Category: MJEOL BULLET

MJEOL Bullet #244 Preview: Feb 12 2005 — “If I were Tom Sneddon, I would run, not walk, away from

A Nosy Feldman Asks Jackson Questions about Health Book – Developing UPDATE #1 DEVELOPING (Feb 11 2005) — Since when

Stupidity Alert: Rivera Attacked for NOT Bashing Jackson – MJEOL Bullet #243 In a media filled with opinion, innuendo, and speculation, Rivera is bashed by some because he refuses to buy into this ‘guilty until proven guilty’ nonsense. Feb 7 2005 — In the circus that is the media, you’ll find a number of different characters: from the lion tamers to the tight-rope walkers to the clowns. Well certain “clowns” have taken it upon themselves to criticize Geraldo Rivera for taking a leave of absence from the Big Top. It seems absolutely amazing to some that Rivera’s interview with Michael Jackson has generated so much envy and/or hatred. I extend a welcome to the club of enlightenment to Rivera for his refusal to convict Jackson before trial. Finally, someone in the media isn’t afraid to overtly say that the emperor has no clothes. Or in this situation, Sneddon has no “case”. Ironically, most of that nonsensical hatred is aimed at Rivera by know-nothing reporters who had already publicly convicted Jackson the minute they heard the charges, and who wouldn’t know the first thing about unbiased journalism. We all have our opinions of this case. If Rivera was trashing and bashing Jackson left, right and center, there wouldn’t be so much as a peep of criticism. Some observers have suggested that some in the media, like Court TV, may have invested a lot of money on digging out and pursuing the ‘Jackson is guilty’ angle and they are loathed to relinquish that viewpoint. And anyone who publicly interferes with their crusade, like Rivera, suddenly becomes a target.

More Bombshells & Insights as Jury Pool Narrows – MJEOL Bullet #242 Conspiracy and molestation charges conflict with each other in light of the behavior of the accusing family and new information. Certain media figures are questioning the validity of the allegations, while others are expressing doubt about the logic. This, while reports surface of contaminated evidence and a shopping DA Feb 5 2005 — As the first phase of the Michael Jackson trial is finished–a jury pool of 250 people has been chosen — more insight into this current “case” and the 1993 investigation is revealed. Some legal analysts are publicly expressing a few doubts about the logic in this “case”, while others have been calling a spade a spade for months now. The face of this “case”, Tom Sneddon, didn’t bother to show up for the first two days of trial. Whether this first phase of jury selection is housekeeping or not, it did seem odd to a number of observers that he wouldn’t so much as make an appearance. He had nothing better to do when he was holding joking press conferences, so why did he suddenly become too busy to make an appearance at the start of the actual trial? Maybe he was busy taking the accuser shopping? More on that report later. This is Sneddon’s trial. This is what he’s wanted. Every since 1993, he may have been wishing for another chance at Jackson. This “case”, however, gives new meaning to the phrase, “Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.” Future MJEOL Bullets will discuss some of the bald-faced lies and half-truths around the 1993 Jackson investigation that has found it’s way into the media thanks largely to a bunch of history revisionists; revisionists whose bread-and-butter notoriety is linked to the 1993 investigation. But before getting into that, more interesting information about this current “case” is coming to light. Finally some in the media, like TV lawyer Dan Abrams for example, may have actually gotten off of the their collective asses long enough to do a bit of in-depth research, and now have the guts to publicly express some major doubts about the logic of this current “case” in a more comprehensive way. What is obvious now is that the conspiracy charge and the molestation charge are at odds with each other. They are conflicting in such a way that makes one thing impossible or improbable if another thing is alleged to have happened. The two charges are in essence fighting with each other for credibility. Their fight may end up sinking this “case”…that is, if Jackson’s attorneys don’t do that first with their exonerating evidence.

[b]MJEOL Bullet #242 Preview:[/b] Feb 2 2005 — As the first phase of the Michael Jackson trial is finished–a jury

Leak Investigation Too Little Too Late As Pros. Try to Shake Blame?– MJEOL Bullet #240 The Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Dept. is up to its old tricks, launching an “investigation” into who leaked the grand jury transcripts to the media. But could this “investigation” be too little too late, as some observers already think their pals in the DA’s office are responsible? Also, a desperate attempt by a tabloid reporter to take suspicion off of her “highly placed sources” JAN 27 2005 — The Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department (SBSD) has recently announced an investigation into who leaked sealed court documents to the ABC News’s Cynthia McFadden. This comes weeks after the leaks to the Court TV-backed website thesmokinggun and days after the ABC Primetime Live airing of the exact testimony from the grand jury transcripts. Both the prosecution and the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Dept. announced this “investigation” in a joint statement. Some criticize this move as “comical” and “absolutely ridiculous”. They claim to want to find a real culprit but give the appearance that the SBSD and the DA are teaming up to “investigate”. A great number of people see these leaks as coming from the prosecution. They are the total beneficiaries of these types of leaks. The reason some observers suggest that this apparent pairing is problematic is because if the leaks are coming from the prosecution, the SBSD won’t so much as give them a second look during their “investigation”. Others have bluntly stated they are concerned prosecutors may be trying to cover their asses on this issue. Some “case” observers have flat out said this selective “investigation” could be a major PR job on behalf of prosecutors because the leaks may have backfired for them. It is important to note these pro-prosecution leaks also…conveniently…came after people were coming out the woodwork to give interviews with the media concerning their own run-ins with the family, and info about the family’s incredibly shady, possibly felonious past. True, an enormous amount of information was leaked. But some of what was leaked, although salacious, showed blaring holes and illogical stories in the prosecution’s “case”.

[b]#240 Preview:[/b] The Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department (SBDA) has recently announced an investigation into who leaked sealed court documents to

Prosecution Expert May be Blind-Alley, No ‘Blow’ to Defense? The judge allows prosecutors to get their “expert” in, his/her testimony could prove to be a blind alley for prosecutors. Despite media exaggerations, the judge’s decision may not be a ‘blow’ to the defense at all JAN 23 2005 — More whining came Jan 21 2005 from TV lawyer Dan Abrams and Anderson Cooper as they talked about what they considered to be a major “blow” for the defense. What amounted to a standard issue in the Michael Jackson “case” was elevated to a significant enough level to warrant about a two-segment discussion on Abrams and an overly-dramatic statement of events from Cooper. The defense did not want the prosecution to try to introduce “expert” testimony to attempt to explain away why the accuser gave numerous inconsistent statements and why the accuser didn’t act as if he were threatened or molested. This testimony, some analysts say, could turn into a blind alley for prosecutions and backfire under cross-examination. It seems prosecutors and defense attorneys will get to call their own experts and it is in the defense’s best interest to fight any attempts by prosecutors to stack the deck in this “case”. Of course, this isn’t what Abrams and the like see when they process this information. There does seem to be a disconnect with the way print journalists–who provide more detail–reported this latest development, and the way ratings-conscious broadcast media reported it. What is reported by print journalists as just one more of many rulings handed by down the judge since its inception, suddenly transformed into a “Setback for Jackson” headline or a “major blow to the defense” once it hopped onto certain cable news shows.

[b]#239 Preview: [/b]More whining came yesterday (Jan 21 2005) from TV lawyer Dan Abrams and Anderson Cooper as they talked