Skip to content

DIANE DIMOND, a Shark That Swims in Safe Waters Only

December 6, 2017

Recently we were astonished to see that Diane Dimond, known for her relentless dogging of Michael Jackson for the things he never did, suddenly struck a warm note and asked for a ‘pause in the sex talk’ championing for the rights of the accused.

Our Susannerb noticed Diane Dimond’s sudden transformation and wrote the following comment reposted here:

It’s stunning how all those who created “Michael Jackson the Monster” and fought against him to the death now prove themselves what we always said: That they were/are on a crusade against Michael Jackson, and only him, and not against pedophilia and sexual abuse in itself.
They are more than ready to downplay the Hollywood situation and even defend those accused powerful men, while they fed Michael to the lions.

Another example of it is Diane Dimond:

In a new post of November 20, 2017, on her blog, Diane Dimond shows a completely different attitude towards sexual predators and demands “a pause in the sex talk”. She puts the following questions:

“Question: by bringing up an episode from ten, twenty or even thirty years ago don’t we inevitably erase the possibility that the guilty party has grown as a person over the years and learned the error of their ways? I know I did things decades ago that I’m not proud of, things I would never do again.

Question: how do we handle the man who delivers a seemingly heartfelt apology for their past bad acts? If we continue to vilify him aren’t we guilty of the very act of shaming we condemn? If the woman’s goal is a big money settlement couldn’t that be seen as a predatory act too?

And, final question: by automatically accepting an accuser’s version of events and immediately heaping scorn on the suspect haven’t we forgotten to give the accused an opportunity to defend himself?

That said, if multiple victims step forward to point the finger of blame at one person, well, that’s pretty telling. But let’s make sure we don’t robotically accept each and every complaint as true. False reports are more common than you think and once exposed they can dilute the power of legitimate complaints.”

Can you believe it? Just think about her words for a moment and compare them with her behavior towards Michael!
DD suddenly shows understanding for the situation of abusers, giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Suddenly she claims to be a voice of reason who “reflects for a moment”, stating that people shouldn’t “go overboard” and requiring “A Pause, please, in the sex talk”.

This is another proof that all of them had an explicit agenda against Michael Jackson and only Michael Jackson, whom Dimond prejudged without evidence and before a trial took place and never gave “an opportunity to defend himself”, and whose accusers’ enforced settlement she never saw “as a predatory act too”.

The proverb says that “Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”, and by asking for sympathy and understanding for the big shots in Hollywood accused of sexual crimes Diane Dimond is definitely throwing stones in her own glass. Indeed, how can she restrain the public from expressing indignation for these people while all the time heaping scorn on poor Michael Jackson’s head?

Why, when it comes to Michael Jackson, does Dimond ‘automatically accept the accuser’s version’ and moreover, vilifies him even after that version fell apart in court? Why does she regard Jackson’s settlement with the Chandlers as proof of his ‘guilt’ though in other cases she agrees it may be the false accuser’s predatory act?  Why is she so easy to forgive the abusers who admitted their crimes while condemning an innocent man who vehemently fought all the allegations and even had them disproved in court?

Is it a case of ferocious double standards or has this woman changed so fundamentally that she is now sorry for what she did to Jackson?


For a flipping moment her statement about ‘people changing’ and her ‘doing things decades ago that she is not proud of’ looked to me like her belated apology to Jackson, but not until I found her earlier piece dated October 30, 2017 where she demanded a ban on ‘secret sex harassment settlements’ and as usual threw Jackson into a mix with ‘serial sexual predators roaming free to victimize others’.

What do the late Fox CEO Roger Ailes, former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, movie producer Harvey Weinstein, President Bill Clinton, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, comedian Bill Cosby and entertainer Michael Jackson have in common?

Each man arranged to pay out beaucoup bucks to people who accused them of sexual assault or sexual harassment. Each hired lawyers to draw up a secret settlement with the accuser which included a promise that the accuser would never – ever – speak about what had occurred. In other words, these wealthy Americans were allowed to throw money at a problem to make a criminal or civil case disappear. With no complaining witness there cannot be a trial.

<>These secret settlements aren’t made to clear up just one little misunderstanding. In each of the cases I’ve mentioned there were multiple accusers. This corrupt status quo accomplishes only one thing — it allows serial sexual predators to roam free to victimize others.

There is a legal dichotomy surrounding these secret settlements. They are standard practice but there is a serious question raised when they are used to cover up a crime. Scaring an accuser into silence is akin to witness tampering in my book and burying criminal activity under a pile of hush money smells like obstruction of justice.

The big trickery behind this Diane Dimond’s manifesto is that what is true for Weinstein or Cosby was never true for Michael Jackson.

It was Weinstein who intimidated his victims, and not Michael Jackson. And Michael didn’t have ‘multiple accusers’ like others and multiple settlements either. His only big settlement with the Chandlers was not even a secret – the family and their lawyer laid out to the media all the lies they had to tell about Jackson before the settlement finally stopped them from speaking to the press. But not to the jury in court – the Chandlers could testify at any trial if they desired to, only no one did as it was never their intention and it was only the mother, June Chandler who agreed to come to the 2005 trial after being dragged there by the prosecution.

Remember how Evan Chandler’s own brother Ray described Evan being scared out of his wits to learn in 1993 that if Michael was indicted (he wasn’t), a criminal case could come before a civil one and the Chandlers’ plan for a big settlement could flop?

We are going to push on. So far there ain’t a button I’ve missed. The only thing we gotta do is keep the criminal behind us. I don’t want them going first.”

Larry had said it before, but it hadn’t registered in Evan’s brain till now.

“You mean if they indict, the criminal case automatically goes before us?”
“Jesus Christ!”
“Right! So we don’t want that.” 

Imagine Rose McGowan and other Weinstein’s accusers being similarly frightened – only not of Weinstein, but of his possible indictment and further trial in the criminal court?

You can’t imagine it?!  

Good. Then there is a chance that everyone else will see the difference between real victims and fake ones, real hush-up settlements and a simple desire to pay to an extortionist to let the nightmare go – the difference Ms. Dimond is unable or, more precisely, is unwilling to see.


However the question remains – why has Diane Dimond suddenly grown sympathetic towards those accused of sex crimes, with the exception of Jackson of course?

This is a big secret woven into a seemingly non-informative fragment of her November 20th post, not yet quoted above. Let’s have a look at it:

A Pause, Please, in the Sex Talk

November 20, 2017 by Diane Dimond

Americans have been left breathless with all the talk of sexual improprieties over the last few months. Sexual harassment, sex acts with under aged kids, sexual assault, even rape. Allegations, admissions, apologies and confusion reign.

Let’s take a collective deep breath and reflect for a moment. What are we to make of all this, what are the lessons we should take away?

The grievances, some of them decades old, have bubbled forth from women (and in a few instances, men) from all sorts of careers and situations.

The answer is not lying on the surface, but through the habit of checking up all links I pressed the ones provided by Diane Dimond to see who she had in mind when talking about abusers of children and ‘in a few instances’ men. And this is what I found.

The first link concerning sex acts with under aged kids is not taking us to anyone you would expect to –  to Kevin Spacey, for example, who was accused of assaulting Anthony Rapp when he was 14, or Gary Goddard accused of molesting the 12-year old Anthony Edwards. No, none of these famous names.

Instead, the link is taking us to a yet unknown story of a certain Tom Sizemore accused of touching the genitals of an 11-year old girl when she sat on his lap during a 2003 photo shoot for a film. It is an equally disgusting story, but not about someone really big in Hollywood.

You might think that the second link, concerning the abused men, will finally take us to Kevin Spacey who has already 15 men  accusing him of sex assault or probably even Justin Smith’s numerous tweets about young men raped at Bryan Singer’s private parties. But no again.

Speaking about the current allegations of sexually abused males Ms. Dimond directs us to ….  an exhibition called Rogues Gallery – 1977–2017 which marks the fortieth anniversary of the Son of Sam killer case and the thirtieth anniversary of the Bernhard Goetz subway shootings.

‘The exhibit allows observers to step into New York’s colorful historical trials and cases,’ the ad says.

I could bet that Ms. Dimond is sending us to this exhibition with the sole purpose of showing the sketches of Michael Jackson in a courtroom, but since the exhibits seem to be about New York only, we need to find another explanation why she misdirects us to an art event instead of taking to real-life tragedies of sexual abuse.

Reflecting on this puzzle I noticed that the names mentioned by our bold ‘investigative journalist’ are those of the late Fox CEO Roger Ailes, former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, the convicted Jerry Sandusky (about whom Diane Dimond made several posts), the disgraced Harvey Weinstein and fallen Bill Cosby.

However other people who are also in the media attention now, like Kevin Spacey, Gary Goddard or Bryan Singer, for example, have never been mentioned by Ms. Dimond either in this post or any other.

And this made me come to a sudden conclusion – Diane Dimond who likes to compare herself with  ‘a shark, always moving in the water’ is actually a very cautious shark.

The choice of names over whom it is okay to be indignant suggests that Diane Dimond knows whom it is safe to attack and she goes only after those whose fate has already been decided – those who have fallen and are sure to never to rise again, or some nobodies like Tom Sizemore who are unable to ever strike back.

As to sex abuse victims of really big shots in Hollywood or elsewhere, they are non-existent to her until the future of the accused becomes fully clear and it is finally safe to be enraged about them. And her inclusion of movie mogul Harvey Weinstein into the list is just the exception that only proves the rule – she is evidently of the opinion that he is already over and done with.

So it looks like this reporter who calls herself an ‘investigative journalist’ is extremely wary of touching the untouchable, to a point when she is wary to even make a proper link to their cases – for fear of repercussions and damage to her career. Evidently her own interests are much more important to her than investigating and reporting the truth she is supposedly to be after.

If readers find other explanations for the strange unwillingness of Ms. Dimond to name names and pick some hot potatoes, I am open to their suggestions. However in the meantime I will adhere to this working theory and regard Ms. Dimond as a shark that swims in safe waters only.

And once we’ve reached this point it opens to us some new horizons.


The opportunists like Diane Dimond who know which side their bread is buttered on, usually go with the current and are extremely perceptive to where the wind is blowing.

Therefore her latest change of tune and a call for understanding and forgiveness towards those accused of sex crimes may well be a manifestation of a change of wind that follows a signal to the media by some bigwigs – the raging sex abuse scandal should be stopped for fear it may come too close to real heavyweights, or may shed light on the Hollywood or others’ dirtiest secrets all of which is regarded by them as ‘ruining the industry’ as per Barbara Walters.

The signs that this trend has already started are seen on every corner – some media already sounds appeasing and  reassures everyone that ‘this is nothing new’, quoting people say that “Even if he did the things he’s accused of, I don’t think he’s a bad or evil person” or “There’s always this ongoing conversation on separating the art from the artist,” as in this AP piece, for example.

Diane Dimond’s sudden leniency towards sexual abusers can have one more explanation – her old ties with NBC where she used to work in several capacities and even report for Today program that recently came under much fire due to Matt Lauer’s scandal.

And though she wrote her post before Matt Lauer’s dismissal on November 29th, the journalists at Variety have been working on the Lauer story for over two months and NBC officials knew of the looming public relations disaster well in advance, so there is nothing unusual for the obviously sympathetic Diane Dimond to act proactively and write a piece calling for tolerance to those guilty of sexual abuse.

In any case all these maneuvers over whom to attack and who to pat on their backs have nothing to do with the interests of victims who suffered at the hands of these abusers.

All the right words will be ritually pronounced by Diane Dimond, however the problem itself seems to be the least of her concerns. She never went on dangerous investigative journalism like Ronan Farrow did, who risked his career at NBC and even paid his own money to camera crews to make interviews with Weinstein’s victims (NBC refused to finance him and suppressed his reports after which he took them to the New Yorker to be published there in early November).

Nor is Diane Dimond ready to make ground-breaking reports about some bigbigs abusing their victims or even mentioning their names – her major and probably sole motivation is making a name for herself and preferably by exploiting the subject that is safe to exploit.

And this takes us back to Michael Jackson, of course.


The sheer fact that so cautious a species like Diane Dimond went on a ‘bold’ crusade against Michael Jackson is proof enough that it was perfectly safe and even okay to harass him.

By telling nasty stories about Jackson no one could expect their career to crash and no one in the media could be fired and blacklisted in the same way Weinstein did it to journalists by visits to their editorial office and voicing his ‘displeasure’ with their yet unpublished reports.

With Michael Jackson the case was exactly the opposite. He was a welcome target and the incessant stream of nasty lies about him were a sure way to make a career – with no risks taken and no need to answer for what you say.

On one occasion only was Ms. Dimond called out to answer for her lies – in 1995 Michael Jackson sued her and her source Victor Gutierrez for $100 million for a false report about a non-existent video tape, but it was no other than the District Attorney Tom Sneddon who got her out of the trouble then.

It was probably since that moment that Diane Dimond has become Sneddon’s diehard fan, sleuth and trusted mouthpiece instead of being an unbiased reporter as was expected of her profession. In fact defaming Michael Jackson has become her primary profession and favorite pastime.

Same as Sneddon she never lost sight of Jackson and on the eve of the 2005 trial it seemed that the time of reckoning had finally come.

In a piece quoted below her anticipation of a triumph over him is almost palpable – sporting Michael Jackson’s black fedora hat she has bought at an auction, Diane Dimond makes it clear to a colleague from the New York Post that she owns Jackson’s story from the start of it and her business with him is far from finished:

February 13, 2005

Dimond, 52, laughs as she recalls spying the hat and three companion prints of the dancing icon while covering a celebrity memorabilia auction in Hollywood a few years ago and forked over a then-whopping $1200 for it.

 “I just had to buy it. I wanted to touch it and I put it on,” she confesses while relaxing at her mom‘s Alberqueque home.

“I did it not because I‘m obsessed with Michael Jackson, but because I wanted the reminder that that was the one story that I hadn‘t finished,” Dimond says.

With or without that fedora, Dimond, has owned this story from the start. Now she‘s besieged by her own colleagues outside the Santa Maria courthouse, where Jackson is standing trial on 10 counts of child molestation. She is so much in demand, that not only does she report for CourtTV, but she also covers the trial for NBC‘s “Today” and for the U.K.’s Channel 5.

“I am just a messenger for all the bad facts that are coming out. Sorry folks. If I had anything good to report I‘d report that too,” she says.

If convicted, Jackson faces 20 years hard time. “I wonder about Michael Jackson in prison,” Dimond muses. “Child molesters are not well received and he would have to be in isolation. No makeup, no wigs and no bleaching cream. It‘ll just be the orange jumpsuit, I don‘t know if he‘ll be able to stand that.

Now that the trial is ready to start, Dimond thinks viewers can expect a bombshell or two. “Michael Jackson‘s biggest nightmare is [his ex-wife ] Debbie Rowe. Debbie knows what prescriptions were written for him and she knows who his little friends were,” Dimond says. ”And she knows way more than [Jackson‘s first wife] Lisa Marie Presley ever did.

“Everybody thinks, ’You hate Michael Jackson.’ No, I don‘t. I love a good story and I love to finish a story. And this one ain‘t finished.”

Unfortunately Ms. Dimond didn’t fulfil her promise – not only did she fail to report anything good about Jackson, but she failed to report any truth at all, as a result of which her viewers on CourtTV, NBC’s Today and the UK’s Channel 5 were convinced that the case was heading for a guilty verdict. And when Michael Jackson was fully acquitted on all counts it became bad news not only for her viewers, but for Diane Dimond too – her contract with CourtTV due to be extended in December 2005, was terminated three months earlier leaving her out of job.

Diane Dimond out at Court TV

Aug. 30, 2005 at 4:21 PM

By The Associated Press

The gavel has sounded on Diane Dimond’s time at Court TV.

The anchor’s contract has run out with cable network, said Patty Caruso, a spokeswoman for Court TV, on Monday. The network isn’t renewing and Dimond is leaving to concentrate on her book.

In her 20 years in television, Dimond has also reported for Fox News, CNBC, MSNBC and the syndicated program “Hard Copy.”

Reporter Diane Dimond off Court TV

Aug. 30, 2005 at 12:22 PM

NEW YORK, Aug. 30 (UPI) — Court TV has declined to renew Executive Investigative Editor Diane Dimond’s contract and bounced her from the network three months early.

Dimond, who moved from the Fox News Channel to Court TV in 2001, told the New York Daily News she looks upon her firing as “a little paid vacation.” Her contract had been up for renewal in December, she said.

Dimond covered Michael Jackson’s child molestation trial in California for the network. Her book about the pop star, “Be Careful Who You Love,” hits shelves in November, the Daily News said Tuesday.

Jackson’s defense attorney, Thomas Mesereau, has repeatedly complained her reporting was biased in favor of the prosecution — a charge Dimond rejected to the Daily News.

The mortal wound of being dismissed for what she expected to be her full triumph was surely never forgotten and only added fire to Ms. Dimond’s desire to bring Jackson’s story to an end.

Within the two months remaining before the publication she did indeed concentrate on her book and smeared his name by reciting only the prosecution side of the story (the one that fell apart in court). Even today she urges everyone to read it and scorns at the acquittal, simultaneously wishing that ‘Americans had more faith in our system’ – which doesn’t apply to Jackson of course.


In her 2009 obituary of Michael Jackson Ms. Dimond didn’t mention the outcome of the trial, instead focusing on him being accused twice. The absence of other complaints was explained by people being ‘scared’ to press charges.

He was accused of one of the most insidious crimes imaginable – the sexual abuse of a child – not just once but twice. And from my years of reporting on the case I can tell you there were other young boys with eerily similar stories of abuse by Jackson, sons of parents too reticent, too embarrassed or scared to press charges.

In public Jackson flaunted his fascination with male children. Even after his narrow escape from prosecution in 1993, for which he paid out about 30 million dollars to avoid a trial, he flamboyantly continued to pose with and travel with unidentified young boys.

According to the above Dimond’s version the settlement with the Chandlers was for ‘about 30 million dollars’ (please remember the amount) and was made ‘to avoid a trial’. In reality, a civil case cannot stop the criminal investigation from going on and Jordan Chandler cooperated with the police for at least four months after the settlement when he finally withdrew from the case. A couple of months later the criminal investigation closed with no charges brought.

Ms. Dimond also thought that the obituary was just the right moment and place to allege that his three children were not his biological kids – this in her opinion only added to all the bad acts committed by this villain:

Then he started to collect children of his own. Jackson reportedly paid up to 10 million dollars to a nurse named Debbie Rowe in return for her agreement to be inseminated with the sperm of his dermatologist, Dr. Arnold Klein, and to give him two children and then disappear. His third child was reportedly born to a surrogate mother and another mystery sperm donor. No one stopped Jackson from doing this either. He had the wealth and the celebrity clout to indulge his obsessions.

In our adoration of the artist we can’t forget that men of bad character do valuable things that benefit society in all sorts of ways. They build fabulous institutions, they write meaningful books, they entertain us in ways no others can. That doesn’t mean their bad acts are okay.

This final passage about never forgetting the ‘bad acts of men of bad character’ looks especially impressive in comparison with Ms. Dimond’s today’s tolerance to sexual abusers and her question that may easily be addressed to her own self:

 “If we continue to vilify them aren’t we guilty of the very act of shaming we condemn? – DD

However then it was solely spite and poison on her part mixed with half-truths and twisted information. These quotes from Diane Dimond speak for themselves:

Diane January 28, 2010 at 4:03 pm

Several sources, very close to LMP, have told me their union was never consummated. LMP has never denied that. ~ DD

DianeDimond January 5, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Yes, I do subscribe to the idea that he probably didn’t have sexual relations with women. Jackson himself told a story about how a teenage Tatum O’Neil came at him in a romantic way and he panicked – this at a time when most teen boys would relish sexual attraction Jackson was repelled by it. Much has been said about my televised statements that he and Lisa Marie Presley never had relations, but I believe that to be true.

Diane October 23, 2010 at 5:11 pm

I only saw snippets of the interview – albeit long ones – on Entertainment Tonight. The bottom line in my opinion? Theirs was not a “Normal” marriage…by that I mean a husband and wife who live together, go to bed together, make love together on a regular basis. Do I think she kept in contact with him after they officially separated? yes, that’s possible. yes, I think its odd that only NOW does she decide to say positive things about him. I think it speaks volumes about HER.

DianeDimond October 3, 2009 at 3:50 pm

You write ….” Every single substance found in his system had been administered by Conrad Murray.”

That is NOT what this leaked document said at all, it only dealt with the state of Jackson’s body. In past coroner’s documents we saw a list of medications found in Michael’s system. IT HAS NEVER BEEN DETERMINED HOW THOSE MEDICATIONS GOT IN HIS BODY, EXCEPT FOR THE PROPOFOL. Dr. Murray, reportedly, told police he administered it.

It has never been revealed (or maybe even determined yet) how those deadly sedatives entered Jackson’s body.


He went into drug rehab in 1993, he was often very obviously over-mediated during his 2005 child sex abuse trial and during the run-up to his massive comeback concert tour this year we’ve now learned he was engaged in an orgy of drugs and self destructive behaviour.< >

Don’t the doctors bear some responsibility for Jackson’s death?

And what responsibility do the die-hard Michael Jackson fans bear for their blind worship? His drug addiction was no secret yet the throngs of his followers continued to be dazzled by his stardom. < > Even in death there is blind adoration.

Well, even in death there might be blind hatred too.


When Jerry Sandusky was found guilty of sexual abuse of young teens Diane Dimond didn’t lose the opportunity to compare him with Michael Jackson and find ‘similarities’ between them.  Here is her piece almost in full:

by DIANE DIMOND on JULY 2, 2012

Eight young men ranging in age from 18 to 28 testifying about their utter loss of innocence at the hands of a serial pedophile who plucked his prey out of the ranks of his own charity. The powerful and often tearful testimony came at us rat-a-tat-tat so that observers felt smacked in-between the eyes at the end of every day.

In the end, Sandusky was found guilty of 45 of 48 charges of sexually abusing young boys. I suppose you could call it a victory for the damaged young men who climbed into the witness box and sobbed while, literally, gasping for breath as they told their gut-wrenching stories.

I began reporting on high-profile suspected pedophiles nineteen years ago when I became the first to tell the world that California police had targeted Michael Jackson as a possible molester of boys. I followed the Jackson story for more than a decade and as I sat in the Sandusky courtroom I marveled at the parallels.

Although a jury found Jackson not guilty on all counts, in my opinion, his behavior and that of Sandusky are classic case studies of how a serial predatory pedophile acts.

Both men were famous – one admired on an international stage, the other within his community and the world of sports. Both men projected an aura of truly caring about children. Jackson outfitted his Neverland Ranch to be the quintessential child magnet with its full scale amusement park, zoo and movie theater.

And when their actions with children were exposed both men very publicly turned on the very thing they claimed they loved so much – the children, calling them liars, money grubbers, conniving manipulators out to hurt a great man for some unexplained reason.

Diane Dimond July 10, 2012 at 8:56 am

Dear Imat:

No spin here. Just a comparison of Sandusky’s stature and behavior and Mr. Jackson’s. I clearly label this as OPINION (which, like you, I’m entitled to) and I clearly write that Mr. Jackson was acquitted. Matching the behaviors, and giving my opinion, that’s all. ~ DD

Besides this list of similarities being absolutely formal (gifts, games and love for children are commonplace phenomena), it also contains a very big lie – not the biggest one told by Diane Dimond about Jackson, but still a huge insult to his memory.

The fact is that Michael Jackson never turned on his accusers and never blamed children for the faults of their parents – neither in private, nor in public all the more so. He was sure that his young accusers were forced to slander him by their parents and were also victims like himself.

So Ms. Dimond’s claim that he called them ‘liars, money grubbers, conniving manipulators’ is simply out of the question. Though crushed and heart-broken, even in private Michael Jackson tried to avoid discussing this matter and only occasionally cried out of bitterness and general disappointment with the human kind.

And now that all ‘similarities’ end, the differences begin. In fact Diane Dimond is specifying some of them herself, only it escapes her attention that she is. To name only a few:

  •      Sandusky and other famous persons who turned out to be child predators were never prosecuted until it was too late and they left a long trail of victims behind. In fact in all cases recently uncovered their victims were always ignored until some point in time and their complaints always suppressed. In contrast to that anyone willing to accuse Jackson immediately got into the spotlight – only to flop after a long, tiring and thorough examination.
  •      It wouldn’t hurt to mention that Sandusky was found guilty on 45 charges out of 48, with nine more victims ready to testify should a retrial was necessary. Jackson was also tried after one and a half victims were scraped together a decade after the first accusation – Gavin Arvizo and the maid’s son Jason Francia who complained of two cases of tickling – however despite all their effort Michael was acquitted by the unanimous jury on all counts. I just thought it worth mentioning in case the acquittal in court matters to anyone.
  •      But what stands out to me as the biggest difference between the real predator and an innocent man is the way their accusers behaved in court. Michael Jackson’s accusers were relaxed, businesslike, argumentative and sometimes cracking jokes, while the real victims of Sandusky were sobbing on the stand and literally gasping for breath so that this sight shattered even the seasoned Ms. Dimond.

I don’t remember anything of that kind reported by her from the 2005 trial…


Another year passed and when reporting the wedding of her dear friend/accuser Gavin Arvizo Ms. Dimond resumed piling up one lie about Jackson upon another. Here is an excerpt:


When he was well enough to travel the boy and his family were invited to visit the singer’s Neverland Ranch. Knowing of their poverty Jackson even sent a limousine to drive them. What a wonderful respite for a recuperating cancer patient and his exhausted parents!

But once back home things got worse. Violence. Restraining orders. Divorce. Yet the limousines kept arriving and the sleepovers in Michael Jackson’s master bedroom at Neverland continued.

During the trial Gavin, then 15, was vilified as a accomplished liar. Jackson’s lawyer, Tom Mesereau, called him and his family “grifters” and “thieves” and he repeatedly warned the jury that the Arvizos were only “in it for the money.”

The jury also heard about two other boys who said they, too, had been molested by Jackson. One was a maid’s son, the other the son of an L.A. dentist. Both boys received generous payouts from Jackson in return for keeping quiet. The dentist’s family got nearly $20 million.

Correct me if I am wrong but I remember Gavin Arvizo sleeping in Michael’s room only once and that was before Bashir’s film and only after Michael and Frank Cascio took every precaution for the family not to accuse Michael of any wrongdoing.

Frank was against the boys staying in Michael’s room, Michael was also scared and reluctant, but didn’t want to offend the children by his refusal, so they decided on a compromise – Michael would give in to the boys’ nagging, but Frank would stay in the same room, with both of them sleeping on the floor and giving the bed to the Arvizo brothers.

“Gavin and Star kept begging, I kept saying no, and then Janet [Arvizo – the boys’ mother] said to Michael, “They really want to stay with you. It’s okay with me.” Michael relented. He didn’t want to let the kids down. His heart got in the way, but he was fully aware of the risk. He said to me, “Frank, if they’re staying in my room, you’re staying with me. I don’t trust this mother. She’s fucked up.” I was totally against it, but I said, “All right. We do what we have to do.” Having me there as a witness would safeguard Michael against any shady ideas that the Arvizos might have been harboring. Or so we were both naive enough to think.”

– Frank Cascio, “My Friend Michael: An Ordinary Friendship with an Extraordinary Man”

Ms. Dimond’s text about the wedding also contains a piece about ‘two other boys who said they had been molested’ supposedly heard by the jury. Well, the maid’s son Jason Francia did come to complain about those two cases of tickling, but the son of a dentist Jordan Chandler squarely refused to testify, though the jurors of course did hear about him – the prosecution took every care that they did.

But why is the sum of the Chandlers’ settlement named by Ms. Dimond this time 10 million less? Wasn’t it 10 million more in her previous piece, the one on Michael Jackson’s death? And is even this figure correct at all?

Ms. Dimond doesn’t forget about two more accusers who sprang up only recently – Safechuck and Robson, but after learning her hard lesson at CourtTV she is somewhat lying in ambush waiting for the outcome. However she avidly posts Michael Jackson’s photos with ‘young boys’ and dances around the subject by explaining how difficult it is for the victims to go public.

It is very difficult indeed, only Robson went public already many years ago, at the 2005 trial when he testified in support of Jackson’s at a grown-up age of 22. Now he is claiming that at the time he was still unable to realize that the rape he had allegedly sustained was actually sexual abuse. The absurdity of this statement is evidently too much even for Ms. Diane Dimond, so it is not surprising to hear some notes of restraint on her part now:

Are there false accusations of sexual abuse leveled for money or revenge? Yes, you bet and that’s why we have a court system to weed out the real from the unreal. Here’s a suggestion: Let’s at least wait to hear these accusers evidence before automatically condemning them as undeserving to seek justice.


What worries me though is that some people still regard Ms. Dimond as a legitimate source of information. You can see it from this edition of True Crime: Case Files which invited Diane Dimond to grace their cover and be their guest.

‘Ms. Dimond has graciously allowed True Crime: Case Files to reprint an excerpt from her book, “Be Careful Who You Love: Inside the Michael Jackson Case.” Was the mega music superstar guilty or innocent of the charges of child molestation? Diane Dimond discusses the peril of covering the case, from breaking the first story on the investigation to Jackson’s acquittal”.

This publication presents itself as ‘a true crime magazine focusing on crime and courts, cases that demand attention, unsolved, and missing/murdered. A publication that educates readers, supports crime victims, and assists and supports law enforcement and criminal justice educators and students.’

Their 2017 issues focused on subjects like ‘The murder victims no one cares about… It was murder, not suicide! … I was stolen as a baby… Deciding the fate of a killer… Female pirates….Defending the indefensible… I am the child of a serial killer…Making of a Murderer….The Devil at Genesee Junction ….Serial killer Henry L. Wallace…Child Killer Marianna Skublinska…Sociopath v Psychopath… Women on death row… A serial arsonist’s family photos … Dr. Michael Nuccitelli’s study on the online psychopath.’

And more of the same kind.

Well, firstly, the title of True Crime is a definite misnomer for Michael Jackson’s case unless you forget about his acquittal. And secondly, placing him in the above context is simply a way to stigmatize him as a criminal even without telling his story. By the way, this is how fake news is created – by simply placing a certain piece within the required section of information.

That said, we don’t know what Ms. Dimond narrated about Jackson in that issue and can only imagine it from her past experience and the excerpt from her book. And we can also guess what kind of education about Michael Jackson the ‘readers, educators and students of criminal justice’ derived from her narrative.

So it seems that Ms. Diane Dimond is far from finished with Michael Jackson yet. Especially since nothing can be safer for an ‘investigative journalist’ than this innocent subject.


November 27, 2017

Amid the avalanche of sex abuse accusations shattering Hollywood many people are wondering what is going on and why now. The scandal is indeed huge and the latest attempt of RadarOnline and National Enquirer to channel this process in the direction desirable for them, by implicating Michael Jackson in other people’s actions, makes me express my views which I refrained from voicing for quite a long time. If one day we manage to get to the bottom of it you will probably understand why I hesitated for so long.

However first we need to look into the new fake story smearing Michael Jackson that was published by RadarOnline and National Enquirer under the guidance of a certain Dylan Howard, their editing director and editor-in-chief respectively.

The story alleges that in 2008 a certain producer was told by Corey Haim that he had been assaulted by Michael Jackson. No exact moment of the ‘assault’ is specified, so the general public assumed what was meant to be assumed – that not only Michael Jackson was Haim’s abuser, but that the whole thing took place when Corey was a child.

This fantasy piece was also printed and elaborated on in the National Enquirer, however both were refuted by Michael Jackson’s fans just within hours – by means of a short quote from Corey Feldman’s book “Coreyography” which says that Corey Haim met Michael Jackson for the first time only in 1994 when he was actually 22.

“Over the next several weeks, I made a few informal comments to the press and declared that Michael was innocent of the charges. (I was still living in Encino at the time; the paparazzi often made the two-minute drive to my house once they’d grown tired of staking out Hayvenhurst.) Michael was appreciative that I had spoken out on his behalf, and as a thank-you several months after he settled the case out of court he invited me up to Neverland Ranch.

I took Corey Haim with me, since he had never actually had an opportunity to meet Michael face-to-face. We rode go-karts. We giggled as Michael told us stories about Madonna, his date to the 1991 Academy Awards. (I think she intended to make a man out of him, but Michael wasn’t ready for all that.) We ordered movies to watch in his theatre. Together, the three of us screened Dream a Little Dream.”

– Corey Feldman: Coreyography

Corey Feldman has first-hand information about the events and it shreds the tabloid story into pieces – firstly, he was Corey Haim’s closest friend and the one who introduced Corey Haim to Jackson and, secondly, he can’t be suspected of any bias – when he was describing this episode there was no way to know that one day it would become so instrumental in refuting new lies about Jackson.

Seeing the fake story falling apart and evidently facing the need for damage control the Daily Mail came running to help their US tabloid colleagues and updated the story with a suggestion, sounding more like a hope, that “the offense had to happen some time after that point”. On their own part they also added a couple of inaccuracies about Jackson.

Here are some extracts from the Daily Mail version.

‘I have a problem with Michael Jackson’: Corey Haim said the King of Pop and Charlie Sheen assaulted him, claims producer – and the confession was allegedly caught on tape

By Chris Spargo For

PUBLISHED: 12:47 EST, 23 November 2017  

<>There is no date given for the offense, but if Feldman is to be believed it would have had to have happened when Haim was an adult.

In his memoir Coreyography, Feldman writes that after he publicly defended his friend during his sexual abuse trial he was invited to spend a weekend at Neverland Ranch. 

Note: In 1993 there was no trial. The police didn’t even bring charges against Jackson after a year-long investigation, during which Michael Jackson fully cooperated with the police up to undergoing a strip search of his private parts. And Corey Feldman defended MJ in an interview with the Santa Barbara police in December 1993, when he was 22 and fully aware what real molestation is like – he actually gave the police the names of his abusers, but they were not interested and were after Jackson only.


That case was settled in January of 1994, with Jackson paying the family of his 13-year-old accuser $25 million, and soon after Feldman headed to the King of Pop’s estate with his best friend Haim. This was just around that time that Jackson married his first and only wife in May 1994, Lisa Marie Presley. 

With every new paragraph it gets more and more surprising. Not only does the settlement sum rise with every new publication, but it also turns out that Michael Jackson’s two children were born out of wedlock. Has the Daily Mail ever heard of Debby Rowe?


He writes in the book though that Haim, who was 21 at the time, had never met Jackson face-to-face until that day. That would mean the alleged assault had to have occurred some time after that point.

‘We rode go-karts. We giggled as Michael told us stories about Madonna, his date to the 1991 Academy Awards,’ writes Feldman.

‘We ordered movies to watch in his theater. Together the three of us screened Dream A Little Dream.’ 

Feldman admits however that he and Jackson lost touch after that weekend, and he only saw him a handful of times after that date. 

The Daily Mail seems unable to report accurately even a small thing like Haim’s age – Corey Haim was born on December 23rd, 1971, so in the year 1994 he was definitely older than 21.

Their story is illustrated by a couple of photos to show Corey Haim and Michael Jackson in 1993, which is another proof of the Daily Mail sloppy job or their deliberate attempt to distort the picture by hinting at a big age difference between the two guys.  In reality Michael was photographed on his crutches on March 21st, 2001 when he gave a speech in Oxford, and Corey Haim was an adult in 1994 and no longer looked like a teen.

Is there anything at all the Daily Mail can report accurately?

The correct photos for that period are provided below. These are the screenshots from Corey Haim’s home videos dated 1994 and the photos of Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley as newly weds in May 1994.

As regards the essence of the Daily Mail version and their attempt to portray the ‘offense’ as something occurring after 1994, someone should remind these guys that the original RadarOnline lie was decidedly different. The initial  allegation was that MJ ‘attacked Corey Haim as a child’, thus leaving no room for other interpretations.

Look at the headline and the full text:

Corey Haim Claimed Michael Jackson Attacked Him As A Child

Producer says late actor confided he was ‘assaulted’ by the singer.

By Radar Staff

Posted on Nov 22, 2017 @ 9:00AM

Another villain who may have attacked child star Corey Haim has been unmasked — pop star Michael Jackson!

In a world exclusive, film producer Ed Meyer has broken an almost ten-year silence to reveal what Haim confided to him in 2008 — just two years before the troubled actor died of pneumonia at 38.

 “Corey said, ‘I have a problem with Michael Jackson and with Charlie Sheen. I was assaulted by these guys, and a few others,’ ” Meyer told Radar. “I didn’t feel it was appropriate to say, ‘Who are the other people?’”

Although Haim never described the assaults as sexual, Meyer said his meaning was all too clear.

 “Oh yeah, definitely,” Meyer told Radar. “He didn’t use the word sexual in either case. [It was just], ‘I was assaulted by these guys and a few others.’ It was also clear Sheen turned him on to drugs. That was 100 percent clear … He sounded like he was calling Charlie a pimp.”

As Radar reported, former actor Dominick Brascia, a close friend of Haim, said the Lost Boys legend told him Sheen sodomized him on the set of the 1986 film Lucas.

“Haim told me he had sex with Sheen when they filmed ‘Lucas,’” Brascia said. “He told me they smoked pot and had sex. Haim said after it happened, Sheen became very cold and rejected him.”

At the time, Haim was 13, and Sheen was 19.

Brascia’s stunning account was backed up by a longtime Sheen confidant, who told Radar the Platoon menace, now 52, admitted to a sexual tryst with Corey, but insisted it had been consensual.

Meyer told Radar Haim made the explosive revelation about Jackson, who died in 2009 at age 50, while filming the reality show The Two Coreys. The scene was eventually deleted.

Haim co-starred in the show with fellow former child star Corey Feldman.

In the deleted scene, filmed at Sound City Studios in Los Angeles, a down-on-his-luck Haim asked Meyer and casting directors for help in reviving his career.

One of the directors happened to know Sheen, and Haim was startled to see him, Meyer said.

“You could see he was shook a little bit,” Meyer told Radar. “He didn’t expect it, and I started kicking him under the table, like, ‘Back off!’”

That’s when Haim ripped into Sheen and Jackson for assaulting him, Meyer said.

Note: The link takes you to a story about “a Hollywood A-list star who raped tragic ’80s child star Corey Haim and has brazenly gotten away with the abuse for almost three decades.” Not a single word is said about Michael Jackson there.


“[Corey] was basically saying it was a dark time in his life, but he felt he was over that, and he was moving on and looking for work, and that played into what we were doing on camera,” Meyer said.

Ultimately, Meyer said the scene was cut because Haim had gone “overboard” about Jackson and Sheen.

“A&E filmed the video, and they did not air our piece because Corey was going overboard, venting,” Meyer said.

 “If it had aired, I think you would have had law enforcement looking into Charlie!”

We pay for juicy info! Do you have a story for Email us at, or call us at (866) ON-RADAR (667-2327) any time, day or night.

Well, it seems that the only true point in all of the above is that pays for juicy information. The rest of the story is fiction too.

The scene about A&E allegedly cutting the footage of Corey Haim going “overboard” about Jackson is a 100% fake. Back in 2008 nothing was more important to the media than dragging Michael’s name through the mud, so if the tape had existed they would have never missed the chance. Never. A juicy video like that would have cost a fortune if taken to tabloids, so for those who remember those times this lie sounds the silliest of all.

Another of their tabloid little secrets is a method to put the innocent and the (possibly) guilty into one mix. I mean their allegations concerning Charlie Sheen and Dominick Brascia who accused Sheen of abusing Corey Haim when he was a teen.

I’m aware of the gossip about Charlie Sheen, but over here they are most probably telling a lie too. Corey Haim’s mother revealed on a recent Dr. Oz’s show that the person who accused Charlie Sheen was actually the one who molested her son himself. The name of that person is Dominick Brascia.

This guy Dominick is the guy that abused my son,” she said. “My son said so.”

“He said so on The Two Coreys,” said Judy. “If you ever go back and watch any interview that my son ever gave, you would understand what I’m talking about. He hid nothing.”

Nicole Eggert, who was once engaged to Corey Haim and was on the set when the respective episode of the ‘Two Coreys’ was filmed, said that she also heard the name of Haim’s abuser. In 2010 when she spoke about it she didn’t disclose the name, but when asked whether it was Michael Jackson was adamant that that it wasn’t. In fact Corey Haim had only “amazing things to say about Michael Jackson” according to Nicole.

Nicole Eggert Remembers Corey Haim: ‘We Loved Each Other So Dearly’

March 11, 2010 11:47 AM PST

….Nicole also addressed Corey’s statements during “The Two Coreys” that he had been molested.
I know who he is because I was there with them. I was friends with them at this time,” she said of Haim’s alleged abuser.

And she denied the rumor that it had been Michael Jackson. “He always had amazing things to say about Michael Jackson.”

Of the alleged molester, Nicole said, “I hope he’s having a horrible life.”

So what’s left of the original story told by our beloved tabloids?

Nothing is left. And the truth turns out to be the exact opposite of what they are claiming:

  • Corey Haim was not a child, but an adult when he met Jackson.
  • Haim had only amazing things to say about Michael.
  • Corey Haim never named Michael to the RadarOnline source who said he was on the set of that reality show. There was no tape either, at least about Michael Jackson, and no cuts in it related to him. If someone wants to prove otherwise, produce the tape please.
  • The abuser Corey Haim named to his mother was Dominick Brascia, a big fat character actor and producer born in 1956. Brascia was 16 years older than Corey Haim.
  • So it was probably Dominick Brascia who was mentioned during the filming of the “Two Coreys” episode. Nicole Eggert was a witness to that scene. However no one paid attention and since the name never appeared on air that episode was indeed cut from the original footage. Of course, none of it had anything to do with Michael Jackson.
  • If the studio had aired the full tape where Corey Haim had the courage to name his abuser, law enforcement could have followed the lead and this could have changed Corey Haim’s life.
  • Dominick Brascia is now a favourite source of information for RadarOnline and National Enquirer. They boast getting lots of ‘exclusive’ information from this guy.

Dominick Brascia then and now

Now that we see that everything in the RadarOnline and National Enaquirer reports is entirely false, it is time to look at their publisher Dylan Howard and wonder how come this tabloid veteran may be vice-president of American Media Inc. in charge of the news?  Wiki says about him:

He is currently the vice president of news at American Media, where he holds the roles of editorial director of and editor in chief of the National Enquirer.

American Media, Inc. (AMI) is not to be confused with American Media Distribution, the international news coverage firm. AMI is publisher of magazines, supermarket tabloids and books based in New York City including National Enquirer, National Examiner, OK!,, Soap Opera Digest, Star, Us Weekly and others.

The above reminds me of a saying “Like father, like son”, only in this case it would be more pertinent to say “Like the vice-president of news, like the news” if you allow me to reword the phrase.

And how very interesting it is that Dylan Howard – the big media shot, vice president, editor-in-chief, editing director, etc. etc. etc. – is actually the same Dylan Howard who is mentioned in Ronan Farrow’s ground-breaking report about Harvey Weinstein’s army of spies as a media executive who was trying to help Weinstein to silence his most outspoken accuser, Rose MgGowan!

“A December, 2016, e-mail exchange between Weinstein and Dylan Howard, the chief content officer of American Media Inc., which publishes the National Enquirer, shows that Howard shared with Weinstein material obtained by one of his reporters, as part of an effort to help Weinstein disprove McGowan’s allegation of rape. In one e-mail, Howard sent Weinstein a list of contacts. “Let’s discuss next steps on each,” he wrote.

More about that investigation later, but at this point let us simply note a surprising fact – in Weinstein’s case Dylan Howard was trying to help silence a real victim, and for Michael Jackson the same Dylan Howard is trying to create a fake one.

Does it mean that the chief content officer of American Media Inc. has some anti-Jackson agenda? Or is he motivated by money as may be assumed from Weinstein’s case?

My initial thought was that he has an agenda, however the idea had to be discarded as in November 2013 Dylan Howard had the decency to publish a fairly accurate report about Corey Feldman’s 1993 interview with the police when Feldman resisted the allegations and spoke of Michael Jackson’s innocence instead.

Secret Police Tape: Child Star Corey Feldman First Detailed How He Was ‘Molested’ In 1993… But Cops Did ‘Zero’ To Catch Sexual Predator

By Dylan Howard

Posted on Nov 1, 2013 @ 3:33AM

<> We have uncovered a recording of the Stand By Me actor’s interview with Santa Barbara sheriffs, recorded in December 1993 when he was aged 22, during which he told them: “I myself was molested.”

The grilling was part of the sheriffs’ investigation into his close pal Michael Jackson who, at the time, was facing child molestation charges brought by Jordy Chandler and his family.

Shockingly, Feldman actually named his alleged abusers — we have excluded them from the excerpt, below — but the detectives expressed little interest in investigating the monsters, instead lasering in on the “King Of Pop” instead.

“I know what it’s like to go through those feelings and believe me, the person who molested me, if this was him that did that to me, this would be a different story,” Feldman told Sgt. Deborah Linden and Detective Russ Birchim.

Corey: “Nothing ever happened with Michael”

“I would be out there, up front, doing something immediately to have this man given what was due to him.”

The frustrated star is now questioning why his report went nowhere.

“All names were given to police before statute had run out but they did zero,” he wrote to a fan on Twitter recently, who had asked why he did not report the men to authorities.<>

The above was published on November 1st, 2013, but since then RadarOnline has gone on a kind of a witch-hunt against Jackson by printing every single statement of Wade Robson’s lawyers and making up all sort of fakes about Michael – that he allegedly abused his nephews, possessed child porn and photos of tortured animals, abused Corey Haim when he was a child, and much, much more of similar trash (for details see here and here please).

In one of their messages the Michael Jackson Estate called these attempts ‘sleazy internet click bait’. But this would be correct only in part – there are lots of other, true stories about Michael Jackson which would be no less sensational if tabloids ever cared to look into them, so why don’t they publish the no less sensational truth about MJ? For example, the tragic story of treating his burns by stretching his scalp and placing balloons there which actually started his dependency on anaesthetics?

So the problem is not in the fact that Dylan Howard’s media are ready to pay for ‘juicy information’ about Michael Jackson. The problem is that his media are seeking only for negative juicy information about him and are always ready to tell a bad lie to smear his good name.

In Weinstein’s case Dylan Howard was working on the basis of a contract which required him to seek out anything that would undermine the women who had allegations against Weinstein. To explain his activities Howard said:

“Absent a corporate decision to terminate the agreement with The Weinstein Company, I had an obligation to protect AMI’s interests by seeking out—but not publishing—truthful information about people who Mr. Weinstein insisted were making false claims against him.”

However a contract is a contract, and Weinstein should have been paying him for these ‘obligations’ – by money, advertisements in his media or other means.

So it wouldn’t be a too big stretch of imagination to assume that in Michael Jackson’s case there might be a similar type of contract, only an anti-Jackson one, requiring the media to find anything that would undermine Michael Jackson, true or false alike. Really negative information about Michael is difficult to find, hence the need for false stories like their recent one about Corey Haim.

And if this hypothesis is correct, the question arises about who could be a partner in that contract and pay for it at least since 2013. In Weinstein’s case it is clear who the payer and beneficiary is – it is Weinstein himself. But who could be paying for the anti-Jackson media campaign?

To try and understand it we need to look into the technique employed by Harvey Weinstein for manipulating the media and go over the history of sex abuse revelations the way they evolved in the past few years.

There is a certain logic to the succession in which they emerged and this may be the key to the whole problem.


Corey Feldman Needs SUPPORT of Michael Jackson’s Fans

November 18, 2017


Above is a link to Corey Feldman’s truth campaign.

Does Corey need our support?

Absolutely. He needs the support of all honest people and of Michael Jackson’s fans in particular.

Besides a planned movie about sex abusers in Hollywood Corey Feldman’s other dream is to open a shelter for children to protect them from abuse.

And Michael Jackson, even when drugged by Murray and being in a half-conscious state, spoke of his dream to build a children’s hospital with the money due to him for his last tour. So no matter what MJ’s haters say, Michael and Corey were completely at one when it came to the protection of the most innocent and young – and Michael Jackson’s supporters are the first people to know it.

Fans also owe Corey Feldman a separate thank-you for telling the truth about Jackson and standing up for him even despite their difference of opinion over other matters. He always spoke of Michael Jackson’s innocence – in 1993 when he was grilled by the Santa Barbara police who did nothing to follow on Corey’s own molesters as they were after Jackson only, in 2013 when he spoke of pedophilia as Hollywood’s biggest problem, and in his current interviews again.

Each time Corey was adamant that Michael Jackson was innocent and that Michael was his safe haven after the ordeal he had experienced at the hands of real abusers.

‘In 1993, I told the Santa Barbara Police Department, when they came to interrogate me about Michael Jackson, when they came to convince me that he was a pedophile. And I said he’s not,’ said Feldman.
‘And I said, “I’ve been molested.” They said, “by who?” I said, “I can give you the names, here they are.” And they said, “that’s not our area. That’s outside of our community.”‘

Personally I am very grateful to Corey for his search for the truth and his refusal to play along with anti-Jackson media and biased prosecution. He resisted to jump on the bandwagon at the time when it was really lucrative to make false allegations against Jackson, both career and moneywise.  All those innuendos about Jackson have long been and unfortunately still are the easiest and surest way to make the news, a name for oneself and at times even a fortune.

Despite this trend somewhat slowing down, it is nevertheless still there. Only yesterday I was shocked to see that the BBC piece called “This day in history” showed its viewers the footage of handcuffed Michael Jackson entering a police department and “turning himself in to authorities on this day in 2003”.

Mentioning this outrageous episode in the world’s history would have been okay if they had also mentioned Michael Jackson’s full acquittal on all charges or at least said that there was no need for those handcuffs as he turned up at the police on his own. But none of it was said and the picture of handcuffed Jackson was evidently shown to place his name in today’s context of rampant sexual abuse in the entertainment business and put him on a par with Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey.

Dear media, you should be ashamed of your consistent desire to implicate Michael in the crimes committed by others. Michael Jackson was not one of these people and the very fact that you (the media), law enforcement and the public were for decades preoccupied only with Jackson, ignoring complaints of the real victims and thus giving real predators a free hand to do whatever they liked, is actually the best proof that Michael was INNOCENT.

The stark contrast in the way Michael Jackson and real predators were treated is truly astounding.

The more news of past sex abuse by others is streaming now, the more obvious it becomes that all that artificial hysteria around Michael Jackson was simply a trick to pool the wool over people’s eyes and deflect attention from the real problem.

Harvey Weinstein: “The Times had a deal with us that they would tell us about the people they had on the record in the story, …but they didn’t live up to the bargain.”

And considering the revelations about the enormous power real abusers had over the media in respect of what could be published and what should be suppressed (see Weinstein’s own revelations about it or Ronan Farrow’s report about Weinstein’s army of spies), it looks more than plausible that the media was in some kind of cahoots with these players to hide their deeds behind the smoke screen of talking about Jackson and focusing on his fabricated sins.

Indeed, if Harvey Weinstein could “gut” the New York Times story about his misdeeds back in 2004 after he visited the paper “to make his displeasure known” and the story appeared only thirteen years later in 2017, why couldn’t similar personalities suppress unwanted information about themselves and press on the media sensational lies about Jackson instead?

And the biggest cynicism of this set-up was that the modus operandi typical for those guys was falsely attributed to the innocent Jackson.

How many times have you heard about the “power” of Jackson allegedly used to silence his “victims”?  Or about the “terror” the poor things allegedly experienced at the hands of a man who was in fact utterly humiliated, shamed and terrorized himself?

Well, it is only now that we are surprised to learn that all that “enforced code of silence”, “numerous hush-ups” and “fear of retaliation” trumpeted about Jackson was actually a blueprint from the usual practices of Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey – with the big difference that all of their fun went unnoticed for decades though practised quite openly and in plain sight.

In other words what was done by others was said about Michael Jackson – and even looked believable as it was indeed a replica of the well-known behavior typical for Hollywood. The only difference was that their misdeeds were covered by silence and were replaced by a thundering noise about Jackson. Indeed, Hollywood knows how to protect its own…

If people give the matter a slight thought they will realize that all those claims about Michael were utterly ridiculous.

What “code of silence” could they talk of if Jackson’s disgruntled employees marched in bunches to the media to badmouth their former employer?

Where could they find any “hushed up” stories if each new lie about Jackson immediately made it into the news and was thoroughly dissected there?

What does “fear” have to do with it if all those con artists impersonating “witnesses” and “victims” were standing in line to the media to have their stories told and participate in numerous anti-Jackson shows? Remember Ray Chandler making rounds on TV talking of his “fear” of Michael Jackson and happily promoting a book of his lies on the eve of Jackson’s trial? Or a more recent example of Wade Robson who likes speaking of his alleged “terror” with a vague smile on his face and a nonchalant shrug of his shoulders?

What fear really looks like is what we now see on Corey Feldman’s determined, but strained face.

Though speaking up against pedophiles in Hollywood and naming names Corey Feldman is definitely afraid for himself and especially his loved ones.

But why is he afraid if the names he already disclosed are not the highest profile people in Hollywood and some of them have already been tried and jailed for sexual crimes against children?

Martin Weiss, child talent manager

Indeed, Marty Weiss, for example, was sentenced to a year in jail and five years on probation (a pathetic sentence considering that he was charged with 35-40 assaults of a child over a period of three years and admitted several of them).

Jon Grissom, Corey Feldman’s assistant

Corey’s second abuser, his then assistant Jon Grissom was also found guilty of child abuse and served his time in prison. Now he is in violation of the law again as he failed to register as a sex offender and is hiding somewhere in Mexico.

This person is alleged to be Bobby Hoffman, the top casting director at Paramount

The third one, Bob Hoffman was a really powerful figure – he was the top casting director for Paramount. But he died in 1993.

