Very little TV coverage in comparison to when the story first broke
The LAPD has cleared Jackson of another false claim of molestation.An 18 year old man, according to sources, was running around Los Angeles trying to procure a psychologist and an attorney after claiming he was abused by Jackson in the 80s.The two month investigation came up empty: no proof of abuse, no other accusers, and no proof that this fake accuser even met Jackson at the time he was claiming abuse.The broadcast media, being their usual selves, of course didn’t give this news nearly as much attention as the original claim received.
The LAPD released a follow-up statement to their original press released two months ago. In the June 2 2004 release, Lieutenant Art Miller writes:
- Los Angeles: On May 28 2004, Detectives from the Los Angeles Police Department’s Juvenile Division officially concluded their 2 month investigation into allegation of child abuse against Michael Jackson.
The person making the allegations claimed the acts took place in the City of Los Angeles in the late 80s. After an extensive investigation, which included hours of interviews with the person making the allegations, Detectives concluded there was no evidence that any crime occurred. No charges will be sought.
(see press release)
Sources say that the two involved most in the LA claim even making it this far are psychiatrist Carole Lieberman and Attorney Gloria Allred. Both women have a history of ill-will toward Jackson. Both have actively sought to have Jackson’s own children removed from his care without showing any cause why they should be taken away. And both of them were involved in this erroneous claim.
In an April 14 2004 report, Reuters reported about the involvement of these two in these false allegations:
- The sources said that Beverly Hills psychiatrist Carole Lieberman, who filed a child abuse complaint last year with Santa Barbara County Protective Services against the pop singer, counseled the new [accuser] and helped him remember the alleged assault.
The sources also said that feminist attorney Gloria Allred, a prominent critic of Jackson's lifestyle, was also involved in bringing the recent complaint to police.
Both women told Reuters they could neither confirm nor deny their involvement in the case.
Lieberman gave a very disturbing radio interview where she complained about Jackson needing psychiatric help and saying his children should be removed. This is coming from someone who hasn’t so much as met Jackson, let along has ever been in a position to diagnose him. She has also been called “mentally unbalanced” by prominent attorney Jeff Fieger (see article). She sued him and lost, of course. He is by far not the only person to think Lieberman could stand to spend a few sessions on a couch somewhere herself.
In an April 19 2004 Fox news article, Roger Friedman (yeah, him if you can believe it) quoted Lieberman making some incredible statements about the “case”. According to Friedman, she said that she wondered if Sneddon has a case at all. She, too, had her own feelings about the timeline the current district attorney is trying to push. She told Friedman:
- "The dates in the case will be its downfall…I told Tom Sneddon, things don't add up… There’s some kind of disingenuousness about the way he’s handling the case, some kind of ambivalence.” (see article)
On top of this news, is the fact that–in comparison to the coverage given when the story first broke–not too many TV shows are covering this new information. When these false allegations were reported on the air by a no-name attorney on Fox news, it was given a large amount of TV coverage afterwards. There were panel discussions about ‘what this could mean to Jackson’s case’ and ‘how this new evidence could shatter Jackson’s defense’, etc.
Along with these ‘Chicken Little’/doomsday forecasts, were talking heads proclaiming how “devastating” this is to Jackson’s “case” and how this new accuser could “stand up with this current ‘victim’ against Jackson.” Please! Well, I wonder what these same talking heads have to say now? So far, they’ve all been mum.
There have been no panel discussions about what this does to the prosecution’s case. No tv time devoted to how potential jurors will view the false LA accusation in relation to the Santa Barbara claim. No tv time devoted to discussing how easy it was to start an investigation based solely on the lies of an opportunist and his accomplices (willing or otherwise).
This is good news for Jackson on top of a stack of other information that the press previously couldn’t ignore: DCFS summary memo, interview with JCPenney lawyer, the family’s shady past, the mother coaching her children to lie during court proceedings, etc.
Of course Sneddon and his crisis management/PR firm got their shots in early by leaking unconfirmed and probably untrue information about some mysterious flight attendants who allegedly served alcohol in soda cans to Jackson. Isn’t it miraculously convenient that they come out with this story NOW? However, what would this prove? Absolutely nothing. It may prove that Jackson, unlike a number of other regular folk, doesn’t like under-aged impressionable children--who mimic everything he does–to see him drink alcohol. That is, of course, IF this nonsense if even true in the first place!
Another sinister allegation is that someone saw Jackson give alcohol to the accuser. I swear Jackson must be the sloppiest child molester on the face of the planet if you listen to “hack” journalists and TV lawyers trying to break news stories with untrue/unchallenged information. Drunk kids running around on airplanes, and nobody sees anything or calls the police at the time? Not even a ‘friendly’ leak about it to the tabloid media? I don’t think so.
Oh, but wait! I thought there was suppose to be a big conspiracy? But according to these people, not only does he get children drunk in front of eye witnesses, he also molests them in front of witnesses too!! I guess that part doesn’t factor into the ever-changing and increasingly more convoluted tale that people with something to gain are attempting to pass off as truth.
One contributor to the dissemination of nonsense is Court TV’s Nancy “Never met an accused person who wasn’t guilty” Grace, who appeared on ABC’s The View yesterday (June.8.2004). Sources say that she spread the unchallenged and possibly untrue info about the alleged flight attendants, but didn’t make one mention at all about Jackson being cleared of the false allegation by the LA police department. At times, we are all guilty of selective reporting. However, with audiences as large as these selective reporters draw, it’s absolutely despicable that they purposely don’t report anything that’s seen to be in Jackson’s favor.
So what to make of all this nonsense? Well, none of it will matter because when it comes time to put-up or shut-up in a court of law, all of the “leaks” and “unnamed sources” in the world won’t mean a damn thing. Some observers say that given the opportunity to investigate this current “case” in Santa Barbara, the LAPD could come up with the same finding they just did concerning the false allegation in LA.
I doubt Sneddon will let LA officials anywhere near this accuser or his family. At least not after Feldman filed a claim against LA County, nor after the way Sneddon insulted the LA DCFS because the result wasn’t what he wanted to hear. And we can all trust that if the results were unfavorable to Jackson, the media would never let us forget it.