Skip to content


April 23, 2010

The videotape below tells us of a SCAM in which one Canadian boy made false allegations against Michael Jackson in 1995.  Diane Dimond rushed to Canada hoping it was true but in the end had to admit that it was a lie.

Most people will say we should be happy that an honest report like this has been made and shown on TV. But to me the tape gives terribly conflicting emotions.  Yes, on the one hand the report does show that some people can go out of their way in slandering Michael Jackson and that children can lie and do it very convincingly.

But on the other hand I very much question the motives of Diane Dimond and her goals in making this report at all.  Let us watch the tape, think it over and compare our opinions later, okay?

If you liked the video please don’t read any further. But if you have mixed feelings over it like I do, let us exchange views on what we’ve seen.

The first impression is good, isn’t it? A lie was told and disproved. An honest report was made by an ‘unbiased’ journalist who was looking for a possible victim but had the grace to report that there was none. The applause goes to the journalist and her team whose efforts are highly commendable for the research made, truth uncovered and the dirty set-up exposed.

This is probably how the majority of readers perceive this story.

However it is clear that Diane Dimond was extremely disappointed that the story turned out to be false, and she simply had no other way out but tell the truth. But she twisted it in such a way that the story is doing now more good to Diane Dimond than it does to Michael Jackson. It conveys to us that this time the man Diane Dimond was after had nothing to do with it, but since her work is so  ‘unbiased’ it implies that when next time she reports something about MJ it will be unquestionably true. However next time it will be a complete LIE, as we know from Diane Dimond’s habits.

There is nothing good about Diane Dimond’s reporting this time either. What she presented to us is only an imitation of an investigation. She left more questions dropped and unanswered – and this is what continues to bother you even when the scam is seemingly uncovered.

How could the boy recognize the ranch employees? How could he have the incredible knowledge of MJ’s lifestyle and even his body?? Is it possible that the boy did visit the ranch and other places?  On the other hand, even if he did visit them what does it matter if he finally admitted that he had LIED all along? After all it could be just an excursion to the ranch, couldn’t it?

It is clear that the boy is a liar, but what about the older man? He said he had been molested by another member of the family – so could this be a real skeleton in the cupboard? And who could be the offender I wonder? Since the accuser looked rather old,  older than Michael, could it be … his father who did it?? What a crazy thought! And why did this man want to take his revenge on Michael  if he had some issues with someone else in the family?

Did you also have similar thoughts crowding in your mind while you were watching the video? See how far our imagination took us at the suggestion of Diane Dimond’s innuendoes? This is why I think the video has a highly dubious value.

Of course I am happy that another big lie was uncovered and everyone can now see the true worth of these scammers. The video shows how terribly easy it is to slander a person if the scammer does his homework well and sprinkles his story with a couple of credible facts – and how convincing the end result can be. The video proves that children can be an easy object of manipulation, can tell lies and do it so professionally that few adults will be able to tell them from the truth – especially if the children are motivated by something substantial like the extortion of really big money, as is evident in this case.

But on the other hand all those hints cleverly dropped here and there by Diane Dimond make me terribly resentful as they only add to the uncertainty around the man who was already slandered to the utmost possible degree.

Does the video clear him and his family of any suspicion?  Not quite, in my opinion, as it only takes our thoughts into a different direction suggesting that though the boy lied, the older guy could probably have a reason for revenge as “he had been molested by someone in the family” and in his indignation he “wanted Michael to face it”.

Diane Dimond would not be above fabricating part of the story but since the Canadian policemen were involved in it at least their part of the story should be correct. As to the rest of it I think Diane Dimond knew perfectly well that even in total absence of any negative facts against MJ she knew that her report was creating numerous anti-Jackson side effects.

What should journalists do if the object of their source turns out to be false? They should either ignore it altogether (as there is actually no fact to report) or make the case crystal clear by fully exposing the scam and showing the technology of how it was built. The latter goal leaves absolutely no room for any vague hints which can open the door to further doubt and speculation on the part of the viewer – while this is exactly what Diane Dimond is doing here.

Besides leaving unattended numerous threads worth picking up she also uses the vocabulary which of itself is doing a lot of damage to Michael.  Considering the number of times she uses Michael’s name  in combination with the word ‘molestation’ (even as part of a denial in the phrase “he didn’t molest anyone”), she turns this video into the opposite of what it is supposed to be because it forms a stable association link between the hateful word and Michael Jackson’s good name. The intentional character of this overusagef of the word becomes even more vivid as in the video she pronounces it at exactly the same time when the picture of Michael is shown (you can check it up yourselves).

Who needs any sodium amytal for implanting false ideas into another person’s mind when the direct link between “molestation” and the innocent man is hammered into your head 90% of the duration of the report? Even if the remaining 10% is spent on a proper and earnest denial of it which of the parts is heavier in weight and is more likely to be remembered?

A similar effect is often noticed in print when a lie is told in giant letters and long stories, while its refutation comes in small letters and a single sentence only – thus being totally unable to undo all the harm done by the crazy lies and slander.

Though some of you guys suggest taking this video away I would prefer to leave it here as a sort of a ‘teaching aid’ for all of us to see how controversial the impact of the news may be if the facts are not presented in a precise and correct way. It also teaches us to remember the general laws of human psychology and therefore NEVER to mention the word in combination with the name of Michael Jackson (sorry I sometimes did it myself – won’t ever do that again!).

Even when used in the form of a DENIAL this terrible word creates a stable association between the word and the man and fixes it our memories. It is no wonder that Michael himself was never able to utter the word – it went totally against his pure nature and was a complete abomination and insult to him when used in connection with his name.


To more or less set things right for Michael Jackson I suggest other words  in combination with his name (some of which should have been used by this journalist here instead of that m…station nonsense):

Michael Jackson was FRAMED, Michael Jackson was SLANDERED, Michael Jackson was TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF, Michael Jackson was HUNTED FOR, Michael Jackson was GRADUALLY KILLED.

This is what they really did to Michael Jackson. And Diane Dimond was one of the first to do it.


Rondey Allen in 1995. Why didn't he have to answer for conspiring against an innocent person? And coercing a minor into his scam?

I hear that the man who embarked on this scam against Michael Jackson was later arrested by the Canadian police … exactly on charges of pedophilia! So this is what Diane Dimond should have investigated instead of making this half-baked story about Michael Jackson’s false accuser!

This John Templeton (real name Rodney Allen) said to her that he actually coached the  boy as the latter “got all the information from him” and that “the boy is a professional (liar) who asked questions and he tried to answer them as best as he could”.

Rodney Allen, born in 1956, was convicted for life in 2001 for crimes against children

So it was actually a pedophile Rodney Allen who trained this poor street boy on the molestation issues? Probably not only in the figurative meaning of this word, but in practice too?

And how did Rodney Allen happen to know the layout of Neverland and Havenhurst so well that he was able to coach the boy into telling these lies? Does it mean that Rodney Allen has been to both Michael Jackson homes? In which capacity I wonder – considering that he is two years older than Michael?

And why was he so intent on making a scam against Jackson? Remember how many letters he sent to Diane Dimond and how thorough their preparation of the scam was?

Isn’t it something which Diane Dimond should have really investigated instead of filling her NON-story about Michael Jackson with vague hints and dark but empty innuendoes?

And by the way, doesn’t all this burning desire of real pedophiles to SET UP Michael Jackson show that they had some agenda regarding him?

33 Comments leave one →
  1. April 23, 2010 5:52 pm

    How did Rodney (whoever he is) get all that information, in detail??

    Surely this cn’t be true. Diane D. has tried to ruin Michael for 2 decades.

    Why did she know him so well.

    Did he get yhe info from documents from ’93. Is he Sneddon’s friend?

    Other Jackson he accused-who was it?

    Sorry-all I can do is express in question form.


  2. April 24, 2010 1:05 am

    Sneddon once said “Ask Diane-she knows everything about Jackson.”
    Diane set the whole thing up! She fed all the info to Allen-he probably knew some things from being around the Jacksons when he was a kid.


  3. April 25, 2010 12:30 am

    Please delete this and/or last two replies. Isaid too much. Did noot express feelings. Maybe another will reply. YOU NEED MORE PEOPLE.


  4. April 25, 2010 4:06 pm

    Sharon, I don’t know why you asked me to delete your comments but I did take away part of them as you said. It’s perfectly okay to think what you are thinking. You’ve confirmed my own impressions of the video – it is not as simple as we thought it to be and the impact of it is not as positive as one might expect from a “refutation” of a lie.

    Now that we know for SURE that the suspicions against Michael in the initially unclear Jordan’s case didn’t have a single real fact to stand on, it has become a sort of a challenge to me to uncover HOW they did it to Michael and how they managed to turn the WHOLE WORLD against him. Like many of us I also fell victim to their manipulation and am determined to learn my lessons now.

    Though being very patient I simply CAN’T stand it when they take us for fools or sheep they can guide in whatever direction they like. Besides the goal of fully vindicating Michael I am actually aiming at developing a sort of an IMMUNITY against lies. And would like to help others to do the same.


