'The Abrams Report' for March 1
Read the complete transcript to Monday's showUpdated: 12:15 p.m. ET March 02, 2004
Guests: Randi Shapiro, Jim Thomas, Jayne Weintraub, Paul Pfingst, Barney Gimbel, John Coffee, Carolyn Kubota, Aitan Goelman, Norm Early, Jeralyn Merritt, Craig Silverman
ANNOUNCER: Now THE ABRAMS REPORT. Here is Dan Abrams.
DAN ABRAMS, HOST: Hi, everyone. An exclusive in the Michael Jackson case. We have an audiotape of what really happened as investigators prepared to question the accuser‘s mother and the accuser himself. You decide for yourself whether the mother may have felt intimidated.
Lots of legal developments, but we begin with another ABRAMS REPORT exclusive. Audiotapes of the mother of Michael Jackson‘s accuser meeting with Los Angeles Child Service caseworkers. The tapes recorded back in February of last year, right around the same time authorities say Jackson was molesting the boy. But for the first time, we‘re hearing the mother‘s voice and listening to her interactions both with the caseworkers and with an investigator who had worked for Michael Jackson. After this meeting Child Services found that the allegations of abuse were–quote–
“unfounded.”
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ABRAMS (voice-over): The tape begins as representatives from Los Angeles Child Services arrive at the apartment where the mother was staying.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi.
MOTHER: These are the ladies from the Child Social Services.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How are you?
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: They‘re there to interview the alleged victim, age 13, and his brother and sister. When the caseworkers arrive, the children appear to be watching a home video of Jackson and the alleged victim. Jackson‘s heard singing.
(MUSIC)
MOTHER: This is something personal.
DCFS REP #1: Oh, OK.
(MUSIC)
ABRAMS: According to this Child Services report, the investigation was prompted by a call from a school official who had seen a documentary with Jackson and some children, including the boy–quote–“in which the children had stated that they shared the same bed as the entertainer.” The allegations, sexual abuse by Jackson and neglect by the mother.
DCFS REP #2: OK, this is what we‘re going to do. I have to interview. We have to interview each one of you separately...
MOTHER: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
DCFS REP #2: So (UNINTELLIGIBLE) it‘s confidential so the other people are not going to be able to remain.
MOTHER: I also want to know the–all the allegations...
DCFS REP #2: I‘m going to do that, we‘re going to go through all of them.
MOTHER: I want to be present when they ask my children questions.
What are my rights? What are their rights?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well you know what, can we–I would like to read you everything...
ABRAMS: One of the most important questions–did the family feel intimidated by the presence of others, including an investigator who had worked with Jackson. On the “Today” show in January, Jamie Masada, the man who said he introduced Jackson and the boy, said yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The boy and his mother told Los Angeles Department of Family Services that nothing happened between Jackson and the boy. At the time she said that, Jamie...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... do you believe she honestly thought that was true, or do you believe she was being intimidated or felt intimidated?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think that at some point she felt intimidated...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... because some representative of Michael Jackson was present at the time they were interviewing her. That‘s what I heard.
ABRAMS: But on the tape, Child Services informs the mother they want to interview each person separately and alone, and the mother says she invited the others to be there.
DCFS REP #3: The only people that we are supposed to see are you and your children.
(CROSSTALK)
DCFS REP #3: And I understand that your security...
MOTHER: No, they‘re here for my - per my invitation, my request.
DCFS REP #3: OK.
MOTHER: Not...
DCFS REP #3: OK, I understand that but what I‘m saying to you is that because we, of the way we work and the confidential–confidentiality laws that we have we can only talk to you and your three children being present. We can‘t have anybody present during the interview process. They can‘t know what the allegations are...
ABRAMS: Later on the tape the mother even seemed to work with the Jackson investigator, trying to tape the interviews.
JACKSON REPRESENATIVE: This is the tape recorder.
MOTHER: OK.
JACKSON REPRESENTATIVE: All right. So it won‘t be suspicious I‘m just going to leave it there.
