• July 27, 2005 | 6:40 p.m. ET
Your rebuttal (Lisa Daniels)
I've had my say, it's time for your rebuttal.
On Monday, we told you attorneys for suspects in the Natalee Holloway case were in court trying to block prosecutors from opening their files to the FBI. But, the Aruban government actually requested the FBI’s assistance in the case.
Christopher in Torrance, California writes: “I don't see what your issue is with the FBI going to Aruba to help in the investigation. Mexico is an independent nation, should we not cooperate with their authorities? Same with many countries around the world... Get a grip!"
No Christopher. I suggest you get a grip. Better yet, get a VCR and play back the show from the other day. I said it's insane that we are sending the FBI to work on a single missing person's case in a different country.
Yes, I feel so sorry for Natalee's family. But this is outrageous. I think the FBI agents should be working on cases here in the United States or cases affecting more than one person. Do you want the U.S. Army involved too?
From Fort Walton Beach, Florida, Frank Wood: "Would you like the FBI to be involved if your child was missing and no information was coming forth from those in charge? I think you would."
You bet I would because I would be personally involved in that case. I would want you, Frank, to be helping me find my daughter. I would want all businesses closed until I found my daughter. I'd want the CIA, FBI and United States government to help find my daughter.
But there's a big difference between what's right for our society and what one family wants. That's my point.
In the show and on Sidebar, I also took issue with a proposed ban in New Jersey on driving while smoking. The sponsors claim it's a safety issue. I said I don't buy it. The truth is it looks to me that they are trying to bother smokers once again.
Larry Wernet in Casa Grande, Arizona agrees: "I couldn't agree with you more. It is just feel good legislation. I don't think it could be enforced. And there are more important problems to worry about."
But others didn't agree, like Landy Davis in Tampa, Florida: "How many citizens of New Jersey have died this year at the hands of a terrorist or in war? Now ask, how many have died driving automobiles and from cigarette related diseases? Confronting the real dangers to Americans makes perfect sense."
Landy, the issue was not about the dangers of smoking. It was about smoking being a distraction while driving. If you want to talk about smoking dangers, fine. But that's not what the sponsor of the bill is claiming the proposal is about. That's my beef.
E-mail me at
• July 27, 2005 |
Real New Jersey issues up in smoke (Lisa Daniels)
If you're a smoker, it's hard to find a place to enjoy a cigarette or a cigar these days. Smoking in your office building, that's a no-no. Employees need to step outside to get their nicotine fix. In restaurants or bars, forget it. Most major cities have banned it already or are currently working on banning it now. On planes? No. On trains? No. But in your cars? Well right now, yes, but it may be illegal in New Jersey if some local lawmakers have their way.
New Jersey Assemblyman John McKeon, whose father died of emphysema, wants the state to ban smoking while driving. He says it's a safety issue. He cites an AAA study that shows smoking while driving can cause accidents. He wants a $250 fine for people caught smoking while driving.
But smokers in New Jersey are not buying it. They claim it's just another example of big brother overstepping his boundaries when it comes to smokers.
Here's the thing. I agree. I don't like smoke. I can't stand it. I don't even like being around smokers. But personally, I think this proposal is absolutely ridiculous. Telling people they can't smoke in their own cars? That's one step away from telling them they can't smoke in their own homes. What's next? I can't sing in my car because it's going to distract me? I can't talk to my kids in the back seat because they'll distract me? I can think of so many other things the state of New Jersey should be dealing with before they tackle the issue of people smoking in their own cars. How about taxes? What about potholes? Let's start there.
On the scale of distractions while driving, smoking really is not my biggest concern. I've seen people eating bowls of cereal while driving. I've seen people reading the Wall Street Journal. I've seen people putting on lipstick and mascara while making a right turn. In my view, John McKeon and his co-sponsors have gone way too far with this proposal and I'm guessing it might be a personal issue.
This is a guess — McKeon's dad died of emphysema. Does he have an issue with driving distractions or does he have a beef with smoking in general?
More importantly, I resent that the New Jersey Assembly is wasting our time discussing this when child molesters continue to prey on kids like Samantha Runnion and our country is at war. Come on. Get with the program. Start talking about issues that matter.
E-mail: Sidebar@msnbc.com
• July 25, 2005 |
Story of selfless heroism (Dan Abrams)
I want to tell you about Private Stephen Tschiderer, a 20-year-old Army medic of the 265th Brigade Combat team. While on patrol in Baghdad on July 2, insurgent snipers stalked the soldier by videotaping him from a nearby van. This footage would later prove Tschiderer’s valor.
Within seconds of walking away from his Hummer, he was shot in the chest above the heart. Tschiderer goes down - but immediately pops back up, fires back, and runs back behind the Hummer. From behind the Hummer, he signals the snipers’ hiding spot to his unit.
The 265th disabled the insurgents — including the sniper, who attempted to flee from the location on foot. Following a blood trail, U.S. soldiers located the wounded sniper and took him into custody.
While this is an amazing story on its own, after being shot by the sniper, Tschiderer acted like a true American by providing the man who had just tried to kill him with medical treatment.
Tschiderer wrote in an email to his mom back at home: “Treating the man who shot me didn’t really sink in until after. At the time, I just did my job and didn’t think about it too much.”
