on-camera with the attorney who represented JC Penney in that case. Taibbi appeared on Abrams’s show to discuss his report. The following is an excerpt of the conversation between Taibbi and the lawyer, Tom Griffin:

TAIBBI: The public record of the case only briefly describes the stories told by the opposing sides, from Penney‘s, that the boy was sent out of the store by his father with an arm full of shoplifted clothes and that the whole family was quickly detained with the mother starting that brief scuffle. And from the family‘s side, that the boys were only modeling clothes for Penney‘s, not stealing them, and that they were all then beaten brutally by store security guards for no reason. (voice-over): But NBC News has obtained more than 100 pages of documents not on the public record, including defense deposition excerpts and psychiatric reports and the documents give a far more detailed version of J.C. Penney‘s case. That the psychiatrist hired by Penney‘s found the mother to be schizophrenic and delusional and severely depressed. Sad over being a nobody, she‘d said, a sad housewife getting fat, even though her own therapist found her to be anxious and depressed after the incident, but not delusional. (see ‘The Abrams Report’ for March 4 2004: JC Penny lawyer speaks out)

The report continues to detail how the entire family, over two years after filing the initial suit, added on a sexual allegation. They all suddenly remembered that the mother was sexually abused by a security guard during the shuffle. She claimed she was fondled in her breast and pelvic areas in front of all of them in broad daylight. From the report:

Penney‘s says that more than two years after the incident, the mother added on the charge that one security guard had also fondled her breasts and pelvic area for up to seven minutes. And that Penney‘s psychiatrist said she rehearsed her two sons to back up her far-fetched story in what sounded like scripted copies of her testimony that they and she had all suffered broken bones, in addition to her sexual assault. Penney‘s insist there was no evidence to back up any of the allegations. (see ‘The Abrams Report’ for March 4 2004: JC Penny lawyer speaks out)

How convenient that they all suddenly remembered it. And just in the nick of time too! Abrams admitted in his Jan 31 2005 show that the JC Penney case irks him. Guest Mercedes Colwin also said the JC Penney case could be “perfect for cross-examination” and that it will come in as evidence, against the family in this “case”. __When something doesn’t sound right, ask a damn question or two__ Geraldo Rivera has had a few issues with this “case” even before he met Jackson. He appeared on Jay Leno’s show Feb 4 2005 to talk about the Jackson interview. Leno, of course, was being his usual self and not really caring all that much to look at the facts of the “case”. Instead, he preferred to convict Jackson for this “case” because he’s been led to falsely believe that Jackson was guilty in 1993. Rivera made a joke on the show that it was more dangerous defending Jackson than covering the Iraq war. Well welcome to the club, Rivera. People can’t stand being wrong or stand living with the idea of the amount of guilt they will undoubtedly feel when Jackson is exonerated. And once that happens, there goes a chunk of Leno’s lame-ass jokes. This didn’t phase Rivera as much as I initially thought it would. He did make some very important points about the illogical timeline, the exorbitant number of search warrants and the ridiculous misconduct from the DA. Rivera also appeared on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes Feb 1 2005 to talk about the “case”. H expressed huge doubts that Jackson would be panicked that the world would think he’s a child molester after the Bashir “documentary,” and START to molest the accuser only after this prosecution-alleged “panic”. From that show:

Rivera: Right they went to L.A. County — first of all, the allegations, the documentary you cite airs February 6. The allegations in the indictment all post-date that. They’re all subsequent to the documentary. So here’s Michael Jackson, he’s watching himself on tv, being accused of being a pedophile and he gets the idea, ‘I must be a pedophile, I’m going to go out and a abuse the boy’. This defies human nature. (see Hannity & Colmes: Geraldo Rivera , Deb Opri , Cosby Feb 1 2005 – CompGen TRANSCRIPT)

