It has been awhile since I last wrote about Wade Robson. This case went silent for several weeks, and in the interim, attention turned to other topics. The AEG trial heated up. Paris attempted suicide. But then, on June 30th, there was another storm with the fake FBI file stories that began circulating in the UK press. Those fake files aren’t exactly a hot topic now, and have been pretty thoroughly debunked by Roger Friedman, Charles Thomson, and CNN (to the point that I’m not going to spend undue time going into the details of them) but just to summarize in a nutshell for those who aren’t closely following everything that happens in Michael Jackson news, on June 30th, the UK’s Sunday People broke a story that was essentially comprised of regurgitated, 20-year-old tabloid stories, concerning alleged FBI files (which, incidentally, were not FBI files at all) and alleging a figure of $35 million in payoffs to 24 families (a figure that even Diane Dimond admits could not be corroborated). Though basically a recycled hashing of old tabloid stories and interviews with “witnesses” who were discredited over twenty years ago, the Sunday People and its sister publication, The Daily Mirror, misleadingly published this story as if it were breaking news. In typical cut and paste fashion, the fake story then went on to be picked up by several other outlets, including The New York Daily News. It’s a shameful day when publications such as The New York Daily News resort to tabloid tactics; even worse when they do not even bother to check the validity of their stories-or even if their stories are, indeed, “breaking news”-or recycled garbage that is two decades old. Now, that being said, there are some interesting tidbits to come out of these “files” that will play into this series as I delve further into the history of Michael’s relationships with children, and Wade Robson in particular. But I will address those issues in due time.
In the meantime, are some of the best rebuttals of this fake story that never was:
The CNN article effectively squelched this story as far as mainstream media coverage. But what else is interesting about the CNN article (in an albeit annoying kind of way) is how Diane Dimond appears to back pedal in this piece from what she wrote in her July 1st Daily Beast hit piece, where she led her readers to believe that the Sunday People story had validity (only disputing the quoted numbers, which she said could not be corroborated) and protects the identity of her “friend” Paul Baressi, only coming around to pretty much ratting him out in the CNN piece. Boy, some “friend” Ms. Dimond must be, even to the ones she swims in the same polluted lake with.
“Since Barresi has fairly recently been stripped of his P.I.’s license, I can imagine that money has been tight for him,” Dimond said. “My best guess is that the UK paper offered Mr. Barresi several thousand dollars for his copies of the old Pellicano files.”
This brings me to my next point, which is that, validity of this story aside, some interesting patterns emerged that just might help shed some light on who, exactly, is responsible for this latest smear campaign.
Let’s go back to Diane Dimond’s Daily Beast hit piece. Published on July 1st, just one day after the Sunday People story broke, and three days prior to Alan Duke’s rebuttal, Dimond as noted was singing a decidedly different tune about her friend Baressi and his credibility:
Here’s what I know. The FBI files are still secret. The documents and cassette tapes reviewed by Sunday People were offered by a private detective who has been knocking around Hollywood with them for a long time. He remained unnamed in the U.K. paper and will remain so here, but he’s hardly a shadowy figure. I have known him personally for many years.
So when Dimond wrote this piece published on July 1st, she was clearly slanting her reporting to make Baressi out to be a respectable private investigator, and only in the CNN piece, days later, does she admit that Baressi is actually an ex P.I. who was “stripped of his license” and probably hard up for cash as a result. Throughout the piece, she continues to refer to Baressi as a private investigator in the present tense. (Even the title of her piece is interesting, using the word “bombshell” to describe the Sunday People story-a word intended to convey this story as earth shattering news, rather than the decades-old story that it actually was).
Where this really gets interesting is when Dimond states:
“The unnamed private eye who provided the newspaper with his copies of the old files said he came forward after listening to Wade Robson, a one-time Jackson loyalist who now claims he was molested by the singer for seven years…”
Of course, just as she states, the suspicious timing of the Robson allegations, as well as the leaking of these UK stories, have led to conspiracy theories concerning AEG’s involvement. Dimond is clearly attempting to poo-poo these allegations. Well, she’s right in one aspect. This isn’t something that can be proven, but as I’ve said before, it sure looks and smells fishy as hell. But in the paragraph I quoted above, she is clearly attempting to make the whole thing look like a convenient series of coincidences and opportunistic timing, all as a result of greedy Katherine Jackson bringing on this lawsuit (how dare a mother seek answers for what happened to her son!).
But is it really? If we read between the lines of the above excerpt, it means that Dimond has clearly been in contact with her friend Baressi since this story broke. How else would she know he was inspired to come forward with the old files as a result of Wade Robson’s claims? The certainty with which she presents this information makes it clear that she has been in contact with Baressi since the story broke (or perhaps even before?) and knows for a fact that there was a definite connection between his actions and the Wade Robson allegations. (It is also worth noting that in the Facebook post below, she claims to have far more intimate knowledge of the contents of Wade Robson’s civil claim against the estate than what was made public).But could this have been more than just a case of opportunistic timing? Sure, it’s possible that Baressi heard what Wade Robson had to say, and, being strapped for cash, simply figured, Well, this is a hot topic right now. I’ll make some good off of this while I can. But again, the timing of it all seems very suspect, as well as the cozy intimacy of all these involved parties, all of whom seem to have a vested interest in the story in some way or another.
I find it very odd, for example, that it was the Daily Star, another UK tabloid, that broke the story within two days of Wade Robson’s lawsuit going public, that there were allegedly two more “victims” waiting to come forward, pending “what happens in the first action.” (So far, if any such “victims” existed at all, they have remained mum).
Even more bizarre, who had wind of this story even before it was published? None other than Stacy Brown, also a very good and personal friend of Ms. Diane Dimond, as I reported here:
For anyone who still does not realize just how tightly knit is the circle of Michael Jackson conspirators working against him, the following is highly recommended reading:
Note here how passionately Diane Dimond and Stacy Brown defend each other in this Facebook exchange:
I apologize for including Stacy Brown’s slanderous comments here, but I did so for a reason: To show the full scope of what we are up against with this tightly knit group, who will go to great lengths, as we have seen, to defend one anothers’ honor. And now, it is this same group who are forming a protective circle around Wade Robson-and, I believe, going to great lengths to help secure his case. Well, it is understandable that birds of a nasty feather will flock together. But could something else more sinister be at stake?
Inevitably, every paper that published the fake FBI files story ended by reminding readers of the Wade Robson case. The MO, to me, at least, seemed clear. The purpose was to hammer home the fact that here we have even more, apparent corroborating “evidence” to make Wade’s story seem more plausible.
Well guess what? It wasn’t even 24 hours later that Wade Robson-who had been silent for weeks (on the advice of his attorney, or because no one after the Today show was interested in his story?) suddenly found a voice again. And, though various publications would later copy this story, guess who was the first to run with it? Yep, The Daily Mirror! Now you may ask, why is this story worth reprinting? Well, primarily for the passages I’ve highlighted, which I will explain afterwards:
Dancer Wade Robson has claimed the revelations of FBI files claiming Michael Jackson silenced child molestation victims proves he previously told the truth.
Robson ordered his lawyers to issue a statement after it emerged the FBI have boxes of reports covering Jackson’ inappropriate behavior and $35m worth of alleged pay offs to victims.
The famous child dancer is suing Jackson’s estate claiming he suffered sexual abuse over several years at the hands of The King Of Pop over several years.
His legal team plan to contact the FBI to access the files, which were gathered during an investigation into Jackson’s own private investigator Anthony Pellicano.
Jackson’s attempts to silence children he allegedly molested could bolster the lawsuit brought by Wade, who actually defended the performer in court during his 2005 child abuse
Choreographer Robson’s litigation counsel Maryann R. Marzano of Gradstein & Marzano said: ‘These revelations confirm what we’ve been saying: that Michael Jackson was a pedophile and Wade Robson was one of his victims.
‘To continue to deny this, defies both common sense and common decency.’
A source close to Wade added: ‘The information in these files could provide many leads both for witnesses in the case and background information on deals we may never have heard of before.
‘Wade wants his lawyers to go through the papers page by page.
‘In these types of cases the technical aspects of the lawsuits are as important as the information.
‘Wade has been subjected to much abuse and attacks in recent weeks over his lawsuit.
‘Wade feels this paperwork shows he is telling the truth.
‘And the emergence of this report goes a long way to show the world he may not have the only one to suffer. ‘
It is a rare move by Robson, who since his Today interview, has shied publicity.
Talking to Matt Lauer he claimed: ‘This is not a case of repressed memory. I never forgot one moment of what Michael did to me… But I was psychologically and emotionally unwilling to understand that it was sexual abuse.’
‘He sexually abused my from seven years old until 14. He performed sexual acts on me, and forced me to perform sexual acts on him.’
Robson says Jackson was an amazing talent, but ‘he was a pedophile.’
A former child friend of the singer, Wade has ordered his lawyers to contact the FBI about secret documents compiled by a private investigator that reportedly revealed Jackson spent $35 million to silence 24 boys.
Robson, 30, sued the Jackson estate in May, seeking court approval to file a late claim for seven years of alleged sexual abuse that occurred when he was a starstruck boy palling around with his idol.
The report details how many children and their parents allegedly accepted secret cash payments from Jackson to keep quiet about molestation.
The hush money ranged from $2 million to one family to $20 million to the family of Jordan Chandler, the source said. Jordan, who settled a claim against Jackson in 1993, befriended the Thriller singer when he was 13.
Jackson’s estate says that Robson’s allegations are completely false, and added: ‘they are outrageous and sad.’
In 2005, Robson was a key witness who helped clear Jackson of molestation charges. He now attributes the favorable testimony to Jackson’s ‘brainwashing.’
On Saturday after the report emerged a lawyer for the Jackson estate refused to comment.
Jackson’s controversial past was raised to the top of the news agenda, while his family turned out for the premiere of his latest show. Michael Jackson One features his music and performances intertwined with Cirque Du Soleil performances.
The sold out show features a storyline focusing on Jackson’s lifelong battle with the media.
Meanwhile, Michael’s ex Debbie Rowe thanked supporters of her daughter, Paris Jackson, 15, following her suicide bid June 5.
Rowe tweeted: ‘My daughter has asked that I extend a huge thank you for all of your thoughts and prayers and support. She is strong like her father.’
Meanwhile attorney Tom Mesereau, who who successfully defended Michael Jackson at the 2005 molestation trial, denied his former client had paid out the money.
He told Radar: ‘The FBI never had any files alleging that Michael Jackson had sexually abused 24 young boys, because it never happened.’
I don’t know about you, but something about this article’s frequent insistence that the previous story of the phony FBI files could somehow bolster Wade’s case strikes a chord of both desperation and transparency to me. In the first place, why would Wade insist that any such claim of Michael paying out over 35 million to “silence” victims would make his case more credible, since he remains adamant-even now-that he was never paid any money?
He also said that his confession isn’t motivated by the money – saying Jackson and his lawyers never offered to pay him any money to lie under oath over the years.
True, some might call this splitting hairs. I can just hear the detractors already. “What difference does it make if Michael Jackson paid off Wade and his family or not; the point is that he supposedly paid off 24 other families.” However, that is only the first of many strange inconsistencies with Wade’s sudden interest in these twenty year old tapes. We know that he has already gone to great lengths-or at least it has been reported so in the media-to once again contact Blanca Francia, the former maid whose testimony that she once witnessed Wade and Michael in the shower together was thoroughly ripped apart under cross examination in 2005-and who admitted in her own deposition that she never saw anything of the sort! But now, with the benefit of the public’s short term memory (and the fact that the exposure of her lies was never given much coverage to begin with) she is once again recycling her old story and selling it to the highest bidder.
It becomes clear that Wade is so desperate, and terrified of his own story not holding up in court, that he is seeking to dredge up as many old “witnesses”-even discredited ones-as possible. And, into the bargain, I believe, is also stooping to whatever means necessary to ensure that enough of these old stories are circulated in the media again to bolster his case. After all, proving guilt may be impossible. But part of the current strategy seems to be the idea that if you create enough smoke…well, you know the rest. In other words, with enough smoke, you may not create a fire. But you just might create enough of a cloud to make for a very, very effective screen.
Blanca Francia and Adrian MacManus: Both Can Always Be Counted On When Dirt Is Needed On Michael Jackson-And If The Price Is Right!
The question I’ve asked before is: If Wade is so convinced of “his truth” then why the need to contact all of these alleged witnesses? In hopes that somewhere down the line, their stories just “might” match up enough to convince a jury? Or, more likely, so that they can plan out an effective strategy and have their story in place so that if this goes to court (and even if it will go to court is still up for question right now) Wade can have a believable story in place that will appear to be backed up by eyewitness accounts.
One thing is certain: Wade Robson is currently hanging tight with the very “family” that consists of Michael Jackson’s biggest public detractors and enemies. Blanca Francia, for example, is much more than just a disgruntled ex employee of Michael Jackson’s who was fired for stealing. She is also a friend of Diane Dimond’s-as is Adrian MacManus, another employee who was accused of stealing from Michael, and also part of the notorious Neverland 5, a group of employees who attempted to sue Michael in the 90’s over what they deemed unfair termination. You can rest assured that anytime Diane Dimond refers to one of her sources as “an ex-employee of Michael Jackson’s” she is in all likelihood referring to one of these two. (I don’t believe she is closely allied with the LeMarques, the couple who was the subject of the extensive interview quoted in the files, though of course, she knew them and bought wholeheartedly into their story).
It is even more interesting that both of these women-Francia and MacManus-have taken full advantage of this new opportunity to once again sell their sleazy stories for cash. They have both risen from the dregs these past few months, since both the start of the AEG trial and Robson’s allegations. Coincidence? Hardly.
In this reenactment of the Jackson trial, Francine Contreras, a former Neverland housekeeper, testifies regarding Adrian MacManus:
Exactly who is washing whose hands here becomes the only question to ask, and that is obviously where things get muckier. It’s like the old riddle of the chicken and the egg. Or trying to determine exactly where the butterfly first beat its wings to set off this ripple effect.
The harsh reality is that, while fans know most of the background info on these nefarious characters and how they are all inter-related, the rest of the world does not. And so we can only writhe helplessly as we watch the same cast of characters going at it all over again, somehow trying to cast a new net over the events of 2005 as if hoping a sea change will somehow bring about a different result. AEG may or may not be behind it. I cannot make that claim with any more certainty than anyone else. But I do know this is far more than just a random set of coincidences. The whole thing has been far too carefully orchestrated; the timing of each step along the way far too perfectly planned.
Which brings me to the next point I intended to make about Wade’s motives and the suspicious timing of these articles. Keep in mind that part of what Wade is up against is convincing a court to approve this claim despite its late filing. Wade’s claim is well past the statute of limitations. So it is very plausible that one possible way around this is to create a sudden media blitz of dirt on Michael. What purpose would that serve? One: It could possibly put more pressure on the estate to settle. Two: It will put the idea of Michael’s “possible” guilt at the forefront of any judge or juror’s consciousness.
The idea becomes even more palatable if we consider that, almost immediatly in the wake of his “coming out,” many journalists, celebrities, and media outlets began to cast suspicion on his story. I honestly don’t think Wade was banking on this. I believe he thought his story would be met with the same kind of instant acceptance as the Arvizo claims in 2003-that Michael would be publicly lynched again, and he would be seen as a hero, with journalists lined up to hear his story. However, it appears that after The Today Show, the media was not biting as furiously as he had hoped. Was the British press sliming part of a possible Phase 2 of the plan? I think it is very likely, though again, unless a smoking gun surfaces, it is doubtful we will ever know for sure. The one thing we know for certain is that Wade is very desperately seeking any evidence that can somehow bolster his case. I personally believe he and Baressi were acting in cahoots. But as to whether they are, in fact, part of a larger conspiracy, I can’t say. I always hate to have to end on that note-having raised more questions than I have answered-but I don’t think anyone can deny the validity or suspicious nature of these questions.
I had originally intended for this installment to also get into the true nature of Michael’s relationships with children-where the seeds of this really begin. But unfortunately, there isn’t going to be time enough to get into all of that and still get the post up in as timely a manner as hoped-not to mention this current installment would be as long as War and Peace. So I will leave it here for now and pick up with that particular history in Part 3. I will warn you that some of what I am going to address may be a bit controversial, especially to those fans who have always defended Michael solely on the grounds of his innocent desire to be Peter Pan or to recapture a lost childhood, but I think it is essential in order to fully understand how and why this conspiracy to paint Michael Jackson as a child molester began-and how he ended up in some of the vulnerable situations that he did. For sure, his very innocent desire to re-live his childhood was part of it. His genuine desire to help children in need was part of it. His constant need for familial love was part of it. But there are also a lot of prevailing myths-both on the side of haters and fans-that bear some deconstructing. The reality may not always be as pleasing as believing in Peter Pan-but I think it goes far in helping us to even better understand the complexity of the man, and-more importantly, why he was not a criminal.