MOTHER: OK.
JACKSON REPRESENTATIVE: You just need a place to put it when they are interviewing you...
MOTHER: OK.
JACKSON REPRESENTATIVE: You don‘t have to do nothing. It‘s working...
MOTHER: OK.
JACKSON REPRESENTATIVE: You just need a place–I don‘t know what you want to do.
MOTHER: OK, I am going to put it right here.
ABRAMS: The mother also expresses concern that word of the allegations might leak out to the public.
DCFS REP #3: This is between our department and you and your children, no one else.
MOTHER: And the world...
DCFS REP #3: No, well no, it‘s not. That‘s what I‘m saying and that‘s exactly why we‘re trying to do this as discreetly as possible. All the cases are sealed. No one has any records or anything. I know that you know 10 years ago when other allegations came out regarding Michael Jackson things got in the news, what have you. That‘s the reason that our unit was developed.
ABRAMS: But the boy‘s mom also seemed worried that she was the target of the investigation.
MOTHER: You know why I‘m at the highest cautious (sic) because you know...
DCFS REP #2: I understand...
MOTHER: ... worldwide it‘s...
DCFS REP #2: Right.
MOTHER: ... in billboards, bad mother and all these things...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: The tape ends as the first interview begins.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To call that an investigation is a misnomer. It was an interview.
ABRAMS: It‘s unlikely anything on the tape would change the view of the district attorney, who‘s minimized the significance of the report and its findings that the allegations were unfounded.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And that‘s all it was, and that particular department has a lot of problems.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ABRAMS: All right. The Los Angeles Department of Child and Family Services responded to our report with a statement.
Quote–“It is critical that we maintain confidentiality when speaking with clients to make sure that they feel safe when working with the department.”
Meanwhile, Stu Riskin with the Los Angeles Department tells us his department is launching an internal investigation into who leaked the tapes. Riskin says they will investigate whether the leak was internal or whether the tapes come from someone outside the DCFS.
So, what do the tapes tell us? Did these caseworkers follow the proper procedure when they conducted the interview? Might the mother still have been intimidated? Joining us now is former Florida Child Protective investigator Randi Shapiro. Thank you very much for coming on the program. We appreciate it.
RANDI SHAPIRO, FMR. FLORIDA CHILD PROTECTIVE INVESTIGATOR: Thank you.
ABRAMS: So based on what you heard from that tape as to the protocol and the way they were going about talking to the mother, et cetera, does that seem like standard operating procedure to you?
SHAPIRO: It‘s standard operating procedure to interview the children
and the mother independently, without anybody else present, the children
each individually. And taping it the way that it was taped, I don‘t think
· it obviously shouldn‘t have been done. I don‘t know who had the tape recorder set up. It sounded like the mother and the Jackson investigator, am I correct?
ABRAMS: I‘m not going to talk about you know who...
SHAPIRO: Oh, you don‘t know? OK.
ABRAMS: Yes, I mean I don‘t know that I even know the answer to that question, but I can‘t tell you sort of where I got this tape.
SHAPIRO: OK, I understand that. But I don‘t think that having anybody else present is what I would do. I would never have anybody else present. In fact, it would only be the children individually and the mother individually.
ABRAMS: And what if it were a high-profile case and the person you go to interview says, look, these people are here because I‘ve asked them to be here, you know, there was one other person there who was a family friend that you can hear on the tape and the mother talks about how important that family friend is to her. Can you allow people to stay for support?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The mike dropped.
ABRAMS: Randi, can you hear me?
SHAPIRO: No (UNINTELLIGIBLE). No, I can hear you now.
ABRAMS: OK. I was asking whether you can have other people allowed to stay there for support.
SHAPIRO: No, I would not. It‘s statutory in the state of Florida that the children are independently interviewed without anybody else present. If I had a problem with other people present, then I would most likely–more than likely call law enforcement to be there present with me, and they would ensure that this is an individual–an independent interview.
