ET Continues to Highlight Defamatory Nonsense- MJEOL Bullet #160 Update

Posted by

ET Continues to Highlight Defamatory Nonsense- MJEOL Bullet #160 Update Interview with fmr. detective meant to poison current jury pool Update: In MJEOL Bullet #83, it was reported that Entertainment Tonight (ET) ran an old interview with a former maid of Michael Jackson’s who claimed that the singer did inappropriate things with her son and other children.In that report, ET repeatedly and purposely neglected to inform its audience that this maid, Blanca Francia, was paid $20,000 for that interview by the now defunct tabloid show Hard Copy.Police later found her accounts were not credible.Well, ET is at it again, this time with a two part interview with a retired detective who was involved in the 1993 “case”, Bill Dworin. In the first part of the interview aired June 28 2004, Dorwin made many illogical claims about the 1993 “case” on the show. An astonishing claim involved nude pictures:

“We found in Jackson’s bedroom numerous photographs of young boys. We also found in a locked file cabinet within Jackson’s bedroom closet, a book depicting photographs of nude boys. Nothing illegal about these photographs.”

Let me get this straight. You find a book of nude photographs of young boys, according to the story, and there’s nothing illegal about that? Last time I checked, it is a federal felony to possess nude photographs of young children. It’s called “child pornography”. The truth is that if nude photographs of young boys were really found in Jackson’s home—forget charges in Santa Barbara—he could have been arrested, charged and went to trial in federal court 11 years ago. Does Dworin really expect the public to believe Jackson was guilty of possessing child porn and somehow got away with the federal felony? Not even an arrest or charge for it?? The federal government doesn’t play around with formalities. If Dworin is to be believed, there wouldn’t have been time for Santa Barbara police to complete an investigation before Jackson would have been in federal court answering to those charges. So exactly what the hell is Dworin talking about and how could nude photographs of young boys not be illegal? Is Dworin only repeating nonsense he’s heard or is he purposely trying to mislead and poison the possible jury pool in this current nonsensical “case”?? Who knows. Maybe he should have at least tried to make the defamatory story a bit more believable. Dworin also says that there’s a mysterious “musical tone” that sounds when you enter Jackson’s bedroom:

“You enter the bedroom and when you enter the bedroom, an alarm goes off within the bedroom. Some type of—it was a [sic] electric sound and a musical tone. Jackson set it up for a specific reason. My opinion? Is to warn him when someone was approaching that bedroom door.”

Imagine that! A musical entertainer having a musical chime once you enter his bedroom! That is, IF this is even true. From all accounts of people who have visited Jackson’s Neverland Ranch, music plays all over the premises; near pools, throughout the house, on amusement rides, etc. But Dworin expects people to buy that this musical chime has a sinister purpose based solely on his suspicion and nothing else. Further, how would Dworin know about this allegedly sinister musical chime? Apparently, in Dworin’s mind, it’s used to warn Jackson when someone is entering his bedroom so he can stop “molesting” someone. The point is that if this musical chime is used to warn Jackson when he’s in the bedroom, how and why would Jackson have it set—so to speak–when he isn’t there? Follow the logic on this one: If the sole purpose of this allegedly sinister musical chime/alarm was to alert Jackson when he was in the bedroom, how could the police have heard it when Jackson wasn’t in his bedroom?? It wouldn’t be ‘set’ when Jackson wasn’t in his bedroom. So, how does Dworin account for this? Could it be that it doesn’t have a sinister purpose like Dworin claims, as he tries to skew the views of potential jurors in this current “case”? Even Jackson’s former security guard Robert Wegner–who has said some of the most asinine things about Jackson and has written a book for profit–says there is no alarm outside of Jackson’s bedroom door as claimed by Dworin. Wegner appeared on Fox News Dec 7 2003 and was asked point blank if there was an alarm outside of Jackson’s home. He said “No.” Remember, this is someone who’s made numerous attempts to cash in off of Jackson over the years by spreading rumors and selling suspicion, and even he disputes what Dworin has said. A CNN report also provides a bit more detail:

Wegner, who was at Neverland on the day of the 1993 search, said he recalls no such alarm. In fact, he said, Jackson sometimes expressed almost childlike concerns about his safety, at one point calling security because he heard noises on the roof. (see article)

In the ET interview (June 28 2004), Dworin also makes the allegation that photographs taken of Jackson’s genitalia matched the description given by the accuser:

“Photographs did corroborate what the child said as to the description of his genitalia.”

Not true says a number of different sources. Which description would Dworin be referring to, though? The first description… which didn’t match? The second description….which didn’t match? Or was it the third description…..which didn’t match either? Was that the reason why police took initial photographs of Jackson then wanted to comeback and take more? Not one detective, or wayward reporter who believes them, have come forward to offer any proof that the description—any one of them—matched Jackson. Our sources, as well as USA Today and Reuters sources at the time the 93 “case” was on-going, say that the various descriptions the accuser gave in fact did NOT match the photographs taken of Jackson. This could be one of the main reasons why the district attorney didn’t and really couldn’t go forward with the criminal “case” in ’93. From the USA Today archive comes the article entitled “Photos May Contradict Michael’s Accuser” dated Jan 28 1994. The article states:

An unidentified source told Reuters news service Thursday that photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct. If so, this could weaken any possible criminal actions against the singer. Already, speculation that the 14-year-old boy may not be willing to cooperate with officials is swirling. (see article online or read full article here)

There was no matching description, so why is Dworin claiming there was? In the second part of the allegedly “explosive” but highly fallible details, Dworin also claims that the accuser described discolorations on Jackson’s body:

The boy described Jackson’s genitalia. How would that boy know of Jackson’s discolorations unless he’d actually seen it?

How? What Dworin leaves out is that months before the allegations were made against him, Jackson did an interview with Oprah Winfrey in 1993–watched by some 90 million people worldwide–in which he admitted to having a skin disease called vitiligo. I remember grabbing a dictionary and searching for the term once Jackson’s announced it. A simple search of the term will yield this information:

Vitiligo is a skin condition resulting from loss of pigment which produces white patches…Common areas of involvement are the face, lips, hands, arms, legs, and genital areas (see website).

Everyone around the world knew that Jackson would have discolorations on his body. And Dworin has the audacity to ask the question ‘how’ could the accuser have known this? The entire world knew this, why not the accuser or his father? Additionally as pointed out earlier, sources say the 93 accuser gave varying descriptions of Jackson’s body; allegedly saying at one point that Jackson looks like a black man from the waist down, to changing the description to say Jackson is all white from head to toe, to changing it again to say something different. Sources familiar with the description given by the accuser have said that the description neither matched nor was detailed in such a way to allow police to go forward with a criminal case. Let’s remember, there was an approx. 5 month investigation before a settlement was reached (or forced) by Jackson’s insurance company(ies), so there was definitely time to file criminal charges. Maybe a more important question is what if there was a matching description? Would the 93 “case” against Jackson have ended as it did? Of course not. If prosecutors and investigators had all of this information—nude photos of young boys, a matching physical description, and a complaining witness—there wouldn’t have been a hesitation at all in arresting and charging Jackson outside of possible federal government charges of child pornography. Prosecutors would have proceeded with a criminal “case”, period, even before settlement talks could have been concluded. In the second part of the ET interview (June 29 2004), Dworin makes the claim that they had two other children claiming “improper touching”, “over the clothing, not skin on skin”. None of this is substantiated, no other allegations against Jackson were made, and the police didn’t pursue a case for these phantom boys either. Recently, a fake accuser in Los Angeles sparked a 2-month investigation which has cleared Jackson of similar allegations (see MJEOL Bullet #151). Could the allegations from these phantom boys have been revealed as lies as well if unbiased police investigated those alleged claims?…That is, IF they ever existed to begin with and wasn’t a product of rabid detectives’ imaginations? Now if you listen to the story Dworin is spinning, we have other accusers, a matching description, photos of nude young boys, and a complaining witness. And STILL no criminal case in 1993? Well, why is that? Maybe Dworin isn’t being completely truthful? Two grand juries were convened in the 93 civil “case”: one in Santa Barbara County and one in Los Angeles County. Neither one of them returned an indictment against Jackson. Remember, this is before the change in California law that made it easier to prosecute molestation cases. All you need today is the word of an accuser and a prosecutor who believes it; and you have to testify in a criminal case before you can pursue a civil case. It’s obvious they weren’t shown or didn’t see any of the nonsense…uh, I mean, “details” Dworin claimed they had. If you listen to Sneddon from 11 years ago, he claims that he didn’t even ask for a grand jury indictment back then. If this is true, was there a reason why he didn’t ask for the grand jury to hand down an indictment? A report from the now defunct CNN show Showbiz Today, dated May 2 1994, may offer the reason why a criminal case wasn’t pursued. The headline reads: “Grand Jury Disbanded in Michael Jackson Case”. The report quotes a grand juror as saying they didn’t hear anything damaging against Jackson. The host was Jim Moret:

MORET: One juror told CNN he did not hear any damaging testimony during the hearings. CNN has previously reported the panel was never asked to render an indictment, and that no vote was taken to do so. The 19-member panel was used as an information gathering tool, compelling testimony from witnesses, including former Jackson valet Mike Brando, [and] former Jackson private investigator Anthony Pelicano… (see article)

Now let’s recap one more time: Dworin says they had naked pictures of young boys, a matching description of Jackson’s genitalia, a complaining witness, and other accusers. These things would be beyond damaging…if they ever actually existed. It’s obvious these things weren’t shown to the grand jurors. Could it be because these details are in fact non-existent or only existed in the fairy tales of investigators such as Dworin? As with a number of allegations from the 1993 “case”, the story doesn’t seem to stand up to the most basic amount of scrutiny. Dworin’s motives seem crystal clear. But why the ’93 push now? Some speculate that the public is deliberately being spun about the 1993 “case” because this current “case” is non-existent outside of the shaky and ever-changing story the family is telling. Do they need to taint the current “case” by spreading unchallenged and unconfirmed info from 11 years ago due to weakness in this current one? Some observers say this is exactly what is happening and it further explains why someone leaked the sealed court settlement papers from ‘93 to tabloid reporter Diane Dimond. Some say there is a push to convict Jackson in the media for a “case” where prosecutors didn’t have so much as the slightest evidence to arrest Jackson—before the law change. This current “case” could be falling apart at the seams, what with the accuser’s mother secretly running to Las Vegas and getting married on May 29 2004; prosecutors desperately searching for evidence with some 47 search warrants; info of the accuser’s family giving interviews at a time where they claim they were being conspired against to keep quiet; witnesses who saw the mother allowing her children to drink alcohol at Neverland when Jackson was nowhere on the premises; the mother having a history of writing out scripts for her children to recite under oath; the accuser’s testimony reportedly “shaky” during the grand jury process; two agencies clearing Jackson of these very molestation allegations before the Nov 2003 ransacking of his home; etc. etc. etc. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply