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 Jacksons 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 Jacksons bedroom numerous photographs of young boys. We also found in a locked file cabinet within Jacksons 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 theres nothing illegal about that? Last time I checked, it is a federal felony to possess nude photographs of young children. Its called child pornography. The truth is that if nude photographs of young boys were really found in Jacksons homeforget charges in Santa Barbarahe 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 doesnt play around with formalities. If Dworin is to be believed, there wouldnt 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 hes 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 theres a mysterious musical tone that sounds when you enter Jacksons bedroom:
You enter the bedroom and when you enter the bedroom, an alarm goes off within the bedroom. Some type ofit 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 Jacksons 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 Dworins mind, its 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 hes in the bedroom, how and why would Jackson have it setso to speak–when he isnt 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 wasnt in his bedroom?? It wouldnt be set when Jackson wasnt in his bedroom. So, how does Dworin account for this? Could it be that it doesnt have a sinister purpose like Dworin claims, as he tries to skew the views of potential jurors in this current case? Even Jacksons 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 Jacksons 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 Jacksons home. He said No. Remember, this is someone whos 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 Jacksons 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 didnt match? The second description .which didnt match? Or was it the third description ..which didnt 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 descriptionany one of themmatched 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 didnt and really couldnt go forward with the criminal case in 93. From the USA Today archive comes the article entitled Photos May Contradict Michaels 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 Jacksons body:
The boy described Jacksons genitalia. How would that boy know of Jacksons discolorations unless hed 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 Jacksons 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 Jacksons 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. Lets remember, there was an approx. 5 month investigation before a settlement was reached (or forced) by Jacksons 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 informationnude photos of young boys, a matching physical description, and a complaining witnessthere wouldnt 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 didnt 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 wasnt 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 isnt 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. Its obvious they werent shown or didnt 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 didnt even ask for a grand jury indictment back then. If this is true, was there a reason why he didnt 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 wasnt pursued. The headline reads: Grand Jury Disbanded in Michael Jackson Case. The report quotes a grand juror as saying they didnt 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 lets recap one more time: Dworin says they had naked pictures of young boys, a matching description of Jacksons genitalia, a complaining witness, and other accusers. These things would be beyond damaging if they ever actually existed. Its obvious these things werent 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 doesnt seem to stand up to the most basic amount of scrutiny. Dworins 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 didnt have so much as the slightest evidence to arrest Jacksonbefore the law change. This current case could be falling apart at the seams, what with the accusers 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 accusers 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 accusers 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