New Charge Indicative of a Weak Case?  MJEOL Bullet #136 With this new asinine charge of conspiracy thrown in for good measure in the Michael Jackson case, questions are starting to be asked about the strength of the underlying allegation. The media and the public were led to believe by the prosecution, and their mouthpieces, that the case against Jackson wasnt weak. So why, then, would prosecutors even attempt to fly with this new and bizarre conspiracy charge? If the original case against Jackson was a slam dunk, as Us Weeklys Ken Baker claims his sources have told him, why would the DA need to try to flip Jackson employees or even bother at all with this conspiracy nonsense? If the slam dunk was true, why the need to try to pull in uncharged co-conspirators? This new charge also highlights some incredible nonsensical details in an increasingly convoluted allegation. The charge of conspiracy wasnt in the initial charges filed by the district attorney. Why not? What? Did the family forget they were held hostage, then suddenly remembered their abduction in front of the grand jury? Did someone tell them to tailor their story to cover their prior inconsistent statements? The conspiracy charge has the dates Feb 20-March 31 tacked onto it. However, the mothers own divorce attorney, Michael Manning, gave an interview in Nov 2003 saying the mother didnt have a negative word to say about Jackson as recently as April or May 2003; long after the DA is alleging the conspiracy ended:

Attorney Michael Manning said Monday he remembers the mother saying positive things about Jackson as recently as April or May. “‘He was really good to us’ that’s what she said at the time,” Manning said. Asked if she had said anything else about Jackson, Manning added, “Nothing bad. … If it turned sour, I don’t know how.” (see article)

Now, if she and/or her children were kidnapped/abducted/being extorted, how in hell is the prosecution going to explain why she would claim He was really good to us to her own divorce attorney at the time? And this is just one witness to her comments around the time. If Manning now changes his story to cover for the accusers mother, there could be other people who could talk about what was said about the familys comments in regards to Jackson. Further, why werent the police called immediately once she escaped from Neverland? Why shop for civil attorneys first? Whats known is that the mother at least went to Bill Dickerman, Larry Feldman, and one more unnamed attorneybefore either of themwho refused to take her case. Another comprehension test the story cant seem to pass is who knew about what, and when. Apparently, the mother and family would have had to know that alleged abuse was taking place at the time the prosecution is alleging it occurred. Otherwise, what would have been the point in abducting,conspiring against the family and forcing them to tell LA Child Services (CS) that no abuse occurred? And if they knew at that time, why didnt they contact the police? Why not tell Child Services when they were alone giving their separate, multiple interviews to CS Workers? Once they had a 3rd party government agency, that (those) agency(ies) had the power to call in law enforcement immediately. But there wasnt a peep not only from the accuser, but also no word or hint at all from any of the allegedly abducted family members at the time. The convoluted tales weaved by this family and furthered by money hungry civil attorneys and friends of the accusers family simply dont add up. If the family claims abduction/false imprisonment, they all evidently escaped some time in late Feb 2003, early March 2003 because civil attorney Bill Dickerman was reportedly sending letters to Jacksons attorney, Mark Geragos, at the time. But sources can put the family at Neverland after that time. What? They liked being kidnapped so much, they decided to come back?? I dont think so. The prosecution will try, unsuccessfully, to claim the family made statements to different authorities because they were being intimidated by Jackson. However, depending on the day an interview with any given government agency occurred, no abuse was alleged to have occurred before that given interview. Take the Child Services investigation for example. If they talked to the family on Feb 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, or 19, and the family say no abuse occurred, then they would theoretically be telling the truth at the time. The prosecution is no longer alleging abuse happened before Feb 20. This is weird in itself because how can there be an almost 2 week error in what the family initially told prosecutors? But changing the story is how the prosecution is going to try to get around that prior inconsistent statement. However, what they wont be able to change the timeline to get around is the fact that the mother went to court March 11 2003 to get an increase in child support from the accusers father. Shes in open court, in front of a judge in the State of California, with court officials all around her, and she mentions absolutely nothing about being held hostage or her children being abducted/threatened by Jacksons employees. She cant claim she was too afraid to say anything because the outcry would have caused her captors to be taken into custody and arrested immediately if they were in court with her. If the conspiracy story is to be believed, being in that courtroom was a golden opportunity to get help if her family was being held hostage. Further, why would Jacksons assistants even allow the mother to go to court for any un-subpoenaed appointment if they were holding her hostage?? Would they want to risk her getting help from the court? The mother certainly wouldnt have needed to go to count if she didnt have to. She was requesting something from someone else. That means she chose to be there and went there of her own free will. In fact, she has, since, missed at least one court date in the child custody case in Los Angeles. So shes not averse to missing court appointments either. The attorney for the accusers fatherwho is tying to gain access to his childrenappeared on Crier Live Feb 20 2004. He told guest-host and tabloid reporter Diane Dimond the following:

HALPERN: We had a hearing to see whether we could resolve the matter informally. Unfortunately, Davids wife [sic] chose not to appear. DIMOND: Any hint on when the judge might decide on his petition for custody? HALPERN: Well we have a hearing set now for April 2. Prior to that, were going to have some depositions taken. Ive been speaking to her attorney to try to settle this matter because I believe eventually my client will be given visitation at the beginning. And we want to see whether we can have that done right away. I think its best for all his children. (see transcript)

According to a Fox News report on April 22 2004, the mother was driven to court by a Jackson employee on March 11 2003. This would explain the sudden shift in the cut-off date of the abuse charges by Sneddon; going from March 10 to March 12, which would cover March 11:

This conversation took place on March 11, 2003, the day Amen drove the mother to family court so she could fight her ex-husband for more child support. Amen told friends that when the judge ruled in the mother’s favor that day he thought she’d be happy. She wasn’t. “She said she’d been promised all kinds of things. She wanted to work for MJJ Productions,” my source reports. “She told Frank and Vinnie that she wanted to do Michael’s PR because of all the bad things people said about him. She thought Michael was going to make her kids into stars.” (see article)

Remember, the attorney for JC Penney, Tom Griffin was interviewed by NBCs Mike Taibbi. He said this same family has created and changed stories, after the fact, before. When they were stopped for shoplifting merchandise out of a JC Penneys store, they all claimed they were beaten badly by security guards, although there was absolutely no medical proof showing that any of this had occurred. They filed a $3 million lawsuit against the company. During Griffins investigation, he says:

It became readily apparent that this was an incident in my opinion, a scam, to extract money from JCPenney.

Further, two years later after filing the initial lawsuit, they all suddenly claimed the mother was sexually abused by a security guard. They told tales of the mother having her pelvic area fondled for up to 7 minutes in broad daylight out in the open by these security guards. There was no mention of this allegation to police at the time they filed the lawsuit. Again, two years later they all suddenly claimed sexual abuse. Maybe theyforgot just like they initially forgot they were abducted by Jacksons employees? There go those bad memories again! Please. Make no mistake about it, this information is devastating to the prosecutions case whether they admit it or not because it shows a pattern of behavior. JCPenney ultimately settled the case two days before the trial for $137,500.00, a far cry from the $3 million the family was initially seeking. This information isnt coming from the defense but rather an independent 3rd party who has had a run-in with this family in the past. And to have yet another party having a copy of this scripted testimony cannot be explained away. So far the prosecution, via the grand jury, has tailored these charges around new information theyve gathered from the media and their after-the-fact research. If they cant account for the whereabouts of this accusing family and everything that happened after March 31st, something tells me there could be more devastating surprises ahead for the prosecution. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply
