No comments

Pt 3: 1993 Investigation Not a Problem for Defense? – MB #254

Pt 3: 1993 Investigation Not a Problem for Defense? – MJEOL Bullet #254
The prosecution has been searching far and wide for other accusers that don’t exist.
One such opportunist may have snuck in under the radar before the release of Jackson’s highly profitable HIStory album
Part 3 | Part 1| Part 2

MARCH 26 2005 — Part 2 included information and old articles confirming that there was no matching description given by the accuser of Michael Jackson’s body, as well as info dealing with the fact that prosecutors could have pursued a “case” against Jackson back in 1993 had they had evidence IF they wanted to.

With the hearing set for Monday March 28 2005 to decide whether or not prosecutors can try to muddy up this current non- “case” with as yet un-cross-examined allegations from back then, it’s amazing to see the kind of chicken-little attitudes that have once again sprung up in the media.

Even some of those who normally display common sense have been drilled with so much nonsense for the last 10 years, that they claim “devastation” if the judge rules in the prosecution’s favor. But it is really their fault? Or is it the fault of the hacks among the bunch who have taken it upon themselves to talk the public into this false notion in the face of a silent Jackson who couldn’t present his side of the situation in any way other than the form that’s about to happen on Monday?

Isuppose these normally fair-minded people can do a bit of research first. A number of other people who are somewhat familiar with how the defense was going to handle the 1993 allegation had Sneddon filed charges back then disagree with the ‘chicken-little’ assessment.

Of course, observers who have been watching this “case” materialize have seen this before. At the start of THIS “case” the same ‘chicken-little’ attitude was running rampant with the media. And what’s happened thus far?

Sneddon’s been chastised for putting on such an incredibly weak case. And 100+ search warrants later, the only thing the prosecution has proven thus far is that Jackson loves to look at naked women.

Earlier the public learned that the defense was prepared to call their own witnesses for this hearing, because they made a request from the judge that if prosecutors were allowed to call witnesses, they were prepared to call other witnesses to talk about what really happened. That either spooked the judge, or he just didn’t want to get into having a mini-trial on Monday, because he said that he would only hear arguments on the issue and would call witnesses when necessary.

But in the grand scheme of things, as revealed recently, Sneddon has been looking for mythical “victims” for a very long time. And the one accuser he needed to work with him, doesn’t seem to want to touch him or this “case” with a 10,000 foot pole.

No comments

Palanker Caught on Tape Bad-mouthing Accusing Family – MiniBullet #16

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).