Contradictory, One-sided Leaks May Be from Prosecutors?– MJEOL Bullet #246

Posted by

Contradictory, Disgusting, & One-sided Leaks May Be from Prosecutors?– MJEOL Bullet #246 These newest leaks come after prosecutor Gordon Auchincloss supposedly threatened the defense that Sneddon would release all he knows about Jackson if they try to impeach Sneddon on the witness stand Some pro-prosecution nut has once again decided to spit in Judge Rodney Melville’s face by giving the media another go-round with the 1900 page grand jury transcripts. The judge in the case had said he would release this information AFTER a final jury panel has been selected and sworn in. But apparently the wait was too long for the prosecution or prosecution-sympathizer who handed over the info to a Court TV backed website. Through all of this unsubstantiated, one-sided garbage, there are some key things missing that one would expect to be there if an actual crime had occurred. Not to mention all of the blaring brick walls the prosecutors will undoubtedly run into once this thing – can’t even call it a “case” anymore – gets rolling. Maybe someone should send them a memo: the bridge is out. MJEOL won’t dare attempt to clean up the prosecution’s story by pointing out the numerous, ridiculous, Pacific Ocean-sized holes in these contradictory stories. But there are a few incredibly obvious things that a number of observers are pretty much aware of right now. The first missing thing, which was quickly picked up on by a number of people, is the fact that no witness other than the accuser’s brother – hardly an objective party – has ever seen Jackson behave inappropriately with any kid. Not this kid, not his brother, and not anyone else. One would think that would be the tip-off number one. Another odd story is the fact prosecutors are claiming this alleged “conspiracy” started BEFORE the prosecution-alleged “molestation”, and that the alleged “molestation” didn’t start until AFTER the family acquired passports to go to Brazil. Huh? It makes no sense at all that one would allegedly obtain passports for Brazil – reportedly the mother has family members there, by the way – and THEN Jackson would START molesting him. This kid is claiming he slept in Jackson’s bed on the first night he met him years ago. Yet, can’t remember other details one would think would be very obvious. At one point, according the transcript, he says “Well, a few nights when Michael wasn’t there I would sleep there, because I’d go to his room, me and my brother, sometimes we’d sleep there.” Yet in another part of the testimony, it states, “I was staying — when — like because I didn’t have access to his room. Like I didn’t think it was nice to like go in someone’s room when they’re not there.” Huh? Either he slept in Jackson’s personal living quarters (bedroom) when Jackson wasn’t at home, OR he didn’t have access to Jackson’s room when he wasn’t at home. It can’t be both. By the way, the mother is now claiming it was the father who allowed the kids to sleepover at Jackson’s ranch and that she was just too afraid of getting beat up to say no. Yeah, right. I’m sure the father has a different story to tell. This also wouldn’t explain why, after they got divorced in 2001, she would continue to allow and/or leave her children at Neverland to be with current husband, Maj. Jay Jackson. If one were to take leave of their senses and give any credence to the prosecution’s story, why the hell would Jackson wait years — and AFTER plans had already been made to go visit family in another country — to START anything? It looks as if it’s long been time for psychological tests to have been done on these people. Maybe they didn’t realize that this isn’t a J.C. Penney civil suit. They can’t come up with these cockamamie stories – seemingly layers of lies to cover up previous ones – and expect to get what they want. What is also obvious from the portions of transcripts that the Court TV website decided to release is that not one of these witnesses-come-lately ever saw Jackson act inappropriately with any kid. That’s a strange occurrence for someone who prosecutors want people to believe is a serial alleged “molester”. Maybe some of them need to start with the “molester” in the mirror……..but that’s a whole other story. What we have is a pile of unconfirmed, unsubstantiated, unfounded, one-sided, and conflicting statements. Another hole is the testimony that the family was held hostage at the Calabasas Inn. According to the transcripts, they claim they weren’t allowed to leave and were kept inside. Recent reports show that this was not only a bald-faced lie, but there are piles of documents and possibly witness testimony, to contradict that allegation. A Fox report details all the expenditures that were racked up by the family on Jackson’s dime: $51 manicure and pedicure, $415 charge to Banana Republic, $450 at a Jeans Outlet, $175 at Black Angus Restaurant, as well as long phone calls made by the mother to her then boyfriend Jay Jackson and to her family members. And much, much more. From the report:

