The Abrams Report' for March 12[/b]
Read the complete transcript to Friday's show
Updated: 12:00 p.m. ET March 15, 2004
Guests: Jim Thomas, Paul Pfingst, John Burris, Harold Greenberg, Richard Sherman, Ed Smart
ANNOUNCER: Now THE ABRAMS REPORT. Here is Dan Abrams.
DAN ABRAMS, HOST: Hi everyone. We have got a big exclusive in the Michael Jackson case tonight. For the first time we hear exactly what Jackson‘s accuser said about the alleged incident. This as we also learn the Santa Barbara authorities opened and closed an investigation into sexual abuse by Jackson after the alleged incidents occurred.
But first an NBC News exclusive that goes to the heart of the Michael Jackson case. Jackson‘s guilt or innocence, for the first time we learn exactly what the alleged victim and his family said to Los Angeles social workers and later to a family psychiatrist–two very different and conflicting versions of events. Jackson is being prosecuted in Santa Barbara County. And we learn about Santa Barbara‘s own investigation that was opened and then closed.
Before we talk about whether this puts a huge hole in the prosecution‘s case, NBC‘s Mike Taibbi has the explosive details.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MIKE TAIBBI, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): When the controversial British documentary “Living with Michael Jackson” aired in the U.S on February 6 last year, Beverly Hills psychiatrist Dr. Carole Lieberman was among a handful of child advocates who quickly fired off an outraged complaint.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I felt enough is enough. I mean I just couldn‘t believe that the world was standing by and letting these children be potentially harmed.
TAIBBI: On the day of the broadcast, Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon said what appeared on screen was no substitute for credible, cooperative victims, but later would dismiss as unimportant. An earlier investigation by Los Angeles County that said allegations that Jackson abused his eventual accuser were unfounded.
TOM SNEDDON, DA of SANTA BARBARA: To call that an investigation is a misnomer. It was an interview, plain and simple, and that‘s all it was.
TAIBBI (on camera): But you are about to hear why those charges were called unfounded and NBC News can now report exclusively that just two weeks after that documentary aired, Santa Barbara County Sheriff‘s Department began its own official investigation of possible abuse by Michael Jackson of the alleged victim and that Dr. Lieberman‘s letter of complain was the key reason the probe was started.
(voice-over): It was February 18 last year, the investigation of suspected child abuse was given a case number and a daily report number. Producer Matt Carluchio (ph) and I spent hours transcribing portions of the documents and can reveal their contents for the very first time. One early entry from last March 10, an account of an interview by three Los Angeles social workers of the accuser and his the brother, sister and mother at the apartment of the mother‘s boyfriend.
From the accuser, then a 12-year-old cancer patient, Michael is like a father to me. He‘s never done anything to me sexually. And the boy never slept in bed with Michael. His mother always aware of what goes on in Neverland. From his mother, Michael is like a father to my children. He loves them and I trust my children with him. She said Michael is kind and misunderstood and an important part of her son‘s recovery from cancer. Sometimes, the mother said her kids would be on Michael‘s bed watching TV and eating Smores. But as for the allegations that they share a bed, it is no. Her children were never solely alone with Jackson; there is always someone around.
She said Michael has never been anything but wonderful. My children have never felt uncomfortable in his presence. Michael has been a blessing. The accuser‘s older sister, teary eyed, according to the report, adds Michael is so kind and loving. And the father interviewed separately says there is no reason to suspect any wrongdoing by Jackson, adding that he too attributed his son‘s recovery to Jackson.
On April 16, the Santa Barbara Sheriff‘s Department reached a conclusion. Based on the interviews with the children and their father, it was determined that the elements of criminal activity were not met. Therefore, this investigation was classified as a suspected sexual abuse incident report with no further action required. Case closed. Case closed after a two-month investigation that took place during much of the period when Jackson is said to have molested his accuser seven times.
(on camera): But the case wasn‘t closed. We learned that on June 13 last year it was dramatically resumed when Santa Barbara‘s investigators heard as NBC News is reporting for the first time, version number 2 of the story told by the accuser and his family in their own words.
(voice-over): The family told this version of the story to psychologist Dr. Stan Katz. In the documents we reviewed, Katz told Santa Barbara‘s investigator the details. The records quoting Katz as saying the accuser claimed he drank alcohol every night and got buzzed, whiskey, vodka, and Bacardi. And that when his head hurt from the drinking, Michael said keep drinking. It will make it feel better.