ABRAMS: Yes and I should point out that again, what we‘re talking about is everything that leads up to the actual interviews. Again, there‘s nothing on the tape to indicate that someone else was present when the actual interviews occurred.
Randi Shapiro, thank you very much for coming on the program. We appreciate it.
SHAPIRO: Thank you.
ABRAMS: Up next, more on the developments in the Michael Jackson case. Can these audiotapes be used in court? Our panel weighs in next. And Jackson launches a new Web site with a new message.
Plus, the Martha Stewart trial begins with what could be–or it begins what could be the make or break phase of the trial–the closing arguments.
And the woman accusing Kobe Bryant of rape expected to testify in a Colorado courtroom tomorrow. Bryant‘s lawyers will get a chance to question her face to face for the first time.
What do you think? Your e-mails abramsreport@msnbc.com. I‘ll respond at the end of the show.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: Coming up, closing arguments in the Martha Stewart trial.
How bad does it look for Martha?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACKSON REPRESENTATIVE: This is the tape recorder.
MOTHER: OK.
JACKSON REPRESENTATIVE: All right. So it won‘t be suspicious I‘m just going to leave it there.
MOTHER: OK.
JACKSON REPRESENTATIVE: You just need a place to put it when they are interviewing you...
MOTHER: OK.
JACKSON REPRESENTATIVE: You don‘t have to do nothing. It‘s working...
MOTHER: OK.
JACKSON REPRESENTATIVE: ... you just need a place–I don‘t know what you want to do.
MOTHER: OK, I am going to put it right here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABRAMS: That was the mother of Michael Jackson‘s accuser talking with an investigator who had worked for Jackson discussing how to tape what was supposed to have been a confidential meeting between the mother and Child Service caseworkers.
Let‘s bring in our legal team now to talk about these tapes, former Santa Barbara County sheriff and MSNBC analyst Jim Thomas, MSNBC analyst and former prosecutor Paul Pfingst, and criminal defense attorney Jayne Weintraub.
JAYNE WEINTRAUB, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Hi Dan.
ABRAMS: All right, Sheriff Thomas, first of all, your reaction to this tape.
JIM THOMAS, FMR. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFF: Hey Dan. I–you know I think there would be two reasons that Jackson camp would want to make that tape. Number one, to see if there were any evidence that would come out in the interview either with the mother or the children, and number two, to know exactly what the mother and the children said in that confidential interview, and I think that that would have a real chilling effect on the mother.
ABRAMS: Jayne Weintraub, I mean I–look, it‘s interesting that since this came out, I‘ve heard from both sides who seem angry, the Jackson camp, a lot of them, the family members, et cetera, saying you know this looks bad for us, because sort of what is an investigator doing there, why is he at the home? And on the other side, I‘ve got people who are on the prosecution‘s side saying to me you know this looks bad for us because it impugns the credibility of the mother. I don‘t know. What do you make of it Jayne?
WEINTRAUB: Well as a defense lawyer, number one, you know you asked in the teaser whether or not the tapes would be admissible in court. And I think as a defense lawyer, number one, it‘s very important to have those tapes, although it quite–quote–“may have looked bad for Jackson‘s camp”, he‘s darned lucky that he had an investigator there. Because what we do know is that the allegation was denied. We know that we‘re dealing with a 13-year-old, Dan. We‘re not dealing with a 5 or 6-year-old toddler accuser, we‘re dealing with a 13-year-old...
ABRAMS: So does the tape come in, even though the tape doesn‘t have anything on it specifically...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... about guilt or innocence?
WEINTRAUB: Well, I think that the tape will be used by the defense to impeach the accuser and/or the mother. That‘s how I think the tape will come into court. I don‘t think that the prosecutors would want to introduce this as evidence at all.
ABRAMS: But Paul, only if the mother, I would think, gets on the witness stand and says you know I felt intimidated, right?
PAUL PFINGST, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, I think this tape stinks. I think a lot of people are going to say why does Michael Jackson have an investigator at the mom‘s house in advance of this investigation? Because that‘s something that makes a lot of us very uncomfortable, because you do get a feeling that that person is there to make–not just to make sure that there‘s active investigation, to be part of a proactive defense strategy to make sure that information does not come to light. So I‘m not so sure that this is something that the defense is going to look forward to. But it does show that there are two periods in this–in the victim‘s life. One when the victim and his family were very closely connected with the Jackson family. The second is when they split from the Jackson family and complained about the behavior. This tape sort of illuminates that relationship in some degree, but I think it‘s going–we‘re going to hear more about what caused that split, which is ultimately...
ABRAMS: And I guess the question is–I guess the question is what was the investigator doing there? Meaning was he invited or asked to come? I mean, you did hear on the tape...
WEINTRAUB: The mom said so.
ABRAMS: ... the mother says I invited them to come. You know that‘s different than...
PFINGST: Yes...
ABRAMS: Go ahead Paul.
PFINGST: Oh no...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dan.
PFINGST: ... when you invited them to come, I mean what–defense investigators and most investigators are pretty smart. They know what‘s going to happen, is that this is going to be the subject of a legal examination later on at a trial, if criminal charges are brought. So I said I invited them to come–a lot of people can weasel an invitation, but a jury is not going to sit there and be oblivious to the fact that why is there a defense investigator present at this mother‘s home when she‘s being interviewed by child investigative services?
WEINTRAUB: Paul, hold on a minute...
PFINGST: That doesn‘t have a good feel to it.
ABRAMS: Jayne–I‘m going to let Jayne respond...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dan...
ABRAMS: Let me let Jayne respond then...
WEINTRAUB: Paul, there is nothing wrong at all with a defense lawyer‘s investigator going to take a statement from a witness. You know, that is really, you know, what I would call unfair. The accuser doesn‘t belong to the prosecution‘s team. The prosecutor is supposed to be seeking justice.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But again...
(CROSSTALK)
PFINGST: No...
(CROSSTALK)
WEINTRAUB: Justice...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: But to me that–but that‘s a general point. To me the point is that I hear on that tape the mother saying I invited these people here defending the fact that she‘s got other people present–Sheriff Thomas.
THOMAS: Dan, I think this brings into question again the thoroughness of the initial investigation or the interview. Number one, in the memo that was leaked by DCFS, they said that Los Angeles Police Department was present during the investigation, and we know now that they were not. Number two, they held the interview in an uncontrolled situation...
ABRAMS: They said they were part...
(CROSSTALK)
THOMAS: ... done in the first place.
ABRAMS: They said part of the investigation. They didn‘t say that they were necessarily...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... present during the interview.
THOMAS: At one point I think they did. But the other part is that they had an uncontrolled situation that allowed this tape to happen. We know, again, that they were recontacted in June by a therapist who said that a molestation had occurred and they refused to reopen the case. So I think this really brings some question on the conclusion that DCFS made initially.
ABRAMS: Jayne–Paul, is this admissible?
WEINTRAUB: It‘s not admissible from the state‘s point of view to bring it in. And frankly, Dan, they wouldn‘t want to bring it in, because it doesn‘t help their case. It‘s going to be admissible as impeachment evidence. It‘s going to show the discrepancy if the child takes the witness stand and says now something different than he said on the tape. On the tape we‘re sure that there‘s a denial as with the mother. The mother is now...
ABRAMS: Paul...
WEINTRAUB: ... pretending that she doesn‘t know what the...
ABRAMS: Paul, very quickly, yes or no.
PFINGST: Yes, it‘s admissible to show the nature of the investigation and the steps that law enforcement took that led them to this criminal charge.
WEINTRAUB: Prior consistent statement won‘t be admissible...
ABRAMS: All right...
WEINTRAUB: ... $5 on it, Paul.
ABRAMS: All right...
PFINGST: OK, you‘ve got it.
ABRAMS: All right, we shall see. Sheriff Thomas, Paul Pfingst, Jayne Weintraub, thanks a lot.
WEINTRAUB: Thank you.
Source: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4430138/
Read the complete transcript to Monday's showUpdated: 12:15 p.m. ET March 02, 2004
Guests: Randi Shapiro, Jim Thomas, Jayne Weintraub, Paul Pfingst, Barney Gimbel, John Coffee, Carolyn Kubota, Aitan Goelman, Norm Early, Jeralyn Merritt, Craig Silverman
ANNOUNCER: Now THE ABRAMS REPORT. Here is Dan Abrams.
DAN ABRAMS, HOST: Hi, everyone. An exclusive in the Michael Jackson case. We have an audiotape of what really happened as investigators prepared to question the accuser‘s mother and the accuser himself. You decide for yourself whether the mother may have felt intimidated.
Lots of legal developments, but we begin with another ABRAMS REPORT exclusive. Audiotapes of the mother of Michael Jackson‘s accuser meeting with Los Angeles Child Service caseworkers. The tapes recorded back in February of last year, right around the same time authorities say Jackson was molesting the boy. But for the first time, we‘re hearing the mother‘s voice and listening to her interactions both with the caseworkers and with an investigator who had worked for Michael Jackson. After this meeting Child Services found that the allegations of abuse were–quote–
“unfounded.”
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ABRAMS (voice-over): The tape begins as representatives from Los Angeles Child Services arrive at the apartment where the mother was staying.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi.
MOTHER: These are the ladies from the Child Social Services.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How are you?
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: They‘re there to interview the alleged victim, age 13, and his brother and sister. When the caseworkers arrive, the children appear to be watching a home video of Jackson and the alleged victim. Jackson‘s heard singing.
(MUSIC)
MOTHER: This is something personal.
DCFS REP #1: Oh, OK.
(MUSIC)
ABRAMS: According to this Child Services report, the investigation was prompted by a call from a school official who had seen a documentary with Jackson and some children, including the boy–quote–“in which the children had stated that they shared the same bed as the entertainer.” The allegations, sexual abuse by Jackson and neglect by the mother.
DCFS REP #2: OK, this is what we‘re going to do. I have to interview. We have to interview each one of you separately...
MOTHER: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
DCFS REP #2: So (UNINTELLIGIBLE) it‘s confidential so the other people are not going to be able to remain.
MOTHER: I also want to know the–all the allegations...
DCFS REP #2: I‘m going to do that, we‘re going to go through all of them.
MOTHER: I want to be present when they ask my children questions.
What are my rights? What are their rights?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well you know what, can we–I would like to read you everything...
ABRAMS: One of the most important questions–did the family feel intimidated by the presence of others, including an investigator who had worked with Jackson. On the “Today” show in January, Jamie Masada, the man who said he introduced Jackson and the boy, said yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The boy and his mother told Los Angeles Department of Family Services that nothing happened between Jackson and the boy. At the time she said that, Jamie...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... do you believe she honestly thought that was true, or do you believe she was being intimidated or felt intimidated?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think that at some point she felt intimidated...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... because some representative of Michael Jackson was present at the time they were interviewing her. That‘s what I heard.
ABRAMS: But on the tape, Child Services informs the mother they want to interview each person separately and alone, and the mother says she invited the others to be there.
DCFS REP #3: The only people that we are supposed to see are you and your children.
(CROSSTALK)
DCFS REP #3: And I understand that your security...
MOTHER: No, they‘re here for my - per my invitation, my request.
DCFS REP #3: OK.
MOTHER: Not...
DCFS REP #3: OK, I understand that but what I‘m saying to you is that because we, of the way we work and the confidential–confidentiality laws that we have we can only talk to you and your three children being present. We can‘t have anybody present during the interview process. They can‘t know what the allegations are...
ABRAMS: Later on the tape the mother even seemed to work with the Jackson investigator, trying to tape the interviews.
JACKSON REPRESENATIVE: This is the tape recorder.
MOTHER: OK.
JACKSON REPRESENTATIVE: All right. So it won‘t be suspicious I‘m just going to leave it there.
MOTHER: OK.
JACKSON REPRESENTATIVE: You just need a place to put it when they are interviewing you...
MOTHER: OK.
JACKSON REPRESENTATIVE: You don‘t have to do nothing. It‘s working...
MOTHER: OK.
JACKSON REPRESENTATIVE: You just need a place–I don‘t know what you want to do.
MOTHER: OK, I am going to put it right here.
ABRAMS: The mother also expresses concern that word of the allegations might leak out to the public.
DCFS REP #3: This is between our department and you and your children, no one else.
MOTHER: And the world...
DCFS REP #3: No, well no, it‘s not. That‘s what I‘m saying and that‘s exactly why we‘re trying to do this as discreetly as possible. All the cases are sealed. No one has any records or anything. I know that you know 10 years ago when other allegations came out regarding Michael Jackson things got in the news, what have you. That‘s the reason that our unit was developed.
ABRAMS: But the boy‘s mom also seemed worried that she was the target of the investigation.
MOTHER: You know why I‘m at the highest cautious (sic) because you know...
DCFS REP #2: I understand...
MOTHER: ... worldwide it‘s...
DCFS REP #2: Right.
MOTHER: ... in billboards, bad mother and all these things...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: The tape ends as the first interview begins.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To call that an investigation is a misnomer. It was an interview.
ABRAMS: It‘s unlikely anything on the tape would change the view of the district attorney, who‘s minimized the significance of the report and its findings that the allegations were unfounded.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And that‘s all it was, and that particular department has a lot of problems.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ABRAMS: All right. The Los Angeles Department of Child and Family Services responded to our report with a statement.
Quote–“It is critical that we maintain confidentiality when speaking with clients to make sure that they feel safe when working with the department.”
Meanwhile, Stu Riskin with the Los Angeles Department tells us his department is launching an internal investigation into who leaked the tapes. Riskin says they will investigate whether the leak was internal or whether the tapes come from someone outside the DCFS.
So, what do the tapes tell us? Did these caseworkers follow the proper procedure when they conducted the interview? Might the mother still have been intimidated? Joining us now is former Florida Child Protective investigator Randi Shapiro. Thank you very much for coming on the program. We appreciate it.
RANDI SHAPIRO, FMR. FLORIDA CHILD PROTECTIVE INVESTIGATOR: Thank you.
ABRAMS: So based on what you heard from that tape as to the protocol and the way they were going about talking to the mother, et cetera, does that seem like standard operating procedure to you?
SHAPIRO: It‘s standard operating procedure to interview the children
and the mother independently, without anybody else present, the children
each individually. And taping it the way that it was taped, I don‘t think
· it obviously shouldn‘t have been done. I don‘t know who had the tape recorder set up. It sounded like the mother and the Jackson investigator, am I correct?
ABRAMS: I‘m not going to talk about you know who...
SHAPIRO: Oh, you don‘t know? OK.
ABRAMS: Yes, I mean I don‘t know that I even know the answer to that question, but I can‘t tell you sort of where I got this tape.
SHAPIRO: OK, I understand that. But I don‘t think that having anybody else present is what I would do. I would never have anybody else present. In fact, it would only be the children individually and the mother individually.
ABRAMS: And what if it were a high-profile case and the person you go to interview says, look, these people are here because I‘ve asked them to be here, you know, there was one other person there who was a family friend that you can hear on the tape and the mother talks about how important that family friend is to her. Can you allow people to stay for support?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The mike dropped.
ABRAMS: Randi, can you hear me?
SHAPIRO: No (UNINTELLIGIBLE). No, I can hear you now.
ABRAMS: OK. I was asking whether you can have other people allowed to stay there for support.
SHAPIRO: No, I would not. It‘s statutory in the state of Florida that the children are independently interviewed without anybody else present. If I had a problem with other people present, then I would most likely–more than likely call law enforcement to be there present with me, and they would ensure that this is an individual–an independent interview.
ABRAMS: Yes and I should point out that again, what we‘re talking about is everything that leads up to the actual interviews. Again, there‘s nothing on the tape to indicate that someone else was present when the actual interviews occurred.
Randi Shapiro, thank you very much for coming on the program. We appreciate it.
SHAPIRO: Thank you.
ABRAMS: Up next, more on the developments in the Michael Jackson case. Can these audiotapes be used in court? Our panel weighs in next. And Jackson launches a new Web site with a new message.
Plus, the Martha Stewart trial begins with what could be–or it begins what could be the make or break phase of the trial–the closing arguments.
And the woman accusing Kobe Bryant of rape expected to testify in a Colorado courtroom tomorrow. Bryant‘s lawyers will get a chance to question her face to face for the first time.
What do you think? Your e-mails abramsreport@msnbc.com. I‘ll respond at the end of the show.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: Coming up, closing arguments in the Martha Stewart trial.
How bad does it look for Martha?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACKSON REPRESENTATIVE: This is the tape recorder.
MOTHER: OK.
JACKSON REPRESENTATIVE: All right. So it won‘t be suspicious I‘m just going to leave it there.
MOTHER: OK.
JACKSON REPRESENTATIVE: You just need a place to put it when they are interviewing you...
MOTHER: OK.
JACKSON REPRESENTATIVE: You don‘t have to do nothing. It‘s working...
MOTHER: OK.
JACKSON REPRESENTATIVE: ... you just need a place–I don‘t know what you want to do.
MOTHER: OK, I am going to put it right here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABRAMS: That was the mother of Michael Jackson‘s accuser talking with an investigator who had worked for Jackson discussing how to tape what was supposed to have been a confidential meeting between the mother and Child Service caseworkers.
Let‘s bring in our legal team now to talk about these tapes, former Santa Barbara County sheriff and MSNBC analyst Jim Thomas, MSNBC analyst and former prosecutor Paul Pfingst, and criminal defense attorney Jayne Weintraub.
JAYNE WEINTRAUB, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Hi Dan.
ABRAMS: All right, Sheriff Thomas, first of all, your reaction to this tape.
JIM THOMAS, FMR. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFF: Hey Dan. I–you know I think there would be two reasons that Jackson camp would want to make that tape. Number one, to see if there were any evidence that would come out in the interview either with the mother or the children, and number two, to know exactly what the mother and the children said in that confidential interview, and I think that that would have a real chilling effect on the mother.
ABRAMS: Jayne Weintraub, I mean I–look, it‘s interesting that since this came out, I‘ve heard from both sides who seem angry, the Jackson camp, a lot of them, the family members, et cetera, saying you know this looks bad for us, because sort of what is an investigator doing there, why is he at the home? And on the other side, I‘ve got people who are on the prosecution‘s side saying to me you know this looks bad for us because it impugns the credibility of the mother. I don‘t know. What do you make of it Jayne?
WEINTRAUB: Well as a defense lawyer, number one, you know you asked in the teaser whether or not the tapes would be admissible in court. And I think as a defense lawyer, number one, it‘s very important to have those tapes, although it quite–quote–“may have looked bad for Jackson‘s camp”, he‘s darned lucky that he had an investigator there. Because what we do know is that the allegation was denied. We know that we‘re dealing with a 13-year-old, Dan. We‘re not dealing with a 5 or 6-year-old toddler accuser, we‘re dealing with a 13-year-old...
ABRAMS: So does the tape come in, even though the tape doesn‘t have anything on it specifically...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... about guilt or innocence?
WEINTRAUB: Well, I think that the tape will be used by the defense to impeach the accuser and/or the mother. That‘s how I think the tape will come into court. I don‘t think that the prosecutors would want to introduce this as evidence at all.
ABRAMS: But Paul, only if the mother, I would think, gets on the witness stand and says you know I felt intimidated, right?
PAUL PFINGST, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, I think this tape stinks. I think a lot of people are going to say why does Michael Jackson have an investigator at the mom‘s house in advance of this investigation? Because that‘s something that makes a lot of us very uncomfortable, because you do get a feeling that that person is there to make–not just to make sure that there‘s active investigation, to be part of a proactive defense strategy to make sure that information does not come to light. So I‘m not so sure that this is something that the defense is going to look forward to. But it does show that there are two periods in this–in the victim‘s life. One when the victim and his family were very closely connected with the Jackson family. The second is when they split from the Jackson family and complained about the behavior. This tape sort of illuminates that relationship in some degree, but I think it‘s going–we‘re going to hear more about what caused that split, which is ultimately...
ABRAMS: And I guess the question is–I guess the question is what was the investigator doing there? Meaning was he invited or asked to come? I mean, you did hear on the tape...
WEINTRAUB: The mom said so.
ABRAMS: ... the mother says I invited them to come. You know that‘s different than...
PFINGST: Yes...
ABRAMS: Go ahead Paul.
PFINGST: Oh no...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dan.
PFINGST: ... when you invited them to come, I mean what–defense investigators and most investigators are pretty smart. They know what‘s going to happen, is that this is going to be the subject of a legal examination later on at a trial, if criminal charges are brought. So I said I invited them to come–a lot of people can weasel an invitation, but a jury is not going to sit there and be oblivious to the fact that why is there a defense investigator present at this mother‘s home when she‘s being interviewed by child investigative services?
WEINTRAUB: Paul, hold on a minute...
PFINGST: That doesn‘t have a good feel to it.
ABRAMS: Jayne–I‘m going to let Jayne respond...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dan...
ABRAMS: Let me let Jayne respond then...
WEINTRAUB: Paul, there is nothing wrong at all with a defense lawyer‘s investigator going to take a statement from a witness. You know, that is really, you know, what I would call unfair. The accuser doesn‘t belong to the prosecution‘s team. The prosecutor is supposed to be seeking justice.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But again...
(CROSSTALK)
PFINGST: No...
(CROSSTALK)
WEINTRAUB: Justice...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: But to me that–but that‘s a general point. To me the point is that I hear on that tape the mother saying I invited these people here defending the fact that she‘s got other people present–Sheriff Thomas.
THOMAS: Dan, I think this brings into question again the thoroughness of the initial investigation or the interview. Number one, in the memo that was leaked by DCFS, they said that Los Angeles Police Department was present during the investigation, and we know now that they were not. Number two, they held the interview in an uncontrolled situation...
ABRAMS: They said they were part...
(CROSSTALK)
THOMAS: ... done in the first place.
ABRAMS: They said part of the investigation. They didn‘t say that they were necessarily...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... present during the interview.
THOMAS: At one point I think they did. But the other part is that they had an uncontrolled situation that allowed this tape to happen. We know, again, that they were recontacted in June by a therapist who said that a molestation had occurred and they refused to reopen the case. So I think this really brings some question on the conclusion that DCFS made initially.
ABRAMS: Jayne–Paul, is this admissible?
WEINTRAUB: It‘s not admissible from the state‘s point of view to bring it in. And frankly, Dan, they wouldn‘t want to bring it in, because it doesn‘t help their case. It‘s going to be admissible as impeachment evidence. It‘s going to show the discrepancy if the child takes the witness stand and says now something different than he said on the tape. On the tape we‘re sure that there‘s a denial as with the mother. The mother is now...
ABRAMS: Paul...
WEINTRAUB: ... pretending that she doesn‘t know what the...
ABRAMS: Paul, very quickly, yes or no.
PFINGST: Yes, it‘s admissible to show the nature of the investigation and the steps that law enforcement took that led them to this criminal charge.
WEINTRAUB: Prior consistent statement won‘t be admissible...
ABRAMS: All right...
WEINTRAUB: ... $5 on it, Paul.
ABRAMS: All right...
PFINGST: OK, you‘ve got it.
ABRAMS: All right, we shall see. Sheriff Thomas, Paul Pfingst, Jayne Weintraub, thanks a lot.
WEINTRAUB: Thank you.
Source: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4430138/