With all the things that may come out about the accusing family, it is important to not that the regular prosecution sympathizer argument of ‘oh the defense is trashing the victim’ won’t work in this “case”. Everything the family has done – from the JC Penney lawsuit to soliciting donations for non-existent medical bills to possible welfare fraud – is all behavior they exhibited even before they met Jackson. Sometimes the person making the accusing really is a crook or a shyster or whatever one wants to call them. And sometimes the defense is only stating the obvious. This point was brought up with Rivera by Alan Colmes who asked if Jackson would try to “slime” the accusing family. Rivera says although he understands the point, sometimes the accusers really are slimy. Appearing on another show of Hannity & Colmes Feb 3 2005, he discussed more about his interview with Jackson. He says Jackson thanked him for keeping an open mind instead of joining this media circus/chorus of “guilty until proven guilty” (no that’s not a typo) from the likes of Court TV and the tabloids. More important to note is that Jackson never expects or asks anyone to kiss his ass. And Rivera has never kissed anyone’s ass. If anything, he’s built his reputation on being brash and confrontational. So the mere fact that Rivera has so many doubts about this “case” and has publicly expressed them is very telling. It seems Rivera has learned about a number of things in the family’s past and added that to the illogical timeline which has caused him to question the validity of the allegations. __Contaminated “evidence”?__ The family’s past may only be one thing prosecutors have to worry about. Recent, breaking news from Celebrity Justice (CJ) concern the possible contamination of prosecution “evidence”. Much had been made from prosecution sympathizers about the fingerprint of the accuser being found on a magazine along with Jackson’s. First, you can’t date fingerprints so just because a fingerprint of the accuser may have been found, it doesn’t mean Jackson showed it to him. But the second and probably most important thing is that the magazines reportedly weren’t tested for fingerprints until after the accuser physically handled them while he was testifying in front of the grand jury. From the Feb 1 2005 CJ article:

“Based on what we’ve seen, this evidence may have been compromised,” Levin observed. “We know when this accuser testified before the grand jury he handled these magazines. At one point, one of the grand jurors asked, ‘Have these magazines been fingerprinted?’ And the sheriff said, ‘No.’ That leaves the door wide open for the defense to argue, ‘How do you know when the boy touched the magazine? At Neverland? Or before the grand jury?'” (see Could Jackson Prosecution Evidence Be Compromised? – CJ)

So if this kid is touching these magazines while he is testifying in front of the grand jury, and the mags are later tested for fingerprints, of course a fingerprint of his would have been found. It doesn’t mean Jackson showed him anything. What this has done is take a somewhat weak argument and made it a possible catastrophe for prosecutors. It seems common knowledge to check for fingerprints to confirm the accuser’s story. But they probably didn’t because they had no intent on checking out the accusing story fully. As long as the accusing family was telling Sneddon & co. what they already wanted to hear, the rest of the common, unbiased activity that should have gone on during a normal investigation may not have happened. Other problems revolve around the characters involved in what some have labeled as a scam; everyone from Larry Feldman up to the DA himself. Feldman’s and Stan Katz’s roles and conflicts have become obvious. Feldman is the lawyer who secured the settlement and Stan Katz is one of the psychologists who talked to the 1993 accuser and this current accuser. If you’ll remember, Katz also may have been the psychologist for Mark Geragos’s private investigator, Brad Miller. Follow the connection: Katz is Feldman’s favorite go-to psychologist with regards to both these accusers. Katz was also the psychologist to Bradley Miller. Miller was investigating the current accuser’s family and had no idea Katz was the one who talked to the current accuser about this very same “case”. So Katz is up to his eyeballs in this along with Larry Feldman. __…and they claim Jackson is out of control??__ Sneddon too may not escape unscathed. New information about Sneddon’s behavior has also surfaced recently. Despite Sneddon’s public declarations of not pursing a “case” against Jackson over these past 11 years, the defense found out that Sneddon flew to Australia 6 years after the 1993 investigation, looking for other accusers that didn’t exist. This was a point brought out in court by Jackson’s attorneys. A Nov. 5 2004 article by the LA Times Press titled: “Judge Refuses to Dismiss DA’s office from Jackson’s Trial” states:

