'The Abrams Report' for April 21
Read the complete transcript to Wednesday's show
Updated: 11:22 a.m. ET April 22, 2004
Guests: Craig Silverman, Jayne Weintraub, Dean Johnson, John Burris, Jim Thomas, Joe Tacopina
...
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: We‘ve been talking about the grand jury in the Michael Jackson case. But so far we‘ve only been talking about whether Michael Jackson will be indicted. What about Jackson‘s associates who allegedly threatened Jackson‘s accuser and his family? Prosecutors have been considering indicting them as well. They could face charges of conspiracy, maybe obstruction. Frank Tyson worked as Jackson‘s personal assistant.
We can report that in an interview with psychologist Stan Katz, the brother of Jackson‘s accuser allegedly said–quote–“A Jackson security guard named Frank told us he would kill us and our parents” if they told authorities about Jackson giving them alcohol. And the accuser‘s mother says Vincent Amen, a man who worked for Jackson‘s production company, held the accuser‘s family at Neverland ranch against its will.
Joe Tacopina is the attorney representing both Frank Tyson and Vincent Doman. You guys know Joe Tacopina. He joins us now. Joe, thanks for coming back on the program.
JOE TACOPINA, REPRESENTING JACKSON‘S ASSOCIATES: Sure Dan.
ABRAMS: All right. So first of all, did you know about that from the psychologist‘s report that the boy–the brother had said that a guy named Frank, presumably Frank Tyson, had said that they were going to do these things to them if they reported about the alcohol?
TACOPINA: I mean I‘ve heard the allegations. Sure, Mike–I know Mike Taibbi broke it on NBC a while back. You know I put it into the same credibility pot as all these other allegations that seem to be you know picking up steam, if you will, as the case goes forward. It‘s ludicrous Dan. I mean Frank Tyson is hardly a security guard. He weighs about 130 pounds wet. He‘s a dear, dear, very close personal friend of Michael‘s–of Jackson‘s, and he was his personal assistant. He wasn‘t a security guard, a bodyguard, any sort of a guard. And the allegation, like many of the other allegations I‘ve heard in this case, are going to fall by the wayside when tested, when challenged, when examined under cross examination, if I‘m given that opportunity.
ABRAMS: See here‘s my concern, is that you know I get the inconsistent stories. I mean that‘s going to be a real big problem, I think, for the prosecutors in this case...
TACOPINA: Yes.
ABRAMS: ... is the fact they do these investigations, they don‘t turn up anything.
TACOPINA: Right.
ABRAMS: But you know then you start having the kids throwing in these details. I mean a detail like that Frank threatened he would, what was it, kill us or hurt us if we disclosed the bit about the alcohol. I mean you know, it starts to add a level of credibility, no?
TACOPINA: You know, Dan, I heard what the prosecutor said about the devils and the details, and when you have more details, certainly it lends credibility and that‘s true. I used to prosecute these cases. I‘ve defended them. But you know you have to look at when the details came to be. I mean if the details just came to the surface only a few weeks ago or a month or so ago, you know, you question why didn‘t the details arise before.
And one thing I think that‘s been made clear is there have been allegations in this case about the accuser‘s mother and the children‘s mother in this case, and how she conducted the preparation of her children in the J.C. Penney lawsuit. There‘s been some serious question as to whether or not she prepped them to say certain things in their deposition. You know there are all sorts of problems with their credibility.
I mean I don‘t think I‘m breaking this on the air here tonight. I mean she‘s–has all sorts of issues that have been reported. There are issues of perjury in depositions, in court-sworn affidavits. Again, there are built-in credibility problems with this case, with this accuser‘s parents and with–and some of the details the accusers are giving. If I have to answer these charges for my clients or client, Dan, I am so confident that we will–and I don‘t mean to sound cavalier, because I‘m not taking this lightly. But I‘m so confident that we will shatter the notion that Frank or Vincent did anything wrong. I‘m not only confident based on my conversation with my clients, based on witness conversations, but there are documents out there that will absolutely shred these allegations.
ABRAMS: Do you expect the grand jury to indict your clients?
TACOPINA: You know, this is the Michael Jackson case. Normally, based on my review of this evidence, I don‘t even think we‘d be having a conversation about whether or not it‘s going to happen. However, here, you know, I think this district attorney‘s case has some real holes in it, mainly the...
ABRAMS: Right.
TACOPINA: ... built-in credibility problems.
ABRAMS: But do you think...
TACOPINA: And what I‘m saying...
ABRAMS: ... do you think–yes, go ahead.
TACOPINA: What I‘m saying, Dan, is in a case like that where there‘s so many issues, when you bring in the pale of cover-up, when you bring in the malodorous scent of intimidation of witnesses, it sort of lends credibility to the underlying charges. So, I could see the tactical advantage in a prosecutor wanting to get an indictment for obstruction and witness tampering to strengthen the underlying case. Do I expect it? No.
I expect that the jurors will listen to the exculpatory evidence provided by the defense, will look at some of the issues they have with the credibility of maybe the witnesses, and will realize that common sense and documentary evidence defies the allegations. It didn‘t happen. If they indict, we‘ll be there with bells and whistles ready to go and we‘ll have this discussion before a jury.
ABRAMS: Jayne Weintraub, this could become an important element of the case. If the prosecutors can somehow show that you have Jackson employees strong-arming the family that would certainly bolster their case. So, if it really bolsters their case and the prosecutors believe it, do you expect–apart from whether you think that they‘re guilty or not, do you expect that this grand jury will indict?
WEINTRAUB: I think that they would need more evidence other than–even for an indictment, other than just the 9-year-old little brother...
ABRAMS: They have the mother too. The mother is claiming that...
WEINTRAUB: But...
ABRAMS: ... she was–yes...
WEINTRAUB: But the mother doesn‘t have a lot of credibility. And as Joe was saying, I mean the mother‘s already, you know, been accused of suborting perjury, for lack of a better term, and already telling these kids what to say in order to get money. You know it‘s called a little fact and a little–mixing with a little fiction Dan. It‘s an old ploy. You take a bit of a fact. There was a security guard named Frank and you say he was trying...
ABRAMS: Personal assistant. Joe is clarifying. He said he wasn‘t a security guard, a personal assistant...
WEINTRAUB: But it‘s a little fact and a little fiction. These kids are not babies, they can remember that. They know that it‘s going to enhance their lives, make them millionaires, a lot of money. Even the father didn‘t believe the little boy.
ABRAMS: But why not just go sue in civil court then, I mean if, you know, if you want to get money?
WEINTRAUB: That‘s exactly where this case belongs, number one, and number two, if they were caught, if they did anything so stupid, where are the video cameras at Neverland Ranch? Where are the security cameras at Neverland Ranch...
TACOPINA: Yes.
WEINTRAUB: ... to show that they were being held up there?
ABRAMS: Go ahead Joe...
WEINTRAUB: ... come on.
TACOPINA: Yes, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I‘ve been there. Let me tell you. There are no bars, there are no chains, there are no–there‘s nothing to hold anyone there.
WEINTRAUB: They love being there.
TACOPINA: The notion that–believe me they love being there. And when the gravy train started to come to a screaming halt at the station, it became an issue of oh, you know we were held against our will. Let me just tell you–there‘s no way to hold someone there without physically holding them down. The place is too large, too spread open–look at that–too wide open, number one, no one was held against their will at Neverland. And number two, what good exactly does sending them to Brazil against their will do? That allegation is out there, too.
ABRAMS: All right.
TACOPINA: What, they can‘t come back or they can‘t call the authorities from Brazil? They don‘t have a million friends that can help them out?
ABRAMS: Dean Johnson...
TACOPINA: ... it defies common sense.
ABRAMS: ... what do you make of this?
JOHNSON: Well, the problem with that remark is that pedophiles don‘t hold people by chains. They hold children by candy and soda and stuffed animals.
