Dirty laundry in Michael’s home. IT WAS A SET-UP

As you know, a rabid hater has sent me a description of what was found in a laundry bag in Neverland during the November 18, 2003 police raid.  She thinks it to be proof of MJ being gay.

I shrugged off her arguments as fiction but was fool enough to believe that the police findings were the way they were described in the hater’s message. She gleefully wrote of semen stains from 2 people other than Michael found on the mattress,  semen-soiled sheets and semen-soiled underwear from Michael and some unknown male – all stored in the same laundry bag.

Knowing that Neverland was a place where hundreds of friends and relatives lived for weeks at a time and some even used Michael’s bed I wasn’t surprised by the ‘mattress’ – while the dirty laundry in the bag did surprise me, but only by the fact that it was kept in some closet and was stored instead of being washed.

At best it looked like terrible neglect on the part of the maids, and at worst it pointed to someone collecting dirty linen on purpose and storing it in a closet for the police to arrive and pick it up.

However my biggest surprise came when I finally made a thorough check-up of the documents. First, they showed that the hater’s enumeration of what was found by the police was far from truthful, but in addition to that the documents disclosed a carefully hidden police secret connected with a drug they found on the fabric of Michael’s underpants.

To tell you the secret and back up my conclusions I decided to retype the documents and suggest that all of us see and check them up jointly.

*   *   *

Below is the list of 14 items which the Prosecution intended to submit to court and which the Defense wanted to be excluded. To rule out any suspicion regarding the rest of the items I decided to provide the list here in full, however you can skip the first twelve and proceed directly to items 13 and 14 which are the subject of our discussion here.

The dispute between Defense and Prosecution will be accompanied by some comment on my part.

1. The DEFENSE

January 18, 2005
Notice of Motion and Motion in Limine to Exclude Fourteen (14) items of irrelevant evidence (“Motion of Limine Group #1)

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/011805notmotexc14.pdf

”…. on January 28, 2005 … defendant  M.J.Jackson (Mr. Jackson) will move the Court for an order excluding any reference … to the following 14 irrelevant and extraneous evidence at trial:

1.   “Baby dangling”
2.   Cosmetic or plastic surgery
3.   Lyrics from Mr. Jackson’s songs
4.   Bankruptcy filed by M.Jackson’s family
5.   Al Malnik’s alleged ties to mobsters
6.   Brothel allegedly owned by Dieter Weisner
7.   Scott Peterson’s case
8.   Mark Geragos’s website
9.   Ray Chandler’s book entitled “All that Glitters”
10. Victor Gutierrez’s book entitled “Michael Jackson was my Lover”
11.  Attorney General’s Investigation of Mr. Jackson’s injury
12.  Items Seized by Henry Vaccaro
13.  DNA of Anyone other than Mr. Jackson, and

14.  Underwear and Cocaine.

The preclusion of these items of evidence is based on the following two grounds,
First, they are irrelevant under Evidence Code Section 210 because they have no tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of this action.
Second, even if relevant, they nevertheless much be excluded under Evidence Code Section 352 because the probative value of such evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice, undue consumption of court time, and confusion of the jury. [ ]

Thomas Mesereau, Susan C.Yu, Robert M.Sanger, Brian Oxman
Attorneys for Mr. Michael Jackson

If the Prosecution decided to include all sort of tabloid trash in the Arvizo case – including the “baby dangling” incident – it seems that they were either regarding their case as completely hopeless or wanted to prejudice the jury not by facts but by all sorts of innuendos from the raging media.

Here are the shortened comments from the Defense on the quality of the above ‘evidence’ (the replies concerning items 13 and 14 are provided in full).

You will be surprised to learn that Ray Chandler was subpoenaed not only by the Defense but was included in the Prosecution witness list too, however judging by the fact that he never appeared in court the Prosecution attempt took them nowhere – Ray Chandler was frightened as hell by the need to tell his story in court and go under cross-examination there. Well, by now we know that none of the Chandlers believed their own stories…..

THE DEFENSE:

1. The so-called “baby dangling” incident has absolutely no relevance to any of the charged crimes.

2. Whether or not Mr. Jackson had such surgery is completely irrelevant to any of the charges crimes in this case. Indeed, this evidence has absolutely no probative value.

3. The lyrics have no bearing whatsoever on this case.

4. Within the last ten years, some of Mr. Jackson’s family members have filed for bankruptcy. Said bankruptcy, however, has not relevance to any of the alleged crimes in this case.

5. Al Malnik is an attorney with whom Mr. Jackson had brief contact. Mr. Malnik is not on the Prosecution’s or the Defense’s witness list.  The media have spread rumors that Mr. Malnik has ties to “mobsters”… It is anticipated that the Prosecution may mention these rumors for the purpose of inflaming the jurors.

6. The Prosecution’s discovery mentions “rumors” that Mr. Wiesner “ran brothels out of Germany”. The media, too, have picked up on and circulated such “rumors”. These rumors (whether true or not) have absolutely no tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact of consequence to the determination of the outcome of this case. Rather, they constitute nothing more than a highly inflammatory and extraneous factor, which Prosecution may attempt to use to influence the jurors to “prejudge” Mr. Jackson.

7. Attorney Mark Geragos was Mr. Jackson’s  attorney in the instant criminal case. Mr. Geragos is on the Prosecution”s and Defense’s witness list. The Prosecution has alleged in previously  filed pleadings before this Court that Mr. Geragos may be a co-conspirator in this case. ….In an effort to inflame the jurors, the Prosecution may attempt to mention the highly publicized Scott Peterson case, which Mr. Geragos handled.

8.Mr. Geragos’s website, too, has absolutely no relevance to this case.

9. Raymond Chandler is the uncle of Jordie Chandler, one of the alleged “prior acts victims” from 1993. Mr. Raymond Chandler, who is on the Prosecution’s witness list recently, i.e. just months ago, published a book entitled “All that Glitters”.

The timing of the publication of this book substantiates what the book is worth. Mr. Chandler’s book is, at best, a tabloid tool designed to fuel controversy and generate financial gains for Mr. Chandler  (so if the Prosecution wanted him testify, even they never succeeded to make him do it! Another proof that Ray Chandler preferred to tell his lies only in a fiction book and not in court)

10.   In approximately April 1998, a jury awarded Mr.Jackson $2,7 million in a slander suit against Victor Gutierrez. Mr. Gutierrez is believed to have fled to Chile after the verdict was reached against him. He is the author of a book called “Michael Jackson was my lover”. Mr. Gutierrez is not a witness for the Prosecution or the Defense in this case. However, the Prosecution may attempt to mention his book at trial, purely for the purpose of poisoning the jurors’ views. The book is wholly irrelevant (so while Ray Chandler was regarded by the Prosecution as a possible witness, even they were too embarrassed to summon Victor Gutierrez in that capacity?)

11.   Following his arrest in November 2003, Mr. Jackson injured his shoulder at the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department. The investigation by the State Attorney General office ensured. The investigation has no bearing whatsoever on any of the charged crimes.

12.   Henry Vaccaro is supposedly a business who allegedly owns a storage facility in New Jersy. Mr. Vaccaro allegedly seized a storage cabinet containing items of personal soiled underwear and costumes allegedly belonging to Mr. Jackson. Absent speculation, conjecture and rumors, the Prosecution produced no reports, results, conclusions or any other discovery as to 1) who, if any, actually owns the underwear and costumes and 2) the relevance, if any, these personal property have on this case. The “seized” items allegedly in the possession of Mr. Vaccaro have absolutely no bearing on this case.

13.   DNA of Anyone other than Mr. Jackson (full text)

There are two DNA reports in this case. The first DNA report says 3 male DNA were found on Mr. Jackson’s mattress. Of these 3 males, one was identified as Mr. Jackson, aka “male 1”. The remaining 2 males were not identified. However, the report says that these 2 males are not the alleged victims in this case, i.e. Gavin Arvizo and Star Arvizo.
The second DNA report says a fourth male DNA was found in bed sheets. The bed sheets presumably were found in a laundry bag, along with underwear. The fourth male is unknown, but is not the alleged victim, i.e. Gavin Arvizo or Star Arvizo.

These DNA reports have no relevance to any of the charged crimes, particularly the alleged molestation, in this case. There is no nexus between Mr. Jackson’s DNA and the alleged crimes. Thus any reference (direct or indirect and oral or written) to the DNA reports and the DNAs of other unknown males who are not the alleged victims in this case should be precluded as (1) irrelevant and (2) even if relevant, any probative value in may have is substantially outweighed by all of the risks enumerated in Section 352.

No “semen” is mentioned here – all the Defense says is that besides Michael’s two male DNAs were found on the mattress and none of them belonged to the Arvizo boys. However since it is the Defense speaking let us make a reservation that the neutral wording may be intentional.

It also doesn’t specify in what form came the DNA of the forth male found in the sheets. This is important as DNA can be taken from saliva, urine, tears, nose dripping, hair, etc.

14.   Underwear & Cocaine (full text)

Mr. Jackson’s underwear was found in a laundry bag, along with the bed sheets (discussed in section 13 above). This underwear had bloodstain and cocaine. A forensic lab for the Prosecution tested this underwear. No cocaine, however, was found in the blood.

Mr. Jackson has vitiligo. A medical injection he receives causes him to dispense blood. The underwear with the bloodstains reflects the fact.

It is unknown how and why the cocaine was found on the underwear. It may be evidence of contamination. In the alternative, someone may have brought cocaine during a fundraising party at Neverland in September 2003, where hundreds of people, including well-known celebrities, were present.

In short, neither the underwear nor the cocaine found on the underwear (and not in Mr. Jackson’s blood) has probative value to any of the charged crimes in this case.

Mentioning these items of irrelevant and extraneous factors will only inflame the jurors and prejudice Mr. Jackson’s rights to a fair trial. Thus, any reference (direct or indirect and oral or written) to the underwear or cocaine should be precluded under Sections 210 and 352”.

Cocaine !?

The test was made in a forensic lab of the Prosecution. If it was found only on the fabric but not in the blood the worst conclusion we can arrive at is that it was in MJ’s possession but he wasn’t taking it. He was never taking it as the traces of cocaine would remain in blood for a substantial period of time and once someone gets addicted to cocaine he has to take it regularly as it is awfully habit-forming.

Here is some scientific information about how cocaine is tested and found in the body: http://howto.dcrdetox.com/tips-to-find-how-long-cocaine-stays-in-your-system

Drug tests generally test for the presence of cocaine and also verify the presence of any metabolite of cocaine. Our human body produces benzoylecgonine as a result of cocaine intake and it’s a well known fact that benzoylecgonine gets retained in the human body for around a month after the intake. Understand that the drug testsverify the presence of benzoylecgonine in our system.

• Cocaine is expected to be present in the body for 72 hours since its intake
• Cocaine is expected to be detected in your urine for 1-3 days since its intake provided the intake is only once
• Habituated use of cocaine results in traces of cocaine being detected in urine for up to 12 weeks.
• Cocaine is said to be retained in your hair for a period of 3 months since its intake.
• There are also reports available that suggest the presence of cocaine for a time frame of 25 years since its intake.

But if no cocaine was found in the blood, and it was located on the fabric only, it means that it was an alien element planted on Michael’s underwear by someone who was handling it, doesn’t it?

The lawyers for the Defense are delicate in expressing the same idea: “It might be evidence of contamination”, “It is unknown how and why the cocaine was found on the underwear”, the cocaine could have been brought there by “hundreds of people” who attended the fundraising party at Neverland in September 2003.

With full appreciation for the delicacy of the lawyers’ speech let me develop their ideas further:

• I agree that the cocaine could have been brought to Neverland by some of the guests. But then they should have known where Michael’s underwear was kept and should have raked in it to put the cocaine stuff there.

• However since the cocaine was found in the dirty laundry bag in some closet it is much more likely that it was only the house staff who could have had access to it.

• The other alternative for the cocaine finding its way into the laundry bag was the police who searched the ranch in November 18, 2003 and could have also meddled with the contents of the bag.

Since nothing is clear yet, let us listen to what the Prosecution has to say on the subject. Their Opposition to the Defense’s Motion came on January 31, 2005. The Prosecution agreed to exclude eleven items out fourteen, but insisted on keeping the remaining three.

The two of them are already known to you but the third will surely take you by surprise. If you think it is either Ray Chandler’s or Victor Gutierrez’s book you are wrong.

Tom Sneddon found something much more valuable than that – the investigation of Michael’s complaint about injuries he received when being kept in the police department. So this is what the Prosecution considered more important than Ray Chandler’s and Victor Gutierrez’s revelations! Tom Sneddon’s readiness to discard both shows the real value  he attached to the “findings” of these authors!

2. THE PROSECUTION:

January 31, 2005

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Defendant’s Motion for an Order Excluding “Fourteen Items of Irrelevant Evidence”, Memorandum of Points and Authorities

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/013105pltmotrd14itms.pdf

…Plaintiff’s tardily but respectfully-tendered Response (Exh.A) eliminates all but Items 11, 13 and 14 as evidentiary matter the People presently intend to present as part of their case in chief.

Item 11 (“Attorney General’s Investigation of Mr. Jackson’s injury”) is relevant as evidence of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt and we presently intend to offer that evidence as part of Plaintiff’s case-in-chief.

Insofar as Item 13 includes semen stains on one pair of underpants that, from DNA analysis of that stain, apparently was worn by a male other than Mr. Jackson or either of the two young sibling boys who figure in the pending prosecution, its relevance as evidence corroborating the complaining witness’s evidence that Defendant retained his soiled underwear rather than return it to him seems self-evident.

Item 14 is another pair of underwear containing traces of cocaine and evidence of Defendant’s own DNA, in a blood-spot also containing traces of Demerol. Plaintiff respectfully submits that the relevance of the evidence extracted from that undergarment, when considered together with the other evidence of Defendant’s apparent addiction to Demerol, is patently relevant.  The particular significance of Item 14 is that it tends to identify Defendant as the custodian of the label-less vial containing identifiable traces of Demerol, seized from the Arcade building. The traces of cocaine on that garment didn’t get there by themselves. And the jury should be allowed to ponder the fact that defendant evidently desired to preserve, in the same container, both his own soiled underwear and underwear soiled with the semen of another male”.

Well, this seems to be a lot… Let’s do it one by one.

First please make a mental note again that Tom Sneddon did not insist on Ray Chandler’s and Victor Gutierrez’s books to be submitted as evidence in the case. The fact that he easily agreed to exclude them points to his total lack of confidence in both of these ‘knowledgeable’ sources.

Speaking of item 13 Tom Sneddon does not mention any sheets (so we still don’t know what was found there) or even the mattress, and speaks only of some male’s semen-stained underpants.

Tom Sneddon’s conclusion that the defendant “evidently desired to preserve, in the same container, both his own soiled underwear and underwear soiled with the semen of another male” is utterly amazing – its absurdity surpasses anything I have ever heard before.  What this nonsense is supposed to mean I really don’t know – the theory that anyone would want to preserve the soiled underwear of his guests could originate only in a perverse mind and strongly suggests who the real freaks in this story are. A much more reasonable explanation would be that all dirty laundry was put into one bag to be later washed (but wasn’t for some reason).

While item 13 is simply laughable, item 14 in Sneddon’s presentation sounds really sinister. First he mentions the cocaine found on the underwear, then he speaks of Demerol in MJ’s blood.

A vial of Demerol is claimed to have been seized from the Arcade building – which does show that the cleaning staff in Neverland never did what was expected of them, especially when their master was away. Why would that empty vial lie in the Arcade for no one ever to pick it up?  Even if Michael did use Demerol as he admitted at a certain point in his life,  in October-November 2003 he was in Las Vegas working on his Number Ones album and a new video – so why didn’t anyone clean those things away for that long?

Therefore I fully agree with Tom Sneddon when he says about the traces of drugs found in the Arcade building, that “the traces of cocaine on that garment didn’t get there by themselves”. Certainly they didn’t – some people surely had something to do with it!

More details on all of the above are listed in the Prosecution’s Response to the Defense. It was filed on January 31, 2005 but is actually dated January 20, 2005. The time gap is explained by the fact one of the prosecutors forgot the paper on the desk and didn’t submit it to the judge in time.

3. THE PROSECUTION:

January 31, 2005 (originally written on January 20, 2005)

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s In Limine Motion for an Order Excluding “Fourteen Items of Irrelevant Evidence”,

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/013105pltmotrd14itms.pdf

Item 11. Attorney General’s Investigation of Defendant’s “Injury”

Defendant’s false and well-publicized claims of injury, post-arrest, are relevant to the People’s case-in-chief. The detectives who participated in his arrest and booking are the investigators who will be giving evidence in this case. His ill-considered and unsupported public effort to accuse those officers of deliberate and malicious assaults against his person was plainly undertaken to throw doubt on their credibility. As part of his “They’re vindictively prosecuting an innocent man” public posture that defendant has consistently maintained, his “they injured me and threw me in a feces-spattered cell” is evidence of his own consciousness of guilt.

Oh, now I see why Tom Sneddon insisted on submitting to court the issue of the injuries Michael received at the police department – he wanted to defend his investigators and show them to be impeccable and unbiased….  However Tom Sneddon’s logic baffles me again – how can the injuries and Michael’s complaint about the police keeping him for 45 minutes in a feces-spattered toilet be “the evidence of his consciousness of guilt”? Or do I misunderstand something here?

What Tom Sneddon’s response clearly states though is that the same beasts who mistreated Michael in the police department were exactly the ones who were also giving evidence in the Arvizo case. This does show how terribly unbiased they were, doesn’t it? I wonder if they were also the ones who interviewed the boys…

Item 13. DNA of Anyone Other Than Defendant

Several semen stains were recovered from defendant’s bed mattress and from a pair of underpants seized from his home, from which DNA was extracted. The profile identified as “male 1” is the defendant’s. The other profiles found on the bed and the underpants are not his. The sources are unidentified. The DNA on the bed will not be referred to by the People.

However the DNA in the underpants suggest that Jackson kept a pair of soiled underpants belonging to another male, just as he did with Gavin, thereby corroborating Gavin’s testimony. We do intend to introduce that pair of underpants and the DNA results.

The more they tell us of this dirty laundry the more confusing it gets. Only half a minute ago Tom Sneddon told us a blatant lie that the underpants could belong to one of the boys – and now he says that the sources are unidentified. He also adds that the DNA on the mattress “will not be referred by the People” for some reason.

No mention of the sheets is made again.

But the soiled underpants of some unknown male still remain Tom Sneddon’s fixed idea. The fact that they were found in the laundry bag is, in the opinion of Tom Sneddon, enough proof of Jackson’s habit of collecting other males’ soiled underwear. Besides the craziness of this theory I still miss the message of it – is he trying to portray Michael as a freak whose mind is distorted badly enough to turn someone else’s dirty underwear into a fetish? Or do I misunderstand something again? However let us move on:

Item 14. Underwear and Cocaine

One pair of underpants recovered from Jackson’s residence had a blood stain. The stain contained cocaine and Demerol. The DNA profile from that stain is in fact defendant’s. It is believed that Jackson has been a Demerol addict for many years and a significant amount of evidence supports that belief. That evidence includes a near-empty vial found on this property with the label torn off containing Demerol; a letter from a Fr. Farschian in Miami promising defendant help in curing him of his “D” addiction; a doctor who acknowledged having delivered him Demerol to this house and numerous witnesses who speak of his addiction. In addition defendant has publicly acknowledged in the past that he had become addicted to prescription medications, and that he required medical intervention for that addiction.

The Prosecution’s hypocrisy over this Demerol issue is simply astounding. Tom Sneddon speaks of Demerol as if it were big news. Michael never made it a secret that at a certain period of his life he did take Demerol and was doing his best to get rid of the habit. The first attempt was made in November 1993 – however the treatment had to be interrupted exactly due to Tom Sneddon who couldn’t wait another minute and demanded Michael’s immediate return to the US for a strip search (which didn’t contribute to his cure at all).

Dr. Klein openly spoke on TV about giving Michael Demerol and no one ever questioned the propriety of this doctor’s actions – while all the rage over Demerol was addressed only at Jackson. Michael consulted many doctors seeking effective treatment from Demerol which shows that he was eager to get rid of the addiction – however this fact is completely overlooked and is even considered part of his guilt, from the way Tom Sneddon presents it.

We don’t know exactly when, but Michael did manage to do the impossible and beat his addiction to Demerol as the autopsy of his body showed no trace of it or other drugs in his system (except that damned propofol which was taken solely for his incurable insomnia). Why Dr. Klein gave it to him during the cosmetic procedures is a question to Klein only as according to Klein’s own words Michael never asked for it.

The Prosecutors go on with their response:

“Defendant suggests the blood-spot on his underwear may have been the result of a “medical injection” he receives for “vitiligo”. We are reliably informed there is no injectible medication for vitiligo. And that explanation doesn’t account for the Demerol in the blood.”

It seems that I am much better informed than the Santa Barbara D.A. and his advisers about a possibility of injections for vitiligo – because my very first search in the internet brought me an article about some medicine generally used for vitiligo patients injected by some women for cosmetic purposes. So whatever the “reliable” sources say vitiligo treament can come in the form of injections: http://www.emirates247.com/news/women-using-vitiligo-injection-for-fairness-2011-01-12-1.341191

“We will also seek to introduce evidence of the presence of cocaine in his underpants. Cocaine was found on two locations on that garment; in the fabric sample contain(ing) the blood stain and on another sample of the fabric taken and examined as a reference sample. The most likely reason the cocaine was detected on both samples is that defendant excreted it in both his blood and his urine”.

“How stoned was he when he crawled into bed with those two boys behind multiple locked doors?” may be a very relevant question. Should defendant testify, his chronic use of Schedule III drugs will be relevant on the issue of how well he recalls events and his state of awareness during those events”.

So this cocaine business comes up again. According to Tom Sneddon it was found on the fabric of the underpants and “in the fabric sample containing the blood stain”. The way it is worded it is unclear where the cocaine was found – on the fabric or in the blood which was on the fabric?

If the cocaine was on the fabric only it would be nothing much, but if it was in the blood stain on that fabric it could point to the one who wore that underwear really taking that drug. I wonder if Tom Sneddon is intentionally vague in what he is saying? I hope the Defense side will help to clear it up…

In the meantime Tom Sneddon is using his official “Plaintiff’s response” for making dramatic statements where not a single word is true or proven yet. Catchy phrases are presented as facts and include: “how stoned was he?”, “he crawled into bed with two boys” (Gavin never even said that he had been to one bed with Jackson!), “behind multiple locked doors”. which is again wrong as according to Kit Culkin, Macauley’s father, there was only one door to Michael’s bedroom with a lock the code of which was known to all the staff as well as the Arvizo boys.

The last piece in this dirty saga is the Reply made by the DEFENSE.  This Reply evidently put a stop to this underwear business as none of those 14 items were allowed for submission to court. You may be sure that the reasons provided by the Defense were top valid so I’ll shorten the text to save your time and focus on the main points.

4. THE DEFENSE

February 8, 2005

Opposition to Motion for an Order Excluding Fourteen Items of Irrelevant Evidence.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/020805repomoefievid.pdf

Item 13. DNA of Anyone Other Than The Defendant

The District Attorney’s search of Mr. Jackson’s person on December 3, 2004 failed to return any relevant evidence. The prosecution’s theory that the presence of DNA, belonging to a male other than Mr. Jackson, on underwear confirms that Mr. Jackson keeps underwear, and therefore corroborates the alleged victim’s claim that Mr. Jackson kept his underwear, is absurd.

The only thing the underwear confirms is that dirty clothes, perhaps belonging to a guest or other family member were found in a storage area in a large bag with other items of laundry.

So Tom Sneddon did make a personal search of Jackson? As far as I know they took a sample of the DNA from his mouth, however comparing it with their “evidence” naturally brought them a zero result.

As to the theory of Michael collecting someone else’s soiled underwear I am happy that Michael’s lawyers gave up their diplomatic language at last and called it absurd – and this is the first sane opinion I hear about this really dirty business.

Now let me have your attention please.

The next paragraph gives us exclusive information from the Defense about where and when the bag with dirty laundry was found:

“This bag of dirty laundry was found [in Nov.2003] at least eight months after the relevant time period [Feb-March 2003]. There is absolutely no foundation to establish that his laundry was accumulated during February or March of 2003. There is no foundation to establish that it was not accumulated, for instance, in September, October or November 2003, or, on the other hand, that it was not accumulated and thrown into the storage room in 2001 or 2002. The bag of laundry was seized in a storage area, located on the second floor of the arcade building with numerous boxes of books and other miscellaneous items”.

It is interesting that even Michael’s Defense is hinting at the fact that the laundry could be collected while Michael was away – their inclusion of October and November 2003 dates into their statement testifies to the effect…

Another surprising fact they reveal is that the bag was found in a place where it never belonged – “among books and other miscellaneous items”. Doesn’t this revelation make us wonder about how the cleaning and laundry process was organized in Neverland?

“First, none of the forensic testing by the government established that any of the laundry in the bag had anything to do with the complaining witnesses in this case. The prosecution’s forensic testing failed to result in any evidence that Mr. Jackson molested the complaining witness”.

This is a confirmation from the defense that the pair of underpants never belonged to the Arvizos and why someone’s underpants left to be washed with the other laundry should be talked so much by Tom Sneddon is beyond my understanding.

“Now, when faced with a total lack of relevant DNA evidence, the prosecution is seeking to introduce inflammatory and irrelevant DNA evidence to prejudice the jury against Mr. Jackson and undermine his right to a fair trial.

Second, there is nothing nefarious or illegal about having underwear belonging to another person in a storage area. The prosecution has not laid any foundation as to how the clothing was accumulated. Given the fact that Michael Jackson had many guests, including family members, at his large ranch, deprives this salacious innuendo from any evidentiary value, whatsoever. This “evidence” should be excluded.”

Let us make a mental note that “the prosecution has not laid any foundation as to how the clothing was accumulated”. This is very important because if the prosecution was unable to explain it at that time it would be totally incorrect to do it for the prosecution now (though our hater is trying to offer her version of the events).

However the main thing is yet to come.

Item 14.Underwear and Cocaine.

This is a child molestation and conspiracy case*. [*The prosecution apparently plans to argue the contradictory theories that Mr. Jackson is a drug addict, who is unable to control his behavior due to drug use, while at the same time, is a criminal mastermind who was micro-managing a conspiracy to falsely imprison, extort and abduct the Doe family].

The evidence seized by the prosecution is irrelevant to either of those charges. However, the prosecution is seeking to introduce evidence of drug use for the purpose of prejudicing the jury against Mr. Jackson. The blood evidence seized in November of 2003, eight months after the alleged events in question, is irrelevant. Whether or not Mr. Jackson was using prescribed Demerol at any point in his life has nothing to do with the allegations in February or March of 2003.

….The prosecution’s forensic evidence does not support the argument they wish to present to the jury. The prosecution claims that “the most likely reason the cocaine was detected on both samples is that defendant excreted it in both his blood and his urine”. This explanation, however, is scientifically impossible.

The evidence, according to the prosecution’s forensic reports, is that actual cocaine was found on the fabric of the underwear and on the blood on the underwear, not that evidence of cocaine use (i.e. metabolites) were found on Mr. Jackson’s blood. This evidence does not demonstrate the use of cocaine by Mr. Jackson and is irrelevant even under the prosecution’s absurd theory.

It should be noted that the prosecution does not support their theory with a declaration or any legitimate scientific information. In fact, it would be impossible to lay the foundation that they boldly assert. We have not been provided with any forensic reports that support their theory.”

Now, guys, the fact that no metabolites of cocaine were found in Michael’s blood is TOP IMPORTANT.

The Defense said that the conclusion Prosecution made as regards cocaine in the blood was scientifically incorrect. They even used a different word and said that it was scientifically IMPOSSIBLE:

• “The prosecution’s forensic evidence does not support the argument they wish to present to the jury. The prosecution claims that “the most likely reason the cocaine was detected on both samples is that defendant excreted it in both his blood and his urine”. This explanation, however, is scientifically impossible.”

They also noted that the Prosecution did not provide any LEGITIMATE scientific information:

• “the prosecution does not support their theory with a declaration or any legitimate scientific information. In fact, it would be impossible to lay the foundation that they boldly assert. We have not been provided with any forensic reports that support their theory.”

In other words the Prosecution referred to the cocaine found ON the blood stain in the same way as if it were IN the blood, and this isn’t a LEGITIMATE scientific explanation.

Why isn’t it a legitimate scientific explanation?

Because only laymen would assume that a substance found on some surface is the same as the substance which makes part of that surface. The difference is the same as between oil spilled on the table and oil used for producing the material the table is made of.

The same thing here – the cocaine on the blood stain is not the same as the cocaine in the blood because it is found there in a totally different form – that of metabolites.

This is what the Defense meant when they said:

• “The evidence, according to the prosecution’s forensic reports, is that actual cocaine was found on the fabric of the underwear and on the blood on the underwear, not that evidence of cocaine use (i.e. metabolites) were found on Mr. Jackson’s blood”.

The scientific method for forensic testing of cocaine in blood is looking for benzoylecgonine which is the marker for cocaine. This is what the site mentioned earlier says about it:

“Our human body produces benzoylecgonine as a result of cocaine intake and it’s a well known fact that benzoylecgonine gets retained in the human body for around a month after the intake. Understand that the drug tests verify the presence of benzoylecgonine in our system.

The above means that blood does not show cocaine as such – after it enters a human body it undergoes a chemical reaction splitting into some elements which serve as markers indicating that the cocaine was there before changing its form.

In other words after being absorbed into blood cocaine is metabolized and all the forensic experts can find in their tests is traces of cocaine in the form of its metabolites. And it is these metabolites that were never found in the blood stain on Michael’s underwear.

Instead the cocaine found on that blood stain was evidently in its pure form as the Defense speaks of lack of metabolites.

But if pure cocaine was found on the surface of the blood spot then it means…  it means that the cocaine was placed on top of that stain! Otherwise there would be no explanation how the cocaine found its way exactly onto the small stain of blood coming from some old injection.

Oh, I see your point – you think that someone took powder cocaine, mixed it with some solution (if it is possible at all?) and injected it thus leaving a little bit of powder cocaine on the surface? And this is how that blood spot came about? But this would be wrong again, because then the blood sample from that stain would show the cocaine in the blood – but it didn’t.

The Defense said it definitely – the forensic report didn’t prove the theory about the cocaine in the blood:

• We have not been provided with any forensic reports that support their theory.”

If the police were really looking for cocaine in Michael’s body they surely made his blood tests to find traces of cocaine in the form of metabolites – however the test did not prove it. Therefore they mentioned cocaine somewhat in passing,  in connection with one blood stain on his underwear and never raised the subject again.

This alone shows that there was simply nothing to talk about. The cocaine was a totally alien matter which they once played with and dropped it when they found that this argument didn’t work (for comparison see how big a story Tom Sneddon is making about Demerol which was really found in Michael’s blood).

However if Tom Sneddon prefers to drop the subject altogether I prefer to continue with it.

How big can a blood stain resulting from a medical injection can be? Several millimeters at the most. So what are the chances that the cocaine would stick to that small spot of blood on its own? How many of you said practically none?

But if we agree on that point doesn’t it mean that someone put that piece of cocaine on the small stain of blood on purpose? Over here I totally agree with Tom Sneddon who said: “The traces of cocaine on that garment didn’t get there by themselves”.

The only way the cocaine could get there was either with the help of the maids or other house staff who accumulated, put all that dirty laundry in a bag and left it among books in wait for the police. Or the police who searched for that laundry and meddled with it when they found it…

My earlier conclusion was that it was strange for a well-run home full of maids to store dirty laundry and hide it in some closet.  But now it has been supplemented by another strange fact that some cocaine also accidentally worked its way into exactly the same laundry. Frankly, this looks to me too much of a coincidence. If you come to think of it even the lawyers used words like “impossible”, “non-scientific” and “not legitimate” all of which points to something really illegitimate taking place there…

It seems that though the lawyers are not saying it directly the essence of their words is that the cocaine and whole laundry business was A SET-UP.

It is no wonder that their final Reply in this dirty saga was uncharacteristically emotional for the usually neutral legal language.  Their note, found on page 2 of the Reply to Prosecutors’ Opposition, doesn’t refer directly to cocaine or dirty laundry but is a general reflection of how the Defense sees their overall situation with the Prosecution – and what we see here is nothing less than fury and rage at Tom Sneddon and his dirty tricks.

In fact the Defense’s anger had an effect even on their grammar. I understand their statement as follows:

• … The prosecution wants the Court, and anyone else who will listen, to believe that. [The position of] Mr. Jackson’s defense is that the District Attorney knows for a fact that he is innocent, yet is still prosecuting him for vindictive reasons. This is a straw man argument.
• In reality, Mr. Sneddon and his deputies are myopic in their zeal to convict Mr. Jackson. Whatever the cause of this, ordinary prosecutorial review of evidence and prosecutorial discretion is absent from this case”.

*  *  *

The conclusion about the cocaine and the whole dirty laundry business being a set-up is so mind-boggling that I completely forgot to tell you about “the soiled sheets”.

Actually there is nothing to tell. You’ve seen the documents yourselves and none of them refer to any semen-soiled sheets. There is not a single document which mentions semen on Michael’s underwear either.

All we have is 2 semen stains from some males on the mattress (which for some reason the Prosecution did not even want to to take to court, so probably they were not even semen) and someone’s semen-soiled underpants put into the laundry bag with the intention to frame Michael up – same as the cocaine which was rubbed into the fabric with his blood.

If the above is supposed to prove to someone that Michael was gay, their madness is incurable.

However I am happy that the rabid hater’s insistence on the gay issue helped us to uncover Tom Sneddon’s devilish plan to set up Michael Jackson by means of the cocaine placed in his underwear.

It also didn’t hurt to make sure that someone in Neverland was working against Michael, was ready to set him up and was doing it in full collaboration with the police.