Sometimes the answers you seek are staring you in the face

Posted: May 13, 2009 in Francke Case
Catchy title huh? Actually, I’ve felt that way since day one.
On a quick sidenote, but still somewhat related, I was browsing YouTube this morning and discovered once again that some crime buff had uploaded the Unsolved Mysteries episode of the Michael Francke murder. In three installments as has always been the case due to a ten minute time limit on videos. In the past, these installments have been removed by YouTube with the explanation that they violate copyright laws. However, other Unsolved Mysteries episodes have not been removed. Strange. It will be interesting to see how long these new installments stay up, especially after I offer one of them here.
Recently, in my email correspondence with Kevin that I’ve shared, I made mention of Kevin’s brother Patrick posting at the WW Greg Johnson/Kellcy article claiming him and Kevin had personally met with Shorty Harden, and that he recanted his testimony to them. The exchange went on about how I felt he disrespected me with that lie, and the feeling that "one only has to look at the end of the Unsolved Mysteries episode to understand why he lied," claiming it must be tough for him not having lived up to the promise he made to the shows viewers. Personally, I just don’t see either one of them living up to that promise for well over a decade now.
This is a very short clip that begins with Kevin’s ex-wife Katie (now deceased) and ends with Patrick’s promise. I watch this clip and can’t help feeling Patrick is spewing the same type of BS that he tried to spew on the WW website, and yes, I’ll critique it even further by pointing out how intently Patrick stares into the camera, then looks away suddenly as he says "we’re going to find those responsible and see to it they receive their full punishment." As if he doubted his own words as he was saying them. An expert in body movements would probably agree. There is simply no evidence that the investigation the Francke’s were conducting held strong throughout the years. What there is evidence of is simply a movie released in 1995, the subsequent hypnosis of Jodie Swearingen, and essentially moving on with their lives. Was the movie a payday for everyone involved? A slew of other peculiarities surround the financing and making of the movie. Peculiarities I intend to address. 
By 1999, they had secured an interview with Evelyn Meeks which further pushed their Scott McAlister theories. So why didn’t they push to have Meg Hanson interviewed who pushed the McAlister theory even further?
As has been the case for quite some time now, I spend all day, (from about 8am until I go to work around 4:30pm) researching, reading (some things over and over again), posting in my blog, working on the website, writing letters, researching things for Frank, etc. It is overwhelming at times, and I sometimes shirk my household responsibilities, errands, and other chores. Until someone else can show me their commitment equals mine, I will continue to make the claim that nobody other than myself has involved themselves in this case in the capacity I have.
However, regardless of my differences with Pam Quinn/Granny, honorable mention goes to her for her contributions and length of time she involved herself. I feel my website and blog stand as evidence of my claims, as well as my accomplishments. Just felt the need to clarify that. I really don’t want people thinking I’m just tooting my own horn or bragging when I talk about my involvement. Far from it. I simply point out the extent and length of time of my involvement in order to show how unique it is, and that due to its uniqueness, has presented peculiarities which never would’ve presented themselves had I or anyone else not taken up this cause in the manner I have.
For example, if I hadn’t gotten involved and sought out Shorty, I wouldn’t have experienced Kevin sending me on wild goose chases for Shorty in Renton, Washington only to find Shorty myself living three miles from me. I wouldn’t have seen the Francke’s pay Shorty, use me as a middleman for the transaction, then accuse me of keeping some of the money. I wouldn’t have seen  the media lie about the amount. I wouldn’t have seen the Francke’s not recognize Shorty in the bar after being told he was coming, or Francine accuse me of screwing things up because the Francke’s paid Shorty.
Hell, if not for me, there wouldn’t have been a Shorty interview period. My involvement literally turned this case upside down, shook out the cobwebs, and awakened spiders who went to work spinning webs of deceit and controversy.
So this morning, while I’m re-reading my "Reflecting on five years post" and the email correspondence I had with Kevin, I was noticing there are quite a few places where I can add links to documents, videos, message posts and so on that would further support whatever was being read at a particular moment.
I began to see how comprehensive I could be on this one page in not only sharing my experiences of the past five years, but in fact offering a new perspective. A perspective from someone not connected to the families or the media who encountered spiders within the families and the media.
Would that be something that might spark the interest of the Dateline producers?
It sparked the interest of an accomplished documentary video producer in Portland who has expressed a desire to film a documentary of the case from my perspective. It was his feeling that my perspective offered something entirely different than anything else previously offered, and feels that could be a significant factor in obtaining financial assistance for such a project.
I suppose there’s only one way to find out.
Hopefully I have enough time before leaving on my New York vacation to put it all together in a format that will spark the interest of the Dateline producers.
Imagine the possibilities. Imagine Dateline doing a show where they interview people like Louise Glass, Ron Spier, Meg Hanson, Dennis Plante, William Enos, Billy Jack Haynes, Karie Rothschil-Roos and her mother Melody Garcia, the Franckes, Frank’s sister, Pam Quinn, me, etc, etc.
Would some or all of these people refuse to be interviewed by Dateline? Frank wasn’t too keen on the documentary because it was local. He wants national exposure.
Where might those interviews lead? How would Kevin, Liz, Patrick respond to the peculiarities I’ve presented? How would Liz answer questions about Rooster’s death and her trial? Would Dateline agree with me on the peculiarities of Rooster’s death and the subsequent trial, and seek the answers to the questions I’ve presented and more? Do any of you reading this agree?
Frankly, I could fantasize about the possibilities all day. Fantasize about finally getting answers to some of my questions, hearing the comments of those connected to the MIPS story and others, hearing comments from the Francke’s and Phil Stanford about why they didn’t follow up on new info coming in.
Is it just a fantasy I think the possibility exists that Dateline might be as intrigued as I am at what the end result could be to doing such a story? Not like I haven’t acted out a few fantasies throughout my life with select individuals. Haha! Might as well act this one out.
I guess it will really come down to if I can present my involvement and all that’s occurred in the process, in a manner that the producers will view as a fresh, unique and intriguing perspective with all sorts of unexpected  twists and turns. Yeah, I know, there were plenty of twists and turns to begin with, but the ones I offer were not only unexpected, but unimaginable. 
One thing’s for sure, I surely intend to find out.
  1. Ex-Salem says:

    We were all outraged (or at least my mother-in-law and I) at the conviction of Frank Gable and a lot of us still are. I guess if you’ve seen the Salem "War on People", it would be more plausible.How can people get so outraged at the destruction of trees, while the murder of a human and the fleecing of the Oregon taxpayers gets forgotten.Something should be done to bring this to public attention again. I think in light of the criminal activities everyone is aware of, by the then governor and attorney general, maybe they would be more inclined to believe this.I would like to hear what they all have to say, maybe if we hooked them to an electric shock lie detector. Rob, you were smart to wear that tinfoil hat. You avoided being brain-washed!

  2. Rob says:

    People do speak out and protest things that don’t hold a candle to something as important as justice for a man who served in government honorably, a man wrongfully convicted, or a judicial system that is out of control and needs a lot of fixing. I don’t understand it either. People like Pamela Anderson who seem to think the lives of chickens being slaughtered improperly by KFC is an issue more important than human lives. Tommy Lee needs to slap some sense into her. Haha! Just kidding-just kidding!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s