On the afternoon of March 1, for example, the day consisted of a meal at 4 p.m. at Johnny Rockets ($33), followed by a 5:14 p.m. stop at Anchor Blue to buy knit tops (two for $24). Later, a 5:55 p.m. snack stop at the Topanga Canyon Mall (coffee, water, Snapple) was followed by a 6:40 p.m. appearance at Baskin-Robbins ($9). And at 7 p.m., the mother and her kids took in the movie “Old School” at the theater across from the hotel, racking up $32 in concessions. They topped the night off with another visit to Johnny Rockets ($26). (see [Jackson] ‘Kidnap’ Victims Lived It Up)

All of these receipts and eye witness testimony will be absolutely devastating to their claims of being held at the plush hotel. But it didn’t end there, according to the report:

How else to explain a $415 charge at Banana Republic on Feb. 26, the same day the mother also spent $454 on Jockey underwear and $450 at the Jeans Outlet? On that night, the family also managed to dine for $175 at the Black Angus Restaurant in Woodland Hills before they were “forced” in a “conspiracy” to return to their plush digs. (see [Jackson] ‘Kidnap’ Victims Lived It Up)

And again, she was in touch with family members and the children’s school. We learned from recent reports that a number of the accusing family’s family members are on the defense’s witness list and may be able to testify as to what was REALLY happening during the time they now claim they were “held” at Neverland…..and in plush hotels…..and at Banana Republic……at Black Angus restaurant…….at the Topanga Canyon Mall…….at, well you get the point. More:

On most days, the mother made more than a dozen calls to her children’s school, five to her parents and others to her boyfriend (a U.S. Army major who worked in Westwood, about 30 minutes away). They were not short calls, either. Several of them — all to the L.A. area — cost $24 or more, with one hitting the $46 mark. Presumably, if the mother had mentioned that she and the children were being held hostage or against their will, someone might have alerted the authorities. (see [Jackson] ‘Kidnap’ Victims Lived It Up)

Fox News’s source also says that the mother “loved Outback [Steakhouse]” and “shopped almost continually at stores such as Robinson-May, Banana Republic, Wilson’s Leather and Pacific Sunwear.” More damaging information from that report reveals that the prosecution’s albatross of a timeline is even shorter than once thought because of these latest bombshells:

She may have also scored a hostage first when she got a manicure and pedicure for herself and her teenage daughter ($51) before dining at Panda Express. The Calabasas Country Inn adventure took place between Feb. 25 and March 2, 2003, away from Neverland and Michael Jackson. This would certainly cut almost a week out of District Attorney Tom Sneddon’s accusation that Jackson molested the then-13-year-old boy between Feb. 20 and March 10. (see [Jackson] ‘Kidnap’ Victims Lived It Up)

There are numerous brick walls like these all over the place and only made more transparent with the specific and contradictory testimony during the grand jury. Another example of a major problem includes one bodyguard who told the grand jury that he was around Jackson 24/7, he saw the accuser drunk and other miraculously recovered memories. Yeah, sure. At first one would think this could back up the family’s story. But upon closer examination and research, more info is coming to the forefront from another bodyguard who was around Jackson 24/7 who says the exact opposite. That bodyguard, Mike LaPerruque, is a retired sergeant in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept. He worked for Jackson from August 2001 to June 2003. He went on the record and a report of his comments was detailed in a Fox report dated March 12 2004, titled “[Jackson] Security Guard: Singer is Innocent.” From the report:

“I was with him 24/7,” LaPerruque was able to tell me. “I had a key to his room at all times, and I was never told not to use it.” Did he ever walk into Michael Jackson’s bedroom and see him in bed with a child other than one of his own? “No! Of course not,” said LaPerruque. He called the mother of Jackson’s 13-year-old accuser “the type of woman who knew how to manipulate people.” (see [Jackson] Security Guard: Singer is Innocent).

These are a few of the most blaring contradictions. From what became known today, the defense will have a veritable field-day under cross-examination. Remember, there was other testimony from the likes of the biological father known to the media as “David”, Russ Halpern (the attorney for the biological father), and a Jackson videographer that has yet to be highlighted by the media, obviously because they may totally contradict the story prosecutors are trying to tell. At one point, Halpern and current DA Tom Sneddon are said to have got into an argument in front of the grand jury. What was also learned during the grand jury, besides the fact that no witness ever saw Jackson act inappropriately with any child, is that there is no DNA evidence tying Jackson to this accuser whatsoever. In the end, this case still hinges on the lies of the accusing family. __Recent threats manifest themselves through recent leaks?__ Oddly enough, these newest leaks come after the defense may have already been threatened by prosecutors not to try to impeach Sneddon on the stand or else he would release “everything he knows” about Jackson. These recent threats formed the basis of another Recusal of the Santa Barbara DA’s office newly filed motion by the defense. But the defense also brought it up in a previous motion, Opposition to DA’s Motion in Limine Re: Evidence Code Section 402 Issues, by the defense. The following is an except from that motion:

(pg 9-10) Most remarkably, however, Mr. Auchincloss threatens the defense in the second full paragraph of page 6. He says, in essence, that, if we attempt to impeach Mr. Sneddon or if we even comment on the prosecution’s motivation, he will release “everything [Mr. Sneddon] knows about the defendant.” There are three answers to this: First, we will be renewing our motion to recuse the District Attorney. Clearly, the personal bias has extended from Mr. Sneddon to his deputy, Mr. Auchincloss. Mr. Auchincloss’ response to legitimate concerns of the defense — is Mr. Sneddon biased and, whether or not he is biased, how can a prosecution overlook so much evidence — is to attempt to extort the defense into withdrawing such legitimate evidence form the jury. Mr. Auchincloss’ litany of things he will do so that “[t]he defense does not want to go there”‘ are clearly inadmissible and bullying. The undersigned is aware that the defense made a motion to recuse which was denied, however, it would be malpractice to not renew the motion based on this clear evidence of vindictive behavior by one of Mr. Sneddon’s deputies. (see Opposition to DA’s Motion in Limine Re: Evidence Code Section 402 Issues)

In light of all these recent leaks, one has to wonder if the defense’s refusal to stop going after the prosecution is the reason why we suddenly have all these illegal leaks like the one-sided grand jury testimony. Could this be evidence that these illegal leaks are coming from the prosecution? It may not be simply coincidental that all these leaks would occur after such an obvious threat to the defense. __Snakes in the grass always reveal themselves sooner or later__ Another “snake” may have revealed himself recently with his questionable information about this the goings-on around this “case”. Alleged Jackson family “friend” Stacey Brown, currently an MSNBC “analyst”, is working on a book with the fired Bob Jones. Jones appears to be someone who will try to make money off of Jackson with a speculative book….that he’s working on with Brown….with, again, miraculously remembered events that he didn’t go to the police with decades ago. Depending on what he’s alleging, this would give the defense yet another highly impeachable witness on the prosecution’s list who all of a sudden only has something to say AFTER the money got cut off. How mighty convenient that once he gets flung like a flea from the Jackson gravy train, he suddenly remembers…..something… this point….but isn’t a witness to any molestation or anything untoward happening to children. He may not fully understand that this isn’t 1993 with a Jackson who won’t fiercely fight back against these suddenly recollected memories of…..whatever. It’s important to note that Brown, who sets himself up as a “Jackson family friend” is no friend of Michael Jackson’s. He’s never represented Jackson and has and never will speak for Jackson in any capacity. I guess now we know who’s been feeding info to Dimond? Stay tuned. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply