MJEOL

Part 2: Absurd Excuses in Effort to Retain Jackson Prosecution – MJEOL Bullet #214B Continuing with the prosecution’s attempt to retain the Michael Jackson “case”, we pick up at the flippant “so what” quote in the Prosecution’s Opposition to Motion to Recuse the District Attorney. A little background first. There were two investigations in 2003 by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s department surrounding this accusing family. The first one began in February 2003 and ended in April 2003. The second one began in June 2003 at the behest of civil lawyer Larry Feldman and his favorite shrink, Stan Katz. This is an essential fact which stunned many case observers, legal analysts and lawyers alike. Concerning that previous closed investigation, and the second investigation which began in June 2003, prosecutors say “so what”:

If it is that the initial investigation did not result in criminal charges, so what? It was the further investigation that followed [redacted] disclosures to a forensic psychologist that resulted in Defendant’s indictment. (see Prosecution’s Response to Recusal Motionpg 4)

“So what”? This isn’t a playground argument. The larger issue here is that the “gunning-for-Jackson” attitude omits any possibility of an impartial look being given to these allegations; especially after a previous investigation into the exact same allegation turned up nothing.

Part 1: Outrageous Response from Prosecutors as they try to Retain ‘Case’ – MB #214 UPDATE Just when you thought prosecutors in the Michael Jackson “case” may be starting to get some sense about the massive inconsistencies in their story, they file a motion like their reply to the defense’s motion to have them tossed from prosecuting Jackson. If anything, the Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Recuse the District Attorney is more proof of why they should be yanked. Tom Sneddon, the current DA of Santa Barbara, has already become a witness in this “case”. He will probably be made to testify at a possible trial as well; as he has already been made to testify at a pre-trial hearing. That alone, and the behavior which created the situation, should be reason enough to have him and his office tossed. Even in the face of this devastating fact, prosecutors had the gall to claim that the defense “can’t point to a factual circumstance extrinsic to the prosecutor” which concerns a conflict of interest. Better be careful what they wish for because Sneddon’s past may come back to haunt this “case”. Some say they believe that there may be “extrinsic” attitudes and behavior that would cast a shadow on this prosecution. But let me say it again: the freakin’ DA is a witness in the ‘case’. It shouldn’t get past that fact.

Prosecutors Wanted Defense to Help Convict Jackson? – MJEOL Bullet #213 Did you know that prosecutors in the Michael Jackson “case” actually asked the defense to give them any incriminating evidence they thought the defense had against Jackson? No, that’s not a typo or a misunderstanding. It’s called a Sanchez motion and it was filed almost a year after police ransacked Jackson’s Neverland Ranch. The motion was denied, of course, but it brought up another issue about whether prosecutors are desperate enough to even claim the defense has an obligation to give them “inculpatory evidence.” For the record, inculpatory evidence (incriminating) is the opposite of exculpatory evidence (showing innocence). But the real problem is that there looks to be no incriminating evidence and prosecutors can’t find any. Not even after their over 100 search warrants. Yeah, there have been over 100 search warrants issued in this “case”. So they actually asked Judge Melville to make the defense give them some imagined incriminating evidence. Prosecutor Gerald Franklin—who is currently being sued, along with Sneddon and others, in federal court for $10M by attorney Gary Dunlap—writes that he is “certain the defense has possession of relevant and potentially inculpatory evidence which they have not tendered to the court.” Yes, he’s actually serious.

Judge Accepts Lousy Excuses from Prosecutors, Witnesses – MJEOL Bullet #212 Regarding the Miller raid, prosecutors inexplicably get their way…for now Is the judge in the Michael Jackson “case” trying to clean-up the mess created by prosecutors and police? It certainly appears that way to some “case” observers who have read Judge Melville’s decision not to toss out the information taken illegally from Bradley Miller’s office. Miller, for the record, was working for Jackson’s then-attorney Mark Geragos—something he made known to the accuser’s family as far back as February 2003. Despite prosecutors and police invading the defense camp, and after it was shown in court that they at the very least should have known, this judge has sided with Tom Sneddon. Besides having the affect of inciting a number of attorneys to outrage, the decision sent up huge red flags as to whether the judge is following the law and erring on the side of caution. The judge says that the search warrant for Brad Miller’s office was issued by Judge Thomas Adams, the same judge prosecutors have obtained dozens of search warrants through at the beginning of this “case”. It seems that Miller was cited as being one of the people who was present when the family exonerated Jackson, which was taped. The tape was seized by police from Miller’s office on Nov 18 2003, the same day police ransacked Jackson’s Neverland Ranch. The judge, as if writing for a news organization, stated that the “Doe family was reportedly encouraged to stay at Neverland and not to return to its apartment home in East Los Angeles.” “Reportedly” is a word reserved for observers of this case, like us. A judge is not supposed to be dealing with reports in the media, but rather dealing in factual information. Ok. That can be overlooked. But this is by far not the most eyebrow-raising statements in his decision.