Month: March 2005

Palanker Caught on Tape Bad-mouthing Accusing Family – MiniBullet #16 MARCH 23 2005 – What a difference cross-examination makes. In court, Louise Palanker quickly became backtracker of the day, as she was the only witness giving testimony. As reported in yesterday’s (March 22) updates page, it was a tale of two testimonies. Palanker’s mouth – in statements to police and testimony on the stand – was the worst enemy to her credibility. Palanker, under direct questioning by the prosecution, talked about the accusing family in what some called “glowing terms”. She admitted she was still in contact with the accusing family and considered them friends. Palanker testified under prosecution questioning that it was the accuser’s father always asking for money. This has quickly become the excuse as to the felonious behavior by the accusing family: blame the biological father. She talked about an alleged disturbing phone call she received from the accuser’s mother, Janet Arvizo, in which the mother allegedly sounded like she was in distress. She also reportedly told Palanker “these people are evil”. Palanker testified she thought the family was being held against their will based on that phone call. Palanker, however, didn’t call the police. She called an attorney. What is it with these people? Do they all have lawyers on speed dial? But I digress. Palanker didn’t explain why the mother would call her instead of calling the police. And look at the logic here. If she’s being held hostage: (1) How in the world did she get access to a phone? and (2) She gets access to a phone and calls….Palanker, an alleged comedian… instead of calling the police?? This is beyond ridiculous. Reportedly, the mother never identified from where she was calling nor did she explain to Palanker whom she was calling “evil.” What’s worse is that Palanker made some incredibly damaging taped statements previously to police that the defense brought out under cross-examination. It was during one of these interviews with police that she said there were occasions when the accuser, his brother and sister seemed coached to lie, according to a report by Savannah Guthrie (Court TV). Palanker also told police the family would latch onto anyone with money or celebrity who could help the family, according to a report from Jennifer London (MSNBC).

Pt 2: 1993 Investigation Not a Problem for Defense? – MJEOL Bullet #254 Reports written at the time state that the description given of Jackson’s body by the ’93 accuser did not match photos take of him. This while evidence of ’93 extortion/conspiracy plot is revealed out of the mouth of the accuser’s father Part 2 | Part 1 MARCH 22 2005 — Part 1 ended by talking a bit about how the 1993 settlement seems as if it was funded by an insurance company instead of money directly out of Jackson’s pocket. The media is intent on spinning the entrance of this ’93 information into the stratosphere. They also seemingly spend more time talking about Jackson’s back problem than whether or not the prosecution’s allegation makes sense. Despite pundits’ dooms-day scenarios, this is not a make or break issue in this trial. And some would be shocked if Judge Rodney Melville doesn’t allow it in. And as mentioned in Part 1, the judge initially said he wanted to hear from witnesses from the prosecution before he allowed in the 1993 allegation. Reportedly the defense also requested that they be allowed to call witnesses of their own at this 1108 hearing scheduled for March 28 2005. The judge then changed his mind and said he only wanted to hear arguments from each side and after, he would immediately rule on the admissibility of the allegation. Some have actually called the 1993 settlement a “pay off”. There are others, however, that couldn’t disagree with this terminology more. __’Pay off’, my a$$__ A settlement agreement was finalized in late Jan. 1994, some 5 months after the prosecution/police started investigating Jackson. The nonsensical argument some desperate pundits have given to take the blame off of the prosecution in 1993 is that Jackson “paid his way out of” or “paid off” the ’93 accuser in the civil lawsuit. Because of comments from one of the authors of the Prior Bad Acts law, James Rogan, we know that regardless of what Jackson would have done – whether he settled or not – it would NOT have prevented a criminal case if prosecutors had evidence.