The indictment of Michael Jackson contains ten felony counts: One of conspiracy (we’ll get to that), One of attempting a lewd act upon a child, and four each of committing a lewd act upon a child and administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the commission of a felony. Since the conspiracy is the one that casues the most confusion and is the source of much erroneous speculation, I thought I’d give an overview on how it applies to the Jackson case.

This is as good a description of conspiracy as I’ve been able to find on line. It comes from here.

"Conspiracy is the term for a broad category of crimes involving multiple actors coming together to engage in concerted criminal activity. A person … generally is guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime if that person … does one of the following: (1) with the purpose of facilitating or promoting its commission, agrees with another … to engage in conduct that constitutes a crime or an attempt or solicitation of a crime; or (2) agrees to aid another person … in planning, committing, or attempting to solicit a crime. "

To strip away the legalese: if two or more people agree to commit in a crime, or if one or more people agree to help someone commit a crime (even if they aren’t doing anything illegal themselves) then they are engaged in conspiracy (which comes from "conspire" or literally "breath together").

Note that in the second instance, the conspirators don’t actually have to commit an illegal act themselves—merely do something that assists to person who is committing the crime.

"The agreement that forms the basis for conspiracy need not be written, oral, or even explicit, but is often inferred from the facts of the specific case... Most criminal conspiracy statutes also require that at least one of the parties has committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. "

So for instance, if, as the prosecution claims, one of Jackson’s destroyed a urine sample that might have proven that Jackson gave the alleged victim alcohol, then that associate becomes a co-conspirator. By helping Jackson manufacture the "rebuttal tape" , Schafel also became a co-conspirator.

These are hypothetical examples at this point, since the 49 "overt acts" that comprise the conspiracy charge are still under seal. However, we do know what illegal acts the form the basis of the conspiracy charge. They are Child Abduction, False Imprisonment, and Extortion.

The main thing to keep in mind is that conspiracy exists the moment that two or more parties agree to cooperate in the commission of a crime. In other words, and indictment for let’s say extortion, does not necessarily mean that the defendants committed extortion—only that they planned to.

Here’s the specific part of the law we’re dealing with here:

Penal Code Section 278. Every person, not having a right to custody, who maliciously takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals any child with the intent to detain or conceal that child from a lawful custodian shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both that fine and imprisonment.

This is how the Committee of Missing Kids defines it:

Jackson apologists claim (using loaded terms like "kidnapping?) that the charge is laughable. Well, if you are thinking in terms of the stereotypical chloroform over the face, tied up in the trunk and driven to a secret hideout before composing ransom letters from cut-out newspapers, then yes it is laughable.

If you however, are talking about inviting a child to your estate and having him sleep in your bedroom (enticing away from legal custodian) while the mother sleeps in a guesthouse and does not have access to your bedroom (concealing that child from a lawful custodian), then you have pretty much committed child abduction.

The key word here is "maliciously". If the purpose of the sleepover was an innocent one, and the custodian doesn’t object, that’s fine. If the purpose is to get the child alone to provide an opportunity to molest him… need I say more?

What makes it conspiracy is the phalanx of security guards, housekeeping staff, and other "associates" who facilitate this directly (by obstruction the mothers access to the child) or indirectly.

False Imprisonment

This one seems to cause the most confusion among Jackson’s defenders. Here is my initial response to the topic when if first surfaced:

"(Apologists s)eem to using a very narrow definition of the word "imprisonment" to try and convince themselves that the prosecution's case is weak.

You don't have to chain someone to a radiator for extended periods of time to "imprison" them.

In LEGAL terms, imprisonment means simply an illegal use of force, threat of force, or intimidation to prevent a person from moving about freely.

Say you are having an argument with your spouse. She starts to leave and you move to place yourself between her and the door. Congratulations, you have legally imprisoned her, if even for the ten seconds it takes for her to kick you in the fork and step over your writhing body.

So it is entirely plausible to argue that putting a 13 year old boy on a private plane (pretty hard to leave a plane in flight) and flying him several hundred miles away from his home, or sending him on a "vacation" while your flunkies terminate his lease and puts his furniture in storage, is "imprisonment". Especially since there appeared to be an ulterior motive for these "treats"--i.e. the testimonial video.

People have been charged--and convicted--of imprisonment for doing much, much less. "

California Penal Code Section 236 is (unusually) brief and to the point:

"236. False imprisonment is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another. "

It doesn’t even require the used of force, threat of force, or intimidation, although if any of these occur (along with fraud or deceit) the penalty increases from a fine to prison time).

This is probably the most confusing of the accusations in the conspiracy charge. It is impossible, without knowing what the 49 "overt acts" listed in the indictment are, to say how this applies to the Jackson case. Here’s how extortion is defined in the California Penal Code:

"518. Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right."

What makes it problematic is the requirement for the "obtaining of property". What property?

Well, this part makes it a little clearer, perhaps:

"522. Every person who, by any extortionate means, obtains from another his signature to any paper or instrument, whereby, if such signature were freely given, any property would be transferred, or any debt, demand, charge, or right of action created, is punishable in the same manner as if the actual delivery of such debt, demand, charge, or right of action were obtained. "

For instance, signing a release for the child’s participation in the "rebuttal video" would certainly meet the criteria for creating a "right of action". Similarly the official complaint that the mother lodged against Martin Bashir’s documentary in England, which resulted in the unused footage being securely locked away, might also satisfy the requirements. Without knowing the substance of the "overt acts", of course, this is all speculation.

How the extortion might have occurred is much less problematic. Despite what the apologists claim, you don’t have to threaten to kneecap someone for extortion to have taken place:

Penal Code, Section519: Fear, such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a threat, either:

1. To do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened or of a third person; or,
2. To accuse the individual threatened, or any relative of his, or member of his family, of any crime; or,
3. To expose, or to impute to him or them any deformity, disgrace or crime; or,
4. To expose any secret affecting him or them.

Threatening, for instance, to accuse the family of fraud and extortion if they don’t keep their mouths shut, or raising the possibility of the child being labeled a homosexual in court or any number of other things could be construed as inducing fear. In fact, by distributing stories about the mother’s alleged criminal past to the various Michael Jackson fans clubs and message boards, the defense has turned thousands of fans into unwitting co-conspirators.

Conclusion

The conspiracy charge is probably the easiest one to prove in a court of law: let’s face it, we all commit "conspiracy" on a regular basis. In fact, it’s almost impossible for anyone but a hermit to get through an entire day without doing something that could interpreted as furthering a conspiracy. This is the one charge where the advantage is with the prosecutor.He doesn’t even have to prove that the did something illegal: Just that you were thinking of maybe planning to do something that it turns out might be illegal.

On the other hand, if Michael Jackson did molest this or any other child, you can see how actions other than the molestation itself could be considered illegal. Personally, I think the False Imprisonment charge (ironically the one that the apologists pooh-pooh the most) is the strongest of all. The planned trip to Brazil and canceling of the leases alone strongly suggest that the charge has some substance.

But that’s for a jury to decide;)

Back to the INDEX