Mesereau, who described Sneddon as “losing touch with reality,” said the district attorney and his staff encouraged witnesses to lie to the grand jury that indicted Jackson. The defense lawyer said Sneddon was “obsessed” with the case, traveling to Australia at his own expense to locate other purported victims. (see Judge Refuses to Dismiss D.A.’s Office From Jackson’s Trial)

A Santa Barbara News Press article goes into more detail about what was said in Court by Mesereau. The Nov 5 2004 article, titled “Judge: Sneddon can stay on Jackson case” says Judge Melville did characterize some of Sneddon’s grand jury behavior as “regrettable”; apparently not “regrettable” enough because he didn’t toss the indictment because of this misconduct. Surprise, surprise. More from the report:

Mr. Mesereau told the court that the accuser’s DNA was not found on Mr. Jackson’s mattress seized during the Neverland raid. If the forensic tests had been positive, prosecutors would have had a physical link to the allegations. It was also revealed that Mr. Sneddon had traveled to Australia in search of other alleged victims of Mr. Jackson and that an alleged victim from the 1993 case had been interviewed in 1999 by a sheriff’s detective. (see Judge: Sneddon can stay on Jackson case)

Not exactly the behavior of a man who claims he put the 1993 investigation behind him and moved on. Moved on….to Australia maybe. But it gets worse. Sneddon has essentially lost his prosecutor-protection by becoming personally involved in this case. He became an investigator when he personally surveilled the offices of Bradley Miller himself. He searched for Miller’s office, he took pictures of Miller’s office building and took photos of the roster of people in the building. These things were highlighted in the defense’s 995 motion to toss out the indictment. There’s more. Sneddon actually had a secret meeting where only he and the mother were present. He didn’t audiotape record or videotape this meeting at which he accepted “evidence” from her without benefit of having a sheriff’s deputy present to take custody of this material. Even one of their own police investigators testified on the stand in a pretrial hearing that he doesn’t know of any other case when this DA has done such things. In that scathing 127 page motion, only 47 pages of which the public got to read, the defense team asked for the indictment to be tossed out based on a laundry list of misconduct allowed to go on. With only 12 days of testimony, it produced a 1900 page, 8 volume transcript detailing some of the misconduct the defense pointed to in their 995 motion. One thing prosecutors are never supposed to do is try to substitute their own unsworn testimony for that of a witness whose testimony is damaging for his “case”. This didn’t stop Sneddon though. From the 995 motion:

At least once, the prosecutor vouched for his own version of events while not under oath and accused witnesses of lying. Witnesses were told not to provide information to the defense. Prosecutors suggested without foundation that Mr. Jackson’s defense investigation is improper. (see 995 Motion)

These actions can’t easily be explained away. The defense also highlighted the prosecution’s overwhelming and crushing control over the grand jurors:

The prosecutors ran the proceedings as if they employed the grand jurors. They proceeded by innuendo and sarcasm, impugning Mr. Jackson by ridiculing those allegedly associated with him and even those who sought to legally represent him. (see 995 Motion)

Ridiculous behavior like this is unacceptable…unless you’re Judge Rodney Melville, I guess. If he doesn’t keep a REAL reign on Sneddon’s behavior, it could help sink this “case”. Some may be familiar with the infamous Russ Halpern incident where Sneddon subpoenaed Halpern –the attorney for the accuser’s biological father – to testify as a hostile witness. Keep this little fact in mind when you hear reports about Debbie Rowe being subpoenaed by the prosecution. At any rate, Halpern testified on the stand to the following (Sneddon is asking the questions and Halpern is answering) :

