Show air date: December 1 2003
Transcript provided by paramountmj
Posted: Dec 1 2003, 10:21 PM
Greta: Tonight, Michael Jackson's lawyer vows his client won't be a pinata for financial motives. Is that what happened in 1993. Mary Fisher investigated the 1993 accusations for GQ magazine and joins us from Los Angeles with more. Mary, first the question, do you think he was framed in 93, and if so, the follow up question, is why you think that?
Mary Fisher: I definately think he was the target of a plan to extract money from him. And I base that on a five month investigation that I did for GQ...that looked at the accusers, the adults that were surrounding the boy who made the accusation. And I looked at who they were as people and to look at their motivations. And what I came up with was that three of them had questionable backgrounds and also the boy had been giving a powerful, psychiatric drug, before he ever made any allegations against Jackson. And, uh, there was alot of evidence that had not come out before that strongly suggest that Jackson was the target of extortion.
Greta: Mary was there any evidence at all that other than the boy and his family had ever seen anything to suggest a criminal activity about Michael Jackson. If you strip away the accusations from the one family settled civily. Is there anyone else that back them up?
Mary Fisher: There was no other corroborating evidence as there often is in these cases of alleged child molestation. It's easy for someone to make an accusation, but it's very hard to defend against it. And that's because often there is no other evidence. There's the say so of the child surround by adults who encourage the child to, uh, to make these statements for their own motivations and there is no other evidence. That was the case in 93, and so far that seems to be the case now.
Greta: In the 93 case, did the family first go to a lawyer for civil damages for money before they went to the prosecuter?
Mary Fisher: That's exactly right. The interesting thing is if the parents of the first boy had genuinely believed that there son had been sexually molested by Jackson. You would think that the first thing they would think to do is go to the police, but they didn't do that. They went to an attorney, and the attorney then helpled them with some sort of plan to extract money from Jackson. And then they brought in a psychiatrist, who by the way had no experience with children and met with the boy several times, and it was only after that and being given the drug, that the boy then said yes Jackson did inappropriate things to me.
Greta: In terms of the drug, do you know what the drug was?
Mary Fisher: Yes, it's sodium ametal (sp?) and it's a powerful psychiatric drug when under the influence, a person is highly suggestible. And that drug was given to the boy by the father of the boy and the father's friend who was a dental anesthesiologist , and the anesthesiologist gave the boy the drug in the dentist office.
Greta: Was there any accusation by the boy before this drug that Michael Jackson had been inappropriate with him?
Mary Fisher: No. In fact he had been asked several times if anything inappropriate happened and he would always said no, and then again this is what happens in some of these cases and incidents, that a series of adults, whether it is police, the parents, psychiatrists surround the child and the child becomes influenced by these adults and often they are false accusations that come out of this.
Greta: Alright this family, the mother and father not married, right? That adds the results to that element to it that the family was falling apart.
Mary Fisher: Exactly right. In the first case, the parents were involved in a bitter custody and divorce battle. The what also happened is that Jackson had befriended the father and the boy and got busy and moved on and the father was disgruntled by the fact that Jackson was no longer as close to him as he once been. That seems to be a parallel in this frequent, in this new case. Uhm, and in this new case that fact that parents did not take the boy or call the police, but they took him to a lawyer(s), civil lawyer.
Greta: And the lawyer, is there any parody or similarities. Are there any lawyers from the 93 case hovering around this new case?
Mary Fisher: Well, the lawyer, the civil lawyer from the boy in the first case is also the attorney who the parents, uh, the mother of this current boy took him too. That's whats in common.
Greta: Aright, and what has happened to the family. Any quick update where, he's now a young man, was a boy back then in 93. What's he up to?
Mary Fisher: You know, I haven't really kept on top of it. I understand he's living in the east coast. I guess he's 22 years old in college but I don't know where. And to me there is so many similarities with the old case and this current case that it is really important to reserve judgement before anyone comes to a conclusion about guilt or innocence here.
Greta: Alright, Mary, thank you very much for joining us
Mary Fisher: You're welcome. Thank you.
Transcript provided by paramountmj
Posted: Dec 1 2003, 10:21 PM
Greta: Tonight, Michael Jackson's lawyer vows his client won't be a pinata for financial motives. Is that what happened in 1993. Mary Fisher investigated the 1993 accusations for GQ magazine and joins us from Los Angeles with more. Mary, first the question, do you think he was framed in 93, and if so, the follow up question, is why you think that?
Mary Fisher: I definately think he was the target of a plan to extract money from him. And I base that on a five month investigation that I did for GQ...that looked at the accusers, the adults that were surrounding the boy who made the accusation. And I looked at who they were as people and to look at their motivations. And what I came up with was that three of them had questionable backgrounds and also the boy had been giving a powerful, psychiatric drug, before he ever made any allegations against Jackson. And, uh, there was alot of evidence that had not come out before that strongly suggest that Jackson was the target of extortion.
Greta: Mary was there any evidence at all that other than the boy and his family had ever seen anything to suggest a criminal activity about Michael Jackson. If you strip away the accusations from the one family settled civily. Is there anyone else that back them up?
Mary Fisher: There was no other corroborating evidence as there often is in these cases of alleged child molestation. It's easy for someone to make an accusation, but it's very hard to defend against it. And that's because often there is no other evidence. There's the say so of the child surround by adults who encourage the child to, uh, to make these statements for their own motivations and there is no other evidence. That was the case in 93, and so far that seems to be the case now.
Greta: In the 93 case, did the family first go to a lawyer for civil damages for money before they went to the prosecuter?
Mary Fisher: That's exactly right. The interesting thing is if the parents of the first boy had genuinely believed that there son had been sexually molested by Jackson. You would think that the first thing they would think to do is go to the police, but they didn't do that. They went to an attorney, and the attorney then helpled them with some sort of plan to extract money from Jackson. And then they brought in a psychiatrist, who by the way had no experience with children and met with the boy several times, and it was only after that and being given the drug, that the boy then said yes Jackson did inappropriate things to me.
Greta: In terms of the drug, do you know what the drug was?
Mary Fisher: Yes, it's sodium ametal (sp?) and it's a powerful psychiatric drug when under the influence, a person is highly suggestible. And that drug was given to the boy by the father of the boy and the father's friend who was a dental anesthesiologist , and the anesthesiologist gave the boy the drug in the dentist office.
Greta: Was there any accusation by the boy before this drug that Michael Jackson had been inappropriate with him?
Mary Fisher: No. In fact he had been asked several times if anything inappropriate happened and he would always said no, and then again this is what happens in some of these cases and incidents, that a series of adults, whether it is police, the parents, psychiatrists surround the child and the child becomes influenced by these adults and often they are false accusations that come out of this.
Greta: Alright this family, the mother and father not married, right? That adds the results to that element to it that the family was falling apart.
Mary Fisher: Exactly right. In the first case, the parents were involved in a bitter custody and divorce battle. The what also happened is that Jackson had befriended the father and the boy and got busy and moved on and the father was disgruntled by the fact that Jackson was no longer as close to him as he once been. That seems to be a parallel in this frequent, in this new case. Uhm, and in this new case that fact that parents did not take the boy or call the police, but they took him to a lawyer(s), civil lawyer.
Greta: And the lawyer, is there any parody or similarities. Are there any lawyers from the 93 case hovering around this new case?
Mary Fisher: Well, the lawyer, the civil lawyer from the boy in the first case is also the attorney who the parents, uh, the mother of this current boy took him too. That's whats in common.
Greta: Aright, and what has happened to the family. Any quick update where, he's now a young man, was a boy back then in 93. What's he up to?
Mary Fisher: You know, I haven't really kept on top of it. I understand he's living in the east coast. I guess he's 22 years old in college but I don't know where. And to me there is so many similarities with the old case and this current case that it is really important to reserve judgement before anyone comes to a conclusion about guilt or innocence here.
Greta: Alright, Mary, thank you very much for joining us
Mary Fisher: You're welcome. Thank you.