Ridiculous Propaganda Continues from Prosecution Supporters? – MiniBullet #3 FEB 18 2005 — Amazingly, certain people are pumping media propaganda that the defense would be “desperate” enough to leak grand jury transcripts. And they’re banking on the media to be stupid enough not to ask questions about the logic of their allegation. It would seem that to even take this seriously, one has to be either on drugs or so incredibly desperate that they want to point the finger at someone else to get the attention off of them. Most feel it’s safe to say that the defense did not leak this information. According to reports, Jackson spokeswoman Raymone Bain said its “ridiculous” for anyone to claim that the defense leaked this one-sided garbage. “One-sided garbage” is my term, by the way. Apparently, this accusation is coming from pro-prosecution sympathizers who may want to get prosecutors off the hook for this illegal leak or who are trying to inject themselves into this “case”. What prosecutors or pro-prosecution sympathizers may be trying to do is have their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to taint the jury pool, smear Jackson AND blame the smear job on his lawyers. This is disgusting. The first question most family with the defense’s arguments, via released court docs, ask is why would the defense have to leak anything at all at this point? Once one starts to realize the massive amounts of ammunition the defense already has against the family – at least the info that can be gleaned from the court documents (docs) – it does become “ridiculous” to even suggest that they would have to break the law to leak anything for any reason at this point. In explosive court docs released yesterday (Feb 17 2005), it becomes crystal clear that the defense seems to have the complaining witnesses right where they want them. They apparently have evidence that the family has a history of defrauding celebrities, committing welfare fraud, committing perjury, and leveling false allegations both in this “case” and in past litigation. The details of such allegations are bound to come out at trial. One incredibly telling portion of the defense’s “Opposition to District Attorney’s Motion to Limit Introduction of Evidence of Prior Litigation Involving the Doe Family” may offer a reason for recent grand jury leaks. From the motion:

The prosecution realizes that when the jury finds out that the only people to answer the District Attorney’s open casting call are the same people who have committed welfare fraud, lied under oath, taken advantage of the generosity of good Samaritans, systematically targeted celebrities to bilk them for money, and filed a lawsuit based on false allegations, Mr. Jackson will be acquitted. The Court should not allow the prosecution to deceive the jury by hiding the ________ family’s modus operandi from their view. (pg 6-7 of .pdf)

(see Explosive Court Doc: Family committed fraud, perjury, leveled false allegations)

Now, could this realization have finally set in with these pro-prosecution sympathizers? Instead of dropping the “case” and looking like a bunch of fools, could prosecutors be trying to create a mistrial or some other event to get them out of this mess? Those questions are thus far unanswerable. However a number of “case” observers who are familiar with the defense motions suggest that the possibility is there. The defense has found out a lot of damaging information concerning this family’s past. Further material from that stunning defense doc lays out exactly what defense attorneys could prove once the trial starts. From the motion:

Evidence of the ________ family’s lawsuit against _________ is relevant because it demonstrates: (1) ________ has used her children to commit frauds on other occasions; (2) _______ has a history of making false allegations that become more outrageous as time passes; (3) the _____ family has a history of making false allegations that are not corroborated by other witnesses; (4) the _______ family’s lawsuit against _______ sheds light on the other frauds that have been perpetrated by the family; and (5) ________ has committed the crime of perjury on several occasions, which is relevant to her credibility in the present case. (pg 3 of .pdf)

The defense doesn’t have to be “desperate” enough to leak ridiculously one-sided grand jury testimony at this late date. Not after they’ve gathered all of this devastating and damning evidence against the complainants. The attorneys appear to have plenty of info about what happened regarding the J.C. Penney civil suit filed by the family, for example. They also cite this in their explosive motion. Some 14 lines of info are redacted from this section. But some statements were kept in. From the motion:

On August 27 1998, ______________ were arrested on charges of burglary after ____________ was caught shoplifting at ___________. Rather than admit their culpability in using their children to shoplift, the ________ concocted an outrageous story that the security guards responsible for detaining the family assaulted them by using excessive force and she eventually claimed that they sexually assaulted her. {14 lines of redacted info} On July 22, 1999, the ________ family filed a lawsuit against _________ and security officers _________________________________________________ alleging, among other things, that the _________ family was battered, falsely arrested and falsely imprisoned. {2 lines of redacted info} The witnesses present at the scene of the ________ incident have a very different account of what occurred. {an entire page and a half is redacted} (pg 3-4)

The defense may have witnesses who were party to that incident and who could come and testify as to the claims the mother made during that scuffle. Again, with all of this damning info, the defense doesn’t need a mistrial or to taint the jury pool with one-sided allegations that every hack journalist and tabloid reporter alike will pick up and report. Some observers say that if the defense wanted to leak anything it would be in relation to the fraud and/or false allegations of the family in the past. Fortunately for them, they don’t have to. Some of the people who have been screwed over by this family have gone to the media themselves with their information. For example, the lawyer who represented JC Penney’s against the family did an interview with NBC months ago. The way the testimony has been leaked as well seems to suggest this wasn’t something from the defense as well. There were reports that people like the biological father, known as “David”, testified in front of the grand jury as well as his attorney, Russ Halpern, a Jackson videographer(s), and possibly more. The public found out through previous defense docs that Halpern and Sneddon got into an argument in front of grand jurors whereby Sneddon tried to substitute his unsworn testimony is place of Halpern’s. It was one of the points the defense made in their motion to dismiss the indictment (see Massive Prosecutorial Misconduct during Grand Jury Process? – MB#162 REPOST). However, Halpern’s testimony, as of this writing, is yet to be released and highlighted by the Court TV-backed website. Not Halpern’s, not “David’s” or anyone who didn’t agree with the current DA’s version of events. But again those who support the prosecution want to spread the poison, reap the benefits, all while blaming the defense for doing it. There are four main prosecutors: Sneddon, Gordon Auchincloss, Gerald Franklin and Ron Zonen. There are also a number of staff members and other deputies who could have had access to these grand jury docs. There’s also dozens of members of law enforcement, either one of which may feel that these types of leaks would be helpful to prosecutors; however misguided. There is absolutely zero value to the defense in leaks like these. And quite frankly, this smacks of other leaks of substantial material by prosecution-sympathizers: (1) the leaking of the mother’s police video to Art Harris and the show The Insider. Harris interviewed Tom Sneddon; (2)the leaking of the 1993 settlement agreement to tabloid reporter Diane Dimond. Dimond has also interviewed Sneddon; (3) the second leaking of the 1993 accuser’s unchallenged affidavit, this time to the same Court tv-backed website in February 2003; (4) and probably the mother of them all: the leak of this investigation and the search of Jackson’s Neverland ranch to tabloid reporter Dimond WEEKS before it was going to happen, according to a report in the Hollywood Reporter (see Court TV coup: Dimond lands another scoop – Hollywood Reporter) You get the idea. So what can be done about this? Nothing can be done unless the judge orders an independent investigation into who leaked it. The Santa Barbara Sheriff’s dept. claimed they were investigating. But does anyone seriously believe that if they found out it was someone in the prosecutor’s office there would be any ramifications? This makes the judge look like he has no control over this process and that he’s looking the other way while Jackson’s rights are systematically trampled. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

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