People are getting cabin-fever big time in Oregon and professional list-servs are going a little haywire with nutty people posting things they might not otherwise post. Here's one example: the first page of the Martha Stewart Jury Questionnaire:

Martha Stewart Jury Questionnaire, Page 1

1. Have you ever used a glue gun?

2. What is a caper? (Choose one):
a. a planned illegal activity, typically involving theft.
b. a pickled delicacy made from the buds of a bush grown in the Mediterranean region.

3. What should never be placed on a coffee table when guests arrive? (Choose one):
a. drink glasses without coasters.
b. the K-Mart mail order catalog.
c. bare feet.

4. When using beans in a recipe:
a. do you use fresh or canned?
b. if fresh, do you soak the beans in water or chicken broth?
c. if you use broth, is it canned or homemade?
d. if homemade, was the chicken free range and did you slaughter it yourself?

5. In what month should tulip bulbs be planted?

6. When storing towels, do you fold them or roll them? If rolled, do you tie them with a ribbon before guests arrive?

7. Have you ever received an e-mail message offering extra-virgin olive oil? If so, did you reply?

Looks to us like these list-servers are suffering from DSM-IV diagnosable cabin fever --but still, it's witty enough to spread around.

Alabama is vying to be next to try and kill now-convicted sniper John Lee Malvo.

In a letter to Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, Montgomery County District Attorney Ellen Brooks said Alabama has a strong case against Malvo, a tested death penalty law and should be one of the next jurisdictions to try him.

Brooks, who earlier sent a similar letter saying she wanted to try Muhammad, said as soon as Malvo's Virginia trial ended she began efforts to let Virginia authorities know "we were willing and able to prosecute Malvo. I wanted to make sure the governor and attorney general and anyone else were aware of the abilities of our office, our laws and strength of our evidence," Brooks said.

A trophy killing. What a waste of state resources.

[comments now closed]

By TChris

An AP story suggests that Michael Jackson may benefit from a case pending in a California appellate court. The trial judge in that case found that a county's failure to follow up when individuals receive but disobey a summons to report for jury service resulted in a jury that failed to reflect the racial diveristy of the county.

The lack of follow-up results in "a volunteer jury," said Los Angeles criminal defense attorney Steve Cron, who is familiar with the procedure. He said many Hispanics in the agricultural areas around Santa Maria are farm laborers who might not return the jury summons because they can't afford to take time off work for jury service.

The problem of courts failing to assure that jury pools reflect the demographics of the community is a familiar one to those involved in the criminal justice system. People who have fewer resources (such as day care or a permanent address) are less able to respond to a summons, skewing the jury to populations that do not reflect the community as a whole.

Whether the decision would benefit Jackson, even if ultimately favorable to the defense, is unclear.

Court TV profiles the famous cases set for 2004. For us, the biggest are Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant and Scott Peterson. Behind them come Martha Stewart, Robert Blake, Phil Spector and the retrial of Sandy Murphy and Rick Tabish in the Benny Binion murder trial in Las Vegas.

Our congrats to Court TV for having its most successful year ever in 2003. 2004 should be even better.

Even old cases still make the news-- DNA has been submitted to CODIS, the FBI's databank, in the Jonbenet Ramsey case. We'll be talking about it Sunday night on Fox's Rivera at Large (which happily doesn't air until after the final season premiere of Sex and the City.)

We weren't impressed by the Sheriff's news conference. The Sheriff played selected portions of tapes. We don't know what was on the rest of the tapes. The Sheriff said that he is considering Michael Jackson's allegations of mistreatment as a filed report and that he has asked the state Attorney General to investigate. If the Attorney General finds no misconduct, the Sheriff said he will seek to have false reporting charges filed against Jackson.

We think it's wrong of the Sheriff to hold a press conference and announce that a criminal defendant is not worthy of credibility. If a prosecutor did it, it would be unethical.

The threat of criminal charges is a weak one. Michael Jackson didn't file a report with the police so he can't be guilty of filing a false one.

The whistling and saying he's fine is of no moment to us. Most likely a defense mechanism. Most of our clients would have done the same thing, not wanting to acknowledge the power the police have over them and give them any satisfaction.

Pain can be delayed. His bruise on the arm was immediate. Jackson's feeling the effect on his shoulder could have happened that evening. He might not have mentioned it to Geragos at the time because it might not have hurt that bad at the time--and because he was more concerned with the outrageous perp walk the sheriff's and DA had insisted upon.

There was no need to handcuff Michael Jackson behind his back. They could have handcuffed him in front. When we surrender clients on arrest warrants, we bring them to the county sheriff or U.S. Marshal's and no handcuffs are involved. The $3 million bond had already been posted. There was no need--other than a publicity stunt by the prosecution--to insist on such a ritual. It was all for the cameras.

As to the bathroom, the Sheriff said Michael was locked in there for 15 minutes. Michael estimated 45. We're sure it felt like 45 minutes to Michael. Just because it was cleaned before Jackson was arrested, doesn't mean another inmate didn't get in there and mess it up--or that the cleaning wasn't less than thorough. The holding cell that had the toilet was built to house up to 7 inmates, according to the Sheriff. It most likely would have smelled.

We'll wait to hear Geragos' response, but those are our initial thoughts.

The Santa Barbara County Sheriff will respond to Michael Jackson's allegations that he was bruised and mistreated during his surrender to the police at a news conference tomorrow. Jackson showed the bruise on his inner arm during his 60 Minutes interview. It was in the spot that handcuffs would have been. Jackson said the cuffs were so tight that his shoulder became dislocated and he hasn't been able to sleep at night.

We'll be discussing the news conference on Fox News tomorrow around 12:50 pm ET (time always approximate.)

In other Jackson news today, the Nation of Islam said it has no official professional or business relationship with him.

18 million people watched Michael Jackson's 60 Minutes interview last night. Today, his personal spokesman, Stuart Backerman, resigned, citing "strategic differences."

Update: Mark Geragos, Michael Jackson's lawyer, says Backerman was fired.

"He was terminated by me personally for talking when I told him not to," Geragos said. Backerman responded: "That's untrue. I was the spokesman up until I just resigned. I was not fired."

And how big a role will the Nation of Islam play in Michael's defense? For now, it sounds like it's spriritual advice and security assistance:

Two of Jackson's advisers, Charles Koppelman and Alan Whitman, said they remain in charge of his music and finances. Asked about the Nation of Islam's reported role in directing Jackson's affairs, Koppelman said, "It's not the case as to his music, finances and assets. I think it's primarily in security."

The New York Times has more on the role of the Nation of Islam in Michael Jackson's affairs.

Bump and Update: We just finished watching the interview. It left us feeling very sad. We totally believe Michael Jackson--from his account of his mistreatment during his arrest to his denial of the current criminal charges. We think the case against him is bogus. He's not charged with sharing a bed with children. He's charged with providing alcohol and sexually molesting one child--a child who is on record as saying nothing untoward every happened. A child whose mother is also on record as saying Michael Jackson was an exemplary person in her child's life.

A mother who now says she became suspicious that Jackson gave her child wine. Where did she take her suspicions? To the police? No. To a lawyer. Which lawyer? Out of the 175,000 practiicing lawyers in California, she chose the one who had obtained a multi-million dollar settlement for another child ten years ago. The lawyer sent the kid to his cherry-picked therapist. Then the lawyer went to the DA in the 1993 case, who has said all along the case against Jackson would be reopened if another accuser came forward. Notwithstanding that the Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services concluded the charges were unfounded, this prosecutor filed the case.

Michael Jackson will fight this to the bitter end. His fans will be with him. We'll be there too.

**************
Original Post 12/26/03 3pm

Michael Jackson speaks out Sunday night on 60 minutes in an interview with Ed Bradley.

...he vehemently denies the charges against him. An impassioned Jackson says, "Before I would hurt a child, I would slit my wrists," in reaction to a Bradley question about the charges brought against him that he molested a young boy.

Jackson also says that the police search of Neverland Ranch was overdone and so violated his privacy that his home will never be the same. He tells Bradley, "I won’t live there ever again. It’s a house now. It’s not a home anymore. I’ll only visit."

He also discusses his time in police custody, talking about the injury he says was inflicted on him by the police when they handcuffed him and other details about his arrest.

For the first time, the Who's Pete Townshend tells his story of accessing child porn on the internet in this Sunday Observer interview.

'Look, what I did was wrong. And stupid. The legal position is clear; my experience is clear, my culpability is clear, but my innocence is absolute. I feel completely and totally innocent.'

It only took seven years, but unidentified DNA from JonBenet Ramsey's underwear has finally been submitted to the FBI for comparison with persons in its national databank.

Previous tests showed the DNA did not match members of the Ramsey family. Why wasn't it submitted earlier? The police say it was because the sample wasn't good enough. Miraculously, after being in storage for seven years, now it's just fine.

Lin Wood, the Ramseys' lawyers, have a much more plausible theory:

Wood accused Boulder police of not aggressively pursuing the DNA because it appeared to have been from someone outside the Ramsey family. The Ramseys have long contended that an outsider killed their daughter, and they have accused police of ignoring that possibility.

Police declined to comment, referring questions to the district attorney's office.

As an aside, we've maintained a website on JonBenet's murder since 1999. It's called: Jon Benet Ramsey: The Media UnLynch Mob Page. It was on hiatus for 2003, but if this DNA testing shows anything, we will resurrect it.

JonBenet was killed seven years ago today, December 26, 1996.

The lawsuit filed by the parents of JonBenet Ramsey against Fox News lists the following evidence linking her murder to an intruder:

• Male DNA found on JonBenét's panties that is not the DNA of anyone in the Ramsey family and has not been sourced;
• Male DNA found under JonBenét?s fingernails of both hands that is not the DNA of anyone in the Ramsey family and has not been sourced;
• Two pairs of marks on JonBenét?s body which indicate that a stun gun was used to subject and torture her;
• Evidence of an intruder found in the Ramseys? basement, including a broken open window with a suitcase and broken glass under it, and a window-well to this window with signs of recent disturbance;
• Material from the window-well found in the room where JonBenét was discovered;
• Male pubic or ancillary hair and numerous fibers found on JonBenét's body, clothing and blanket which do not match anything in the Ramsey home and have not been sourced;
• Unidentified shoe prints in the basement and unidentified palm prints on the door to the room where JonBenét was found, which do not match those of anyone in the Ramsey home and have not been sourced;
• JonBenét's autopsy findings, which indicate that she was sexually assaulted, strangled, tortured and then bludgeoned at or near the point of death
• physical evidence of the manner and timing of her death which does not fit the theory of an accidental killing by a parent or sibling followed by staging;
• The garrote and slipknots used to bind and kill JonBenét were sophisticated torture and bondage devices which no one in the Ramsey family had the knowledge to construct;
• Materials used to assault and strangle JonBenét. The stun gun, nylon cord and duct tape which necessarily existed but which were never owned by the Ramseys and were not found in their home;

A friend of Al Gore III and his two companions, arrested last week and charged with misdemeanor pot possession, says these are the true facts (posted in comments on TalkLeft):

Alright, so I am a close friend of Yann, Marc and Al, and y'all need to hear what really happened. First of all, on the subject of OUI - out of the question. I know for a fact that none of the occupants in the vehicle had used marijuana or alcohol within four hours of driving. The car was pulled over as it was exiting a parking garage, and Al had yet to turn his headlights on.

The three had borrowed Tipper's car and were smoking cigarettes - The windows were rolled down so that the car wouldnt stink of tobacco upon thier return. As for the suspected smell of marijuana eminating from the vehicle - impossible. No marijuana had been smoked in the car at any time.

The police reported that they found a half-smoked joint, which is a lie. The report also stated that a soda can was found that had been modified to serve as a makeshift bong - That never existed.

What the police did find was a small bag of marijuana under the back seat of the vehicle. However, the validity of this find has recently come into question due to illegal search procedure. Pulling out onto the street without your headlights on in no way serves as probable cause to warrant a full search of the vehicle, and it was only after the identity of the driver was revealed that the occupants were given a hard time by authorities.

Sounds plausible to us. And don't forget, innocent until proven guilty. Thanks, "Snake," and please keep us updated.