Time to stop taking Diane Dimond’s LIES for Blanca Francia’s DEPOSITION
The “shower” episode described by Blanca Francia is an extremely boring and futile matter to discuss. You quote her deposition of 1993 where she said she saw one blurred image of Michael only and heard only his laughter too, but you still receive comments like this one from your readers:
“Many fans say MJ didn’t shower with Wade Robson, but why did Blanca Francia MJ’s former maid say she saw MJ and Wade showering together? During the 2005 trial, housekeeper Blanca Francia testified that she saw Jackson and Robson showering together when Robson was seven or eight years old in the late ’80s, but that steam from the shower prevented her from seeing what was going on.
It’s troubling to know that MJ showered with Wade. I don’t think it was good that MJ showered with Wade. Why couldn’t he allow Wade to shower alone. He was old enough to shower on his own. This is sort of scary. Any thoughts anyone?”
Yes, I have some thoughts about it and the main one is this – due to all the media brainwashing people tend to describe the so-called “shower episode with Wade Robson” following the Hard Copy utterly false version of it, which was sold to them for $20,000 and further aggravated by Diane Dimond who was the host of that TV program.
Francia’s false story was fully debunked by Thomas Mesereau at the 2005 trial but it is still circulating among the public, and after repeatedly asking myself why it is so difficult to beat this lie I think I’ve probably found an answer to this question.
THE HARD COPY VERSION OF FRANCIA’S STORY
First of all let us determine how bad and dirty the Hard Copy version was. Now that Francia’s deposition became known to us through Thomas Mesereau who constantly refreshed the maid’s memory by referring to it at the 2005 trial, we can see that Diane Dimond’s version was very bad and very dirty indeed.
The gist of it is presented by the Associated Press which says that “he was seen bathing in the nude”, “naked with at least two young boys” and “rubbed them against his private parts”… Oh my God!
Francia, who worked for Jackson for five years at his Neverland Ranch but said she quit two years ago in disgust, told the syndicated TV show “Hard Copy” that she had seen Jackson bathing in the nude with at least two young boys.
Another report surfaced yesterday about a second boy who claims that he was molested by Jackson. Citing unidentified sources , KNBC-TV said authorities were investigating the boy’s allegation. Investigators who questioned the boy found the account credible, the station said.
Police and districts attorney’s office investigators have declined comment since opening the criminal probe four months ago. No criminal charges have been filed against Jackson. Francia, a Salvadorian immigrant, is the only person since the allegations against Jackson surfaced to state publicly that she saw the entertainer naked with boys”.
The former maid said Jackson was in the constant company of boys about 11 years old. Some would stay at the ranch for weeks at a time, sleeping overnight with him. “I would keep my mouth shut to keep my job”, she said. She said parents occasionally were received at the ranch, but were kept distant from the entertainer and his young guests. Francia said she guessed they “looked the other way”.
Francia said Jackson called the boys “rubba”. She said he would rub them against his “private parts”. She also said she cleaned a “hide-away” where Jackson would go with young friends. She said Jackson once asked her opinion of what she witnessed. “I said it was none of my business. He liked that…I would get some reward – money or a gift”.
So it was through Diane Dimond’s TV program that the word “Rubba” came into history and the story of Wade Robson most probably emerged. The story was reproduced by almost everybody at that time:
MORE revealing and disturbing was the “special name” he now gave his young friends. To Michael they were all “Rubba”. Why Rubba? From “rubbing boy against his body”, Francia surmised. “He had boys sitting in his lap, rubbing them.” http://www.plussizedresses.com.au/plus-size-dresses-articles/1995/1/22/jacko-sad-mad-or-bad/
“Michael Jackson’s former maid reportedly claimed to have seen him in a bath and shower with naked boys and said that the superstar would sometimes rub youngsters against his body”.
From Blanca Francia herself and Michael’s friends who were interviewed about the nickname we know that Rubba does not mean anything as Michael gave this name to almost everyone – his friends, cousins, nephews and all the kids around. Here is an excerpt from Blanca Francia’s testimony at the 2005 trial:
Q. Okay. But it’s certainly a term that he used quite often, isn’t it?
A. “Rubba,” yeah.
Q. He used it on lots — he used it for lots of children, including his own cousins, didn’t he?
The origin of the word can be traced back to Emmanuel Lewis who played Webster. The word had nothing sexual about it and was used even for Michael’s children:
Rubba was a name Emmanuel Lewis, who played Webster, came up with,” he explained. “Everyone called everyone Rubba. It didn’t mean anything. What we did have was the Applehead Club, and that was from ‘The Three Stooges.’ Everyone was an Applehead because Michael loved ‘The Three Stooges.’”
“It’s nothing sexual,” my source continued. “Michael even called one of the younger kids Baby Rubba. It didn’t mean anything.”
Doo-doo head was also a tender name given by Michael to almost everyone for whom he formed some kind of an attachment. In fact he called even Blanca Francia ‘Doo-doo head’ and spoke of nice food as ‘doo-doo’ too.
FELDMAN: Did he (Jackson) ever call himself “doo-doo head”?
FRANCIA: Yeah. An he will tell me sometimes “doo-doo head” too.
He’d call you “doo-doo head”?
How you would use the term “doo-doo head”.
Yeah, like – like he will say, “Oh, I’m hungry and I don’t know what to eat. Maybe some doo-doo”. He will say that and – or he said to me, “This is doo-doo”.
The same innocent stuff explains the word Applehead. Over here they had an Applehead club with funny rules for the members:
Be “idiots and act crazy at all times”; be vegetarians who fast on Sundays and avoid drugs; watch two episodes of “The Three Stooges” daily; know the Peter Pan story by heart; and when seeing another member, “give the peace sign, and then half of it.”
As regards Diane Dimond’s horrid details about “naked boys” we learn from the 2005 trial that the maid was talking only of MJ and the children playing in Jacuzzi and in their bathing trunks too. She saw them playing and often collected the toys scattered around there.
Despite all her resistance to the truth at the 2005 trial Blanca Francia was forced to repeat what she had earlier said in her 1993/94 depositions – she never saw Michael shower or bathe naked with boys and definitely never saw any molestation.
Once she saw a blurred “image” of Michael in the shower but did not really see anyone beside him. All she heard was his laughter in the bathroom, and it was only at the 2005 trial that she changed it into allegedly hearing two voices:
Q. You’ve seen him playing in his Jacuzzi, correct?
Q. You’ve never seen Mr. Jackson improperly touch anyone in his Jacuzzi?
Q. Never saw that, right?
Q. Okay. And in that deposition, you told the truth, right?
A. As I remember it.
Q. Yes. And you were under oath, right?
Q. Okay. And you said that you had never seen Michael Jackson touch anyone in a sexual way, right?
Q. ..you did say under oath that you had never saw Mr. Jackson have sexual contact with anyone, right?
A. No. No.
Q. Now, the prosecutor asked you questions about what you said in the deposition about what you could see in the shower, right?
Q. And in the deposition you said under oath that all you could see was a shadow, right?
Q. Was that the truth?
A. A shadow, an image, yeah.
Q. That’s all you could see —
Q. …in your deposition you said you could only see one person, but you heard giggling, right?
A. Yeah, but I hear two people —
Q. Do you remember you were asked in your deposition, “Did you hear anything else other than Michael laughing?” And you said, “No”?
Q. Was that the truth?
Q. Do you remember in the deposition saying you never saw anyone else in the shower but Mr. Jackson?
A. I don’t think I say that.
Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show you the transcript?
Q. Does it refresh your memory about what you said about the shower?
Q. You saw one person, Mr. Jackson, right?
Q. Or it looked like him through the glass, right?
During her deposition in 1993/94 she did mention Wade Robson but said that she did not see him in the shower with Jackson and only believed (imagined) that he was there. All she saw was one figure only and all she heard was some laughter.
At the 2005 trial she explained her previously innocent version of the deposition twelve years earlier by her being “nervous and tired”. She didn’t explain though that she was deposed twice and what she said once could be corrected the second time, not to mention the fact that the deposition can be verified later and adjusted if you know you said something inaccurate there.
No, both Francia’s depositions in the 90s were saying the same thing – she did not really see anything and only assumed that WR could be there:
Q. All right. Did they ask you about Wade Robson?
Q. Did they ask you if in fact you had seen them in the shower together?
Q. Do you remember the answers that you gave to those questions?
A. Kind of.
Q. Did you tell one of the attorneys that you did not see Wade Robson in the shower?
A. Yeah, I probably did.
Q. All right. Was that accurate?
A. Well, at that time I guess I was tired and nervous, I guess.
Q. Did you tell them that you believed Wade Robson was in the shower?
A. Yes, I told them that.
Q. And you think you saw Mr. Jackson in a shower with Mr. Robson one time, right?
Q. But you said the shower was fogged up and you couldn’t really see, right?
A. I saw the figure.
Q. You saw the figure. And you heard a lot of laughing, right?
Q. And you thought they were playing, right?
So Francia initially tried to voice the version consistent with Diane Dimond’s story in the Hard Copy, but when it came to verifying it by her depositions in 1993/94 she could not confirm any of it as true.
- Dimond had “naked boys”, naked Jackson”, “numerous occasions”, “rubbing against each other” and much more of it.
- And Blanca Francia’s deposition has no naked boys at all, no rubbing and only a blurred image of Michael through a glass door with no one else beside him – which is a totally different picture as you understand.
And it was only due to the fact of Thomas Mesereau introducing the maid’s earlier depositions that all those lies were finally refuted.
But if Blanca’s 1993 depositions totally refute the lies told by Hard Copy how could it happen that Diane Dimond’s version turned into the classics of the genre while the true story from Francia’s depositions is still struggling to be recognized?
The reason for it is the fact that the Hard Copy TV program was aired exactly on the day of Francia’s first deposition which was followed by extremely biased media reporting.
And the worst part of it is the media presented lies from Dimond’s program as Francia’s deposition.
HARD COPY LIES WENT FOR FRANCIA’S DEPOSITION
The fact that the two events perfectly ‘coincided’ in time enabled the media to make a cunning trick – they first mentioned Francia’s deposition and then reproduced the contents of Hard Copy as if all this “horrid truth” was revealed by the maid in her deposition and not in the tabloid TV program for which she was paid big money.
This way the truth was very effectively replaced by lies and everyone – I mean everyone – had the impression that Blanca Francia’s deposition is the most damning document which exists on this planet.
It absolutely wasn’t and the reason why everyone thinks so bad about it is that everyone takes the Hard Copy version for the actual deposition taken by the maid.
How could this happen?
Easily, though I myself have noticed it only now. We’ve discussed the matter a hundred times but for some reason it was hard to grasp the simple fact that the Hard Copy program came exactly on the day of the maid’s first deposition and the media made a big and highly confusing story out of it .
Blanca Francia had two depositions with a one month break between them, and Thomas Mesereau always referred to the program as aired a month prior to the deposition. This was perfectly correct of course, only Thomas Mesereau was speaking about Francia’s second deposition on January 11, 1994 which indeed came a month after all those events.
But now I realize that the first deposition was exactly on the day of the Hard Copy program and the date for both was December 15, 1993.
Mary Fischer fixed it in her article “Was Michael Jackson framed?” (no doubt about that he was):
- 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.
And at the 2005 trial both Blanca Francia’s depositions were introduced with the dates provided for each of them:
- MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, I’d be prepared to stipulate to the two dates of the transcript. And the first date is December 15, 1993. The date of the second day of the deposition was January 11, 1994.
The above means that the first Francia’s deposition “coincided” with Diane Dimond’s TV program or rather that the TV program ‘coincided’ with the deposition.
Many of you will shrug your shoulders at this news. So what of it? Even if Hard Copy specifically dedicated its program to a deposition taken by Francia on December 15th, the media often does it to break the news exactly on the day of the news, doesn’t it?
True, and the fact would not have been that damaging if it were not for one terrible thing – the media represented both events in a way which made Diane Dimond’s program packed with lies replace the truth contained in the actual deposition taken by Francia.
The media presentation was a mishmash of facts where they first mentioned the deposition and then retold the Hard Copy program which made the public think that the lies from Dimond’s program were actually the evidence from the deposition given under oath.
Add to it the fact that the depositions were sealed and never disclosed, while the Hard Copy version started off with a bang, acquired a life of its own and is still understood by the public as the only ‘correct’ version of the events – and you will see the tremendous damage done to the truth by this media scam.
HOW THEY DID IT
See for yourself how this was done.
When Blanca Francia was deposed the attorneys refused to comment on what she said there, but the papers went on confidently spreading lies from the Hard Copy program presenting the facts as if they were leaked from the deposition.
To make things clearer to you I’ve added to the text below two words in brackets. This addition should have been made by the journalists themselves but never was. Please read the first sentence without the brackets and then compare it with the addition I’ve made and see the difference between the two:
Blanca Francia spent seven hours in attorney Larry Feldman’s office testifying in a 13-year-old lawsuit accusing Jackson of child molestation.
Feldman, who represents the teenager, and Jackson’s attorneys all refused to comment on Francia’s deposition. They have agreed not to discuss the case until a Friday hearing, when a judge will consider a gag order barring release of information about the case”. (Courier, Dec.16, 1993).
Yes, the maid spoke about “him bathing and sleeping nude with boys” to Hard Copy only and not to the attorneys, as the deposition has nothing even remotely close to it. But from the text of it you cannot understand which was said where and it looks like all of it is one.
Of course a question arises how the Courier could know that “MJ bathed and slept nude with boys” if the attorneys agreed not to discuss the case and refused to comment on it, but this is so small a matter that few people will realize that all of it is just verbal equilibristics intended to tell a big lie. The truth of the matter is that the Courier is quoting Hard Copy but is presenting it as the maid’s deposition.
Do you see now why the public thought that Francia’s deposition was the nastiest evidence you could ever have? And the further we go the denser the lies grow.
The article of December 16th, 1993 by the Associated Press is entitled “Jackson’s ex-maid testifies”, so after a title like that it is natural to interpret the text as the gist of the maid’s testimony. Hard Copy is mentioned too, but who will look into all those minor details and differentiate whether it was Hard Copy or no Hard Copy? The Associated Press says that she testified about it and this is all that matters!
This is how the version that “he slept nude with boys” was solidified by the AP:
Blanca Francia was surrounded by a media throng when she arrived at attorney Larry Feldman’s office to give a deposition in his lawsuit accusing the singer of child molestation.”
Just a moment please.
To whom again did the maid say that “the entertainer bathed and slept nude with boys?” To Larry Feldman in her deposition (where she never said anything of the kind) or to Hard Copy which indeed alleged all those things? Of course she said it only to Hard Copy but why doesn’t the Associated Press explain it I wonder?
I can bet whatever you like that no reader was able to distinguish between the real deposition and the Hard Copy version of the story though now we know that they are different as poles apart.
The deposition itself was never quoted because both parties were under a gag order and all the depositions were sealed. And while the truth was absent its place was taken by the Hard Copy lies actively promoted by the press. To neutralize the effect of lies the only thing they had to do was telling the readers that the news spread was coming from Diane Dimond and not the deposition itself – however they never did it.
This type of crooked reporting left everyone under the impression that Francia’s deposition carried the worst Michael Jackson’s secrets and was so damning a document that the Jacksons’ lawyers hurried up to obtain a gag order on it.
Yes, they even stressed it that it was Michael Jackson’s lawyers who wanted a gag order on the deposition, though Michael’s lawyers were the most interested party in making that deposition public.
Even prior to the deposition, already on December 14, 1993 the Milliwaukee Sentinel was already citing some “sources closed to the investigation” who repeated all those lies and added that the maid’s remarks came as Jackson’s lawyers obtained a gag order preventing the discussion of the depositions contents.
From the way they say it you clearly get the impression that Michael’s lawyers were doing their best to stifle the “horrible truth”. But the case was exactly the opposite one – the deposition was absolutely not horrid and was in fact refuting Diane Dimond’s lies!
“Blanca Francia, a former maid for Michael Jackson has told authorities that she quit her job with the entertainer after seeing him naked with young boys on a number of occasions, sources close to the Jackson investigation said Monday.
“That’s true,” Francia told the Los Angeles Times Monday [Dec. 13]. “I quit in 1991. I was disgusted. I could not stay”. She is scheduled to give a deposition later this week [Dec.15], and she declined to discuss what she saw in detail, saying she preferred to wait until after she had spoken under oath.
Francia’s remarks came as Jackson’s lawyers obtained a temporary gag order that prevents lawyers from discussing the contents of depositions taken as part of a civil suit filed by the attorney for a boy, 13, who accuses the singer of child molestation.
After the court session one of Jackson’s lawyers confirmed that the entertainer returned to Southern California Friday”
And what are these mysterious ‘sources close to investigation’ that quoted Francia seeing “him naked with young boys”? And why are they saying it even the day before Francia was deposed at all?
Of course it is Diane Dimond again. But if she only started with the tune why did the rest of the media form a big orchestra turning it into a big symphony of lies?
These people know that they are reproducing the Hard Copy lies and not the maid’s deposition, so why are all of them so willingly participating in what they know themselves to be a huge scam?
As I’ve said the worst part of it is that the depositions were indeed sealed and the true facts from them were not disclosed to the public for full twelve years until the 2005 trial. It was only due to that trial that Thomas Mesereau had a chance to indirectly introduce us to those depositions when he cross-examined the numerous liars testifying there and he had to refresh their memory by using those documents.
But until the 2005 trial Diane Dimond’s lies were having a full reign over people’s minds and these lies partially explain why she was so overzealous during that trial. She had told so many lies in the past that every new deposition taken from the 90s was driving a new nail into the coffin of her credibility. Her only hope was a guilty verdict and that nobody would notice the dirty kitchen where they had been and were still cooking their scams.
It took us many years to notice this media ‘project’, and I am glad that we finally did. Goodness gracious, can you imagine what would have happened to the truth if it were not for the 2005 trial and those true depositions had never been disclosed?
If the trial had not been there we would have never learned the true words of Francia and all the rest of them stated in their depositions in the 90s! And we would still be guided by the Hard Copy lies!
The Hard Copy program is long gone but its lies are still alive, and it is essential for everyone to go only by what Francia said in her depositions in the 90s as what they are saying now is a repetition of Diane Dimond’s worst lies.
Well, even Francia herself noted that the people from Hard Copy were not honest. At the 2005 trial she said about Diane Dimond and her team:
Q. In your deposition, you said the people from Hard Copy are not honest, right?
Let it be the final word for Diane Dimond from Blanca Francia herself.
WHAT BLANCA FRANCIA SAW AND DID NOT SEE
Here is a supplement to the post which provides my interpretation of Blanca Francia’s story. It is a repetition of what has already been said in the comments and is provided here just in case someone missed it.
My opinion is that Blanca Francia could not see even the image of Michael Jackson behind any fogged glass door and that she was simply eavesdropping at the door of his bathroom. This conclusion can be made after you see the layout of Michael’s suite. The floorplan is provided below but first here is the maid describing it:
15 A. That’s the Jacuzzi.
16 Q. I’m sorry?
17 A. The Jacuzzi.
18 Q. First floor?
19 A. In the bathroom.
20 Q. Okay. And can you see where the shower is
21 in that photograph?
22 A. I can just see the — right here, the frame,
23 the door frame.
18 But in this photograph, which is No. 788,
19 can you see both the Jacuzzi and the room that has
20 the shower in it?
21 A. Yes. Right across from each other.
22 And this, I think, is 787. And what is
24 A. That’s the shower.
25 Q. All right. Is that the same door that you
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. All right. And that’s the shower that you
1 gave testimony to.
2 And the last one, please. Two more.
3 788. And this is 788. Is that the same
4 bathroom downstairs?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. All right. Do you have a better view of the
7 room that has the shower?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Show us where that is, with the laser.
10 A. Right here.
11 Q. Okay. That’s the toilet that you can see?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And on the other side of the toilet is the
15 A. Uh-huh. Right next to it.
16 Q. All right. Can you show us now where you
17 were standing? Can you put the laser on where your
18 feet were at the time you were standing?
19 A. Probably right here. Right here on this
Thanks to Elona Lee (http://enolalee.blogspot.ru/) we have the floorplan of the Neverland mainhouse. The descriptions accompanying the plan helped me find and mark the showers on both sides of Michael’s suite.
The bathroom Francia is talking about is the master bathroom having a Jacuzzi and a small bathroom with a toilet and a shower right across it (this shower is marked yellow).
The detail that immediately attracts our attention is that there is a partition between the toilet and the shower:
Here are some more pictures to visualize what we are talking of.
The general view of Michael’s suite shows that there are two big windows on both sides of Michael’s bedroom. The space is actually too open for everyone to see, look and even walk into:
Miko Brando, Michael’s friend is showing to a CNN correspondent Michael’s suite. We see the glass door opening into the common garden and a big glass window next to it:
If you come up to the window and turn right you will see a door leading to the master bathroom. On the right side of the master bathroom there are three doors. One is taking us to a huge closet, the second opens into the toilet/shower room and the third is a glass door opening into a private patio with a fence around it:
Another photo of the same bathroom shows the door to the toilet half open, and at this point we find that there is also a window right behind the toilet.
I don’t know at which corner the maid was supposed to be standing but if she was standing at the very door to the bathroom and saw it from the angle we see it now, it was impossible to see the shower as the half-open door was closing the view of it.
Considering that there was also a partition between the toilet and the shower (unless it was pulled down by Jackson) to be able to see anything at all Blanca Francia had to enter the shower room, cross the toilet area and stand in front of the glass door of the shower. I highly doubt that she did anything of the kind because no employer would tolerate such an invasion of his privacy and she would have been immediately fired after that.
You also remember that the maid asserted that the glass door was fogged. This was the detail which she must have added to make her story sound credible, however by adding it to her story she only made things worse – if the door is open no steam or fog will accumulate in the bathroom and if she says that the glass was foggy it means that the door was closed.
But if it was closed she could not see anything at all – no shower, no underwear lying on the floor, no image of Michael Jackson or anyone at all there. A closed door is just a closed door and that’s it.
And with the door closed the most she could hear was the sound. The radio was blasting, Michael Jackson was laughing (in her first deposition she said she heard only his laughter), and even if we assume the worst (that she heard two voices) the window in the bathroom makes me think that this second voice could easily come from outside the bathroom if some kids were hanging over there and talking to Michael through the window.
Why do I disbelieve the worst? Because the episode was happening in the middle of the day (exactly at the time for the maid to clean the premises and see everything), so it was not just a routine morning or evening shower but must have been something extraordinary – for example, the children could have dropped Michael into the pool (as we saw it in the video) and he raced back to the house to take a shower, and they followed suit (as they always did) laughing at the great joke they played on him. Or it could be the shower taken after all those water balloon fights.
So he gets into the shower, closes the door behind him, but the kids turn the corner and position themselves outside the window continuing to laugh and shout to each other through the window. Indeed with the water running and the radio blasting, they should have been indeed shouting for the maid to be able to hear all those voices through the door.
Was he making a secret out of it? Absolutely not. There was nothing to be secretive about – the situation was perfectly normal and innocent and this is probably why “precautions” against some nosy and intrusive maids were never made. She was welcome to come any time and Michael did not worry for a second that she or anyone would think the situation “worrisome”.
Was the situation described above possible? And why not? Why are we supposed to think only the worst about Michael Jackson? Because some maid and her mentor Diane Dimond have exceptionally dirty minds?
What most probably happened is that the maid started cleaning the bathroom, collected some toys and clothes scattered around the Jacuzzi and then came over to the door to listen to the noise. What she heard was a laugh and (probably) a talk over the window in the bathroom. She did not see anything, but thought that she heard some voices which she interpreted the way she interpreted it.
And two years later what she heard and imagined to herself was actually the worst of what she could say to Diane Dimond.
The rest of it was just a mere techicality. Francia added her suppositions to the story and Diane Dimond embellished it further with horrid details like “he was bathing naked with boys” or “rubbing them against his private parts”. By the 2005 trial the story reached gigantic proportions and was presented by Sneddon as follows:
“As she approached the bathroom ..she saw Jackson and young Robson nude together in the shower and Jackson was rubbing against Wade’s body. The shower was steaming so she could not see everything, but she could see Wade’s head pressed against Jackson’s stomach area. Jackson’s and Wade’s underwear were on the floor next to the shower. “ PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR SEXUAL OFFENSES
All of it was picked up by the press and passed for Blanca Francia’s deposition while in reality she never said anything of it. There were no naked boys, no rubbing, no Wade Robson or anyone else seen there, and I doubt that she even saw a “blurred image” of Michael Jackson at all. The door was closed and all the maid heard was a lot of laughter and (probably) another voice coming from the area around that shower.
And this is all there is to it. And the rest of it is a big, a really big LIE.
The truth is here for everyone to see:
* * *
- What does the AEG trial have to do with Wade Robson and Blanca Francia? (vindicatemj.wordpress.com)