MJEOL

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.

1993 Investigation Not a Problem for Defense? – MJEOL Bullet #254 Tellingly, the defense wanted to call their own witnesses to testify at this 1108 hearing PART 1| Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 MARCH 20 2005 – There will be an 1108 hearing to decide if the 1993 allegation will be allowed to come into this current trial on March 28 2005. While some people are speculating wildly about what this “could mean,” what’s interesting about this entire issue is the fact that the defense wasn’t fighting too hard to keep this 1108 hearing from happening. The flip-flopping Judge Rodney Melville previously claimed he wanted to hear from prosecution witnesses before he decided if he would let in the 1993 allegation. He reportedly told prosecutors that simple affidavits wouldn’t be sufficient. However, on March 18 2005 he apparently changed his mind, coincidentally (or maybe not) after the defense didn’t object to calling witnesses. He still reserved the right to call witnesses for “clarification” if needed. As a matter of fact, the defense said that during this 1108 hearing, they were prepared to call witnesses of their own involved around the 1993 allegation. Well, this came as a surprise to certain observers who expected the defense to be fighting like hell to keep out anything related to the 1993 allegation. But Jackson’s defense seems just as much ready to argue and present evidence as the prosecution is. For months, some commentators have claimed “devastation” to the defense – laughably like they did at the onset of this current so-called “case” – if the 1993 investigation was allowed in. The larger issue here is what makes the media think Michael Jackson or his defense team is scared of the possibility of the 1993 accuser being called to testify in the current “case”? A lot of prosecution pundits love to cite the accuser’s 1993 affidavit as proof of something. But it is not. It is only the unchallenged, unsubstantiated, and un-cross-examined allegation regardless of what the Nancy Graces of the world try to tell you. In a previous article by the Santa Barbara News-Press, Dawn Hobbs cites “sources close to the case” as saying the 1993 accuser has already been contacted in an attempt to obtain testimony from him against Jackson. So if he does not come in as a prosecution witness, I guess we can infer that he is not cooperating with prosecutors. And that has been the rumor for months: that he is not cooperating with the prosecution in this “case” against Jackson. But if he is subpoenaed by the prosecution or the defense, Jackson’s defense team may finally be able to cross-examine and knockdown those allegations as well. Those allegations seemed to be a blueprint for the current “case” against him.

Former Maid Undermines Alcohol, Molestation Allegation? – MiniBullet #15 Talks about the Arvizo children not appearing intoxicated, their guest rooms a mess, and the younger brother pulling a knife on her MARCH 20 2005 – A former maid, Kiki Fournier, who worked off and on for Michael Jackson was called by prosecutors March 17 2005 to testify about what she allegedly saw at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch in 2003. Prosecutors want to claim that Jackson is somehow responsible for what children do, out of his presence at Neverland. She claimed she saw kids at Neverland who “appeared to be” intoxicated. What’s wrong with her observation is that she made no showing of how she knew these kids were allegedly intoxicated. Reportedly, she didn’t check their breath for alcohol, she never saw Jackson give any child alcohol, she never saw any kid falling down drunk at Neverland, and she never saw the Arvizo children even so much as “appear to be” intoxicated. All she seemed to offer was her suspicion. Her answers to the question of whether or not kids were allegedly drunk is a hell of a lot less “certain” than media headlines have reported. Fournier was asked questions like “During your entire employment at Neverland Ranch, have you ever observed children to “appear to be” intoxicated?” When specifically asked if she saw kids intoxicated in Jackson’s presence, she said she didn’t know:

Q. Okay. Have you seen children to be intoxicated in the presence of Michael Jackson? A. Thy were acting different. I don’t know if they were intoxicated.

They were “acting different”? This is supposed to be proof that they were intoxicated?? Uh, I don’t think so. But more importantly, her actual testimony isn’t as sure as the media has made it in their recounting of what she supposedly said. She also said she couldn’t remember of another time when kids appeared to be intoxicated.