Illegal Leaking of Grand Jury Transcripts, Shady Pros. Witnesses – MB#237

Illegal Leaking of Grand Jury Transcripts, Shady Pros. Witnesses – MJEOL Bullet #237 Someone has broken the law by leaking sealed grand jury transcripts to a subsidiary of Court TV and to ABC News. All this while more information is revealed about the past of certain witnesses who prosecutors are relying on for their “other victims” theory JAN 17 2005 — Prosecutors in the Michael Jackson “case” seem to have gone into a tailspin, leaking sealed court documents in an effort to poison the jury pool with their one-sided version of events before the Court can seat and possibly sequester a jury. Chasing their quicker, entertainment based competition, ABC News took it upon themselves to only broadcast the prosecution’s side of the “case” based on the illegally leaked grand jury transcripts. Despite the numerous contradictions in this version of the story the accusing family told, the report could hardly have been described as a balanced presentation of “fact” around the “case”. In what I’m sure they may not have expected, ABC’s Primetime Live, which featured these illegal leaks, was selected as a rating’s loser by Mediaweek.com, coming in a distant 3rd with only 6.2 million viewers. That’s compared to CBS’s 18.72 million for Without A Trace and NBC’s 18.48 million viewers with ER on the same night (see Primetime Live featuring Jackson “Special” a Ratings Loser – Mediaweek.com). I guess the Jackson-bashing has finally taken its toll on an exhausted public; some of whom can’t believe the trial still hasn’t started or isn’t over with already. Or maybe they don’t take kindly to these types of transparent poisoning expeditions the prosecutors, with the eager help of the media, seem to be engaged in. Some observers—a number of whom were squarely behind the prosecution until they started to hear some of the specific details of the allegations—have now began to question the validity of the story. As those who were on-the-fence pointed out a year ago, the devil will be in the details. And the more details added to try to make the story believable, the more gaping the holes in the story have become. MJEOL will not be doing the prosecution’s homework for them. The defense will ask the accusing family questions under what’s sure to be a blistering cross-examination. Through discussion, archival data and compare-contrast analysis, preliminary results show a plethora of inconsistencies in their stories and loads of conflicting public statements from the likes of William Bill Dickerman, Jamie Masada and published reports of statements to the authorities from psychologist Stan Katz. And this is all before the defense even presents the exonerating evidence from Jackson’s side of the story alluded to repeatedly ever since Mark Geragos and Ben Brafman were still his attorneys. Jackson’s attorneys blasted the leaking of these sealed court documents to the media. But remember, this isn’t the first the defense is hearing about these allegations. Since they are unchallenged and result from a one-sided process, current Judge Rodney Melville sealed the material from public view due to the intense interest in the “case”. Apparently, prosecutors don’t give two craps about the authority of the judge. Whoever leaked this material may just as well have spit in the judge’s face in open court. In the defense’s statement about this, Jackson’s lead attorney Tom Mesereau says:

We strongly object to the “leak” of the Grand Jury testimony in this case. This Grand Jury material had been ordered sealed by Judge Melville in open court. The witnesses who testified before the Grand Jury were never subjected to cross-examination or impeachment by the defense. By law, no judge or defense lawyer was allowed to be present in the Grand Jury room. Furthermore, the defense had no opportunity to call its own witnesses to refute or criticize this one-sided proceeding. This case will be won in the courtroom and not through “leaks” in the media. When he has his day in court, Michael Jackson will be acquitted and vindicated. (see Jackson Attorneys Blast One-sided Grand Jury Leaks – MJJSOURCE.COM)

Notice Mesereau said “When he has his day in court…” and “Michael Jackson will be acquitted and vindicated”. So, one way or the other, these accusers will be made to account for the allegations they have made. There is no longer simply a “possibility” that they will be cross-examined, but rather a certainty __It’s amazing who you agree with when given the right circumstances__ What is absolutely amazing is that even the most diametrically opposed viewpoints have some commonality when it comes to recent news stories. Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly made a point recently that some, who have never agreed with O’Reilly before, actually concurred. O’Reilly called the leaking of this information “sleazy” and said that it “diminishes the prosecution,” on his Jan 7 2005 show. He also questioned the reason for the leak in light of the huffing and puffing prosecutors have done about their so-called “strong case”. He spoke with Celebrity Justice’s Harvey Levin:

LEVIN: … Clearly this came from the prosecution’s side. O’REILLY: Now why would they do that? It doesn’t seem to make any sense to me, if you have a strong criminal case, to give the other side, the Jackson side, this kind of exposition so that they know it’s coming and to diminish—you see, this diminishes the prosecution in my opinion. They… LEVIN: It does. O’REILLY: ….They look like sleazy, dirty people that you don’t, you know, let—under oath, you bring in the evidence. You testify. You don’t need to dump it on a sleazy website. (see Factor: Harvey Levin talks about TSG leaks Jan 7 2005)

After hearing some of the most asinine and utterly nonsensical garbage coming from O’Reilly’s mouth previously about this “case”, I certainly would have never expected to be agreeing with O’Reilly–who I have very little use for personally–on anything about this Jackson “case”. But he does make a very important point. If prosecutors have an “iron-clad”, “strong case” against Jackson, why the need to leak at all? Why in the world would they even have to worry about PR if they want their talking to be done in the courtroom? Make no mistake about it, and asinine media theories aside, these recent leaks did not come from the defense. Attorney Joe Tacopina, who represents one of the prosecution-alleged “co-conspirators” appeared on Fox News’s At Large w/ Geraldo Rivera on Jan 16 2005. He told Rivera and guest Harvey Levin:

TACOPINA: Geraldo, trust me. The one thing you could go to bed on is that this did not come from the defense. I mean, my God. This is – I understand Harvey’s theory, but you know this is not a positive thing for the defense. A lot of these allegations I bet you are not even going to smell the well of that courtroom when the jury’s empanelled. (see Rivera: Joe Tacopina + Levin talk about GJ leaks Jan 16 2005)

Even Celebrity Justice’s Jane Valez-Mitchell says this judge needs to do something about these leaks. She appeared on Weekend Live on Jan 15 2005:

JANE VALEZ-MITCHELL: The leaks in this case are astounding. And I think the judge has to address them the next hearing which is on the 21st [of January 2005]… This happened during the grand jury. As the defense is saying, they did not have a chance to cross-examine. They did not have a chance to rebut this. They say this is a travesty. And we have to find out—what is this judge going to do about this because the jury summonses have already gone on? There are people up there in northern Santa Barbara county who knew they might be a part of this jury who would have heard this. (see Weekend Live: Jane Valez-Mitchell about twins story and leaks Jan 15 2005)

Quite frankly some “case” observers seriously think prosecutors have gone in panic mode. Reports out of Fox news weeks ago have already said that Jackson and his attorneys flatly denied a secret plea bargain deal offered by the prosecution (see Authorities Search [Jackson’s] Ranch Again (Dec 3 2004) ). Why even offer this rumored deal in the first place? They also want to introduce unsubstantiated alleged accusations—which may not even be accusations, but rather the mindless rumblings of what “may have…”, “could have…” or “might have…” happened. And this is based on the word of ex-employees who have previously lost cases against Jackson. __Persecution and Witch-hunts – Item #188: The word of a lying crook deserves absolute trust__ Let’s take a look at just who some of these witnesses for the prosecution may be. The defense made mention of who prosecutors plan to call in their Opposition to District Attorney’s Motion of Admission of Alleged Prior Offense (see file). The defense says that in place of the actual people who were supposed to have been “abused”, prosecutors want to use “a collection of disgruntled former employees, paid tabloid informants, and other disreputable characters,” (pg 2). The reason why the defense finds these people disreputable actually involves previous court cases. It isn’t simply the defense’s opinion, but rather a documented history involving these witnesses-come-lately. In the defense’s Opposition Motion, they point out:

This testimony has previously been presented to two criminal grand juries and one civil jury, and all three juries have rejected the testimony as false. Five of the witnesses were found to have lied about Mr. Jackson, by a civil jury, and two of them were found to have stolen from him. This is not the sort of prior sexual offense evidence that the legislature intended to permit when it enacted Section 1108. (see Opposition to District Attorney’s Motion of Admission of Alleged Prior Offense)

Through research, articles were found detailing just what the defense was referring to. These prosecution ‘holy grail’ witnesses were in fact found to have lied and stolen from Jackson, and were ordered to pay him $60,000 in one case. In an article entitled “Jackson Beats Former Employees” dated March 18 1997, from E!Online, it talks about what a Santa Maria jury concluded in a case brought against Jackson by these disgruntled employees. Jackson countersued. From the article:

Today a jury in Santa Maria, California, sided with Michael Jackson and found that five former employees at his Neverland Ranch were not wrongfully terminated. In what was a complete win for the singer, the jury even awarded Jackson $60,000 in a countersuit that charged some of those employees stole items from the estate. (see Ex-employees Found to have Lied, Ordered to Pay Jackson $60,000)

In an effort to get into Jackson’s pockets, they initially claimed they were fired because they “knew too much” about Jackson’s relationship with “young boys”. Some of these sets of people selling this same suspicion were also paid by tabloid reporter Diane Dimond’s old bosses at the now defunct Hard Copy. Reportedly, there was $100,000 that they were all supposed to split amongst themselves from the tabloid show. This very thing was reported in an exhaustive GQ article from October 1994 by Mary Fischer. From that report:

Purporting to take the journalistic high road, Hard Copy’s Diane Dimond told Frontline in early November of last year that her program was “pristinely clean on this. We paid no money for this story at all.” But two weeks later, as a Hard Copy contract reveals, the show was negotiating a $100,000 payment to five former Jackson security guards who were planning to file a $10 million lawsuit alleging wrongful termination of their jobs. (see Was Michael Jackson Framed? The Untold Story)

Some of these same types of people ended up losing cases against Jackson. When they were subjected to cross-examination, it was revealed that they never saw anything untoward happen between Jackson and any child. They said they got their information from the media. This was detailed in that GQ article along with a snipped of their testimony:

On December 1, with the deal in place, two of the guards appeared on the program; they had been fired, Dimond told viewers, because “they knew too much about Michael Jackson’s strange relationship with young boys.” In reality, as their depositions under oath three months later reveal, it was clear they had never actually seen Jackson do anything improper with Chandler’s son or any other child:

“So you don’t know anything about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?” one of Jackson’s attorneys asked former security guard Morris Williams under oath. “All I know is from the sworn documents that other people have sworn to.” “But other than what someone else may have said, you have no firsthand knowledge about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?” “That’s correct.” “Have you spoken to a child who has ever told you that Mr. Jackson did anything improper with the child?” “No.”

When asked by Jackson’s attorney where he had gotten his impressions, Williams replied: “Just what I’ve been hearing in the media and what I’ve experienced with my own eyes.” “Okay. That’s the point. You experienced nothing with your own eyes, did you?” “That’s right, nothing.” (see Was Michael Jackson Framed? The Untold Story )

When they tried to get money from Jackson, Jackson struck back with his own countersuit “saying the five quit voluntarily and were not harassed”. Jackson’s countersuit also stated that two of these ex-employees stole property from him and sold some of the items to tabloids. From that March 18 1997 article:

The singer’s attorneys filed a countersuit, saying the five quit voluntarily and were not harassed. It also claimed two of the former workers–the maid and a bodyguard–stole sketches, personal notes, hats, toys and candy from the ranch, selling some items to tabloid newspapers. (Ex-employees Found to have Lied, Ordered to Pay Jackson $60,000)

The Santa Maria jury sided with Jackson and ruled that there was absolutely no evidence to support any of the allegations leveled against him by these disgruntled former employees. Certainly the defense has these documents ready to present and cross-examine any of the people still making these allegations. Moreover, it goes to prove Jackson’s assertion that whoever is feeding prosecutors this information about “other accusers”—alleged “accusers” who never even made allegations against Jackson and deny any abuse—is doing so to take advantage of this situation. Not only that, but there is the subject of the countersuit Jackson won against them. It is unclear if this lawsuit, resolved in 1997, is the same or was initiated from the same lawsuit filed in 1993 by 4 ex-guards who claimed they were fired and, sued Jackson for wrongful termination. Regardless, there are sets of ex-employees who were found to have lied and stolen from Jackson. And they want a jury to take their word for it that they “saw something” over 10 years ago that they didn’t report to the police?? The lawsuit against Jackson by these guards was thrown out of court by Superior Court Judge Richard Neal. In a report from the Associated Press (AP) titled “Judge Dismisses Guards’ Case Against Michael Jackson” dated July 22 1995, Jackson then-attorney Howard Weitzman commented:

”Michael has said from day one he never did anything inappropriate with any minors,” Howard Weitzman said. ”This was (the guards’) way of getting their 15 minutes in the limelight.” (see Judge Dismisses Case Against Michael Jackson (July 21 1995))

15 minutes indeed. But the sheer ludicrousness of these guards’ making these accusations, AND suing for wrongful termination, isn’t lost on some observers. The wrongful termination allegation is interesting because some observers asked the question just why in hell would they want to work for someone who they’ve claimed is molesting children? Why didn’t they contact the police right then with their so-called suspicions? Once they got fired for stealing, why in the world would they want money from him? Did they want to keep those jobs, hence the “wrongful termination” accusation? And if so, how does that desire for the job square with the allegations they’ve made about their boss molesting children?? It simply is illogical, which shows the allegations they’re making to be inherently ridiculous. Could it be that Jackson….oh brace yourselves…is….*gulp*….INNOCENT?! *gasps and faints*. Good grief. All snide sarcasm aside, it leads into a highly interesting point that not enough people have made. It does seem as if Jackson is a Saint as long as he’s signing the checks and footing the bill. As soon as that cash flow is cut off, Jackson suddenly appears to transform into the freakin’ devil if you listen to their tales! Isn’t it funny how it always seems to happen that way? Ridiculous. This is more than just a coincidence. But these are the types of people on which prosecutors are building their “case” as the defense pointed out in the aforementioned Opposition Motion. As commented previously, Jackson’s attorneys say their stories were already tested on two different criminal grand juries as a result of the 1993 investigation. They say the juries were unimpressed, to say the least. From their motion:

A. The Proposed Testimony Has No Probative Value Because It Is False This is not the first time that the prosecution has sought to introduce this evidence in a judicial proceeding. This is the same “evidence” that left two separate grand juries so unimpressed with the prosecution’s “case” that they did not return indictments. In each of the occasions in which a grand jury or civil jury has had the opportunity to listen to witnesses like _________ or ____________, the jurors have found the witnesses to be incredible. In the civil trial, the jury went as far as to find that Mr. _________ and Ms. ________ not only lied about Mr. Jackson, but that they stole from him as well. (see Opposition to District Attorney’s Motion of Admission of Alleged Prior Offense)

So exactly what the hell are these prosecutors trying to pull? Some suggest they want to bring in these “witnesses” to talk about what may have….could have….might have….happened between Jackson and other children. Something that most of these “other accusers”, which prosecutors have had their eye on, have already flatly and repeatedly denied. More on this subject in a future MJEOL Bullet. These witnesses are faulty even before they step foot on the stand. And quite frankly, if prosecutors have to reach this far back for some unfounded and unsubstantiated nonsense to bolster this current “case”, then maybe they are in more trouble that they are willing to admit. Stay tuned. -MJEOL :nav Your comments?