Defense Discusses Different Stories Told by Accusing Family – MJEOL Bullet #218

Defense Discusses Different Stories Told by Accusing Family – MJEOL Bullet #218 Jackson’s defense team rips into the various stories the accusing family told various authorities Nov 9 2004 There was a late hearing yesterday (Nov 8 2004) in the Michael Jackson “case”, which began at around 2:00PM PST and lasted approx. 2 hours say sources. Jackson’s attorneys were arguing about information in relation to what prosecutors have yet to turn over to the defense. Observers inside the courtroom say that items of discussion included “emails, correspondence, [and] chronologies (time frame)” that the accusing family gave to prosecutors outlining their testimony of events. There could be huge discrepancies regarding what the accusing family first told prosecutors and what they testified to in the grand jury. All of which is in direct conflict with what they were saying at the time they now claim to have been “kidnapped/abducted” and “held” at Neverland. The defense wanted these specific items in order to “show that the Doe family” changed their story, thus committing perjury. The perjury comes in because, as reported months ago, Jackson’s attorneys have signed and sworn affidavits from the accusing family saying that absolutely nothing untoward has ever happened between any of them and Michael Jackson. There also could be a significant different from what the family initially told police in June 2003 to what they ended up telling the grand jury months later. All of which, again, directly conflicts to what they told investigative agencies during the Feb 2003 – April 2003 period. Some observers speculate that because of the Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services (DCFS) investigation—not to mention the first two-month investigation launched in Feb 2003 by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department (SBSD)—Jackson’s attorneys didn’t want to take any chances and may have wanted documented evidence/testimony from the accusing family as well. That is where these reportedly signed affidavits come in. A source inside the courthouse reported that Jackson attorney Susan Yu says the defense can show the accusing family drastically changed their story from the under oath affidavits they signed, to the story the family told to the grand jury…told to the judge…told to the prosecutors…told to the police, and the rest of the world. One courtroom observer says it’s unclear to them if the defense has a “specific calendar” of the family’s first set of allegations, while prosecutors claim they do. The first set of allegations emerged in June 2003 when this accusing family all suddenly changed their accusations. And there is evidence, according to reports, that the psychologist Stan Katz was not the first to hear about these allegations. In fact, civil attorney Larry Feldman and the mother may have both “known about” them. Or worse, plotted to have the kid tell the accusations to a shrink, knowing that it would be the shrink who had a duty to report it to the authorities. Thereby, letting them (Feldman and the accuser’s mother) off the hook from any charges of filing a false police report in case (or until) the scam failed. As reported by NBC in March 2004, the sheriff’s notes regarding what Katz told deputies, and later testimony in a pre-trial hearing by Katz himself, show that the accuser did not “confess” to a psychologist first. From the NBC report:

Katz: Mr. Feldman actually referred these kids to me because they had come to him in this lawsuit…Feldman’s going to file.

According to a report titled “Conflict cited by Jackson Defense” dated August 18 2004 and another from the Associated Press (AP), Katz testified during a pre-trial hearing that Feldman called him in May 2003 to ask him to interview the accuser. Katz’s testimony during one of the pre-trial hearings was detailed by an AP article titled “Lawyer: Psychologist’s Patients on both sides of Jackson Case” dated August 17 2004. From that report:

In May 2003, he said he was contacted by attorney Larry Feldman, who wanted him to meet with the boy and his family. “I had seen the documentary on television, so I had seen the minor child interviewed,” Katz said. …Katz said of Feldman, “He asked me to interview the minors (referring to the boy and two siblings) to determine the veracity of the comments they made to him.” (see Lawyer: Psychologist’s patients on both sides of Jackson case)

So obviously there was no miraculous “confession” to the shrink as prosecution-apologists at first reported to the public. Katz, according to his own testimony, was brought in after these allegations were already made to Feldman. __Hey! Hand over that info__ Jackson attorney Susan Yu said in court Nov 8 2004 that the information is exculpatory and shows that the accusing family is indeed liars, report courtroom observers. To clarify, the info at issue pertains to “interoffice/intraoffice memos”, “unspecified tapes”, “email communications”, “all notes of witnesses” that prosecutors took during interviews. The defense also wants prosecutors to hand over “correspondence to other agencies”, a “list of names of prosecutors that have reviewed the case”, and “prosecution charge evaluation sheets.” According to a report from the Santa Barbara News-Press titled “Jackson’s lawyers to get papers by Dec. 6”, Yu lit into the different tales the accusing family told at different times. From the report:

“The chronologies are critical to the defense because the dates of the alleged molestations in the original complaint (in December) are different from the dates in the indictment (in April),” Ms. Yu said. “These dates are different because the (accuser’s) family changed their story. They changed their story because they are not telling the truth.” The discrepancies in the dates “goes to the credibility” of the accuser’s family, shows “inconsistencies in their stories and could determine the outcome of this case,” Ms. Yu argued. “This shows the (accuser’s) family lied, that this case has been set up and that Mr. Jackson is innocent.” (see Jackson’s lawyers to get papers by Dec. 6)

One hot button issue may be what the mother told police and prosecutors in June 2003. Remember that “love letters” rumor? Well in the police video taken in June 2003–leaked to fav. prosecution-sympathizer Art Harris–there was reported to be an allegation that the mother claimed “love letters” were written to the accuser. However, back in November 2003, Sneddon himself told District Attorney Nola Foulston that there were no love letters at all. From Fox news On The Record w/ Greta, Foulston reports that Sneddon was “surprised” that there was a “love letters” rumor. From the transcript of that Nov 24 2004 show:

VAN SUSTEREN: Nola, unless the letters, assuming they exist, or the poems — unless they’re explicit relating to this kid, indicating some activity with this child or this teen, whatever he is, 12-year-old or 13- year-old, what value is it to the prosecution? FOULSTON: Greta, you’re making an assumption, and the assumption is wrong. The letters, at this particular point in time, do not exist. I’ve been in contact with Mr. Sneddon, posed the same question to him, and he was surprised. First of all, when the search is over at a home, an inventory of what was taken is left at the residence. The inventory is specific only as to items such as documents, papers, videotapes, computer, et cetera. That is a requirement. There were, of course, items taken from the home. The items are removed to the custody of the sheriff’s office, where they are then reviewed, inventoried, marked and looked at. At the time, as late as today, there has been no discovery per se of any, quote, “love letters.” And so any information that has come to you or to other members of the media is patently false. (see Greta van Sustren: NO “love letters” found – Nola Foulston comments (Nov 24 2003))

Foulston goes on to report that the rumor—at that time being spread by tabloid reporter Diane Dimond and others—is patently false:

VAN SUSTEREN: And that is extraordinary information. I guess you fall in a category with Trace and Pat tonight, breaking news, Nola, because that’s extraordinary information, you know, that — because people have been talking about these love letters… (CROSSTALK) FOULSTON: Well, I can tell you tonight that in my discussion with Mr. Sneddon within the last hour, there are no love letters that have been found. And I can’t tell you that at a later point in time, but the information that is being disseminated is not from law enforcement. Certainly, it’s not from Mr. Sneddon. Certainly, it’s not been discovered in any documents that have been heretofore reviewed by law enforcement. And so somebody is setting a smokescreen or a fire so that later somebody can say, Well, we heard you had these love letters, now produce them, making the prosecution look like they’re hiding something. So I’m telling you this evening, there are no such animals. “The New York Post” has the wrong story and Diane Dimond has the wrong story because it is not correct. (see Greta van Sustren: NO “love letters” found – Nola Foulston comments (Nov 24 2003) )

And this may be one of the reasons why defense attorneys want to know what these people initially told police and prosecutors when they first made allegations only later to change their stories in front of the grand jury. These facts are further complicated by the fact that one of the reasons police and prosecutors originally raided Miller’s office was reportedly to look for letters written from Jackson to the accuser. Now, if those letters never existed, this would explain why the story prosecutors gave for the raid suddenly changed to claiming Miller may be guilty of some kind of crime. __Ch-ch-ch-changes__ As discussed here at length, the prosecution had one set of charges filed against Jackson in December 2003, then emerged from the grand jury with a completely different case: different charges, different number of counts and a different timeline. For example, in December 2003 the number of alleged “lewd acts” was 7. That was changed to 4. Okay, were the other 3 counts originally thrown in for good measure until more damaging info came out about the family’s story? Or was the case specifically changed to match up with what some have called a highly improbable timeline? Or did the family’s story change? A sort of ‘oops’ admission from the accuser? Geez. What’s more, the timeline of alleged “abuse” changed from starting near the beginning of February 2003 to starting near the end of February. Prosecutors also tacked on a “conspiracy” charge in hopes of nullifying some of the exonerating evidence, which includes an investigation done by Los Angeles Child Services in February 2003. There were also two more counts of administering alcohol tacked onto the indictment. What? Did they forget they got drunk an extra two times? Did they suddenly remember being falling-down-drunk twice more with that recollection coming just in time to testify to in front of the grand jury? You’ve got to be kidding. In response to the date changes, Sneddon is reported to have said “they are basically the same—they are just scoped down within a few days”(see Jackson’s lawyers to get papers by Dec. 6). Within a few ”days”? More like “weeks”. Going from beginning Feb. 7 2003 to beginning on Feb. 20 2003 is more than “a few days” no matter how much he tries to spin it. __Holy investigations, Batman!__ Also mentioned in court by Jackson’s lawyers during that November 8 2004 hearing is a report from Santa Barbara County Child Protective Services (CPS). This is news because until now, the public hasn’t really been made aware that the Santa Barbara CPS also investigated the family. From a report by Santa Barbara News-Press dated Nov 9 2004:

