December 13, 2004.

Another strange issue in a chain of incredulous allegations in the Michael Jackson “case” concerns the various stories being told by the accusing family. As you remember, prosecutors filed one set of charges against Jackson in December 2003, then came out of the indictment process with an entirely different case: different charges, different counts, and a different timeline.

This change was highlighted by defense attorneys in various court documents (docs). Redacted docs released November 24 2004 state that prosecutors filed charges on December 18 2003 charging Jackson with 7 counts of lewd acts and 2 counts of administering intoxicants.

Besides denying the charges, Jackson’s attorneys say that this initial complaint was based on interviews from the accuser’s mother, the accuser and his brother.

They say psychologist Stan Katz—who may be in serious trouble concerning his role in this “case” and his involvement with Bradley Miller—interviewed the accusing family more than seven (7) times. Katz also detailed to Santa Barbara authorities what he was told by the accusing family. They also reveal that law enforcement officials interviewed the accusing family more than two dozen times. All of this is what the December 18 2003 charging complaint was based on.

From the court docs:



But prosecutors soon discarded the charges based on the family’s initial set of allegations and sought a grand jury indictment. Out of that one-sided process came an entirely different case.

A conspiracy charge came out of nowhere. Jackson was never charged with conspiracy in the initial Dec 2003 charges. The number of lewd acts dropped from 7 to 4. I guess those other 3 times were just made up, huh? The number of intoxicant charges rose from 2 to 4. Did they forget they were drunk an extra two times or was it thrown in for good measure? And the timeline of alleged abuse changed from starting near the beginning of February 2003 to starring near the end of February 2003. I guess the accuser missed the start of the allegedly ‘traumatic event’ by two weeks. Jeez.

Why the sudden and drastic changes? Make no mistake about it, these aren’t little changes or small refinements, especially given what the public has found out about the family’s activities during the time they now claim to have been “held” at Neverland. These aren’t little children who have no strong concept of time here. Also, keep in mind that at the time of the prosecution’s timeline, there were at least two on-going independent investigations.

Also remember prosecutors are claiming an alleged conspiracy started first, then alleged molestation, then the alleged conspiracy continued. According to them, the family was kidnapped specifically so Jackson could molest the accuser. Besides being illogical, it is simply another version of events that have emerged during the course of this “case”.

The defense notes this change in their Memorandum in Support of Motion for Mental Examination dated Nov 12 2004. They say:




The defense also highlights what a number of legal analysts and lawyers questioned at the time concerning the “lewd acts” alleged. At first, they were said to have begun Feb 7 2003 according to the initial charges. Again, this Feb 7 date was based on more than two dozen interviews with the family and more than 7 interviews with psychologist Stan Katz. However, these alleged “lewd acts” miraculously jumped to Feb 20, near the end of the month.

For the record, the Santa Barbara sheriff’s department reportedly began what ended up to be a 2-month long investigation into this allegation on Feb 16 2003 sparked by a complaint from Carole Lieberman. Yeah, her. The Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services (DCFS) investigation was sparked by a complaint from a teacher.

That DCFS investigation found the allegations to be “unfounded” (see DCFS memo). The family exonerated Jackson of these allegations being made by so-called “concerned citizens” based on nothing but the suspicion of these “concerned citizens”.

Further, it seems rather odd that Jackson and/or his “people” would kidnap a family, then let them be interviewed by a state agency numerous times. A satisfactory explanation of these events has not been forthcoming.

In their court documents, the defense points out the prosecution-alleged “conspiracy” began at the beginning of February 2003 before any alleged acts of molestation. They say:




What is with those changing allegations? It could be because of the numerous investigations, sworn statements, audio and video tapes of the accusing family right during the prosecution’s ridiculous timeline.

For example, if the accusing family is caught on tape exonerating Jackson on Feb 16 2003, they certainly can’t say anything untoward (kidnapping, abduction, etc) occurred before that time right? Right?? That hasn’t stopped them from trying.

It was revealed during previous hearing that Mark Geragos’s private investigator tape recorded an interview with the accusing family at the stepfather’s residence reportedly February 16 2003.

One, it is beyond odd that they would be held hostage at Neverland, but Miller had to go to the stepfather’s residence to talk to them and get their comments on tape. What? Were they only kidnapped on certain days of the week?

Two, they repeatedly denied any untoward activity without anyone there to intimidate them, and with Maj. Jay Jackson right there with them. Was Jay Jackson conspired against too? Was the army major abducted and kidnapped too?? Nope.

