Prosecution Evidence Not Incriminating as Claimed – MJEOL Bullet #253

Posted by

Prosecution Evidence Not Incriminating as Claimed – MJEOL Bullet #253 MARCH 16 2005 — At the risk of once again using an overly used phrase, there were more bombshells in court, this time cited by Michael Jackson’s defense attorney Robert Sanger through his cross-examination of police detective Steve Robel. Robel testified yesterday as to items seized from Jackson’s Neverland Ranch. He had claimed that they took adult material from a box at the foot of Jackson’s bed. Today (March 16 2005), the defense revealed more devastating information to the prosecution’s case. The fingerprint that so many pro-prosecution pundits like to point to as proof of guilt may have gotten put on that magazine in front of the grand jury and not during the time the accuser claims he was shown it by Jackson. According to a report from MSNBC’s Jennifer London, the defense brought out in court that the magazine with the accuser’s fingerprint on it wasn’t tested for fingerprints until summer 2004, AFTER the grand jury had already handed down an indictment. From London’s report:

JENNIFER LONDON: …However, under cross-examination today, one of the detectives revealed that fingerprints of the accuser were not lifted from one of the magazines until after the grand jury proceedings. The significance: the defense claims the accuser’s fingerprints got on that magazine because he touched it during the grand jury testimony. (see vid)

There was also more information about this adult material. Some of the magazines prosecutors entered into evidence wasn’t dated until 4 months AFTER the alleged “molestation” was supposed to have occurred. That would make the publication date anywhere from June 2003 to July 2003. As you know, this was long after the accusing family had left Neverland for good. More from London’s report:

LONDON: …One of the investigators did say that on a couple of the magazines, the publication dates were at least 4 months after the prosecution says the alleged molestation occurred.

So there is no possible way that the accuser and his brother ever saw at least some of this material that prosecutors have entered as “evidence”. In fact, it isn’t “evidence” of anything other than Jackson’s heterosexual behavior. One of the first things Sanger did yesterday was to make Robel admit that none of the witnesses saw any of this material. In other words, none of the accusing family saw– or is even claiming they were shown — any of this material prosecutors want to suggest is “incriminating”. An article by the Associated Press (AP) reporter Linda Deutsch dated March 15 2005, titled “Michael Jackson accuser: ‘I don’t like him anymore’ ”, contained information about these details:

Robel said he found the items in a closed box at the foot of Jackson’s bed. The relevance of the items was attacked by defense attorney Robert Sanger. “You know of no witness who saw any of these items,” he asked. “No,” Robel said. (see Defense knocks holes in materials seized by police from Jackson’s home)

Sanger made Robel clarify for the jury that none of the adult material and art books seized from Jackson’s home are in any way illegal. This smacks down previous ridiculous rumors that “child porn” was found. The judge even allowed the defense to release a statement addressing that maliciously false allegation, which Mesereau did by holding a short press conference and reading that court approved statement. From that AP article:

“None of these items are per se illegal to possess?” asked the lawyer. “No, they are not illegal to possess,” Robel said. Asked if the models in the magazine were over age 18, Robel said, “They’re supposed to be, yes.” (see Defense knocks holes in materials seized by police from Jackson’s home)

If you can remember, the media went crazy with another book that was found in Jackson’s home: a photo book called “The Chop Suey Club”. There was also a black and white photo. It turns out that the photography book was an unsolicited gift by author Bruce Weber and it contained a photo of long-time Jackson friend Elizabeth Taylor. More from that AP article:

Sanger said the black-and-white photo is a collector’s item called “The Glory of de Dienes Women,” and he asked Robel if the “The Chop Suey Club,” featuring a young man in a straw hat on the cover, was seized because investigators believed it to be sexual in nature. Robel said yes. Sanger said the book was sent to Jackson unsolicited by Weber, who has photographed the Jackson 5 and other famous people. Asked if he was aware that it had a photo of Jackson friend Elizabeth Taylor, Robel said he was not. (see Defense knocks holes in materials seized by police from Jackson’s home)

As speculated by a number of observers, some of them fans, the book was a gift. This same book that so much speculation was created around. The same book the pro-prosecution pundits cited as some kind of “evidence” of something untoward on Jackson’s part. Also appearing on the stand yesterday was Terry Flaa, a former sheriff’s investigator who decided not to investigation Jackson based on two child welfare complaints to the LA Dept of Children & Family Services. The DCFS did investigate and found the allegations to be unfounded (DCFS memo). But probably the most interesting and revealing information came from Robel. Sanger got him to admit that he urged the family to pursue these allegations and made the point that they weren’t open-minded about this case. From the updated version of that article:

Robel acknowledged under cross-examination that he encouraged the family to go forward with its claims, telling them, “We’re going to try our best to make this case work.” Defense attorney Robert Sanger confronted Robel with those and other statements from recorded interviews, including his first meeting with the boy, his brother and sister. He quoted Robel as saying, “One thing I want to emphasize is you guys are doing the right thing here. … I don’t care how much money they have. He’s the one who’s done wrong. … We’re going to try to bring him to justice.” Sanger asked: “That’s not the statement of someone with an open mind who’s trying to find the truth, is it?” (see Defense knocks holes in materials seized by police from Jackson’s home)

No kidding. It seems cops weren’t concerned about “truth” or “justice”. They just wanted to get Jackson. Period. Robel, of course, tried to explain it away by blaming it on his training. According to him, he’s trained to make these kinds of statements. Sanger got Robel to disclose that from the onset of these allegations, they were going to do whatever they had to do to make this “case” work….I guess even if it wasn’t believable….or never happened. More from the article:

Sanger asked: “Isn’t the technique you are taught to tell them (is) to be honest and not to tell them they’re right, everyone else is wrong?” The witness answered that that was not the technique he was taught. “And from the beginning you have made a concerted effort to make this case work?” asked Sanger. “Yup, I did,” said Robel. (see Defense knocks holes in materials seized by police from Jackson’s home)

He basically said that no matter what, they were going to “make this case work”. That could include the fact that prosecutors changed the timeline of the alleged crime to fit around independent facts that they later learned. Remember, the prosecutors initially claimed that the alleged “molestation” began Feb 7 2003, only later to claim it didn’t began until Feb 20 2003—after the family was repeatedly on record denying any abuse, and didn’t mention anything about being shown adult material, being given alcohol or being held hostage. It is ridiculous on its face because either a crime occurred at a particular time and place, or it didn’t. It’s that simple. Neither the prosecution nor the police should get to manufacture the facts of this “case”. Through Robel, Sanger highlighted even more inconsistencies with the accuser’s story as well. At first the accuser told police he was molested 5 times, then it was 2 times, when it was before the Bashir “documentary” (doc) aired, then it was after the Bashir doc aired. The explanation for that latest change – the change from before Bashir to after Bashir – is interesting. That change in the accuser’s allegation didn’t miraculously happen until they found out that Jackson wasn’t at Neverland when the accuser was claiming he was abuse before the Bashir doc aired. More from that AP article:

Sanger also raised inconsistencies in the boy’s statements about the alleged molestation. He asked Robel whether the boy initially alleged that Jackson had masturbated him five times. Robel said that was true. But the lawyer suggested Jackson was not charged with that many incidents because the investigation showed Jackson wasn’t at Neverland on some of the dates that were alleged. “Your investigation disclosed on the (the family’s) last days at Neverland there were not five occasions when the molestation could have occurred,” Sanger asserted. “No, that’s not correct,” said Robel, but he acknowledged “two or three days” when Jackson was not present. (see Defense knocks holes in materials seized by police from Jackson’s home)

Huh? Let’s break this down. The boy at one point claimed he was first molested before the Bashir doc aired. No, that’s not a typo. At one point, he made the allegation that it happened, or some of it, supposedly happened before the doc aired. Then the police found out through their investigation that Jackson wasn’t even at Neverland on some of the days this kid claimed he was molested. Thus, Jackson couldn’t possibly have molested the accuser when he originally claimed he did. So, instead of questioning this, the prosecution/accuser changed the timeline of the alleged crime! Instead of making inadequate excuses, Robel had to admit on the stand that the accuser did tell him different stories. From that AP article:

He also acknowledged that in the boy’s first interview he gave different versions of when he was first molested, saying it was before the family had an interview with child welfare workers, then saying it was afterward, then saying it was before and after. Prosecutors now contend all the molestation occurred after the interviews with the child services workers. . (see Defense knocks holes in materials seized by police from Jackson’s home)

First, it was finding out they were interviewed by DCFS during the kidnapping timeline. Then it was finding out Jackson wasn’t at Neverland during some of the first set of allegations. In internet language: WTF?? All along, every prosecution reporter has made every excuse in the book as to why this accuser – with his various stories and ambiguous abuse allegation – just HAS to be telling the truth. It can’t possibly be that Jackson’s innocent, to these people. The accuser was asked why he told Dean Alpert, the head of his school, that nothing happened after he had already left Neverland for good. The excuse given by pro-prosecution pundits is the same one they always use: all “victims” of sexual abuse deny it. This excuse, however, absolutely does not explain why the brother said nothing; why the sister said nothing about alcohol or why the mother said nothing after allegedly witnessing abuse on a plane. So the stock excuse doesn’t apply in this “case”, say many observers. If (When) he’s acquitted, they will blame the prosecution for not trying a good case….that is unless the defense has the irrefutable goods on these people. The way it’s shaping up thus far, this will be more than a he said/he said “case”. The defense seems to have piles of documentation, audio, video, signed affidavits, witness statements and witnesses who will testify. Although Jackson has said he is in this for the long haul until he is vindicated, some legal observers are already questioning whether or not this “case” should have been prosecuted in the first place. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply