On December 9, 2004 the smokinggun.com published a memo from the Sensitive Case Unit of L.A.'s Department of Children & Family Services (DCFS), which apologists claim proves that the accuser is lying and that Michael Jackson is innocent.

The memo can be found in its entirety here here

On the basis of this memo and a investigation by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department, which we’ll also discuss, Jackson supporters claim that Jackson was "cleared" not once but twice. The following are some thoughts and observations on the memo. It is important to note before we begin that the memo represents a summary of the DCFS investigation only. It contains no information from the investigation, no supporting evidence or backgournd information. The actual evidence gathered during the investigation has not surfaced.

The Investigation(s)

The DCFS initiated an investigation into Michael Jackson’s relationship with Gavin Arviso after receiving a referral from an unidentified administrator from Gavin’s school. The actual acts alleged in the referral are not known at this time. At the same time that DCFS was investigating the mother for child neglect, for allowing her children to sleep unsupervised with Jackson.

The entire investigation lasted 13 days, from February 14 to February 27 and featured interviews with Gavin, his mother, his brother and his sister. The memo notes that the conclusion of the investigation what that no criminal activity had taken place and that the allegations were "unfounded".

The memo noted that an earlier allegation of abuse against David Arvizo had been substantiated, with the father being arrested and a restraining order issued against him.

On February 20th, 2003, Terry Flaa, then of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department, received two referrals relating to accusations of inappropriate sexual behaviour between Michael Jackson and Gavin Arvizo. The first was from the DCFS and reflected the concerns of the unnamed school administrator, the second from lawyer Carol Leiberman. Despite the Defense’s efforts to suggest that the investigation was a result of Carol Leiberman’s unfounded and vindictive accusations against Jackson, testimony makes it abundantly clear that the SBCS based their investigation on the referral from the school administrator.

On Feb. 24 Flaa contacted the DFCS to discuss interviewing the children, only to be informed by DCFS Brenda Blackburn that the family had already been interviewed by the DCFS, possibly assisted by the LAPD (no-one seems sure on that point). (note: MJEOL would have us believe that this phone constitutes an attempt by the SBSD to "warn off" the DFCS, which is just silly).

On March 10 Flaa again spoke to Blackburn, who refused to forward a copy of the Arvizo interviews to the SBSD, citing confidentiality reasons. She did, however, relay the contents of the interview by telephone, recorded by Flaa.

Solely on the basis of the DFCS report it was decided that there was no need to interview the Arvizos again.

On March 13^th, Flaa interviewed David Arvizo, and a report urging no further action was filed on April 16.

On June 13^th the case was reactivated, by which time Flaa had left the SBSD for a position with the Santa Maria PD.

The most obvious thing that should be pointed out is that the Prosecution is contending that Jackson did not begin molesting Gavin until after the interview with the DCFS—in other words sometime after Feb. 20.

Even if molestation were occurring at this time, a denial would be obvious and understandable. The allegation of child molestation by Michael was directly tied to an allegation of neglect against the mother. By confirming that abuse had taken place, the boy would be de facto proving that his mother was negligent, resulting in the children been taken from their mother and placed into foster care. Under those circumstances, a denial is not surprising.

Contrary to what apologists claim, nothing that the boy or the rest of the family said during the interviews were under oath. Apologists claims that the interview’s are a "sworn statement that no abuse occurred" are simply not true.

The "investigation" carried out by the DFCS consisted entirely and solely of interviewing Gavin, his siblings, and his mother. No other people were interviewed (not even Gavin’s father) no other information or evidence was collected. On the basis of a summary of these interviews, plus an interview with David Arvizo, the SBSD declined to take further action. By no stretch of the imagination can it be claimed" a two month investigation by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Dept (SBSD) cleared him of these molestation allegations" (as MJEOL insists)

The memo is dated November 26, 2003—10 months after the investigation into the allegations, but a scant 6 days after Jackson was booked. The timing of the memo suggests strongly that it was prepared as a measure to head off criticism of the DCFS for failing to uncover illegal acts.

The memo was leaked on Dec 9, 2004, in the midst of a deluge of negative "revelations" about the accusing families’ past, including charges of shoplifting, lawsuit against JC Penney’s, divorce proceedings and allegations of cruelty against the accusers father. This information started to surface in the last week of November and reached a fever pitch in the first two weeks of December. Just prior to this the Defense requested subpoenas for financial statements, psychologists reports and medical records (including gynecological records). The timing of these actions, along with the efficiency with which this information (supposedly covered by the gag-order) suggests strongly that it was part of a orchestrated effort to smear the family in the media—in much the same way that Ann Gabriel claimed in both her trial and grand jury testimony.

During trial testimony Gavin acknowledged denying any sexual contact with Jackson when confronted by the Dean of his school. The fact that the Dean confronted Gavin after the DCFS had concluded that no abuse occurred strongly suggests that the Dean was not satisfied with the DCFS conclusions. Given that the original referral came from the school also, it’s obvious that someone at the school believed that

Once again it must be pointed out that none of the information that forms that basis for this memo has been released. Even the police investigating allegations against Jackson did not have access to this source material. The memo was leaked on Dec 9, 2004, in the midst of a deluge of negative "revelations" about the accusing families’ past, including charges of shoplifting, lawsuit against JC Penney’s, divorce proceedings and allegations of cruelty against the accusers father. This information started to surface in the last week of November and reached a fever pitch in the first two weeks of December. Just prior to this the Defense requested subpoenas for financial statements, psychologists reports and medical records (including gynecological records). The timing of these actions, along with the efficiency with which this information (supposedly covered by the gag-order) was spread suggests strongly that it was part of a orchestrated effort to smear the family in the media—in much the same way that Ann Gabriel claimed in both her trial and grand jury testimony.

The DCFS memo is used my apologists as supporting evidence for two of their most persistent claims. The first is that Gavin is lying because he initially denied being molested. The second is that the family has a history of making false accusations.

Fair enough, I suppose--except that it is impossible to use this particular document to support both claims. One or the other perhaps, but not both. Either it clears Jackson, OR it implicates the family in fraudulent accusations.

If you believe that the DCFS is conclusive (which, by the way, I don’t) then you have to believe that all of it is conclusive. You can’t pick and choose.

If an apologist claims that the memo exonerates Jackson, then they cannot claim on the basis of this memo that the family has a history of making false accusations of abuse. Why? Because according to the memo the earlier accusation was substantiated. Bang goes pattern.

If on the other hand an apologist persists in the claim that the family has a history of false accusations of abuse, then they have to concede that the DCFS may have made an error in the earlier. If that is the case, then they have to further concede that the DCFS could have erred in the Jackson investigation as well—so the memo does not exonerate Jackson

Return to the Previous Page.

Return to the INDEX