He said Michael showed him pictures of naked women on the computer and that he once saw Michael just standing there naked for a moment and that Michael told him he, Michael, had to masturbate or he‘d go crazy. According to the documents, Katz said the accuser‘s brother told him that on a flight back from Miami, he saw Michael licking the accuser‘s head as the boy slept against Michael‘s chest. That Michael provided wine, vodka, and tequila on numerous occasions. That one of Jackson‘s security guards told us he‘d kill us and our parents if we told about the alcohol.
And that Michael talked a lot about sex. He said he and his brother constantly sleep in Michael‘s room with Michael and his brother in Michael‘s bed. He gave graphic details NBC News will not repeat about at least two incidents of inappropriate sexual touching initiated on the accuser by Michael. The documents quote Katz as saying the accuser‘s sister told him Michael gave her some wine and that she saw Michael kissing him on the cheek, hugging him, always rubbing him.
According to the report, Katz said the family claimed about their earlier interviews they made them say Michael is a father figure. He‘s great. He‘d never do anything bad. Katz said he believed the family was telling him the truth. I don‘t get the feeling the mom is lying about anything. Though she may distort, I really felt the kids were credible.
(on camera): Credible enough that molestation charges have been brought against Michael Jackson. But we now know the details of the two totally opposite stories told by the family for the record. And thus the question remains, which story to believe?
(voice-over): The one about Michael as a loving father figure, a save haven, a blessing or the one that describes a predator who plied his vulnerable young victim with alcohol and his own sexual obsessions. Both stories and any explanations would surely be tested at a trial which NBC News has been told won‘t begin until well into 2005 next year.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ABRAMS: Wow. We tried contacting Santa Barbara authorities to get reaction to this report. They declined to comment. Let‘s bring in the man who broke this story, NBC‘s Mike Taibbi. Mike, what a report. Thanks very much for coming on the program.
All right, one thing that you weren‘t able to include in that report that I think will help our viewers a lot is bring us through a timeline of exactly what happened when, to put it in some perspective.
TAIBBI: All right. Well, obviously the documentary was aired in this country for the first time on February 6, last year. That was the day Sneddon made his statement about what you see on the air not being equivalent or substitute for credible victims who were willing to come forward and tell their story.
On February 7, the alleged molestation began or at least that‘s the beginning of the period that the charges described as the period when the seven acts of molestation allegedly took place.
On February 14, there was a joint investigation by the Department of Children and Families Services and the Los Angeles Police Department. That‘s the one that resulted in that unfounded charge. After that, on February 18 began the Santa Barbara County Sheriff‘s Department investigation.
As we specified then after that February 24, the DCFS and L.A. probe ends with that finding of unfounded.
March 10 is the period when the accuser and his family leave Neverland. So that is the period at the end of the session where the acts of molestation might have occurred.
The next thing we then hear is on April 16 from Santa Barbara, as we pointed out in that report, closed its case saying that the elements of criminal activity had not been met. And it does say in the report, case closed.
After that there‘s a report on June 13. That‘s when the Santa Barbara Sheriff‘s Department receives that call and for the first time hears officially of the story–the new story, the second version of the story being told by the accuser and his family. That‘s Dr. Katz‘ account of his interview with those family members.
ABRAMS: All right, Mike, let‘s be clear about something. Did the Santa Barbara authorities actually interview all of the family members or was their investigation based on the Los Angeles authorities‘ interviews?
TAIBBI: That‘s a fair question. I thought we had made that clear in the piece that the interview of the accuser and his family that‘s included in this report was actually conducted by three Los Angeles social workers. Now I don‘t know if that‘s the one that you referred to in your report last week involving the tapes, et cetera, but it was conducted by three Los Angeles social workers. And the supervisor of those three social workers and we have all their names, called on the request of the Santa Barbara Sheriff‘s Department and reported verbatim, and it was taped, all the statements made by the accuser and his family.
ABRAMS: All right, Mike Taibbi, if you could just stick around. I just want to read one more...
TAIBBI: Sure.
ABRAMS: ... quote from Mike Taibbi‘s report. Dr. Katz talking about Michael Jackson. He doesn‘t really qualify as a pedophile. He‘s just a regressed 10-year-old.
Mike Taibbi has now become the guy to beat on this story. Mike, stick around.