Susan Yu, defense co-counsel, emphasized during the pre-trial hearing that the defense team is particularly interested in reports from Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties’ child protective services because they provide a chronology of the alleged incidents of abuse. Judge Melville indicated that if the prosecution has a chronology that could exonerate Mr. Jackson, it should be turned over to the defense. (see Jackson’s lawyers to get papers by Dec. 6)

Did that investigation done by the Santa Barbara CPS also clear Jackson of these molestation allegations in the same way the Los Angles CPS investigation did? If so, this is explosive information and would once again go to show Jackson’s innocence. This would make at least three independent agencies—Los Angeles CPS, Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Dept’s first investigation and Santa Barbara CPS—which cleared Jackson of any molestation charges before the family changed their story. Also discussed is the manner in which they will search the hard drive taken from both Jackson’s assistant’s home and Mark Geragos’s private investigator’s (Bradley Miller) office. There are enormous concerns as to the true legality of these two searches which the current judge in the case has allowed even though there are clear attorney-client issues. For example, some of the material they took from the personal assistant’s office include three folders labeled “Mesereau.” According to courtroom observers, there were 6 computer hard drives total. There is a “special master” who has been assigned to oversee the search of the hard drive, reported to be a person by the name of Stan Rourden. However, it came out in court that the special master is days away from taking a vacation and there is concern about the length of time it will take to finish searching these hard drives if in fact they must be searched. __Loose Lips in the Sheriff’s Department__ Jackson attorney Mesereau said that he has spoken to some media persons and have asked them from where they are getting their information. They tell Mesereau that some leaks are in fact coming from the Sheriff’s department. This has been a constant issue since this “case” first broke. If you remember, there was a major issue as to whether or not the former sheriff of Santa Barbara—who is (was) trading off “information” for a paycheck from MSNBC as an “analyst”—was leaking info about the current “case”. Jim Thomas has denied the accusation even though it is incredibly uncanny that he just so happened to know certain things he couldn’t know any other way. In MJEOL Bullet #195, Thomas’s role was discussed as brought up in the defense’s Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Under Seal Mr. Jackson’s Application for an OSC Re: Sanctions for Violation of this Court’s Protective Order. In the motion, the defense says:

Over the past couple of months, defense counsel have been concerned about leaks of information uniquely available to the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department. Repeatedly, former Santa Barbara Sheriff Jim Thomas, has been cited as a source of information that is either under seal or subject to this court’s protective order. (see Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Under Seal Mr. Jackson’s Application for an OSC Re: Sanctions for Violation of this Court’s Protective Order)

The SBSD also leaked the Attorney General’s one-sided investigation results to the media as well. Current Sheriff Jim Anderson drew criticism for what some saw as an unprofessional and unnecessary press conference. So these leaks are “great concern” regarding what the sheriff’s department’s “tech people” would do if they were to be allowed access to attorney-client privileged material. To that concern, Melville agreed to bring in “an outside tech person with a knowledgeable attorney present to remove any trace of files that are privileged,” reports one courtroom observer. They also say that the persons will be brought in at the prosecution’s expense. Melville was also quoted as saying to Sneddon at least once “you got us into this,” in reference to the raid on Jackson’s assistant’s home office. This raid is the one where police removed folders labeled “Mesereau.” But the use of the word “us” has drawn some complaints from certain case observers. What Sneddon has gotten them into is one hell of a situation whose ramifications seem quite clear. Yet the judge reportedly has yet to make a decision that remotely resembles a reprimand (if not designating the info as off-limits to prosecutors completely). “Melville extended the items that will be admissible in court to December 6 2004,” says the observer. Previously, Melville gave prosecutors until Friday, Nov 5 2004 as the last day for prosecutors to hand over everything they intend to use. Reportedly he previously told prosecutors that everything which wasn’t in by the due date would be unusable by prosecutors. Apparently he’s changed his mind…again…and extended the date that prosecutors have to finally give defense attorneys what they should have already turned over to them months ago. Stay tuned. -MJEOL