More Lies from Dateline as 1993 Shysters Resurface MJEOL Bullet #192 What Dateline NBC Didnt Tell You Since Dateline NBC has taken it upon itself to further taint the jury pool by dredging up mythical alleged victims from the 1990s, maybe we all need to think about why this is airing now, and what they arent telling the public.
The desperation tactic predicted months ago was that once the prosecution and prosecution-sympathizers started heavily pushing unfounded lies from the 93 case onto the public, thats a sign that this current case is in very serious trouble. Well, here comes the 93 barrage.
Thus, the question is what has imploded with this current case? Could this be a pre-emptive strike to take attention off of the current accusers mother set to testify September 17 2004? Is this the DAs PR firm hard at work to combat an impending crisis with the DAs office or the Sheriffs Department?
Josh Mankowitz has taken his career into the palm of his hands and put Dateline NBCnot known for their factual Jackson reportson the line as well. They have given a platform to a group of peripheral players who thrive in chaos and who are masters at spreading unfounded and groundless garbage.
A number of the ghosts from 1993 have made claims of having a strong case back then. Not true. They claim there was evidence in 1993. Not true. They claim there was more than one accuser in 1993. Not true. It is very easy to claim these things in the face of smug and lazy so-called journalists because those people will never ask for independent corroboration or a response from the other side. And they had the audacity to try to use Jacksons reply to the report as some sort of validation for their shoddy reporting. Instead of rehashing the warmed-over garbage that aired on Sept 3 2004, lets focus on what Dateline didnt tell you. Michael Jacksons lawyers, sources, and investigators said that the previous case was the result of a failed extortion attempt. Jackson even filed extortion charges against the people involved. Despite an audiotape of the 1993 accusers father threatening to ruin Jacksons career if he didnt get what he wanted, the charges went nowhere because the very people in charge of investigating his extortion claims were also the ones trying to put him in jail. Someone whose first-hand information confirms this fact is Geraldine Hughes, the legal secretary for the 93 accusers first attorney. She recently wrote a book throwing the light onto the dark recesses of the 1993 extortion plan. Fat chance of Dateline doing an in-depth report about that. Well discuss her accounts in Part Two of this special report. Dateline talked about two things: the 1993 allegation and some mysterious, mythical settlement from 1990. They provided no independent or corroborated evidence that either allegation was true. In fact, what they did was elevate the status of crooks, cronies and con men, who told wild tales so full of holes you could drive a bread truck through them. What they also didnt do was to inform the public about the past and TRUE involvement (or lackthereof) of these bit players in relation to these allegations. MJEOL has been doing research of its own and has come upon a lot of information including a series of articles and other info dated from late 1993 to mid 1994 which reveal interesting at-the-moment accounts of just what kind of case prosecutors really had. And the facts are a far cry from the account the 1993 clan gave to Dateline. This alleged other accuser is none other than former Jackson maid Blanca Francias son. As discussed at MJEOL earlier, Francia was the person who sold her story to the now defunct tabloid show Hard Copy for $20,000. And guess who was interviewing her? Diane Dimond of course. But this begs the question, if Francia received a $2M settlement from Jackson in 1990, then why did she go to Hard Copy and beg for $20,000 for her interview after the 1993 allegations? Why then did she testify under oath during a deposition that what she told Hard Copy was a total lie? And, more importantly, why didnt Dateline put emphasis on this information? Heres the back-story that some in the general media simply dont want you to know. At the time, Francia told the queen of tabloid trash news, Dimond, that she had actually seen Jackson taking showers and Jacuzzi baths with young boys including her son. However, a copy of Francias sworn testimony during the 1993 investigation revealed that Hard Copy did in fact pay her $20,000. Under deposition by Jacksons attorney at the time, Francia actually admitted that the statements made to Hard Copy in that interview were false, and that she never saw Jackson taking showers or bath with anyone let alone young boys. This information was detailed in an exhaustive Oct 1994 investigative report by Mary Fischer for GQ magazine. From Fishers report:
Next came the maid. On December 15, Hard Copy presented “The Bedroom Maid’s Painful Secret.” Blanca Francia told Dimond and other reporters that she had seen a naked Jackson taking showers and Jacuzzi baths with young boys. She also told Dimond that she had witnessed her own son in compromising positions with Jackson — an allegation that the grand juries apparently never found credible. A copy of Francia’s sworn testimony reveals that Hard Copy paid her $20,000, and had Dimond checked out the woman’s claims, she would have found them to be false. Under deposition by a Jackson attorney, Francia admitted she had never actually see Jackson shower with anyone nor had she seen him naked with boys in his Jacuzzi. (see Was Michael Jackson Framed? The Untold Story)
Apparently Dateline couldnt get their hands on this information, or was too lazy to care let alone fully research the people who are making these claims. Shouldnt it have dawned on them to ask why, if this person received a $2M settlement from Jackson, would she be begging Hard Copy for $20,000? Further, wouldnt her giving an interview have violated the confidentiality agreement she would have had to sign in order to receive this alleged $2M from Jackson? These are questions that lazy, tabloid journalists never seem to ask, much less get a complete answer to. For over a decade, weve been told by prosecutors and police that there was serious, hard evidence against Jackson way back when in 1993. Sources at the time, however, tell a different story. In an article entitled D.A. Garcetti denies Jackson Probe ended, dated April 12 1994, prosecution sources said that prosecutors had become frustrated because they hadnt found any evidence of Jacksons guilt. The article states:
Although prosecution sources admit to being frustrated in their grand jury probe, failing to get direct evidence linking the singer to the molestation charges, privately they concede that their case would be stronger if the boy would agree to testify. (see D.A. Garcetti denies Jackson probe ended)
This certainly is not what former sheriff Jim Thomas has been admitting to with his revised history of events. There were two grand juries empanelled during the 1993 investigation and neither one of them handed down an indictment against Jackson. Of course this was before the law change in California making it much easier for prosecutors to pursue cases like this current one. There were sources that spilled the beans, so to speak, about what the grand jury heard then. They say that none of the witnesses called before those grand juries had any information pointing towards Jacksons guilt:
While grand jury testimony is sealed, sources said that none of the witnesses so far have offered anything that would directly implicate the singer. “The only thing Jackson could be convicted of at this point is bad judgment,” said an investigation source. (see D.A. Garcetti denies Jackson probe ended)
This info is from sources at the time this scam was happening. This isnt coming from a history revisionist like Thomas or Dimond. Its not coming from a prosecution team now so desperate, for some reason, you can smell the stench emanating from Santa Barbara County. So where is all of the evidence? Where were all of the alleged accusers from 1993 who were just waiting in the wings to come forward, as weve been told? Remember, these people have been trying to convince us for a decade that they had everything from an actual victim to a matching description of Jacksons body. None of which was true, and none of which was shown to either grand jury at the time. A report dated Feb 7 1994, entitled Officials desperate to nail Michael Jackson by USA Today also sheds light on the desperation of LA law enforcement and Santa Barbara County law enforcement, which had no evidence that Jackson had done anything. And this is where this same story about Francias son comes into play. The USA Today report details how investigators from the sheriffs department were so desperate that they arranged for the maids son to see a therapist. At the time, she told police that her son repeatedly denied being abused at all by Jackson:
Investigators from the county sheriff’s office recently arranged for the 13-year-old son of Jackson’s former maid to see a therapist. The boy was first interviewed by police after his mother told them he had spent time alone with Jackson. According to his mother, the child has repeatedly denied being abused in any way by the pop music star. (see Officials desperate to nail Michael Jackson)
The report also says that this same woman, who Dateline claims was paid $2M, complained that her son was talked to by sheriffs deputies without her being present. These therapiststhe maid saw one toowere paid for by the county:
The offer of a therapist was made after the woman, an immigrant from Central America, complained about meetings and phone conversations sheriff’s deputies had with the boy while she was not present. It made her “feel uncomfortable,” she said in a deposition, that she didn’t know what the deputies were talking about with the young boy. (see Officials desperate to nail Michael Jackson)
Maybe these deputies are lucky this woman didnt accuse them of molesting her son. I mean, after all, these secret conversations and secret meetings sound awfully suspicious to me. *rolling eyes in disgust* ___Crooks, Cronies, and Con men___ One of Datelines main sources for their tall tale was Ernie Rizzo. Rizzo has professed to be the private investigator hired by Evan Chandler to work on the 1993 case. But one of the attorneys for the 93 accusers father, Richard Hirsh, said at the time that Rizzo was not hired by the father. In an article dated September 7 1993 by Variety Magazine:
The claim was disputed by the father’s attorney, Richard Hirsch , who said Rizzo “does not speak for (and is not) employed by the father.” (see Alleged hush agreement surfaces in Jackson case)
It was also previously maintained by Hirsh in a September 1 1993 Variety Magazine report entitled Jackson gets clean bill of health as well. “Mr. Rizzo is not working for or authorized to speak for the family,” Hirsch, a criminal law specialist, said late Tuesday. (see Jackson gets clean bill of health)