Up next, can the prosecution recover from this–the whole family changing its story? Why would the D.A. have minimized the L.A. findings and then we learned they relied on them as well. We‘ll ask the former Santa Barbara sheriff.
And a pregnant woman allegedly ignores doctor‘s pleas to have a caesarean section. The baby dies. Now she is charged with murder. Her jailhouse interview coming up.
What do you think? Your e-mails abramsreport@msnbc.com. Please include your name and where you are writing from. I‘ll respond at the end of the show.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: Coming up, could the prosecution‘s case in the Michael Jackson case be in jeopardy? Coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: We just saw an NBC News exclusive report on the Michael Jackson case. That his accuser and family gave in their own words an initial denial that Michael did anything wrong. Interviews conducted months apart, but both after the alleged abuse had at least begun. The accuser and his family paint completely different portraits of Michael Jackson at different times. One, a father figure and savior of a cancer-stricken child. The other a manipulative and sexual predator of children. Plus, we learned Santa Barbara did its own investigation that was closed without any charges filed against Jackson.
What happened to the D.A. pooh-poohing the work of the Los Angeles Child Services? Now remember, we obtained an exclusive audiotape of what led up to that Child Services interview.
(BEGIN AUDIOTAPE)
DCFS: This is between our department and you and your children, no one else...
MOM: And the world.
DCFS: No, well no, it‘s not. That‘s what I am saying and that is 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 you remember 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.
(END AUDIOTAPE)
ABRAMS: Well, it‘s not that secret, I guess–prophetic words from the mother. Let‘s bring in our legal team now. Former Santa Barbara County sheriff and MSNBC analyst Jim Thomas, criminal defense attorney John Burris, former San Diego District Attorney and MSNBC analyst Paul Pfingst and NBC‘s Mike Taibbi is back with us.
All right, Sheriff Thomas, I don‘t understand how the Santa Barbara authorities can defend having gone public and said oh, you know those L.A. people, they have problems over there. As it turns out, they did their own investigation, and they came to the same conclusion as the people in Los Angeles.
JIM THOMAS, FMR. SANTA BARBARA CO. SHERIFF: No, no, Dan. If you remember, even Mike said that the Sheriff‘s Department did not interview the mother or the children back in the early part of the investigation. That was not done until June, after the appointment with Dr. Katz.
ABRAMS: Right, but they still conducted...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... an investigation, Sheriff. I mean they still opened the case...
THOMAS: Well, no...
ABRAMS: ... and closed it.
THOMAS: They opened the case but at that point you had no victim. The child had not confided in anyone until June. So the mother didn‘t know. The siblings didn‘t know and the case was started only because of suspicions based upon Bashir‘s document. Nobody had ever come forward at that point and specifically said that Michael Jackson had molested that child. Certainly, that child had not said that and did not say that until June. So in essence you really had no victim until June.
ABRAMS: Don‘t you think, though, it is misleading of Tom Sneddon, who I know is a good friend of yours, to have gone out publicly and said oh, that L.A. thing, that wasn‘t an investigation. It was just an interview. It turns out they relied on that interview, the Sheriff‘s Department in Santa Barbara relied on that very interview to conduct their own investigation and say we looked at it, case closed.
THOMAS: Yes because there was no victim. There was no allegation other than the suspicions of the people who were concerned about the Bashir‘s document. I‘m not going to defend what Tom Sneddon said. He can do that himself. But the concern I think he had also with DCFS had to do with leaking of documents and some other matters as well as a conclusion.
ABRAMS: Paul Pfingst, do you view this as–let‘s not say irrelevant, but as you know not a big a deal the same way Sheriff Thomas does?
PAUL PFINGST, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Yes, pretty much Dan. When you do enter agency work in law enforcement, it‘s pretty common for one agency to rely upon statements by another agency. At the time that L.A. did its interviews of the boy and the family, once they said, listen, no sexual abuse took place and he is a good guy, there was no case because there was no victim. What is really critically important and what this case will probably depend upon, Dan, is why did they change from denial to accusation...
ABRAMS: And the whole family changes, Paul.
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: It‘s not just one or two people...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... the sister, the brother, the mother, the whole team.
PFINGST: You‘re absolutely right and that is the crux of this case. If there is not a good explanation for that, then Michael Jackson will be acquitted. If there is a sound, reasonable explanation for that then he stands a good chance of being convicted...
(CROSSTALK)
PFINGST: ... that is going to be the lynchpin of the case.
ABRAMS: What is the sound–I understand the possibility that one person, that the boy might have felt intimidated, that the mother might not have wanted to go public with this, but this means someone would have had to have told the sister to lie, right...
PFINGST: Dan...
ABRAMS: ... initially?
PFINGST: Yes, Dan, in domestic violence cases and child sexual abuse cases, this is not an uncommon scenario. This happens regularly...
(CROSSTALK)
PFINGST: ... and it‘s one of the problems that prosecutors have to deal with in both domestic violence and child sexual abuse. It‘s a common problem.
ABRAMS: John Burris, what do you make of this?
JOHN BURRIS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, it‘s certainly a problem no matter how you slice it, no matter when it started. The fact that different statements were given early, the whole family almost–and then they change. The question is were they motivated by money? Did someone else put these ideas in their head and why did this happen? I don‘t think you can come up with a reasonable explanation that cannot be exploited by the defense to demonstrate their prior inconsistent statements.
So, it‘s a really problem for the defense. It‘s not anything more than we already knew. The question of whether the motivation on the part of the prosecution has been (UNINTELLIGIBLE) but, I don‘t see that as much of a problem because at the end of the day they are not on trial. It‘s ultimately the question of what did the witnesses have to say on each of these different occasions and whether their motivation and if there are other lawyers involved and there‘s issues about money, possibility being as a motive and other reasons there, I think that‘s going to hurt the prosecutor‘s case substantially and they may not recover from it.
ABRAMS: You know Mike, I know you don‘t want to characterize too much, but let me ask you this–were you surprised to hear that there was a Santa Barbara investigation, because I was.
TAIBBI: Very much so. In fact, at first that‘s what I thought our story was going to be. When I first heard last week about the existence of this investigation and then was able to confirm it with someone, frankly, who works for Santa Barbara County, confirmed it independently and then thought that was going to be the story. Then we got a chance to look at the records–Matt Carluchio (ph) and I–when we saw the records, we saw that for the first time we could tell the detailed stories, the contrasting stories told by the accuser and his family and that became even a bigger story at that point. Yes, I was surprised because of the ferocity...
(CROSSTALK)
TAIBBI: ... if you will that with which Mr. Sneddon had made his comments about Los Angeles‘ investigation.
ABRAMS: Sheriff Thomas, were you surprised to hear that Santa Barbara had done its own investigation?
THOMAS: No, not really. I wasn‘t aware of the specifics of the report, but I wasn‘t surprised at all because the jurisdiction was in Santa Barbara and that would have been common for the court. But I don‘t see why everybody has a problem understanding the fact that–the reason that the mother would not tell the same story is because she didn‘t know that the child had been molested until June.
ABRAMS: But see here‘s the problem Sheriff...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... it‘s not...
THOMAS: ... so I think that what she said–she would have said it was true...
ABRAMS: But Sheriff, it‘s not...
THOMAS: ... what she believed at the time.
ABRAMS: ... I apologize. It‘s not just about the molestation, though. It‘s that the sister is saying suddenly that they were given liquor. That they‘re getting–Michael Jackson is getting them drunk. The mother is changing the story about whether they were in bed at all ever together. I mean these are not just sort of was he abused or not. All the details are changing too.
BURRIS: You know I have trouble...
(CROSSTALK)
BURRIS: ... the trouble that I have here with Santa Barbara is that the deputy D.A.–the D.A. has basically made these negative statements about L.A. Children and Family Services.
ABRAMS: Yes.
BURRIS: Why would he accept their report...
ABRAMS: That‘s what I don‘t...
BURRIS: ... given that he has in fact investigated Michael Jackson before, he has reservations...
(CROSSTALK)
BURRIS: ... why would he even remotely...
ABRAMS: I‘ve got to give the sheriff the final word on this.
THOMAS: Well, you have to have a victim and the victim wasn‘t there until June when he had the interview with Dr. Katz and so, up to that point it was speculation and concern.
BURRIS: I don‘t think–he has more than that because he already has (UNINTELLIGIBLE) he can go out himself and have someone go out and interview these people themselves.
ABRAMS: And we shall see and again, you know, if the Santa Barbara County authorities want through the P.R. firm they‘re working with want to give us any sort of statement with regard to this, we welcome it and I assure you we will put it on the air.
Thanks to all of our guests and...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... to Mike Taibbi on a very comprehensive report there.
Source: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4533233/
Read the complete transcript to Friday's show
Updated: 12:00 p.m. ET March 15, 2004
Guests: Jim Thomas, Paul Pfingst, John Burris, Harold Greenberg, Richard Sherman, Ed Smart
ANNOUNCER: Now THE ABRAMS REPORT. Here is Dan Abrams.
DAN ABRAMS, HOST: Hi everyone. We have got a big exclusive in the Michael Jackson case tonight. For the first time we hear exactly what Jackson‘s accuser said about the alleged incident. This as we also learn the Santa Barbara authorities opened and closed an investigation into sexual abuse by Jackson after the alleged incidents occurred.
But first an NBC News exclusive that goes to the heart of the Michael Jackson case. Jackson‘s guilt or innocence, for the first time we learn exactly what the alleged victim and his family said to Los Angeles social workers and later to a family psychiatrist–two very different and conflicting versions of events. Jackson is being prosecuted in Santa Barbara County. And we learn about Santa Barbara‘s own investigation that was opened and then closed.
Before we talk about whether this puts a huge hole in the prosecution‘s case, NBC‘s Mike Taibbi has the explosive details.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MIKE TAIBBI, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): When the controversial British documentary “Living with Michael Jackson” aired in the U.S on February 6 last year, Beverly Hills psychiatrist Dr. Carole Lieberman was among a handful of child advocates who quickly fired off an outraged complaint.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I felt enough is enough. I mean I just couldn‘t believe that the world was standing by and letting these children be potentially harmed.
TAIBBI: On the day of the broadcast, Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon said what appeared on screen was no substitute for credible, cooperative victims, but later would dismiss as unimportant. An earlier investigation by Los Angeles County that said allegations that Jackson abused his eventual accuser were unfounded.
TOM SNEDDON, DA of SANTA BARBARA: To call that an investigation is a misnomer. It was an interview, plain and simple, and that‘s all it was.
TAIBBI (on camera): But you are about to hear why those charges were called unfounded and NBC News can now report exclusively that just two weeks after that documentary aired, Santa Barbara County Sheriff‘s Department began its own official investigation of possible abuse by Michael Jackson of the alleged victim and that Dr. Lieberman‘s letter of complain was the key reason the probe was started.
(voice-over): It was February 18 last year, the investigation of suspected child abuse was given a case number and a daily report number. Producer Matt Carluchio (ph) and I spent hours transcribing portions of the documents and can reveal their contents for the very first time. One early entry from last March 10, an account of an interview by three Los Angeles social workers of the accuser and his the brother, sister and mother at the apartment of the mother‘s boyfriend.
From the accuser, then a 12-year-old cancer patient, Michael is like a father to me. He‘s never done anything to me sexually. And the boy never slept in bed with Michael. His mother always aware of what goes on in Neverland. From his mother, Michael is like a father to my children. He loves them and I trust my children with him. She said Michael is kind and misunderstood and an important part of her son‘s recovery from cancer. Sometimes, the mother said her kids would be on Michael‘s bed watching TV and eating Smores. But as for the allegations that they share a bed, it is no. Her children were never solely alone with Jackson; there is always someone around.
She said Michael has never been anything but wonderful. My children have never felt uncomfortable in his presence. Michael has been a blessing. The accuser‘s older sister, teary eyed, according to the report, adds Michael is so kind and loving. And the father interviewed separately says there is no reason to suspect any wrongdoing by Jackson, adding that he too attributed his son‘s recovery to Jackson.
On April 16, the Santa Barbara Sheriff‘s Department reached a conclusion. Based on the interviews with the children and their father, it was determined that the elements of criminal activity were not met. Therefore, this investigation was classified as a suspected sexual abuse incident report with no further action required. Case closed. Case closed after a two-month investigation that took place during much of the period when Jackson is said to have molested his accuser seven times.
(on camera): But the case wasn‘t closed. We learned that on June 13 last year it was dramatically resumed when Santa Barbara‘s investigators heard as NBC News is reporting for the first time, version number 2 of the story told by the accuser and his family in their own words.
(voice-over): The family told this version of the story to psychologist Dr. Stan Katz. In the documents we reviewed, Katz told Santa Barbara‘s investigator the details. The records quoting Katz as saying the accuser claimed he drank alcohol every night and got buzzed, whiskey, vodka, and Bacardi. And that when his head hurt from the drinking, Michael said keep drinking. It will make it feel better.
He said Michael showed him pictures of naked women on the computer and that he once saw Michael just standing there naked for a moment and that Michael told him he, Michael, had to masturbate or he‘d go crazy. According to the documents, Katz said the accuser‘s brother told him that on a flight back from Miami, he saw Michael licking the accuser‘s head as the boy slept against Michael‘s chest. That Michael provided wine, vodka, and tequila on numerous occasions. That one of Jackson‘s security guards told us he‘d kill us and our parents if we told about the alcohol.
And that Michael talked a lot about sex. He said he and his brother constantly sleep in Michael‘s room with Michael and his brother in Michael‘s bed. He gave graphic details NBC News will not repeat about at least two incidents of inappropriate sexual touching initiated on the accuser by Michael. The documents quote Katz as saying the accuser‘s sister told him Michael gave her some wine and that she saw Michael kissing him on the cheek, hugging him, always rubbing him.
According to the report, Katz said the family claimed about their earlier interviews they made them say Michael is a father figure. He‘s great. He‘d never do anything bad. Katz said he believed the family was telling him the truth. I don‘t get the feeling the mom is lying about anything. Though she may distort, I really felt the kids were credible.
(on camera): Credible enough that molestation charges have been brought against Michael Jackson. But we now know the details of the two totally opposite stories told by the family for the record. And thus the question remains, which story to believe?
(voice-over): The one about Michael as a loving father figure, a save haven, a blessing or the one that describes a predator who plied his vulnerable young victim with alcohol and his own sexual obsessions. Both stories and any explanations would surely be tested at a trial which NBC News has been told won‘t begin until well into 2005 next year.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ABRAMS: Wow. We tried contacting Santa Barbara authorities to get reaction to this report. They declined to comment. Let‘s bring in the man who broke this story, NBC‘s Mike Taibbi. Mike, what a report. Thanks very much for coming on the program.
All right, one thing that you weren‘t able to include in that report that I think will help our viewers a lot is bring us through a timeline of exactly what happened when, to put it in some perspective.
TAIBBI: All right. Well, obviously the documentary was aired in this country for the first time on February 6, last year. That was the day Sneddon made his statement about what you see on the air not being equivalent or substitute for credible victims who were willing to come forward and tell their story.
On February 7, the alleged molestation began or at least that‘s the beginning of the period that the charges described as the period when the seven acts of molestation allegedly took place.
On February 14, there was a joint investigation by the Department of Children and Families Services and the Los Angeles Police Department. That‘s the one that resulted in that unfounded charge. After that, on February 18 began the Santa Barbara County Sheriff‘s Department investigation.
As we specified then after that February 24, the DCFS and L.A. probe ends with that finding of unfounded.
March 10 is the period when the accuser and his family leave Neverland. So that is the period at the end of the session where the acts of molestation might have occurred.
The next thing we then hear is on April 16 from Santa Barbara, as we pointed out in that report, closed its case saying that the elements of criminal activity had not been met. And it does say in the report, case closed.
After that there‘s a report on June 13. That‘s when the Santa Barbara Sheriff‘s Department receives that call and for the first time hears officially of the story–the new story, the second version of the story being told by the accuser and his family. That‘s Dr. Katz‘ account of his interview with those family members.
ABRAMS: All right, Mike, let‘s be clear about something. Did the Santa Barbara authorities actually interview all of the family members or was their investigation based on the Los Angeles authorities‘ interviews?
TAIBBI: That‘s a fair question. I thought we had made that clear in the piece that the interview of the accuser and his family that‘s included in this report was actually conducted by three Los Angeles social workers. Now I don‘t know if that‘s the one that you referred to in your report last week involving the tapes, et cetera, but it was conducted by three Los Angeles social workers. And the supervisor of those three social workers and we have all their names, called on the request of the Santa Barbara Sheriff‘s Department and reported verbatim, and it was taped, all the statements made by the accuser and his family.
ABRAMS: All right, Mike Taibbi, if you could just stick around. I just want to read one more...
TAIBBI: Sure.
ABRAMS: ... quote from Mike Taibbi‘s report. Dr. Katz talking about Michael Jackson. He doesn‘t really qualify as a pedophile. He‘s just a regressed 10-year-old.
Mike Taibbi has now become the guy to beat on this story. Mike, stick around.
Up next, can the prosecution recover from this–the whole family changing its story? Why would the D.A. have minimized the L.A. findings and then we learned they relied on them as well. We‘ll ask the former Santa Barbara sheriff.
And a pregnant woman allegedly ignores doctor‘s pleas to have a caesarean section. The baby dies. Now she is charged with murder. Her jailhouse interview coming up.
What do you think? Your e-mails abramsreport@msnbc.com. Please include your name and where you are writing from. I‘ll respond at the end of the show.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: Coming up, could the prosecution‘s case in the Michael Jackson case be in jeopardy? Coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: We just saw an NBC News exclusive report on the Michael Jackson case. That his accuser and family gave in their own words an initial denial that Michael did anything wrong. Interviews conducted months apart, but both after the alleged abuse had at least begun. The accuser and his family paint completely different portraits of Michael Jackson at different times. One, a father figure and savior of a cancer-stricken child. The other a manipulative and sexual predator of children. Plus, we learned Santa Barbara did its own investigation that was closed without any charges filed against Jackson.
What happened to the D.A. pooh-poohing the work of the Los Angeles Child Services? Now remember, we obtained an exclusive audiotape of what led up to that Child Services interview.
(BEGIN AUDIOTAPE)
DCFS: This is between our department and you and your children, no one else...
MOM: And the world.
DCFS: No, well no, it‘s not. That‘s what I am saying and that is 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 you remember 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.
(END AUDIOTAPE)
ABRAMS: Well, it‘s not that secret, I guess–prophetic words from the mother. Let‘s bring in our legal team now. Former Santa Barbara County sheriff and MSNBC analyst Jim Thomas, criminal defense attorney John Burris, former San Diego District Attorney and MSNBC analyst Paul Pfingst and NBC‘s Mike Taibbi is back with us.
All right, Sheriff Thomas, I don‘t understand how the Santa Barbara authorities can defend having gone public and said oh, you know those L.A. people, they have problems over there. As it turns out, they did their own investigation, and they came to the same conclusion as the people in Los Angeles.
JIM THOMAS, FMR. SANTA BARBARA CO. SHERIFF: No, no, Dan. If you remember, even Mike said that the Sheriff‘s Department did not interview the mother or the children back in the early part of the investigation. That was not done until June, after the appointment with Dr. Katz.
ABRAMS: Right, but they still conducted...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... an investigation, Sheriff. I mean they still opened the case...
THOMAS: Well, no...
ABRAMS: ... and closed it.
THOMAS: They opened the case but at that point you had no victim. The child had not confided in anyone until June. So the mother didn‘t know. The siblings didn‘t know and the case was started only because of suspicions based upon Bashir‘s document. Nobody had ever come forward at that point and specifically said that Michael Jackson had molested that child. Certainly, that child had not said that and did not say that until June. So in essence you really had no victim until June.
ABRAMS: Don‘t you think, though, it is misleading of Tom Sneddon, who I know is a good friend of yours, to have gone out publicly and said oh, that L.A. thing, that wasn‘t an investigation. It was just an interview. It turns out they relied on that interview, the Sheriff‘s Department in Santa Barbara relied on that very interview to conduct their own investigation and say we looked at it, case closed.
THOMAS: Yes because there was no victim. There was no allegation other than the suspicions of the people who were concerned about the Bashir‘s document. I‘m not going to defend what Tom Sneddon said. He can do that himself. But the concern I think he had also with DCFS had to do with leaking of documents and some other matters as well as a conclusion.
ABRAMS: Paul Pfingst, do you view this as–let‘s not say irrelevant, but as you know not a big a deal the same way Sheriff Thomas does?
PAUL PFINGST, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Yes, pretty much Dan. When you do enter agency work in law enforcement, it‘s pretty common for one agency to rely upon statements by another agency. At the time that L.A. did its interviews of the boy and the family, once they said, listen, no sexual abuse took place and he is a good guy, there was no case because there was no victim. What is really critically important and what this case will probably depend upon, Dan, is why did they change from denial to accusation...
ABRAMS: And the whole family changes, Paul.
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: It‘s not just one or two people...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... the sister, the brother, the mother, the whole team.
PFINGST: You‘re absolutely right and that is the crux of this case. If there is not a good explanation for that, then Michael Jackson will be acquitted. If there is a sound, reasonable explanation for that then he stands a good chance of being convicted...
(CROSSTALK)
PFINGST: ... that is going to be the lynchpin of the case.
ABRAMS: What is the sound–I understand the possibility that one person, that the boy might have felt intimidated, that the mother might not have wanted to go public with this, but this means someone would have had to have told the sister to lie, right...
PFINGST: Dan...
ABRAMS: ... initially?
PFINGST: Yes, Dan, in domestic violence cases and child sexual abuse cases, this is not an uncommon scenario. This happens regularly...
(CROSSTALK)
PFINGST: ... and it‘s one of the problems that prosecutors have to deal with in both domestic violence and child sexual abuse. It‘s a common problem.
ABRAMS: John Burris, what do you make of this?
JOHN BURRIS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, it‘s certainly a problem no matter how you slice it, no matter when it started. The fact that different statements were given early, the whole family almost–and then they change. The question is were they motivated by money? Did someone else put these ideas in their head and why did this happen? I don‘t think you can come up with a reasonable explanation that cannot be exploited by the defense to demonstrate their prior inconsistent statements.
So, it‘s a really problem for the defense. It‘s not anything more than we already knew. The question of whether the motivation on the part of the prosecution has been (UNINTELLIGIBLE) but, I don‘t see that as much of a problem because at the end of the day they are not on trial. It‘s ultimately the question of what did the witnesses have to say on each of these different occasions and whether their motivation and if there are other lawyers involved and there‘s issues about money, possibility being as a motive and other reasons there, I think that‘s going to hurt the prosecutor‘s case substantially and they may not recover from it.
ABRAMS: You know Mike, I know you don‘t want to characterize too much, but let me ask you this–were you surprised to hear that there was a Santa Barbara investigation, because I was.
TAIBBI: Very much so. In fact, at first that‘s what I thought our story was going to be. When I first heard last week about the existence of this investigation and then was able to confirm it with someone, frankly, who works for Santa Barbara County, confirmed it independently and then thought that was going to be the story. Then we got a chance to look at the records–Matt Carluchio (ph) and I–when we saw the records, we saw that for the first time we could tell the detailed stories, the contrasting stories told by the accuser and his family and that became even a bigger story at that point. Yes, I was surprised because of the ferocity...
(CROSSTALK)
TAIBBI: ... if you will that with which Mr. Sneddon had made his comments about Los Angeles‘ investigation.
ABRAMS: Sheriff Thomas, were you surprised to hear that Santa Barbara had done its own investigation?
THOMAS: No, not really. I wasn‘t aware of the specifics of the report, but I wasn‘t surprised at all because the jurisdiction was in Santa Barbara and that would have been common for the court. But I don‘t see why everybody has a problem understanding the fact that–the reason that the mother would not tell the same story is because she didn‘t know that the child had been molested until June.
ABRAMS: But see here‘s the problem Sheriff...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... it‘s not...
THOMAS: ... so I think that what she said–she would have said it was true...
ABRAMS: But Sheriff, it‘s not...
THOMAS: ... what she believed at the time.
ABRAMS: ... I apologize. It‘s not just about the molestation, though. It‘s that the sister is saying suddenly that they were given liquor. That they‘re getting–Michael Jackson is getting them drunk. The mother is changing the story about whether they were in bed at all ever together. I mean these are not just sort of was he abused or not. All the details are changing too.
BURRIS: You know I have trouble...
(CROSSTALK)
BURRIS: ... the trouble that I have here with Santa Barbara is that the deputy D.A.–the D.A. has basically made these negative statements about L.A. Children and Family Services.
ABRAMS: Yes.
BURRIS: Why would he accept their report...
ABRAMS: That‘s what I don‘t...
BURRIS: ... given that he has in fact investigated Michael Jackson before, he has reservations...
(CROSSTALK)
BURRIS: ... why would he even remotely...
ABRAMS: I‘ve got to give the sheriff the final word on this.
THOMAS: Well, you have to have a victim and the victim wasn‘t there until June when he had the interview with Dr. Katz and so, up to that point it was speculation and concern.
BURRIS: I don‘t think–he has more than that because he already has (UNINTELLIGIBLE) he can go out himself and have someone go out and interview these people themselves.
ABRAMS: And we shall see and again, you know, if the Santa Barbara County authorities want through the P.R. firm they‘re working with want to give us any sort of statement with regard to this, we welcome it and I assure you we will put it on the air.
Thanks to all of our guests and...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... to Mike Taibbi on a very comprehensive report there.
Source: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4533233/