Alphy Hoffman

And it is only the fourth one, Alphy Hoffman, the so-called “son” of Bob Hoffman and actually his lover, who is being named for the first time and has never been convicted.

Alphy Hoffman used to run Alphy’s Soda Pop Club – an invite-only disco club which was the hottest place in Hollywood for underage actors. “Nothing was organized or supervised” there and it is only later that Feldman realized that the club had a network of paedophiles operating in plain sight as agents and talent managers who were supposed to assist those kids.

But the question still remains – if Corey’s molesters are not that bigwig, why is he afraid to name the names?

This is because the problem goes far deeper than the predators Corey Feldman was unfortunate to know personally. The people that came his way are the tip of the iceberg only. All of them must be well-connected and bound by the common past or at least knowledge of it, and if one falls a domino effect may ensue. This must be the reason why Hollywood is so protective of its own and why child abuse there has remained a closely guarded secret for so long.

To them Corey Feldman is a troublemaker who is unwelcome not only for the perpetrators themselves, but also for those who are afraid that “he is damaging an entire industry” – a quote from the esteemed Barbara Walters who scolded Corey Feldman for his news about pedophilia in Hollywood.

Barbara Walters to Corey Feldman: “YOU ARE DAMAGING AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY!”

Corey is right to suspect that the problem is much bigger than he can imagine it to be. He says:

“There’s a lot of darkness in Hollywood right now and I believe it’s been there for quite some time, and as we’ve seen with the Harvey Weinstein scandal, it continues to unfold every day. It’s going to continue unraveling. This is just the beginning, this is just the tip of the iceberg … everything you’re seeing is building up to what I believe is a dam breaking open.” 

“It’s all connected to a bigger, darker power. I don’t know how high up the chain that power goes, but I know that it probably is outside of the film industry too. It’s probably in government; it’s probably throughout the world in different dark aspects.

As regards his personal fears he says this about one of his abusers:

“There is one in particular that I’m very worried about that is still very powerful, that is a kingpin in the business, that still has ties and connections to all the most powerful people. I know he’s protected by another guy that’s got the same type of connections and same kind of power lines. Yes, there is an eminent threat, and yes, they can have me extinguished if I’m not secure.”

Corey has no way of knowing the names of all those “others”, but if he doesn’t enjoy full public support, these people may try,  God forbid, to get rid of the troublemaker – to hush up the problem again and silence others who may be willing to speak.

Two trucks that simultaneously came at Feldman on a cross walk at a very high speed soon after he launched his truth anti-pedophilia campaign on October 25th this year, are proof enough that he is indeed taking a huge risk.

The visibly shattered Feldman is talking about this incident in this video:

So irrespective of the future of the movie he is planning to make, he will still need a lot of money to ensure legal and physical protection for himself and his son. The stakes are too high and the people he is challenging are no Michael Jackson.

Michael lost his life in a fight with these people and died a heart-broken, but innocent man. But those who are threatening Corey Feldman now enjoy real power and are actually used to ruining other people’s lives – even if these lives are young, innocent, trusting and helpless. And they have absolutely no qualms about what they do because they are utterly depraved and really, really sick.

There is more to say about these people, especially in contrast to Michael Jackson, but at the moment there is nothing more important than Corey Feldman’s lone fight against this evil.

Here is Corey Feldman’s open letter of November 8, 2017 to his friends in Hollywood and beyond, which is addressed to us too. Corey explains why he decided to launch a crowd-funding campaign and why he wants to tell the truth by means of a movie based on his book.

I’ve added an emphasis to some points in his letter.

Corey Feldman · @Corey_Feldman

 8th Nov 2017 from TwitLonger


HI #EVERYBODY, I would like to start off by saying THANK U to each and every 1 of U who has taken the time 2 TWEET, RT, post, share, or tell any1, about this very important cause. I’d also LOVE 2 say THANK U to all the loving souls who have visited my #TRUTH campaign:


However there is a bigger picture. As of 2day, I have gained 75,000 new Twitter followers in the past 2 weeks. In total I now have over 135,000 followers. Before I 1st announced this campaign, the numbers of followers had already been rising in great volume.

It seems as soon as the news broke of the Weinstein scandal, people immediately started turning to me for answers. I was both perplexed and dumbfounded by the sudden interest into a story I had been telling for decades. But suddenly and to my surprise, my story began to resonate and began building traction. 

Suddenly people remembered what I had been saying for all those years, and it just started making sense. So within the 1st week of the scandal and by the time I made the 1st statement on it, the followers had already grown by 10k in 1 day. I am very Grateful for that! 

I’m also forever grateful to the likes of Ashley Judd, Alyssa Milano, and the countless other women who came forward not just with stories about Weinstein, but to all of the strong women who came forward around the globe inspired by the #MeToo movement. It is because of your courage, my story has found new hope. This is a courage I pray will spread to the countless adults who were abused as children, and to the children who may have just recently suffered an abuse. 

That said, I also made a battle cry 2 weeks ago sounding the alarms that the war had started, by creating and announcing a well thought plan, to both get the whole truth out, while figuring out a way to protect myself. 

I was immediately blessed, with fire in the action of thousands of followers stepping up and donating to our cause straight away. However the next day things slowed down a bit, presumably out of fear perpetuated by false claims that I “would never give names” and “this is just a long con”. Well I immediately took action. I jumped right in and refuted those claims, by going on both The Today show & the Dr Oz show and publicly admitting the names of 2 abusers. I wanted everyone to know, this wasn’t a game, & I’m not playing. 

However let’s step back & break it down & talk about the “long con” concept for a moment.

So let’s start with the question “why make a film?” Here’s why….I’m a film maker, that is my art, my talent, my strength, & my profession. I want to truly show people what a child experiences when living with abuse from the perspective only someone who has lived with that abuse can make. It is a very important commentary and a brave piece of film making, as there is no one else who can truly capture the essence, of what the experience, of an abused child, who is famous, goes through, in the way that I can.

And as this story must be told once and for all, & as I am the only one who can tell it, I must reveal these very painful memories by reliving them through this process. As a victim, nobody has the right to tell a victim the right way to address these feelings. Nobody can tell me how to heal. I must do this the best way I know how, and this is my choice. 

I also want people who have been burdened with going through life as an abuse victim/survivor that U are not alone. For the 1st time U will recognize that there are many other people who feel exactly the same as U. 

Therefore, I have initialized a crowd funding campaign with the support of my family, and with my wife leading the campaign. Let me be very clear about this. A film maker creating a platform for source revenue via asking for support and finance from fans and followers to make a film is not a new concept, & in my business it is certainly not out of the ordinary. 

In fact it’s now standard practice amongst most independent film makers to use crowd funding platforms as the main source to get the funding to make their projects. Furthermore even studio level films ask the public for additional funds to complete certain aspects. 

When I myself in the past have questioned whether it was ethical for a big production house or small studio to ask the public for finance, I was given a very simple answer by a well known producer. He said “the studios are now using this tool to get the public more involved with projects from the ground up, it gives them a deeper sense of involvement.” 

So with that knowledge I then began looking at asks. It turns out that there are film makers and TV producers and even well known multi millionaire recording artists and celebrities that have asked for anywhere from $250k all the way up to 30Mil from public crowd funding of their various projects. 

But somehow when Corey Feldman uses the very same tool with aspirations to make a film it’s a con? 

Furthermore people have balked at the number saying “it’s greedy”, or “he doesn’t need that much to make the film”. Let me be very clear about this. If 10Mil was the complete budget for the film and only the film, at a studio level it still would be relegated (more than likely) to a straight to DVD movie.

An example, The Lost Boys sequel “The Thirst” was shot with a budget around 7 or 8 Mil. That was a WB film, but made for straight to DVD. 

The film I’m intending to make, will be made with a smaller budget, and will achieve a theatrical release. The way I can achieve it is by forewalling the theatres (renting them out). 

Even if I get the 10 Mil, it couldn’t possibly all go towards the budget of the film. But unless U have spent your life as a film maker U don’t understand the costs or how the $ is dispersed. So let me break it down….

If I used all 10Mil to make the film, it would never go anywhere and likely never be seen. So that’s not an option. As I have previously stated I am planning on producing, & self distributing the film. Which entails, pre production costs, production, & post production. 

Then when U get into the films release, we are talking about a marketing campaign (in the studio system they want 3 times the total budget just for this part) which would include TV and Radio ads, Billboards, & a cohesive marketing strategy with a publicity team, booking all the talk shows and personal appearances, screenings, etc. 

Then U have the actual cost of P & A. For the general public who doesn’t study film costs, this means prints and advertising. There is a hefty price tag that comes along with renting out theater houses, and getting prints of the film made to send to each of those theaters, not to mention the cost of actually transporting those film reels or digital cards depending on the technology of the theater across the country, and with much higher rates for international releases. 

Now let’s put the film aside, & talk about the subject matter, & what I’m up against…..

A legal team to defend cases of slander, defamation, and the like that will indefinitely arise from the direct allegations raised within the films context will likely ask for a retainer upwards of $100,000 and that’s just to open the case. Then the amounts will continue to skyrocket as the well lined pockets of my enemies, will stop at nothing, including hiring spies, publicists, lawyers, and God knows what else to smear my name, shatter my reputation and with any success leave my image as battered and broken as an unstable man who seeks to damage the pristine images of these wealthy and powerful men for personal gain. 

I’m not afraid of their lies, because the #Truth always wins in the end. But without my own team, of lawyers, marketing specialists, publicists, and the like, they would extinguish my fire quite quickly as they have done to so many entertainers before me. 

The more $ U have to work with, the more damage U can do to someone’s public profile. They are very well aware this fact. Additionally, big $ lawyers also have a special way to drag out court proceedings in a way that U are forced to keep your attorneys working around the clock to defend silly allegations, or even just to buy themselves more time to put their defense together. 

The whole system is set up in this way for a reason. Because it keeps people from seeking justice. It keeps the little guys like me, from having the ability to STAND, & fight the good fight. It’s much easier and more cost effective to either dismiss it entirely or settle out of court. Neither of those will bring the justice we all desire. 

Then finally we can discuss the security element. When I say I need protection, I’m not being paranoid, or acting delusional. In fact my concerns are quite valid. Point in case…. After all after all the stories I’ve heard, including the recent release of information that Weinstein hired private spies to prevent this information from becoming public, there has never been a report that he actually threatened many of his accusers with murder.

Well let me be very clear. The man at the end of this bread crumb trail, the coveted name A lister everybody wants to know about has, & does continue to threaten his victims with death. It’s actually his go to statement. Anyone that knows who I am talking about can find multiple court records in which defendants have claimed that they feared for their safety after confronting him. Point blank, he threatens people’s lives and has a history of violent behavior. 

I don’t only fear for myself, I have lived half the life I long for, but if I die on this mission, than that is Gods plan for me, but my son does not deserve this injustice. He should not have to live in fear. He should not feel threatened. But his safety is first. So I must keep him protected. So please keep in mind, even if my life isn’t worth a donation, an innocent child and an innocent woman are also in jeapordy here. Surely they deserve mercy as this isn’t their fight.

To hire security, it costs an average of $7,500 per guy per week, for armed 24 hr security. I’m pretty sure it is illegal to make someone work 24 hrs with no break, and they also cannot work 7 days with no day off. Which means I need a team of security guards to keep myself and my family safe. 

So if U do your own math, and start doing the actual numbers, it is quite easy to see I could never spend 10 Mil on just a movie. The idea would be to spend 6 Mil on the films various production phases, with 2 Mil set aside for marketing and distribution, and 2 Mil set aside for security detail spanning a 2 yr period, and a team of Lawyers to protect me at least until the film is released and can start making a profit. At which point the profit can be used to keep it in the theaters, and keep it from being banned and barred due to legalities.

If the film should do well, and make a large profit, much of the profits will be donated by me, to child rape centers, and abuse shelters. This has long been my dream. Since I was a child I dreamt of creating a safe house for children, maybe the success of this could help that dream become a reality as well.

Can I make it cheaper? Sure. And if I am forced to of course I will. But as an artist, and a visionary who has spent every day of his life in and around film sets and production meetings, I am well aware of the sacrifices I would need to make in the quality of the product I am delivering. Of course I want to make an Amazing film. With great actors, stunning cinematography, compelling musical score, and a visually engaging theater going experience. 

But more importantly this film will finally give the abused masses a voice. This film will educate people in a way no other film can. And by donating $1 or more U are showing the world which side U stand on. It doesn’t take much, to set an example. Let them know U stand with me and will no longer tolerate an industry that turns its back on the children they help raise. U will Pay $20 at the box office, to see a film made by pedos, but won’t contribute $10 to make a film exposing them? Think about that….

This is specifically why I am reaching out to fellow film makers, and Hollywood at large. Because I am quite certain there are other good people, honest men & women who are in my industry, that would care deeply about this issue and want to make a difference. This is why I’m hoping that Producers, Directors, Writers, and film Stars, should be taking action, and lending their talents, services, and financial backing, so we can proudly stand as 1 and show the world that Hollywood isn’t all bad. Stand with me and show that many of us care. Many of us have big hearts. And many of us will stand together to make a difference.

This brings me back to my original point. When I 1st announced this plan, the biggest objection was seemingly the idea that this was some sort of black mail. Detractors started saying I was demanding a pay off for doing the right thing. I was also told by countless supporters that if I were 2 start naming names & show everyone I was serious and this wasn’t about the $, it was in fact about justice, that I would have their support. 

Well we are almost 2 weeks into this campaign. I have publicly outed 2 of the 6 names, with many leads already perculating on #3. That means I have already given up half of the info to the public. I have also again given 100% of the info to the police and an official investigation has been opened. I have left myself wide open to ridicule, which several folks in both MSM & SM have taken advantage of.

Well in my estimation, we are establishing a trust. And that trust works both ways. U told me, if I proved I was sincere and this wasn’t a $ grab, that U would back my campaign and make a donation. Well I have gone above and beyond what any1 expected (including myself) at such an early stage of this campaign. 

But when I look at 136,000 followers, & see only 4,300 donors, I am starting to feel that my support is not substantial. That this trust is only working 1 way. I’m risking my life here. I’m out on a limb. I have everything to lose, & yet all I’m asking, is for each and every follower to simply donate $1! 

But at the end of the day, I truly, deeply, need your support to see this thing through. In the end, I will make work whatever I end up with, as I won’t have a choice by that point. But right now, the choice is yours. Where do U stand?

I’m not asking the average person for a million. Im asking Hollywood to spend the big $ on helping me create this project. But I know this business, & until they see 10’s of thousands of supporters, they won’t even recognize this is happening. However if each of U stood with me now, I truly believe we can change the world! We can start the wheels turning, to initialize a revolution within the film industry, to where everyone will start holding 1 another accountable for their actions.

Please realize this isn’t reality TV, this isn’t a video game, I’m a real live person, and my real life is in danger, & U all have the power 2 save my life. I’m not demanding $1,000 or even $100, or even $10 from any of U except love and support! 

For all the 4,300 who have already donated, I’m not asking for anything more. I appreciate and LOVE each and every 1 of U already. Nothing 2 prove! 

But each of U donating $1 can help my family stay safe, at least long enough to get the #TRUTH out in the open, where it belongs! But more importantly, when U donate U make a statement that U stand on the side of all that is good and pure and just. 

Strength comes in numbers. Remember, this isn’t a war against Hollywood. This is a war against corruption of the highest order because of a few bad people who must be rooted out of the industry. This is the war of Good and Evil! I implore U to stand with me.

Please donate today! 

God Bless us all!


Well, by now Corey Feldman has named two more of his molesters while the LA police department dropped his case as the statute of limitations has long expired. This left Corey Feldman all alone again and prompted him to say on Twitter:

“Maybe now you will believe me when I say I need to do it my way: LAPD Not investigating Corey Feldman’s Abuse Claims”

Yohana Desta of says that Corey would be willing to drop his movie project if a major legal counsel represents him pro bono, if he has armed security free and if his campaign is supported by the top people in the entertainment industry. However all of it is yet nowhere to be seen in close vicinity.

“At the moment, there are a few things that would convince Feldman to drop his movie campaign and publicly reveal the names on his list: a major legal counsel offering free services, free armed guards, and vocal support from powerful people in the entertainment industry. He doesn’t have any of those yet—but he’s not feeling sorry for himself. “It’s time to heal those old wounds,” he says, “and move forward.”

As to the “vocal support from powerful people in the entertainment industry” I am somewhat skeptical about it – even the most powerful may be unwilling to confront others and rake up this dirt.

But the support of ordinary people who want to protect their innocent ones or at least raise awareness about the problem can be no less powerful than that of Hollywood guys.

I wish Corey Feldman every success possible and am also dreaming of the times when we could watch movies without shuddering at the thought of what is going on behind the scenes…

UPDATED November 22, 2017

I’ve decided to update the post with some of my latest comments.  The first is a transcript of the tape of Sergeant Deborah Linden and Detective Russ Birchim interviewing Corey Feldman in December 1993. Corey was 22 at the time.

Please note that instead of listening to Corey it was them who tried to convince him that Michael was guilty of a “wrong” kind of love.

Here is the partial transcript of that tape:

Voiceover: Cops seemed determined to get Corey to say that he was molested by Michael Jackson.

Corey: “Nothing ever happened with Michael.”

He didn’t molest him, but they didn’t seem to care.

You are listening to an interview between Corey Feldman and Santa Barbara sheriffs obtained exclusively by “Celebrity Justice”, recorded in December 1993. In it Corey says not once, but numerous times that his friend Michael Jackson, whom he hang out with, didn’t do anything improper with him.

Corey: “If there was something that I’d been hiding for all these years, then I would want nothing more than to bring it right now”

Sgt. Linden: “What concerns me about it is that if there is something happening, if something did happen that you’re not telling us, is that you wouldn’t because of that.”

Corey: “No. I can’t put myself in the position of thinking “Would I or wouldn’t I?” because nothing happened!”

Corey told the investigators that he had sleepovers with Jackson. .. He said they checked into a hotel near the amusement park.

Corey: “There was one bed in the room and he asked for a cot to be brought up. He got the cot up there and we talked for a little while until we got tired and he insisted that I slept on the bed and he took the cot because he didn’t feel it was polite for him to take the bed”

But Corey repeatedly insisted to the sceptical cops that nothing happened – not then and not at the time he spent at Jackson’s Encino home.

Corey: “We stayed up all night and talked and did stuff. We prayed together before we went to sleep and he was wearing his pajamas. And I was wearing my pajamas.”

Corey: “We took a jacuzzi… nothing happened.”

Sgt. Linden: “What were you guys wearing?”

Corey: “Bathing suits… I think he had an extra pair of trunks that he threw me”

Corey insists: “He never did anything out of line. I mean, anything… you know. I mean the closest he ever came to touching me was like maybe slapping me on the leg once, you know, talking about that I had lost weight.”

Shockingly, Corey said that he had been molested, but not by Jackson.

Corey: “I myself was molested, so I know what it feels like to go through those feelings and believe me, the person who molested me, if this was him that did that to me, this would be a different story. I would be out there, up front, doing something immediately to have this man given what was due to him.”

Even more shockingly, Corey actually named his alleged abuser but the detectives seemed to express no interest in investigating the man. The cops seemed to only have eyes for Jackson.

Sgt. Linden: “We’ve interviewed a lot of people and we’re still doing that. We have not uncovered things that would clear him right now”

Russ Birchim (at about 5:05): “We hear a lot of stuff about how Michael would never hurt any children. Of course he wouldn’t. He loves kids, he’s not gonna hurt them…not physically. I don’t think if Michael’s molesting kids, he’s doing it because he wants to hurt them. He’s doing it because he loves them.”

The short of the above is that a real victim of molestation insists that Michael never did anything wrong, but they know better and tell him that he did, giving their own “explanation” for what actually never happened.


And here is a small tip on how to tell real child abuse victims from the fake ones set on smearing Jackson.

Please remember that the situation of Gavin Arvizo and Jason Francia “victims” in Michael Jackson’s case was the opposite of that of the real victims who are now fearful to speak against their powerful abusers.

The names of their abusers are unknown.
Their misconduct was never investigated.
If their victim wanted to go on record, the media informed the perpetrator in advance (see Weinstein’s example for that).
The police could easily ignore the complaint (see Corey Feldman’s example).
The story was either hushed up or the victim was threatened with a multi-million lawsuit.
And no one wanted a scandal.

And in Michael Jackson’s case everyone wanted it – the media, public and prosecution.
The so-called victims were met with open arms and applauded by everyone.
And it was those who refused to tell lies about Jackson who were ridiculed and vilified in the press.

So the big difference is that real victims need courage to ACCUSE their abusers.
And in Michael Jackson’s case real courage was required to DEFEND him.


Michael Jackson’s Difference

August 29, 2017

Today Michael Jackson would have turned 59. It is more than eight years since his untimely death and yet the saga of his character assassination is far from being over.

Michael Jackson’s Estate has a very clear case against Robson and Safechuck and their slow but sure battle against these liars will one day put a stop to the profitable business of various rogues trying to make millions just by making false allegations against Michael.

This will be a welcome change as it will at least prevent the future fortune seekers from trying to make their living by accusing Michael Jackson of anything they want.


However even if the Estate’s legal battle is a success, the main problem will still remain there – Michael’s name will still be tarnished and the public will still be undecided as to who is right here.

Haters will claim that Robson’s and Safechuck’s case is legitimate and that they lost it due to a mere technicality – MJ’s companies had no control over their boss and cannot be found liable for the acts he might or might not have committed.

And as regards this latter point haters will be correct– the fact of non-responsibility has been perfectly clear from the start of it and one can only wonder why it is taking so long to prove so obvious a point.

Another point that makes you wonder is who is paying the liars’ attorneys for so prolonged a battle. Safechuck’s lawsuit, for example, has already been dismissed, but now he has filed an appeal and hired a special appeal lawyer to handle it. The appeal is costly business as I hear and this makes me suspect that there is someone behind the scenes who is paying the lawyers to keep the circus going.

In fact all the twists and turns to the case suggest that it is being intentionally prolonged and that the endlessness of the project is a separate goal in and of itself. The simple-minded actors went for the plan hoping for a quick settlement, while those who masterminded the project could have far-reaching plans and certainly don’t mind if the case lasts forever – because the longer it is, the longer Michael’s name is trashed and the more seeds of doubt are sown.

And this has been going on for 35 years now – generations come and go, and it is only Michael Jackson’s “case” that is still there.

So let us ask ourselves a simple question – is there a way to prove once and for all that Michael was not what his haters try to portray him to be?

I think there is a way to prove it, and in order to do that we need to turn to Anne Salter and listen to what she has to say on the subject – no, not about Michael Jackson, but about real sex predators.


Who is Anne Salter?

Dr. Anne Salter is the favorite source of Michael Jackson’s detractors. Her official bio says that she is a licensed clinical psychologist who received her Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology and Public Practice from Harvard University.

She is also the author of the best-selling book, Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders, Who They Are, How They Operate, and How We Can Protect Ourselves and Our Children about which she gave an interview to Sott Radio Network in 2013.

Dr. Salter’s biography says that she also provides expert testimony in high-profile criminal trials in the US, has addressed major conference groups throughout the world and has been the recipient of numerous grants for research on sexual offenders. In 1997, Dr. Salter was honored by The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) with their Significant Lifetime Achievement Award.

In short Dr. Anne Salter is one of the most qualified experts to approach if we want to know what real child abusers are like and how they operate.

Now why do Michael Jackson’s detractors like quoting Dr. Anne Salter?

The reason is because some of her statements formally look applicable to MJ and his behavior.

Then what is the detractors’ problem with Dr. Salter?

Their problem is that they can quote her only selectively and cannot mention her main argument which makes it clear that any superficial semblance of Michael Jackson to those “others” is invalid if her main argument, testifying to his innocence, is completely ignored. In fact her main conclusion regarding real child abusers is in direct contradiction with everything Michael Jackson ever did and said.

And what is her main conclusion?

The very short of it is that all sex offenders look so ‘normal’ that there is no way to tell them from really normal people. There is no universal pattern and no universal rule to apply to them that will make them easily recognizable from the usual crowd.

Dr. Salter says:

I had a neighbour come over and say “I don’t worry about this Anna, I can spot a paedophile”. And I said “Really? Because I can’t”. And she said “Oh sure you can. You’ve been working in this field for years, you write these books, you write academic books, you write mysteries about them. Sure you can spot them”. And I said “You know what my 30 years has brought? I know I can’t and you think you can”. And I truly believe that, I can’t spot them anymore than anybody else can. Anymore a doctor can spot which patient walking in his or her office has AIDS. The doctors know that and we seem to find it hard to believe.

Dr. Salter explains that all child abusers are successful in projecting an image of fine, upstanding citizens. All of them are trusted by those around them and nearly all are praised for their fine Christian testimony.

Predators keep up an appearance of kindness and likability. < > Likability is such a potent weapon that it protects predators for long periods of time and through almost incomprehensible numbers of victims. Mr. Saylor, an athletic director in an elementary school, operated undisturbed for almost twenty years. He tells me there is almost no limit to the number of molestations that one can get away with. (Salter, p. 26)

We expect child molesters to be monsters. It seems to be contrary to human nature to think that people who project “niceness” and normality could harbor such dark secrets. “But it is a misconception that child molesters are somehow different from the rest of us, outside their proclivities to molest. They can be loyal friends, good employees, and responsible members of the community in other ways” (Salter, p. 47).”

But Dr. Salter’s main observation is that though child molesters may be indistinguishable from the normal crowd all of them possess one common trait which is totally indispensable to their trade. The feature common to them is that all of them are exceptional liars who never do or say anything that may reveal their true nature and put them at the risk of being exposed.

They masquerade their evil intentions so skillfully that it makes them the last people to suspect and it is exactly their seeming normality and socially accepted behavior which is the reason why they manage to get away with their crimes for so long.

The problem is that child molesters take special care to never give themselves away by a single move or word. When asked about any patterns or rules in their behavior found as a result of her 30 years of research Dr. Salter said:

“The only rule for deception in sex offenders I have ever found is this: If it is in the offender’s best interests to lie, and if he can do it and not get caught, he will lie. “

Okay, but this idea is well-known to everyone, so what’s so new about it?

What’s new about it and why it is fully exonerating Michael Jackson dawned on me only when I was listening to Charles Thomson’s interview with Ryan Michaels on his show “Reason Bound” recorded on June 13th this summer.

The interview was called “Episode 058 – Vindication Day Special (Pirates in Neverland: The Michael Jackson Allegations)” and here is the full podcast to listen to (please don’t miss the comments section as the discussion was continued there too).


The subject of that particular episode was the child abuse allegations leveled at Michael Jackson throughout his life.

Ryan Michaels, the host of the show and his guest, a well-known journalist Charles Thomson discussed the allegations following the show’s usual parameters which are “looking at what people believe, why they believe it, and the importance of being able to recognise good and bad arguments.”

The two journalists discussed the most vulnerable points of Michael Jackson’s case, testing the theories and arguments that bother both Michael’s fans and his detractors.

Naturally, the hottest point of the discussion was the “bed-sharing” issue which Michael never kept a secret of and even insisted that it was the most loving thing to do towards others, children in particular.

Michael Jackson’s fans know that he used this term meaning to say that he was always ready to give his bed to others while he would sleep on the floor or  a couch nearby (as was indeed often the case).

But most people understand Michael’s statements as sleeping in one bed with a child, and it is in this (actually wrong) context that the two journalists discussed it and heavily criticized Michael.

Here are a couple of quotes from their dialog:

RYAN MICHAELS at about 12:35: “Why would you as a grown adult think it’s a good idea to sleep with kids in bed? It looks bad. It looks really, really bad.  It’s a hard thing to relate to…”

CHARLES THOMSON: “I’m not here to defend the idea in principle. Clearly it is a very irrational and stupid thing to do. The arguments of MJ fans are as irrational as those of his detractors – “He grew up in one house with nine kids in one bedroom, bla-bla-bla…”. But by the time this happened he lived in Neverland. Perhaps it may be excused as naivety and having never lived in the real world the first time round, but to go and do it again after 1993 was insane.”

(Note: According to Frank Cascio MJ never did it again and if he did, it was always in the presence of other adults as a precautionary measure meant for his own safety. In fact Frank Cascio was in the same room when Gavin Arvizo slept in Michael’s bed which was on one occasion only if I remember it right)

RYAN MICHAELS at about 19:55: “ During the 60 minutes during the trial Ed Bradley and Diane Sawyer prior had said in an interview with Lisa Marie Presley – both of them had said that this is a sticking point for a lot of people. “Are you going to keep doing it or are you going to stop? Are you going to continue sleeping in bed with kids?” And Michael’s attitude was: “You are the sick one. I am not doing anything wrong.” [laughter]

Ryan Michaels recalled seeing MJ on TV in the 1990s and him always being followed by a parade of children. This also made him wonder:

RYAN MICHAELS at about 25:15: “Every time I saw him he was with a parade of children. I remember thinking – what exactly is going on here?”

The two journalists diligently explored various theories why Michael had always been seen in the company of children and regularly talked about “sharing his bed” with others, as well as the arguments of MJ’s fans and his detractors, and what Michael himself said to defend his lifestyle.

Their conclusion was that while initially Michael’s behavior could be attributed to his naivety, his later insistence on it was insane and destructive for his own self, and in justifying his behavior his fans act as irrationally as his detractors do.

In the comments on the show the fans explained that they were not justifying anything, but simply understood where Michael was coming from, and though I completely agree with the fans (and partially with the journalists), it was at this point that I realized that all of us are looking in the wrong direction.

The main thing to discuss is not why Michael did this or that, but the fact that he kept talking about it.

And it is not that important whether his explanations were naïve or his actions looked strange to the outside world. The main thing is that he talked about it, and this is all there is to it.

The real offenders lie, pretend and feign disinterest in children, turning their vice into a closely guarded secret – and he talked, talked and talked about sharing a bed with a child (!) trying to make his point clear to everyone with whatever unconventional, naive and probably even silly arguments he had to make.

If he had been as lying and manipulative as Dr. Salter says all predators are, he would have never given a single clue to anyone that he was even interested in children. If he had really been like “them”, he would have chosen a profession that gives easy access to children, and would have pretended to be “kind” and “caring” towards them. However all of it would have been strictly within the socially acceptable limits and would have never raised the slightest suspicion, because it is exactly their ability to look normal that makes them so difficult to catch.

And Michael’s views on children were like an open book. What was written in that book was surprising and even shocking to some, but his fundamental difference from all those “others” is that his book was wide open for everyone to read.

People can argue about Michael’s views and can criticize, ridicule, get annoyed and even hate him for breaking the acceptable social norms, but they cannot deny that he never hid his attitude towards children and his love for them from public view.

And this is the only thing that matters here, guys.

“They” seek sex, but pretend that they are not interested.

And he sought and shared love and never thought it necessary to pretend that he didn’t.

In fact, the strangest thing of all is that if Michael had pretended the same way as real offenders do, people would have understood it. This is because a criminal pattern of behavior is understandable to us even if we talk about it in theory only. And according to this pattern if someone has criminal intentions he simply must keep it a secret, and if he doesn’t and even openly parades some unusual behavior, people will look at him as a totally immoral gangster, or someone mad, or …. an innocent guy who simply never learned the social rules of behavior and doesn’t know how to behave himself in public.

For various reasons neither of those variants (an utterly lost soul, madness and complete innocence) quite fit the image of Michael Jackson created for the public by the media and prosecution, and it was actually the mystery that Michael Jackson presented that was so terribly overwhelming for the majority of people.

And this means that people hated Michael most because they couldn’t understand him.

And they couldn’t understand him because he was indeed a different kind and it is his difference that they found disturbing and baffling, and this is what they hated and ridiculed most.

And why, oh why doesn’t this reason sound to me as nothing novel at all?

Summer 2017 events in the Michael Jackson history – a brief insight

August 9, 2017

The time between June and August this year was not without excitement in the MJ world, and the fact that we didn’t address here everything that happened doesn’t mean we are not interested or don’t regard it as significant. However, since we are not in the position to write extensively about all developments in our current lives, we decided to make a summary post on a few interesting developments and otherwise refer you to our fellow MJ bloggers who addressed the latest events in more detail.


Searching for NeverlandIn early summer a TV movie titled “Michael Jackson: Searching for Neverland”, based on the book “Remember the Time” of two of Jackson’s bodyguards, aired in the US.

I would like to refer you to Raven’s review on Allforlove blog, which expresses largely my opinion: “It is a satisfying recount of one particular chapter in his life”. It’s important to emphasize that the book as well as the film is focused on the last 1½ years in MJ’s life and does not reflect his whole life and career. But altogether the film is respectful and shows understanding for the situation Michael was in during that time.

The full movie can be watched here (in minor quality).


In a recent US TV series called “The Jury Speaks” one episode was about the 2005 Michael Jackson trial. It can be watched on YouTube meanwhile.

Paulina Coccoz

Paulina Coccoz

I personally doubt that this episode helped a lot to vindicate Michael, and I don’t like at all how the Jackson episode was promoted by the Oxygen channel, though it provided a few important details the public may not have known before. The good thing that came from it was the interview Paulina Coccoz, one of the jurors, gave to Fox News in this context, where she pointed out why she would again vote “not guilty”:

“It was pretty obvious that there was no molestation done,” she said. “It was pretty obvious that there were ulterior motives on behalf of the family. And the mother, she orchestrated the whole thing…that’s my opinion. But there wasn’t a shred of evidence that was able to show us or give us any doubt in voting guilty. It was pretty obvious there was no other way to vote other than not guilty.”

Thanks to sanemjfan for the information! More information can also be found on AFLB.


However, the most important and also anticipated development for us is the dismissal of the Safechuck case which nurtures the hope that the Robson case will be dismissed as well. The Jane Doe case had already been dismissed in May this year. And indeed, it’s about time that the judge makes an end to this farce. The information together with court documents for both cases became available from the dailymichael website, and we are glad that they provided the documents for all of us, although some of them (especially Joy Robson’s deposition) are not complete and we have only excerpts.

Among the excerpts is also part of the deposition of Jolie Levine who was Michael Jackson’s assistant between 1987 and 1988 and who was included in Jimmy Safechuck’s claim as somebody he wanted to hold responsible for his alleged abuse. Helena wrote a post on her some time ago and how she was used by Michael’s haters for their agenda. If you read the post again you will see that Helena already had assumed she was misinterpreted by MJ haters, by the media and by an author who wrote a book full of lies in 1994.

Now her deposition of January 11, 2017, confirmed Helena’s assumptions. She clearly says:

“I never believed that he was a pedophile and I still do not believe that Michael was – is a – was a pedophile.”

From the Jolie Levine deposition:

Jolie Levine deposition

Jolie Levine clearly defended Michael Jackson against the accusations and was of no help to Safechuck’s lawyers. She also told in the deposition that she always packed and unpacked Michael’s hotel rooms during the BAD Tour and never saw any pornography or nude photos of children.


The excerpts of Joy Robson’s deposition of September 30, 2016, are quite interesting and raise several questions. Some have already made the rounds on MJ forums, so I think meanwhile we are not telling you anything new when we present her assessment of her own son as being so convincing in his denial of abuse that he deserves an Oscar for it. In her deposition she repeated 4 times that Wade was so convincing in 1993 as well as in 2005 that she never had any reason to doubt what he said.

Joy Robson deposition 1

Many pages of her deposition are missing, but I wonder if she was asked whether these very convincing lies aren’t more likely to happen now in this current case, when Wade is an angry adult man and not a boy anymore, whose alleged coaching would have been a huge element of uncertainty for Michael. Now that Michael Jackson is dead, lying is much easier than at the time when Wade had to withstand the tough questioning of prosecutors in a much publicized, high profile criminal trial. In any case, his mother admitted that he can be a very convincing Oscar-worthy liar.

It also becomes strikingly clear from the excerpts how disappointed the Robsons often had been with Michael “not fulfilling his promises”, after they moved to the US. It becomes obvious that there is a motivation for jealousy and anger, perhaps even revenge, because according to Joy Robson Michael not only didn’t keep promises regarding Wade’s career, but also was working or spending time with other boys he included in his short films, and didn’t prefer Wade as they had wished.

Joy Robson’s statements:

Joy Robson deposition 2

Joy Robson told that they came to the Unites States in the first place because Michael Jackson “made promises”.

Then they realized Michael didn’t fulfill his promises as they expected. It was not enough for them that they were employed by Michael and that he worked a lot with Wade, paid for dance classes and helped him buy recording equipment. No, they wanted to receive a meal ticket for life and they wanted to be the only ones – and found out that there were other families Michael cared about, too.

Well, how does this statement of Joy Robson fit in Robson’s accusations: “And when we came here, he [MJ] was more interested in Macaulay Culkin from the get-go.”?  – So he wasn’t very interested in Wade Robson even from the start, when they moved to the US?

How does this explain the alleged abuse? And how does Michael not keeping his promises and not returning their calls explain the grooming allegation and the claim of the accusers that he flattered, supported and sponsored the boys and their families in return for abuse? According to Joy Robson this “compensation” obviously didn’t happen!

She even told that Michael “forgot to call Wade”! So how does this explain the alleged regular coaching and grooming on the phone when Michael constantly forgot to call Wade? And when should the alleged regular abuse have occurred at all when the access to Michael was so difficult? From Joy’s deposition we have to assume that there was a huge lack of interest and time on Michael’s side towards Wade, which is not in accordance with Wade’s allegations.

Joy Robson deposition 3

Joy Robson tells that she had to call again and again until she finally received an answer from Norma Staikos in the last minute that they could come to Chicago to participate in the “Jam” video. – And to their disappointment “once again Brett Barnes was there”! So it seems Brett Barnes repeatedly was there first and was preferred, too? What does this tell us? This sounds like it created a huge amount of jealousy and frustration.

Could it be that Wade Robson wouldn’t even appear in the “Jam” video, if Joy hadn’t kept calling to remind Michael of him?

To me it now looks like the Robsons also expected a life-long subsistance from a cooperation of Michael and Wade in the entertainment industry – like the Chandlers and the Arvizos did -, which didn’t come true. And now Wade also wanted his share of the cake, after he didn’t get the job at Cirque du Soleil. This must have been a huge humiliation for him after supporting Michael so many years and in the 2005 trial. I believe we even can’t imagine how disappointed he must have been and what this caused him to come up with. Wade felt immensely neglected by Michael through all these years and now by his Estate, and the rejection in the CdS show must have come as a surprise for him and was the last straw to break the camel’s back.


John Branca says in his June 15 declaration for the court that he understands the nature of Wade Robson’s allegations in this case. His statement makes clear what he thinks Wade is driven by, and I think he is perfectly right:

“I understand the nature of Wade Robson’s allegations in this case. I knew Michael Jackson for roughly thirty years. I am not interested in dignifying Robson’s allegations by discussing them, except to say that I am fully convinced that they are absolutely false. Before Robson came forward with his current allegations against Michael Jackson, I met personally with Robson in 2011 in my office in Century City. Robson met with me in order to discuss the interest in being hired to help choreograph a Michael Jackson themed Cirque du Soleil show. At no time in our meeting did Robson ever intimate that he had any negative feelings towards Michael Jackson whatsoever. On the contrary: he was very excited about the possibility of being hired to help choreograph a Michael Jackson themed show. Ultimately, he was not hired to work on the show.

John Branca declaration

For further information on the Robson and Safechuck cases please check the dailymichael website.


There is certainly much more to say regarding these documents, and we hope to be able to set things straight on a lot of the allegations included in the Robson and Safechuck claims, at least when the Robson case is also dismissed, but for the moment we leave it at that.


Hopefully to be continued…


Another round of Michael Jackson FAKE NEWS to be expected this month

June 7, 2017

As the 8th anniversary of Michael Jackson’s death lies ahead of us, we can expect another round of fake news to be spread in tabloids, as is usual on this kind of Michael Jackson key dates. One of them was already announced some weeks ago in an article on the Daily Mail Online site about Michael Jacobshagen who apparently was interviewed by Daphne Barak for an Australian TV show.

The article told that the interview would be aired around Michael Jackson’s death anniversary this year, which is June 25.

For those who don’t know these two names, let me tell you that Daphne Barak calls herself an “international interviewer” and has a long history of harassing Michael Jackson and trying to interview him. Michael even once fled from her in a Las Vegas hotel when his father reportedly had promised Barak an interview with Michael which he didn’t want to do.

Michael Jacobshagen is a German young man who once met Michael as a boy, spent at most a few weeks with him during the History Tour and now claims to have been a friend of Michael Jackson over two decades and tries to make money with interviews about Jackson, most of them peppered with untruths or stories he cannot know.


Let’s first have a short look at Daphne Barak and remember some information we already gathered on her. What kind of “interviewer” she is was told in this post of Helena.


Daphne Barak – here with Tom Barrack who belonged to Donald Trump’s campaign team and was chairman of his Inaugural Committee.

It is clear Michael Jackson didn’t like her because she harassed him, was only interested in sensations and turned everything she heard about him into lies.

In another post about an interview she did with Aaron Carter Helena already told in 2011:

“Daphne Barak had an interview with Aaron Carter in 2011,  on the eve of the 2nd anniversary of Michael’s death.

All the circumstances came in extremely handy – Carter was straight from a rehab and was working on a new album (which naturally needed promotion). This was very convenient a pretext for a conversation which could cover up for the real goal of the conversation – to extract from him as much as possible about Michael Jackson and create a smear story right for the time of the anniversary.

Besides all the harm she previously did to Michael Jackson Daphne Barak has been consistently pursuing this goal for the last three years. She marked every May or June since Michael’s death with a regular story about him being “a lost soul” in terms of narcotics.”

In the first of the three years Helena talked about, in 2009, Daphne Barak spread the lie of the so-called “regular pumping of Michael’s stomach for drugs” and attributed the story to nanny Grace Rwaramba.
In 2010 she was the source for the dubious tapes where someone sounding like Michael Jackson under the effect of drugs talked to the answering machine of an unnamed “friend”.
And in 2011 she spread the ugly story of Aaron Carter’s “interview” hinting at Jackson’s drug addiction and “inappropriate behavior” with youngsters.

(Please read the rest of the post to educate yourself about this woman!)

…and here we are again with new lies from her to “celebrate” Michael’s death anniversary.

This article confirms our findings. Daphne Barak is called there “a meddling tabloid vulture masquerading as a journalist” – obviously a very suitable description.

The above mentioned Daily Mail article of May 7, 2017, on the interview with Jacobshagen probably remained unnoticed by most MJ fans and readers, as apart from the British Daily Mail it spread only in a series of third-class online tabloids, though on an international basis. And we were thinking about whether we should give attention to this “news” at all, because Jacobshagen is not an important figure in Michael Jackson’s life story and loves the attention of tabloids. But there are so blatant lies in it that we cannot ignore it as MJ bloggers fighting for the truth, the more so as the article announced a TV broadcasting in “Australia, the US and other markets” in June.


Before we go into some of the details of the article let’s have a short look at Jacobshagen and how he presents himself.

According to his own earlier statements he met Michael only in his childhood: First once in 1995 in Paris at Disneyland, then during the History Tour in Germany in 1997 and again in 1998 for two weeks in Munich. Not all of it is proven and we don’t know exactly at which times they met, but altogether they spent at most a few weeks together between 1995 and 1998.

That’s what he told himself very vaguely after Michael Jackson’s death when he started to give interviews for tabloids and presented his self-published book “Will you be my friend”.

He also told several tabloids that Prince and Paris are not Michael’s biological children and talked about Michael’s drug addiction, as if he had any first-hand information on that, claiming he was a close confidant of the Jackson family.

He is also the one who became well-known among the fanbase for letting a German tabloid reporter into Michael’s mausoleum at Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Glendale in 2014, when somebody gave him the code word to get inside.

Some time later he began to “extend” his relationship with Michael and now tells regularly he was his close friend for decades. Meanwhile his website where he promoted his book is down, so we cannot see anymore what he told there earlier.

But an article of 2013 in the German tabloid “Bild” based on an interview at the time told that the last phone call between Jackson and Jacobshagen was in 2001 and there was no more contact afterwards.

2017-05-31 09_59_35-Jacko-Junge Jacobshagen_ Nach 15 Jahren an Michaels Grab - Leute -

“After a last phone call in 2001 he and the superstar had no more contact.”


All the more disturbing is what he apparently told now Daphne Barak in the above mentioned interview of May 2017. So let’s look at the details and ask a couple of questions.

The article says:

“Michael Jackson predicted he would be murdered in handwritten notes he gave to a friend weeks before his death of a drug overdose in 2009.” []

“Jacobshagen tells Barak how a fearful Jackson called him from a Las Vegas hideaway. The star was preparing for a tour at London’s O2 but begged his friend to fly from Germany to the US to be with him.” []

“After he flew out and spent three days with the troubled star, Jackson handed Jacobshagen the notes. Jacobshagen said that the notes kept telling him ‘they’ were trying to murder Jackson.”

Okay, according to this article Jacobshagen told Barak that he was called by Jackson “weeks before his death” to tell him that he feared he would be murdered, and that Jacobshagen then flew to the US and spent 3 days with Jackson.

How is this possible when nobody ever talked about it before? The weeks before Jackson’s death were dissected during the Murray and AEG trials. Somebody would have known that this German young man met Michael, at least his children. They never talked about having seen Michael Jacobshagen.

Michael had a very tight schedule during his final months in Los Angeles. There was no time for a 3 day timeout to meet secretly with Jacobshagen (without his children?). And MJ would never have turned confidentially with his problems to someone he once met as a boy in the 90ies for a few weeks and who played no further part in his life. This is a big fat lie! There was no meeting of the two weeks before Jackson died. And there was no contact between them in the last years of his life.

Moreover, Michael was not in a “Las Vegas hideaway” in his last weeks. He had left Las Vegas at the end of 2008 and was in Los Angeles to prepare for the London tour. In addition, it was documented in the trials that Murray “treated” Michael on a daily basis in his LA mansion beginning in April 2009 until his death. And what about the bodyguards who were around him permanently? So when would Jacobshagen have had the opportunity to be alone with Michael for 3 days, away from his children? What a nonsense!

“The letters will bolster the belief of many, including Jackson’s daughter Paris and sister LaToya, that the King of Pop was unlawfully killed.

In the 13 messages he declared: ‘They are trying to murder me’ and ‘I’m scared about my life’.

Their existence has been revealed for the first time by German businessman Michael Jacobshagen, 34 – who maintained a two-decade-long friendship with the star – in an interview with broadcaster Daphne Barak for Australian TV show Sunday Night.”

The proof for the existence of these “13 messages” has so far not been presented by Jacobshagen. It remains to be seen if they are shown in the TV show. But it won’t still be a proof that they were handed to him by Michael personally. In an earlier interview of February this year (also in German) Jacobshagen told that he received the notes from Michael’s mother:

2017-05-31 10_06_18-Michael Jackson_ Bestätigen Geheimnotizen die Mord-Theorie_ _ Stars

“Jacobshagen states that Michael’s mother gave him the notes in mid-2015 so that he could ‘bring the truth to light.'”

Michael always wrote notes, some already have become public, so whether Katherine Jackson gave Jacobshagen some notes or whether he made them completely up we don’t know exactly, but he certainly didn’t receive them from Michael personally in 2009.

If true, also the question arises why Jacobshagen didn’t hand the notes over to the police or the prosecutors when Michael died and a trial against Murray was scheduled? Why didn’t he immediately talk about it when Michael’s death became reality after his alleged cries for help to his so-called friend? Why only now after 8 years? The answer is clear: Because he didn’t have them.

Why do all these people, who after Michael’s death suddenly claim to have knowledge of explosive information, only go to the media now instead of acting in time to inform someone in charge? Is all this “information” only worth the money they can get for it? Or is it still profitable to make up stories after all these years?

And by the way, Michael Jackson was “unlawfully killed” – that’s nothing new, because somebody was convicted for that. The authors of this “news” apparently regard Murray’s conviction as something without significance.

“The singer never clarified who ‘they’ were but some notes refer to concert promoters AEG, which was organizing concerts in London that he was shortly due to perform.”

Why should Michael give Jacobshagen these notes at all when he could talk to him personally? Doesn’t make sense! When I can talk to somebody in person to tell him my fears (for 3 days!) I don’t need to give him some cryptic notes which Jacobshagen obviously even has to interpret himself. Why didn’t he ask Jackson who “they” were if he had the opportunity to talk to him so extensively without being disturbed by Michael’s kids?

And why then didn’t he help his “friend” in a way Michael would have expected him to? Wouldn’t he have talked to him and confided in him for a reason – if true?

“He says he has gone public with the notes now to support Jackson’s daughter Paris, 19, who recently claimed her father was murdered.”

I would like to ask the young man if he really thinks he can support Paris with a lie?

Paris doesn’t know him, she was born in the year Jacobshagen claims to have been together with Michael for two weeks in Munich (1998). She definitely doesn’t need this kind of dubious support.

Jacobshagen always defended Jackson against the molestation allegations, but if he tells egregious lies at the same time, how can he be a trustworthy source?

Given that Jacobshagen only speaks very poor English, I first thought there is a possibility that parts of this story were made up by Daphne Barak or the media reporting it (wouldn’t be a surprise). But this Facebook post of Jacobshagen (screenshot) proves that it is his own story he is trying to spread (even some MJ fans fall for him):

2017-05-23 15_52_11-(96) Michael Jacobshagen - Beiträge

Apart from his terrible English to me his post also shows signs of narcissism, overconfidence and presumptuousness and a lost touch with reality.

And it is interesting that even Daphne Barak seemed to have this impression at first. On April 11 she posted spontaneously together with a link to a stupid article about Blanket Jackson on Twitter:

“AND ..We had a nutty person, claiming to have “Never Seen Letters from Michael ..” Can you believe it? A nut case with zero morals. SAD.2017-05-29 16_22_08-Daphne Barak auf Twitter_ _AND ..We had a nutty person claiming to have _Never

Who else could she mean than Michael Jacobshagen? She first called him “a nutty person” and “a nut case with zero morals”, and then a couple of days later she obviously changed her mind and took him seriously? What a great team!


Our post is meant to clarify for our readers that this story is bogus. Since we have to expect that these lies will spread on TV on the anniversary of Michael’s death we want to put things straight before it happens. We devoted ourselves to the truth and will always expose the lies that are told in connection with Michael Jackson.

Yes, Michael Jackson was killed – first of all by Conrad Murray who literally took his life. And he was killed as well by all those who put pressure on him, above all AEG Live in his final weeks, but also those who brought him in a situation of accepting another concert series – DA Sneddon, the accusers, the media, self-serving advisors and business men, etc. – like for example Colony Capital (now Colony NorthStar) with boss Tom Barrack, with whom Daphne Barak is obviously friends, ignoring that he was part of those putting pressure on Jackson.

But we still haven’t seen any proof, including Jacobshagen, that there was a conspiracy by certain powers with the intention to murder him. Now Jacobshagen wants to bolster this idea with false evidence. This doesn’t work!

He should learn that lies never work to defend the truth!

He should learn that lies destroy trust.

He will never be a trustworthy person to defend Michael Jackson because he already has told too many lies.

What a shame how some “friends” sell Michael’s trust for money!

And what a shame they cooperate with media people who already told enough lies about Michael!


UPDATE July 9, 2017

We have to inform our readers that Michael Jacobshagen contacted us on the blog by mail and threatened to sue us for defamation if we don’t remove this post.

We agreed to remove his photo in this post (which was taken by a journalist) for copyright reasons, but we see no reason to remove the post itself.

The reason why the accusation of defamation makes no sense lies in the fact that he made different statements himself as to when he had his last contact with Michael Jackson, so we only draw conclusions from his own statements, made for example in this interview with a German fan site where he was asked about his last contact with Jackson and answered: “Im Jahr 2001 war das letzte ausführliche Gespräch.“ Tanslation: The last detailed conversation was in 2001.

We offered him to present his side of the story by adding his explanations and answers to our questions in this update, so the readers can decide themselves if he delivers credible answers.



Hollywood and Michael Egan, Wade Robson and Michael Jackson – THE GUILTY and THE INNOCENT

February 15, 2017

Imagine yourself in a big hall full of people where you can see only one person. Where are you?

You are at a show where someone is placed in the spotlight and all the others are in the dark – both the spectators and the production team all the more so. The show organizers are actually behind the curtain or elsewhere and there is little chance that you will ever see them at all.



This picture is what sex-abuse allegations against one person familiar to us are all about. The organizers forced him into the limelight – all the time staying behind the scenes – and the audience is watching the show from the semi-darkness they are in. The show has been on since it started in 1993 if not earlier.

All the time while this man was kept in this torturous spotlight he was examined on a daily basis and was scrutinized from every possible side by the media and every law enforcement body existing in the country, including the FBI. This went on for at least sixteen years until his death and is still going on until today, for more than two decades now.

During this time the public heard nothing but he-said-she-said stories from various con artists, all of which crashed with a big bang during the 2005 trial when the jury looked into everything the prosecution had collected against him for the previous years but still acquitted him on all counts.

Now another pair of con artists made their appearance, one of whom is not even shy to call himself ‘a master of deception’. Twelve years ago, when being under oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth he told his innocent story with an easy and unaffected smile, and now with the same easy smile he is shrugging his shoulders and proclaiming the opposite – and we are still sitting in the semi-darkness and are still watching the show.


Who do you think this man is? Jimmy Savile? Jerry Sandusky? Someone from Hollywood?

Certainly not. We are sure of it because even if we have no idea which of these people are guilty or innocent the fate of this man is absolutely different from the enjoyable and carefree way these guys lived their lives. His every action was in constant limelight, while the deeds of these people were in complete shade leaving them free to do whatever they liked for many, many years.

So though the allegations against this man and the others may look the same, the media and law enforcement approach to them was dramatically different, and this is why there is no point in even trying to compare the incomparable.  

The man we are talking about is Michael Jackson of course, and while he was publicly scrutinized and forced to explain his every move, those other people kept abusing minors with no one even looking in their direction and with zero reaction to their victims’ complaints. When something bad about them surfaced all of it was hushed up and instead of investigations both guys were bestowed various honors – Jimmy Savile, for example, was even made “Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire” and was later knighted.

And all the time while they enjoyed impunity Michael Jackson was trashed for alleged wrongdoing in full view of everyone and was relentlessly persecuted in the media and court.

So even without any further look into the matter of guilt or innocence you cannot put Michael Jackson on a par with these people.  He received maximal negativism and the harshest treatment possible and even the tiniest of allegations about him was investigated up to the sheriffs and FBI going to other continents to interview the ‘witnesses’ and search for some ‘victims’.

This is Michael Jackson’s big difference from everyone else and this is the first thing the public should admit and realize.

Another question now. We know that some Hollywood guys suspected of abusing teenagers are occasionally sued by their alleged victims, but their cases are quickly dropped and their stories are almost immediately hushed up. The complainants get minimal attention from the press, are often counter-sued and are always vilified in the media by the defendants’ lawyers as a result of which even the most stubborn of them get nowhere and are simply forced to withdraw their cases. Is the same typical of Michael Jackson’s situation?

Absolutely not. It is even incredible how dramatically different his situation is. Every bastard who arbitrarily accuses Michael Jackson of anything he likes enjoys the best of treatment and ample media attention. His complaint is followed by a thorough investigation lasting for many years, he is given utmost respect by the judge and is guaranteed full observance of his sacred right to accuse Michael Jackson.


Illusion and Deception

And this happens even in the case when the complainant, Wade Robson for example, is an obvious liar whichever way you look at him – because what he says now is in a clear contradiction with what he said before, when he was in his sound mind and speaking under oath.

And though he himself now admits that he is ‘a master of deception’ even this admission does not raise any red flags or is not a source of visible public or media confusion.

Imagine Michael Egan (the accuser of Bryan Singer and three other Hollywood executives) making a complaint against them and saying that the previous time he lied and calling himself ‘a master of deception’ at that – and check your impression of it. You and the judge will think him crazy, not to mention the impossibility of his case going to court and dragging for three years there.

But when it is an allegation against Jackson it is okay. So speaking objectively the continuance of Robson’s case is the result of a huge distortion of public perception as regards Michael Jackson, which in its turn became possible only because of the many years of his bashing and all those allegations becoming familiar.

In psychology this process is called Desensitization, which in this particular case means that the more often a lie is repeated the more familiar it is, and the more familiar it is the easier it is accepted as ‘truth’ – by the public and even the legal system.

So the longer the judge keeps stroking Robson on the head, the more familiar his lies get and the more they turn in people’s minds into some kind of quasi truth. And since this craziness was not done away with the moment it appeared (as it should have) he is even inspired to tell us more of it. His memory is still ‘evolving’, you see, as he is telling us with that little smile on his face.

wade-robson-smilesHere is an excerpt from Robson’s deposition on December 12, 2016:

A. <>You know, this reprocessing of my entire life for me through this healing process, you know, has been and will continue to be, I imagine so, for the rest of my life, meaning, you know, me perspective on things, my understanding of things, is constantly evolving as I remove the clutter from it all, remove the, the emotional and perspective repression of it all that I had compartmentalized for 22 years. So all that to say that, you know, this process evolves as far as what I, what I remember, what comes clear and my perspective on things.

Q. So, have your memories changed as you’ve gone through that process?

A. They’ve evolved.

Q. What do you mean by “evolved?”

A. Yeah, I mean, not changed in a sort of black-and-white sense. Like, I thought it was this thing – well, I mean, they have as far as prior to the healing process, right. Prior to disclosing. But post disclosing the abuse in 2012 and beginning that healing journey, they’ve evolved as far as I remember more details about scenarios. As it goes along, you know, it evolves, details get added to.

How very nice. So Robson is still in the process of remembering ‘more details about scenarios’ and we can expect more of them added, not to mention new turns in the scenario as a whole – with the word scenario being the key to the whole problem.

His method is clear and the way his tales are turning into quasi-truth is clear too – all this nonsense has been going on for too long and is acquiring the superficial veracity only due to its constant media repetition and the ensuing familiarity. And though the above is indeed clear like a clear blue sky, what remains unclear is why things like that happen only when it concerns Jackson?

Indeed, why everything that occasionally surfaces about Hollywood abusers is immediately hushed up, and instead we have to constantly listen to he-said-she-said stories about Jackson which are regularly supplemented by fake sensations like ‘secret FBI files’? And this has been going on for almost 25 years!

Is there a method behind it or is it just the way ‘things happen’?


Deception and Illusion

To me it is absolutely clear that this is a man-made process and an intentional displacement of the public focus. To be able to realize it all you need to do is watch the public gazing at Robson weave his wholly fictional web and see the same public not notice the real abuse of children taking place in the real world around them.

The process is as blatant as seeing the organizers of the show cry wolf – I mean cry “Michael Jackson” – and watching the crowd rush in his direction again, forgetting everything they have just heard about real abusers.

But if this is a show who are its organizers then?

And what do you think?

To me it is again obvious that the people most interested in the distortion of public perception are those who are guilty of these crimes themselves. They are the direct beneficiaries of the game while all others (the media, public, police and even judges) are just involuntary or sometimes voluntary participants in the process.

Whatever the reason for this public naivety, it is hardly forgivable as besides vilifying the innocent Jackson all this time people have been ignoring and overlooking real crimes committed by others and right under their very nose.

And in this connection I need to remind you of the story of Michael Egan who accused several Hollywood guys of abusing him, but in the end had to withdraw his case.


michael-eganEach time the judge allows Robson to amend his complaint (currently it is his fourth version) there is only one question in my mind – why does this case keep dragging for three years while the case of Michael Egan was stopped almost the moment it started?

Many people will reply that Egan’s case did not go further because his allegations were ‘false’.

However Egan is a real victim of abuse. It was proven during the civil trial in 2000 when Egan and two other victims filed a lawsuit against the company DEN sponsored by some well-known Hollywood personalities – Singer, Geffen, Huffington and others.

The company’s boss Marc Collins-Rector and its two other younger managers Shackley and Pierce were found guilty of sexually abusing Egan and the other complainants and still owe them $4,5 million in the court judgment which the boys never received.

So Michael Egan has already proven himself a victim of Hollywood abusers, while Robson is a proven liar (either before or now), so dismissing Michael Egan and giving the benefit of the doubt to Robson would be a very big fallacy indeed.

Egan’s case has its own drawbacks but the fact that he was abused when he was 15 is undeniable. For details you can read this article or at least a short piece from it quoting Egan’s first lawyer Daniel Cherin:

What Happens When You Accuse a Major Hollywood Director of Rape?


… Daniel Cherin, along with law enforcement encouraged the boys to collect more evidence. “So we went back and copied everything in the file cabinet,” Egan says. “We had photos of the drug bags and child pornography in different cabinets, and video of the gun closet they locked me in.”

In early 2000, Egan was still sending emails to DEN’s executives, asking for money and even looking to hang out. The lawyers for Singer and the other defendants call this evidence of a shakedown; Egan says now it was part of the effort to collect evidence.

Egan’s great escape proved anticlimactic. The police and the FBI never charged anyone—Egan and his mother still aren’t sure why. “My mom heard from them once or twice, but that’s it.”

The three boys filed a civil lawsuit in 2000 for sexual abuse against Collins-Rector, Shackley, and Pierce. They did not name Singer, Ancier, Neuman, or Goddard.

Egan’s lawyer, Cherin, told them he didn’t have enough evidence to connect the others to the abuse—at least not like he had on the three men who actually lived at the house. <> He believed the high-profile targets had the resources to bury them in motions and counter-investigations. “I’m not a daredevil. I don’t get paid to take chances.”

So when you dig into Egan’s and Robson’s stories you find that one was indeed a victim and the other is just a self-admitted ‘master of deception’. But this is not the only discovery you make – the thing that takes you aback most is the big difference in the way they are treated.

Look at the method by which Egan’s lawsuit was halted, for example. You think that the judge dismissed his case as frivolous? Nothing of the kind. The problem is that his lawyer Jeff Herman was sued by two of the defendants for ‘malicious prosecution’ and had to pay them a million dollars in addition to making an apology as part of their settlement agreement (wow, the attorney had to pay the other side just for representing his client!)

As a result Michael Egan was left without an attorney and had to withdraw his case until he found a new lawyer. The judge dismissed it “without prejudice” which means that he can reopen it any time again. I bet you didn’t know it and had a totally different impression from the way the media reported Egan’s lawsuit. (see this article for details)

But though Egan has the right to sue again I doubt that any lawyer will agree to represent him. Firstly, a year after he’d made his complaint he was sent to prison for 2 years for collecting money for a holiday-theme attraction – which he indeed had with his brother – but spending the major part on paying his bills.

And secondly, it is indeed frightening for a defense attorney to be sued just for representing his client, and this is what those Hollywood guys actually did (Ancier and Newman, but not Goddard and Singer).

Remember all those con artists who sued Michael at a mere whim and the fact that none of them, not to mention their lawyers, ever had to answer for their false allegations, and you will see the difference. For some reason people know that it is safe to sue Jackson and his Estate, while the Hollywood guys are really dangerous stuff which no one tries to disturb.

So as a very minimum please don’t you ever repeat those laughable stories about ‘fear’ in connection with Michael Jackson, because in this respect you are definitely looking in the wrong direction.

Another striking difference between Egan and our ‘master of deception’ is that Robson is repeatedly allowed to tell one thing and then another and then contradict himself once again and no one still cares, while Egan was severely scolded for just one inaccurate answer which actually shows that he is no good at lying.

He said that he made his pleading without legal help though the pleading was written on a paper with a law firm logo on it. As a result he received a scolding tirade from an angry judge all of which was immediately spilled to the media of course.

This historic dialogue stunned me by its harshness, especially considering that the complainant is indeed a sexual abuse survivor and even in the worst of cases required a more gentle approach. Here is a reminder of the way it was:

Judge Scolds Hollywood Sex Accuser for Lying in Court

9:15 AM PDT 10/21/2014 by Jonathan Handel

According to a transcript of the hearing obtained by The Hollywood Reporter, when the judge asked Egan what help the firm was providing, Egan answered, “Nothing in this case.” That didn’t sit well with Seabright, who responded sharply, “Well, that’s not true. I mean, facially that’s not true.” He pointed out that the documents had been emailed from the firm, and added, “Don’t say ‘nothing,’ Mr. Egan, okay? … You understand this is a court of law.… You understand if you lie to me you’d get in trouble.”

Egan acknowledged the judge’s statements and apologized, but the exchange continued.

“So be truthful,” said the judge. “I am,” responded Egan.

“Well, no,” interjected Seabright. “You weren’t. Because you said ‘nothing,’ they’re doing nothing. That’s not true.”

Egan then replied that he didn’t know how to file pleadings, so the law firm had helped him with that. This seems to have further angered the judge, who interrupted Egan and said, “You don’t know how to get a stamp and put it on an envelope and write your return address on it and then mail it? You don’t know how to do that?”

Egan conceded that he did, but said, “I’m just at a loss, I’m not an attorney.” Seabright responded, “I’m not buying this.… I’m a smart guy, I get it, and don’t underestimate me.”

Egan finally acknowledged that he’d had substantive help as well, saying that a law clerk had researched and drafted the language in the documents. The law clerk, identified as Trejur Bordenave, was described by the firm’s Vince Finaldi as a law student who no longer works there. A LinkedIn page for Bordenave lists him as a 2014 law graduate who is still at the firm.

The judge allowed Egan’s responsive document — his answer to the suit — to stand, denying Ancier’s motion that it be struck, but said that going forward, Finaldi’s firm would have to either fully represent Egan in the case or not at all and could not engage in any more ghostwriting of pleadings. Finaldi responded, “We will be providing [Egan] no more assistance, because I just can’t incur that kind of liability for the firm.”

Isn’t it amazing how quickly Vince Finaldi realized which side his bread was buttered on and even before starting to represent Egan he already dropped him? Now he represents Robson and knows that over here he has nothing to fear.

As to the big story about Egan ‘lying in court’ let us compare it with how Robson is lying in court and what happens to him after that (nothing happens) and how the media reports it (it doesn’t).


In their December 27, 2016 Motion the MJ Estate lawyers outlined some of Robson’s blatant lies and brought them to the attention of the judge. Here are some excerpts.

Lie 1: Three years ago Robson was asked to produce all the evidence, but he said he had only one email. However recently it turned out he had a treasure trove of them, and it was discovered only by accident, after his mother mentioned them during her deposition. When the Defendants requested him to cure this deficiency please he continued fooling them with false promises which he never fulfilled.


“When Robson was asked to produce all written communications relating to his allegations of abuse in this case, Robson stated under oath that only a single responsive document existed. Documents obtained by third parties, however, showed that these sworn statements by Robson were utterly false. Robson was then forced to change his response entirely, finally admitting that many communications existed and agreeing to produce them. Eventually, Robson would produce several bankers’ boxes full of communications (that he had previously claimed did not exist at all).

During this process, on three separate occasions, Robson stated that he had completed his production and had produced all responsive communications. Each time that representation was made, however, Defendants found clear evidence that Robson had not produced all the communications. Robson was then forced to “supplement” his productions three separate times, and each time he falsely represented that his latest production was “now” complete.

Lie 2: When the news of these emails was finally uncovered he did produce some, but redacted 70 of them, out of which 50 emails were between himself and his mother. The text was deleted under the pretext that they were covered by the client-attorney privilege.

We are of course aware that a mother is an attorney provided to a child by nature, but calling those emails “the attorney’s work product” is indeed taking it too far.

“To this day, Robson has still failed to produce numerous communications with third parties and has never explained why. Moreover, Robson has also redacted the entire content of numerous emails for no plausible reason. For example, he completely redacted over fifty emails between himself and his mother alone, based on the absurd claim that his discussions with his (non-lawyer) mother about the supposed “facts” underlying his allegations are somehow his attorneys’ “work product.”

… many of Robson’s email exchanged with his family remain absent from his production. This simply leads to two obvious questions: (1) What else is Robson withholding” and (2) If Robson does not have these emails anymore, that other documents has Robson deleted?

In the November 2 letter, Defendants provided two examples of such emails. The first is a February 15, 2016 email exchange between Robson and his mother, under the subject line “Security testimony.” In this exchange, Robson describes a purported statement by a former security guard at Neverland implying inappropriate conduct by Defendants, and asks his mother what she things. Eight minutes later, Ms.Robson responded: “Wow. None of that is true…” The remainder of Ms. Robson’s response is (conveniently) obscured in the version produced by her, and Ms. Robson now (conveniently) claims she no longer has access to this email, making its production by Robson himself critical.

The second example is an October 2012 email exchange with the subject line “Questions for Mom – 2.0.” Robson initiated this exchange on October 4, 2012, by asking his mother numerous questions about, among other things, his visits to the United States when he was a child, his interactions with Michael Jackson, and the allegations of abuse. Documents produced by Ms. Robson demonstrate that she and Robson exchanged numerous emails under this subject-line. However, none of those emails have been produced by Robson. ”

Lie 3: Besides the emails kept from the Defendants it also turned out that Robson had written a book and even shopped it to publishers – all the time saying to the judge that he had nothing else to produce.

“In addition, documents in one of Robson’s “supplemental” productions this Fall revealed for the first time that Robson began writing a book prior to filing suit in May 2013, about the allegations in this case, which he unsuccessfully shopped to publishers prior to filing suit. Yet, Robson inexplicably failed to produce a single draft of his book in either this case or in the related probate proceedings years ago.

When Defendants pressed Robson as to why the book had not been produced long ago, Robson first claimed that he was unable to find the book. Four days later, Robson changed his story, claiming that he had actually withheld the book as “privileged” (but never logged it). He then “waived privilege,” and produced one “recently created” PDF version of the book. But numerous documents about the book (including other possible drafts of it) are missing or redacted, and Robson refuses to produce original electronic files with metadata. He also claims – preposterously – that his communications with publishers about the book are privileged.”

Robson’s answers strike me by their flippant and even disrespectful manner in which he treats the court – first he fooled everyone for three years and then gave a lame explanation, then he changed his story, then withheld the book, then promised it, then provided it but not in the original variant, and so on and so forth with no end to it.

In fact Robson behaves like a spoiled child who knows in advance that whether mischief or not everything will be still okay with him.

We can only imagine the reaction of the judge who presided over Egan’s case had he encountered similar lies in Egan’s lawsuit – after the very first occurrence the complainant would have been shred into pieces and heavily fined for contempt of court and that would be it.

Judge Beckloff is not that harsh and is characterized by everyone as a nice man who tends to be a moderator, so it is probably due to his personal traits that Robson will be required only to produce the non-redacted emails and the original version of the book (if he finds them of course), and be a good boy in the future and behave himself. He has not been fined and his computer will not be forensically examined as the other side requested it.

As regards the media turning the fact that Robson lied for three years into any news – what media? What news? Where have you seen it?


One of the lies in Robson’s lawsuit deserves a more detailed discussion. It is a story told by a certain security guard from Neverland named Charlie Michaels.

Her old statement dated 1993 was mentioned by Robson in his email to Mom on February 15th 2016, and though she answered him that none of it was true this false statement happily made its way into Robson’s third amended version filed several days later and is still there in its current fourth variant.

Here is his Mom’s message with the rest of the text deleted by Robson:

“Wow. None of that is true. Micha…. ”

wade-robsons-email-to-mom-none-of-it-is-trueShe sent it in reply to his question:

Security testimony (2)

Wade Robson to Mom Robson

February 15 at 8:55 PM  

There is testimony from a security guard that states the mother’s day incident was in 1990. What do you think?

“In a witness statement taken by the SBSD (Santa Barbara Sheriff Department) on April 15, 1994 in connection with the Chandler Investigation, Charli T. Michaels (a security guard at Neverland from March 21, 1990 through March 6, 1992) stated that she encountered Wade and his mother during their visit to Neverland in May 1990, and witnessed an incident involving Jackson and Wade. Ms. Michaels stated that on Mother’s Day 1990, she found Joy Robson crying and upset. When Ms. Michaels attempted to console her, Joy told Ms. Michaels that she was upset because she had been restricted from seeing Wade by Staikos While he was in the company of Jackson. Stakos had told Joy that Jackson and Wade were rehearsing a dance routine in the theatre at Neverland, and that she (Wade’s mother) was not allowed to go in or disturb them. Staikos had also prohibited Joy from sleeping in the main house at Neverland while Wade was staying in Jackson’s room. Ms. Michaels also stated that on the same day she had this encounter with Wade’s mother in violation of the rule regarding treatment of guests at Neverland, Ms. Michaels heard that Mr. and Mrs. Quindoy had been similarly reprimanded by Stakios for speaking to Joy on this occasion. Ms. Michaels was also subsequently informed by Joy that she had gotten in “lots of trouble” with Staikos for speaking with Ms. Michaels, and that Staikos had told her not to talk to any employees at Neverland (A copy of Ms. Michael’s witness statement has already been provided to Requesting Party.)

 Ms. Michaels also stated that later that same day (Mother’s day 1990) she was < > “

Aloha, Wade

See why Joy Robson said “Wow. None of it is true”? Because indeed none of it is.

  • There was no rehearsal in a dance studio on Mother’s day, at least at the time described by Ms. Michaels. By all accounts Robson was sleeping very late that day and this is why his mother was upset. Ms. Michaels simply invented this story together with the idea that Robson’s mother was not allowed into the dancing studio.
  • Another of her inventions is that Joy was prohibited from sleeping in the main house. Joy Robson always stayed in the Rose bedroom of the main house, and it was only when Michael’s children were born that this room was turned into the children’s bedroom. However at the time Ms. Michaels was not working there already and none of it matters anyway – Robson and his mother were in Neverland only on 4 occasions together with MJ, so who cares where she slept?
  • Joy certainly never got into trouble with Norma Staikos for speaking to this small liar. All guests on the ranch were given the best service possible and there could never be a rule there to reprimand them for speaking to the employees.

A different variant was possible though. For a time being there was a rule at Neverland which dissuaded the employees from speaking to the boss (MJ). We know about it from Kiki Fournier-Chambers who worked on and off in Neverland for 12 years and once mentioned it in her interview. The funniest part of Kiki’s story is that Michael didn’t know about the rule and on one occasion even asked her “Why no one talks to me?” which is when she realized that he had nothing to do with it. But as to the rule for the guests to never speak to the employees, this is another of Ms. Michaels’s inventions.

Any conclusions from the above information?

Firstly, his Mom’s emphatic answer about none of it being true did not prevent Robson from using this false statement in his lawsuit. He knows that it is false but it doesn’t matter. This gravely diminishes Robson’s chances of being a victim of false memories as a result of some ‘insight-oriented therapy’ and strengthens our perception of him as a cold and cynical liar he evidently is.

Secondly, the appearance of Ms. Michaels’ statement in his third amended complaint shows the method by which Robson’s memory ‘evolves’. As soon as he receives some papers from Michael’s haters he turns them into his story. Charlie Michaels’ declaration could come from Ron Zonen who was rumored to provide him with old prosecution files and this also means that the prosecution vendetta against Jackson is still going strong.

Thirdly, this and other people’s declarations from 1993 were already incorporated into the so-called Prior Bad Acts prosecution motion in 2005 and were thoroughly discussed at that time. Now, even if untrue, they are being revived again to give at least some support to Robson’s tales.

If you compare Robson’s fourth version with the initial one you will see that these old declarations come as a replacement for what was Robson’s really big complaint against Jackson – the fact that prophesied him to become a great film director, but the dream didn’t come true and Jackson is of course to blame for it. Even for Finaldi this claim was too much, so he got rid of it and replaced it with some stuff from Charlie Michaels and other similar characters.

In short if it goes on like that by some 5th or 6th version of his complaint Robson will have a more or less presentable case cleaned of its wildest craziness, based on his still ‘evolving’ memories and supported by old and familiar lies from people like Charlie Michaels.

To say that all of it is a bad vaudeville is to say nothing at all. Compare it with the way the case of a real child abuse survivor Michael Egan was dealt with and the contrast will make your head spin.


Now what’s so precious about Ms. Michaels’s story that Robson still wants to use it even despite his own mother saying that it is untrue?

The value of Ms. Michael is in another of her statements – in the same declaration she claimed that later that day she saw Michael Jackson groping Robson in the dancing studio in a separate building of a movie theater. Below is her description of it as it is related in the prosecution #1108 Prior Bad Acts Motion for the 2005 trial (bold type is mine):

“Ms. Michaels then was called to the main house to pick up lunch for Michael Jackson and Wade Robson and take it to them at the dance studio in the theatre. Around 2:00 to 2:30 p.m., while waiting in the main house to pick up the lunch, she saw Wade and Michael at the rear of the house. She lost sight of Jackson and Wade Robson before the lunches were ready, so she took the lunches and drove to the theatre. As Ms. Michaels entered the theatre, she put the lunches on the snack bar in the theatre lobby. She then heard music coming from the dance studio, which was located just to the left of the lobby, but she assumed that Michael Jackson and Wade were still at the house. She approached the studio to open the studio’s door and turn off the music.

As Ms. Michaels opened the studio door, she saw the reflections of Michael Jackson and Wade Robson in the huge mirror on the wall of the dance studio. She was standing approximately five to seven feet away from the mirror. Wade was standing in front of Michael with his back to Michael’s front. They were so close to each other that Michael’s front was actually touching Wade’s back. Both Michael and Wade had their hands on Wade’s genital area and they were doing fast step-dancing and Michael Jackson was doing his ‘euoghy, euogh” scream. Both were screaming as Michael clutched Wade’s genitals. Michael was much taller than Wade. He was bent over Wade from behind him and had both his arms draped around Wade’s shoulders, with his hands on Wade’s crotch. Ms. Michaels could not exactly see where Wade’s hands were, however they were well below his waist and in the area of his crotch. Both Jackson and Robson were wearing similar all-black outfits.

Ms. Michaels immediately left the theatre to avoid detection by either Jackson or Robson. She realized that Jackson’s acts were inappropriate and that Jackson could have shown Wade this particular dance move without standing over him and placing his hands on Wade’s genital area. However, she was concerned that she would lose her job if she shared her observation with anyone in authority.”

Please remove that disturbed expression off your face and enjoy the ridiculous instead:

  • Robson slept that whole day but was nevertheless seen dancing in the studio at around 2 pm
  • They asked for their lunch at the theater, but at the same time were seen in the rear of the main house where they could have their lunch without asking anyone to carry it for a mile or at least take it to that studio themselves
  • The security guard walked into Michael Jackson’s studio because she wanted to turn off the music there (too loud for her?)
  • She stood five to seven feet (1,5-2 meters) away from the mirror, but no one saw her or her reflection in it
  • She heard some ‘euoghy’ screams despite the music blasting
  • And the alleged groping scene allegedly took place right at the time when Michael Jackson was expecting someone to enter the dance hall and bring his lunch there.

The question that will forever haunt me is why Michael allegedly did all those things right at the time when he expected the door to open? Why do all these ‘witnesses’ have one and the same story to tell – that they were asked by Michael to come and this is when they ‘suddenly’ saw it?

Just a short reminder: “He yelled for security and I saw it from where I was standing” (Ralph Chacon), “He asked for French fries and I saw it when I brought them to the arcade” (Phillip Lemarque) and “He asked for his lunch to the dance studio and I saw it when I opened the door” (Charlie Michaels).

Let us see what this little liar could actually see if she opened the door. Thanks to that splendid new real estate brochure we have a picture of the dancing studio in the theater building and right from the place where Ms. Michaels was supposedly standing.

She said she was five to seven feet away from the mirror, so this is where I initially placed the two figures:


But then I recalled her saying that she saw their reflection in the mirror, and this correction required moving the images to a much further point. Like this one, for example:


Now please tell me  – can you see anything from this or even the earlier point? No, you cannot.

And will you be able to distinguish any “euoghy, euogh screams” at a distance like that and if the music is blasting? You won’t either.

And Charlie Michaels says that she did, though seeing anything from that spot is what only her perverse imagination could suggest her.

And how could she see Robson there at all if he was not even in that studio that day?

Quite by chance I found this  video of Michael rehearsing in his dance studio and showing him from the opposite side. From that point the studio hall didn’t look that long, so if Ms. Michaels crossed the door step and went inside the studio, she could see them – and they could see her.

But the funniest thing about Michael rehearsal there is that at some point during his moonwalk his hands indeed move forward and are placed on his thighs. Like in this screenshot from that video:


So even if we believe Ms. Michaels ridiculous version the move she could observe was just one of the necessary elements of the dance and not what her dirty imagination suggested her.

And this is all they have against Jackson after decades of prosecuting him?

And they call it ‘evidence’?

And we’ve had to listen to this nonsense since 1993 and even today are still discussing it?

Well, guys, this is not even funny. All of it is simply impossible. Tragic, maddening, ridiculous and utterly impossible.


Now if you want to see some really serious evidence, I will provide it to you, only it won’t be about Jackson but about the Hollywood guys of whom you rarely hear, if ever.

These documents are connected with the abuse of Michael Egan and other teenagers who were invited to work with the DEN company and who attended the pool parties of Bryan Singer and other Hollywood players.

The first picture is a screenshot from the documentary by an Oscar-nominee Amy Berg about the strange things going on in Hollywood. The film is called “An Open Secret” and, as if justifying its title, most distributors indeed refused to promote it.

In this piece of the documentary Marc Collins-Rector, a convicted sex offender who was one of those who abused Michael Egan, says that a young actor Brock Pierce who later became Rector’s partner was introduced to him by his friend Bryan Singer.

So as a very minimum we learn here that Bryan Singer was not only an investor in DEN company, but was friends with Marc Collins-Rector who right at the time was abusing teenagers and was introducing young people to him.


Next comes another screenshot from the same documentary, this time featuring a certain Michael Harrah.  Mr. Harrah isn’t just a mere nobody – he used to be a manager of child actors and a longtime member of the actors union SAG Young Performers Committee. He himself co-founded this committee in 1975 and even chaired it in 2001-2003.

He remained its member until 2014, when he gave his interview for the “Open Secret” documentary, after which he abruptly resigned. The guild leaders and their lawyers tried to prevent Amy Berg from mentioning the name of their union in connection with this person and threatened to sue her, however she stood her ground and this is how we learn about Mr. Harrah.

But why so much fuss about him?

The reason is provided by Mr. Harrah himself – in his interview for the documentary he admitted that during his 40 years of work with child actors he had underage actors sleep with him in his home and that he abused at least one of them. We are talking of only one because he actually recorded his conversation with Harrah where the latter admitted that “he shouldn’t have done it” (excerpt):

SAG-AFTRA Threatened To Sue Director Amy Berg Over ‘An Open Secret’

by David Robb

June 5, 2015

Joey Coleman, a former child actor who was once Harrah’s client, presents evidence in the film – a taped telephone conversation in which Harrah acknowledges that he’d made “unwanted” advances towards him when Coleman was a kid.

Joey Coleman as a child actor

“I didn’t like when you tried to have me sleep in your bed and touch me and everything,” Coleman told Harrah on the phone. “I hated that.”

 “Yeah, and that was something unwanted I shouldn’t have done,” Harrah replied, unaware that he was being taped. “And there’s no way you can undo that. But it certainly is something I shouldn’t have done.”

In the film, Harrah says that he had been molested when he was a child actor, but was vague about the details. “I suppose somebody did, but I would be hard-pressed to remember anything specific,” he said. “But it was not uncommon, let’s put it that way.”

Harrah told Deadline that there are currently young people “in their 20s” living with him. Asked if 11-year-old kids had ever lived with him, he said: “There have been kids that come and go.”

One of Harrah’s other former clients, a former child actor who is identified in the film only as James G., recounts how Harrah had invited him to come live at his home while trying to break into show business.

“You know,” he says in the film, “being up sometimes really early to go to these auditions and stuff, that’s when Michael Harrah approached me and said, ‘Well, you can come stay at my house with the other guys that are there.’ He had three other guys stayin’ in the house that were his clients.” The kids’ ages, he said, were “from 10-11, to 16-17, but I still thought it was rather odd, you know, that someone would let their 10-year-old son move in with, at the time I think, a mid-50s-year-old man.”

Mr. Harrah:

Mr. Harrah: “It wasn’t uncommon.  Look, this is not a terrible thing unless you think it is”

“But he also repeatedly downplays the severity of child sexual abuse in Hollywood. On the phone with Joey C. in the documentary, Harrah says, “When I’ve had the opportunity to talk to somebody about it, I’ve said, ‘Look, this is not a terrible thing unless you think it is. It’s just something that happens to you in your life.’”

Well, well, well… My congratulations to MJ haters and the general public. Every time they will denounce Michael over his carefree sleepovers with young friends and exclaim in horror “what other adult would do it?” we will tell them what other adult did it – it was the one-time chairman of the young actors’ committee and the very person who was supposed to defend the rights of these children in Hollywood.

And in contrast to Michael who after the Chandler scandal never agreed to stay alone with a youngster in one room (see Frank Cascio’s book for that) and only talked about it, Mr. Harrah never ceased his practice without saying a word about it to outsiders.

In MJ’s case there was never any proof of any wrongdoing, while Mr. Harrah himself admits molestation, only he thinks nothing of it as in his opinion “it is not a terrible thing unless you think it is”. Over there in Hollywood, “it is not uncommon”, you see, and Mr. Harrah does know what he is talking about as he worked in that place for over 40 years.

Apparently, this practice is so common that initially the child-sex abuse survivor Corey Feldman didn’t even understand what was going on – as pedophiles were all around him – and he said he regained his sanity and innocence only when he was with the poor harassed Michael Jackson.

And the best part of the news about Mr. Harrah is that you never heard it. The “Open Secret” documentary was practically suppressed from public view and made its way only to 20 theaters and this was only after a ‘maddeningly difficult road’ to get there, according to its producers. The guild-leaders threatened to sue Amy Berg for those episodes, but she refused to be intimidated (she is an Oscar nominee for a film about abuse within the Catholic church), and seeing the resistance they grudgingly backtracked.

However now everything is fine with the Hollywood people – their fright is over, things have gone quiet, everyone continues defaming Jackson and the spectators keep watching the show.

The final picture comes from the infamous Ronald Emmerich/Bryan Singer pool parties regularly organized by them after the gay-pride parades. The parties start in the daytime, go well into the night and regularly host 600-700 young ‘twinks’ as they call them.

Here is a quote from Daily Beast about these events:

Singer’s pool parties have been a topic of discussion in gay entertainment circles for years. Some parties, co-hosted with fellow out director Roland Emmerich, have featured more than a thousand celebrants. Emmerich told The Advocate, “when [Singer] makes a New Year’s party, there’s like 600, 700 twinks running around and he’s hiding in his room. That’s quite typical.” Emmerich estimates that the last party they hosted, in 2009, drew 1,200 guests.

… “I don’t recall anyone bringing a bathing suit,” says Dottley. “It was a healthy mixture of underwear and no underwear.” He pauses. “Mostly no underwear, to be honest.”

Well, the fact that ‘it is mostly no underwear’ can be very well seen in this picture [the source]: bryan-singers-party-at-r-emmerich-2

You see that it is the daytime, and what goes on there at night?

The night scene below is the only one photo available to us from Singer’s parties and probably the only picture ever made there at all.

So what do we see here?


We see a serious document. You don’t need to be an expert to notice that there are wrong things taking place here – there are at least three youngsters among this naked (or half-naked) crowd which is also probably half-drunk. And among the three youngsters there are two very young children – and we know it because their heads are much smaller than the heads of all the others.

In fact any forensic expert will determine that this is indeed the case. I’ve blown up the respective fragments and put them over the photo (blurred, but this is the most I could do) just in case you didn’t notice.


It is none of my business to criticize Hollywood morals and if the public likes it that way, I can’t help it.

But the question that really bothers me is why everyone is preoccupied with Jackson though there isn’t a single shred of evidence against him, and no one pays attention to this documentary proof of minors partying with drunk and naked adults in these Hollywood pools? And why is there no attention to Mr. Harrah?

And why do we have to constantly return to the little fantasies of certain Ms. Michaels while the real elephant in the room is child abuse in Hollywood and why is no one, including the media and law enforcement talking about it?

What amazes me most is the contrast in the approach to Michael Jackson and all these Hollywood guys.

The problem is that the focus of public attention cannot be so gravely displaced and put on Jackson only all by itself, in a natural way. This can happen only as a result of someone’s deliberate effort to distort public perception and direct all flash lights at just one person simultaneously dimming the light in the gray area all around him.

I know that it is no use waiting for an explanation of this phenomenon from the media and the organizers of this one-sided circus – it is their agenda, their goal and the very effect they are pursuing.

But my question is addressed to ordinary people – don’t you understand that you are being manipulated?

And isn’t it time to understand that since they selected Michael Jackson for this torturous show it is actually him who is the INNOCENT one in this crowd.

*   *   *

New evidence about rampant child abuse in Hollywood has come from unexpected quarters. Milo Yiannopoulos, a conservative columnist and internet personality says that very young boys (emphasis on “very”) are given lots drugs in Hollywood and have sex with older men there.

He knew about it or probably even witnessed it at Hollywood parties “years ago”. And there is no reason to believe that anything has changed for the better since then.

So everything is as usual – the same drug-taking and the same old men have sex with VERY young boys there. Anything that accidentally surfaces is immediately hushed up and everyone is encouraged to talk about the innocent Michael Jackson instead.



%d bloggers like this: