‘Countdown with Keith Olbermann’ for Dec. 9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the complete transcript to Tuesay’s show
Guests: Andrew Goldberg, Mickey Sherman, Phil Bronstein, John Kerry
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST (voice-over): Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow?
Michael Jackson exonerated. Police and Child Welfare Authorities had investigated the charges against him and the child and family they involved, and the investigators had declared those charges unfounded. Is the case of the people of California versus Michael Jackson over?
Is the Democratic presidential race over? As we told you yesterday, Al Gore endorses Howard Dean to the shock of Joe Lieberman, d**k Gephardt, John Kerry. John Kerry, who will join us tonight, here.
In California, it’s never over until it is over. The pre-recall groping charges continue, but Governor Schwarzenegger’s promise to have them investigated does not continue. He will not have those charges examined.
The flu scare: It grows larger. It now entails unexplained staph infections.
And, an addition to the mug shot hall of fame: Can you identify this celebrity suspect? Better yet, can you identify all of the colors in his hair?
All that and more now, on COUNTDOWN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
OLBERMANN: Good evening. Ordinarily it would be just another cheesy media moment in the ever-cheesy Michael Jackson story. Last February, a 13-year-old boy told a Los Angeles county social worker that Jackson had never abused him sexually, in fact that he had never even slept in the same bed as the man and the boy’s mother backed up his denials that anything bad happened. It would be run of the mill, peripheral information except for one fact-the boy who made that statement to authorities denying sexual abuse is the same one now accusing Michael Jackson of sexual abuse.
Our fifth story on the COUNTDOWN: It’s your entertainment dollars in action, day 22 of the Michael Jackson investigation, what could be the last day of the Michael Jackson investigation. The Web site, Thesmokinggun.com unearthed documentary evidence of the investigation that cleared Jackson of the very charges now being pressed by the district attorney of Santa Barbara County. The paper work was produced by the Sensitive Case Unit of L.A.’s department of Children and Family Services.
The unit’s investigators included that allegations that Jackson sexually abused the boy were, quote, “unfounded” unquote; the investigator wrote that the boy, quote, “denied any form of sexual abuse.” The investigator quoted the boy’s mother as saying, “Jackson was like a father to the children and a part of her family,” and that while she knew that when her son slept over at Jackson’s ranch, quote, “they did not share a bed. The entertainer would sleep on the floor,” unquote. The investigation was closed on November 26 of this year with the mother, the boy, and his brother all denying that Jackson had been sexually abusive and the Child Welfare Agency determined that the allegations deserved to be considered to be unfounded, the most benign of possible outcomes. In a moment, how this memo could change the outcome of the entire Jackson case.
First, Andrew Goldberg of the Smokinggun.com, which dug the thing up.
Good evening, sir.
ANDREW GOLDBERG, THESMOKINGGUN.COM: Good evening. How are you?
OLBERMANN: A couple of quick questions. First off, we are certain that this Child Welfare memo exonerating Michael Jackson, in essence is, about the same child as in the Santa Barbara case? There’s no chance of crossed wires somewhere?
GOLDBERG: Absolutely. I mean, if you look at the memos, we put on our Web site, we did blur out names and what we do is we don’t release names of alleged victims and that’s what we did. So, we have the original memo, so we know who’s named in it.
OLBERMANN: What’s the timeline here? Why, if this investigation was conducted last February, was it not written until about two weeks ago?
GOLDBERG: Well, there’s a large case file and what happened is a phone call came in in early February after the documentary aired, from somebody at the Los Angeles Unified School District-you know, alleging negligence by the mother and sexual abuse by the entertainer, as he’s identified in the memo and about a two week investigation took place. What happened is, one of the higher-ups at the Department of Children and Family Services who came into the department after, in March, and right in November of this year he said, “well what was going on? Can somebody write up a memo and summarize what our investigation found back in February?” That’s what this memo is, it’s a summary of an investigation that lasted almost two weeks.
OLBERMANN: Tonight the D.A. in Santa Barbara, Tom Sneddon said his office was aware of the report and its contents and also he referred to the timing and he does not find this report a significant factor. Andrew, what are we missing here?
GOLDBERG: Um, I mean, we do stories and we find it to be significant. We find it relevant. He referred to-he said that he-you know, referenced the report in the application for the search warrants and we’d love to see the applications that were filed along with the search warrants to get more information. But for us-you know, this is a relevant document and that’s what we do, we’re a document Web site and it’s timely, as well.
OLBERMANN: Yeah, it certainly is. Andrew Goldberg of Thesmokinggun.com. Probably has to be the most significant development yet in the Jackson case. Good work and many thanks for your time.
GOLDBERG: Thank you so much.
OLBERMANN: Jackson’s spokesman has issued a statement this evening, quote “The government report is what we’ve been saying all along,” says Stuart Backerman, “that is that there is no merit to the allegations and Michael Jackson is innocent. All this does is reinforce what we’ve been saying,” unquote. We mentioned the D.A. Tom Sneddon, to us, the outsiders, it would seem tonight, that he might resemble Wile E. Coyote from the “Roadrunner” cartoons just after he’s discovered he’s propelled himself off a cliff, but just before he realizes there is no ground beneath his feet and gravity is going to take delayed effect.
He says otherwise, “Our investigators were aware of the contents of the interviews prior to seeking the search warrants and arrest warrant for Mr. Jackson,” he said in a statement released this afternoon and cosigned by the county sheriff, Jim Anderson. “The report and its contents, along with the totality of the investigation and the circumstances and the timing under which these statements were given were provided to the judge at the time that the search and arrest warrants were issued. Given what we know now,” he concludes, “we do not consider the DCFS statement,” that’s the Department of Children and Family Services, “the statement a significant factor.”
We mentioned, it’s day 22 of the Jackson case. Will there be a day 23? I’m joined now by noted criminal defense attorney, Mickey Sherman.
And, good evening to you, sir.
MICKEY SHERMAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good evening.
OLBERMANN: Let’s me start with the statements Messrs. Sneddon and Anderson. It’s not a significant factor? How-how can that be? As I asked Mr. Goldberg, just now, what am I missing here?
SHERMAN: All you’re missing is the imitation of them doing-what’s his name-Martin Short in the only “Saturday Night Live” routine when he was the sleazy lawyer and said, “We knew that-I knew that. Of course, we I knew that.” I mean, it’s absurd. You know, so many times in these cases, whether it’s Kobe or Peterson, or whatever, we hear every day that there’s another bombshell, and usually it’s not a bombshell. But, I got to tell you, Keith, this is a bombshell.
OLBERMANN: Agreed.
SHERMAN: It’s an absolute bombshell because usually it’s like a big story or it’s a big deal, sometimes in the media, but never gets into court. This is one of those bombshells that’s a big deal in the media, it’s a big deal in reality, and it’s going to be a really big deal in front of the jury if it gets that far.
OLBERMANN: Nathan Thurm was the name of the character Martin Short...
SHERMAN: Yeah, exactly.
OLBERMANN: ...played all those years ago and he makes it into the
news. Is the only inference possible here, Mickey, that Tom Sneddon has or
believes he has evidence of molestation that somehow took place after the
conclusion of the investigation of the Department of Children and Family Services? I mean if that is not the case,
SHERMAN: If that’s not...
OLBERMANN: ...doesn’t somebody-does somebody-some judge step in and stop this fight right now?
SHERMAN: I think it’s very rare for that to happen. But, if he has nothing else, nothing subsequent to this, then he’s got some problems. It’s a good thing that Sneddon’s retiring. I mean it seems to me, I think, and I’m not one to bash prosecutors, certainly not in my own jurisdiction, but it seems to me maybe he took this a little too personally, because if he had this information and he still went in and got a $3 million bond, as Henry Lee said in the O.J. Simpson case, “something is wrong here.”
OLBERMANN: If Mr. Sneddon were to, for some reason, call you up now and ask you for your advice, would you say “punt?”
SHERMAN: I would say make sure that your insurance policy covers malicious prosecution cases. Because, I mean, I think Jackson’s got some avenue to work with.
OLBERMANN: Yeah, I wanted to ask you that, too. I know we’re assuming here that the case, at least the case that we think we know publicly, doesn’t seem like it could survive this kind of information on top of everything else that’s been questioned about the nature of the family and all of the rest of that, but does Michael Jackson potentially have legal recourse here and would he bother to use it?
SHERMAN: If this is the whole deal, if this is the total nine yards as to what they have, and by the way, Keith, it may very well not be, again, this is just something that’s been uncovered and it’s never over until it’s over and we never know what’s happen once it gets to the courthouse. But, if in fact we’re all guessing correctly, that this is all they have he may have a cause of action for a good lawsuit. Would he do that? Should he do that? Probably not. I think if he were smart, he’d probably make a big hay about it and say that he was going to sue, but he doesn’t want the money, doesn’t want their-doesn’t want to profit out of this, maybe he would sue and give the money to charity. But, I think he’s a fair case.
OLBERMANN: The noted criminal defense attorney, Mickey Sherman, many thanks and we appreciate your insight, sir.
SHERMAN: My pleasure.
OLBERMANN: There is one more sidebar to the Jackson story today, ironic in its timing. Child Welfare Authorities have reportedly been unable to interview his kids. The “New York Post” reporting today, that the workers have made roughly six kids to the Neverland Ranch in hopes of ascertaining the health and condition of Jackson’s three children, but that each time nobody has been home. They have been trying since about the time Jackson turned himself in on November 18. No indication either way as to whether or not Jackson’s deliberately kept the children out of sight to avoid the authorities inquiries or if they’re all merely in Las Vegas.
COUNTDOWN under way on with what is accurately, as Mickey Sherman just said, albeit a little tritely, described as the “Jackson bombshell.”
Source:http://www.msnbc.com/news/1003649.asp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the complete transcript to Tuesay’s show
Guests: Andrew Goldberg, Mickey Sherman, Phil Bronstein, John Kerry
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST (voice-over): Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow?
Michael Jackson exonerated. Police and Child Welfare Authorities had investigated the charges against him and the child and family they involved, and the investigators had declared those charges unfounded. Is the case of the people of California versus Michael Jackson over?
Is the Democratic presidential race over? As we told you yesterday, Al Gore endorses Howard Dean to the shock of Joe Lieberman, d**k Gephardt, John Kerry. John Kerry, who will join us tonight, here.
In California, it’s never over until it is over. The pre-recall groping charges continue, but Governor Schwarzenegger’s promise to have them investigated does not continue. He will not have those charges examined.
The flu scare: It grows larger. It now entails unexplained staph infections.
And, an addition to the mug shot hall of fame: Can you identify this celebrity suspect? Better yet, can you identify all of the colors in his hair?
All that and more now, on COUNTDOWN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
OLBERMANN: Good evening. Ordinarily it would be just another cheesy media moment in the ever-cheesy Michael Jackson story. Last February, a 13-year-old boy told a Los Angeles county social worker that Jackson had never abused him sexually, in fact that he had never even slept in the same bed as the man and the boy’s mother backed up his denials that anything bad happened. It would be run of the mill, peripheral information except for one fact-the boy who made that statement to authorities denying sexual abuse is the same one now accusing Michael Jackson of sexual abuse.
Our fifth story on the COUNTDOWN: It’s your entertainment dollars in action, day 22 of the Michael Jackson investigation, what could be the last day of the Michael Jackson investigation. The Web site, Thesmokinggun.com unearthed documentary evidence of the investigation that cleared Jackson of the very charges now being pressed by the district attorney of Santa Barbara County. The paper work was produced by the Sensitive Case Unit of L.A.’s department of Children and Family Services.
The unit’s investigators included that allegations that Jackson sexually abused the boy were, quote, “unfounded” unquote; the investigator wrote that the boy, quote, “denied any form of sexual abuse.” The investigator quoted the boy’s mother as saying, “Jackson was like a father to the children and a part of her family,” and that while she knew that when her son slept over at Jackson’s ranch, quote, “they did not share a bed. The entertainer would sleep on the floor,” unquote. The investigation was closed on November 26 of this year with the mother, the boy, and his brother all denying that Jackson had been sexually abusive and the Child Welfare Agency determined that the allegations deserved to be considered to be unfounded, the most benign of possible outcomes. In a moment, how this memo could change the outcome of the entire Jackson case.
First, Andrew Goldberg of the Smokinggun.com, which dug the thing up.
Good evening, sir.
ANDREW GOLDBERG, THESMOKINGGUN.COM: Good evening. How are you?
OLBERMANN: A couple of quick questions. First off, we are certain that this Child Welfare memo exonerating Michael Jackson, in essence is, about the same child as in the Santa Barbara case? There’s no chance of crossed wires somewhere?
GOLDBERG: Absolutely. I mean, if you look at the memos, we put on our Web site, we did blur out names and what we do is we don’t release names of alleged victims and that’s what we did. So, we have the original memo, so we know who’s named in it.
OLBERMANN: What’s the timeline here? Why, if this investigation was conducted last February, was it not written until about two weeks ago?
GOLDBERG: Well, there’s a large case file and what happened is a phone call came in in early February after the documentary aired, from somebody at the Los Angeles Unified School District-you know, alleging negligence by the mother and sexual abuse by the entertainer, as he’s identified in the memo and about a two week investigation took place. What happened is, one of the higher-ups at the Department of Children and Family Services who came into the department after, in March, and right in November of this year he said, “well what was going on? Can somebody write up a memo and summarize what our investigation found back in February?” That’s what this memo is, it’s a summary of an investigation that lasted almost two weeks.
OLBERMANN: Tonight the D.A. in Santa Barbara, Tom Sneddon said his office was aware of the report and its contents and also he referred to the timing and he does not find this report a significant factor. Andrew, what are we missing here?
GOLDBERG: Um, I mean, we do stories and we find it to be significant. We find it relevant. He referred to-he said that he-you know, referenced the report in the application for the search warrants and we’d love to see the applications that were filed along with the search warrants to get more information. But for us-you know, this is a relevant document and that’s what we do, we’re a document Web site and it’s timely, as well.
OLBERMANN: Yeah, it certainly is. Andrew Goldberg of Thesmokinggun.com. Probably has to be the most significant development yet in the Jackson case. Good work and many thanks for your time.
GOLDBERG: Thank you so much.
OLBERMANN: Jackson’s spokesman has issued a statement this evening, quote “The government report is what we’ve been saying all along,” says Stuart Backerman, “that is that there is no merit to the allegations and Michael Jackson is innocent. All this does is reinforce what we’ve been saying,” unquote. We mentioned the D.A. Tom Sneddon, to us, the outsiders, it would seem tonight, that he might resemble Wile E. Coyote from the “Roadrunner” cartoons just after he’s discovered he’s propelled himself off a cliff, but just before he realizes there is no ground beneath his feet and gravity is going to take delayed effect.
He says otherwise, “Our investigators were aware of the contents of the interviews prior to seeking the search warrants and arrest warrant for Mr. Jackson,” he said in a statement released this afternoon and cosigned by the county sheriff, Jim Anderson. “The report and its contents, along with the totality of the investigation and the circumstances and the timing under which these statements were given were provided to the judge at the time that the search and arrest warrants were issued. Given what we know now,” he concludes, “we do not consider the DCFS statement,” that’s the Department of Children and Family Services, “the statement a significant factor.”
We mentioned, it’s day 22 of the Jackson case. Will there be a day 23? I’m joined now by noted criminal defense attorney, Mickey Sherman.
And, good evening to you, sir.
MICKEY SHERMAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good evening.
OLBERMANN: Let’s me start with the statements Messrs. Sneddon and Anderson. It’s not a significant factor? How-how can that be? As I asked Mr. Goldberg, just now, what am I missing here?
SHERMAN: All you’re missing is the imitation of them doing-what’s his name-Martin Short in the only “Saturday Night Live” routine when he was the sleazy lawyer and said, “We knew that-I knew that. Of course, we I knew that.” I mean, it’s absurd. You know, so many times in these cases, whether it’s Kobe or Peterson, or whatever, we hear every day that there’s another bombshell, and usually it’s not a bombshell. But, I got to tell you, Keith, this is a bombshell.
OLBERMANN: Agreed.
SHERMAN: It’s an absolute bombshell because usually it’s like a big story or it’s a big deal, sometimes in the media, but never gets into court. This is one of those bombshells that’s a big deal in the media, it’s a big deal in reality, and it’s going to be a really big deal in front of the jury if it gets that far.
OLBERMANN: Nathan Thurm was the name of the character Martin Short...
SHERMAN: Yeah, exactly.
OLBERMANN: ...played all those years ago and he makes it into the
news. Is the only inference possible here, Mickey, that Tom Sneddon has or
believes he has evidence of molestation that somehow took place after the
conclusion of the investigation of the Department of Children and Family Services? I mean if that is not the case,
SHERMAN: If that’s not...
OLBERMANN: ...doesn’t somebody-does somebody-some judge step in and stop this fight right now?
SHERMAN: I think it’s very rare for that to happen. But, if he has nothing else, nothing subsequent to this, then he’s got some problems. It’s a good thing that Sneddon’s retiring. I mean it seems to me, I think, and I’m not one to bash prosecutors, certainly not in my own jurisdiction, but it seems to me maybe he took this a little too personally, because if he had this information and he still went in and got a $3 million bond, as Henry Lee said in the O.J. Simpson case, “something is wrong here.”
OLBERMANN: If Mr. Sneddon were to, for some reason, call you up now and ask you for your advice, would you say “punt?”
SHERMAN: I would say make sure that your insurance policy covers malicious prosecution cases. Because, I mean, I think Jackson’s got some avenue to work with.
OLBERMANN: Yeah, I wanted to ask you that, too. I know we’re assuming here that the case, at least the case that we think we know publicly, doesn’t seem like it could survive this kind of information on top of everything else that’s been questioned about the nature of the family and all of the rest of that, but does Michael Jackson potentially have legal recourse here and would he bother to use it?
SHERMAN: If this is the whole deal, if this is the total nine yards as to what they have, and by the way, Keith, it may very well not be, again, this is just something that’s been uncovered and it’s never over until it’s over and we never know what’s happen once it gets to the courthouse. But, if in fact we’re all guessing correctly, that this is all they have he may have a cause of action for a good lawsuit. Would he do that? Should he do that? Probably not. I think if he were smart, he’d probably make a big hay about it and say that he was going to sue, but he doesn’t want the money, doesn’t want their-doesn’t want to profit out of this, maybe he would sue and give the money to charity. But, I think he’s a fair case.
OLBERMANN: The noted criminal defense attorney, Mickey Sherman, many thanks and we appreciate your insight, sir.
SHERMAN: My pleasure.
OLBERMANN: There is one more sidebar to the Jackson story today, ironic in its timing. Child Welfare Authorities have reportedly been unable to interview his kids. The “New York Post” reporting today, that the workers have made roughly six kids to the Neverland Ranch in hopes of ascertaining the health and condition of Jackson’s three children, but that each time nobody has been home. They have been trying since about the time Jackson turned himself in on November 18. No indication either way as to whether or not Jackson’s deliberately kept the children out of sight to avoid the authorities inquiries or if they’re all merely in Las Vegas.
COUNTDOWN under way on with what is accurately, as Mickey Sherman just said, albeit a little tritely, described as the “Jackson bombshell.”
Source:http://www.msnbc.com/news/1003649.asp