  5. April 25, 2010 11:14 pm

    Maybe you should take that vid and burn it. Seriously!!! I’m dedicated to this blog and it’s purpose, but it threw me. I could not imagine you running a serious report from Demon Dimond (I can say that!).
    I’m still a little confused-duh-. Did she run this as a scam or did she plan it and the boy broke down and told the truth. It blew up in her face!! Either way I get what you mean by the associations. It was well done. Why does she HATE him so much-I don’t get it. I know he sued her for slander once and won-at least he won one fight. Also that awful Victor G. person-he went flying out of the country. Please don’t ever come back!!
    I do get it. Either way she did harm and she came off looking like a thorough reporter. Yuk!
    For some reason I’ve never used that word when talking re MJ, but only because I would never think of him as that. I say re ’93 or the trial, whatever.
    I do run on, don’t I? Please get rid of that-most/some people won’t give it enough thought to try to figure it out-as you said.


  6. April 26, 2010 1:40 pm

    Sharon, I don’t know what I would do without your comments – though this time they make me face quite a dilemma. This video is generally taken by Michael’s unsuspecting fans as a big argument in Michael’s favor and they are actually RIGHT in thinking this way. The video does show how EASY IT IS TO SLANDER a person if a scammer does a little bit of homework and sprinkles his story with a couple of credible facts. So in a way the video is showing the “kitchen” side of it and how lies are being baked there. Even Diane Dimond has involuntarily shown her own method of doing the same…

    I’ll rearrange this post, change my own comments and take away the snatches of the journalist’s text as they may indeed be hampering the viewers’ vision of the story. This way I hope its damaging effect will be minimized. On the other hand somebody might nevertheless like it the way it is? Or might make a great comment on the video with a much deeper insight into the matter than mine?


  7. David permalink
    June 29, 2010 7:18 pm

    If Dimond thought that the boy’s story was so believable, then why didn’t she just call the Canadian authorities herself? Why did she feel the need to hop on a plane and fly to Canada to investigate herself?

    Oh, wait a minute! I know why!!! It’s because she wanted the pleasure of saying that SHE was the one who discovered MJ’s latest “victim”!!!

    The fact that this alleged “victim” mailed in a videotape to Hard Copy should have been a signal that his story was BS. If you were molested by a celebrity, do you call the cops, or do you call a tabloid show like Hard Copy or TMZ? I think the answer is clear and simple!

    That kid in the video got arrested because he didn’t follow the “Michael Jackson Extortion Playbook”. According to that playbook, anyone who wants to accuse MJ of molestation should go to a quack psychologist, let her find your “repressed memories”, and then allow her to call the cops for you! That way, you can’t get arrested for filing a false police report! It worked wonders for the Chandlers and the Arvizos! LOL!


  8. David permalink
    July 13, 2010 11:16 pm

    @ DialDancer

    That’s an excellent, EXCELLENT question! Like Emma said, DD and the media had no intention of writing anything that would expose MJ in a positive light.

    A perfect example would be when KCBS reporter Harvey Levin (who now runs TMZ) ran a report for a local Los Angeles TV station that Evan gave Jordie sodium amytal, yet the mainstream media did not report it. It didn’t become a national story until Mary Fisher wrote about it in her GQ article. It would be great if the MJ fan community could get Levin to further elaborate on his interview with Evan Chandler. I’d like to know WHEN did he interview Evan, since I assume it was before Evan signed the confidentiality agreement in Jan. 1994. Ray Chandler tried to use the media’s total blackout of Levin’s story as “proof” that it wasn’t true.

    Also, I mentioned in my earlier comment on this post about Rodney Allen getting arrested for not following the “MJ Extortion Playbook” of having his victim tell his story to a psychologist. There was another “victim” I forgot to mention who also used that playbook, and his name is Daniel Kapon, and he was thoroughly discussed in the “Phantom Victims” post:


  9. Dialdancer permalink
    July 13, 2010 9:38 pm

    David, here is a question. You are DD world famous Investigative Reporter. The Canadian Police proves this is about extortion, you of course intend to come home, file the story and take credit for the arrests, but why did you not finish the story? The extortionists possessed a great deal of detailed information concerning the house and household. This means the information was made available by someone close to Michael. Why didn’t you follow the lead? Ok, you are stupid, but why didn’t any of the other “journalist” ask the questions and follow up? There was a very hot story there.


  10. Emma permalink
    July 13, 2010 10:00 pm

    How about because the ‘MJ is a paedo’ story was where the money was. Read about the people who tried to publish pro-Michael stories; the media didn’t want to know because they knew it wouldn’t sell.


  11. Susan permalink
    July 14, 2010 12:28 am

    Hi David;

    What do you make of Harvey Levin? The reason I ask is when I check the TMZ web site, I usually read the questions the viewers want answered that day. Harvey is always quite clear on his opinion of O J Simpson’s guilt as he covered the trial quite extensively.

    I didn’t realize he played such a pivotal role in the ’93 case – actually interviewed Evan Chandler – that is interesting!

    Every so often, there is a question regarding Harvey’s opinion on the ’93 allegations, as in – does he believe the accusers or Michael; and Harvey will never answer the question. He won’t address the question one way or the other. It almost seems that many of these “reporters” know and knew of Michael’s innocence, but they just want to keep that cloud of doubt around Michael’s head just for the sake of controversy and as a continued source of speculation which keep people coming back for more. I would like to hear his opinion on Evan Chandler as well.

    David, I really appreciate the work you are doing. Great ammo against the lazy and the ignorant!


  12. July 14, 2010 12:46 am

    @ Susan,
    Did Harvey Levin admit to interviewing Evan Chandler about the sodium amytal?


  13. Susan permalink
    July 14, 2010 1:23 am

    Hi JA:

    I don’t know for myself if Harvey Levin interviewed Evan Chandler. I was just responding to David’s post below mine where he states that he would like the “MJ fan community to get Levin to further elaborate on his interview with Evan Chandler “.

    If Harvey did interview him, I would like to know his sense of Chandler.


  14. David permalink
    July 14, 2010 1:51 am

    Hey guys!

    Mary Fischer did not identify the reporter as Harvey Levin in her GQ article, but Ray Chandler did in his “rebuttal”. Ray feels that since nobody other than Harvey Levin reported the sodium amytal in May 1994, then that is a sign that Levin’s story was bogus. If anything, it gives Levin more credibility because the media would not report anything that helped exonerate MJ!

    I don’t know WHEN Harvey Levin interviewed Evan Chandler, or even IF he interviewed him at all. Mary Fischer wrote the following in her article:

    In the presence of Chandler and Mark Torbiner, a dental anesthesiologist, the boy was administered the controversial drug sodium Amytal—which some mistakenly believe is a truth serum. And it was after this session that the boy first made his charges against Jackson. A newsman at KCBS-TV, in L.A., reported on May 3 of this year that Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son’s tooth and that while under the drug’s influence, the boy came out with allegations. Asked for this article about his use of the drug on the boy, Torbiner replied: “If I used it, it was for dental purposes.”

    Ray Chandler’s rebuttal:

    “It is oddly convenient that Fischer’s most powerful “evidence” surfaced shortly before she
    would have completed her article.[19] And, that it came in the form of unnamed sources that the KCBS newsman, Harvey Levin, could not be compelled to reveal.

    One could infer from Fischer’s report that Levin claimed to have personally communicated with Evan. Levin made no such claim. But had he followed professional guidelines he should have had at least two independent and unbiased sources. After all, his story not only accused two health-care professionals of brainwashing a minor, it was the single most important piece of evidence in the largest public scandal of all time.”

    So Mary is saying that Levin aired his report on May 3rd, 1994, but did not specifically say that Levin personally interviewed Evan Chandler. And Ray says that it’s unnamed sources that told Levin about the drug. Either way, Dr. Mark Torbiner certainly did not deny the drug was used with his answer “If I used it, it was for dental purposes.”

    Either way, whether the sodium amytal was or was not used, Jordie’s description was nowhere near matching, and the molestation did not happen. No matter how Evan felt about Jordie, there’s no way any parent who suspected his son was being molested would ask their son “Hey, are you and Michael doin’ it?” Not only that, but the only reason Evan told Dr. Abrams about MJ molesting Jordie is because he lost custody of Jordie. If June had not surprised everyone by regaining custody, who knows how many more weeks or months those “negotiations” would have continued? After reading “All That Glitters”, I am more convinced than ever that MJ was innocent, and I know how to use this book to prove his innocence. Ever notice how Dimond, Orth, and their ilk never use this book to prove MJ is guilty? This is why I told Desiree to read this book, and if she STILL thinks that MJ molested Jordie, to use the book as a reference.

    MJ Haters love to say that MJ paid “hush money”, which implies that the Chandlers wanted to testify, but according to “ATG”, Evan, Larry Feldman, and Robert Shapiro had no intentions of EVER going to criminal court. That is why they fired Gloria Allred, because she wanted to put MJ behind bars, like any sane person would want to do. All they wanted was to file the civil suit and hope that MJ would settle out of court, which he was forced to do.

    One last thing: Mary Fischer recently created her own website. I think the MJ fan community should lobby hard for her to do some in-depth, on the record interviews regarding her GQ article because we have a lot of questions for her, and she has a lot of answers! She rarely does interviews (her last televised interview was about MJ in 2004), so maybe she doesn’t like the limelight?


  15. lynande51 permalink
    July 14, 2010 2:03 am

    What I don’t understand is how he keeps denying that Jordan was given sodium amytal when it is written right in their book on page 297 that he was sedated. I’m confused, didn’t he read the book before he put his name on it or what?


  16. David permalink
    July 14, 2010 3:14 am

    @ lynande51

    Well, their excuse is that although Jordie was sedated before he accused MJ, he was NOT sedated with sodium amytal. In his interview with Dr. Gardner in Oct. 1993, he confirms that Evan’s “friend” put him to sleep, which is none other than Dr. Torbiner. So that part of the GQ article cannot be disputed. The only question is this: what did they use to sedate Jordie?

    Here is Jordie’s explanation of what happened when he was sedated:

    Jordie: “Right. And then he demanded me over to his house, because he knew that the circumstances were wrong. And he, like, I was with my mom and Michael, and he demanded me over to his house. So I went to his house, and he said just for a week and then you can go back. And I really started liking it there. And he had to pull my tooth out one time, like, while I was there. And I don’t like pain, so I said could you put me to sleep? And he said sure. So his friend put me to sleep; he’s an anesthesiologist. And um, when I woke up my tooth was out, and I was alright – a little out of it but conscious. And my Dad said – and his friend was gone, it was just him and me – and my dad said, ‘I just want you to let me know, did anything happen between you and Michael?’ And I said ‘Yes,’ and he gave me a big hug and that was it.”

    Dr. Richard Gardner: “And you never gave him the details?”

    Jordie: “No.”

    That paragraph proves that MJ was innocent, if you know how to analyze it correctly (which most MJ haters don’t!) Jordie admits he was molested by MJ, but Evan NEVER questioned him about the details? If my son was molested, I would want to know EVERYTHING, and if my son tried to hide anything I’d BEAT IT OUT OF HIM!!

    Evan wants us to believe that he’s supposed to be a wonderful, caring father, but doesn’t even question his own son about the details of his molestation? In fact, prior to sedating Jordie, Evan LIED to him and told him that he already knew about the molestation because he bugged his room and eavesdropped on their conversations. From “ATG”, page 91:

    “I know about the kissing and the jerking off, so you’re not telling me anything I don’t already know,” Evan lied. “This isn’t about me finding anything out. It’s about lying. And you know what’s going to happen if you lie. So I’m going to make it very easy for you. I’m going to ask you one question. All you have do do is say yes, or no. That’s it. Lie and Michael goes down. Tell me the truth and you save him.”

    I want to see Desiree try to justify that! I’m sure we all do, LOL!!


  17. lynande51 permalink
    July 14, 2010 4:23 am

    Actually he lied to him as he was coming out of sedation while he was cleaning up the dental surgery. It says in their book that it took him an hour to get him to say yes after threatening Michael and telling him he was lying. Diane Dimond says he was administered Robinul and Vistaril. Robinul is an anitcholinergic meaning that it dries secretions like saliva. It has no sedative properties and is in a liquid form for IV or IM injection. Vistaril is an anxiolytic or an antihistamine so it can have sedating properties but it is only available in an oral tablet, so I doubt that was what was given. The funny thing about this is that Vistaril has anitcholinergic effects so they wouldn’t have needed the Robinul. He was in his mouth for about 30 seconds so I doubt if he would have needed to dry up the secretions anyway. Their whole story is a bunch of bull. Hmmm, I bet they didn’t think I would come along.


  18. David permalink
    July 14, 2010 5:22 am

    @ lynande51

    That’s an excellent observation! I have DD’s book too, and I forgot to include it in my last comment. Yeah, DD claimed that Dr. Torbiner’s records indicated that those are the drugs he gave Jordie, but we already know that he’s a shady doctor, and he was fired from UCLA for administering drugs (like Demerol) to patients for non-dental reasons. Why is DD so gullible to just believe that Dr. Torbiner would have accurate records of what he gave Jordie that day? Would she expect him to say that he gave Jordie sodium amytal?

    And she says that there’s no way he could have used sodium amytal because there is paperwork that must be filed with the DEA in order to obtain it, and that paperwork wasn’t found by law enforcement or the media. It’s a good thing that DD is a tabloid journalist and not a detective, because her logic is severely flawed!!

    Dr. Torbiner could have EASILY have obtained the sodium amytal from ANOTHER DOCTOR who filed the proper paperwork!! Well, using her logic, I guess there is no way that Dr. Conrad Murray could have given MJ propofol because he didn’t file the necessary paperwork to obtain it, huh? Or what about those doctors who gave Anna Nicole Smith her drugs? Do you think all of them had accurate records of all of the drugs they bought for her?

    You know, it’s a shame MJ never got his day in court in 1993, but “ATG” is the second best thing to getting the Chandlers on the witness stand. Since MJ’s lawyers never got to cross-examine them, it’s up to the fans to cross examine their book! If most MJ haters would read this trash and actually analyze it, they’ll see so many holes in their story that they’ll have second doubts about it. But most of them have not only not read the book, but they don’t even know it exists!

    Our friend Desiree was screaming at the top of her lungs that MJ was guilty, but when I asked her did she read “ATG”, she said no, but she’s waiting on it to come in the mail. So I told her to come back and tell us what she thinks after she reads it, and if she still believes MJ is guilty, than I expect her to use “ATG” as a reference!

    Ironically, she said she read “MJ Was My Lover” by Guitterez, and it was garbage. Well, the premise of that book is that Jordie kept a dairy detailing how MJ molested him. But if you don’t believe that book, then how can you believe MJ molested Jordie? If that book is a lie, then why did Evan Chandler assist Guitterez with it by giving him those documents and those photos? If it’s a lie, then why didn’t Evan Chandler sue Guitterez? The point is, we all know Evan was a ghostwriter for that book, and if you believe MJ molested Jordie, then you MUST believe “ATG” AND “MJ Was My Lover”. Period.


  19. lynande51 permalink
    July 14, 2010 5:34 am

    Not to mention that back in 1993 almost any drug was available in Mexico. You don’t need to fill out the paperwork for it down there. They don’t have a DEA. All he had to show would be his medical license and it was his. He could have gotten it any time he wanted to he only lived a coupleof hours away.


  20. Suzy permalink
    July 14, 2010 6:55 am

    @ David

    Also Jordie says in his testimony that he was put to sleep. So that part is not disputed by either party (apart from Geralnine Hughes*). The question is only what they used on him.

    * Hughes says she doesn’t believe the Sodium Amytal story because she thought everything was pre-planned. She thinks the sedation story is a fabrication of the Chandlers to make it appear as if Jordie had come up with the allegations spontaneously, which is not true in her opinion. She witnessed that they were planning the extortion long before the alleged sedation happened. She also said Jordie once spent several hours alone with Rothman (without his parents) in Rothman’s office and he sneaked in in secret and Hughes too only knew about it because he carelessly opened the door on them. Rothman got furious and Jordie looked scared at her. This was a very suspicious scene to Hughes and she thinks this was when Rotham told Jordie all the things he had to say.


  21. Suzy permalink
    July 14, 2010 7:05 am

    @ David

    “I know about the kissing and the jerking off, so you’re not telling me anything I don’t already know,” Evan lied. “This isn’t about me finding anything out. It’s about lying. And you know what’s going to happen if you lie. So I’m going to make it very easy for you. I’m going to ask you one question. All you have do do is say yes, or no. That’s it. Lie and Michael goes down. Tell me the truth and you save him.”

    So basically Evan told him if he would tell he was not molested by Michael THEN Michael would be going down? Wow!
    That kind of reminds me of the police’s questioning of Jason Francia. To emotionally blackmail a child. If Jordie started to lie about being molested by Michael and he knew he was lying, he might have done it because his father threatened him otherwise Michael would be “going down”.


  22. ares permalink
    July 23, 2010 11:26 pm

    Is the video removed from You tube? I can not find it


  23. David permalink
    July 23, 2010 11:48 pm

    @ Ares

    That video must have been removed, but there are other people who have also posted the same video. Here is one of them!

    Helena, you should add this to your post!


  24. July 24, 2010 2:06 am

    A fellow blogger had an interesting theory about this video, that the perb is also the linked to the FBI files. The video is about a craze Michael Jackson anti-fan named Rodney Allen from Toronto Canada. Who not only trained a child to lie about being M by Michael Jackson, but also knew Neverland & Encino compounds very well. The video clearly shows the unswerving effort of Mr. Allen in bringing Michael Jackson to his knees. Now in the FBI files it talks about a couple from Toronto Canada who in 1992 happened to be on the same train with Jackson, and seeing him accompanied by a young boy and heard strange noises at night coming from Michael’s cabin that was next to theirs. The strange thing is the female caller said the incident happened in 1992, but if you check the FBI records in was not reported until the firestorm of 1993. This call came from Toronto Canada the home of Rodney Allen a devoted hater and pedophile. This maybe a coincidence, but I think not. In theory there was no such molestation on a train, but Rodney Allen setting up Michael Jackson, again. The man was devilishly clever.

    The next thing that makes the ”Canadian couple” suspicious is their box cart being next to MJ’s. It is a well known fact that in those days when staying at a hotel Michael would not just buy out the entire floor, but also the ones above and beneath. How in hell would he allow someone to have a box cart next to his makes this allegation ridiculous.


  25. lynande51 permalink
    July 24, 2010 2:44 am

    Not to mention Michael Jackson on a train in 1992. It takes 2 days to get from Chicago to LA by train. Michael Jackson didn’t have time to take a train in 1992.


  26. July 26, 2010 6:43 pm

    “Is the video removed from You tube? I can not find it”

    Guys, I am back and am reading your marvellous comments now. Thank you for making a note about the video (please always tell me if something is malfunctioning). Now there is another video posted there (David, thanks).


  27. sanemjfan permalink
    November 15, 2012 3:34 am

    I’ve you ever wondered what Rodney Allen looks like now, here you go! Thank you Shelley for finding this!


  28. sanemjfan permalink
    November 15, 2012 4:35 am

    And here are the court documents for Rodney Allen’s 2007 court case! Once again, thanks Shelley!


  29. November 16, 2012 12:47 am

    “I’ve you ever wondered what Rodney Allen looks like now, here you go! And here are the court documents for Rodney Allen’s 2007 court case! Once again, thanks Shelley!” – sanemjfan

    Yes, thanks to Shelly we have both. The photo of Rodney Allen has been used in the post, but the court documents have not. Now that I’ve reread them some points looked astonishing to me – for example, the fact that Rodney Allen presented himself as a FBI agent!

    Doesn’t it remind us of Gutierrez? Is it because they are so used to living a double life that they easily play the role of secret agents? Or is it simply a sign of their pathological nature and desire to play sick games with others?

    Here are some points from Rodney Allen’s court documents:

    – The 1999 offences occurred in the summer of that year when Mr. Allen met and became friendly with a group of five fourteen-year-old boys. These boys often came to Mr. Allen’s apartment because he let them drink alcohol and smoke. Mr. Allen told the boys that he was a member of the FBI, that the world was going to end in 2000, but that they could be saved by lying down with him while naked.

    – Mr. Allen was willing to work on the “margins of conventional society” by, for example, seeking out street children; Mr. Allen worked as a long distance bus driver; and, Mr. Allen is manipulative and deceitful, making any form of self-reporting meaningless.

    – Mr. Allen was forty-five years old at the time he was sentenced. He has a minor and unrelated adult criminal record. Growing up, he had difficulties at home and at school. Up until age five, he suffered from epileptic seizures. Psychological reports produced when he was a young boy suggest that these seizures caused brain damage. According to I.Q. testing conducted at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health following his guilty plea, Mr. Allen’s intellectual capacity is borderline, rated at seventy-five to eighty.

    In this connection I’d like to mention a couple of things.

    1) On the one hand Rodney Allen was very manipulative and deceitful, but on the other hand he had a “limited intellectual capacity”. One can go with the other and may be a sign of a huge dysfunction and pathology.

    2) Rodney Allen used to seek out street boys. This was how the case of the Canadian boy, instigated to slander Michael Jackson, started at all – Rodney Allen found him in the street, the boy was homeless. Allen could easily molest him and though he was finally sentenced “only” for child pornography and some other things the boy could very well be one of his victims. The boy could refrain from talking about it or vice versa, he probably did talk but after telling so many intricate lies about MJ he no longer sounded credible, and back in 1995 no one believed him.

    3) Another point for us to remember is that a convicted pedophile Rodney Allen was another “source” of Diane Dimond (in addition to Gutierrez). She herself said that he had been sending her “information” for a long time before she went to Canada and they had discussed a lot of things together. Isn’t it interesting that in her harassment campaign against MJ Diane Dimond constantly followed the lead of real pedophiles?

    4) And the last point needs much attention. Diane Dimond and the other journalist who went to Canada say that the boy gave them a drawing of Neverland (don’t remember whether it was a map of the ranch or the house). They also showed him the photos of some Neverland employees and he “recognized them”. Considering that the boy never had an opportunity to leave Canada at all this point becomes extremely interesting.

    To me it shows that Rodney Allen coached the boy with real pictures. But then it means that he had been to Neverland and though photographs were not allowed there he did take them, probably by a secret camera. It is only now that we have photos of Neverland but at that time there were none, so the only way Rodney Allen (or someone he worked together with) could make those photos was a stealthy way.

    And the boy even recognized some people there! In the year 1995 who could that be? Some bodyguards? Blanca Francia, the former maid? Adrian McManus, another maid? The Neverland five? Who else? Possibly Phillip Lemarque (the Neverland majordomo who slandered Macaulay Culkin)? And also the Phillipino couple?

    Now let us look at this fact from another side. What photos could Diane Dimond show to the boy? What photos did she herself have? The photos of the people mentioned above, right? I doubt very much that she had photos of other Neverland staff as she herself had never been to Neverland. Isn’t it interesting that she showed the boy the pictures available to her and the boy recognized those very people?

    And isn’t it interesting that Rodney Allen most probably showed the boy the same pictures? How could he get them? One of the possibilities is his own visit to Neverland. Another possibility is his previous communication with Diane Dimond and discussion of the people around MJ.

    And would it be a too big stretch of imagination to look into a third possibility – that he could know Gutierrez too? After all they could have attended one and the same NAMBLA conference in Los Angeles, couldn’t they? And later on Gutierrez could provide him with the photos, plan of the house, information about MJ?

    All these things are suppositions only, but we do need to find an explanation why the boy drew a plan of Neverland and could recognize some people there by a photo of them, don’t we? Though he never left Canada in his whole life!

    What will be your suggestions?


  30. November 16, 2012 3:31 am

    “All these things are suppositions only, but we do need to find an explanation why the boy drew a plan of Neverland and could recognize some people there by a photo of them, don’t we? Though he never left Canada in his whole life!”

    It’s only the word of Dimond.

    I think t that letter from december 2004 p14 is interesting, it’s number 8336

    Click to access 011305declyurespmotcompel06.pdf


  31. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 16, 2012 9:07 am

    VMJ, I think there were photos of NL taken from the air. Helicopters were always flying over and taking photos, esp. when Elizabeth Taylor was married there.

    It is very interesting that DD ended up surrounded by real pedophiles while trying to catch a person who was not!!

    The idea that VG and RA met is intriguing.

    As far as the photos, were some of these people in the newspapers. Interesting that RA was obsessed with Michael, just like VG.


  32. November 19, 2012 10:23 pm

    I think t that letter from december 2004 p14 is interesting, it’s number 8336

    Shelly, thank you for the reminder. You once sent it but I forgot. I’ve become so absent-minded that appreciate it very much when people remind me of important things like that.


  33. November 19, 2012 10:44 pm

    “VMJ, I think there were photos of NL taken from the air. Helicopters were always flying over and taking photos, esp. when Elizabeth Taylor was married there.” – aldebaran

    Yes, but in this case the Canadian boy spoke about the saddles kept somewhere on the ranch. I didn’t know about them until once saw some displayed by the auctioneers (I think). This is a rare detail which could have been noted only by someone who had been to Neverland.

    It is very interesting that DD ended up surrounded by real pedophiles while trying to catch a person who was not!!

    I am happy that she did and see it as God’s revenge on her.

    The idea that VG and RA met is intriguing.

    It wasn’t even necessary for them to meet. Pedophiles have their own meeting places in the Internet and if both of them had once been to that Los Angeles NAMBLA conference (in 1986) they knew the faces of each other and the nicknames under which they communicate in the net. No need to go and meet each other personally. Many of them call themselves “John”, “Bill”, etc. (in quotations). This is one of the reasons why I think that the book with boys’ pictures in it was sent to Michael by a pedophile calling himself “Rhonda”. Whether it was Rodney Allen or someone else, we cannot know for sure, but those quotations marks are very characteristic. Mind you that only those who know can recognize these signs. Michael could very well overlook this point and never pay attention. I’ve found an FBI paper which describes the signs and pictures they put on their pages to be able to recognize each other.

    As far as the photos, were some of these people in the newspapers.

    This is only an impression while in reality you won’t be able to find many photos. Some of them appeared much later, during the 2005 trial, when these people made their personal appearance in the courtroom. But in the year 1993 the photos were very scarce. In fact we can see them all as we’ve been reading the same papers as the public at the time, but still haven’t seen the photos of Michael’s employees. Their faces more or less became known when Michael’s home videos were made public.

    Interesting that RA was obsessed with Michael, just like VG.

    VERY interesting.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: