Creating ‘Accusers’ Could Backfire on Desperate Prosecution – MJEOL Bullet #255
By bringing in ridiculous, witness-come-lately allegations, the prosecution may be giving Jackson a chance to go after old tabloid rumors

APRIL 1 2005 — There is an old saying “Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.” Someone should have made sure prosecutors in the Michael Jackson so-called “case” were aware of this before they talked Judge Rodney Melville into allowing in previous allegations-come-lately by what some observers have called a gang of crooks who had their hands out in 1993.

First, it’s important to note what prosecutors want to do. They want to introduce allegations from “witnesses” who claimed they saw Jackson molest kids. These “witnesses” are former employees each with a negative history of their own with Jackson. Neither of these people called the police at the time they allegedly saw a crime in progress.

The prosecution isn’t going to have 5 accusers come in to testify. They don’t even have 5 accusers. He’s going to have 9 employees come in to say that they “witnessed molestation”, and one accuser whose mother is already on record denying the allegation.

Now, why they said nothing at the time or why Jackson wasn’t charged with any of these miraculously remembered “molestations” from ex-employees is beyond a number of observers. So, we are now supposed to believe that not only is Jackson a “child molester”, but that he routinely molests children in front of people?! In internet language: WTF??

Second, the majority of these named young adults have never even made an allegation against Jackson. Yep, you read correctly. The prosecution by way of these crackpot witnesses will create “victims” when there are none. What’s worse is that two mothers who are supposed to be testifying, Blanca Francia and June Chandler have problems of their own.

For example, the 1993 accuser filed for emancipation and hasn’t spoken to his mother, reportedly, in the past 12 years. A number of people aren’t surprised at all that the judge allowed these non-allegations into this current nonexistent “case”.The prosecution has been allowed a considerable amount of free-reign in this trial.

With that said, the defense has thrown down the gauntlet by promising that these miraculously recovered allegations will turn into full blown trials because they plan to vigorously and thoroughly challenge these witnesses in every way, shape and form.

Let’s get into the heart of this nonsense. The prosecution wants to let former employees testify that they witnessed Jackson molesting children. Some of these employees sued Jackson and lost. Jackson countersued and won, after which some of them reportedly had to file for bankruptcy.

Other “witnesses” have sold their stories to tabloids. With each increasing payday, their allegations became more salacious. All of this is documented by a number of sources, by the way. And I would bet money the defense has their hands on such information.

They also want to bring in one accuser, Jason Francia, whose mother has already recanted the allegation for which she received an advised settlement over 10 years ago. She was also paid $20,000 for her Diane Dimond interview with the defunct tabloid show Hard Copy back in 1993.

How in hell can the judge allow, not an accuser to testify, but rather former employees who claim to be “witnesses” to a crime that they didn’t report at the time? Well, that’s the $15 million dollar question, and something the defense definitely brought out in court March 28 2005. They reiterated their plan to put on a “full blown defense.”

An ABC News article titled March 28 2005 titled “Jackson Jury Can Hear of Past Allegations”, details Mesereau’s promise:

Mesereau told the judge that the defense would put on a “mini-trial” on each allegation that is allowed in. “You can’t stop the defense from putting on a full-blown defense and I mean just that,” the defense attorney warned.

Thus, it is the defense’s intention – and probably has been all along – that they will try each allegation as a real trial. As well they should.

Many legal observers actually thought that there would be no defense against such nonsense. Well, the defense seems more than ready to deal with this. The main danger for prosecutors is the fact that Jackson is an international superstar who could have things like calendars, itineraries, pictures, video, audio, witnesses and other documentation for the past 10, 15, 20 years detailing his whereabouts going back as far as they chose to.

The problem with celebrity is that people are always around, snapping pictures, asking for autographs; photoshoots, meetings, etc. Consequently, the problem for the prosecution is that Jackson’s celebrity could afford him an advantage of having a documented history at which he can look back through and catch some of these witnesses-come-lately in lies.

Thus, for example, a ridiculous allegation like Jackson staying overnight sleeping in the bed of the 1993 accuser, at the accuser’s house for 30 days and nights straight, may be easily rebutted.

The names of these alleged accusers show that the prosecution may have pulled off just enough rope for which to hang itself. Some observers have suggested that they may simply not give a damn about whether the allegation being made is true or not. Normally when introducing 1108 evidence into a trial, it comes in by way of actual accusers testifying.

Most observers don’t think this law should allow 3rd-party testimony making accusations about kids who can speak for themselves; kids who haven’t even accused the person on trial of a crime! And of course the defense argued this to the judge. From morning session transcripts of March 28 2005:

Nowhere can we find they are just willy-nilly bringing in third-party witnesses to say they saw something without bringing the alleged victim in. Yet that is exactly what 99 percent of the evidence they plan to bring in is. And I submit the potential for prejudice there is overwhelming. They probably couldn’t win a civil case if they were pursuing a civil case based on nothing but third parties. (see p 3757 (6-14) )

And who are these prosecution witnesses that Melville has let into the fray of this now incredibly extended trial? A pack of liars, some of whom lied on the stand during a civil trial, and who Jackson literally sued into bankruptcy; those who have sold their stories to tabloids; and those who have already been caught lying under oath in a previous deposition.

Breaking it down for this judge, who apparently couldn’t have cared less, Mesereau talked about the past of these miraculous “witnesses”. From the transcript:

Who are their main witnesses? Their main witnesses sued Mr. Jackson in the mid ’90s, and for the first time Mr. Jackson decided, “I’m tired of settling these stupid cases, I’m actually going to defend this one.”
 
It resulted in the longest civil trial in the history of this courthouse. And the Court, I’m sure, knows a lot more about that case than I do. At numerous times during that six-month trial, the trial Judge made findings that the plaintiffs were lying, not being candid, changing their stories, even leaving the bench on a couple of occasions. And when the dust settled, the jury returned a verdict for Mr. Jackson, awarded Mr. Jackson damages, because the plaintiffs had stole from him.
 
The Judge then awarded not only costs, but legal fees, and in the end Mr. Jackson obtained a judgment for over a million dollars against these lying plaintiffs. (see p 3758 (4-21))

Looks like someone is more than prepared to argue against these crackpots. Mesereau continues:

They want the Court to allow these lying plaintiffs to come in now again and try and testify to improper acts, when there is no alleged victim they intend to call. That’s just plain wrong. And if they suggest it wouldn’t be time-consuming to litigate that issue, all the Court has to do is look at the six-month trial and its length to know that’s not true, because they sold stories to tabloids, they were caught lying, and they had a big judgment against them. (see pgs 3758-3759 (22-3))

To be clear, again, these aren’t 5 settlements, or 5 accusers. They are simply the male kids around Jackson at the time whom were unlucky enough to be dragged into the schemes of leeches looking to make quick money off of the 1993 investigation. And the one who prosecutors are counting on, Jason Francia, has told various stories to police and prosecutors.

His mother, Blanca Francia, much like the mother in this current “case”, has problems up the wazoo. She’s already on record saying she saw something, then saying she didn’t see anything. From the transcripts:

Now, the fourth alleged victim is Jason Francia. Jason Francia and his mother were interviewed by the sheriffs and a deposition of the mother was taken.
 
Money was paid to settle that case, again because Mr. Jackson didn’t want the press, didn’t want his family going through it, and wanted to pursue his music career.
 
There never was a criminal prosecution, even though the alleged victim was interviewed by the Los Angeles District Attorney and the Santa Barbara District Attorney together. And after their interview with Jason Francia – which was so wishy-washy about what happened, they never decided to pursue a criminal case, because there wasn’t one.
 
We have that taped interview – the mother, in a civil deposition in the Chandler litigation, began by saying she saw something and ended by saying she saw nothing. And indeed, stories were sold to tabloids, and money was paid to settle. He appears to be the only alleged victim they want to bring in. (see 3761-3762 (15-6))

At the time, any “nut job” with a salacious story to tell, immediately was given attention by the media; truth be damned. And now some of these profitable stories have landed their asses in the hot seat. And they will have to answer for their unfounded allegations because the prosecution is just desperate enough to use them.

In Blanca Francia’s situation, her own previous admissions under oath could undercut any allegation she so much as attempts to make on the stand. That deposition in which the mother recanted/admitted the truth was mentioned in the Oct 1994 GQ magazine article by Mary Fischer. She talks about Francia’s admission:

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.

This fits rights into what the defense said about Jason Francia’s mother being caught telling the truth during that deposition. Another of the sources Sneddon wants to use is the LeMarques. Stella and Philippe LeMarque were also written about in that October 1994 GQ magazine article.

They were former housekeepers who sold their story to tabloids with the help of former porn star turned “private investigator”, Paul Barresi. You may recognize Barresi’s name because he’s appeared in some of the Diane Dimond “reports” on this “case”. She uses him extensively in reports often broadcast on Court TV’s Crier Live.

To our knowledge, she has not disclosed Barresi’s full past, nor his past around the 1993 allegation so that the viewers of her reports can gage how much weight, if any, they should give to Barresi’s comments. But Barresi’s involvement with the LeMarques will likely come back to bite the prosecution in their proverbial asses.

From the GQ article:

First, Stella and Philippe Lemarque, Jackson’ ex-housekeepers, tried to sell their story to the tabloids with the help of broker Paul Barresi, a former porn star. They asked for as much as half a million dollars but wound up selling an interview to The Globe of Britain for $15,000.
(see Was Michael Jackson Framed? The Untold Story)

Surely this will be an issue if Sneddon is desperate enough to subpoena at least Philippe LeMarque to testify. Paul Barresi appeared on a documentary which aired overseas previously talking about the LeMarques.

He described selling their story to the tabloids complete with photos of the LeMarques. Barresi showed pictures taken outside of the office of the attorney who was representing the LeMarques. He says they were “discussing the money that they’d like to make off of this deal.” He says he helped them because they had promised him a percentage of the money they would make from selling their “story” to the tabloids.

From Barresi’s comments:

BARRESI: My interest in helping them was that they promised me a percentage of what they got. I was not on any kind of crusade to bring anyone to justice. And whether Michael was guilty or innocent at that point was inconsequential. My interest was strictly for the money, as was their interest too I might add.

Barresi says he met with Stella and Philippe LeMarque, and a reporter from the show Inside Edition, and he made a tape of that story. He says he wanted to use that tape to “play the tabloids like a harp.” He wanted to keep himself from being pinched for illegally recording a conversation without the parties knowing.

It is illegal in California to record conversations unless all parties know they are being taped. So Barresi made sure the DA – apparently Gil Garcetti (who was DA of Los Angles County at the time) – got that information.

By handing over the info, he could now tout the tape to the tabloids as “inside information” and ask for a higher price. From the transcript of that documentary:

BARRESI: We met Stella and Philippe, myself and a correspondent for Inside Edition. By then, I had heard the story probably a half a dozen times. And the only difference is, is this time I had a tape recorder in my belt. I wanted to seize an opportunity to sell their story myself. Monday morning, I got up and I realized what I wanted to do with the tape. I wanted to take it to the District Attorney’s office and turn it over to them as evidence. I knew that the DA would be happy to receive this information with open arms. And, two, I knew how to play the tabloids like a harp.
(see DA Got Conned with LeMarque ‘Witness’ Story? – MiniBullet #17)

And play he did; along with a number of other people who profited from claiming to be “witnesses” to a crime that they didn’t report. Barresi says the boost he needed to get more money was to claim the tape as “inside information” about the investigation. To do that, he made sure the tape he made with the LeMarques became a part of the investigation. From that documentary:

BARRESI: That was the edge that worked well. If my story appeared in the slightest innocuous, they would throw it out the window. So this is one way to do it with grand style certainly. So I called the editor at The Globe and I said ‘I have a tape. I’m on the way downtown to hand it to the District Attorney’. And his words were ‘Let us come with you’. And then I knew I had ’em. (see DA Got Conned with LeMarque ‘Witness’ Story? – MiniBullet #17)

Barresi then details how he sold the LeMarques’ story and how much he got for the story. Continued:

BARRESI: …The next thought in my mind was I’m gonna ask for $30,000. You always ask twice as much as what you hope to get. He put me on hold and within less than a minute, he came back and he said, ‘well, we can’t give you 30 [thousand dollars], we’ll give you 10 [thousand dollars]. I said ‘make it 15 [thousand dollars]’. He said, ‘you have a deal’.
 
INTERVIEWER: Could you see the headline coming?
 
BARRESI: Oh yeah, sure. I could see that money coming too. (see DA Got Conned with LeMarque ‘Witness’ Story? – MiniBullet #17)

The admission that neither he nor the LeMarques cared about innocence or guilt is proof that they sought to take full advantage of the ridiculous tabloid frenzy back in 1993. According to the report, the DA – again, probably Garcetti – decided the stories of the LeMarques couldn’t be used.

But now, apparently, Sneddon wants to bring the LeMarques, or at least Philippe LeMarque, in this current trial. His “testimony” is sure to be torn to shreds because of his own actions.

The admission of those around that financial deal, like Barresi, could have their actions revisited upon them like the ghost of Christmas past. And the list goes on.

According to independent research from ‘TSColdMan’ at MJJFORUM.COM, Sneddon’s witnesses does include a gang of people, some of whom had become known as “The Neverland Five”. Ralph Chacon and Adrian McManus were two of them. Chacon and McManus were part of the 5 who sued Jackson and lost. They also lost a countersuit filed against them by Jackson.

The research revealed that Chacon was ordered to pay Jackson $25,000 in damages. He had previously sold his story to the tabloids. And McManus was ordered to pay Jackson $35,000 in damages. Some of Jackson’s personal items taken by McManus and others were sold to tabloids.

The jury who sided with Jackson also found that McManus acted with malice, according to the research. Some reports say that the prosecution pulled these allegations from a book that is now banned from sale in the United States because Jackson successfully sued the author, Victor Gutierrez, for defamation.

Gutierrez, by the way, was one of Dimond’s “sources” back in 1993 as well. Jackson reportedly won over $2 million in damages from him in a defamation suit he filed against Gutierrez. Instead of paying up, he fled the country. Gutierrez, again by the way, was a “consulting producer” for a recent defamatory Jackson report called “Inside the Jackson Case” from Dateline NBC (see Part 2: More Lies from Dateline as 1993 Shysters Resurface – MJEOL Bullet #192-B).

These opportunists get around. Stay tuned for Part 2 where we will take a look at who these prosecution-alleged “victims” are; the majority of which have never ever accused Jackson of molesting them in any way.

-MJEOL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *