March 24 2005 Trial Update #3

Posted by

MARCH 24 2005 (5:57 PM) — Former federal prosecutor Joe Episcopo blasted the prosecution for trying a “sham” of a “case” today during live coverage on Court TV. Epicopo, saying what needed to be said a long time ago, says that the picture prosecutors are trying to paint of Jackson doesn’t match with what he’s been accused of. He says prosecutors are claiming Jackson is some kind of “sex fiend with all this porno who has no control over himself, getting everybody drunk”, but the allegation doesn’t mesh with what pedophiles are normally accused of. In other cases where prosecutors use the “sex fiend”/”monster” label, normally there is alleged sodomy, oral sex, or some other allegations related to extensive abuse. No such thing in the Jackson “case”. The following are excerpts from Episcopo’s comments on today’s (March 24 2005) show hosted by Lisa Bloom:

JOE EPISCOPO, Fmr. Federal Prosecutor: …Hold it, hold it, hold it! We have a sex fiend with all this porno who has no control over himself, getting everybody drunk, and that’s it? (referring to the prosecution-alleged fondling allegation) That’s what he did? If he’s a pedophile… BLOOM: You’re saying it like it’s nothing. EPISCOPO: Exactly. Because the case is nothing. If he’s a pedophile, he’s gonna be doing more than fondling. We don’t have those [other] allegations. … BLOOM: Joe let me get to the final word of this because maybe I’m misunderstanding you. But you’re not saying it has to be sexual intercourse for it to be unlawful? EPISCOPCO: No. The picture they’re painting of Michael Jackson indicates that if he really was a pedophile, it would have been much more extensive: sodomy, oral sex, all of those things which pedophiles do. This little touchy stuff? That’s it? Come on! BLOOM: I — I’m in shock that you’d say ‘that’s it’. EPISCOPO: Well, because there’s no truth to this. It’s a sham prosecution brought on by a vindictive prosecutor on his way out.

Episcopo’s words, being a former federal prosecutor making these statements, hold much more weight with some pro-prosecution observers. And there was a sense with the vast majority of those who are in contact with MJEOL, that he said what needed to be said. Frankly, there have been very many people (outside of Court TV of course) who have questioned the validity of the allegations, the logic, and whether or not this “case” should have been prosecuted in the first place. In other news, George Lopez is reportedly expected to testify Monday, March 28 2005.

[b]Jackson Jury Hears From Fingerprint Expert[/b] By TIM MOLLOY, Associated Press Writer SANTA MARIA, Calif. – A Secret Service forensic scientist testified in Michael Jackson (news)’s child molestation trial it was possible that fingerprints of Jackson’s accuser found on an adult magazine could have degraded in the year it took police to test the magazine after it was seized. Antonio Cantu, chief of forensics for the Secret Service, said under cross-examination that he was not aware of the delay in the fingerprint tests and acknowledged it would have been preferable for the tests to have been done immediately. Cantu said residue from fingerprints can change over time, although under direct questioning Cantu told the jury that some fingerprints have lasted as long as 50 years. The judge ordered the comment stricken because the witness is not a fingerprint identification expert. Rather, as a chemist, Cantu develops methods for detecting fingerprints but does not match prints for identification purposes. The prosecution has said that one magazine seized from Jackson’s Neverland ranch has a single fingerprint from Jackson’s accuser and one print from Jackson. The defense claims the accuser could have handled the magazine during grand jury hearings before it was subjected to fingerprint analysis. Defense attorney Robert Sanger asked whether Cantu would expect the analysis to be done after the material had been presented to a grand jury. “You would expect to do that analysis first,” Cantu said. “Were you aware that the fingerprint analysis in this case was not done until a year after the evidence was seized?” the attorney asked. “I was not aware of that,” said Cantu. … Source:

MARCH 24 2005 (2:34 PM) — Not much news being reported about the Michael Jackson so-called “case” today because of the Terri Schiavo coverage. Currently there is only one-sided reports from Court TV with Diane Dimond and the incredibly obnoxious Kimberly Guilfoyle — who seems to be competing with Nancy Grace for the award for the most ridiculous, ranting commentary on this “case”. Maybe it’s her divorce from Mayor Newsome that’s causing this annoying shift in hateful behavior? But I digress. The prosecution, however, are undoubtedly still reeling from the news yesterday that a “key witness” of theirs has been indicted on multiple counts of robbery, burglary and kidnapping. According to reports, ex-employee Chris Carter has a long history of felonious behavior. In 2000, he was convicted in Maryland for “drug and escape charges”. He’s also accused of committing armed robbery in Las Vegas Oct 29 2003. Carter testified in front of the grand jury April 2004 about things he miraculously saw that no one else did. And his allegations all fit perfectly with the prosecution’s allegations. How convenient is it that this felon’s testimony fit so perfectly with the prosecution’s theory? It may be more “convenient” than we realize right now. Carter was arrested again Feb 19 2005, before District Attorney Tom Sneddon made his opening statement in this “case” reportedly touting Carter’s testimony as some sort of proof of guilt. Apparently, Carter was caught on tape committing the robbery he was recently arrested for at a Jack in the Box, as well as his fingerprints being found at the scene. The police also found the mask — cut out t-shirt — Carter used to rob the place. Some pro-prosecution observers have said that there is “no way in hell” the prosecution should call this felon to the stand. Some pro-defense observers, however, would love for Carter to come to the stand and have to endure the cross-examination of Jackson’s lead attorney Tom Mesereau. If Sneddon is desperate enough to call him to the stand straight from jail, Carter is sure to be thoroughly cross-examined on his testimony as well as his motives for saying exactly what the prosecution wanted to hear in front of the grand jury. When we get more info, you’ll know. Stay tuned to this topic for up-to-the-minute updates and pics:

Leave a Reply