Three, the accusing family is now claiming—after the fact—that they were threatened/abducted/kidnapped/whatever before they gave that interview and before they gave interviews to the DCFS. What’s more, neither Jackson nor the prosecution-alleged “co-conspirators” were charged with the actual crimes; just conspiracy to commit the alleged crimes. Huh?

According to the defense, the mother allegedly claims she was “forced” to do the interview with the DCFS on February 20 2003 saying “wonderful things” about Jackson. She claims she was brought to a house of someone whose name was redacted, and “forced” to say “wonderful things” about Jackson on February 23 2003 (pg 12).

A number of pages are redacted from the documents. But there are notations in the midst of the blacked out lines stating “testified on September 6 2001” (pg 17).

There are also mentions of Psychologist Stan Katz throughout the redacted docs. There was also the statement “Other Expert Opinion was Based on the Psychologist’s Interviews.” So it seems as if there were other opinions of other people based on what Katz said, and what the accusing family initially told Katz.

What these people told Katz is a major issue for another reason as well: the defense should be able to cross-examine Katz and his analysis of the accusing family’s story or stories as it were.

The defense makes the point that there can be no effective cross-examination unless they can independently check Katz’s conclusions:



Should the defense have a chance to adequately cross-examine the conclusions made by Katz from the original story the accusing family told him? Of course, say most case observers. Apparently someone higher than Judge Melville will have to step in and allow the defense access to these records and psychological tests because the judge isn’t allowing it…for now.

Remember, there was a psychologist allowed to talk to the accusing family during the JC Penneys lawsuit. Maybe his conclusions of the family is a reason why the prosecution and the family are fighting like hell to keep a 3rd-party from talking to the accusing family

If this case makes it to trial, the family will definitely have to explain why—just as in the JC Penneys lawsuit—all of them changed their story over the course of time. The prosecution would have to explain why they abandoned the initial December 2003 charged filed against Jackson.

Some observers speculate that after prosecutors filed initial charges, they may have gotten a whiff of how much they were in trouble with subsequent reports about the DCFS investigation conclusion (and who knows who else was investigating), the sworn statements the family signed, and the numerous video and audio interviews they reportedly did at the same time they now claim to had been…well you know what they claim.

These overlapping investigations coupled with world attention could have come to the prosecution’s full attention. Hence, they ran to a grand jury for an indictment and changed the entire “case”. Whatever the reason, it may yet be discovered by the defense…if it hasn’t already.

Stay tuned.

-MJEOL

http://site.mjeol.com/mod...oryid=1257

An important excerpt:

The defense also highlights what a number of legal analysts and lawyers questioned at the time concerning the “lewd acts” alleged. At first, they were said to have begun Feb 7 2003 according to the initial charges. Again, this Feb 7 date was based on more than two dozen interviews with the family and more than 7 interviews with psychologist Stan Katz. However, these alleged “lewd acts” miraculously jumped to Feb 20, near the end of the month.

For the record, the Santa Barbara sheriff’s department reportedly began what ended up to be a 2-month long investigation into this allegation on Feb 16 2003 sparked by a complaint from Carole Lieberman. Yeah, her. The Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services (DCFS) investigation was sparked by a complaint from a teacher.

That DCFS investigation found the allegations to be “unfounded” (see DCFS memo). The family exonerated Jackson of these allegations being made by so-called “concerned citizens” based on nothing but the suspicion of these “concerned citizens”.

Further, it seems rather odd that Jackson and/or his “people” would kidnap a family, then let them be interviewed by a state agency numerous times. A satisfactory explanation of these events has not been forthcoming.

Do you do anything other than troll message boards, posting pro-MJ propaganda? I've seen you on at least 3 other boards, and you post the exact same thing in each place!

http://www.mjredemption.c...News_6.htm

The Michael Jackson Case: Fingerprints and Tabloids
by K. C. Arceneaux, Ph.D.
December 13, 2004

In yet another example of journalistic bottom-feeding in the coverage of the Michael Jackson child-molestation case, Mike Walker, editor of the National Enquirer, gloated over his latest scoop on the Geraldo Rivera show, on Fox news, December 12, 2004. The "scoop" was that Jackson's fingerprints and those of the boy-accuser were found on a pornographic magazine taken from Neverland Ranch. Walker called the prints "a gift to the prosecution, a bombshell in the case." However, as Rivera pointed out, it will be impossible to determine if the fingerprints were placed on the magazine simultaneously. A bombshell, the discovery is not.

First reported by the National Enquirer, the story jumped species, virus-like, from the Enquirer to Fox news, from Fox to CNN, and the Associated Press. By the time the story reached the AP, the origin of the "news" had dropped away, depriving the public of the knowledge that this was a tabloid story. Mike Walker was disgruntled about CNN and the Associated Press "dishonestly taking it as their own story." Walker may be disgruntled, but the public should be alarmed by the failure of these news outlets to report that their story had tabloid origins. Tabloid magazines typically pay for their stories, a practice that mainstream journalists do not follow, for reasons that should be obvious.

So here are a few questions. First, who is the source for this latest revelation? Is it a fantasizing back-room hack hoping to fill the lull in the Jackson case with -- something? Or, does the leak originate from the prosecution team themselves? The gag order in the case has all but silenced the Jackson defense, but the prosecution seems to have a serious leakage problem that has remained unstaunched throughout. Is it possible that greed has struck Santa Barbara law-enforcement and someone is passing material to tabloids for financial gain? Surely not. Or, was the leak a deliberate attempt to influence public opinion on the eve of the trial, to bolster a case that is already so full of holes that leakages are inevitable? The water-torture of Jackson continues.

The prosecution will no doubt say at trial that Jackson used the magazines to ripen up his "victim" for molestation. The defense will say that the fingerprints prove nothing, except that the boy snooped Jackson's private belongings. Memory problems are rampant in the Jackson case. The prosecution may have forgotten that the accuser's story has mutated, from the first indictment to the second -- the first indictment following Jackson's arrest, and the second from a grand jury over which District Attorney Tom Sneddon presided. Jackson's accuser has had memory lapses, as well. At first, he remembered that he was molested seven times. Now, the boy has said that he was unconscious from alcohol Jackson gave him, and does not remember being molested, three times, with one "attempt." Luckily for the prosecution, the boy's brother has stepped up and said that he was a witness to the misdeeds the accuser now does not remember.

The "fingerprint leak" presents a dilemma for the prosecution, however, as to which story the "evidence" supports. The first story, or the second? Did Jackson arouse his alleged victim with pornography, only to have the boy fall unconscious so that he could molest him at leisure? But if the boy was unconscious, then why would the magazines matter? The lapse of logic here is typical of a case that, in my opinion, would have died months ago from memory failures and other reasons too numerous to mention here, had the accused not been Michael Jackson, and had not the media jumped on tabloid stories as if they were truth. As long as these leakages and scenarios remain unchallenged, the DA must think he still has a case.

Fingerprints on a magazine prove that the owner of the fingerprints. . . touched the magazine. What is suspicious here is not that Jackson had a stash of heterosexual porn, if indeed that is the truth, and it is not that he touched his own magazines, or even that the boy-accuser may have touched them; it was reported by Dawn Hobbs, in the Santa Barbara News Press, that the boy-accuser was at Neverland at times when Jackson was not there and he and his siblings had the run of the place. What is suspicious is the timing of the leak. Over a year after the initial raid of Neverland, Thomas Sneddon, Santa Barbara DA, is still searching, and searching, and searching. Excessive is too mild a word for a hundred six searches and counting.

On December 3, 2004, Jackson's Neverland ranch was raided again. The media had been tipped off and were in place to cover the raid. Soon after, a story emerged that was hardly the smoking gun the District Attorney must have hoped for, given the extravagance of the search. Fingerprints were found, not from material collected during the raid, but from a magazine that the DA has had in his possession for over a year. Is it possible that the prosecution, if they are the source of the leak, actually think the media-consuming public is as stupid as that? If the fingerprint story is accurate -- and there is no way of knowing that -- then there are various ways the boy's fingerprints could have appeared on that magazine. Jackson and the boy could have looked at the magazine together; the boy could have discovered and perused the magazine on his own, or, the fingerprints could have been planted by a DA desperate to convict Jackson. At the eleventh hour, fingerprints were found. What an amazing coincidence!

Author K. C. Arceneaux, Ph.D., is a Pushcart nominee and winner of a Tara Fellowship from the Heekin Group. First North American Serial Rights, Copyright December 13, 2004.

Anybody with half a brain can see there's something fishy about this case. Sneddon should take a step back, he obviously has a deep personal problem with Michael, and to be fair it's mutual. The world sees this as him vs MJ. I believe he'll try and nail Mike even at the expense of the truth.