The District Attorney and Sheriff’s Department of Santa Barbara County are being threatened with a lawsuit by Marc Schaffel, a former producer for Michael Jackson, who is claiming that county officials leaked to the media confidential information they had obtained during the course of the pop star’s molestation trial in 2005.
Schaffel’s attorney Howard King penned a letter - which was sent to the DA, Sheriff, County Counsel, and the state Attorney General - that demands the county launch an investigation into who released footage of an interview Schaffel did with Debbie Rowe, the mother of two of Jackson’s children, to the celebrity news Web site TMZ.com. The letter also alleges that the county was the source of such information, a charge that the county has vehemently denied, with Sheriff Bill Brown calling the claim “preposterous” and County Counsel Dennis Marshall explaining that King has “no evidence whatsoever.”
The footage, which was quickly removed by TMZ.com at King’s request, reportedly was an outtake that showed Rowe joking about getting intravenous drug treatment to combat her high stress levels. Such a scene is embarrassing for Rowe, because her former husband, Jackson, died on June 25 from cardiac arrest, which is widely speculated to have been caused by an intravenous drug overdose. Schaffel and Rowe, who officially asked for King’s representation in the matter on Thursday afternoon, believe that county officials released the video because there is lingering resentment over her testimony in the trial, which proved to be more favorable to Jackson than prosecutors had hoped for.
The county connection was initially supported by representatives of TMZ.com, who claimed that the video was discovered in a “publicly accessible” area of the Sheriff’s Department. TMZ.com, however, has since taken back that statement, and denied that Santa Barbara County officials had anything to do with the leak. King learned as much from TMZ.com representatives on Thursday, recounting, “The upshot was that TMZ is saying, ‘We were wrong, but we won’t tell you where we got it.’” But King is not backing down, asking, “Should I assume that they’re telling the truth today and lying last week or that they’re telling the truth last week and lying today?”
The origin of the video leak remains unknown. “We don’t know where it came from,” said Sheriff’s Department spokesperson Drew Sugars. “We can say that it didn’t come from this department : We do not release evidence, nor do we sell evidence.” Sugars explained that, as part of the trial’s discovery process, the video was disseminated to all of the prosecutors as well as all of the defense attorneys. “To suggest that we’re the only people who have ever had that evidence would be incorrect,” said Sugars.
County Counsel Dennis Marshall, who is planning to respond to King’s letter with his own, does not seem at all concerned about a potential lawsuit. “From our standpoint, there is nothing,” said Marshall on Friday afternoon. “There is no merit to the charges at all.” To King’s remaining demand that the county launch some sort of official inquiry, Marshall responded, “There is no investigation to be had. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing.”
King, meanwhile, still believes that, even if the county did not do the leaking, they should be on the hook to determine who did. “Somebody broke the law : Certainly the criminal act is handing over or selling the material,” said King, understanding that such an act may have occurred beyond the county lines. “But I think the responsibility for protecting the confidentiality is imposed upon them in Santa Barbara.”
King may not get far in that legal attack, though. A lawyer familiar with the situation who spoke on background said, “No judge would compel a law enforcement agency to pursue such an investigation.”
As to what the damages would be if a civil suit was indeed pursued, King said he is “not sure we can quantify until we know how much property was wrongfully retained and to whom it was shown or otherwise provided.”



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Seems to me the Sheriff's Dept is running amok. This story of releasing evidence, the feud with the fire chopper units, the missing video in Armijo case are just recent issues this week, and the other probems in the past. The Indy has been on these stories and so has other media. Seems time the Sheriff stop using his mouthpiece and answer questions directly. Things just arent adding up when you are constantly having to deny, deny, deny. Where is the Grand Jury? Or the Attorney General's office to look into all this.
sbworker (anonymous profile)
August 1, 2009 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I love MJ!!! He is a good man. Many members on the largest STD dating
site Positivefish. com said that he donate at least $50,000,000 to help the HIV sufferer
in Africa.
stdslove (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2009 at 7:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
stdlove, were you drunk when you posted that or are you just pathetically inarticulate?
SezMe (anonymous profile)
August 3, 2009 at 1:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's not forget the same Sheriff thinks he can also control who a private citizen can or cannot email as well...
cartoonz (anonymous profile)
August 3, 2009 at 2:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
He-l-l-o-o-o-o-o-o....!
Did you dorks who are sure the Sheriff's Dept. is at fault note that all defense attorneys had the same evidence??
Wake up.
mangomamma (anonymous profile)
August 3, 2009 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I request the Indy to delete flame language comments, such as name calling. It promotes no intelligent, issue, or fact based discussion.
Bird (anonymous profile)
August 3, 2009 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Vindication for Michael!
Join http://www.mjtruthnow.com ... Help us make mainstream media accountable for their lies.
Join http://www.mjtruthnow.com ... Sign up for the newsletter.
Thank You.
Dreamzville (anonymous profile)
November 21, 2009 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)