Q. Did you at the time that you heard that these serious charges had been leveled against a worldwide known entertainer, ever come to the DA’s office and say, “Hey Mr. Sneddon, I’ve got these_____”, or “I heard about these _____” or “You might want to know this.” Did you ever do that before you went on national TV? A.No. I found the DA’s office to be hostile when I called. I found the head DA, that being yourself, to be very uncooperative. In fact, I called your office in the beginning to find out whether my client’s son was the person who was charged with molestation. You initially refused to tell me. I asked you if my client’s son was dying. You initially refused to tell me. I was only after I told you that I might have to tell the press of your reaction that you called back and then told me. I found your attitude, conduct to be very hostile, and not a office that would be wanting to hear from me, period. Now, I have other information. And if you want to ask me other information, I’ll provide – Q. That is total—that is not the way that conversation went and you know it. A. You know it too. Q. I explained to you why at that time we couldn’t tell who the victim was. Because nobody knew the family at that time, did I not? A. No, you didn’t. Q. And then you said, “Wouldn’t you as the father want to know if the child was sick?” And I said to you, “Okay. I’m going to tell you.” And I did tell you the child was fine, did I not? A. I’ll tell you, I remember the conversation specifically because I took notes. Q. So do I (see Massive Prosecutorial Misconduct during Grand Jury Process? – MB#162 REPOST)

So him arguing with witnesses on the stand is simply one more thing in a long series of incidence that make one question the real motive behind this “case”. As discussed previously in MJEOL Bullet #162, Sneddon also allowed witnesses with no personal knowledge of Jackson’s relationship with any of the prosecution-alleged co-conspirators to talk jurors into believing in this sinister “conspiracy” charge. The defense says this testimony was based completely on speculation regarding Jackson’s involvement. If this is the case, it’s tantamount to allowing tabloid reporter Diane Dimond, or Maureen Orth, or Harvey Levin, or whoever to get up in front of the grand jurors and speculate endlessly about relationships between Jackson and his employees; things about which they have absolutely no first-hand knowledge. From the defense’s motion:

Despite their lack of personal knowledge, these witnesses were allowed to speculate regarding Mr. Jackson’s involvement with the people named as co-conspirators in the indictment. Furthermore, none of this evidence established probable cause to believe that Mr. Jackson had the specific intent to agree or to conspire with the alleged co-conspirators. (see Massive Prosecutorial Misconduct during Grand Jury Process? – MB#162)

Again, this is beyond ridiculous behavior. But probably more stunning information has come to light about Sneddon’s actions. When prosecutors were making their unsuccessful argument of why the accuser and brother should be allowed to testify in a close courtroom, they cited some privacy and protection issues. Reportedly, one of the ways in which Jackson’s lawyers disputed this argument was by revealing that the DA was spotted shopping with the accuser in Beverly Hills. This tidbit was mentioned in a CNN report dated Jan 31 2005 titled “Jackson: Truth will vindicate me”. The article states:

The prosecution wanted the boys to testify in a separate room without showing their faces in court. Jackson’s attorneys disputed the prosecution’s claim that the boys needed protection from the public eye, saying they had testified in other cases and had recently been spotted shopping in Beverly Hills with the district attorney. (see Jackson: Truth will vindicate me)

Why in hell is the DA taking these people shopping? If the defense has evidence to back up this allegation, like photographs or eye witnesses, it would be just another in a long list of outright misconduct going on around this “case”. A tabloid recently published a series of photos of the accuser, his mother and brother out shopping somewhere. They didn’t seem to be under any police protection nor were they hiding their faces from the public. The accuser had a bag of what looked like recently purchased material in his hand, while the “little” brother was in the backseat of the mother’s car. The family doesn’t seem all that worried about being recognized in the public while they’re out shopping, so why did prosecutors even try to argue that the courtroom needed to be closed for protection and privacy? Rightly, the judge didn’t agree and the media will get to see and hear the accuser and his “little” brother be made to account for the allegations they’ve made. And we could go on and on about this type of behavior. Taken in context and based on the defense’s declarations that this is an out of control prosecution based on a lying, felonious family, it does lead to a slew of questions. Added to the illogical nature of the allegations and conflicting charges, it makes for an interesting mix. But if this is an allegation which will allow Jackson unfettered access to clear his name both for this current allegation and from the 1993 investigation, then so be it. That may be why since at least Jan. 2004 Jackson’s defense team had been trying to get Sneddon to hand over his alleged “boxes” of info from the 1993 investigation. Either way, Jackson’s side will be heard and be entered into public record. And prosecutors may wish they never heard the names “Chandler” or…well…..’John Doe’. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

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