The MJ segment from the rush transcript of Scarborough Country, which aired Friday, Dec 5 2003:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, the media circus has come to Neverland. It’s time for the “Real Deal.”
A disturbing trend is rapidly developing in the Michael Jackson child molestation scandal. Both sides are shamelessly using the media to try their case. And that’s even before the first charge has been filed. This all started with the Santa Barbara DA announcing Michael Jackson’s arrest for allegedly molesting a young boy and appearing to be happy about making that announcement. Remember, he even encouraged reporters to stay longer in his hometown and spend their tax dollars.
But, yesterday, Jackson supporters held their own press conference that looked more like a pep rally to tell us how their kids had spent the night at Neverland Ranch and left unharmed. And now today, a newspaper reports that the alleged brother saw Michael Jackson molest the child at the Neverland Ranch.
Sadly, this case is taking on the scent of the O.J. sequel. The DA needs to file his charges, so a trial judge can slap down a gag order and make sure this case is decided by a juror of Michael Jackson’s peers, instead of by news directors and media outlets. And that’s tonight’s “Real Deal.”
As we said, there is reportedly a witness saying he saw Michael Jackson do it. Yesterday, the DA’s case was supposedly falling apart. But, today, according to “The L.A. Times,” the brother of the alleged victim told sources close to the investigate that he witnessed Michael Jackson molesting his brother.
Court TV anchor Lisa Bloom, how bad is this news for Michael Jackson?
LISA BLOOM, COURT TV ANCHOR: Well, actually, Court TV broke the story yesterday. And I mentioned it here on your program yesterday, that, indeed, the brother of the accuser is claiming to be an eyewitness to one of the incidents. That is very important evidence in a court, to have an eyewitness to a charge of molestation. You almost never see that.
But I agree with you, Joe. I think both sides are leaking probably a little bit too much. And I think we should wait for the evidence at trial before we reach anything decisions.
SCARBOROUGH: Let me bring in right now defense attorney Gary Casimir. Gary, what do you think? Is this bad news for Michael Jackson? Especially when you have a he said-well, in this case, a he said and young he said, in deciding whether Michael Jackson is guilty or innocent?
GARY CASIMIR, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Absolutely, it is bad news for Michael, but it’s not the trump car here.
It’s very rare that you a witness to child molestation cases. Molesters don’t molest kids in front of other people. Plus, you have an interested witness. It’s his brother. The question is, what did he see? And can that interpreted as not molestation, as something harmless? It can work for them and against them. You have a mother going to an attorney instead of child victim services when they first out about this. And now you have the brother as a witness. They’re going to play the interested witness card in this case. It’s going to be about money.
SCARBOROUGH: There have been reports out there that the mother is unstable. Do you think the prosecution, the defense, are going to be fighting over whether this mother is putting up her kids to do this against Michael Jackson?
CASIMIR: Well, I am sure that is what the defense is going to do in this case. There is no doubt. It’s already been thrown out there. The gauntlet has been put out. It’s about money, that there is nothing else in this case about money.
They probably will be attacking the mother. But, that being said, I have had the opportunity to try these cases. And the case is going to come down between that victim and Michael in the end.
SCARBOROUGH: Lisa, what do you think of the brother coming forward and making the statement about seeing Michael Jackson allegedly molest his brother? Is it going to have the credibility that a disinterested witness would have? The fact that he is a brother, the fact that obviously it’s a mother son, does that take away some of the strength of the revelation?
BLOOM: Well, I don’t think it does, Joe.
Look, you’ve got to be realistic about who is going to be in a bedroom with Michael Jackson and the accuser. It’s going to be another little boy, apparently. That’s the people that tend to be in Michael Jackson’s bedroom, apparently. You take your witnesses as you find them when you’re an attorney. You don’t get to pick and choose among who you might like to have as a witness.
I think the little brother of the accuser could be a powerful witness. We have also learned that the sister of the accuser, a high-school-age girl, apparently was told by the accuser, contemporaneously, that something was wrong, that something was going on. So this may be an entire family allied with the accuser.
And as for the mother being unstable, Joe, you really have to take into account the source of that. It’s the father who is in the middle of an acrimonious divorce who is accusing her of that. That hasn’t been proven. What has been proven is that the father is guilty of physically abusing his wife and some of those kids.
SCARBOROUGH: So this could really turn into a family feud, couldn’t it, Gary?
CASIMIR: Absolutely.
SCARBOROUGH: And when it turns into a family feud, that could possibility take the credibility away from all the family members.
(CROSSTALK)
CASIMIR: Sure. Absolutely.
Lisa has just put it out there. You have got a mom that is now being accused of being unstable. You have got a father that is accused of abusing the mom and maybe abusing the children and these kind of complaints. You’re going to have a war. The family is going to be put on trial here. That’s what the big case is going to be in the end, especially, like you said, if this is going to played out in the media, they are going to attack the family.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOOM: I think that is really unfair to the children. The children, some of them were physically abused. I don’t see how that damages their credibility. Let’s not broad-brush this family. Each of these people are individuals and should be judged as individuals. These kids have not done anything wrong.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, Lisa, and, of course, nobody is saying that the kids have done anything wrong. But let’s look at the accusations.
It’s very important to say these are just accusations. They are rumors.
BLOOM: Absolutely.
SCARBOROUGH: There is no evidence. But, look, here we’ve got one side saying the mother is unstable. We’ve got the other side saying that the father is abusive.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOOM: He’s got a conviction for physical abuse. So that’s been proved.
SCARBOROUGH: OK. OK.
But we also know, though, there is going to be a lot more sleazy information out there.
I want to ask both of you. You first, Lisa, then, you, Gary.
Lisa, do think that, after the charges are filed, the judge should slap a gag order down against all participants in this case?
BLOOM: Well, I hope he does not do that, because, if that happens, all we get is rumor and speculation. We don’t find out about the real evidence in a court of law. A gag order is counterproductive. Why not let potential jurors hear about the real evidence? Why limit them to rumor and speculation? I just don’t think that’s sensible.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: But is it sensible, though, to have this case tried out, though, in the media?
BLOOM: The media is fascinated by this case, Joe. You’re covering this case nightly. Let’s not pretend that the public is not fascinated with this case. We’ve got the First Amendment. There is nothing wrong with talking about it.
And it raises important issues about child abuse, about reporting, about going to attorneys. There is nothing wrong with covering this case and talking about this case, as long as we’re accurate.
(CROSSTALK)
CASIMIR: That’s like saying the jury will not be affected buy all the media attention and won’t make up their mind based on what we say on this show and what other people say.
BLOOM: This is not the first high-profile case, Gary.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOOM: The jury is going to listen to the evidence. They can make their decision.
(CROSSTALK)
CASIMIR: And there’s no reason why there shouldn’t be a gag order in this case.
Here, you have a case that is going to have attention all around the world. Trust me. Both sides are going to be leaking information about one another. I am sure you are going to hear other stories about Michael. If you really want the case to be tried based on the facts they have in this case, they should put a gag order.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Lisa, the prosecutors have been saying now that they are going to press charges on December the 15th. I’m curious, Lisa. Do you think they may be leaking this information about the alleged victims’ brother to take the heat off him until they do press those charges?
BLOOM: Well, first of all, let’s not assume that that leak came from the prosecution. Some of our sources are victim’s family members. That is not the same thing as the prosecution.
The prosecution has until the day of arraignment, January 9, to file charges legally in the state of California. There’s nothing wrong with them waiting a couple of weeks, making sure that all their ducks are in a row, making sure all their evidence lines up with the charges before they file charges, nothing wrong with that at all.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Hey, Gary, you know what? Gary, I’m not out in L.A. right now. I am not in Santa Monica-or Santa Barbara-excuse me-following this. But I was in Congress for a while. And I can smell a press leak and where it’s coming from.
