CHILDREN DON’T LIE? (video)

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 mol.st 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.

SOME PEOPLE CANNOT EVEN PRONOUNCE IT LET ALONE DO IT.

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.

P.S.

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?