Murphy's Grace

Funny, arent they? Authorities do not have any credible evidence to prove that Michael Jackson molested anybody, so The mother claims that Jackson associates coerced her and the children to initially deny that Jackson had sexually abused the boy who is a recovering cancer patient. Isn't that a mouthful? Now how do these brilliant authorities use this lauable approach, to prove that the King of Pop is a child molester. Leave it to two experienced defendant bashers, to piece it all together in a manner that would make any fickle, unreliable analyst proud.

GRACE: Wendy Murphy, weigh in on this. The reality here, in my mind, strategically speaking, is that before, on the original arrest charges, it was all about alleged conduct by Michael Jackson. Now we see a conspiracy charge, allegedly that Jackson tried to extort money or threaten the family, tried to falsely imprison this child or his family or even kidnap or move the child. That means, Wendy, somebody else, according to the prosecutors, is involved. Once you have more than one or two people involved, somebody cracks and testifies, Wendy.

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: You're absolutely right, Nancy. And it might even be more than one person. We just don't know yet. And whether or not that person is indicted -- remember, there's such a thing as an unindicted co-conspirator. There's going to be an awful lot of pressure brought to bear on that person or persons. And Nancy, I think this makes the prosecution's case extremely strong now because it isn't just about the word of a child now.

Remember, 28 different overt acts are alleged in support of this conspiracy indictment. What that means is we're going to hear about 28 different things that were done to intimidate, or the abduction and so on. And how is that going to be explained away? You know, the reasonable jury is going to say, Hey, if this kid's making it up, the mother's out for money, it's all a big bunch of nonsense and Michael Jackson's so guilty, why did there have to be 28 separate acts of, in a sense, intimidation tactics taken against these people?

GRACE: Well, put. Chris Pixley, you want to take a crack at that, Chris. What can the defense say? Or will they portray it, Chris, like this -- say Jackson took the kid and his mom to Disneyland. What's wrong about that? That could be viewed as philanthropic. But then, when you look at these charges, suddenly, there is a nefarious stroke to even a trip to Disneyland.

CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: That's right. That's right. And I also think, Nancy, that there's an obvious angle here. One of the problems that the DA's had from the very beginning is they have an accuser who claims that he was molested by Michael Jackson during the same period of time that the LAPD and the Department of Chile and Family Services were investigating those allegations and were finding that there was no basis for them. So the DA has to do something to rehabilitate this witness, to build the accuser and his family's testimony. And what better way than to say, Well, actually, during that period of time, they were under threat of force. They were being intimidated. They were in danger, and that's the only reason they didn't tell the truth.

The problem with that, of course, is that any adult, even if the child doesn't know, understands that if you're being interviewed by the police and you are in danger for your life or fear danger, you simply tell the police...

GRACE: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute.

PIXLEY: ... and they protect you. So if...

GRACE: Wait a minute on that. Let me throw that at Wendy. That's a really good point, Chris. My understanding, Wendy, is that there are allegations that when this child and his mom talked to child protective services, that there was actually Jackson representative there. Could that be viewed as intimidating?

MURPHY: You know, was that a rhetorical question, Nancy?

GRACE: I'm just throwing it out there.

(LAUGHTER)

MURPHY: You know, look, there's so much about this case that still has yet to be proved, but what's important is, and what I think makes the prosecution's case extremely strong, is that the jury's going to hear all this. It's one thing to explain away one piece of evidence, but explaining away 28 separate overt acts...

GRACE: Yes.

MURPHY: And Chris thinks it's all easy to do by simply saying, Hey, you know, a reasonable child would simply tell the police the truth. Not when the person against whom you're making an allegation has made threats, has abducted you, has tried to, you know, use extortion tactics against you and is the most powerful man on the planet in terms of music!

And now, let's inject Murphy and Grace with a healthy dose of sodium Amytal, to make them tell the truth.

GRACE: Wendy Murphy, weigh in on this. The reality here, realistically speaking, in the first charges, filed by Sneddon on Jan. 31, he accused Jackson of committing nine different acts between Feb. 7 and March 10, 2003. Now he says Jackson did whatever he's alleged to have done between Feb. 20 and March 12, 2003. Has Tom Sneddon cracked?

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: You're absolutely right, Nancy. Michael Jackson did not molest anybody, so the DA must manufacture a conspiracy theory to claim serious criminal charges like the claim that Jackson tried to extort money or threatened the family, or tried to falsely imprison this child or his family or even kidnap the child. That means, Wendy, somebody else, according to the prosecutors, is involved, and once you destroy everybody who represents Jackson, bingo.

GRACE: Well, put. Chris Pixley, you want to take a crack at that, Chris. What can the defense say? Or will they portray it, Chris, like this -- say Jackson took the kid and his mom to Disneyland. What's wrong about that? That could be viewed as philanthropic. But then, when you look at these charges, suddenly, there is a nefarious stroke to even a trip to Disneyland.

CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: That's right. That's right. And I also think, Nancy, that there's even a nefarious stroke when a key witness like Vivian Mitchell drops dead, because she is in a position to prove that an innocent person has been kidnapped. Clearly, when the DA's only concern is to rehabilitate those who bear false witness, you have no choice but to manufactue lies to say to say, Well, actually, during that period of time, they were under threat of force. They were being intimidated. They were in danger, and that's the only reason they didn't tell the truth. Only problem is, the people that Michael Jackson intimidated, are still alive.

In other words, any adult or child understands that if you're being interviewed by the police or the media and you are in danger for your life or fear danger, you simply tell the police or the media...

GRACE: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute.

PIXLEY: Indeed, Ed Bradley sat there for hours, in the kitchen having coffee and doughnuts and sodas and the cancer victims mother and the kids said they were willing to go on television to say what a great person Michael Jackson was. Now if that's a sign of being kidnapped or coerion, study the contrast between that nonsense and the Laci sighting in Longview Washington.

GRACE: Wait a minute on that. Let me throw that at Wendy. That's a really good point, Chris. My understanding, Wendy, is that there are allegations that when this child and his mom talked to child protective services, that there was actually a Jackson representative there. Could that be viewed as intimidating?

MURPHY: You know, Nancy, you are the most absolutely brilliant spin queen.

GRACE: I'm just throwing it out there, to show you how my mind works.

(LAUGHTER)

MURPHY: You know, look, there's so much about this case that still has yet to be proved, but what's important is, and what I think makes the prosecution's case extremely stupid, is that the jury's going to hear all this. It's one thing to explain away one piece of evidence, but explaining away 28 separate covert acts, now that's what you call...

GRACE: Yes.

MURPHY: And Chris thinks it's all easy to do by simply saying, Hey, you know, a reasonable child would simply tell the police the truth. Not when the person against whom you're making an allegation has abducted you, has tried to, you know, use extortion tactics against you and is as vicious as Al Pacino in Scarface, well then you have to justify your existence.

GRACE: Okay, so what are you trying to say?

MURPHY: Michael Jackson did not kidnap anybody, silly?

UPDATE: The absurdity of extortion charges.

Next: The plot to frame Michael Jackson.

Plus: Lynching Michael Jackson