And here you have yesterday “The New York Times” reporting that this case may be falling apart. And then, the next day, the very next day, we get reports in the paper, which again, which Lisa reported last night, talked about on our show, that there is this witness, and it’s the brother and he saw it all. Doesn’t that sound like that could be coming from the prosecution?
(CROSSTALK)
CASIMIR: There is no doubt it’s coming from the government’s camp.
Look, these leaks are-often, when I was a former prosecutor, the leaks that you get generally are coming from the police’s department and the sheriff’s department. These are common.
BLOOM: You don’t know that. This is a large family
(CROSSTALK)
CASIMIR: I know I don’t know that.
(CROSSTALK)
CASIMIR: Who has the witness list? Who is telling the witnesses not to talk? It’s the government. The government doesn’t go around telling eyewitnesses of cases, go around telling people. They don’t go around doing that. And, believe me, that story, that article about the case falling apart did have an effect on the sheriff’s department.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOOM: Well, you can speculate that that comes from the prosecution,
CASIMIR: Absolutely.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOOM: But that’s not what we are reporting.
And what we do know is that the defense, for attribution, has leaked some information, like supposedly a tape that they haven’t actually leaked, they have only played for a couple selected reporters, who then they entrust to go out and talk about it.
CASIMIR: Lisa, you just admitted that family members of the victim leaked that story to your office.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOOM: Well, I don’t know if it is a leak or if it’s just a report.[/b] A leak implies that there is something wrong with talking about it. A leak implies that there is a gag order. Reporting is when you go out, you get a couple of sources, you get information.
(CROSSTALK)
CASIMIR: I’m a former prosecutor. And I tell my witness not to talk to anyone about this case until we go to trial
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Lisa Bloom and Gary Casimir, I want to thank you both for being with us to talk about the continuing Michael Jackson case, which, unfortunately, right now is being tried in the press by leaks.
Source: http://www.msnbc.com/news/1002693.asp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, the media circus has come to Neverland. It’s time for the “Real Deal.”
A disturbing trend is rapidly developing in the Michael Jackson child molestation scandal. Both sides are shamelessly using the media to try their case. And that’s even before the first charge has been filed. This all started with the Santa Barbara DA announcing Michael Jackson’s arrest for allegedly molesting a young boy and appearing to be happy about making that announcement. Remember, he even encouraged reporters to stay longer in his hometown and spend their tax dollars.
But, yesterday, Jackson supporters held their own press conference that looked more like a pep rally to tell us how their kids had spent the night at Neverland Ranch and left unharmed. And now today, a newspaper reports that the alleged brother saw Michael Jackson molest the child at the Neverland Ranch.
Sadly, this case is taking on the scent of the O.J. sequel. The DA needs to file his charges, so a trial judge can slap down a gag order and make sure this case is decided by a juror of Michael Jackson’s peers, instead of by news directors and media outlets. And that’s tonight’s “Real Deal.”
As we said, there is reportedly a witness saying he saw Michael Jackson do it. Yesterday, the DA’s case was supposedly falling apart. But, today, according to “The L.A. Times,” the brother of the alleged victim told sources close to the investigate that he witnessed Michael Jackson molesting his brother.
Court TV anchor Lisa Bloom, how bad is this news for Michael Jackson?
LISA BLOOM, COURT TV ANCHOR: Well, actually, Court TV broke the story yesterday. And I mentioned it here on your program yesterday, that, indeed, the brother of the accuser is claiming to be an eyewitness to one of the incidents. That is very important evidence in a court, to have an eyewitness to a charge of molestation. You almost never see that.
But I agree with you, Joe. I think both sides are leaking probably a little bit too much. And I think we should wait for the evidence at trial before we reach anything decisions.
SCARBOROUGH: Let me bring in right now defense attorney Gary Casimir. Gary, what do you think? Is this bad news for Michael Jackson? Especially when you have a he said-well, in this case, a he said and young he said, in deciding whether Michael Jackson is guilty or innocent?
GARY CASIMIR, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Absolutely, it is bad news for Michael, but it’s not the trump car here.
It’s very rare that you a witness to child molestation cases. Molesters don’t molest kids in front of other people. Plus, you have an interested witness. It’s his brother. The question is, what did he see? And can that interpreted as not molestation, as something harmless? It can work for them and against them. You have a mother going to an attorney instead of child victim services when they first out about this. And now you have the brother as a witness. They’re going to play the interested witness card in this case. It’s going to be about money.
SCARBOROUGH: There have been reports out there that the mother is unstable. Do you think the prosecution, the defense, are going to be fighting over whether this mother is putting up her kids to do this against Michael Jackson?
CASIMIR: Well, I am sure that is what the defense is going to do in this case. There is no doubt. It’s already been thrown out there. The gauntlet has been put out. It’s about money, that there is nothing else in this case about money.
They probably will be attacking the mother. But, that being said, I have had the opportunity to try these cases. And the case is going to come down between that victim and Michael in the end.
SCARBOROUGH: Lisa, what do you think of the brother coming forward and making the statement about seeing Michael Jackson allegedly molest his brother? Is it going to have the credibility that a disinterested witness would have? The fact that he is a brother, the fact that obviously it’s a mother son, does that take away some of the strength of the revelation?
BLOOM: Well, I don’t think it does, Joe.
Look, you’ve got to be realistic about who is going to be in a bedroom with Michael Jackson and the accuser. It’s going to be another little boy, apparently. That’s the people that tend to be in Michael Jackson’s bedroom, apparently. You take your witnesses as you find them when you’re an attorney. You don’t get to pick and choose among who you might like to have as a witness.
I think the little brother of the accuser could be a powerful witness. We have also learned that the sister of the accuser, a high-school-age girl, apparently was told by the accuser, contemporaneously, that something was wrong, that something was going on. So this may be an entire family allied with the accuser.
And as for the mother being unstable, Joe, you really have to take into account the source of that. It’s the father who is in the middle of an acrimonious divorce who is accusing her of that. That hasn’t been proven. What has been proven is that the father is guilty of physically abusing his wife and some of those kids.
SCARBOROUGH: So this could really turn into a family feud, couldn’t it, Gary?
CASIMIR: Absolutely.
SCARBOROUGH: And when it turns into a family feud, that could possibility take the credibility away from all the family members.
(CROSSTALK)
CASIMIR: Sure. Absolutely.
Lisa has just put it out there. You have got a mom that is now being accused of being unstable. You have got a father that is accused of abusing the mom and maybe abusing the children and these kind of complaints. You’re going to have a war. The family is going to be put on trial here. That’s what the big case is going to be in the end, especially, like you said, if this is going to played out in the media, they are going to attack the family.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOOM: I think that is really unfair to the children. The children, some of them were physically abused. I don’t see how that damages their credibility. Let’s not broad-brush this family. Each of these people are individuals and should be judged as individuals. These kids have not done anything wrong.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, Lisa, and, of course, nobody is saying that the kids have done anything wrong. But let’s look at the accusations.
It’s very important to say these are just accusations. They are rumors.
BLOOM: Absolutely.
SCARBOROUGH: There is no evidence. But, look, here we’ve got one side saying the mother is unstable. We’ve got the other side saying that the father is abusive.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOOM: He’s got a conviction for physical abuse. So that’s been proved.
SCARBOROUGH: OK. OK.
But we also know, though, there is going to be a lot more sleazy information out there.
I want to ask both of you. You first, Lisa, then, you, Gary.
Lisa, do think that, after the charges are filed, the judge should slap a gag order down against all participants in this case?
BLOOM: Well, I hope he does not do that, because, if that happens, all we get is rumor and speculation. We don’t find out about the real evidence in a court of law. A gag order is counterproductive. Why not let potential jurors hear about the real evidence? Why limit them to rumor and speculation? I just don’t think that’s sensible.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: But is it sensible, though, to have this case tried out, though, in the media?
BLOOM: The media is fascinated by this case, Joe. You’re covering this case nightly. Let’s not pretend that the public is not fascinated with this case. We’ve got the First Amendment. There is nothing wrong with talking about it.
And it raises important issues about child abuse, about reporting, about going to attorneys. There is nothing wrong with covering this case and talking about this case, as long as we’re accurate.
(CROSSTALK)
CASIMIR: That’s like saying the jury will not be affected buy all the media attention and won’t make up their mind based on what we say on this show and what other people say.
BLOOM: This is not the first high-profile case, Gary.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOOM: The jury is going to listen to the evidence. They can make their decision.
(CROSSTALK)
CASIMIR: And there’s no reason why there shouldn’t be a gag order in this case.
Here, you have a case that is going to have attention all around the world. Trust me. Both sides are going to be leaking information about one another. I am sure you are going to hear other stories about Michael. If you really want the case to be tried based on the facts they have in this case, they should put a gag order.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Lisa, the prosecutors have been saying now that they are going to press charges on December the 15th. I’m curious, Lisa. Do you think they may be leaking this information about the alleged victims’ brother to take the heat off him until they do press those charges?
BLOOM: Well, first of all, let’s not assume that that leak came from the prosecution. Some of our sources are victim’s family members. That is not the same thing as the prosecution.
The prosecution has until the day of arraignment, January 9, to file charges legally in the state of California. There’s nothing wrong with them waiting a couple of weeks, making sure that all their ducks are in a row, making sure all their evidence lines up with the charges before they file charges, nothing wrong with that at all.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Hey, Gary, you know what? Gary, I’m not out in L.A. right now. I am not in Santa Monica-or Santa Barbara-excuse me-following this. But I was in Congress for a while. And I can smell a press leak and where it’s coming from.
And here you have yesterday “The New York Times” reporting that this case may be falling apart. And then, the next day, the very next day, we get reports in the paper, which again, which Lisa reported last night, talked about on our show, that there is this witness, and it’s the brother and he saw it all. Doesn’t that sound like that could be coming from the prosecution?
(CROSSTALK)
CASIMIR: There is no doubt it’s coming from the government’s camp.
Look, these leaks are-often, when I was a former prosecutor, the leaks that you get generally are coming from the police’s department and the sheriff’s department. These are common.
BLOOM: You don’t know that. This is a large family
(CROSSTALK)
CASIMIR: I know I don’t know that.
(CROSSTALK)
CASIMIR: Who has the witness list? Who is telling the witnesses not to talk? It’s the government. The government doesn’t go around telling eyewitnesses of cases, go around telling people. They don’t go around doing that. And, believe me, that story, that article about the case falling apart did have an effect on the sheriff’s department.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOOM: Well, you can speculate that that comes from the prosecution,
CASIMIR: Absolutely.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOOM: But that’s not what we are reporting.
And what we do know is that the defense, for attribution, has leaked some information, like supposedly a tape that they haven’t actually leaked, they have only played for a couple selected reporters, who then they entrust to go out and talk about it.
CASIMIR: Lisa, you just admitted that family members of the victim leaked that story to your office.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOOM: Well, I don’t know if it is a leak or if it’s just a report.[/b] A leak implies that there is something wrong with talking about it. A leak implies that there is a gag order. Reporting is when you go out, you get a couple of sources, you get information.
(CROSSTALK)
CASIMIR: I’m a former prosecutor. And I tell my witness not to talk to anyone about this case until we go to trial
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Lisa Bloom and Gary Casimir, I want to thank you both for being with us to talk about the continuing Michael Jackson case, which, unfortunately, right now is being tried in the press by leaks.
Source: http://www.msnbc.com/news/1002693.asp