This is another example of the type of story the media needs to keep talking about — the selfless heroism of the American servicemen and women.
Happily, Tschiderer is expected to make a full recovery, thanks to the body armor he was wearing.
E-mail me at Sidebar@msnbc.com
• July 22, 2005 |
T'anks Bush (Dan Abrams)
The attorney general of California is learning an important lesson this week. If you want to cheer up the drab walls of your office building with a little art, perhaps you should ask kindergarteners for their best finger paintings or enlist a struggling artist. Whatever you do, don’t ask lawyers — or you might get something a bit more controversial.
The piece in question is called "T’anks to Mr. Bush," and depicts a star-spangled map of the United States flushed down a toilet. Needless to say, it caused quite a stir. It’s part of an exhibit at the State Department of Justice.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer asked California Lawyers for the Arts to submit paintings. Now, some conservative commentators and the state Republican Party are demanding that Lockyer — a Republican — remove the painting.
A state party spokeswoman says the painting is "blatantly offensive to people who think that America does not belong in the toilet" and should, therefore, not be displayed in a state building.
But Lockyer, who has an anti-censorship poster hanging in his office, is refusing demands to remove it. His communications staff says he likes that it makes a point a lot of people disagree with.
Though he is right that it does not mean you endorse an artist just because his work is permitted to be shown, I’m much more concerned about the quality of the art.
The artist, California attorney Stephen Pearcy, says it only took 20 minutes to make.
Well, how about a painting of President Bush with donkey ears? Or how about a pig nose on former President Clinton? Would those also have to be removed? Criticize the painter if you want, just don’t hire him as your lawyer. This is an issue for people with too much time on their hands.
E-mail me your thoughts at Sidebar@msnbc.com
• July 20, 2005 |
DeLay plays blame game (Dan Abrams)
Whether Karl Rove actually committed a crime when he spoke to Time magazine's Matt Cooper has become a bit of a moot point in Washington.
What has taken center stage is the politics of the case. Republicans and Democrats suddenly know all the details about the special council's secret investigation into the release of CIA Officer Valerie Plame's name.
Democrats are calling for Rove's head even though it remains unclear if he did anything beyond talk to a reporter. Republicans, on the other side, are defending Rove's actions, even though he could have revealed the name of a covert agent and broken the law.
My favorite distraction from the real issue came from House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. DeLay, in his defense of Rove, is now blaming Cooper for being “unprofessional.” The Majority Leader says Cooper should never have published a story about his conversation with Karl Rove because Rove was talking to him “on background” to make sure he didn't publish an inaccurate story. Of course, that's irrelevant in determining whether Rove violated the law.
I would hope anyone who buys into that creative logic is demanding that New York Times Reporter Judith Miller, currently sitting in jail, be released. After all, she didn't even publish a story based on what her source told her.
It's a nice discussion about ethics and journalism, but it sure is twisted logic to suggest Cooper, not Rove, is at fault if Rove was the source. Of course, Congressman Delay also knows “on background” means “don't quote me” and Cooper never quoted Rove. Furthermore, that really says nothing about whether Rove did or didn't violate the law.
E-mail me your thoughts at Sidebar@msnbc.com
• y 19, 2005 |
Terrorists are 'terrorists' (Dan Abrams)
Why are so many in the media afraid to refer to terrorists as “terrorists”? Instead, many use softer, more heroic and less accurate words like insurgent, militant or rebel.
In the London attack, “bombers” were to blame. Is there any question that bombers set off multiple bombs at once to instill fear? Look it up in the dictionary and you will see. Terrorist fits the bill far more accurately than insurgent, rebel or militant.
The latest flap involves the BBC. They've gone so far as to re-edit their coverage of the London bombings. In the hours afterwards, BBC's websites use the word terrorist. That has since changed in its links now use the word “bombers.”
For years, the BBC has refused to use the word terrorist in its coverage of attacks in Israel. Now that the attacks are on their home turf, they're at least offering some explanation. BBC's head of television news released a statement saying, “There's been a controversy about our use of language, particularly the question of whether the BBC banned the word terrorist. There is no ban. It's true the word on contentious, is in some contexts on our international services, hence the recommendation that it be employed with care. But we've used it and will continue to use the word terror, terrorism and terrorist as we did in all our flagship bulletins from Thursday.”
But did the terrorists somehow become bombers since Thursday July 7? What happened in the mean time?
The BBC isn't alone. The Associated Press, New York Times, Reuters, and NPR have adopted similar policies for their reporting which prevent them from relaying news in the most accurate way possible.
I'm talking about killers here — like those in London — who target civilians in an effort to instill fear. I am referring to cold-blooded murders like those who killed dozens in Israel bus bombings, or those who killed innocent in Baghdad, most of them children, asking U.S. soldiers for candy.
I don't care what they consider themselves. There has to be some objective assessment. The killing of innocent civilians and targeting of innocent civilians is an act of terrorism and should be reported as such.
One father who lost his young daughter in the August 9, 2001 restaurant bombing in Jerusalem posted this message on a memorial website after the London bombings: “Terror...it is clear, is the word your audience expects you to use when the victims are your colleagues, neighbors and friends.”
E-mail me your thoughts at Sidebar@msnbc.com
• July 18, 2005 |
Valiant effort in Aruba case (Brian Cohen, Abrams Report producer)
I've been back and forth from New York to Aruba over the past four weeks booking guests and gathering information on the disappearance of Natalee Holloway. I always had some hope that Texas Equusearch would find Natalee and give closure to her family. I thought Friday's developments would provide the answers the family has been looking for all these weeks.
I was actually waiting at the gate for my flight to leave Aruba when I got word that some type of barrel was found in the water and being brought up. I was told DO NOT GET ON THAT PLANE!! and head straight to the Marriott where they are searching. I must admit it's not the easiest thing to just leave the airport in Aruba, but the people here were so helpful when I explained my situation to them.
When I arrived at the Marriott, the scene was unexplainable. I saw a hundred or so tourists watching a team of divers trying to pull this barrel out of the water. What spoke volumes to me was the twenty or so tourists that were helping tug this rope on the beach. It showed me that this story has touched everyone from all over. Without being asked, these people got off their beach chairs and grabbed the rope and dug in. After hours of pulling and tugging the barrel was pulled to the beach and what most thought was confirmed, it was a barrel of concrete placed there to anchor a buoy. The look of frustration and disappointment on the faces of the helpers and the Equusearch team was saddening. It was as if this was the last hope of finding anything after weeks of searching had come to an end.
I have so much respect for these guys who took time away from their families to come here and bust their butts for this cause. When Joe Huston, one of the lead divers, came out of the water he was so exhausted he couldn't even drink water. The amount of effort and time these guys have put in should be applauded regardless of the results. The search team probably knew what they had was nothing, but these guys will leave no stone unturned.
So I am finally heading back to New York and I will say I don't think this is the end of this story.... trust me.
E-mail: Sidebar@msnbc.com
• |
Miller and Cooper caught in crosshairs (Dan Abrams)
Patrick Fitzgerald really wants to put someone away in connection with the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. However, it seems Fitzgerald realizes the leaker will most likely never be prosecuted.
However, the reporters who were provided with the information prove to be the next best thing to prosecuting the leaker.
Judy Miller of the New York Times fell victim to these methods Wednesday. She was sentenced and taken to jail — even though she never published Wilson's name in any article. Time magazine's Matt Cooper, whose article simply parroted Robert Novak's report, decided to cooperate with the federal prosecutor to divulge the details after his source gave permission.
Once again, conservative journalist Robert Novak releases her name and seems to be in the clear.
My dad, who is representing Miller, is focused on the law. However, I am interested in the fruitless strong-arm tactics of the prosecutor. The reporters are the only people who ever ran the risk of serving time in this case — not the leaker, who may have committed a federal crime.
Some now suspect White House strategist Karl Rove as the leaker, despite denials through his lawyers. But when two others get caught in the crosshairs, its called prosecutorial discretion. This prosecutor is certainly putting his good reputation on the line.
E-mail: Sidebar@msnbc.com
•
Moderation would be virtue for judicial nod (Dan Abrams)
For the sake of the country, President Bush should not nominate one of a handful of judicial extremists who have been mentioned as possible candidates.
Sandra Day O’Connor's retirement does not and should not mean this president must appoint a moderate/conservative O’Connor clone. Democrats should not expect as much. This president has always made it clear — promised, in fact — once a member of the current court decided to step down, he would appoint someone conservative. There should be no expectation that he will do anything less than that.
By appointing one of a handful of ultra conservatives far out of the judicial mainstream, Bush would ignore the realities of this country and the will of the people.
This is a nation divided somewhere in the middle — either more moderate Republicans or more conservative Democrats. A lifetime appointment of such import should at least reflect that reality.
It’s fair to hope some will be passed over because, in comparison, they are too conservative. I hope the president resists the temptation to allow the far right to dictate who makes the bench on our highest court.
President Clinton had wanted to appoint the liberal former Arizona Governor Bruce Babbit to the court but decided against it after Republicans objected. Clinton decided not appoint one of the ultra liberal judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals either. Supreme Court justice Steven Breyer, while a liberal, was not a far left choice.
Likewise, this president should select a conservative but not a far right choice.
This next justice need not be a true moderate. But among the array of Bush’s conservative choices, moderation would be a virtue.
E-mail: Sidebar@msnbc.com
•
Travesty of justice: Valerie Plame case (Dan Abrams)
A serious travesty of justice continues. Someone leaked a covert CIA operative's name to a reporter. That reporter published the name in his column. Then, as the criminal investigation into the source of the leak proceeded, that reporter miraculously appears to be in the clear. But another reporter who never even published the name is going to prison for failing to disclose her source? Huh?
That's the situation New York Times reporter Judith Miller faces today. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear her case which sought First Amendment protection for her refusal to divulge the confidential source in the case of Valerie Plame — a former CIA agent. Robert Novak first unmasked Plame in a 2003 column. Even though Miller never published the agent’s name, she now faces jail time.
Time magazine's Matt Cooper did actually publish Plame's name on the Time’s website, but only after Novak's column ran.
In addition to the fact the Supreme Court refused to consider the case — a real shame — Robert Novak seems to be in the clear legally. I've said this before, but with both Miller and Cooper out of legal options and facing up to 18 months in federal prison today, it's more of a plea...
Robert Novak needs to step forward and take responsibility. If he doesn't want to disclose his source, that's fine. But we don't even know if he was called before the grand jury or what he did or didn't tell prosecutors.
Novak's silence puts Miller and Cooper at a distinct legal disadvantage, the prosecutor has indicated the case is all but finished and no one has been charged. But if Novak did testify, Miller and Cooper might be able to argue that their testimony isn’t even needed in the investigation or that they shouldn't be forced to testify before Novak does.
In the spirit of full disclosure, my father Floyd Abrams, is defending Miller in this case. But this is an easy one.
Two reporters may be going to jail because they won't reveal who told them a secret. Meanwhile, the guy who heard the secret first and made the initial decision to publish it will be enjoying his summer vacation out of the reach of federal prosecutors...
If that's not warped justice, I don't know what is.
E-mail: Sidebat@msnbc.com
•
Aruba's justice system (Brian Cohen, Abrams Report Producer)
I've been on the hot and sunny island of Aruba now for 5 days and I must admit what I've seen happen in the last day or so is amazing. The culture and the justice system down here is very different from ours. Yesterday’s developments opened my eyes to how things are done down here… very quickly and with no information as to why something is happening.
I spoke with Anita van der Sloot an hour before her husband Paul was arrested. She was distraught because she had been waiting for two hours just to see her son, but confirmed to me that she would in fact be a guest on "The Abrams Report." When news came that her husband had been arrested I called her. Not only did Anita van der Sloot answer, but she said she was so upset that she needed to come on the show to tell people what happened. The problem in Aruba is that we don’t know what happened, and we can’t get answers to our questions. Not even Anita van der Sloot knows why her husband was arrested.
I, along with other NBC folks, was the only media allowed to stay at her home and I must admit I feel bad for Anita van der Sloot. I don't know why her husband was arrested, but to have your son and your husband arrested and get no answers must be hard. At the last minute Anita van der Sloot came up to me crying and said she just could not make the interview, and that she was truly sorry for putting me in this situation. Maybe her son knows more and maybe her husband knows something, but I must say I was impressed with this woman's attitude. Now once again all we can do it wait to see what will happen
• |
Your Rebuttal
Last night, Aruban police detective Elio Nicholaas said Natalee Holloway “looks like she is a runaway teenager, maybe she doesn’t want to be found yet." He went on to say the parents’ backgrounds should have been checked.
I was offended by the clear suggestion that she ran away from her parents and asked if he would return to apologize if his statement was proven incorrect.
Susan Lawlor from Long Island, New York writes:
"Thank you for taking issue with his remarks and I look forward to the day when he does return to your show and apologizes."
Jacki Jean from Greer, South Carolina:
"A gigantic thank you for challenging, in your normal graciously firm way, those ridiculous, hurtful, malicious statements made by the former Aruban policeman. If that's an indication of the reasoning going on there, no wonder it’s taken so long."
And John Kaufman:
"You owe the retired Aruban detective an apology! You asked for his opinion, and he gave it. It may not be what you want to hear, but his background does give him more expertise on island life and tourism."
Dan Says:
Hey John, what does island life and tourism have to do with whether Natalee ran away? Maybe because of some secret in her parents' past?
Don Hayward from Monument Beach, Massachusetts:
"To not look at parental dynamic is to ignore statistical reality and would be incompetent. Your American attitude is showing."
Dan Says:
Don, no one was saying they should not investigate every angle. But this guy was throwing stuff against the wall with no evidence to back it up, merely in an attempt to blame the family as opposed to anyone in Aruba.
Also, last night we discussed Congress passing a Constitutional amendment to prevent anyone from desecrating a flag. The U.S. Supreme Court has held its protected speech position. I asked why we are so afraid of some looney tunes burning a flag and how you would define desecration.
Natalia Medina Coggins from El Paso, Texas has this say:
"Well, there go my fourth of July plans. Since I was going camping, I won't buy my American flag paper plates and napkins, for fear that I will be arrested for burning these 'flag' items."
Andy Hopkins from Los Angeles, California:
"At the very least, such an amendment can serve as a message to the Supreme Court that it is not the final word on everything.”
Mike Clinch from Dayton, Oh writes:
"A Constitutional Amendment to ban flag burning is not really a ban on an action, since the flag gets burned in both a flag retirement and an angry protest rally. The difference between the two events is our thoughts and intentions, not our actions. The flag burning amendment seeks to criminalize our thoughts, our intentions and the words we say."
Dan Says:
Well said , Mike. I still hope you are not planning on burning any flags.
• June 22, 2005 |
Seinfeld may explain why Runaway Bride bolted (Dan Abrams)
Runaway Bride Jennifer Wilbanks made it pretty clear that she may not want to admit the real reason she fled from her fiancé and 600 guests days before her wedding.
She isn’t a malicious criminal — even though she violated several laws by falsely reporting a kidnapping and rape to police. Though she deserved to be formally charged, it sure sounds like she simply did not want to marry John Mason.
The entire situation reminds me of an episode of Seinfeld, where a woman named
Gwen breaks up with George. He says, "You're giving me the ‘it's not you, it's me’ routine? I invented ‘it's not you, it's me.’ Nobody tells me it's them not me, if it's anybody it's me!"
In an interview with Kate Couric, Jennifer said her stressed-out mental state drove her to run. She also said that she and John still hope to get married.
Well if they both hope to, as they claim, then no one is stopping them.
The truth is, she got cold, maybe even frozen feet. Then she freaked out, either about getting married or getting married to him and ran.
In the end she is not so unusual or special, apart from filing a false report about her abduction. She is not that much different from George’s girlfriend Gwen and every other man or woman who has told a former lover "its not you, it’s me".
Email: Sidebar@msnbc.com
• |
Current laws protect rapists, not rape victims (Lisa Daniels)
There are many reasons why rape victims don't want to report attacks to the authorities: sheer embarrassment, humiliation, emotional trauma, fear of being attacked again. And of course, telling your story over and over to the police and in court can all add to this silence.
In the city and state of New York, the statute of limitations on violent sex crimes is only five years, making it possible for an attacker to merely evade capture for the period of time before the case gets dropped.
In New York City, arguably the most sophisticated city in the world, this translates into roughly 800 rape victims who will never see their attackers brought to justice because time has run out.
New York isn't alone in having a five-year cut-off period to find and prosecute rapists.
Strangely, authorities in other states dictate tighter statutes of limitations. However, other states have changed their laws and now allow for violent rapes to be prosecuted at any time.
But so far, this is not the case for New York. In fact, the state’s lawmakers are considering a bill to abolish the statute of limitations for first-degree rape and sodomy. Currently, notorious violent sex crime defendants have benefited from these time limits. Paul Shanley, a former Massachusetts priest who was accused of raping or molesting at least 26 children over three decades, couldn't be prosecuted for most of the alleged crimes because the statute of limitations had run out. This same loophole allowed numerous other accused Catholic Priests to avoid prosecution.
Similarly, Fletcher Worrell, a serial rape suspect who was recently arrested in New York, will not face charges for the alleged rapes of several New York women who claim he attacked them in the 1970s.
Critics of the movement to change these limitations claim that if more than five years pass, you can't provide a fair and speedy trial to defendants. They argue it's more difficult to find witnesses and evidence when a crime occurred many years ago.
These days, that shouldn't matter — especially with new forensic technology.
For other violent crimes such as murder, there is no statute of limitations. Modern evidence - gathering techniques, like DNA analysis, have provided justice for many grieving families years after the incident.
Victims of violent rape in New York State deserve at least the same chance to have their cases heard, whether the attack occurred last week or 20 years ago. This is just one more instance of how our justice system seems to protect the rights of alleged criminals over the rights of victims. It's shameful and it should be fixed now.
Email: Sidebar@msnbc.com
• |
The Funeral That Never Happened (Stacy Brown, Jackson family friend and MSNBC contributor)
Michael Jackson and his family arrived at court last week for the reading of the verdicts wearing black. It was as if they had come for a funeral. After months of wearing white as a show of innocence, reality seemed to have struck the Jacksons. Their most famous sibling could be going to prison for a very long time and to many a prison sentence for Jackson meant a death sentence.
A funny thing happened at the funeral. The body was exhumed and found to be alive. Not guilty, not guilty, not guilty. Ten times that phrase was uttered in Judge Rodney Melville’s courtroom and by the fans that lined Miller Street in the closing moments of an energy depleting trial.
Michael Jackson was free. He was free to gloat and dance on top of his SUV. Jackson, who had long claimed that District Attorney Thomas Sneddon had a personal vendetta against him, could have yelped “hee, hee,” all he wanted. He could have grabbed his crotch and shouted, “Who’s bad?”
You expected a show of some kind by Jackson and his brothers and sisters who attended the reading of the verdict. But in keeping with the theme of this trial, where the unexpected always exceeded what was expected, Jackson was dignified in his stunning victory. He merely patted his attorneys on their backs and needed prompting by his father to offer a wave to those who stood outside court behind newly built fences worshipping the singer.
Jackson got in his SUV and drove off. Gone. He didn’t even attend a victory party his family gave on his behalf and even said no to a Neverland bash that many of his faithful had hoped and perhaps prayed would take place. Jackson is off to Switzerland to try and rehab his fading body and mental health among other things.
He left behind his gabby brother Jermaine and his silver-haired attorney Tom Mesereau to do the boasting. Unlike the superstar, Jermaine Jackson and Mesereau have been much less than dignified in the former king of pop’s win at trial. Jermaine lamented on Larry King Live, among other things, how important it was for Americans that Jackson was acquitted. Mesereau even entertained the ridiculous assertions that Jackson could sue Sneddon for malicious prosecution.
I had the unique opportunity to visit with Sneddon, prosecutor Ron Zonen and other top-level members of the prosecution team following the verdicts. We gathered first at the home of one of the team members and later we played pool at a place they called the “HOP,” which stands for house of prosecution.
The mountain of boxes labeled “People v. Jackson,” and the uncountable amount of evidence it contained awed me. Sneddon took the high road. He said Jackson has touched so many with his music in a positive way that he hopes the star gets his life together. No detection of a vendetta at all. His job was to prosecute a man whom he believes is a child molester, a claim even jurors who acquitted him supported. Jurors questioned after the case said they did believe Jackson had molested children but this particular case wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sneddon had also heard allegations about Jackson after the 1993 settlement with a young boy and before this particular case. He never pursued those cases, which also supports his position that his prosecution of Jackson has nothing to do with a vendetta.
Many have said that Jackson, if he is indeed a child molester, now has carte blanche to carry on his predilection. Observers have said no prosecutor, especially in Santa Barbara County, would ever go after him again. I suggested that to prosecutor Ron Zonen who snapped back “I’d go after him again if he harmed a child.”
We all shared a beer, a tequila shot and some laughter. None of us needed to speak of Michael Jackson anymore. That thought and the tequila shot was our sigh of relief that the whole thing was over, no funeral, just a premature wake.
• June 17, 2005 |
Your rebuttal
The results of Terri Schiavo's autopsy released yesterday, it was confirmed that she was in a persistent vegetative state exactly as her husband had argued. Dan questioned David Gibbs, the attorney for Terri's parents, about why he would not now admit that their intentions were good but that he and the parents were just wrong about that.
Jill Weinstein in Pleasant Hill, California:
"Bravo, you really went after Terri Schiavo's parents' attorney beautifully. You said everything I was thinking as I was listening. The family has changed their entire focus and I think that is unfair."
Gayle Kretschmer from Fernley, Nevada:
"Dan, you're gloating. Where Terri Schiavo is concerned, you still have no compassion. Why do you think that the husband is the only one telling the truth?"
Dan says:
Well Gayle, he was right about her condition. That's all I was saying. Bill Clark agrees with me. “To admit the truth would mean admitting to the most aggressive and unreasoned approach to that problem. Those people tried to destroy Michael Schiavo. They should be ashamed and apologetic. Instead, they seem to be trying to play the Michael killed her card. It makes me sick.”
Carter Hall from Fla.:
"One of the most important virtues an individual can have is the ability to admit when you're wrong. I guess the Schindler lawyer is shy of that virtue."
And Tuesday night, a viewer e-mailed asking why I did not correct a comment one of my guests made, that "Michael Jackson was acquitted, not proven innocent." The viewer snidely commented that American citizens are presumed innocent even after a trial if there was no conviction. My response? That a presumption of innocence has never meant that someone has been shown to be or proven to be innocent by fact. It's merely a presumption.
Attorney Joseph A. Ettinger in Scottsdale, Ariz. attempts to put Dan in his place:
"I just heard your remarks on the presumption of innocence. You closed by saying it's only a presumption. Had you been one of my law school students, I would have been careful to assure the public that you knew at least the basic tenants of reasonable doubt before your graduation. I feel comfortable in commenting on your lack of knowledge after my almost 50 years as a criminal defense attorney and law professor. Perhaps you can display this e-mail as a rebuttal to your incorrect comments on the law.”
Dan says:
Well, professor, I will display it but for a different reason. First of all, I assume you meant basic tenets rather than tenants. I'll assume that was a typo. But you seem to have missed the point: These jurors were not asked to determine if Michael Jackson was factually innocent. Only if he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They said "no," but that does not mean they found that it did not happen. Only that they did not have enough evidence to take away his freedom. The viewer asked what about the presumption of innocence and my answer, which I stand by, is that I had no obligation to correct my guest who had said there's a difference between not guilty and factual innocence. I hope you did not confuse your students by failing to distinguish between the two.
Yesterday, Dan talked about three servicemen he met in the airport who were home to attend three different funerals of comrades who died in a plane crash on Memorial Day in Iraq. (Scroll below to read the story).
Diane Mikos in Schererville, Ind.:
“I'm not ashamed to say that your experience at the airport first gave me chills and then I found myself starting to cry. What a great story. Thanks again.”
Vietnam vet Rich Zettle, Northampton, Penn.:
“Most U.S. citizens don't realize how much a thank you for our service to our country means to a soldier, especially a combat soldier. Thank you so much for sharing.”
Traci in Pleasanton, Calif.:
“In a nation that worships celebrity, it's too bad all the fans outside the Jackson courthouse didn't encounter these guys. Then they would know what a real hero is.”
Finally, Michael Clement in Jacksonville, Fla.:
“I salute you Dan for your putting a spotlight on such a heroic group of men. Thank you very much.”
Dan says:
Again, they deserve the credit. Not me.
Send us your e-mails abramsreport@msnbc.com. We go through them at the end of the show.
• |
The real story out of my time in Santa Maria... has nothing to do with Jackson (Dan Abrams)
My entry today is a story about my time in Santa Maria that has nothing to do with Michael Jackson.
I was flying out of Santa Maria for the weekend and was approached in the airport by a guy named John who said he was a fan of the show. He was with what I assumed were two friends, one on crutches. They just looked like three guys on vacation, but I quickly learned that their trip to the area was anything but. They were in town for the funeral of a colleague, one of their “teammates,” Captain Derek M. Argel of Lompoc, California, who, along with three others, died in a plane crash on Memorial Day in Iraq.
Captain Argel, 28, was survived by his wife Wendy and 11-month son Logan. Argel's was the first of three funerals they would be traveling to attend. They were also going to attend that of Captain Jeremy Freskiss of Farmington, New Mexico and Sergeant Casey Crate of Washington—all members of the 23rd Special Tactics Squadron out of Hurlburt Field, Florida, an elite Air Force unit that has among other things, been helping to locate bombing targets in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Here I was, consumed with the minutiae of a celebrity trial in California, while these guys are doing this nation's work.
I was almost ashamed that Sergeant John— they've asked me to use only their first names— had walked up to me to tell me how much he liked my work rather than me walking up to him.
But that is just the beginning.
I learned that the one on crutches, Sergeant Brad, was recovering from a gunshot wound he received in April in Afghanistan. His team had been called in to support an ambushed coalition convoy. He apparently killed a number of enemy fighters and performed life saving treatment on another wounded soldier after he was hit with a round from an AK-47.
Ok, so now I am thinking about the relative insignificance of my life on the short flight from Santa Maria to LA. As we were leaving the plane, Sergeant John was offering up some suggestions for better coverage of our men and women in uniform when an elderly man about 10 yards in front of us falls flat on his face. His head and his hands were severely bruised and bleeding (I later learned he had just had chemotherapy). Immediately Sergeant John called to Sergeant Brad and Major Mike and instructed them to stay with the fallen man while he ran for help. Sergeant Brad, on his crutches, ran down the gateway. It was as if they had trained for this mission too—to help anyone in need. They called for First Aid but there was none. They did what they could and eventually got a wheelchair and took him to the men's room. About thirty minutes later, a medic arrived, and all was well.
These guys are heroes on the battlefield, but they are also living heroic lives, making sure their fallen comrades are remembered properly. And while they are there, they are also helping out anyone else in need.
Sergeant John, Sergeant Brad, and Major Mike, I salute you.
E-mail DAbrams@MSNBC.com
• |
Your e-mails on the Jackson verdict
Jennie Reader from Ala.:
Now that the trial is over, does Michael Jackson get all of his magazines and books back?
Dan says: You know, Jennie, interestingly, I just asked that question of Ron Zonen, the prosecutor. He said, no. Not for now.
Octavio Holguin from Fort Collins, Colo.:
I heard a guest on yoru show this evening make a very disturbing statement and I roughly quote, “He (Jackson) was acquitted, not proven innocent. At the risk of sounding facetious, aren't American citizens presumed innocent until proven guilty? I heard no response from you as a lawyer, so I am questioning the legitimacy of your program.
Dan says: No need, Octavio. A presumption of innocence has never meant that someone has been shown to be or proven to be innocent. By facts. Merely a presumption. I hope that restores your faith in the program.
Susan Wallack from Beverly Hills, Calif:
“After today's Jackson verdict I'd bet Saddam Hussein will try to get his trial moved to California. He's famous enough to get acquitted there.
Shahbaz Alibaig, Downer's Grove, Ill.:
I want to thank you as I watch and read news and see so much bias. You are fair, impartial and should be proud. I love your show
Dan says: Thanks a lot, Shahbaz.
Nick Dorphley, Tallahasee, Fla.:
You have been in California for over a week and you still don't have a tan! Did you pay Michael Jackson's bodyguard to hold his umbrella over your head while Michael was in court?
Dan says: You know, Nick, I don't know what to tell you. I think I put on a little...
E-mail us at AbramsReport@MSNBC.com
• June 15, 2005 |
Dan is back in the studio (Cory Gnazzo, and "The Abrams Report" staff)
Dan's back in the studio today and we're glad to have him here. Even back at home, he's still on the Michael Jackson beat... tonight he goes one-on-one with Jackson's attorney, Tom Mesereau— or should I say lawyer-to-lawyer. We'll be frank, Mesereau has done a couple of live interviews since his big victory on Monday, but he hasn't been interviewed by a lawyer, until now. You won't want to miss this.
More than two months after she died, a Florida medical examiner's office today released the autopsy results for Terri Schiavo. Her autopsy shows she was in a persistent vegetative state when she died and had been for years. It also shows she was blind, unable to eat or drink through her mouth and died of dehydration. Dan talks with a medical examiner to go over the results and also with David Gibbs, the attorney for Schiavo's parents.
And in Aruba today, police looking for clues to the disappearance of Alabama teenager Natalee Holloway are searching the home of the Dutch teenager who's being held in connection with her disappearance. Dan will get the latest from Aruba on today's search and the results of yesterday's search. He'll also talk with Natalee's stepmother.
Stay tuned to 'The Abrams Report'!
• June 14, 2005 |
When the circus leaves town (Susan Filan, MSNBC analyst and former Conn. state prosecutor)
The case of the People vs. Michael Jackson is over for good. No hung jury. No re-trial. No convictions. No sentencing. No appeals. It is done.
In one fell swoop, the jury rendered its verdict and acquitted Michael Jackson of all charges. The aftermath of the verdict from a media perspective is stunning. Journalists from more than 34 countries around the world had gathered around this small courthouse in Santa Maria, California, and had set up shop in makeshift tents. Print journalists, radio broadcasters, television anchors, cameras, crews, technicians, producers, bookers had all set up shop on the asphalt in the parking lot of the courthouse. You staked your claim to a piece of parking lot and called it home for several months. Yet immediately after the verdict was announced, the place started to empty. Crews packed up, journalists left, and the media began to leave town. The frenzy died down almost instantly. The place we called home for so long is morphing back into what it always was: a courthouse parking lot. It feels as if the circus came to town and we all got swept away by its magic and excitement and allure, only to wake up one morning to find it gone. Packed up in the middle of the night, tents down, rides over- moved on to somewhere else.
There are still a few broadcasting from around the courthouse, winding the story down, but for the most part, it is over. Television has moved on to its next big story, and Michael Jackson will be a footnote in Santa Maria's history. What had consumed us all around the clock, 24/7, is now yesterday's news.
I think members of the media feel a mix of sadness and relief. This was a very long trial to cover and most are anxious to go home to their lives. Others are anxious to find out their next assignment. But friendships were formed, and connections were made. There is always a sweet sorrow in saying good bye and moving on, but also a relief that the tension and high drama that has consumed our lives throughout this trial as we sought to bring it live to our audience is over, at least for now.
E-mail: SFilan@MSNBC.com
• June 14, 2005 |
Final thoughts on Jackson case (Dan Abrams)
The question everyone will now ask in connection with the Jackson case is: Was 'not guilty' the right verdict? My answer is yes. There was not enough evidence to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Jackson molested this boy and that Jackson served him alcohol with the intent to molest him. The conspiracy charge is based primarily on the testimony of the boy's mother, whose credibility left much to be desired.
Does that mean Jackson has been vindicated, as his supporters claim, that he's just a gentle, terrific guy, misunderstood and targeted? No. He spent far too many nights in bed with boys alone for me to believe that. He's paid too many millions of dollars to settle claims for me to accept that. The stories are too consistent. The boys look too similar. And his bedroom was filled with the sort of smut a milk-and-cookies-loving Peter Pan-like figure would either ignore or abhor.
I thought the jurors might dislike Jackson enough to convict him. But that is not the law. It doesn't mean that the result is the moral one, but that wasn't the question jurors were asked to answer. This was a court of law. And, in that specific forum, with its unique rules, I think the jurors probably got it right.
Jackson verdict links
- Click here for Dan's March prediction that Jackson will not be convicted.
- World exclusive: Jermaine and Tito Jackson speak to MSNBC's Rita Cosby.
• |
A stunning verdict (Dan Abrams)
It was a stunning verdict in the Jackson trial.
Most people following the case thought that this case was tough for the prosecution, but the majority believed that Michael Jackson would be convicted of something.
This was not the case. He was not only acquitted of all the felony counts, but . There were opportunities for the jury to compromise, like citing Jackson for a misdemeanor on serving alcohol to the minor (like a bartender would be), but the jury said “no.”
It's an all-out vindication for Michael Jackson. Some would say that this does not mean that there was never any molestation, only that the burden of proof— — was not met. The prosecutors did not survive this burden.
Michael Jackson and his team walked out of the courthouse. In the next few days, they will say that this case was “not fair” and that this case “should never have been brought.” They can do that now. Jackson can silence his critics by saying he received a trial and was cleared of charges.
This is exactly what Jackson and his team would have hoped and prayed for.
As for the accuser's family, these jurors clearly hated the mother of the accuser. She spoiled the case for the prosecution. They didn't like the way the mother looked, sounded, and snapped.
If the accuser sues in a civil court, he and his family will have some explaining to do. They claimed that they did not want money; so if they do so, this will make them seem vindictive.
Jackson verdict links
- Click here for Dan's March prediction that Jackson will not be convicted.
- Susan Filan on how the defense swept the verdict
- Daniel Horowitz on how reasonable doubt won the day
• |
Perpwalk or moon walk? We'll find out today
Jurors in the Michael Jackson trial reached a verdict Monday afternoon, according to reports received by NBC News. The panel apparently reached a decision after seven days of deliberations, and 14 weeks of testimony.
Stay tuned to MSNBC TV— Dan will be anchoring and giving his legal analysis all night.
• June 13, 2005 |
Has the Jackson judge been keeping the public in the dark? (Susan Filan, MSNBC analyst and former Conn. state prosecutor)
Has the jury been having read backs all along with the public kept in the dark? Has the jury been asking questions all along with the public kept in the dark? Why at the end of a public trial have the deliberations become secret? Does this judge have the right to hide this part of the case from the public? The answer is, no, he does not.
Judge Rodney Melville has refused to allow requests from the jury to be held in open court or to make public what those requests might be. Customarily this information gives court watchers some indication of where the jury might be in its deliberation.
NBC News has learned that the jury in the Michael Jackson case asked to hear at least parts of the accuser's testimony. The reading back of the testimony began in the late morning Friday. It is unknown whether the jury asked to hear the entire testimony, which could take more than 2 days to read.
What this judge is doing is contrary to any trial I have been involved in. I have never heard of a judge behaving in this manner. I am outraged. I have been impressed with Judge Melville throughout the course of the trial but I cannot understand what he is doing now, nor can I imagine his reasons why. It would be bad enough if he let us know the jury had a question, or asked for a read back, without letting us know what the request is, but to prevent us from even learning that there have been requests effectively seals this proceeding from the public. In order to close a courtroom, a hearing must be held and good cause established. We do not favor secret proceedings in the United States.
The press has filed a motion asking the judge to allow the public access to the deliberations but he has scheduled it for June 16, 2005, which will most likely be after a verdict has been reached in this case.
If the jury has been asking questions all along, and asking for read backs, it is quite likely they will be reaching their verdict sooner rather than later, assuming they are not hung. We could get a verdict as early as Monday or Tuesday.
I understand the need to protect deliberations. I understand what is at stake. But I cannot understand proceeding in a manner that is antithetical to the constitution.
E-mail SFilan@MSNBC.com