TACOPINA: These aren‘t pedophiles.
JOHNSON: Never, Neverland...
TACOPINA: ... different allegation.
JOHNSON: Neverland is a place that would be a pedophile‘s dream.
TACOPINA: No, you‘re mixing up the allegations.
JOHNSON: What‘s real clear about this is that the strength or weakness of the case against the employees is roughly equal to that of the strength or weakness of the case against Jackson. They depend on the credibility...
ABRAMS: You know...
JOHNSON: ... essentially of the same witnesses...
ABRAMS: But see, I‘ve got to tell you. I think it‘s actually weaker...
JOHNSON: There are going to be credibility issues going...
ABRAMS: Right.
JOHNSON: ... all over the place here...
ABRAMS: But I‘ll tell you why it‘s weaker Dean...
(CROSSTALK)
TACOPINA: Because I‘m involved, right Dan?
ABRAMS: No.
TACOPINA: Oh.
ABRAMS: ... it‘s weaker, because Joe‘s involved. But also, more
importantly, is that I think that when the mother is probably the difficult
· the most difficult one with regard to credibility...
TACOPINA: Absolutely...
ABRAMS: ... meaning I think she‘s the easiest one to attack in this case, and if the case against them relies in large part on the mother‘s account, I think that‘s a much harder case than relying on two kids who sit up there and say look, this is what happened to me. Do you disagree, Dean?
JOHNSON: No, I don‘t disagree. But I think, as I said before, that there is a lot of evidence to corroborate these kids‘ statements...
ABRAMS: Yes...
JOHNSON: ... and they go into a great deal of detail...
ABRAMS: All right.
JOHNSON: ... and specificity equals credibility.
ABRAMS: We shall see. Joe Tacopina, good to see you. Thanks for coming on.
TACOPINA: Like the sweater, Dan?
ABRAMS: I love the sweater, Joe. Looking beautiful.
Two Florida parents fighting to not have to testify against their daughter in a hit-and-run case. They could soon be behind bars.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4806856/
Read the complete transcript to Wednesday's show
Updated: 11:22 a.m. ET April 22, 2004
Guests: Craig Silverman, Jayne Weintraub, Dean Johnson, John Burris, Jim Thomas, Joe Tacopina
...
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: We‘ve been talking about the grand jury in the Michael Jackson case. But so far we‘ve only been talking about whether Michael Jackson will be indicted. What about Jackson‘s associates who allegedly threatened Jackson‘s accuser and his family? Prosecutors have been considering indicting them as well. They could face charges of conspiracy, maybe obstruction. Frank Tyson worked as Jackson‘s personal assistant.
We can report that in an interview with psychologist Stan Katz, the brother of Jackson‘s accuser allegedly said–quote–“A Jackson security guard named Frank told us he would kill us and our parents” if they told authorities about Jackson giving them alcohol. And the accuser‘s mother says Vincent Amen, a man who worked for Jackson‘s production company, held the accuser‘s family at Neverland ranch against its will.
Joe Tacopina is the attorney representing both Frank Tyson and Vincent Doman. You guys know Joe Tacopina. He joins us now. Joe, thanks for coming back on the program.
JOE TACOPINA, REPRESENTING JACKSON‘S ASSOCIATES: Sure Dan.
ABRAMS: All right. So first of all, did you know about that from the psychologist‘s report that the boy–the brother had said that a guy named Frank, presumably Frank Tyson, had said that they were going to do these things to them if they reported about the alcohol?
TACOPINA: I mean I‘ve heard the allegations. Sure, Mike–I know Mike Taibbi broke it on NBC a while back. You know I put it into the same credibility pot as all these other allegations that seem to be you know picking up steam, if you will, as the case goes forward. It‘s ludicrous Dan. I mean Frank Tyson is hardly a security guard. He weighs about 130 pounds wet. He‘s a dear, dear, very close personal friend of Michael‘s–of Jackson‘s, and he was his personal assistant. He wasn‘t a security guard, a bodyguard, any sort of a guard. And the allegation, like many of the other allegations I‘ve heard in this case, are going to fall by the wayside when tested, when challenged, when examined under cross examination, if I‘m given that opportunity.
ABRAMS: See here‘s my concern, is that you know I get the inconsistent stories. I mean that‘s going to be a real big problem, I think, for the prosecutors in this case...
TACOPINA: Yes.
ABRAMS: ... is the fact they do these investigations, they don‘t turn up anything.
TACOPINA: Right.
ABRAMS: But you know then you start having the kids throwing in these details. I mean a detail like that Frank threatened he would, what was it, kill us or hurt us if we disclosed the bit about the alcohol. I mean you know, it starts to add a level of credibility, no?
TACOPINA: You know, Dan, I heard what the prosecutor said about the devils and the details, and when you have more details, certainly it lends credibility and that‘s true. I used to prosecute these cases. I‘ve defended them. But you know you have to look at when the details came to be. I mean if the details just came to the surface only a few weeks ago or a month or so ago, you know, you question why didn‘t the details arise before.
And one thing I think that‘s been made clear is there have been allegations in this case about the accuser‘s mother and the children‘s mother in this case, and how she conducted the preparation of her children in the J.C. Penney lawsuit. There‘s been some serious question as to whether or not she prepped them to say certain things in their deposition. You know there are all sorts of problems with their credibility.
I mean I don‘t think I‘m breaking this on the air here tonight. I mean she‘s–has all sorts of issues that have been reported. There are issues of perjury in depositions, in court-sworn affidavits. Again, there are built-in credibility problems with this case, with this accuser‘s parents and with–and some of the details the accusers are giving. If I have to answer these charges for my clients or client, Dan, I am so confident that we will–and I don‘t mean to sound cavalier, because I‘m not taking this lightly. But I‘m so confident that we will shatter the notion that Frank or Vincent did anything wrong. I‘m not only confident based on my conversation with my clients, based on witness conversations, but there are documents out there that will absolutely shred these allegations.
ABRAMS: Do you expect the grand jury to indict your clients?
TACOPINA: You know, this is the Michael Jackson case. Normally, based on my review of this evidence, I don‘t even think we‘d be having a conversation about whether or not it‘s going to happen. However, here, you know, I think this district attorney‘s case has some real holes in it, mainly the...
ABRAMS: Right.
TACOPINA: ... built-in credibility problems.
ABRAMS: But do you think...
TACOPINA: And what I‘m saying...
ABRAMS: ... do you think–yes, go ahead.
TACOPINA: What I‘m saying, Dan, is in a case like that where there‘s so many issues, when you bring in the pale of cover-up, when you bring in the malodorous scent of intimidation of witnesses, it sort of lends credibility to the underlying charges. So, I could see the tactical advantage in a prosecutor wanting to get an indictment for obstruction and witness tampering to strengthen the underlying case. Do I expect it? No.
I expect that the jurors will listen to the exculpatory evidence provided by the defense, will look at some of the issues they have with the credibility of maybe the witnesses, and will realize that common sense and documentary evidence defies the allegations. It didn‘t happen. If they indict, we‘ll be there with bells and whistles ready to go and we‘ll have this discussion before a jury.
ABRAMS: Jayne Weintraub, this could become an important element of the case. If the prosecutors can somehow show that you have Jackson employees strong-arming the family that would certainly bolster their case. So, if it really bolsters their case and the prosecutors believe it, do you expect–apart from whether you think that they‘re guilty or not, do you expect that this grand jury will indict?
WEINTRAUB: I think that they would need more evidence other than–even for an indictment, other than just the 9-year-old little brother...
ABRAMS: They have the mother too. The mother is claiming that...
WEINTRAUB: But...
ABRAMS: ... she was–yes...
WEINTRAUB: But the mother doesn‘t have a lot of credibility. And as Joe was saying, I mean the mother‘s already, you know, been accused of suborting perjury, for lack of a better term, and already telling these kids what to say in order to get money. You know it‘s called a little fact and a little–mixing with a little fiction Dan. It‘s an old ploy. You take a bit of a fact. There was a security guard named Frank and you say he was trying...
ABRAMS: Personal assistant. Joe is clarifying. He said he wasn‘t a security guard, a personal assistant...
WEINTRAUB: But it‘s a little fact and a little fiction. These kids are not babies, they can remember that. They know that it‘s going to enhance their lives, make them millionaires, a lot of money. Even the father didn‘t believe the little boy.
ABRAMS: But why not just go sue in civil court then, I mean if, you know, if you want to get money?
WEINTRAUB: That‘s exactly where this case belongs, number one, and number two, if they were caught, if they did anything so stupid, where are the video cameras at Neverland Ranch? Where are the security cameras at Neverland Ranch...
TACOPINA: Yes.
WEINTRAUB: ... to show that they were being held up there?
ABRAMS: Go ahead Joe...
WEINTRAUB: ... come on.
TACOPINA: Yes, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I‘ve been there. Let me tell you. There are no bars, there are no chains, there are no–there‘s nothing to hold anyone there.
WEINTRAUB: They love being there.
TACOPINA: The notion that–believe me they love being there. And when the gravy train started to come to a screaming halt at the station, it became an issue of oh, you know we were held against our will. Let me just tell you–there‘s no way to hold someone there without physically holding them down. The place is too large, too spread open–look at that–too wide open, number one, no one was held against their will at Neverland. And number two, what good exactly does sending them to Brazil against their will do? That allegation is out there, too.
ABRAMS: All right.
TACOPINA: What, they can‘t come back or they can‘t call the authorities from Brazil? They don‘t have a million friends that can help them out?
ABRAMS: Dean Johnson...
TACOPINA: ... it defies common sense.
ABRAMS: ... what do you make of this?
JOHNSON: Well, the problem with that remark is that pedophiles don‘t hold people by chains. They hold children by candy and soda and stuffed animals.
TACOPINA: These aren‘t pedophiles.
JOHNSON: Never, Neverland...
TACOPINA: ... different allegation.
JOHNSON: Neverland is a place that would be a pedophile‘s dream.
TACOPINA: No, you‘re mixing up the allegations.
JOHNSON: What‘s real clear about this is that the strength or weakness of the case against the employees is roughly equal to that of the strength or weakness of the case against Jackson. They depend on the credibility...
ABRAMS: You know...
JOHNSON: ... essentially of the same witnesses...
ABRAMS: But see, I‘ve got to tell you. I think it‘s actually weaker...
JOHNSON: There are going to be credibility issues going...
ABRAMS: Right.
JOHNSON: ... all over the place here...
ABRAMS: But I‘ll tell you why it‘s weaker Dean...
(CROSSTALK)
TACOPINA: Because I‘m involved, right Dan?
ABRAMS: No.
TACOPINA: Oh.
ABRAMS: ... it‘s weaker, because Joe‘s involved. But also, more
importantly, is that I think that when the mother is probably the difficult
· the most difficult one with regard to credibility...
TACOPINA: Absolutely...
ABRAMS: ... meaning I think she‘s the easiest one to attack in this case, and if the case against them relies in large part on the mother‘s account, I think that‘s a much harder case than relying on two kids who sit up there and say look, this is what happened to me. Do you disagree, Dean?
JOHNSON: No, I don‘t disagree. But I think, as I said before, that there is a lot of evidence to corroborate these kids‘ statements...
ABRAMS: Yes...
JOHNSON: ... and they go into a great deal of detail...
ABRAMS: All right.
JOHNSON: ... and specificity equals credibility.
ABRAMS: We shall see. Joe Tacopina, good to see you. Thanks for coming on.
TACOPINA: Like the sweater, Dan?
ABRAMS: I love the sweater, Joe. Looking beautiful.
Two Florida parents fighting to not have to testify against their daughter in a hit-and-run case. They could soon be behind bars.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4806856/