Skip to content

Fact Checking Diane Dimond’s Lies from TruTV’s “In Session”

September 21, 2011

Look who she has hanging on her wall! I bet she has a photo of MJ taped to her ceiling above her bed!

On Friday, September 16th,2011 Tru TV’s legal orientated show “In Session” aired a round table discussion on Michael Jackson’s life, legacy, and upcoming trial. It was hosted by Ryan Smith, and consisted of Steve Manning (one of MJ’s former publicists), Mike Garcia (one of three of MJ’s former bodyguards, who was scheduled to help write a book, but, according to their Facebook page, is no longer associated with that project), Anthony DeCurtis (contributing editor for Rolling Stone), and the notorious Diane Dimond, who replaced author Joe Vogel at the last minute!

The one-hour discussion was divided into different segments and shown throughout the day 8am through 3pm CST. I was fortunate to record all of it on my DVR, and after watching it I was so disgusted by Dimond’s lies that I decided to transcribe the segment on – you guessed it! – the allegations, and refute them right here in a new post!

I also have to admit that I was disappointed –not disgusted, but disappointed – in the performance of Mike Garcia and Steve Manning. Although they made a valiant effort, they came up short in providing a cogent, effective rebuttal to Dimond’s lies. Instead of providing cold, hard facts, they relied on such weak defenses as “Michael was a kid himself!”, “He was such a nice, sweet person!”, “He never harmed his own kids!”, “Evan Chandler killed himself, so that proves he was lying!”, “Jordan Chandler admitted he lied on the internet!”, etc.  Dimond immediately countered all of their claims, and by doing so was able to insinuate that MJ was guilty. And I have to give it to her, she never explicitly said MJ was guilty, or was a p…, but she didn’t make the case for his innocence either! She gave the appearance of being “fair and balanced”, which gives her credibility with less-knowledgeable viewers, who unfortunately are the majority of the viewers!  To use her words, this tactic is her effective “subterfuge”!

With no further ado, here is the transcript of that segment, along with the video of the entire session!

Ryan Smith: What was it like at Neverland Ranch? Was it a place of fantasy? Tell me what it was like at Neverland.

Steve Manning:  I would say it’s a place of pure fantasy. At first I went there was around 10 years ago, when I went there with Jermaine, his wife, and his kids, and I was astonished! I said “My gosh!” It was something to behold, especially as a black man, to see another black man own this type of property, it was unbelievable! I mean, he had a 5,000 square foot French chalet for movies to watch. It was just tremendous! He had these private cottages on the lake. It was something to see; it was a true luxury. It was a 10-star hotel.

Mike Garcia:  I think he was able to actually walk around and just be himself.

Steve Manning:  And he loved inviting fans, and people………speaking of molestation charges, there was a bed that he had inside the movie theater, inside the booth where the projections were, and people said that he used that bed for children, and that was so insulting, so outrageous! It was for kids who were terminally ill! (In a mocking voice) “What’s that bed doing in there?!!” It was a king size bed for kids in their dying days from the Make-A-Wish foundation could come there, lay down, and watch a movie there. But it was something that he was very happy about.

Ryan Smith: There was talk that there were secret rooms inside Neverland Ranch. There was a lot of speculation, especially when the molestation charges came up, that those rooms were dubious, in certain ways.

Mike Garcia: I think that’s the media kinda twisting it.

Diane Dimond: I’ll tell you what, the secret room of Michael Jackson’s, in the bedroom, used to be a fur vault for the woman who lived there before. He made a bedroom out of it, and each step going down there was a little doll on each step.

What was Neverland like? I don’t know, because I was never there. I’ve seen lots of pictures, lots of video of it, and it was opulent and beautiful! Tudor style mansion, gorgeous! I will tell you what they said at the criminal trial: they said it was a child magnet! It was a beautiful place with swimming pools, and slides, and a movie theater…………

Steve Manning:  I disagree!  That’s outrageous!

Diane Dimond: And that’s what they said at the trial!

At this point, Dimond’s face turns red as she angrily turns to Steve Manning, and chastises him for interrupting her!

Diane Dimond: You know what? I don’t interrupt you!

Steve Manning:  Ok, I’m sorry!

Mike Garcia: I’ll say, in security terms, a lot of people do have those rooms because we call them panic rooms.

Ryan Smith: Ok, first Diane, I want you to finish your point about “their saying this at the trial”

Diane Dimond: That’s not ME saying it……

Steve Manning:  Oh ok, alright.

Diane Dimond: I know it’s hard to hear me Steve because I’m talking over this way.

I don’t know what Neverland is like because I never got inside, but I did see a lot of video, at the trial. I did see lots of pictures, and layouts, and diagrams; it’s beautiful! It’s a sanctuary! But, I also remember at the criminal trial the prosecution said “it was a child’s magnet”. It had swimming pools, and movie theaters with all the popcorn and candy you can eat, it had its own amusement park with a petting zoo, and giraffes, and Ferris wheels. If that was Michael Jackson reliving his own childhood, that’s one thing, but that’s not what we heard at the criminal trial.

Ryan Smith: Now Steve, talk to me about that, because the question so many people would ask when they would talk about Neverland is “Why are so many children there?” Why was he around so many children?

Steve Manning:  Because he thought children were innocent, and they were innocent, and childlike. And again, there were adults there. I’ve been there maybe 28 occasions at the ranch, and always had a good time.  There were adults there also. And, he did tell me when the police raided the place that he would never step foot in there again. He was violated, that he was raped.

Mike Garcia: He told us the same thing.  He said he wouldn’t go back because the place was scarred. And from a security standpoint, we felt that it wouldn’t even be a smart move because there’s no telling what’s in the rafters, or inside the walls, after everybody’s in there.

Diane Dimond: Do you mean eavesdropping equipment?

Mike Garcia: Yes.

Diane Dimond: Oh, interesting.

Ryan Smith: Ok, so he felt that way about Neverland after that raid, but was he aware that he was a grown man spending a lot of time with children, and that people would ask questions about it?

Steve Manning:  He didn’t find anything wrong with that because he was innocent, and nothing was happening, that’s what he told me.

Mike Garcia: If you know Mr. Jackson, and he’ll probably agree with me, if you know Mr. Jackson then you’ll know that he shouldn’t have been in that trial. He’s a child himself, and at the same time there’s probably not a whole lot of people telling him saying “Hey, it doesn’t look right”, because there were a lot of “yes” people, but Mr. Jackson was a child himself.

Steve Manning:  I had a conversation with Mr. Jackson; that trial killed Michal Jackson!

Mike Garcia: Absolutely!

Steve Manning:  That’s what really killed him. Even though he was found “not guilty”, he never was the same after that.

Ryan Smith: Why?

Steve Manning:  It drained him. It drained him; it drained his soul and spirit.

Ryan Smith: Let’s talk about the trial, and as Mike just said, you think that trial should have never happened. Diane, what did you think?

Diane Dimond: Well, I’m listening to what the former employees and friends have said about him never wanting to go back to Neverland, because he felt “raped”. I know some members of the prosecution team who said they didn’t want to go back because he had been exposed!

I’m not saying that Michael Jackson was a pedophile! A judge and jury ruled that he was not.

Steve Manning:  Thank you!

Mike Garcia: Absolutely!

Diane Dimond: But in my book, I outline several years’ worth of interviews that I did, with lots of young boys, and their families, that were too afraid to come forward and press charges, that all told the same story! Of how the child was manipulated to come and see Michael Jackson, manipulated to be alone with Michael Jackson, maybe the adults in their lives were over-protective, or over-reacting, but Michael Jackson made the first charges “go away”, as I outline in the book, by paying $30 million dollars! Who does that? And don’t tell me it’s because he had a lot of money back then, because he wasn’t working at that point!

Steve Manning:  Mr. Jackson brought Johnnie Cochran in, and I had a conversation with Johnnie Cochran personally about this, Mr. Jackson brought him in late, before they settled that, and he begged him not to settle it, but he wanted it to just go away. And he regretted it later on.

Diane Dimond: That is just not true! Johnnie Cochran and Howard Weitzman negotiated that monetary settlement with the first young boy.

Steve Manning:  Mr. Jackson asked him not to settle…

Diane Dimond: That’s just not of the facts!

Mike Garcia: A lot of the things your saying is hearsay because I was with him when he went to the lawyers, and things like that……

Diane Dimond: You were there in 1993?

Mike Garcia: No, I was not there.

Diane Dimond: I was there in 1993.

Mike Garcia: But the things that you’re saying is hearsay. I’ve been with him, with lawyers, and I know that he, just like you said……..

Steve Manning:  I’m not going to scrupulate Johnnie Cochran, but Mr. Jackson did bring him in like that, and he begged him not to settle. He wanted it to just go away.

Diane Dimond: Ryan, that is not the facts!

Steve Manning:  That’s what I was told by Johnnie Cochran, and by his mom.

Mike Garcia: Absolutely.

Ryan Smith: Mike, you’re saying that what Diane is saying is hearsay; what did you learn from Michael Jackson?

Mike Garcia: The information that she’s saying is things from secondhand. Like I said, if you knew Mr. Jackson, you would know he didn’t do it.

Diane Dimond: Michael, I sat and talked with young boys, I sat and talked to their families, that’s not secondhand.

Mike Garcia: If you knew Mr. Jackson, you knew he didn’t do it.

Diane Dimond: That’s not secondhand. And you weren’t there in 1993, and I was. When did you first start working for Michael Jackson?

Mike Garcia: So what he had a petting zoo! So what if he had a Ferris wheel! It doesn’t matter!

Diane Dimond: When did you first start working for him?

Mike Garcia: In 2006.

Diane Dimond: Ok, he wasn’t even at Neverland!

Mike Garcia: If you knew Mr. Jackson, then you knew that he didn’t do it. That’s all I have to say.

Diane Dimond: You were not even around when he lived at Neverland.

Anthony DeCurtis: To tell you something about kids and families like that, they’re not bringing suits, they’re not doing anything? What is motivating them like that?

Mike Garcia: Who’s not to say that their parents didn’t push them on? They’re a lot of things that could have happened.

Diane Dimond: That’s right.

Mike Garcia: You’re sitting there and pointing things out, but at the same time, I’m not…………to be honest, I get asked that question a lot, when people find out that I was with Mr. Jackson, they ask “do you think he did it?” Absolutely not! He was a very gentle man!

Steve Manning:  Diane, isn’t it true Diane that the Ryan father who pushed this whole thing, later admitted that his father made him do it?

Diane Dimond: No, that is not true! That was put out on the internet that the first young man recanted, and it absolutely was not true. That came out after his father committed suicide, and people said “Oh look, his father committed suicide! Chandler’s gone, it was all a hoax!” Mr. Chandler committed suicide because he had a degenerative disease that was robbing him of the ability to stand up, to speak, to swallow, or to think.

Steve Manning:  Well, I wish you would have went to Neverland, and you’re family. It was something for families; it was a beautiful place……

Diane Dimond: I’m sure it was a beautiful place, but Mike, with all due respect, you started working for him in 2006, he didn’t even live at Neverland! You don’t know what went on at Neverland, and I don’t either! I just know the people I spoke to, not secondhand.

Mike Garcia: When you’re embedded with someone 24 hours a day……like I said, there was no entourage, it was just us, Michael Jackson, and the kids, and when you’re embedded with someone like that, you pick up on things. I have a great attention to detail. I watched how everybody does everything. There’s no way that he did it. There’s absolutely no way. And him being a child himself……… want to talk about his house at Neverland, he had this, and he had that, he probably had it for himself first.

Steve Manning:  But the bottom line is, like I said earlier, the trial killed him, it drained him. He was dead already!

Mike Garcia: Drained him!

Mike Garcia: A lot of things, like how people turned their backs on him……I heard that there was a party after the trial, and a thousand people were supposed to be there, and only 200 people showed up!  He saw a lot of things! He saw a lot of people’s true colors.  Honestly, we didn’t get paid for several months, but we stayed with the guy because we saw his naiveness, and the way he was treated by the media and everybody else, and the control. The guy was a heart of gold.

Ryan Smith: Let me ask this, of both of you. You both spent a lot of time with Michael; did Michael ever spend time alone with boys? The rumors that he spent time in bed with boys?

Mike Garcia: I never saw anything myself.

Ryan Smith: You never saw anything?

Mike Garcia: The only children I saw him with were his own, and he was a great father.

Diane Dimond: And you do know Ryan, if indeed the charges were true…………nope, let me say it this way………you do know Ryan that a child molester does not molest in front of other people!  They’re very secretive, they’re very crafty. Anybody at the FBI, who wrote the profile of what a pedophile is, will tell you that they’re the most charming, fascinating, engaging people in all of criminal life! They first must seduce the parent to get to the child. I’m not saying Michael Jackson was a pedophile, but to say “Oh golly, he’s such a nice guy, and he’s so sweet, and he’s like a child himself”, that could also be a crafty subterfuge. I look at both sides to everything, and I know that angers some people!

Steve Manning:  But the Santa Barbara jury found him not guilty.

Diane Dimond:  Absolutely!

Ryan Smith: And that’s a good point Steve! And why was he found not guilty?

Diane Dimond: Because I think the state did not prove its case! I sat in that court every single day, and the case that was filed became so complicated with conspiracies, and phone numbers, and phone trees, and this, and that, they forgot to just tell the story, and let the jury decide on that.

Steve Manning:  But look at those charges, I mean, an all-white jury, a black guy……..

Diane Dimond: It wasn’t in Santa Barbara, first of all, it was in Santa Maria, which is 120 miles north from Santa Barbara.

Ryan Smith: I’ll ask this one other question, and Steve and Mike, let me get your thoughts on this: as Diane’s saying, it’s been documented that he paid families of children that accused him molestation, so the question is……..

Steve Manning:  She said they didn’t come forward, just one family, the guy Ryan…..

Ryan Smith: Ok, so let’s assume it’s one family then, assuming that, I think the question that would occur to a lot of people guys, is “Why would you pay somebody off for something that you didn’t do?”

Steve Manning:  Well he regretted that he settled that case, he regretted it. He should have let it go to trial. In the second trial he was vindicated, and he wished he could have done that with the Ryan case.

Diane Dimond: And I think that’s a very good point because, if he had not settled the first case, and it had gone to trial, there never would have been a second one.  He made himself a target by paying $30 million dollars to a boy’s family. Every ne’er do well in America could have come forward and said “Hey look! He pays people! Let’s go file a false claim!” There weren’t any for 10 years, and in 2003, a young boy, suffering from cancer, alleges that Michael Jackson did untoward things to him. The jury declared him “not guilty”, and I say that’s the way we need to remember Michael Jackson.

Steve Manning:  Thank you!

Diane Dimond: He was a genius, a talented genius, and a tortured soul.


1. “Speaking of molestation charges, there was a bed that he had inside the movie theater, inside the booth where the projections were, and people said that he used that bed for children, and that was so insulting, so outrageous!” This topic was brought up by the one and only Oprah in her 1993 interview with the Agajanian family, which aired on the same day as her live, primetime interview with Michael. She describes how impressed she was that he would build a bed inside of his movie theater so that terminally ill children could watch movies in comfort, and how she was so moved by that, because in order to do that means that MJ genuinely cared about them! (And those are her exact words, too!) Her comments start at 3:50.

2. “There was talk that there were secret rooms inside Neverland Ranch.” In an interview that was granted on July 1st, 2009, Mr. AC Agajanian, the father of Amy, debunked this “secret room” garbage that both the tabloid and “lamestream” media reported on for years, even after his acquittal!  Here is his interview, and he refutes the lie beginning at 5:45.

Here is a partial transcript (the complete transcript  is included in this post):

JC: But let me tell you something that came up about his bedroom, and the “secret room” and all this stuff that went on. Francie and I were in his bedroom, my kids were in his bedroom, his bedroom was a playland, it had Disney things in there, it was like a living room. And when he said, “I invited kids in my bed” [sorry, JC, Michael never said it – he simply said he gave his bed to others] it’s… first of all, any kids that wanted to have a slumber party there, the “secret room” that they referred to that was locked up and so on, that was where he went to sleep.

When he said, “I’d be happy to give my bed to kids”… what he meant by that was, when he grew up, he didn’t have a bed. All the Jackson kids slept in one room. To be able to sleep in the bed was a big deal!  And the people just didn’t understand that what he was saying was, when you give someone where you sleep and you leave and you go to another room to sleep, you’re giving them the bed, you’re sharing the most you have.

It’s like sitting at the table and going, “Yeah, you could have this steak and go eat, I’ll eat the beans over here.” They just didn’t understand and his honesty in saying that got him in trouble.

Here is a video of The Today Show from June 2010. They did a special on the one year anniversary, it included a tour of Neverland, and of course the stupid reporter had to show everyone the “secret room” and remind everyone that the prosecutors said he used it for nefarious reasons! It starts at 00:30 seconds:

3. “What was Neverland like? I don’t know, because I was never there.” Bull! She was the ONLY reporter that was on the property during Sneddon’s  November , 2003 raid!  As a matter of fact, she was there BEFORE the police arrived! This was summarized in this MJEOL Bullet.  Here is an excerpt:

Not only was she apparently tipped off by someone in either the district attorney’s office or the sheriff’s department, but she was given so much specific information that she executed a plan to have two camera crews ready: one to catch the raid at Neverland, and another for when Jackson was to be arrested and taken to the police station. What? No one has so much as asked one question about how she knew to be there at that time, who gave her this information, and for what purpose was it given to her. The second crew at the police station came up empty because Jackson wasn’t at Neverland when the raid started. This in itself of further evidence that Sneddon was allowed to get the search and arrest warrants at the same time, since Dimond “broke” news that police “sources” said that had Jackson been at Neverland during the time they ransacked his home, they would have arrested him “on the spot”.

Apparently for months, she was given or was seeking information about this investigation, and was tipped off hours before the raid so that she could be there, ready to roll camera and report her ill-gotten “scoop”. She has also, since, proclaimed to have met the accuser and presumably the mother. The questions that arise, of course, are when and how did she get in contact with them. We know from an earlier report that current district attorney Sneddon was trying to get in contact with the family as early as Feb 16 2003. So when did Dimond track down the family? Since she was so…uh, resourceful…could she have aided prosecutors in finding them? She has, since, aided prosecutors in tracking down a pair of dirty old underwear which may or may not even belong to Jackson.  But the point is that she has gone to the other side of the country, found what she thought was “evidence” in the so-called case against Jackson, and called up her old buddy Sneddon—who sent officers there to pick up those dirty old drawers.

Here is an excerpt from the Daily Mail UK, and I apologize for having to use this garbage, due to the headline:

Police search Jacko’ s ranch

Police have searched Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch in California – although the purpose of the search was not immediately disclosed, a sheriff’s official said.

The authorities executed a search warrant at the 45-year-old musician’s sprawling home in the Santa Ynez Valley outside of Santa Barbara, said a sheriff’s spokesman.

The Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s office was also involved in the action, he added.

A Jackson spokesman told CNN the singer was not at the ranch and the raid “came as a total surprise.”

CourtTV’s Diane Dimond, reporting from Neverland, said the raid was in connection with an abuse charge from a 13-year-old boy.

The search is unrelated to a 13-year-old boy’s 1993 allegation that Jackson shared his bed with the teenager and initiated sexual contact.

Jackson’s friend Uri Geller said: “I have heard an ambulance was involved. I don’t know what is going on”.

The search warrant related to a criminal investigation, a police spokesman said.

Nine years ago a 14-year-old reached an out-of-court agreement after accusing the singer of molesting him.

The search comes on the same day Epic Records released Number Ones, a greatest hits collection featuring Jackson’s new single, One More Chance. US TV is scheduled to air a Jackson special next week consisting mainly of old concert footage.

And if there are still any doubts as to whether or not Dimond was tipped off several months early about the investigation and upcoming raid, then let’s look what she had to say about it in her book “Be Careful Who You Love”,

Dimond and her buddy Louise Palanker just gushing over her new book!

from page 4:

Several years went by. My life went on. Flash-forward to my birthday, November 15th, 2003. I got “the” call. I had been alerted a few months earlier that a new Jackson child molestation investigation was percolating and on that day I learned that another raid on Neverland was a go. There was also a secret arrest warrant pending, and if Michael Jackson was anywhere on his 2,700 acre ranch, he would be arrested on child molestation charges immediately.

There! She admits it herself that she was tipped when the investigation started, and obviously that Sneddon was able to get an arrest warrant to arrest MJ on the spot, something he obviously wanted to do but could not do in 1993, due to Jordan’s inaccurate description of MJ’s penis!

4. “But in my book, I outline several years’ worth of interviews that I did, with lots of young boys, and their families, that were too afraid to come forward and press charges, that all told the same story!”  This statement is totally and absolutely representative of Dimond’s M.O.: she tells a gullible, impressionable public audience that she, in her capacity as an “investigative journalist”, has interviewed “lots” of young boys who told the “same story”, but were “too afraid” to press charges! And to give her lies more credibility, she insists that she also interviewed their families as well! This is what’s known as an “ad hominem” technique, which means that she’s “appealing to the viewer’s emotions and prejudices, instead of their ability to think”!  By claiming that there are other “victims” out there, and of course by not revealing their identities, or an exact date of her “interviews” with them, she scares the less-knowledgeable viewer into thinking that MJ is a reincarnation of John Wayne Gacy!

Here is what Dimond wrote on her blog on July 6th, 2009:

But Michael Jackson was obsessive about other things too; things that don’t make us feel so good. 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.

Maureen Orth also peddles in this type of yellow journalism. Here is what she said on June 26th, 2009:

In August 1993, I was on the beach in Nantucket when I was told that Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter was trying to reach me: Michael Jackson had just been accused of child molestation by a 13-year-old boy. Thus began an odyssey of 12 years in which I wrote five lengthy articles for the magazine about the trials and tribulations of this music icon whose fame had literally deformed him. I spoke to hundreds of people who knew Jackson and, in the course of my reporting, found families who had given their sons up to him and paid dearly for it.

These are what I call “phantom victims”, and it was my idea to do a post on all of the frivolous accusers who smeared MJ’s reputation, in addition to the specious accusers. The word “specious” means “to appear to be superficially plausible, but in reality false”. Jordan Chandler, Gavin Arvizo, and Jason Francia’s claims are considered specious because they knew MJ personally, and spent time with him (which gives their accusations a hint of credibility), unlike the phantom victims who never met him at all! (Except for Terry George, but his claim came years after MJ severed ties with him.)

The phantom victims that we rebutted include Terry George, Daniel Kapon, Joseph Bartucci, and a German kid whose mother, according to Dimond and Ray Chandler, allegedly called Evan Chandler from Germany, but never contacted the police!  We dismantled all of them in this post.

5. “Michael Jackson made the first charges “go away”, as I outline in the book, by paying $30 million dollars! Who does that?”  Once again, another ad hominem attack! This is the usual “no innocent man would pay money to settle a false claim!” nonsense, and for added sensationalism, she doubled the $15,331,250 settlement to $30 million dollars!

I have rebutted this nonsense ad nauseum on this blog before, so there’s no reason to once again do it here. As usual, for the truth behind MJ’s settlements, please read this 2 part series, beginning here.

One of the reasons that Dimond is able to spin the settlement as a sign of guilt, and make up astronomical dollar amounts for the settlement, is that she deliberately excluded from the leaked documents the all-important Paragraph 3, which is referred to numerous times throughout the settlement. This paragraph, in all likelihood, mentions the insurance carrier who negotiated and paid the settlement, among many other pertinent facts.  This was discussed in this post last year.

And did you notice how she lied and said that he “wasn’t working” at that point? How can that be, when he was on tour throughout the fall of 1993, until he checked into rehab!  And while he obviously wasn’t touring in January 1994 when the civil case was settled, he still was worth hundreds of millions of dollars! What Dimond did was, once again, rebut the weak defense that fans often use that the settlement money was “pocket change” to MJ.

6. “No, that is not true! That was put out on the internet that the first young man recanted, and it absolutely was not true.” I was absolutely speechless when Steve Manning mentioned Jordan’s so-called “confession”. And not only did he try to use it as “proof” of MJ’s innocence, he even asked Diane if it was really true! As if he wasn’t sure about it!!  How (for lack of a better word) MISINFORMED can this man be? He doesn’t even know Jordan’s name! (He referred to him repeatedly as “Ryan”.) And it’s not just him; I’ve seen both Jermaine and Katherine Jackson say this as well!  In fact, here is a video of Katherine Jackson on the Today Show in May:

Here is a partial transcript:

Matt Lauer:  You said in an interview not long ago with the associated press that there are a lot of lies about your son out there and misconceptions. If you could set some of them straight now what would you like to tell people?

Katherine Jackson: Well, the first thing i would like to tell them is as far as Michael being a child molester, that’s the biggest lie that was ever told. I guess nobody seemed to know that his first accuser, after Michael died there was an article that he came and confessed that Michael never touched him. It was a big lie and his father just wanted to be rich. He said, “I’m sorry i didn’t get to tell him before he died”.

Matt Lauer: Yet, Mrs. Jackson, there was a settlement made, a payment made by your son to the accuser. If there was no guilt why was the payment made?

Katherine Jackson:  Well, his lawyers told him that he should just pay the money because Michael was out on tour at that time. They thought that just paying the money and shut the people up would be the right thing to do. but Michael was upset and i was, too. As soon as I heard it I called him and said, why did you do that? It makes you look guilty. He said, “the lawyers told me to do it. I didn’t want to do it either, mother. I wanted to fight it because it wasn’t the truth.”

Just for the record, Jordan Chandler never publically recanted ANYTHING! While it’s been said that he told his closest friends in college that he lied, until he publically announces it, and writes a book, and does a major TV interview with Oprah, Larry King, Diane Sawyer, etc., anything he says in private to his closest friends is IRRELEVANT!

Also, Evan Chandler’s death does NOT automatically prove that he lied, either! While it’s certainly karma that his life ended the way it did, after how he destroyed MJ’s life, Dimond made a good rebuttal (which is what any MJ hater will do to such a weak defense of him): his death was due to his illness, and not necessarily because he felt “guilty” about what he did. Perhaps there was some guilt, but unfortunately we as fans will never know, and we cannot independently confirm it, so we should never use this as “evidence”; instead, we can rely on the timeline of the chain of events of 1993, such as his desire to be a 50/50 partner with MJ, the dissolution of his relationship with MJ after his request was denied, his demand of a $20 million dollar film deal in exchange for his silence, and numerous other examples of exculpatory evidence.

7. “Well, I wish you would have went to Neverland, and you’re family. It was something for families; it was a beautiful place.” Oh my gosh, when I responded to Dimond with this crap, my jaw just dropped! You’re telling me that you’re on a panel with the most notorious MJ hater who ever lived, and you’re gonna defend your friend and former client Michael Jackson by saying that Dimond should have visited Neverland to see how beautiful it is? If you were someone who is on the fence about MJ’s guilt, what would you think upon hearing this? This was a theme that was consistent throughout this panel, from both Manning and Garcia. Instead of providing facts, they kept mentioning how nice, sweet, naïve, and childlike MJ was, how Neverland was a beautiful place, how he regretted settling the 1993 case, blah,blah, blah, and they really missed a golden opportunity to educate the public! I guess this is why they were selected in the first place! Let’s not forget, Tru TV is merely a spinoff of the now defunct Court TV, which employed the likes of Dimond, Grace, Sunny Hostin, Kimberly Guilfoyle, and Gloria Allred.

To get an objective opinion of Court TV’s degradation over the years, let’s look at what former Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley had to say about the network at the November 2005 Harvard Law School Seminar:

 “I was totally hooked on Court TV.  That was Court TV in the “good old days”, before all the talking heads came in, and you got mostly uncensored, real trial testimony, and it was fascinating to watch.”

8. I’m not saying Michael Jackson was a pedophile, but to say “Oh golly, he’s such a nice guy, and he’s so sweet, and he’s like a child himself”, that could also be a crafty subterfuge. This is EXACTLY why all MJ fans must step their game up, and improve their knowledge of the facts; otherwise, you will merely resort to using ad hominem techniques that will be rightfully obliterated by haters, and even skeptics. I truly hope that this blog is a stepping stone to the accomplishment of that goal!

For example, let’s look at Rev. Al Sharpton try to defend MJ against Peter King’s attacks. His heart was in the right place, but overall it was a very weak defense that (once again) didn’t include any pertinent facts.  It was just more of the same “the jury acquitted him, leave him alone, blah, blah, blah…”.  Extremely weak, ineffective, and unconvincing.

9. “The case that was filed became so complicated with conspiracies, and phone numbers, and phone trees, and this, and that, they forgot to just tell the story, and let the jury decide on that.” Once again, Dimond goes into spin mode, and I’m surprised her head didn’t start spinning around like that kid in “The Exorcist”! (When I say “spin”, I mean that she’s “presenting information to the public in a way that is meant to falsely influence their opinion”.)

This is absolutely typical of what haters do; they blame the prosecution for “bungling” the case, or they blame the accusers for being of a lower educational and socioeconomic status, or they blame the jury for being “smitten” by MJ’s celebrity.  Matt Drudge warned that this would happen during his vehement defense of MJ on his radio show in 2005.

Let’s take a closer look at this so-called “complicated” phone number evidence that was soooooooo confusing that the jury decided to acquit MJ on this alone! Here is the May 2nd, 2005 testimony of Detective Craig Bonner, who was assigned the task of investigating the phone records in the days and weeks after the airing of the Bashir crock-u-mentary, which were subpoenaed by Sneddon. He used Microsoft Excel to create phone charts which showed how each phone call was connected to one another, similar to the flowchart that was used in the Veritas Project to show how all of the accusers were connected to each other!

Here are some very brief excerpts from his direct and cross examination. This is truly the most BORING testimony that I’ve ever read! To think that the prosecution spent ALL DAY on such trivial and irrelevant evidence just boggles the mind, and it’s easy to see why haters use this is an easy scapegoat for MJ’s acquittal. If Dr. Murray had forced MJ to read this testimony, instead of administering propofol, MJ would surely have gotten the sleep he so desperately desired!

Let’s start with a basic introduction of who Det. Bonner is, and how he accomplished his assignment of making the phone database:



25 Q. Good morning, Sergeant Bonner.

26 A. Good morning.

27 Q. With respect to your investigation in this

28 case, did you have occasion to gather, sort and 8322

1 analyze telephone records and subscriber

2 information?

3 A. Yes, I did.

4 Q. Do you see the stack of phone exhibits

5 sitting on counsel table? I believe they’re 450

6 through 459.

7 A. Yes, I’m quite familiar with them.

8 Q. Do you recognize those exhibits?

9 A. I’m quite familiar, yes.

10 Q. And did you play a role in putting those

11 exhibits together and analyzing the information that

12 was contained within them?

13 A. I did.

14 Q. Can you briefly and generally explain to the

15 jury the process that was used to — the initial

16 step used in getting a handle on the information

17 thats in those exhibits?

18 A. Yes. Basically we obtained quite a number

19 of telephone records through search warrant and

20 subpoena. We amassed those records and brought them

21 into a computer database, used that computer

22 database to compile and sort those records into a

23 format where we could begin to see patterns of calls

24 and who was calling whom.

25 We then utilized that information to cut out

26 the unnecessary material, or the material which we

27 could not substantiate through other evidence, and

28 we have brought that together now into exhibits that 8323

1 will show just those phone calls that are pertinent,

2 and we have done that in a visual manner as well as

3 in a document that will back up that visual manner.

4 Q. Okay. I think we missed a step. With

5 respect to the information that was generated and

6 you created a spreadsheet from it, can you explain

7 to the jury how you verified the information that

8 was in your spreadsheets?

9 A. The computer database basically put together

10 a list of the calls that it said occurred between

11 our involved parties to ensure that that list was

12 correct. We then went into those records, which are

13 the actual records sent by the phone companies, and

14 we verified each and every call that the computer

15 said occurred, and we have noted where that call

16 occurs within those records.

17 Q. Okay. Did you prepare some exhibits for

18 court today to demonstrate your testimony?

19 A. I did.

18 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: I ask if you recognize

19 Exhibit 859?

20 A. Yes, I do.

21 Q. What does 859 contain?

22 A. 859 is the visual chart documenting

23 telephone calls between the involved parties on

24 February 5th, 2003.

25 Q. Is there also a document behind the visual

26 chart?

27 A. There is. Its an Excel spreadsheet, which

28 is the verification of each call that is claimed on 8325

1 the visual chart.

2 Q. And did you create or cause to be created

3 these charts?

4 A. I did.

5 Q. And did you cause to be created 859 through

6 882?

7 A. I did.

8 Q. Okay. Now, with respect to testifying about

9 the contents of these exhibits, 859 through 882, did

10 you delegate some other of your colleagues to assist

11 you?

12 A. I did.

13 Q. And which exhibits will you be testifying to

14 today, if you could please the tell jury now?

15 A. I will testify to 859, 860, 861, 862, 863,

16 864, 865, 866, 867, 871, 875, 876, 877, 878 and 879.

Now, let’s get to the heart of the matter: there was a material error in the description of one of the charts that was used to outline 12 phone calls between Eveyln Tavasci and Neverland Valley Ranch. Det. Bonner pointed out to that there was an error in the description of who was called (which was Neverland Valley Ranch, not Marc Schaffel, which was stated on the chart). The original chart implied that there was phone contact between Tavasci and Scheffel, when there wasn’t any!

Upon realizing this error, Prosecutor Nicola asked to have the chart evidence(exhibit 879) stricken, pending correction (which would have forced the jury to disregard it), but defense attorney Robert Sanger objected, because it had already been referred to in front of the jury, and that is should remain until it was corrected. The court agreed!

1 Q. Can you tell us about the 12 phone calls

2 between the Evvy Tavasci/MJJ Production phone and

3 the Schaffel phone, please? Do you know when the

4 first one occurred?

5 A. No. There appears to be an error.

6 Q. That should say Neverland Valley Ranch?

7 A. It should.

8 Q. Okay. Can you tell us what time the first

9 call to Neverland Valley Ranch occurred?

10 MR. SANGER: I’m just going to object for

11 the moment, that there is a reference to, “That

12 should be Neverland Valley Ranch,” and it’s not

13 clear what that reference is to.

14 THE COURT: Sustained.

15 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: The 12 phone calls I was

16 referring to should have been referred to as the

17 Neverland Valley Ranch, correct?

18 A. That’s correct.

19 Q. So the link between the Tavasci/MJJ

20 Productions phone and the Marc Schaffel phone is

21 incorrect; is that what youre saying?

22 A. Thats correct.

23 Q. Okay. Were there any calls between the

24 Schaffel phone and the Tavasci phone for that day?

25 A. No.

26 Q. Okay. So the 12 calls between the

27 Tavasci/MJJ Production phone and the Neverland

28 Valley Ranch phone began at what time that day? 8391

1 A. 8:48 a.m.

2 Q. And what time did they cease?

3 A. At 8:19 p.m.

4 Q. Is the chart — excuse me, is the

5 spreadsheet behind the chart accurate, to your

6 recollection?

7 A. Yes, it is.

8 Q. Okay. And is that how you realized the

9 actual chart thats up on the screen is incorrect

10 with respect to the link between the Evvy Tavasci

11 phone and the Marc Schaffel phone?

12 A. Thats correct.

13 Q. The call between the Amen phone and the

14 Schaffel phone, what time did that occur, please?

15 A. At 1757 hours.

16 Q. And that was a one-minute call?

17 A. One-minute duration.

18 MR. NICOLA: Your Honor, Ill move to strike

19 this chart, Exhibit 879.

20 It is 879, correct?

21 THE WITNESS: Correct.

22 MR. NICOLA: Pending correction.

23 MR. SANGER: Well, I object to that. Its

24 been referred to in front of the jury, so it should

25 remain. And they can present a corrected chart if

26 they want.

27 MR. NICOLA: We can do that.

28 THE COURT: I think that’s the way to do it. 8392

Here is Sanger’s cross examination of Bonner. Let’s look at the VERY FIRST QUESTION!!!



24 Q. Okay. Some big-picture questions. First of

25 all — I don’t really want to go through the exact

26 times of minutes of everything, but there are some

27 big-picture questions.

28 First of all, in all these phone records 8393

1 that you analyzed, were you able to determine from

2 the phone records whether or not Michael Jackson was

3 ever on a single call?

4 A. No.

As you can see, Sanger cut straight to the chase! He wanted to erode the prosecution’s claim that MJ was the mastermind behind the alleged conspiracy by having Bonner admit that MJ was not on a single call!

Here is where Sanger asked Bonner to describe how MJ’s staff arranges for his travels, and that there was no effort to hide MJ’s identity in his internal travel records:

21 Q. Okay? And before we talk about that

22 particularly, let me ask you some general questions

23 that will cover other entries as well.

24 In general, through your investigation in

25 this case, did you determine that when Mr. Jackson

26 travels, the people that arrange his travel often

27 will take a name that is not Mr. Jacksons name and

28 use that for the purpose of booking hotels? 8408

1 A. Thats correct.

2 Q. And is that something common with

3 celebrities, to book rooms under other names,

4 whether it’s a staff person or just a fictitious

5 name?

6 A. I don’t have personal knowledge. This is

7 the only instance that I’ve personally been involved

8 in.

9 Q. All right. Have you ever seen other

10 celebrities book rooms?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Okay. All right. Anyway, it makes sense to

13 you. You don’t want to put your own name down there

14 if you’re going to attract a lot of attention,

15 right?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. And sometimes in your investigation, just to

18 cover the big picture, you will see in the documents

19 that the name that is used appears to have — the

20 last name thats used appears to have no relation to

21 anybody we know of, right?

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. So it just might be a name like Mason or

24 something like that; is that correct?

25 A. Could be, yes.

26 Q. On the other hand, sometimes you’ll see

27 rooms are booked in the name of somebody who is

28 actually working for MJJ Productions or in some 8409

1 other way associated with that organization, such as

2 Chris Carter?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. So Chris Carter might reserve rooms in his

5 name, right?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. You never saw rooms reserved in the name of

8 Michael Jackson himself, correct?

9 A. No.

10 Q. All right. And the records are kept openly

11 in that regard, correct? In other words, through

12 the records that you found both at Neverland and

13 from the various places where records were

14 subpoenaed or obtained by search warrants,

15 internally there was no effort to hide the fact that

16 these were Mr. Jackson’s rooms, right?

17 A. No.

Here is Sanger asking Bonner about his recollection of Janet Arvizo asking for a ride from Neverland in a Rolls-Royce on the morning of February 12th, 2003 (when she would later claim to be held “hostage”):

27 Q. Okay. Not a big thing. It’s just you

28 jump — 862 is for February the 8th, and then the 8414

1 next summary chart you have is for February the

2 12th; is that correct?

3 A. That’s correct.

4 Q. All right. So you did not do a summary

5 chart for February the 11th, correct?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Now, on February 11th, based on your

8 investigation, the night of February 11th, right at

9 the end of the night, were you aware that Janet

10 Arvizo had asked somebody to give her a ride?

11 A. The 11th or the 12th. Im not sure which

12 day.

13 Q. And the ride actually occurred at — the

14 ride — the Rolls Royce left the ranch at about 1:52

15 in the morning; is that correct?

16 A. The person I interviewed wasnt real certain

17 about times, so —

18 Q. Youre familiar with the gate logs, right?

19 A. Yes. But —

20 Q. Did you look at the entries on the gate

21 logs?

22 A. I did. But not having them in front of me,

23 I couldnt state with certainty.

24 Q. Whatever time it was, it was sometime in the

25 early morning hours of the 12th when the Rolls Royce

26 left the property; is that your understanding?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. So my question was, were you aware that she 8415

1 was asking, around midnight, somewhere just before

2 midnight on the 11th, for a ride?

3 A. That is my understanding, yes.

4 Q. All right. There you go.

5 So on the 11th, I want to follow the same

6 procedure, with the Court’s permission, and I’m

7 going to write up at the top 02-11-03. And since

8 the 12th was a Wednesday, the 11th had to be a

9 Tuesday. We learned that. Right?

10 A. Sounds good.

11 Q. Okay. And now I’m going to ask, with the

12 Court’s permission, to put up page two of Exhibit

13 458.

14 THE COURT: All right.

15 MR. SANGER: All right.

16 Q. Page two of 458. All right. Now, referring

17 to – I’m going to refer to these three calls down

18 here. Hit the line numbers, I’ll make it easier.

19 Referring to these three calls down here

20 that say Santa Barbara, so that looks like 17, 18

21 and 19, correct?

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. And I think you told us these are the phone

24 records of Jay Jackson, correct?

25 A. Correct.

Here is some additional information on Dimond’s lack of respect from her journalistic peers.  This is an excerpt from a December 1993 LA Times article called “Television News ’93 – Where Entertainment And Reality Blur” by Howard Rosenberg ( a subscription to Highbeam is required to read the entire article):

A seminal moment in 1993′s incestuous media process came in August when “CBS This Morning” co-host Paula Zahn conducted an interview about those widely reported sexual abuse allegations that a 13-year-old boy had made against Jackson.

The person she interviewed was Diane Dimond.

Diane Dimond of the syndicated “Hard Copy.”

“Hard Copy” the notorious tabloid series.

Zahn was respectful, if not reverential. Had Dimond heard of other boys being involved? Had she heard of the existence of incriminating photos? CBS News had joined the inquiring minds wanting to know. “Hard Copy” was working on those angles, Dimond disclosed.

CBS News and the extraterrestrial “Hard Copy” merging on coverage of Michael Jackson? It was an exotic hybrid that probably sent Edward R. Murrow spinning in his grave.

The media were doing plenty of their own spinning, which included tabloid and local news choppers spending enough time above Jackson’s various residences in Southern California to earn frequent-flier mileage. And late in the year — after he had aborted his world tour because of a reported prescription drug problem — came the Search for Michael. The search for the Loch Ness Monster was less intense.

Where was he doing his rehab? In Switzerland? In Oz? Inquiring quacks just had to know. How big was this story? So big that on the evening of the crucial vote on the North American Free Trade Agreement in Congress, the NBC affiliate in Los Angeles topped its major newscast with 15 minutes of Jackson.

Trade barriers were about to fall; news standards had already fallen.

Whether Jackson is guilty or innocent of sexual molestation is not the point. How the media have covered his story is.

Anyone with a damning tale to tell about him, even if unsubstantiated, has been assured of air time somewhere. Heading the group was a man who insisted he had been Jackson’s “friend.” Negative statements made about Jackson by his estranged sister LaToya Jackson continued to get wide play even after she admitted on “Today” that she could not substantiate her innuendo about her brother molesting young boys.

A former Jackson housekeeper and four of his former security guards made damaging statements to “Hard Copy” in recent interviews that the tabloid program paid them for. Paying for interviews is odious enough, a sure way to encourage interviewees to do the bidding of the payer and give a performance. Omitting mention of that payment compounds the sin. And that is exactly what several stations did in excerpting the “Hard Copy” remarks of some of Jackson’s former employees.

There was one positive side to the Michael Jackson coverage in 1993. At least no one implied that he was associated with Heidi Fleiss. Or that he was Heidi Fleiss.

But “Hard Copy” may be working on it.

I want to take a moment to reiterate a point that I made earlier: we as fans need to step up and increase our knowledge of the exculpatory facts that prove that Michael Jackson was innocent. We can’t rely on hearsay, innuendoes, speculation, or conjecture, nor can we simply describe MJ’s childlike personality, heart of gold, charitable endeavors, or his parental abilities.  The performance of Mike Garcia and Steve Manning was UNACCEPTABLE!

I’m going to say something, and it may sound harsh, but it needs to be said: don’t insult my intelligence by telling me that MJ is innocent because he’s a nice, sweet, childlike person who would never harm a child! That’s just as bad as haters who say that MJ is guilty because he bleached his skin, butchered his face, and was effeminate!  When you use MJ’s childlike persona as a sign of innocence, haters or skeptics could see it as a sign of guilt! They will say “Maybe he did it out of childlike curiosity instead of a sexual desire!”

In the days and weeks after MJ died, I quickly got fed up seeing the endless list of people who knew MJ for 5 minutes at one point in their lives talk about his childlike personality and charitable contributions as exculpatory evidence whenever the allegations were brought up! That’s why I set out on this mission to learn the truth, and 2 years later, here I am, helping to run one of the most informative MJ blogs on the net!

The performance of Mike Garcia was valiant, but unconvincing. Steve Manning was downright awful! For him to repeatedly refer to Jordan Chandler as “Ryan” is symptomatic of how freakin’ CLUELESS he is! At least Anthony DeCurtis had the decency to keep his mouth shut, except for the one worthless comment that he uttered during the entire segment.

Congratulations, Tru TV! Congratulations, Ryan Smith! You guys succeeded in your goal of entertaining your viewers, as opposed to educating them! You gave Dimond a platform to misinform more and more of your (mostly) gullible, impressionable viewers!

This segment validates a decision I made several months ago to do a new post called “How to Talk to a Michael Jackson Hater”, which will consist of talking points that fans can use to effectively make the case for MJ’s innocence. For example, here is what I would have loved to have asked Dimond, and this will surely be included in the upcoming post:

Mrs. Dimond,

When Tom Sneddon filed his initial felony complaint against Michael Jackson on December 18th, 2003, it consisted of the following charges which allegedly occurred from February 7th through March 10th, 2003:

  • 7 counts of lewd acts upon a child
  • 2 counts of administering an intoxicant

However, in the grand jury indictment that was filed on April 21st, 2004, the dates of the alleged offenses shifted to February 20th through March 12th, 2003, and the charges were materially altered as follows:

  • 4 counts of lewd acts upon a child
  • 1 count of an attempted lewd act upon a child
  • 4 counts of administering an intoxicant
  • 1 count of conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment, and extortion

Mrs. Dimond, how do you explain that discrepancy in the charges?  How do you explain the addition of the conspiracy charge, when Sneddon investigated Michael Jackson for almost 6 months before raiding Neverland? Why wasn’t Michael Jackson charged with conspiracy in the initial complaint? Why weren’t the 5 unindicted co-conspirators charged, even after they refused immunity for their testimony against Michael Jackson? And why did the start date of the alleged crimes suddenly shift by almost 2 weeks, and the end date shift by 2 days?

That’s an example of the type of substantive, analytical, well-researched and straightforward questions that need to be asked of Michael Jackson haters. I’d LOVE to see Dimond spin her way out of that one! That’s guaranteed to shut her up real quick!  And do you guys ever notice how the media loves to question the conspiracy charge AFTER the trial (using it as a scapegoat for MJ’s acquittal), but they never questioned it BEFORE the trial, when it appeared out of thin air when MJ was indicted!!

Here is some additional info on Dimond that can be used for additional research:

  • A two-part dossier from MJJ-777 which compiles all of her dirty work. Here is part one and part two; part three is on the way!
  • LunaJo67’s four video compilations of Dimond’s coverage! This is over an hour of footage! It’s definitely not for the faint of heart!  Open her “Michael Jackson: The Special Parts” playlist, and you’ll see the four “Diane Dimond Clips” videos. Have your barf bags ready!
  • MJJJustice Project’s post “Dimond – Duplicity is Thy Name”. Another excellent analysis of her clever, yet deceitful spin of the facts. In this post, they analyze her 1995 radio interview on “The Ken and Barkley Show”, which was transcribed in MJ’s lawsuit against Paramount Pictures Corporation (the company behind “Hard Copy”.)
  • Filthy Tabloid Trash’s Open Letter to TruTV, respectfully asking them to reconsider their decision to hire Diane Dimond to cover the upcoming trial. Obviously this letter fell on deaf ears!
  • The Edgy Matters blog post from June 25th, 2004, titled “C-O-N-SPIRACY”” where Dimond was sarcastically “charged” as the #1 co-conspirator in helping Sneddon violate the gag order by planting stories in the media to taint the jury pool and convict MJ in the court of public opinion!  And let’s not forget their June 23rd, 2005 post titled “Diane Dimond vs. Journalism Code of Ethics”, a must read!!

Here is Mesereau speaking at a law conference in 2005 titled “From O.J. To Martha To Michael: What Have We Learned About the Conduct and Coverage of Trials?”, and once the conversation turns to the media’s bottom feeders at 5:00, guess who is the ONLY media hack who gets name-checked?

In an unrelated note, here is Linda Deutsch’s respectful rebuttal to Mesereau’s media tirade! She was one of the few journalists who was fair to MJ; in fact, MJ actually CALLED her to thank her!  Unbelievable! (Personally, this surprises me, because Aphrodite Jones was never thanked publically or privately by MJ for writing Conspiracy.) She made an excellent point when she suggested that had there not been so many media restrictions, the public would have gotten a better idea of what was happening in the courtroom (e.g. sealed pleadings, no cameras in the courtroom, etc.). Her description of the conspiracy charge was dead on!

Here is Mesereau respectfully disagreeing with a reporter who suggested that the mainstream media should be given more credit for the professional journalists that they hire by slamming the mainstream media  for ALSO hiring tabloid hacks with a vested interest in a conviction!

(To read a summary of the entire conference on, open this link.)

In closing, I truly hope that this roundtable discussion was a learning experience for all of you.  You get to see Dimond as the lying, deceptive snake that she is, constantly insinuating that MJ is guilty, yet never explicity saying it, while simultaneously extolling him with every compliment under the sun! (Regarding his musical legacy and pop culture impact.) If you didn’t already know anything about Dimond, you would walk away from this special saying to yourself “I don’t understand why so many MJ fans hate her! She was fair and balanced, didn’t call him a freak or Wacko Jacko, praised his musical talents, explicitly stated that the jury’s verdict is what matters, and refuted the ‘secret rooms’ nonsense, so what’s the big deal?” And that’s EXACTLY the image that Dimond wants to project to the general public! She qualifies everything she said with such statements as “I’m not saying he’s a pedophile”, “I don’t know what went on at Neverland because I wasn’t there”, and “We need to remember the not guilty verdicts!”, among others, in order to give viewers the appearance of objectivity.

Obviously, it didn’t work with this viewer! I saw through Dimond like she was a window that had just been cleaned with Windex or Mr. Clean! As someone who knows these allegations backwards and forwards, I was able to immediately detect all of Dimond’s half-truths, and I truly hope that post can help turn the tide of public opinion against her!

I will respectfully ask that everyone email and tweet this post to not only Dimond, but the other members of the panel as well! They ALL need to be educated on the facts!

Finally, let’s end this post with Joe Jackson’s thoughts on Dimond and her partner in crime Nancy Grace! At 3:48, he lets the fans at Neverland know how he feels about them!

UPDATE September 23, 2011

Here is a partial transcript of an episode of  “Issues With Jane Velez-Mitchell” from March 6th, 2009, titled “Cases That Changed America”. The panel included Aphrodite Jones, and she was outnumbered 3 to 1 by MJ haters JVM, Lisa Bloom, and Diane Dimond! (The full transcript can be read here.) As you can see, Bloom and Dimon scraped the bottom of the barrel to come up with excuses for MJ’s acquittal, clinging mostly to the conspiracy charge!

Notice how Lisa Bloom tried to defend the Arvizos by saying that they were not in it for the money because they never sued MJ, but when Aphrodite tried to say that they went to Larry Feldman first, and Sneddon got the law changed that prevented lawsuits from being filed before a criminal trial, Velez Mitchell cut her off! Jones asked JVM to “wait a minute“, but JVM replied with “let’s move on, because there’s so much to cover here“.

LISA BLOOM, ANCHOR, IN SESSION: There`s no question that his celebrity status is what led to his acquittal in part, because we know from some of the jurors who were interviewed afterwards that back in the jury room during the deliberations, some of the jurors said, “We can`t convict my Michael. Not my Michael. My Michael could not have done this.” 

You know, we have celebrity culture in this country that`s almost like royalty. There are certain people who are above the law, and I think in the Michael Jackson case, his celebrity status is what put it over the top. Yes, there were other factors, but none as big as the celebrity factor.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, but Aphrodite Jones, I have to say that I sat there along with you and Diane, and the conspiracy aspect of this case made my head explode. I couldn`t make head or tails of it. They`re keeping the whole family hostage. Meanwhile, they`re getting waxes and they`re going on shopping sprees. It was convoluted, and some said it just didn`t make sense.


First of all, to charge Michael Jackson with conspiracy to hold a family hostage when, in fact, they were using his money and his limos and his Rolls Royces to travel around? It`s bizarre.

The idea that — I disagree with Lisa in that the jury perhaps had some fascination, certainly, with Michael`s celebrity status, but remember these people were looking at evidence that, for all intents and purposes, showed us at the end of the day that the Arviso family, the accuser`s family, seemed to take the playbook from Jordy Chandler`s lawsuit and follow suit.

There really was conflicting testimony from the key witnesses: that`s the accuser and his brother. There really was no absolute evidence that Jackson did ply anybody with alcohol.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Listen, I want to bring it down to what we`re learning from this case. Diane Dimond, you covered it extensively. You wrote about it in your book. Where did the prosecution go wrong?

DIANE DIMOND, JOURNALIST/SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: I think they made it too complicated, Jane. I completely agree with you. You and I sat in that courtroom along with Aphrodite and a whole lot of other reporters. And there were times during that 4 1/2 months that we`d look at each other and go, “Huh? Why are they spending so much time on the phone bills?”

Why — why did they make this seemingly simple story — this kid was allegedly molested by this man — into such a complicated thing? I never could figure it out. And I think that`s one reason he was acquitted.

BLOOM: Jane — Jane one very important point to respond to Aphrodite, throughout the trial, before the trial, after the trial, everybody said this 13-year-old accuser is in it for the money. 


BLOOM: Unlike Jordy Chandler, the previous child, he never filed a civil suit before, during, and now even years afterwards. He has never asked for one dime. And that — that was proven to be completely false. 

JONES: Yes, but, you know, Jane, wait a minute. 

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let me move on, because there`s so much to cover here


VELEZ-MITCHELL: The Jackson case, we were there, a circus often turning a serious child molestation case into what felt like a Las Vegas act with Jackson as the ringmaster. I`m sure you`ll remember Jackson hopping on the roof of his SUV. We`re going to see it over and over today, playing to the crowd, looking for all the world like he was on stage at Madison Square Garden. There he is. I was there at that moment. It was crazy.

DIMOND: That was on arraignment day. Do you remember that, Jane? That was on arraignment day when you`re going into court to hear the charges against you and that`s what he did.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Absolutely. And not to be outdone, his own family got in on the theatrics. I`m sure you remember this, guys. They arrived at the trial, all dressed in matching white outfits as a sign of solidarity.

Now, as I watch this, covering the case in the courtroom along with you guys, it seemed to me that Michael Jackson was fighting back in a way that no defendant had ever done before, using psychology and emotion. Diane, it was almost that he was taking the skills that he learned on stage and applying it to the legal arena.

DIMOND: His father made sure that he was a showman from the age of, what, 6 years old. To me, the jumping on the SUV was a — I was agape at that. But it was “pajama drama day” that really did it for me.

Everybody remembers Michael Jackson was late for court. There was an arrest warrant issued for him that day. He was at a hospital complaining of back pain. And he comes to court in his pajamas.

But what nobody ever mentions is that`s the day that the young boy was going to spend his first full day on the stand testifying to these very, very serious charges. What did the jury do, Jane? You saw it. Aphrodite, you saw it. The jury was transfixed on Michael Jackson sitting five feet away from them in his pajamas, looking like he was in pain and disheveled. 

JONES: Wait a minute. Diane, we saw that, but remember, from the waist up, you only saw Jackson in his — his jacket, blazer.

DIMOND: He had on blue pajamas with clouds on them.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: The blue pajama bottoms. You have to see them right there.

DIMOND: Come on.

JONES: I was told by the jury foreman that he honestly did not know that those were pajamas until after the fact.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, whatever. You would think his team could have brought him some trousers to wear.

BLOOM: But you know who could see it? The accuser, when he was testifying, he could see those pajamas. I`m sure it was distracting to him. And part of what he testified about was, part of the molestation was afterwards Michael Jackson asked him to put on his pajama pants.


JONES: Well, that was bizarre, clearly bingo (ph). But if Jackson was trying to detract from that testimony of pajamas, don`t you think he wouldn`t have worn the pajamas? I just think it was Jackson being Jackson, not feeling well, not being disheveled.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s part of the show.

UPDATE January 14th, 2012

I’ve finally been able to get the video of this discussion uploaded! I will add it to the beginning of this post as soon as it’s available in the next day or two! In the meantime, here are Parts 1 and 2 of a 5 part series on the post-discussion interview with Ryan Smith, Diane Dimond, Steve Manning, and Mike Garcia. They accepted questions from callers, and Dimond was much more well-behaved than she was at the earlier discussion!

By the way, if you want to know why Diane Dimond is still able to find work as a “journalist”, then please listen to the caller at the 13:39 mark in the second video! It’s UNBELIEVEABLE how guillible and downright STUPID some people are when it comes to Dimond’s reporting!

UPDATE March 1st, 2012

Have you ever asked yourself “What do Michael Jackson’s parents really think about Diane Dimond?” If so, then watch the video below!

213 Comments leave one →
  1. September 21, 2011 7:39 am

    WoW. God I sure wish Tom Mesareau would have been on this panel or any MJ panel with DD. He would be a much better aggressive advocate than these guys are, He would have put her in er place with facts. Anyway DD is a liar and a low life who tried to frame an innocent man, that says it all about her. Thank you for posting this. I made a conscience decision long ago to never support DD, TV, Books whatever. I do not watch HLN, Courtv, or CNN because of her. I must add I do not watch anything NBC because of Bashir. Because of my self inflicted boycott I must depend web postings from your site and other websites. I’m just so sick of DD.


  2. lynande51 permalink
    September 21, 2011 10:21 am

    David this is outstanding. The trial was very complex. Looking through hundreds of pleadings I would have to say that I sort of disagree with everyone on one thing. Melville did what he thought was best when he set that sealing order. Because as Linda Deutsch so aptly states in the second video clip it is the loud and vulgar that people listen to or are paying more attention to and when some of the pleadings were filed I can see where people like Diane Dimond would have been heard above all of the others. Of course my evidence would be that they are somehow still the ones that are the loudest and the ones people hear.
    The next thing is that you are right. Michael should have been more articulate when he said that very few children were allowed to get as close to him as before,t and he should have spelled out that he made them go ask their parents if it was okay for them to come stay in his bedroom. But then he did in the Bashir crock it is just that no one heard one single word he said once they heard that he was still allowing children to play in his room. NO ONE hears that whole statement ever. So maybe they have to start listening more closely.
    One tiny little factual thing is that cottonpicking room she just described did not have steps going down to it. She is mixing up two different things again in that bedroom. The loft and the small safe storage that was in the Ladies Closet. The steps that were lined with dolls were the ones that went up to the loft where he slept.
    We do have to continue to combat her nonsense like always. She has to be called out on her statement and of course like I said her ever growing settlement amount when it clearly says one thing and she doubles it.We have to make her answer that question once and for all.My evidence to that is the Court TV leaked version where the editors note states that the terms of the settlement were not disclosed and in the next sentence tells us that they know what is in the missing eight pages by declaring that it would be to difficult for us to understand. Let me see it and let me read it. If I have questions I will find a legal reference book to find my answers and then understand.
    As for us in this business of vindicating Michael the one way we can make sure we are heard above the load and vulgar is for all of us to speak out and to keep speaking out until no one can hear our opponents anymore just because of the sheer numbers of us.


  3. September 21, 2011 10:34 am

    David, you did a stellar job researching here. DD’s career has consisted mainly of spewing hatred and lies towards Michael Jackson. What exactly is DD hiding under her covers? Why all the anger, Ms. Dimond? What’s truly going on in her psyche?


  4. shelly permalink
    September 21, 2011 11:09 am

    Just a question, where in her book did she spoke about other kids being molested?


  5. September 21, 2011 11:20 am

    Jeez, I don’t even want to watch it. Even in my country people discuss Michael now primarily talking about music and legacy. WHY America has to focus on the 6-year-ago trial?


  6. ladypurr9 permalink
    September 21, 2011 11:50 am

    David, your research is incredible. I, too, watched In-Session and was so disappointed with the whole lot of them. Few people seem capable of answering questions about Michael without letting their personal feelings get in the way (I know it must be hard) but in order to appear rational and credible, we’re going to have people who CAN speak this way and stay on point. I had hoped DeCurtis would be better prepared and able to speak with authority. Isn’t he the author who assisted Joe Vogel with his book? Hmmmm! I’m also ready to strangle Ryan Smith at HLN. Between him and Jane Velez-Mitchell, they are like broken records when it comes to constantly talking about ALL THE DRUGS that Michael was taking. I tried to call the show today and specifically ask them if they had read the autopsy report. Where are these people getting their information? Someone should point out to them that Michael was not a drug addict; he wasn’t ADDICTED to drugs. He had a dependency on pain medications and needed certain medications to help him sleep. There is a difference between addiction and dependency. What can we expect from a media that is now intoxicated with the smell of the trial. Oh, God help us get through this and may the jury convict Murray of involuntary manslaughter.


  7. ladypurr9 permalink
    September 21, 2011 11:59 am

    Patricia…..they don’t dare invite Mesereau on such a panel. They would expose themselves as the charlatans they really are! Diane Dimond is from the pit of hell. I’m currently reading Ian Halperin’s book, and what I’ve read so far is that Dimond operates just under the radar. She’s a very sleezy character. A trained journalist? You gotta be kidding!!! She’s a tabloid hack and always will be.


  8. Suzy permalink
    September 21, 2011 12:00 pm

    I wish somebody would call Dimond out on her claims of “other boys”.

    Who are those boys, Diane? Name them! Of course, she would refuse to name them claiming she protects their identities and privacy. Then she should be asked: how do you know they are telling the truth? And how do we know if they even exist? You can claim anything. Remember, Diane, you once claimed Michael molested his own nephew, Jeremy – relying on your “best source”, Victor Gutierrez. Remember, Diane, you once claimed the police have found love letters to Gavin written by MJ. Those never showed up. So how can we be sure your claims of these phantom victims are true when you are obviously not very good at picking your sources and/or judging their credibility? Why weren’t these boys taken seriously even by Sneddon? Are your boys, Diane, the caliber of Daniel Kapon, Joseph Bartucci and the likes? Would you please tell the spectators what some of their claims were? Such as writing Billie Jean at the age of 2 and Michael stealing it from him…

    I bet she would have also counted the Canadian boy among her phantom victims if that boy hadn’t broken down during the police interview. I wish someone would confront her with these questions the next time she spouts her garbage on TV.


  9. Suzy permalink
    September 21, 2011 12:06 pm

    @ ladypurr9

    The problem with Ian Halperin is that he too is a sleazy tabloid journalist. So there’s an irony in it when he calls out Dimond. Yes, he says Michael was innocent, which is good. The good parts in his books are where he relies on other people’s researches (Aphrodite Jones, Geraldine Hughes, Mary Fischer etc.), but basically he just copies and pastes there from other people. However he makes up shit at the end about Michael being gay, so he’s not better than the rest of them tabloid journalists. Sadly, he ruined his book with the lies he himself invented.


  10. sjr permalink
    September 21, 2011 4:23 pm

    HI there
    I would love to know where I can download the link to watch this special, I live outside of America and it probably won’t get shown here, does anyone know if it is on YT? Or will you be transcribing the other parts if the interview?


  11. Julie permalink
    September 21, 2011 6:56 pm

    This entire thing sickened me. The only reason Diane Dimond would have been asked to be on the panel is so that she could vomit out her crap about Michael and that idiot Ryan was egging it on in my opinion. Why on earth does it matter what the prosecution tried to paint Michael as when the jury of 12 people didn’t buy it? I look at DD’s twitter page from time to time and you ought to see how immature she is. Of course, MJ fans say some pretty nasty things to her, but you should see how she responds and then here comes the sycophantic supporters of hers that she gushes over. I can’t stand to look at her, nor hear anything that she says. The minute I saw her on Entertainment Tonight – I haven’t watched it since and will not do so. That same Ryan sent a message to Jermaine asking if he could come on the show to talk about the book and Jermaine obviously didn’t, but I will just bet you it would be more of the same questions that Joy Behar and others threw at him as if any one of them, including Babs Walters, have ever done an inkling of what Michael has done to help others. The thing that gets me the most is that same old question of why would a 30-40 year old man want to sleep with a child. What gets me about that is they act like that was his entire purpose in life was to sleep in a bed with other children and it wasn’t. Jermaine tried to explain the fact that children were so drawn to him because he would get on their level and stated that all of Michael’s nephews and nieces followed him around whenever they were around him. No one wants to hear that at all. Jermaine sent DD a twitter message asking her to read his book and stop telling all the lies about Michael and her response was, “Your laughable!” She is the lowest of the low and will have to answer for that one day.


  12. September 21, 2011 7:36 pm

    Diane Diamond still is too prideful to admit and apologize she is and always was wrong on MJ. She is not a journalist. She preys on the stupidity of the mainstream public who is not aware of the facts and has only heard tabloid soundbites and have been brainwashed by the tabloid media. How do these TV shows keep letting her on as some so-called expert on all things MJ? She knows he is and always was innocent but she is to prideful to admit she is and always was wrong and sincerely apologize.

    Diane needs to take a page out of Aphrodite Jones career and do what Aphrodite did. Aphrodite admitted she was wrong and aplogized once she actually took the time to find out the facts and once she finally realized MJ is and always innocent she sincerely apologized and did everything in her power to set things right. Unfortunately, Diane, at this time still cares more about money than her own conscience and is willing to sell her soul to you-know-who instead of setting things right.


  13. September 21, 2011 10:42 pm

    Diane Diamond makes my blood boil! Why does she even have pictures of Michael on her wall.This character assasination needs to stop and the facts need to be given to the public and not just MJ fans.


  14. September 21, 2011 11:03 pm

    @ ladypurr9

    It’s funny you mentioned Ian Halperins book because he’s an opportunist just like Diane Diamond who releases tabloid books about every major celebrity news event (arnold schwarzenegger, Tiger woods, Angelina Jolie , Brad Pitt,) Don’t be fooled by his fake MJ support, he’s just trying to sell books with mixed in tabloid trash.Information about MJ innocence can be found in other books such as geraldine hughes’s or Aphrodite Jones books.MJ fans need to look out for these things.


  15. September 22, 2011 12:08 am

    David, thank you very much for all the information and really hard work. I see that besides the absolutely disgusting Dimond you are angry with Mike Garcia and Steve Manning too.

    This made me think of one thing. Most of these people are just sharing their impression of Michael and don’t know the details, let’s say, of Jordan Chandler’s case – especially if they joined Michael in the later years of his life.

    If they don’t know what to say about all those cases except that Michael could never do it, I regard it as our fault. They have never made an investigation like we have and are just describing Michael the way they knew him – and they knew him never to be able to hurt a child. You think their evidence is worthless? I don’t think so!

    It is our business to prepare a sort of a manual for these people with the most common questions asked and answered – all in one place. The sort of the ABC of rebuttal information.

    Frankly, in a heated discussion like that, where Dimond feels like the fish in the water and the others are like out of it (for lack of TV experience), it is difficult to put all the facts together and blurt them out in the several minutes allotted to you. Some things require a long explanation while there is no time to do that.

    That is why the manual should be very short and simple and should answer in one sentence those common questions people ask.

    I am not good at debating and tend to make explanations too long, so it is probably you or/and our readers who should suggest the best answers. Short, precise and killing a lie on the spot.

    Let us take the first question:
    Ryan Smith: ” the question that would occur to a lot of people guys, is “Why would you pay somebody off for something that you didn’t do?”

    I suggest answering in the form of questions (questions seem to be more proper than statements here):

    – And why did J.C. Penney pay money to Janet Arvizo for something they had never done to her? Probably because it is sometimes better to get rid of the sh*t that stuck to you than allow it to smother you further?

    – Suppose he did something wrong. Then why didn’t he pay at once? If he had been guilty he would have tried to hush things up immediately, before they became public. However he didn’t pay then and sought justice for almost half a year instead.

    – These people deprived him of the ability to work. Months or even years of litigation could have stopped his ability to earn. Will you prefer years of litigation where you lose money only to a possibility to work and earn it?

    – He was in the middle of a world tour and was to pay damages if he didn’t go on with it. And it wasn’t him who paid those $15,3mln – it was his insurance company who paid. Wasn’t it better for him to have the insurance pay instead of him losing hundreds of millions in damages and future earnings?

    – He wanted to get married and his future wife wanted him to pay and let it go. Is it surprising that he preferred marrying the girl he loved to months or even years of litigation which could break any marriage?

    – But even in these circumstances Michael didn’t want to settle (even when Johnny Cochran became his lawyer as this article tells us). He agreed to a humiliating strip search in order to set things right. The photos had a miraculous effect on everyone – the police did not arrest him as there was no match, the boy’s lawyer wanted to have the pictures “barred” for the same reason and the accuser’s family suddenly cut their initial demand from $30mln. to $15 mln.

    In civil cases it is the Plaintiff who starts the case and finishes it too. If Michael (or his insurance company) was trying to pay him off why did the family suddenly decide to drop all their claims except “negligence” and divide their demand by half?

    – And why did they ask money at all if they really believed an abominable crime had taken place? Why were they seeking money only (in a civil suit) while Michael was seeking justice (in a criminal trial)?

    Let us reverse the initial question and ask another one. Why would you ask only for money for such a crime? The boy’s unwillingness to testify won’t do as in civil court they also have to testify… The boy’s uncle said that the family avoided the criminal trial like the plague. Why so?

    P.S. Dear readers, please add your own short answers or change the wording of the above so that we could really make a manual.


  16. lynande51 permalink
    September 22, 2011 1:01 am

    Most often when the question is asked of someone like Diane Dimond why the family asked for money in the first place rather than go straight to the police she counters that with: they were afraid no one would believe them. A good rebuttal to that is: they are police or Social workers they have to investigate.Obviously some of them did because both times the allegations were fully investigated or has that escaped everyones attention. Well it escapes hers.
    Any and all acounts of the story start with Evan asking for money from Michael either for a house or to keep him fully supported and started in his new screen writing career. He asks for money long before he asks for anything else from Michael.Evan could have reported justhis suspicions to the police himself he was a mandatory reporter because he was a dentist. A mandatory reporter cannot be sued for turning in what they believe are serious concerns . She should look that up.
    Why would Jordan not just his father not want Michael in jail? They were afraid to testify either frightened by the age old ” crazy Michael Jackson fan” or his sinister OSS. Another complete fabrication in her and VG’s and Evan’s mind.Obviously the Pellicano, the “OSS” and all of worlds crazy rabid Michael Jacksons fans are not the threat she and they have portrayed them to be because all of these people, excluding Evan who took his own life, are alive and well.
    I have another theory about Evan’s suicide as well. Evan had Gaucher’s Disease for years and was being treated for it. Suddenly on November 5th,2009 he decided to take his own life? The way he was found was because his Doctor had called because he missed an appointment.HIm being sick doesn’t work for me.
    In either late September or early October of 2009 someone requested that Michael’s FBI file be opened under the Freedom Of Information Act. The FBI has a policy and a proceedure that they have to follow prior to opening those files. They have to notify anyone that is alive and mentioned by name in the FBI files of the request. That person can fight the release legally but if they loose they will still be released that persons name will just be redacted from the information that is released.
    I think the day that Evan Chandler decided to take his life was the day he received his notification that those files would be released. I think he was afraid that the world would finally have the proof that he was an extortionist. His future appointment shows that he intended to continue his medical treatment and that it was a spur of the moment decision.


  17. shelly permalink
    September 22, 2011 1:14 am

    To be honest, if I was a victim I would be very scared of the media. I mean I watched the documentary Tabloid truth the other day and I found it was very scary.

    3 days after the scandal started, the media had Jordan’s declaration and his name.

    Another point, all the interviews were done after that press release, how can the police knew if the witness are lying or not. At that point everyone on earth could have accused MJ and tell the police the same story.


  18. Susanne permalink
    September 22, 2011 1:19 am

    Great analysis, David. This woman just relies on people who are not able to think themselves. And unfortunately many have forgotton how to do this because they follow their TV pundits like sheep.
    @Helena: Another point in your list is that in case of guilt the “payoff” would have only worked for a civil trial, but not for a criminal trial. If there had been any evidence against Michael (like Lynande51 said it was fully investigated) I think the state would have had the duty to file a criminal charge, correct?


  19. Carm permalink
    September 22, 2011 1:46 am

    David, you are so right when you say that Dimond is “appealing to the viewer’s emotions and prejudices, instead of their ability to think”. If viewers used their common sense they would be able to figure out that:
    — anyone with secret “inside knowledge” would not be out in the public bragging about it.
    — would DD not have been required to go on the witness stand during the trial?
    — when someone has knowledge of acts of child molestation they are required by law to report it.
    Where I live, according to the Ontario Ministry of Youth Services, when someone has reasonable grounds to suspect that a child has been sexually molested or exploited, they must report the suspicion to authorities. I’m sure it applies to other jurisdictions. (I’d be curious to know if it doesn’t.)

    If Dimond knew about cases of child abuse, as she claims, why did she not report them to the authorities? That would have been her legal and moral obligation in order to protect other potential victims. Someone needs to ask her that question.


  20. lynande51 permalink
    September 22, 2011 2:29 am

    Not only is it an obligation how could an adult have information, suspect this, or witness it and not have a knee jerk reaction to beat the person bloody?That is what truly defies logic. I don’t know how people have not seen through that facade. If you knew this or saw this would there be any force on earth that could stop you from picking up a phone or driving to the closest police station? I don’t know about anybody else but not me that is for sure!


  21. shelly permalink
    September 22, 2011 2:55 am

    As far as I know, in my country you can go to jail if you don’t go to the police after being witness of child molestation.


  22. September 22, 2011 3:31 am

    @Suzy, I know what you’re saying about Halperin. I’m “holding my nose” as I read it. I know what he alleges about Michael’s sexuality toward the end. All of us who have spent time researching Michael’s life know, without a doubt, he was heterosexual. I decided that I wouldn’t just read the *positive* books. I know how to filter and I know his tactics. Someone needs to confront DD with both barrels and lie by lie, destroy her. Surely there’s someone out there. It’s just too bad that she would never put herself in such a position. She “picks and chooses” her venues. She’s the sleeziest of them all.


  23. nan permalink
    September 22, 2011 4:56 am

    I havent had a chance to read this yet, but wanted you to know it is posted on her fb page,,so were a lot of other links recently to this site…many people were calling her out for enabling vg, who people were calling a Nambla member..
    I noticed the pictures on her wall also..LOL..Is this her house…?she actually looks upset in the picture..I am hoping it is a guilty conscience, that makes her look that way..

    i am looking forward to really going over this article..looks really good from a quick glance.


  24. Teva permalink
    September 22, 2011 5:53 am

    DD keeps saying what she heard the prosecution say, but she never says what she heard the defense say. It is all one sided.


  25. September 22, 2011 6:00 am

    Great anaylisis David!


    The manual idea is the same thing I had posted about on Raven’s blog last year. Saying that there needs to be an manual of facts that the Jackson family needs to look over and use so they can be better equipped for the media. I was thinking along the lines of maybe its because the 93/05 is so close to them they don’t no all the details, which in turn makes them unable to respond with facts. The same can be said for some of MJ’s friends/aquantiances.

    I think the idea of responding with a return question is the best approach. It gets down to the nitty gritty of the detail facts. Also, undercuts the hater myths that way helping to get folks to start thinking for themselves.


  26. lcpledwards permalink
    September 22, 2011 6:51 am

    The reason why I was so harsh on them is because I just expected more from them. And not just them, but ANYONE I see on TV trying to defend MJ! These allegations are like simple math; once you learn the basic concepts, it should be a cinch to convince someone of his innocence! I guess I’m a little biased because I feel that if I can spend hundreds of hours (if not thousands of hours) over the past 2 years to learn the facts and obliterate anyone who says MJ is guilty, than certainly his family and close “friends” can do the same, right? I don’t expect them to spit out everything that we’ve researched on this blog verbatim, but I just expect the basic core facts to be stated, such as the fact that the settlement wasn’t hush money, MJ was sued and didn’t offer the money, both Evan Chandler and Janet Arvizo didn’t go straight to the police, the FBI files cleared MJ, etc. My gosh, Steve Manning didn’t even know Jordan Chandler’s name! You would think that since they knew the allegations would be a central part of this panel discussion, they could have brushed up on their knowledge!

    Another reason why I’m so biased is because I like to imagine how a skeptic would view this, and as I said before, a skeptic would more than likely conclude MJ is guilty due to their poor performance, combined with Dimond’s cunning skills. You made a valuable point by saying that Dimond is a seasoned TV veteran who is used to spinning her lies in 2 minutes or less, while Mike Garcia and Steve Manning aren’t as articulate and knowledgeable, but nevertheless I just expected a better effort, and I was disappointed.

    I’ve already started working on my new post titled “How To Talk To A Michael Jackson Hater”, and it will be ready in a few months. I’m going to re-read all of my MJ books, and go over all of the facts, and come up with questions as I go along to make haters think and explain how and why certain things happened (for example, the addition of the conspiracy charge out of nowhere, as I stated in the post.) I have a lot on my plate, so don’t hold your breath for it, but when it’s done you’ll be very satisfied!


  27. lcpledwards permalink
    September 22, 2011 6:54 am

    That’s an excellent observation! Dimond tried to make it seem like Evan was knocking on death’s door, as he lay bedridden and invalid from his disease! Bull-oney!!!


  28. lcpledwards permalink
    September 22, 2011 6:56 am

    @ Shelly
    You’re right. If you were a REAL victim, you probably would be afraid for your privacy. But, as we all know, there were NO victims, and their motivation to make allegations was to get money without the media being involved so that they could take the money and run, NOT because they were afraid of privacy.


  29. lcpledwards permalink
    September 22, 2011 7:05 am

    @ Carm
    I just realized something. When Dimond initially says that she’s spoken to “many” boys and their families who were “too afraid” to press charges, most viewers will be so shocked and stunned that they will automatically believe her. It’s a natural reaction.

    But when you think about it, it’s easy to tell that she’s lying because if she honestly believed that MJ was guilty, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to praise MJ in any way, shape, or form! I watched the entire show, and she was very complimentary of MJ at times, as she has been in other interviews. If I was a skeptic, I would say to myself “Why would this lady call MJ a musical genius when he’s guilty?” When is the last time you’ve heard anyone compliment OJ Simpson’s football talent?

    Another logical point that should be brought up is this: what are the chances that a real victim would be “too afraid” to press charges, but had no problem telling their story to a tabloid reporter? ZERO!!! This is Dimond’s only way to give herself credibility. She must scare people into thinking MJ is guilty.


  30. nan permalink
    September 22, 2011 7:45 am

    I think the day that Evan Chandler decided to take his life was the day he received his notification that those files would be released. I think he was afraid that the world would finally have the proof that he was an extortionist. His future appointment shows that he intended to continue his medical treatment and that it was a spur of the moment decision…..from Lyande51

    I have always felt that was the case too..This is it came out showing Michael as the compassionate person he really was,…People crying all over the world… I feel Evan and Jordan both knew those files were coming out and people would be furious..
    also when you find out evan tried to kill jordan after the trial, and i believe their was something about a legal arrangement that he would have to give his father a stipend of money..
    I always wondered if evan was now extorting his own son cause he ran out of money and if had threatened jordan with talking about the case, then mj could have sued both of them..evan would not have cared because he ran out of cash, but jordy still had money…otherwise ,,,,
    who has to get lawyers involved to give a parent money?
    that kind of thing makes more sense then evan is bipolar or what ever and the whole family disowns the man who saved jordan from mj and got him a big payout..
    nobody even went to his funeral and it was a few weeks before it came out..they had to come up with some spin imo..

    also this article about Dimond is excellent…thanks so much for doing it….when i talk to someone who thinks mj is a criminal , i never get emotional., stick with facts…Since i feel what happened to mj was a civil rights infringement by a malicious and abusive prosecutor , i usually start there..
    I wish mj did not let them wear him down in 93…but in hindsight , knowing as much as we know now about sneddon…given what took place in 2005 and he still absolutely refused to see the truth, mesereau had to tell mj to leave because sneddon would start this stuff all over again…Larry Feldman just had the perfect old fool to help squeeze mj….i think he was in a no win situation, no matter what with sneddon at the reigns….just horrible ..


  31. Suzy permalink
    September 22, 2011 8:01 am

    @ David

    Maybe these people who went on the panel didn’t know they would have to defend him against the allegations. Remember originally it would have been Vogel instead of Dimond.

    “But when you think about it, it’s easy to tell that she’s lying because if she honestly believed that MJ was guilty, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to praise MJ in any way, shape, or form! I watched the entire show, and she was very complimentary of MJ at times, as she has been in other interviews.”

    Also her last answer was interesting. When she said with the settlement MJ opened door for others to sue him. I was surprised by her saying this because to me it almost seemed like she’s suggesting the Arvizo’s were opportunists. (I think deep inside she knows they were.)

    @ Lynette

    The way I see Evan’s death: we cannot claim for 100% certain he killed himself because of guilt. But I don’t think Dimond can claim what she claims with 100% certainty either. She simply cannot know if guilt played a part in his suicide. Yet, she’s so quick to dismiss that possibility. About Evan’s death we should also point out the fact that none of his family members attended his funeral. And that he tried to kill Jordan in 2005.


  32. September 22, 2011 8:32 am

    Diane Dimond: But in my book, I outline several years’ worth of interviews that I did, with lots of young boys, and their families, that were too afraid to come forward and press charges, that all told the same story!”

    This statement is totally and absolutely representative of Dimond’s M.O.: she tells a gullible, impressionable public audience that she, in her capacity as an “investigative journalist”, has interviewed “lots” of young boys who told the “same story”, but were “too afraid” to press charges! And to give her lies more credibility, she insists that she also interviewed their families as well! This is what’s known as an “ad hominem” technique, which means that she’s “appealing to the viewer’s emotions and prejudices, instead of their ability to think”!


    Hi David,

    Thanks for a great post. It’s Ameera. I don’t know if you recall, but I sent you a link a couple of weeks ago. I wanted to add, what you’ve quoted, it’s also hasty generalization as well as begging the question. Diane may have indeed spoke to several families, and they may have even told her the same story, but that DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY TOLD THE TRUTH. To make the leap into a conclusion that naturally the families told her the truth is beyond ridiculous. Diane is asking everyone to just conclude that these ficticious family’s that she’s given no proof of actually exist and told her the truth.

    Do we assume that everything that anyone tells us is true, especially if they just repeat what another person has said. How foolish is that? This is the equivalent of a child saying, But she said it tooooooooooooooo.

    I mean I could really go on and on. Is there ANOTHER reason that possibly these imaginary families that Diane created might have all told her the same story? Well, she gives us the reason herself.

    I won’t get into the fact that Diana absolutely absolves herself of moral responsibility by stating that she spoke to several families who told her the “same thing” and did nothing, but to me the most beautiful part is that Diane tells on herself at the end of the program, as all people who are dishonest always do.

    Diane Dimond: “And I think that’s a very good point because, if he had not settled the first case, and it had gone to trial, there never would have been a second one. He made himself a target by paying $30 million dollars to a boy’s family. Every ne’er do well in America could have come forward and said “Hey look! He pays people! Let’s go file a false claim!”

    So Listen to Diane explain EXACTLY why the many families she interviewed would have testified the SAME THING. I mean it was all Michael’s fault! Perhaps they didn’t have the conviction that the Chandlers did that they could get away with their lies and that’s why they didn’t come forward. Since Diane is speculating, we can speculate right along with her.

    Her attempts to blame the victim by saying that Michael “made” himself a target by paying the amount that was extorted from him is laughable. Michael had no control over the Chandlers. He did not give them the idea to lie and demand money from him. He also did not ASK them to extort him. In addition, anyone who would have gotten the idea from what the Chandlers did, that it was now open season on Michael and they could also extort him would be responsible for their own actions.

    The litmus test for people like Diane is that they not only play fast and loose with the truth, they also keep switching the goal posts. They’ll maintain that Michael was responsible for his behavior in the same sentence that they claim that Michael is responsible for the choices of others, that he MADE others behave the way they do.

    The rules change and are ignored whenever they decide.



  33. lynande51 permalink
    September 22, 2011 8:44 am

    @ Suzy I wasn’t implying that Evan felt guilty. My remark about the FBI files was that Evan was fearful that the FBI files would show him for the criminal he was. He was afraid the world would finally know the truth.


  34. lcpledwards permalink
    September 22, 2011 9:01 am

    @ Ameera
    Thanks! Your comment was spot on, and if Dimond indeed spoke to any families, then they lied to her face and told her what she wants to hear, and will forever use them as “victims” to convict MJ in the court of public opinion. Thanks for your input!


  35. September 22, 2011 10:43 am

    “I have another theory about Evan’s suicide as well. Evan had Gaucher’s Disease for years and was being treated for it. Suddenly on November 5th,2009 he decided to take his own life? The way he was found was because his Doctor had called because he missed an appointment.HIm being sick doesn’t work for me.

    In either late September or early October of 2009 someone requested that Michael’s FBI file be opened under the Freedom Of Information Act. The FBI has a policy and a proceedure that they have to follow prior to opening those files. They have to notify anyone that is alive and mentioned by name in the FBI files of the request. That person can fight the release legally but if they loose they will still be released that persons name will just be redacted from the information that is released.

    I think the day that Evan Chandler decided to take his life was the day he received his notification that those files would be released. I think he was afraid that the world would finally have the proof that he was an extortionist. His future appointment shows that he intended to continue his medical treatment and that it was a spur of the moment decision.”

    Lynette, great point! It explains it all! We should include this and other of your arguments into the manual.


  36. September 22, 2011 10:53 am

    “Someone needs to confront DD with both barrels and lie by lie, destroy her. Surely there’s someone out there. It’s just too bad that she would never put herself in such a position. She “picks and chooses” her venues. She’s the sleeziest of them all.”

    Susan, exactly! In that recent conversation each time Dimond said she “had facts” someone should have reminded the viewers that she always reported her lies as “facts” – be it love letters which were never found or a video tape which she never saw but was sure of its existence because her best source Victor Gutierrez said so. Naturally the tape was never found either.

    Someone should also say it in her face that her best source admitted he attended a NAMBLA conference (as a “reporter”).


  37. September 22, 2011 11:42 am

    “DD keeps saying what she heard the prosecution say, but she never says what she heard the defense say. It is all one sided.”

    Teva, Dimond is still a spokesperson for the prosecution though their case totally collapsed during the trial. How is it possible for her to go on spreading lies about the man after his full acquittal? People are not tried twice for one and the same thing – and what she is doing is trying him again and again in the court of public opinion.

    She is just repeating the same old lies which were once refuted and were supposed to be stopped by the trial. What is the use of all this expensive and tiresome litigation if it doesn’t mean anything? Anyone can still go on slandering the former defendant and no one can do anything about it? Moreover people will believe this slanderer and not the ruling of the court?

    What is the use of such courts then? Shouldn’t all those lawyers close their business and go home instead if no one believes the decisions taken in courts anyway?


  38. shelly permalink
    September 22, 2011 11:58 am

    “Diane Dimond: “And I think that’s a very good point because, if he had not settled the first case, and it had gone to trial, there never would have been a second one. He made himself a target by paying $30 million dollars to a boy’s family. Every ne’er do well in America could have come forward and said “Hey look! He pays people! Let’s go file a false claim!”

    I like that quote, she just admitted there were no others families, because if he did abused others kids at one point of another someone would have filed charges and the settlement has nothing to do with that.

    “But, as we all know, there were NO victims”

    Yes, I know that, my main point was your privacy will be destroyed and the case will be damaged by the stupidity of the media.


  39. September 22, 2011 2:51 pm

    “Shouldn’t all those lawyers close their business and go home instead if no one believes the decisions taken in courts anyway?”

    Having said that I want to note that in case of doubt law should always be interpreted in favor of the defendant. It isn’t my opinion only – it is the essence of “Innocent until proven guilty” principle. If you are not sure of a person’s guilt it is better to let him free than convict or execute an innocent person.

    I am saying that because I’ve just read that Troy Davis was executed. Since there was so much controversy over his case it is very sad news. In case of capital punishment people should be twice as careful, especially with someone who already served 20 years in prison and prepared himself three times for the execution before the final one.

    In a strange way the situation with Troy looks to me like the other side of the same coin. In one case the person is tried for several months, is fully acquitted in court but is convicted by the media and public, and in the other case the person is convicted in court but is acquitted by public opinion. If things are so wide apart between what law and people think, something must be wrong and lawyers should sort it out.

    And the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” applies to both cases – to Michael for sure as the court did not prove any guilt, but the public and creatures like DD still go on convicting him breaking all norms.

    Maybe it applies to Troy too, as though the court passed the guilty verdict they didn’t really prove his guilt (or proved it on the basis of the testimony which was recanted by most of the witnesses since then) and no physical evidence present. The “doubt” factor of the “innocent until proven guilty” formula should have had its say in Troy’s case – but didn’t, alas.


  40. anniedomino permalink
    September 22, 2011 4:57 pm

    Almost all people who are asked on these panels to speak for Michael are useless. I have been monitoring Jermaine’s interviews to publicise his book and he tries – and makes some good points – but he is also pretty useless at arguing a point with facts. I HATE it when Michael “advocates” start blah-blahing about what a nice guy he was. That means next to nothing to the general public. Speak about the issue at hand. How difficult is it to familiarise yourself with the most pertinent facts and prepare model answers to the questions you know are going to come up.
    And the really frustrating thing is that many of these people are publicists or have been “interviewees” (Jermaine!) for decades. C’mon! When I go for a job interview I prepare through mock-interviews and Google possible questions. Basic skills.
    The best guys to appear on these panels are T-Mez and Joe Vogel. Both are familiar with the facts and mentally quick enough to cite the relevant information succinctly.


  41. September 22, 2011 5:54 pm

    “I’ve already started working on my new post titled “How To Talk To A Michael Jackson Hater””

    David, great if you make such a post. But I am thinking of the way to make it not just another of our posts which will eventually go into the archive but a kind of a directory which could be supplemented by new facts, could be regularly updated and easily accessed. We could turn it into a separate page in the blog menu. Even if people don’t read the rest they will at least get familiar with the main facts.

    We could single out the main haters’ questions and provide short answers to them with links to more detailed posts. And it is better not to wait for a few months but start it asap as during the trial the media will step up their effort and DD will contaminate the environment even more – so we should have some ready answers to sanitize it.

    “The reason why I was so harsh on them is because I just expected more from them.”

    Oh, I know, ALL of us expect more of them, and when they don’t live up to our expectations we get terribly frustrated. But if they can’ t do it by themselves, we should teach them how to. Make an ABC manual and send it to them for studying. And demand they should learn it by heart if they want to be called Michael’s supporters. They are spokesmen for Michael so please let them work hard to correspond to this name. The same manual should be sent to Jermaine and if he doesn’t do his homework we should make it clear to him that he hasn’t passed the exam.

    But provision of certain guidelines is crucial – we cannot expect them to make an investigation of their own or easily grasp the information even if they find this blog. Some people I know say that we have gone so deep and our subjects have become so specific that they have a difficulty in grasping the basic facts. Let us think about it.


  42. ares permalink
    September 22, 2011 6:06 pm

    Does someone knows how can make this go viral? I’m not familiar with twitter but if lots of us twitted the title of David’s post and the link of the site, maybe we could make more people see it.Can we do that? This post is exellent and it has great information about her lies. I will try to post it on her twitter or facebook, although i don’t exactly know how they work.


  43. September 22, 2011 6:14 pm

    “what are the chances that a real victim would be “too afraid” to press charges, but had no problem telling their story to a tabloid reporter? ZERO!!! “

    Excellent point! Very good for the manual.

    “Why would this lady call MJ a musical genius when he’s guilty?” When is the last time you’ve heard anyone compliment OJ Simpson’s football talent?”

    Because our dirty D. is preparing ground for the new stand the media will take in the near future – they will stop calling him Jacko and will acknowledge his musical talent (and this acknowledgement will grow as the money in his bank account grows) but will say that there is no equal mark between him being a genius and him not being guilty. A genius may turn out to be a p. – this will be the next “bright idea” on their part which is awaiting us.

    We can even expect some “fans” teach us that it doesn’t matter what and who Michael was – they like his beat, and that is all there is to it. And if Dimond says she thinks him to be a genius they will embrace her like a friend.


  44. R.J permalink
    September 22, 2011 8:52 pm

    In my honest opinion, Katherine obviously believes in Michael’s innocence 100% or else she wouldn’t be defending him from the vicious media and haters. It’s just that her defenses of him are weak defenses and as a result; noone takes her seriously. What ends up happening is the media and haters label her as a naive, bad mother who raised a child molester. And quite frankly I’m getting sick of it.

    I just wish that Katherine and the rest of the Jackson family would come across this excellent blog so that they can see a lot deeper into the allegations. As a result, their defenses of Michael’s innocence will be a lot more effective and stronger. Please don’t bash me for saying this, I’m a true MJ fan and come in peace.

    And DD I have no comment for her except: Witch!!!

    Btw I’m very interested in that next post about “How To Talk To A Michael Jackson Hater.” Although I haven’t encountered any haters (thank goodness), if I ever do encounter a hater, I want to be ready to make an effective defense of Michael’s innocence that will put the haters in their place. I’ll be waiting patiently!


  45. lenell marshall permalink
    September 22, 2011 11:47 pm

    Regarding the many boys and their families who the demon said she interviewed over the years who CLAIM they were abused by MJ, but, were too afraid to come forward….isn’t she legally obligated to report this to the authorities? Who and where are these boys and their families? I’d love to hear her answer. If you believe a crime took place and didn’t report it, you are as guilty as the perp. I’d love to hear her explanation. I PRAY she disappears….IMMEDIATELY!!!


  46. lcpledwards permalink
    September 23, 2011 3:00 am

    @ SJR
    Although I have the entire program recorded, at this point in time I don’t plan on transcribing all of it, as I have too much on my hands right now, in between work, and researching my other MJ projects. The show was divided into several segments, including MJ’s legacy and influence, the upcoming trial, and of course the allegations. I may transcribe a few of Dimond’s other quotes here and there, especially her praising MJ, which is antithetical for someone who claims to think he’s guilty!


  47. Taro Nuss permalink
    September 23, 2011 3:34 am

    I am impressed with this posting. This site is so knowledgeable and thorough, we can all benefit from the information presented. Most people now take it for a fact that Michael was a ped.. simply because it has been hammered so many times. They think they’re being generous when they say, “He was a ped-hile BUT he was a musical genius.” And I’m talking about college-educated people who presumably have been taught to think independently–and yet none of these people have ever tried to find out the truth for themselves. It’s these otherwise nice and kind people who frustrate me the most.


  48. September 23, 2011 3:46 am

    Why don’t you organize your own panel discussion with sharp bloggers such as yourselves, and a good moderator, post it on YouTube, and put links all over Twitter, Facebook, etc.?
    If you are cool and factual, there are plenty of people who would listen, especially if there isn’t a lot of long-windedness. Then those of us who want to help restore Michael’s rightful image can easily refer people to that YouTube site.
    You can do so much better than most of the stuff that’s out there, with the same-old same-old “why would a 40-year old want to sleep in the same bed,” etc., which is so lame that it’s a wonder these “factual” interviewers aren’t ashamed of rehashing it over and over again.


  49. lcpledwards permalink
    September 23, 2011 5:56 am

    @ Kris
    Actually, there is a lady named Rev. Cate Grossman who hosts a radio show called “A Place In Your Heart”, and she airs a new show every few weeks. There is a new episode this Sunday that features author Joe Vogel, among others. A few months ago, I was on a show with other MJ bloggers, and I included the link below. If you look through her archives you’ll see other episodes with MJ bloggers and advocates as well, including Charles Thomson and Larry Nimmer.


  50. September 23, 2011 6:48 am

    @lcpledwards I heard that program, actually. Too long and diffuse for what I have in mind. And not easy to access for the average person. And not visual. I’m talking YouTube. Format like the one above, only with MJ-savvy people who can speak dispassionately and to the point. The podcast to which you are referring is often painful to listen to, as the moderator often seems clueless, stumbling from one comment to another. I admire her courage, but she comes across as clumsy and unpolished. I know she’s still learning . . .


  51. September 23, 2011 10:46 am

    “Why don’t you organize your own panel discussion with sharp bloggers such as yourselves, and a good moderator, post it on YouTube, and put links all over Twitter, Facebook, etc.?”

    Kris, great idea! We can very well delegate David to this panel! I hope he agrees.


  52. lynande51 permalink
    September 23, 2011 7:43 pm

    I just found an article that shows who is covering the Murray trial for HLN. I have a suggestion. It seems that the station HLN is counting on the trial to provide the all neccessary ratings for the fall sweeps. I say let’s not give it to them. Here is a plan. We can watch the actual coverage but change the channel when it comes to the commentaries that they will be delivering. They have every sort of coverage that is imaginable as you can see.
    Now if or when a commentary or analysis is neccessary someone that watched the coverage can give it from here or one of the blogs from our blogroll.Do not go to any article or show from TMZ or any major network coverage for the commentary.That is where the ratings are and that is where the money goes.If you have to watch the testimony watch only that. Then when a ” legal analyst” starts to comment on what is obviously going to be available for anyone to watch turn the channel ( any channel is good but I suggest the SciFI channel) and return when the commentary is over to watch the actual testimony.Do not tune into any of the shows listed in the above article. It is time for HLN and other networks to learn that Justice in America is not a commmercial enterprise ripe for exploitation just by adding Michael Jackson’s name to it.


  53. ares permalink
    September 23, 2011 8:33 pm


    I think that we should share your suggestion to all the MJ forums, blogs and sites,facebook pages, twitter etc. It should be a collective attempt and not an individual one. Like we did with the Discovery Documentary and we succeeded. As you said ratings is what all those stations need. Lets not give them that. And we can try to stay away from programs that we know that they are biased against MJ or that are hosted by the likes of Dimond.


  54. Jacquie H. permalink
    September 23, 2011 11:20 pm

    It’s funny you know that old saying the dog that brings the bone takes the bone.Diane Diamond like must other MJ bashers makes remarks about a man she did not know personally,she spoke about neverland like she knew the place that’s funny. How about this she had said that she only saw neverland in pictures is it possible that what she saw was staged. Diane Diamond said that she spoke with several children and their families that were to afraid to come forward but isn’t that what they did when they spoke with her.Wow to me it just seems like no matter what Diane Diamond and othersthey will not let him rest in peace.Instead of bashing him every chance you get try remebering the good. I wonder how you will feel if you had to really deal with life like MJ did, how you would handle it ?Oh and please don’t say that you would not do or handle things like MJ did because you don’t know how you would handle the situation.Mathew 7;1&2 says Do not judge, or you will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.


  55. Maria permalink
    September 23, 2011 11:29 pm

    This person (DD) – It was the first, began attacks on MJ in 1993, the first accusation. DD was “specialist” in the media from MJ. it was horrible. Her cruelty took very many years. Mr. TS and DD were friends. Both MJ tormented for so many years. DD is the last person who has a right to talk about MJ. Michael killed those accusations. Medication was to sleep and pain. Michael could not sleep, he suffered.


  56. Amanda permalink
    September 24, 2011 12:43 am

    Do you have the full transcripts of it? or do you know where I can find them?


  57. lcpledwards permalink
    September 24, 2011 5:13 am

    @ Amanda
    I have recorded the full episode, but unfortunately I only transcribed the segment on the allegations. There were other topics discussed, but nothing was said that needed to be immediately refuted other than the allegations, except for maybe MJ’s drug use. I will go back and re-watch the entire show and see what else needs to be fact checked. I’m sure Dimond labeled MJ as a drug addict, although the child abuse allegations required my full and immediate attention.

    I’ll probably add an addendum with additional quotes from the show, although it will be a very long time until I have time to transcribe the entire episode.


  58. Amanda permalink
    September 24, 2011 5:16 am

    @ lcpledwards thanks!


  59. lcpledwards permalink
    September 24, 2011 6:10 am

    Hey guys,
    I added an update at the end! It includes a transcript of Jane Velez Mitchell’s discussion with Dimond, Lisa Bloom, and Aphrodite Jones! I also was able to embed that final video at the end, with Joe Jackson giving his thoughts on Dimond and Grace!

    Another point I want to make is that we as fans must be careful of how we present ourselves to the media. In this video, you’ll see how NOT to act when defending MJ! At 3:55, you’ll see some groupie claiming to be a “born again virgin” for MJ, saving herself for him! And this was at his arraignment, too! Be sure to also listen to what those 2 ZZ Top look-a-likes had to say about Sneddon at 1:18.

    And this is how you SHOULD act! Erin Jacobs of Justice4MJ was recently a guest on TMZ, and Harvey Levin was so flattered by her cogent, articulate explanations that he asked if she’s a lawyer, or considering becoming a lawyer! Amazing!


  60. lynande51 permalink
    September 24, 2011 7:49 am

    I watched this yesterday with Erin and Harvey. I think Harvey is full of Bulloney period. Him and his connection to the Klein/Pfeiffer story is just too close to make him credible that’s all I can say.


  61. September 24, 2011 4:33 pm

    David, thank you for the update. I’ve never known that Velez Mitchell-Dimond-Bloom are such an ugly bunch of clowns! Claiming that Michael came in his pajama pants to distract the jury and his accuser! The members of the jury said they entered the room when Jackson had already been seated and they never knew what kind of pants he was wearing – and Dimond knows it as she was in the court room too, but is just making fool of the people by saying all that nonsense!

    And I can’t believe that all of them talk so seriously about something so unworthy of attention – it is pajamas, always pajamas they talk of instead of speaking of the essence of the case!

    So these clowns say that the Arvizo story was a serious molestation case? It was a complete joke from the start of it, when prosecution claimed that the boy was ‘molested’ AFTER the story broke on TV and the whole world began staring at Neverland! Nothing can be more ridiculous and hilarious than a claim like that and this is probably the reason why the prosecution introduced those conspiracy charges into the case – they wanted to make it look much more complex than the joke it was!

    And if DD and Co. doesn’t know it an added ‘advantage’ of the conspiracy charges was to prevent the main witnesses for the defense, like Frank Cascio, from testifying in court – they named him a co-conspirator who, if he said a word in Michael’s support, was to be prosecuted too. A very strange justice system – you have allegedly conspired against someone but if you keep silence it is okay and we’ll let you go …

    They say it was a circus? Yes, it was, but only for them, because this circus of a trial drained Michael of all strength and killed him even before his physical death. It was a show all right and now these clowns are going on with it.


  62. Suzy permalink
    September 24, 2011 8:06 pm

    Dimond, Valez-Mitchell and Bloom don’t talk about the trial at all. All they have to back up their opinion about MJ being guilty is things like the pajama-day or when he jumped on the roof of the car or when he and his family dressed in all white or the so called celebrity factor (when in fact in Michael’s case it was a negative factor for him very clearly). I’m sorry but how does that make someone guilty? They try to appeal to people’s biases and emotions and completely avoid talking about the facts of the trial and what was going on INSIDE the courtroom! This seems to be a very usual tactic of the media when they discuss his trial. We all know why is that. Because once they would discuss the facts of the trial they should admit the not guilty verdict was absolutely the right one.


  63. lynande51 permalink
    September 24, 2011 8:42 pm

    My personal favorite of DD’s is a debate she had with a legal analyst about Janet Arvizo’s testimony when they were discussing “body wax versus leg wax” her reply to him was “what difference does it make if it was a body wax or a leg wax it is irrelevant”. So doesn’t that make the PJ’s irrelevant too?


  64. September 24, 2011 8:56 pm

    Actually Levin passively insulted Erin with that comment. It only showed that he expected her to be otherwise.


  65. lynande51 permalink
    September 24, 2011 10:25 pm

    Yes, thetis7 and he clearly says that in the interview too. He just like all the others that are out there paint MJ fans as lunatics. For them we would have to be if we don’t believe their decades of lies. The world was awash with them and yet here we are saying that they are lies and should not be believed so that therefore makes us crazy rabid batshit fanbot floons.
    The haters that have visited out site say that they are rational and yet they come here and to other sites dedicated to Michael under endless different pseudonyms and post comments that are ugly and not even hidden in innuendo. They send private emails to us that read like the Unabomber’s Manifesto and yet somehow it is us that are wrong and crazy. That is ad hominem argument or the straw man argument.
    It is now time to attack us. That is the only thing that they have left. They know that we have proved that MJ was not what they have portrayed him to be so they must now discredit us.
    I hate to tell them this but that started a long time ago in the US with the tabloid story of the day. Even the Chandler’s used it as a defense against testifying that they were afraid of us and yet there they were many years later alive, unphotographed and well, spending their ill gotten gains on whatever they fancied. So actually we are used to it.
    Unfortunately we have to look past what they say about us as at this time. It is important to try to ignore them and I know how hard it is to ignore some of the things that are said. It is nearly impossible not to lose your temper when you are called names that are intended to make you lose your temper. But that is just what they want. They are painting us in a negative light to make us hide so Michael is alone again fighting for his name, his legacy and once again his innocence. This time it is his innocence in his death.
    So remember the comment of the woman in the other video of MJ’s fans at his arraignment where she has the opposing view when she says that they start spitting on her. Remember what Michael endured for his entire life and hold your heads up high because the only thing they have left is to spit on us.


  66. September 25, 2011 6:53 am

    I don’t believe the sleepovers were sexual, but what Michael didn’t understand is that inviting strange children over to your home and sleeping in the same bed with them is not normal behavior, and given the serious allegations that were made against him, it made him look like a ped-le in the eyes of the public. When I saw the Bashir film, I was very disappointed and shocked when he told Bashir “I’ve slept in bed with many children”..To people like Tom Sneddon and Diane Dimond, that was an indication of his guilt and they saw it as a “confession” that he liked to have sex with young boys and thought that there was nothing wrong with it. Even if Michael was innocent, which I believe, I think it was not very smart for him to tell the camera that he slept in bed with children, especially given all that he endured in 1993 with the humiliating strip search, the millions of dollars paid, the police raid, the lies created by the media, etc, I really didn’t understand why he continued to say and do things that would cause him to become embroiled in scandal. And Bashir’s innuendo voiceovers just made it 10 times worst. When I saw the film for the first time in 2003, I said to myself “Here goes another set of allegations” and that’s exactly what happened 9 months later..I was hoping that the 60 minutes interview would be much better and he would redeem himself from the Bashir film, but he made things worst and dug the whole even deeper by STILL defending the whole sharing your bed issue. I sometimes wondered about his state of mind. Either he was not aware of how serious the allegations against him were or he just didn’t care. Overall, it was just a very sad experience.


  67. Carm permalink
    September 25, 2011 6:36 pm

    You criticized Michael over ane over without condemning the immoral actions of Bashir, Dimond, and Sneddon! That’s like holding a rape victim responsible for her own rape!.
    Michael didn’t explain himself very well regarding the sleepovers (he was human after all) and left the door open to misinterpretation. The Bashir documentary was a betrayal and was purposely designed to make MJ look like a child molester and a bad parent and was aired without Michael having any control over the editorial content. (How fair is that?) Regarding the 60 Minutes interview, Mark Geragos, Michael’s attorney at the time, states that there was always a third party present in Michael’s bedroom after 1993. Does anyone talk about that? I really hope that Frank Cascio sets the record straight in his book. He was often the “third party” when people stayed over.
    There are many first-hand accounts of people who actually stayed at Neverland and no one had a problem with the sleepovers. The controversy is media-created. The fact that you feel that Michael’s innocence is open to debate tells me you need some serious educating. Get going, read the posts.


  68. ultravioletrae permalink
    September 25, 2011 7:50 pm

    Someone needs to ask Ms. Demon what her theory is on why the prosecution didn’t use any of her information at trial. They were certainly given a green light to use all “prior similar acts” yet none of her info was credible enough to make it to trial. Bashir’s seemngly was, before it imploded on cross examination, the “improper tickling” evidence was, before it was laughed out of court, so why didn’t the prosecution use her evidence? Maybe because it was even flimsier than what they did present???


  69. ultravioletrae permalink
    September 25, 2011 8:02 pm

    and I’m still laughing about her saying Michael wasn’t working at the time, LOL! talk about imposing her middle class life style on a billionaire’s reality. too hilarious. maybe someone could explain to her how royalty payments work.


  70. Suzy permalink
    September 25, 2011 8:07 pm

    Parents were always allowed in the room whenever they wanted to stay there.
    From June Chandler’s testimony:

    22 Q. And did you go into Michael Jackson’s

    23 bedroom?

    24 A. Yes.

    25 Q. How many times do you think you went into

    26 Michael Jackson’s bedroom at Neverland?

    27 A. It stopped after maybe the tenth time.

    28 Q. Okay. Describe, if you would for the jury, 5699

    1 what Michael Jackson’s bedroom looks like?

    2 A. Lots of dolls. Lots of playthings. It

    3 looks like a boy’s room, big boy’s room. Lots of

    4 toys and things.

    5 Q. Is it a big area?

    6 A. Yes.

    7 Q. How big would you describe it as, if you

    8 can?

    9 A. Oh, it’s a long time ago.

    10 Q. Was it kind of huge?

    11 A. Well, there’s an upstairs and a downstairs.

    12 Yes, it’s kind of huge.


    26 Q. And why were you in the bedroom those ten

    27 times?

    28 A. Because I’m Jordie’s mother. I’m allowed to 5700

    1 go into the bedroom.

    2 Q. Were you dropping clothes off?

    3 A. Oh, I might have. I don’t recall.

    4 Q. Did you ever sit down and watch T.V. or

    5 anything in there?

    6 A. Yes.

    7 Q. How often did you do that?

    8 A. A few times.

    9 Q. Did you ever have food delivered to you in

    10 Michael Jackson’s bedroom?

    11 A. I don’t recall.


  71. September 25, 2011 8:20 pm


    I think you misunderstood what I said. I never stated that Michael’s innocence was open to debate. What I said was, as a fan, I was disappointed that he continued to say and do things that would cause suspicion and more persecution. As icpledwards stated, the 2005 trial was totally preventable. And yes I do put most of the blame on Bashir because tabloid tablod documentary was what the prosecution was using to build their case.


  72. September 25, 2011 8:22 pm

    sorry for the typos..


    And yes I do put most of the blame on Bashir because because his tabloid documentary was what the prosecution was using to build their case.


  73. lcpledwards permalink
    September 25, 2011 8:50 pm

    @ Stacy2, Suzy, and Carm
    Let me jump in and try to squash this before it gets out of hand, because this is a very controversial issue not just among MJ haters and skeptics, but also among fans! I think Suzy and Carm may have misinterpreted Stacy2’s intentions; I don’t think she was trying to say MJ deserved to be maliciously prosecuted, nor did she try to absolve Bashir, Dimond, and Sneddon of their actions. She’s just saying something that I’ve heard a lot of fans say, especially in the days and weeks after his death: “Why did MJ put himself in a position to be accused again?” Many people just don’t understand his lack of wisdom and judgement in letting the Arvizos, or any other family that he wasn’t already close with, sleep in his bed or bedroom. Even though MJ didn’t force them to sleep there, and even though he had the parent’s permission, and even though there was already a third party in the room with them, in retrospect it was a mistake because he was still falsely accused and dragged through the mud again. Before the trial, he said “I will never put myself in so vulnerable a position ever again!”, and if he had that same mentality in 1993, then he wouldn’t have been accused again (in all probability; the only foolproof way for him to avoid further accusations would have been to completely disassociate himself from children).

    All 3 of you guys have valid points, and I respect everything you have to say, but this is something that needs to be talked about: some fans want to absolve MJ of any responsibility for the things that happened to him later in life, but that’s not possible because what happened was a direct result of his decisions, REGARDLESS of what motivated those decisions, or how innocent his intentions were behind those decisions. If you were to talk to people about MJ who are not in the “fan community” (i.e. casual fans who don’t read the MJ blogs, haven’t read any books on MJ, haven’t watched any documentaries, etc.), they’ll say that, ultimately, the buck stops with MJ because it was his decision to ignore the few people who actually tried to warn him that he could be accused again.

    Personally, as a fan, I was greatly disappointed in MJ at that time, and I was thoroughly satisfied when Mesereau said in all of his post trial interviews that MJ had learned his lesson and wouldn’t allow this to happen to him again. That showed me that MJ was taking personal responsibility to prevent another false accusation. What some fans don’t realize is that, when they go over the top in their defense of MJ continuing to allow families he wasn’t already close with after 1993, they’re basically saying that MJ should have continued doing it after 2005, and you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say you wish Mesereau was there to defend MJ in 1993, but then say that MJ didn’t use bad judgement in not realizing that he’s a target.

    Was it immoral? NO! Was it illegal? NO! But was it irresponsible? With everything that transpired from 2003-2005, I would have to say yes, ESPECIALLY when you consider that Katherine herself said she BEGGED MJ not to let it happen again, and MJ replied that from now on he would help people from a distance.

    I think the best way to explain this to non-fans, or fans who are less knowledgeable about this issue, is to OBVIOUSLY state that Mj never forced kids to get in bed and spoon and cuddle with him (as many people believe), parents were always there and gave their permission, a third party was in the room, MJ slept in the upstairs portion of his bedroom or on the floor, etc. Then you should also emphasize that MJ realized it was bad judgment, and stopped this practice altogether after the trial.

    Like I said earlier, this is a controversial issue, and fans obviously want to defend MJ and clear his name, but some fans have to realize that the general public will not blame Bashir, Sneddon, etc; they will blame MJ for allowing it to happen. If people perceive that you’re an MJ apologist because you won’t admit it was bad judgement, then they won’t take you seriously, and they’ll think you’re just another “crazy, rabid fan”.


  74. Teva permalink
    September 25, 2011 9:45 pm


    Thank you David. I think it is a topic that should be discussed in any vindication effort because it one of the 2 main areas people from the GENERAL PULIC cite when they say he was guilty. I feel sometimes fans cannot bear to hear any criticism of MJ even if it is constructive.


  75. ares permalink
    September 25, 2011 10:59 pm

    -I really didn’t understand why he continued to say and do things that would cause him to become embroiled in scandal.- Stacy2

    MJ continue to say and do those thing because he didn’t think that he was doing was innapropriate or bad.And in fact it wasn’t. I believe that if MJ did something bad to those kids, he would’ve try to hide it and not talk about it so openly on the national tv, where million of people could see and hear him. I haven’t seen for example a rapist or a seciar killer reveal on TV that they like to stalk people or give indications of their criminal activities that might couse suspicion and lead to their arrest or whatever. People that do criminal in nature things, they usually try to hide it and they don’t talk openly about it like MJ did.

    And by the way i’m not one of those fans who try to justify everything that MJ said or did. He made a lot of mistakes yes but going over and over again about how bad his judgement was and how stupid he was by letting those kids in his room and that he shouldn’t have done it, is like beating a dead horse or cry over a spilled milk. He did it and we can’t change that. All we can do is present the facts to the pubblic and inform them about why MJ did do the things he did, even if some of those things are not consider normal in some societies.


  76. Maria permalink
    September 25, 2011 11:06 pm

    @ lcpledwards
    His heart beat for children. I understand your intentions and your questions, but also fully understand Michael. It’s not he should, after the case of 1993, to avoid children. Michael in his heart he knew that not doing anything wrong. If you’re a fan, you know that Michael lived for children. He was himself. Others broke the rules.


  77. Maria permalink
    September 25, 2011 11:14 pm

    At the end I wanted to write. He was honest, others broke the rules.


  78. Suzy permalink
    September 25, 2011 11:21 pm

    @ David

    I’m not sure why you addressed all this to me. I never said anything about it. All I did was I quoted from June Chandler’s testimony to point out she (and all other parents) was allowed in the bedroom any time she wished to go in.


  79. lcpledwards permalink
    September 25, 2011 11:57 pm

    @ Suzy
    Sorry, I shouldn’t have included you. You’re right

    @ Maria & Ares

    You both make valid points, and although to us this may seem like a dead issue because we don’t know all of the facts,but there are many people (both haters, skeptics, and fans alike) who don’t know all of the facts, and misconstrue the whole issue. We as fans have to educate them on the facts, and yes, even though MJ didn’t lure kids into his bed or anything like that, we have to accept the fact that his decision to allow families he wasn’t already close with (like the Arvizos) made him vulnerable to the second allegations, as Mesereau admitted after the trial.

    The problem is that some – not all, and definitely not you guys – but some fans just cannot tolerate any respectful, constructive criticism of MJ at all! Most of the people who are most critical of his decisions are his own fans, and they get branded as “haters” or “not real fans” by the more rabid fans out there! Here is an example of a circular argument that I constantly see in the fan community:

    Someone will say that MJ “should have learned his lesson after 1993” and should have stayed away from other people’s children altogether, and then a fan will say “Why? He was innocent, and didn’t do anything wrong, so why should he stay away from children?” And then someone else (like me, for example) will say “Even though MJ was innocent, he should have been more careful around families he didn’t already know, and he shouldn’t have allowed them to sleep in his bed/bedroom, regardless of who else was in the room with them, and regardless if the parents gave their permission. They could be setting him up for another allegation! What if they lie and say MJ showed them his penis, and then Sneddon strip searches him again?” And then a fan will say “The Arvizos were bad kids, and they could have accused MJ regardless of where they slept!” And then someone else can say “See! That’s why MJ should have stayed away from kids altogether!” And the argument just continues to go in circles.

    Many people view his defiant stance on this issue to Bashir and Ed Bradley as reckless and irresponsible, especially the Ed Bradley interview, which took place after he had been arrested. Many people in the general public (fans included) said to themselves “What the heck is wrong with him? It’s like he just doesn’t get it!! How many times does he have to be accused before he takes responsibility?” This is why MJ didn’t get much support from the celebrity community; they probably said to themselves (behind closed doors, of course) “He got himself into this, so let him get himself out of this!”

    It was for MJ’s own good that he needed to stop, and Mesereau (and the trial) really made it sink in to him. Personally, I just believe that MJ made the right decision after the trial, and it would have been the right decision after 1993. NOBODY IS SAYING HE HAD TO STOP LOVING AND HELPING CHILDREN! We’re just saying that he should have been more responsible, and the people around him should have been more responsible in warning him, too. For example, in 2003 Jermaine said that Katherine said that she knew MJ would be falsely accused again, so the question that comes to a lot of people’s minds is “Well, why didn’t you warn him if you knew it would happen again?” Initially, Katherine sounded like an enabler and apologist in 2003-04 when she said that society has a dirty mind and is ignorant, but after the trial she begged him to stop.

    In closing, I also want to say that you shouldn’t attack or be upset at people who have doubts about MJ’s innocence because of this issue; they are just erring on the side of caution and thinking the way that they’ve been conditioned to think. In the USA, when you “sleep” with someone, their is a sexual connotation involved, so when they hear the media say that MJ “slept” with kids, that’s what they think. It’s no different than if a married man with previous accusations of adultery openly admitted on TV that it’s OK for a married man to sleep in the same bed/bedroom with other women he’s not married to, then you’re first thought would be that he’s an adulterer! And even if he’s not, it’s still inappropriate. (Not illegal or immoral, just inappropriate.) That’s how many people view MJ; his actions were inappropriate, especially after 1993, and if him being falsely accused is what it took for him to “get it”, then so be it.

    I know that sounds harsh, but that’s what many people think, and I can’t change their mind on that . As a fan, all I can do is present them with the facts and dispel the misconceptions that they have, but I cannot (nor will I try to) absolve MJ of any responsibility.


  80. Teva permalink
    September 26, 2011 12:10 am

    Here is what I think. If your goal is to blog among fans then the discussion is mute because fans already know the deal, it would be like preaching to the choir.

    If your goal is the general public, a wider demographic (like Jermaine’s book) then you can’t address the “sleepovers” the same way as on fan sites because they are not going to get it. You will never ever convince them it was normal or okay. Michael Jackson tried twice and failed. Stick to the facts of the case, the FBI files etc, and move along, If you take the “normal” explanation to the public then you will have a different type of vindication i.e Michael would be seen as a brilliant, gifted artist who could have been a child m*lester.


  81. lynande51 permalink
    September 26, 2011 12:38 am

    David are people responsible for having a crime committed against them? Do you follow the belief that what happened in 2003 could have been avoided? The Arvizo’s had an agenda from beginning til end. They were criminals did you forget that part? If I have someone steal my purse when I am walking down the street is it my fault that the purse is stolen because I was walking down the street with a purse?
    The 2003 allegations were a crime that was committed against Michael. When you follow the train of thought that he could have prevented the crime simply by not associating with children it is like asking Michael to stop being a childrens rights advocate or like expecting me to stop walking down the street with a purse.
    I suggest that you tell people that the 2003 allegations were made by a family of grifters that wanted to get rich off Michael Jackson. Every point of the Arvizo story can be disproven and a jury has already done that. Tom Mesereau answers that question very well in his post trial appearance on Jay Leno. That was the media and the prosecutions deal and it was exaggerated.I think you have forgotten a very important part: The evidence proved that Michael did not even sleep in the same room with Gavin Arvizo except for one night and Aldo was there with them. He couldn’t have he was not even at Neverland most of the time when they were there because people like Chris Tucker, Frank Cascio and Carol Lemere told him to stay away from those kids and that is when he started to keep away from them so he did listen to other people. The thing is with their agenda it did not matter if he distanced himself from them or not they wanted what they wanted from him and nothing was going to stop them. That is when they got upset and decided that a different story would be better and more profitable.


  82. appleh permalink
    September 26, 2011 12:50 am

    It´s not MJ´s fault, that people can´t imagine that an adult male can have other feelings towards children, who he is not related with, than sexual ones. People nowadays are very hysterical in so many ways, I don´t want to imply that such things don´t happen, but many people are really over reacting !


  83. shelly permalink
    September 26, 2011 12:59 am

    “MJ continue to say and do those thing because he didn’t think that he was doing was innapropriate or bad.”

    Yes, but the rest of the world saw that as innapropriate. At the very least, he should have stayed quiet about that.


  84. lynande51 permalink
    September 26, 2011 1:04 am

    Shelly Michael was not the one that brought it up in the Bashir Documentary it was Gavin when he was asked something by Bashir. Everytime it was brought up it was not brought up by him.


  85. lcpledwards permalink
    September 26, 2011 1:05 am

    @ Lynette
    I already respectfully refuted everything you just said in my previous comment: I never said he had to completely disassociate himself from kids (which would have been a good idea anyway after 1993, and what he DID do after the trial), I’m just saying what millions of people have already said: why did he make himself such a vulnerable target? Why did he ENABLE their false accusation through his naivete?

    Your comparison of walking down the street with a purse to MJ letting strangers sleep in his bed/bedroom is inapt; they are two different situations. If your purse was stolen, of course it’s not your fault, nor do you deserve it. And neither did MJ deserve to be falsely accused. People get their belongings stolen from them every day, but people don’t put themselves in a position to be falsely accused of molestation after they’ve already been accused.

    Lynette, I’m going to say this with all due respect to you: if I was a skeptic who just happened to stumble upon this blog, and I read these comments about the whole bed sharing issue, I would think that you (and some of the others) are just crazy, rabid fans who want to absolve MJ of all responsibility. If MJ was able to stop letting other families that he didn’t know sleep in his bed or bedroom after the trial, then why couldn’t he do it in 1993? Do you think it was a mistake for him to listen to Mesereau, and his own mother’s advice about stopping it? Should he have just moved right back into Neverland after the trial, and continued to invite families that he didn’t know there and allow their children to sleep in his bed or bedroom? If he had testified at the trial, should he have told Sneddon, while under cross-examination, that’s it’s OK to share your bed? Should he have told the jury that they’re “ignorant” or “have dirty minds” if they don’t trust him?

    I understand and agree with your points, but it just seems like some of you are missing the point: he ENABLED the Arvizos accusations with his actions, and it seems like some of you want to reduce MJ to a caricature by insinuating that he can’t make sound, wise decisions because of his childlike nature, or his love for children. The trial was a wake-up call to him, and the 1993 incident should have been a wake-up call to him too. That’s just my opinion, and it’s the opinion of the vast majority of people, but fans and non-fans alike.


  86. lynande51 permalink
    September 26, 2011 1:20 am

    David could you please point out the difference between 1993 and 2003? Do you want a discussion or do you want us to tell you what David? That he was wrong that he should not have slept with children because now he looks like a P*? Where did his own children come into that because with all due respect they were children too or have you not read your own comment? Should he have not had children of his own? What answer satifies your question? And finally do not tell me with all due respect because in this case I don’t believe you do have respect.
    Michael was what he was. If that has suddenly become a caricature to you I cannot help you with it. I am frankly done with any and all discussions regarding Michael Jackson with you or anyone else.Good bye I can be scolded on a haters blog but frankly I just plain give up with you.


  87. September 26, 2011 1:33 am

    I don’t know if this is true or not, but I read somewhere that Gavin had already had 2 treatments and was told by his doctor that he was going to beat the cancer but had to finish the treatments. So this family KNEW he wasnt dying, but continued to tell people otherwise so that they could feel sorry for them and give them money..How sickening.


  88. nan permalink
    September 26, 2011 1:40 am

    I was thinking the other day about mj and the allegations by the arviso kid and how he got stuck in that ..why he let that scum anywhere near him ….
    why nobody even checked these people out before they got near him, especially him being a big lawsuit target..
    the only thing that i can think of why mj let strangers into his house, basically he was the most hospitable person on earth…is his mother seems to do it too..
    There is someone named majestic magnificent who was saying he met the jacksons and ended up living with them for a decade, i assume at havenhurst with mj indirectly picking up the tab…not very many people do that ..there is always a house full of people milling around..
    My friend who black says that is part of their culture especially since back in the day, some black people didnt have much money so people who could afford a house would open it up to strangers passing through…very hospitable to people who are less fortunate then you are…

    Then i was thinking how i think it was the rabbi book..mj was talking about how wonderful his mother is because when they lived in gary this guy showed up at their front door and he was all bloodied and kathereine didnt ask any questions…she just let him right in the house because he was in need…not too many people would do that,,and he seemed to really admire her for that..
    that seems to me…what he was doing letting all these strangers in his house..
    as far as the arviso opinion is the mother always had this in mind..
    It was gavin as a bald headed cancer victim , supposedly dying asking if he can sleep in the same room with mj….not mj looking for him..mj said okay but Frank and his own son were also there, so i think he probably felt protected at that point…hindsight is 20/20 as they say..
    I have a second book rabbi shumley wrote where mj speaks so movingly about how glad he is Gavin recovered…
    I think if the general public saw the footage of mj bringing Gavin around Neverland when he was so sick, people would not have been so suspicious of him holding this kids hand..naturally when a child is sick , one might hold their hand.and this family was making him feel like a father figure to them…bashir is a terrible person..

    the other thing with the in session show with diane dimond is ..i think they purposely put people who are not good debaters with her.. they didnt invite geraldo riviera or tom mesereau to be on panel with her..
    one guy made a remark about why mj left neverland which i could tell she will use against mj one day…
    he said he left because they didnt know if the police had surveillance cameras in the walls…that could very well be part of it , since we know they tried to get people to work at his house undercover, but he didnt leave because he was afraid of being taped doing something, which i am sure she will say..he left because his privacy had been invaded and they were trying to railroad him..
    tom mesereau told him he had embarrassed these people and they are not going to just leave him alone..


  89. Chris permalink
    September 26, 2011 1:44 am

    @ David

    I know many who share your view you are right in some of what you say undoubtedly. If he stopped it would never of arisen.

    However personally and i will only speak 4 myself, I wouldn’t of told him to stop.
    He wasn’t in the wrong. If society said drowning new born babies was the norm would we do it Hell no.
    I understand your point of view that it was in his best interests that it may have saved him a lot of heart ake.

    But for me he would of stopped because of the fear of being accused again. Why should ppl be dictated to by fear. 9/11 happened and we got right back on our planes. Ok very diff scenario but the principal is the same you (general u) could of stopped but you didn’t allow your fear dictate your life as MJ didn’t his in this case.

    Personally I don’t think the victim should be punished for the aggresors wrongs. No matter which way u put it he is the one being forced to change his lifestyle which is completely wrong and unfair. Which I know u agree with David (dont feel u need repeat yourself i read previous comments).

    I guess when it comes down to it some think do whats best for yourself and protect yourself at all costs. Where as others think stay true to yourself and if you done nothing wrong why change.

    Final thought is the lyrics to Escape.
    “Why is it I can’t do whatever I want to?
    Went?(maybe wrong) into my persoanl life and I don’t live 4 u
    So don’t u try to tell me what is right 4 me
    Be concerned about u, I can do what I want to.

    I think u and others have made there points fairly maybe slightly heated but discussing MJ sometimes it happens. We seem to be going round and round. If u wish to reply to comment that is fine but I won’t to your reply cos I don’t like going in circles I get dizzy lol. I do like contrasting opinions though, it is good for perspective.


  90. lcpledwards permalink
    September 26, 2011 1:50 am

    @ Lynette
    What if Gavin and Star had lied and said that while they were sleeping in the bed, MJ got up in the middle of the night, took of his pants, crawled into bed with them and exposed himself to them, and then crawled back into his sleeping bag, while the bodyguards were sleeping the whole time. What if they said they could give an accurate description of MJ to Sneddon, and he strip searched him again? That’s the position he put himself in; his defense would have been “Yeah, I slept in the same bedroom as them, but I didn’t do that!” With everything that happened in 1993, why allow yourself to go through all of that again? Why put your kids through the stress of possibly losing their father? Why put Katherine through all of that stress, worrying about her son?

    The difference between 1993 and 2003 is that MJ should have been more careful! It’s that simple! If he felt he needed bodyguards in the bed with him when he had other people’s children there, then they shouldn’t have been there in the first place! And if he stopped this practice after the trial, and was never accused again, then what is all of the fuss about? Why are we fussing about something that his own dear MOTHER begged him to stop doing? Why are we arguing over something that Mesereau – who you compared to Atticus Finch in a post you did about MJ being the mockingbird a few months ago – advised him to stop doing?

    Do you think Jermaine was right when he told Piers Morgan “Why can’t you share your bed? There are lots of people all over the world who do it?” Do you think that helped MJ’s legacy, or changed anyone’s mind about him? I say all of this because I don’t want anyone reading this blog to say those same things when, not if, but when someone asks them about MJ’s sharing of beds.

    He should not have slept in the same bed or bedroom because he made himself a target, and that’s all I’m saying. It’s too bad it took him being mercilessly ridiculed in the press during the trial to realize that. If people can just acknowledge that he used poor judgement, that’s fine with me. The problem is that when I say it, I get attacked and lectured about MJ ‘s love for children, how innocent he was, and all of these other excuses for his poor decision that almost cost him his freedom.


  91. lcpledwards permalink
    September 26, 2011 2:11 am

    @ Chris
    Let me ask you this: if you have a friend who likes to leave his wallet, laptop, and other valuables in his car, in full view, whenever he parks, and his valuables get stolen, wouldn’t you warn him to stop leaving his valuables in the car? Obviously he wouldn’t deserve to have his stuff stolen, but nevertheless you would advise him to be more careful in the future, right?

    And what if he ignored you, and said that you were ignorant, and had a dirty mind, and that you should look for the good in everyone, and continued to leave his belongings in his car, and then had his stuff stolen again? You would say “See, I told you so! You should have been more careful! When you leave your belongings out in the open, you make yourself a target!”

    That situation is analogous to MJ, in my opinion. Can you IMAGINE if he took some of you guys’ advice, and just continued to do it, after admitting that he saw nothing wrong with it? He would have opened himself to so many vultures who were willing to plant their kids near MJ, whether or not they’re sleep in his bedroom, just to make up any cockamamie story and blackmail MJ into paying money!

    Crap like this could have, and should have, been prevented! Pay attention to the lyrics at 1:10 where the parents are asked if they’re setting up their kids so they can settle out of court!


  92. ares permalink
    September 26, 2011 4:11 am

    Well guys we are fans of a very controversial and eccentric person.But being controversial and eccentric doesn’t make you a criminal. So that’s why we are all here.To inform and present the facts to those people who think that because MJ didn’t think,walked,spoke, dressed,behaved the way they did, automatically make him a delinquent. Lets go back to that and prepare ourself for the trial that is coming.We know what kind of smearing MJ’s name is going to suffer again.


  93. lynande51 permalink
    September 26, 2011 4:18 am

    This will be my last and final answer on the blog. Michael Jackson did not allow “children into his bed”. After the 1993 case the only way that any child could personally meet Michael Jackson was if it came through the charity ” Make A Wish”.The child had to be terminally ill.That is the way the situation was portrayed to him and in case anyone has forgotten many, many other celebrities that this family took advantage of. How come so many people gave them money? They were smart, they were savvy how come they were taken in? Yes, that is right, Michael Jackson was kind hearted, gentle and giving, I’m sorry if that is not a good enough explaination. And in the end the factual truth is he did not have them in the room with him. Bashir sabatoged the documentary and was fully aware of who it was that he was talking to when he was talking to Gavin Arvizo. Bashir went in with the intent to make him look guilty because that was his agenda. He had been “researching”and seeking an interview with Michael Jackson for 3-5 years prior to being granted access.He falsified a letter from Princess Diana to gain access to him.Michael Jackson believed him.So had Princess Diana and several others in the UK. Why didn’t they know better or why didn’t someone around them give them a warning?The trouble is that no one could have predicted that someone would use their child in this way,no one unless that was what that person intended. As for believing them so did Sneddon and he has none of Michael Jackson’s characteristics. He did not have them in his bedroom with him they went there uninvited when he was not present.


  94. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    September 26, 2011 4:59 am

    Hugely impressive post David and interesting comments here from everyone.


  95. Carm permalink
    September 26, 2011 5:02 am

    Sorry for misinterpreting your comments.
    You make some excellent points, that fans need to acknowledge Michael’s failings and his role. I didn’t realize I was an “apologist” (yikes!) but I appreciate your perspective. My opinion is that MJ didn’t “ask for it” even if he was careless. That focuses too much attention on the victim (MJ) and not enough on the “bad guys” (the Arvizos, Bashir, etc).


  96. lcpledwards permalink
    September 26, 2011 5:34 am

    @ Carm
    I’m sorry! When I said “apologists”, I didn’t mean you guys personally, just some fans in general. To some people who are skeptics, the ultimate consequence of MJ’s decision to continue after 1993 was the 2005 trial, so therefore any attempt to explain or justify it is tantamount to being an apologist, or a “yes man”. That’s how it can be misinterpreted.

    Guys, This is a very controversial issue, and things got heated earlier, so let’s just drop this and focus on the trial, and the other upcoming issues. Thanks! 🙂


  97. Alison permalink
    September 26, 2011 7:14 am

    Lynette, please don’t go away. You have a very valuable contribution and ALWAYS give something new to think about. ( there was some things i was going to ask you about.). I understand the feeling of being pissed off if you feel your comments have been either not listened to properly or disrespected and not appreciated, – i really do, its happened to me a few times both on other sites and on this one, is one reason i don’t say too much now, and when i do i rarely feel able to give much of my opinion because i am very sensitive to being ‘shouted down’ as it feels sometimes. i often ask questions or say something thats just ignored totally so i have just concluded that people are not much interested in my contribution so unless i think there is something significant that perhaps hasn’t been mentioned i don’t say it any more. i mainly read, educate myself and be ready to inform others i meet et,.c. – and i’ve never had much actual information to offer as you have, just my own opnions, perceptions and deductions, so that would, i imagine, magnify the feelings for you. From reading the comments i can see why you would feel it right now.

    it really does seem on all sites that people feel so strongly about Mr Michael Joe Jackson that in trying to fight for him they forget sometimes to be respectful towards the person they are debating an issue with, and the other person ends up feeling they’ve been treated as a hater or an ignoramus instead of a person who loves Michael Jackson. we all have contributions that are valid to the subject and we all pick up on different aspects. Michael was complex and the issues are complex, no one person can have all the answers alone, especially if they didn’t actually know him personally.
    We should all remember that Michael was always respectful towards others, even when they were patently not respecting him.
    my own valuable contribution is a small one. But yours Lynette is much bigger as you have more knowledge of some of the issues – and you seem to have some factual knowledge that i don’t have.

    so i’m really hoping Lynette, that you don’t go away even though you feel like it right now. its all for Michael and his children and you are needed. – and appreciated – here.
    if you really do go, then Thank you for all that you’ve given – but please don’t go!


  98. September 27, 2011 12:58 am

    Guys, This is a very controversial issue, and things got heated earlier, so let’s just drop this and focus on the trial, and the other upcoming issues. Thanks!

    David, it is so nice of you to strike a pacifying note at last after you’ve started so heated a discussion. Now I even see that Lynette is writing about her comment being her last in this blog…. Very timely events on the eve of Murray’s trial!

    Our team sometimes reminds me of those naughty creatures who were in the crew of Captain EO who never stopped dropping things in the least suitable moments. As soon as the captain got distracted for a couple of minutes they involved themselves in some commotion.

    Sorry for being away for some time. I was writing a post and didn’t know that my crew members were being so naughty in my absence. Hope that they don’t forget about the job we still need to do.

    Elena O.


  99. September 27, 2011 4:48 am

    “what Michael didn’t understand is that inviting strange children over to your home and sleeping in the same bed with them is not normal behavior, and given the serious allegations that were made against him, it made him look like a ped-le in the eyes of the public. When I saw the Bashir film, I was very disappointed and shocked when he told Bashir “I’ve slept in bed with many children”.

    Stacy2, I believe that your above statements are highly inaccurate and full of innuendoes. You will find my reply to your comments in the post I’ve just made.


  100. ultravioletrae permalink
    September 27, 2011 9:14 am

    I’m really starting to think that Dimond, Valez-Mitchell and Bloom just lack the brain power to be able to do their jobs with any kind of integrity. Not that I think they’re nice people, I don’t, but it seems they don’t have the capacity to synthesize large amounts of information to properly interpret evidence. Again and again you hear them make shallow, knee jerk responses without considering all the available information. Sound bite world is all they know, they don’t realize there is any more to it than that.

    But most hilariously is the idea that Dimond doesn’t know she is a Hard Copy tabloid trash reporter!!!! That is really funny when you think about it. She keeps trying to promote herself as an expert or an investigative reporter and what has she ever done? Pay creepy liars and con artists to lie for Hard Copy and the like! Plus write 2 trash books full of errors, false information and wildly misleading statements! Amazing that she can’t see how pitiful it is that she continually exaggerates her work.


  101. September 27, 2011 11:47 am

    “After the 1993 case the only way that any child could personally meet Michael Jackson was if it came through the charity ” Make A Wish”.The child had to be terminally ill.That is the way the situation was portrayed to him and in case anyone has forgotten many, many other celebrities that this family took advantage of.”

    Lynette, you are absolutely right. I also think that it is not up to us to judge Michael for the decisions he took. We are here not for the job of accusing him – we are here for setting things right by stating correct facts which are not reported in the media. We are just an alternative source of information for readers to decide for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

    This will be my last and final answer on the blog.

    You are to decide for yourself whether you want to be there for Michael when he needs you most.


  102. Jan permalink
    September 27, 2011 1:43 pm

    As the trial of Dr. Conrad Murray begins tomorrow, we must all brace ourselves for the media commentary that will pick apart Michael Jackson’s life. The trial will be televised and many of you will want to watch the trial. In its most recent newsletter, MJTruthNow asked you to choose an alternative to HLN to view the trial. Links to live streaming of the trial were provided as an alternative to HLN.

    Many people would like to share this link information with the Michael Jackson fan community through Facebook, Twitter, blogs, and other fan sites. MJTruthNow was asked if the sites that were provided were capable of handling large amounts of traffic. We believe they are.

    The first live stream video source linked in the most recent MJTruthNow newsletter is

    It is produced by ABC-owned television station KABC-TV in Los Angeles, a division of The Walt Disney Company. It should have sufficient capacity to handle heavy traffic. Please go to the site below for more information about

    Likewise, the second link provided is for Ustream. They are known to have over 2 million registered users who generate 1.5 million hours of live streamed content per month with over 10 million unique hits per month.

    You can find out more about UStream here:

    Please share these alternative sites for trial coverage of the Conrad Murray trial with your friends in the Michael Jackson community. HLN and its tabloid “talking heads,” with their history of eviscerating Michael Jackson and influencing public opinion, should not be able to once again line their pockets at the expense of Michael.

    Thank you for your support.

    From: MJTruthNow


  103. September 27, 2011 10:03 pm

    @ Our Medical /Legal Professionals,

    The trial begins. I am recording, but not always listening. What I did hear was a recording made by Murray of Michael while he was going under.

    My question is: Is it legal to record your patient while they may not be aware of it and under the influence of an anesthesia?

    For the Advocates: Why was Murray recording Michael; what does it have to do with providing care to a patient? This is question which will not be addressed as it has no direct bearing on the case and the charges filed against Murray.


  104. Nina Hamilton permalink
    September 28, 2011 2:28 am

    I have been watching the opening statements for the prosecution and the defence here in the UK on Sky News at the start of the involuntary manslaughter case of Dr. Conrad Murray in the death of Michael Jackson.. My initial opinion is that the prosecution lawyer presented his facts in a positive and confident manner, and the defence lawyer was the reverse, dithering, unsure of his facts and clumsy, simply because he cannot counter the prosecution comments and defend Murray. Impossible. It is quite simple, Dr. Conrad Murray did not adhere to the Hippocratic Oath he took when starting training as a doctor; to protect life and heal his patient, which he did not do, and his patient died. Any other facts are irrelevant. He was totally incompetent and grossly negligent in every aspect with regards to having and giving Propofol in a home setting without proper life saving monitoring equipment and abandoning his patient. All other arguments are futile.


  105. October 2, 2011 6:02 am

    I stated earlier the first time I watched a Tru TV program was on Sep 16, 2011, in fact until I was informed of two programs which I decided to record I did not know it was part of my cable package or what channel it is on.

    I have a question for those who have watched what was suppose to be part 1 of the dog and pony show called Who was the real Michael Jackson?” The show opens with Ryan Smith talking about the 4 person panel In Session farce which TRU TV broadcast just days before.

    The intro goes something like this. (Just in case the viewer had missed it), Smith advertises the In Session panel show which was meant to be a vehicle for Dimond, then he says: ” We want to find out who was the real Michael Jackson, FIRST UP WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE MOLESTATION TRIAL”

    My question is: Why start with the molestation?

    1) Because this program was prepared weeks/months in advance and was meant to be part of a series using old material from the same old liars, BEFORE they understood the judge was not going to allow the Defense to give the Media an excuse to revisit the 2005 trial?

    2) Because it is their one and only chance to recoup millions once again lost due to canceled programs dealing with 2005 or will they use the pre-prepared programs at a later date?

    3) Did HLN/TRU TV intend to implant an idea in any selected juror who may have watched the idea it is ok to find Murray innocent of killing Michael other than the evidence or the lack thereof?

    4) Or was it because they understand the true attention span of the average viewer?


  106. October 2, 2011 7:00 am


    Although I rarely post here these days I do continue to read. I hope you will reconsider your move. You bring a fact based scientific analysis to each subject you take up which provides the kind information even master spinners and manipulators like Dimond, Grace & Lauer are left without wiggle room when confronted with it. It may seem as if after all the research and confirmation which goes into a topic that no one is paying attention due to the repetitious questions and comments, but that is not the case. Many do read and take your information, run their own research and see the steps, but there will always be the new, those who come full of Tabloid, Dimond & Randy T stories who are uninformed, misinformed who come to find answers, test their own perceptions and those who come for mischief.

    If I am reading the Media correctly, should Murray be found innocent they plan to use the allegations and 05 trial as a possible reason why, to keep their audience glued to their respective channels, webpages and articles. Michael “owes” them tens of millions due to canceled projects and they intend collect one way or another.. It is because of the people here that other advocacy groups and supporters have the tools to provide some pushback presented with documented and common sense facts. There is a lot more work on the horizon.


  107. lynande51 permalink
    October 2, 2011 7:16 am

    At Dialdancer it was not a move I had to stop temporarily until a personal issue was resolved and it was.Even though David and I had a disagreement or argument we resolved that right away. Then I was notified by my place of work that I was receiving threatening voicemails. I was also getting them at home and so the authorities that they had contacted informed me that I should stay off the blog in case it was related. It was not. It was a former patient and one of my jobs is in a psych hospital so I am sure everyone will understand why I did as they told me to until they found the person.Sometime mentally ill people can be very inpredicatable:)
    Glad you posted under this article though because after the opening statement by the prosecution on Tues. I have this to say about DD.
    The next time she says that Michaels Philanthropic work was purely “PR” shove Conrad Murray’s IPhone in her mouth and tell her to swallow.


  108. nan permalink
    October 3, 2011 2:11 am

    Diane Dimond and some others have too much invested in making Michael sound guilty to back away from it now..Ron Zonen married Louise Palenker last night and Diane was at the wedding..
    These people are never going to leave the comfort of each other … ..
    While I am sure they couldnt care less about Michael passing , I think they are somewhat upset that people are now taking a close look at exactly what their part might have been in tearing an innocent mans life apart.
    Therefore they can never change their opinion ..
    I feel the info regarding VG ties to Nambla particulary rattles her..She doesnt respond to much regarding the trial but she certainly tries to deflect the nambla connection..So naturally I am going to learn more about that so I can comment intelligently on it..
    I have the Frozen in Time seminar .Imo, Ron Zonen is trying to convince people that they believed Gavin, that they were morally/legally correct to charge Michael, even though he was found completely innocent with a note saying the jury was confident in their verdicts..Myself, I dont think they believed Gavin at all.they just wanted to take mj down…
    Thats now their cross to bear in my mind..defending their own actions regarding MJ..
    That is why it is so important to point it out for them by commenting on articles she and others have written and tv shows that use this tabloid garbage as if it is facts…
    I would love it if somebody did a quick reference thing for logical argument regarding facts in the case..That is a great idea..
    I cant tell you how much help this site has been and how much good all your hard work has accomplished.
    I use a lot of information from this site defending MJ..Thank you so much for all you do..


  109. lynande51 permalink
    October 3, 2011 3:01 am

    Exactly nan birds of a feather must flock together especially when they wer all accesories to Janet Arvizo’s crime. I was think that it would be nice to have a quick reference.
    As for her connection to VG and his connection to NAMBLA I think she was just as shocked as could be over that, I really do. You know she says that she researched Michael and she has such extensive knowlege and is a Michael Jackson expert but she has never researched the other side of the story. In other words she never researched Evan or VG or any of the Neverland Five or Blanca Francia to see if there might be a connection. Isn’t part of being a good journalist researching the source too if there is something about that source that just doesn’t add up? Well it should be and it is if you are a legitimate journalist but then she is not is she. So that leave us with one answer to what DD is and that is, she is a gossip.


  110. shelly permalink
    October 3, 2011 3:23 am

    I think she is ashamed of her VG connection but I also believes she is a shark. What kind of journalist would read Jordan’s declaration on TV just 3 days after the scandal broke, therefore way before the police could have interviewed witness.


  111. nan permalink
    October 3, 2011 6:06 am

    I think DD is shocked and unnerved at the prospect that she may have helped a pedophile somehow promote NAMBLA…and that it could come back to bite her in the behind..
    You are right about her only looking at MJ..
    That was one of his problems , when he is involved with anything be it performing or standing in a corner….he has so much charisma , people are transfixed by him and the huge star he was..not many looked at anybody else involved in this stuff..
    As far as caring about children…these tabloid journalists and prosecutors as well as these children parents were the people who exploited and damaged these children for greed , ambition and the notoriety of taking Michael Jackson down… ..
    Michael Jackson was probably the only person close to those children who treated them with love and respect….


  112. lynande51 permalink
    October 3, 2011 7:06 am

    This is off topic but I looked up ed Chernoff the other day when his partner was found in contempt. This is a link to one of the areas of law that they practice in and when you see it all I can call it is ironic.


  113. Suzy permalink
    October 3, 2011 9:56 am

    @ Shelly

    “What kind of journalist would read Jordan’s declaration on TV just 3 days after the scandal broke, therefore way before the police could have interviewed witness.”

    And what kind of journalist pays people to tell stories they want to hear (Blanca Francia, bodyguards)? Dimond knew exactly what she was doing. She’s not this naive person who was only mislead by the likes of VG. She actively and willingly participated in taking down an innocent man – she paid people to lie.


  114. October 3, 2011 5:28 pm

    “I feel the info regarding VG ties to Nambla particulary rattles her..She doesnt respond to much regarding the trial but she certainly tries to deflect the nambla connection”.

    Nan, we are far from finished with Victor Gutierrez. There is a lot more to say about him even on the basis of his book, so there will be other arguments to present to Diane Dimond to show her who her “best source” was.

    “I use a lot of information from this site defending MJ..Thank you so much for all you do.”

    Thank you for taking it further! And thanks to all those who help to investigate it by contributing whatever they can – even a small note or a chance link can bring about miraculous results. So even the smallest possible facts are very much welcome here!


  115. October 3, 2011 10:18 pm

    Look who’s on facebook:


  116. nan permalink
    October 4, 2011 1:26 am

    To see that piece of trash Gavin Arviso, on fb, yukking it up at a slot machine is beyond words to me..
    Obviously ignorance is bliss…
    What can be said , other then he is his mothers son…the apple doesnt fall far from the tree


  117. Teva permalink
    October 4, 2011 4:11 am

    @Stacy & Nan



  118. lynande51 permalink
    October 4, 2011 4:34 am

    Oh and better yet is his brother Star standing next to him. I wonder how many friends he has on Facebook?


  119. nan permalink
    October 6, 2011 3:38 am

    I dont think you are allowed to access other people fb page but on louise palanker fb page is pictures of her wedding to zonen sat nigh and guess who is right in the and gavin..unbelievable how they want this kid to stay in the fold ..i almost puked


  120. lcpledwards permalink
    October 6, 2011 4:05 am

    It looks like it’s official! Louise Palanker, the comedian who loaned the Arvizos money before they met MJ, and who recently MARRIED the assistant DA to Sneddon, Ron Zonen, tagged both Gavin and Star Arvizo on her official FB page! I can’t believe that they would all be so brazen enough to have public profiles under their real names! Scroll down on her wall to see it!

    Ron Zonen’s profile


  121. ares permalink
    October 6, 2011 4:40 am

    They are keeping those boys close so they don’t open their mouths. Parasites all of them.


  122. nan permalink
    October 6, 2011 4:51 am

    I saw that but i didnt know if you i could put them is like dancing on mj grave to me very upsetting..i saw one where demon is up giving a speech…these people are going to keep these kids close because it they actually admit to the truth, which really did come out in court ,.they will look bad..i think the arviso might do well to try and extort them this time..atleast these people have something to didnt see janet arviso there,,i guess she is odd man out


  123. stacy2 permalink
    October 6, 2011 1:05 pm

    I wouldn’t get too close to the Arvizos if I were Louise or Ron. What they did to MJ proves that they are the kind of people capable of turning their back on people who are kind to them and help them in their time of need. I just hope Zonen doesn’t leave his wallet lying somewhere.


  124. nan permalink
    October 7, 2011 7:31 pm

    regarding gavin and star
    the prosecutors keep propping these two scumballs up because if they ever told the truth …it would certainly be the malicious prosecution we all know to be long as this kid keeps up the pretense, it conceals the real truth about the district attys..
    i also find it interesting that the sister who was also close with Louise palanker and the mother were not invited to this wedding, just the two who swore mj molested gavin….those are the only two that matter to this group., because those are the two that accused mj of those heinous crimes……just reinforces my initial feelings regarding this group …They dont care about these two..its all about covering their own hides


  125. October 7, 2011 8:17 pm

    Diane dubunked again by the toxicology report. Demerol was totally out of the picture


  126. October 8, 2011 3:15 am

    I found it very sad when my little brother who is in the 3rd grade and also a big Michael Jackson fan came home today and told me the kids in his class were calling MJ “Gay” and a “Girl” after a classmate brought a book about MJ to class.Who is teaching these kids this kind of crap?Young children should be able to be fans of Michael without hearing all of that BS.This has me concerned for MJ’s future legacy because these children are the future!


  127. lcpledwards permalink
    October 8, 2011 5:12 am

    One more thing, here is a forum that has all of the photos of Gavin, Star, Louise Palanker, her new husband Ron Zonen, and (of course!) Diane Dimond compiled together! The fact that she was there should prove once and for all that she is not an “unbiased, objective” reporter as she claims to be! What kind of reporter is FRIENDS with not only the prosecutor, but also the plaintiff and witness in a case!


  128. October 8, 2011 6:20 am

    Michael was like an innocent lamb surrounded by all these wolves..But thankfully he had a strong weapon by his side–Tom Meseraeu.


  129. nan permalink
    October 8, 2011 7:32 am

    for B.J.
    I wouldnt worry about your little brother regarding Michael Jackson ..His reputation is rising like a Phoenix..I have about 600 hundred trick or treaters at my house every years.Last year I counted 37 MJ costumes …….It is all good ..
    I also noticed right after Michael Jackson died , the likes and dislikes on the not guilty ..verdict videos, on youtube were not in such an obvious contrast,,,,,,,,, as they are now ……evidently the silent majority all came forward..all overwhelmingly in Michael s favor,,
    Of course you get a few lonely people needing to get attn with negativity..that is to be expected when someone like Jackson shines so brightly but , imo , these people are bigger fans then I could ever be..They know all about his music , where I seem to know all about the man..odd, isnt it.
    So as far as the next generation ..I dont worry about what they think of MJ..Thanks to the people on this site, and really a grass roots campaign world wide….. the truth is coming out in full force..I think in a very short time Michael will get the honor he deserves from Congress.. jmo…dont lose sleep over it .Michael Jackson legacy will be just fine…:))


  130. nan permalink
    October 8, 2011 7:25 pm

    I should clarify my count of people in costume would include the parents who are bringing them around dressed as mj as well


  131. lcpledwards permalink
    October 8, 2011 9:51 pm

    Here is Erin Jacobs’ radio interview with Radar Online. Ian Halperin, author of “Unmasked”, and David Parel, the author of “Freak! Inside the Twisted World of Michael Jackson”. In typical fashion, they were both introduced as Jackson “biographers”, and to add insult to injury, Perel is also Executive Vice President of Radar Online, and the Editor of the National Enquirer as well! This proves that these tabloid snakes hop from one tabloid job to another!

    Erin did a good job, but she and the other callers failed to “seal the deal”, so the speak, when it came to the 1993 settlement. Perel and the radio host both said MJ was guilty due to the “payoff”, and unfortunately Erin and the other callers did not effectively rebut him, in my opinion. They stated the usual “he was given bad advice” spiel, but did not clearly delineate to listeners that MJ was SUED, he tried to have his criminal trial precede the civil trial, he did not offer nor pay the Chandler’s, and the settlement did not prevent them from testfying in a criminal trial! And bringing up how “nice” and “charitable” MJ is didn’t help, either!

    In addition to those points, I would have mentioned how Evan Chandler wanted to be MJ’s 50/50 partner in his “Lost Boys Studios” movie production company, wrestled control of Jordan and made him lie, threatened to destroy MJ if he didn’t give him the $20 million dollar film deal he wanted, and when he lost custody of Jordan, instead of going straight to the cops, he took Jordan to a shrink and let him notify the cops! And to refute the hater’s notion that Evan wanted to “avoid” media attention by not prosecuting, I would have brought up the fact that Evan and Ray wrote “All That Glitters” in the fall of 1993, and tried to release it under Ray’s name in order to circumvent the confideniality agreement, and that Evan tried to sue Sony for a record deal in 1996.

    Don’t get me wrong, Erin and those callers tried their best, but when you defend MJ, you have to be razor sharp in your analysis! You can’t leave any stone unturned, and you can’t rely on emotional appeals (i.e. “MJ was such a sweet angel, and he’s slice his wrists before he would harm a child!”). I was impressed with the caller who refuted Perel’s assertion that the settlement was a sign of guilt by bringing up the JC Penney settlement with the Arvizos, but he refuted it by saying that because MJ’s settlements was so much higher than the JC Penney settlement ($20 million to $150 thousand dollars), MJ must have been guilty. I would have rebutted that by telling Perel that even IF MJ had settled for “only” $150k, he would STILL be labeled as paying “hush money”, and you would say “If someone accused me of child molestation, I wouldn’t pay a dime!”.

    This is why I said in this post that everyone needs to step their game up, and increase their knowledge of the facts, and this is another motivation for me to write my post called “How to talk to an MJ hater”, which will be coming soon.


  132. October 9, 2011 3:17 am

    watching these low lives smile and live the good life while MJ is lying cold in a casket makes me sick to my stomach. This is why it’s so important for us fans to get william wagener’s documentary out there for the world to see so that these clowns can all be exposed.

    here’s the site to donate:

    I plan to donate $50


  133. Teva permalink
    October 9, 2011 3:27 am

    @lcpledward October 8, 2011 9:51 pm

    Sounds like you should have called in. We would’ve been treated to a good duel. BTW Radar Online is owned by the National Enquirer.


  134. ares permalink
    October 9, 2011 3:38 am

    @ David

    Did Ian Halperin agreed with the other members of the pannel on the 1993 case because as far as i remembered in his book he claims that after a lot of “research” he found out that MJ was 100% innocent of the accusations. Did he change his attitude too?


  135. lcpledwards permalink
    October 9, 2011 10:34 am

    @ Ares
    Halperin really didn’t talk about the allegations; he mostly talked about the trial, and his belief that Murray not only recorded MJ, but videotaped him as well, with the intent on cashing in on his connection to MJ.


  136. lcpledwards permalink
    October 9, 2011 10:37 am

    @ Teva
    Yes, I wish I could have called in! I would have eviscerated Perel! I would have asked him, point blank, to elaborate on the “damning evidence” that he saw that convinces him that MJ was guilty! I would have asked him why MJ was never arrested and charged with a crime! I would have asked him why MJ wasn’t arrested for obstruction of justice for “paying off” the Chandlers! I would have asked him a lot of questions, as you can see!

    That is how you deal with people like him. It’s not up to us as fans to prove MJ is innocent; it’s up to haters to prove that MJ is guilty!


  137. Suzy permalink
    October 9, 2011 10:59 am

    @ David

    “This proves that these tabloid snakes hop from one tabloid job to another!”

    Also Halperin writes for a number of tabloids from the Daily Mail to the Sun.

    Maybe we should send a “How to defend MJ” manual to Erin Jacobs who appear in the media.


  138. Suzy permalink
    October 9, 2011 11:00 am

    I wanted to write: ” to Erin Jacobs and other fans who appear in the media”


  139. Suzy permalink
    October 9, 2011 11:03 am

    BTW, how do they pick what fans are to appear on such panels? Maybe you should volunteer, David.


  140. Teva permalink
    October 9, 2011 8:14 pm


    You have to be visible. Erin is visible and so is Taaj Malik who appeared on Dr. Drew on Friday. They are at the court house.


  141. Teva permalink
    October 9, 2011 8:16 pm

    Erin has her posse and Taaj organizes the banners that fly over the court house. They are out there.


  142. lcpledwards permalink
    October 9, 2011 8:17 pm

    @ Suzy
    Unfortunately I don’t live in California, so I don’t have any way of getting on camera. Even if I was there, I’m probably too camera shy to go on live TV, but I would certainly give helpful advice to Erin and Taaj and anyone else who is willing to go on camera.

    But when it comes to calling on from a telephone, I’d do that in a heartbeat!


  143. nan permalink
    October 10, 2011 7:58 pm

    You people probably already knew this , but I didnt realize Ron Zonen had retired from SBDA office..
    I wonder if that is the reason , his new wife now feels she can put the arviso boys front and center as such good friends of the family, almost as if thumbing her nose at people who thought it was a blatant miscarriage of justice to bring Jackson to trial for that garbage….


  144. Suzy permalink
    October 10, 2011 9:01 pm

    @ Nan

    Someone already mentioned this here earlier (I think it was Rockforeveron): Diane Dimond said recently on her Twitter that she’s working on another “MJ source”. She was at the wedding of Palanker-Zonen, where the Arvizo boys were also present. Does she work on an interview with Gavin? Now that Sneddon and Zonen are retired are the Arvizos ready to go to the media and cash-in on their “story”? Will we see Gavin on all kind of shows now spouting his lies and trashing MJ? He already has a Facebook account under his real name.


  145. nan permalink
    October 10, 2011 9:15 pm

    Suzy..i think the arviso dont do interviews , because they said everything they needed to say in a court of law and were constantly caught in is all in there.How can they sidestep their court testimony.,,even tom sneddon said nobody believed them
    Dont know what DD would be up to but certain it would be no good…. half truths or just plain no truths…she has no integrity whatsoever..
    in my opinion , all those people were indignant that MJ didnt seem to know “his Place”……and they set out to put him in “his place”.that is my sense about them .I wonder how many versions of Ron Zonens closing argument included the word uppity before it was omitted in the final draft …The essence of that sentiment was still there though as far as i am concerned..


  146. shelly permalink
    October 10, 2011 10:05 pm


    When did Sneddon said it?


  147. nan permalink
    October 11, 2011 5:02 am

    he said it during his rita cosby interview after the verdicts…he said he had to explain to him why , nobody believed him..that clip was part of scarborough country i believe, but i cant find it right now i will keep looking


  148. lcpledwards permalink
    October 11, 2011 5:38 am

    @Nan & Shelley

    Here it is!


  149. October 11, 2011 6:18 am

    Did Sneddon tell Gavin that the reason why the jury didn’t believe him is because he was not believable and his family were a total disaster? It’s amazing to me that with this family’s history of making false claims, the numerous deceptions in their statements, the suspicious timeline, and the various lies they told under oath that these prosecutors could question the jury’s verdict. Were they that stupid? or were they just that obsessed with getting Michael Jackson?

    Rita asked Sneddon a very good question that he should have given deep thought: “What if these allegations are really false and this boy and his mother really has you guys fooled?”..


  150. nan permalink
    October 12, 2011 6:46 pm

    thanks for finding this video of Sneddon..Sometimes I worry that this stuff will disappear off the internet


  151. nan permalink
    October 16, 2011 6:18 am

    isnt this person who is commenting on diane dimonds facebook page, regarding her latest daily beast aticle the adrian mcmannus from the trial!/profile.php?id=100001622234607

    she has all the people who screwed over mj on there


  152. lcpledwards permalink
    October 16, 2011 7:21 am

    @ Nan
    Yes, that’s certainly her! Her exterior definitely matches her interior! LOL!


  153. Suzy permalink
    October 16, 2011 12:50 pm

    I see she presents herself as very religious. Maybe someone should send her the part about bearing false witness from the Ten Commandments…

    She’s also a Sarah Palin supporter. Why am I not surprised? LOL.


  154. October 16, 2011 1:58 pm

    They really have no shame.


  155. ares permalink
    October 16, 2011 3:11 pm

    Wow, they are really a gang,aren’t they? They have found each other and support each other and i’m pretty sure that they have even convinced themsefs that MJ was all that sinister things so they don’t feel any regret for what they did to him.It amazes me that no one in the media hasn’t ever question Diane implications with Sneddon and all those people who have accused MJ.


  156. nan permalink
    October 16, 2011 6:20 pm

    sometimes i feel like i need a shower after reading DD page..
    The thing that concerned me is Adrian has recently becomes friends with Stacey Brown and both him and DD were saying how she would know about MJ because she worked at Neverland, talking her up..I wonder what they are up to … I wrote this..
    I have read Adrians court testimony …Adrien and the rest of the neverland 5 sold stories to tabloids to finance their suit against Jackson., using atty Michael Ring……..these stories, of course were in direct contrast to the deposition given in 93 , …………..they lost their lawsuit and lost the counter suit by Jackson alleging they stole from him,,,,, , they ended up owing Jackson 1.6 million dollars ….Jackson was also entitled to a hearing for punitive damages, but he declined and took 1 dollar instead….if i was Adrian , Jackson wouldnt be one of my favorite people and………neither would tom mesereau as he destroyed her credibility on cross examination in a matter of minutes…”(( i certainly am taking her remarks regarding him with grain of salt..
    these court transcripts are all over the internet..these are just a few of the facts of that case

    Yesterday on the positively Michael podcast Mr Mesereau was talking about how he wasnt surprised that all the people stick together..(like the arviso boys being at the wedding) as they were all so invested in the outcome….I hope that is the case and these people arent plotting more smear campaigns..
    On a happier note , DD was asking people to like and comment on her new daily beast article .i assume because she was getting lots of negative comments..:))


  157. Teva permalink
    October 16, 2011 11:22 pm


    IMO their motive is to corrupt the legacy. It is not enough for him to be dead, but they want to shape the way he is remembered as well. Before MJ died theirs were the only voices heard in the media, but things have changed and it less skewed. His Children, Mesereau, family, fans, estate and friends have said some very good things about him and his character. In addition the fans have worked hard to clean up the public image with the uncovering of the Gardener School, Vanguard award, Discovery Channel protest, etc, and have made some positive strides. The public is taking a more sympathetic look at Michael, and people like DD will do anything to keep his name in the mud where they put it. As for all of them banding together – water seeks its own level.


  158. Teva permalink
    October 16, 2011 11:51 pm


    In addition DD decided 18 yrs ago to marry her career to Michael Jackson. She needs to keep the deviant MJ angle going. This trial was a blessing and a curse for her because she got to chant “drug addict”, but it is written in stone to all but the willfully ignorant that Michael Jackson genuinely cared about children, and he had vitiligo. Two things her “souces” close Jackson said weren’t true.


  159. appleh permalink
    October 17, 2011 12:47 am

    Well, when the trial is over we should take all our dedication to her and disclose the public her true character !!!


  160. October 17, 2011 1:44 am

    Even that trial brought some positive stuff, if I remember well one of his bodyguard spoke about his children and the mask.


  161. nan permalink
    October 17, 2011 7:54 pm

    sadly , I am thinking you are probably right..It wasnt enough to destroy the guy, but his legacy and all the things he stood for.
    They keep trying to perpetuate that garbage..
    Even in the face of the truth.
    I swear if they saw MJ washing the feet of the poor alongside mother theresa, the headline would be he has a foot fetish…
    and to watch them patting themselves on the back is really hard.
    my only consolation is that their circle is getting smaller, like the core players who keep hanging onto this crap like a dog with a bone.
    i am just going to continue calling them out on it for him and his children..


  162. October 21, 2011 5:55 am

    @ Suzy,

    “Now that Sneddon and Zonen are retired are the Arvizos ready to go to the media and cash-in on their “story”? Will we see Gavin on all kind of shows now spouting his lies and trashing MJ?”

    Suzy I doubt it. Do not think both men are not aware we now possess the court documents. Zonen may be trying to find a way to ease the boys in to a more public life, but I doubt there will be books and so on.. Our level of knowledge concerning the trial and the behind screen shenanigans has only increased. We are better equipped and have more public resources then in the past where only they and the Media ruled.

    The article from ContactMusic came by way of a series of missteps on the part of the Fans. What started off with one Fan finding the Zonen wedding pictures and reporting it to a few others grew until it became widely known and was picked up or told to some bored writer who hoped to draw numbers to the article and maybe piss off the Fans at the same time. By now everyone should be aware neither the Arizos or Chandlers are going to speak up so continued pleading or harassing serves no purpose and detracts from what is important.


  163. sanemjfan permalink
    January 15, 2012 6:14 am

    I added parts 1 and 2 of 5 of the post-roundtable interview where they accepted questions from callers, and tomorrow I’ll add more videos, including the video of the actual roundtable discussion!


  164. sanemjfan permalink
    January 15, 2012 10:58 pm

    Guys, I’ve FINALLY added the video of the entire roundtable discussion! It’s at the beginning of the post! 🙂

    Unfortunately I just realized that the first portion of the segment is missing, and I’m working on getting it uploaded, and as soon as it’s up I’ll let everyone know!


  165. sanemjfan permalink
    January 16, 2012 7:51 pm

    I’ve finally added all of the videos of the special! 4 videos of the panel discussion, and 4 videos of the live Q&A session with callers!


  166. January 18, 2012 12:05 am

    Looking at the Sneddon and Zonen, Dimond, people like McManus and the Arvizos, it is difficult to work out just who used who the most but perhaps the answer lies at the top of that little chain of names.

    @ ares The only reason I can see for the media not questioning Dimond’s close association with the prosecution is that perhaps she is seen as one of their own and looking at her would be like looking into the mirror for them. But I agree Dimond’s role and the prosecution’s alleged use of her should have been examined very closely and very extensively because it would not be the first time Zonen has used media to support a case. There is the case of Jesse James Hollywood where Zonen handed over confidential files from which a book (“Stolen Boy”) and a film (“Alpha Dog”) were made before Jesse James Hollywood’s trial. Zonen was reprimanded and replaced as the lead prosecutor in that case. Hollywood was subsequently convicted. But my point concerns the modus operandi of Zonen in his use of the media in that case and the similarities when considering Dimond’s role and the books that have been written both in relation to the Chandlers and Michael himself – books by Guiterrez, Chandler, Stacy Brown/Bob Jones and Dimond.

    The prosecution and Larry Feldman “handled” the Arvizos differently than the Chandlers. It seems they had learnt from the Chandler case in that the Arvizos should not give the obvious appearance of extorting money from Michael Jackson. It is suspected that stacking conspiracy charges onto the other charges was the only thing they could do to explain the Arvizos’ acceptance of Michael’s generosity following the airing of the Bashir interview. But isn’t it just a little (or a lot) incongruous for some to say that Michael Jackson must have been guilty in the Chandler case because it was settled but they don’t have anything to say about the decision to go to trial in the Arvizo case, and yet at the same time they don’t have anything to say about the obvious extortion in the Chandler case, yet they are quick to say the Arvizos weren’t after money. How’s that for twisting things to suit the spin?

    Although the Arvizos weren’t able to obtain any more money from Michael as a result of the trial, they appear to have done quite well. Ad hominen or not, an examination of their sources of assistance may turn up some interesting people, people who may be forever tied together because their interests against Michael converged in that farce of a trial against him.

    While I respect Linda Deutsch, in her rebuttal of Tom Mesereau she did not take into account the history of the media reporting on Michael Jackson, neither did she take into account the actual biased reporting that went on during the trial from reporters who attended the trial each day just as she did. Other reporters heard the same things Deutsch did but the impartiality she displayed was lacking in others, and it wasn’t confined to television reporting either. Not questioning the integrity of Deutsch or her championship of First Amendment rights, just pointing out that anomaly in her rebuttal.

    Also, while I agree that when defending Michael people do often come up with the same arguments by saying he was a loving, kind person or that he loved the innocence of children etc., these things are the most true, deep and lasting impressions they have of Michael and to them, while they may not have studied all the details of the Chandler and Arvizo cases, those qualities of the man they knew personally is the ultimate answer for them. The reason they knew Michael personally is why they are questioned and willing to answer questions in the first place and I do think the phrases that are repeatedly used to describe Michael are not wasted. Manning and Garcia are not lawyers, they are not biased reporters, they are just people who knew Michael and who actually can speak about their firsthand experiences and it’s wonderful that they were given a platform. I think they did a good job in remaining calm and continuing to press their points . Their truth was heard.

    Congratulations on shedding more light on Dimond-speak. And yes, she has also learned over the years how to sprinkle her words with a little…. saccharin, but still she can’t help herself, she does slip every time, as you have pointed out. Then again, she has to.


  167. sanemjfan permalink
    January 18, 2012 1:23 am

    Also, while I agree that when defending Michael people do often come up with the same arguments by saying he was a loving, kind person or that he loved the innocence of children etc., these things are the most true, deep and lasting impressions they have of Michael and to them, while they may not have studied all the details of the Chandler and Arvizo cases, those qualities of the man they knew personally is the ultimate answer for them. The reason they knew Michael personally is why they are questioned and willing to answer questions in the first place and I do think the phrases that are repeatedly used to describe Michael are not wasted. Manning and Garcia are not lawyers, they are not biased reporters, they are just people who knew Michael and who actually can speak about their firsthand experiences and it’s wonderful that they were given a platform. I think they did a good job in remaining calm and continuing to press their points . Their truth was heard.

    I respect what you’re saying, and I wasn’t trying to attack Steve Manning or Mike Garcia, but I was merely trying to use them as an example that fans should not emulate when defending MJ. Yes, they knew MJ personally, so when they talk about how great of a person he is, they have a lot of credibility. But they were not with him 24/7, so someone who is skeptical of MJ’s innocence could challenge them by saying “But you weren’t there with MJ and those kids!” That’s where facts have to come in, and unfortuantely neither Manning nor Garcia provided any! In fact, Manning looked totally clueless by asking Dimond if it was true that Ryan’s father committed suicide! (He obviously mistaked Jordan Chandler for Ryan White!)

    You don’t have to be a legal scholar or a media pundit in order to effectively prove that MJ was innocent; myself,the other admins, and the readers of this blog are living proof of that. We’ve started out clueless about the allegations (at some point in our lives), and gradually we have all learned the facts inside and out. If we as fans can become knowledgable about the facts, then why can’t MJ’s friends and family? Wouldn’t you assume that they would WANT to know the facts backwards and forwards? Wouldn’t it be great if Jermaine could rely on facts instead of relying on Evan Chandler’s suicide to prove MJ was innocent? (The fact that he killed himself doesn’t in and of itself mean MJ was innocent.) Why is it that fans always have to do the hard work when it comes to cleaning up MJ’s legacy? Why is it that the Jackson family can grant interviews to the same media hacks like Jay Leno and Joy Behar when it’s time to promote their projects, but won’t stand up for MJ?

    I was very disappointed in them, and very disappointed (but not surprised) that HLN had them on as guests. They don’t want anyone who could go toe to toe with Dimond with facts, and they got what they wanted! If you were skeptical about MJ’s innocence, would watching that debate sway you in MJ’s favor? Of course not!

    Someone who watched the video on YouTube left the following comment, and there are a lot of other fans who share my disappointment in Garcia and Manning.

    I want to also add, that these two representing Michael are the poorest excuses as representatives I’ve ever seen. Why not have someone like Tom Mesereau or someone who knows the real facts to represent Michael on this show who would have really challenged Diamond and exposed her lies? It seems HLN is also afraid that the REAL truth will be heard.


  168. January 18, 2012 2:23 am

    @ sanemjfan I do get your point and didn’t think you were attacking. You were educating 🙂 and that is a good thing. Just felt the need to say the things I did. It’s easy for us to say we know this or that or that we would have said this or that, but when it comes down to it, we are not the ones in front of the cameras and they can only say what they know to be true. In a perfect world we would all know everything and have all the answers at our fingertips, unfortunately that is not the case. I hope one day you will be the one in front of the cameras sitting across from Dimond – that I would pay to see! Keep up the great work!


  169. Julie permalink
    January 18, 2012 2:43 am

    I tried to watch that supposed round table discussion and couldn’t get through the Diane Dimond garbage. I know that I’m preaching to the choir, but my gosh — she covers herself by saying that she’s not calling Michael a child molester — but then at every opportunity she throws in what the prosecution said. I’m sorry but I thought Michael Jackson went to trial in 2005 and was acquitted. I didn’t realize she was holding a mock trial during the round table discussion. She smiles while she’s stabbing MJ in the back. The host, who seems like a nice person, must either be an absolute idiot or is just doing what his producers are telling him to do because he’s obviously not done any research on Michael Jackson either.


  170. January 18, 2012 3:22 am


    Remember, Joe Vogel had originally been scheduled to be in Diane’s place on that very show. Guess they figured they couldn’t have an entirely pro-MJ group…


  171. lynande51 permalink
    January 18, 2012 7:49 am

    Sometimes we should all take a time out for a good laugh. Not all reporters were against Michael in 2005.Some of the ones that could have spoken out were stifled by the gag order. One of them was Rita Crosby who interviewed Janet and her kids at Neverland on Feb. 21st, 2005. They told her the usual schpeil about him doing wonderful things for the family and that Michael was going to buy them a big new house. She couldn’t say anything publicly because of the letter that Sneddon sent to certain people that said they were going to be witnesses and therefore they were subject to the gag order that was in place. So anyway I was searching through You Tube looking for that interview which I have not found but here is a parody on her interview after the verdict with Tom Sneddon.You’re going to love when he says that exaggeration is not the same thing as lying. What?


  172. nan permalink
    January 18, 2012 8:57 am


    Thank you for that ,,So funny!!!

    It no secret I am awful at computers …but Wm Wagener had one out about Jim Moir from inside edition …giving an accurate account of what Mac said and how it never got to mainstream 2005
    That was a joke too..
    I cant follow every link on this page as there are so many exonerating mj ….but if you ever get a chance to go to Larry Nimmer youtube page where he is interviewing Mr Jim Moir ?from inside edition….outside the Murray Trial………and Larry puts the camera down ..and this guy starts talking in a very real way….if it isnt here someplace on this site …it should be…

    For some reason I am locked out of youtube??
    thanks for all you do :))


  173. lynande51 permalink
    January 18, 2012 9:27 am

    And just in case here is the actual definition of exaggerate or exaggerating
    to magnify beyond the limits of truth; overstate; represent disproportionately: to exaggerate the difficulties of a situation.

    to increase or enlarge abnormally: Those shoes exaggerate the size of my feet.
    So is it a lie when you go beyond the limits of truth?


  174. Suzy permalink
    January 18, 2012 10:31 pm

    So saying that the JC Penney guards beat you and sexually harrassed you, while it was your own husband who beat you, is “just exaggerating”? Wow, just wow. That just shows Sneddon’s standards.


  175. sanemjfan permalink
    January 18, 2012 10:38 pm

    While we’re on the topic of the JC Penney settlement, here is the full explanation of how she extorted them, for those of you who don’t know the whole story (at the bottom of this post):’s-hypocrisy-in-reporting-on-michael-jackson’s-settlements-vs-the-settlements-of-other-celebrities-part-2/


  176. January 19, 2012 8:10 am

    Thank you for uploading this HLN report, I never saw this. This is so infuriating that Diane Dimond is on this show and what’s even more infuriating is that they can’t even correct her about the origin or amount of the settlement. I wonder if anyone of them knew that Dimond and Michael were feuding back and forth and he was suing her for slander along with all the proven false stories she’s been involved in.


  177. sanemjfan permalink
    January 19, 2012 10:40 am


    Thank you for uploading this HLN report, I never saw this. This is so infuriating that Diane Dimond is on this show and what’s even more infuriating is that they can’t even correct her about the origin or amount of the settlement. I wonder if anyone of them knew that Dimond and Michael were feuding back and forth and he was suing her for slander along with all the proven false stories she’s been involved in.

    Thank you! I felt the same thing as I watched this when it premiered back in September, and I felt so furious that I started writing this rebuttal ASAP! But I don’t blame Manning and Garcia; they tried their best, but ultimately it HLN’s fault because they deliberatly chose people who they knew weren’t knowledgeable about the cases because they didn’t want anyone to upstage Dimond.


  178. Maria permalink
    January 19, 2012 5:50 pm

    Diane Dimond is heartless.


  179. Maria permalink
    January 19, 2012 11:29 pm

    Dimond, Sneddon and other bad people destroyed Michael in the cruelest possible way. They hurt an innocent man in a way so horrible that you can not breathe. They not only hurt Michael. They hurt the whole world. (heal the world). They hurt children, who helped Michael. They hurt his family and his fans. They hurt man who did nothing wrong. They hurt an innocent man.


  180. Maria permalink
    January 19, 2012 11:45 pm

    I think the American media as the worst in the world.
    I put the media on a par with the British tabloids. These media destroy our world. It is pure evil.
    Changing media in these countries is a big step to repair the world.


  181. January 20, 2012 4:12 am

    I agree. HLN or any other media outlet for that matter would never put Diane Dimond in the same room with Aphrodite Jones, Tom Messereau, Geraldine Hughes or a knowledgeable fan. Dimond constantly contradicted herself and had no basis for her claims in that interview. When talking about the 93 settlement she says “Don’t say he had the money because he wasn’t working” What!!!! That’s not why he settled but that doesn’t change the fact that Michael was in the middle of promoting Dangerous tour….but he wasn’t working?


  182. January 20, 2012 3:40 pm

    “while I agree that when defending Michael people do often come up with the same arguments by saying he was a loving, kind person or that he loved the innocence of children etc., these things are the most true, deep and lasting impressions they have of Michael and to them, while they may not have studied all the details of the Chandler and Arvizo cases, those qualities of the man they knew personally is the ultimate answer for them. The reason they knew Michael personally is why they are questioned and willing to answer questions in the first place and I do think the phrases that are repeatedly used to describe Michael are not wasted. Manning and Garcia are not lawyers, they are not biased reporters, they are just people who knew Michael and who actually can speak about their firsthand experiences and it’s wonderful that they were given a platform. I think they did a good job in remaining calm and continuing to press their points . Their truth was heard.”

    BG, I wholeheartedly agree with your words. Could not say it better. These men did a very good job! Especially considering that Dimond gave them very little chance to speak.

    “Congratulations on shedding more light on Dimond-speak. And yes, she has also learned over the years how to sprinkle her words with a little…. saccharin, but still she can’t help herself, she does slip every time, as you have pointed out. Then again, she has to.”

    I’ve listened to two parts of what she is saying and could not force myself to listen to any more of it. It is a total nightmare.

    First, she constantly refers to “what the prosecution said”. What does it matter what the prosecution said?
    The prosecution LOST their case and did not prove at the trial ANY of the points she is repeating now!

    How much longer will this incessant chewing up of the old gum go on? People are behaving in a way as if there had been no trial! They repeat the same accusations again and again, as if we are just at the beginning of the case…

    Second, I am utterly disgusted by the way she constantly repeats “I am not saying that Michael Jackson was a p-le”. What is she doing?

    Diane Dimond is repeating her mantra as a propaganda activist who employs the tricks of her profession! She knows perfectly well that the more you repeat a statement even in its negative form, the stronger is the impact and the more lasting the impression is.

    This is the CLASSICS of the genre and is based on human psychology. The goal is to establish a fixed connection between two words – Michael Jackson and … (this other word). You repeat it a hundred times and here you are – the old allegation is refreshed in people’s memories and is firmly implanted in their minds.

    To explain to everyone that she is doing it on purpose, please answer the following question – if you think that the wall in front of you is not yellow, will you constantly say “This wall is not yellow”?

    No, you won’t? Absolutely the same principle applies here! If she doesn’t think Michael to belong to that class she should not say it AT ALL. It would be quite enough to say just once – I’ve never thought that he was capable of anything bad (without naming the word), and that’s it.

    And this constant talk like “I do not say that the wall is yellow. Do you think it is not yellow? Who also thinks it is not yellow? Why do you say it is not yellow? You’ve always thought it is not yellow?” etc., is only implanting in your memory that the wall is indeed yellow.

    This woman is like a parrot who is playing one and the same tune no matter where she goes, just to refresh in everyone’s memory that the wall is yellow. While in fact it is absolutely not.


  183. January 20, 2012 4:13 pm

    Okay, guys. Test your memory now. What color is the wall?

    Not yellow?


  184. January 20, 2012 4:54 pm

    I want to also add, that these two representing Michael are the poorest excuses as representatives I’ve ever seen. Why not have someone like Tom Mesereau or someone who knows the real facts to represent Michael on this show who would have really challenged Diamond and exposed her lies? It seems HLN is also afraid that the REAL truth will be heard.

    David, all these questions why they invited two bodyguards against a seasoned shark like Dimond, should be addressed to the TV company in the first place. They know perfectly well that the experience of their guests in handling the TV audience is incomparable, so this mismatch was totally intended.

    The program was something about real Michael Jackson. If they really wanted to hear what he was like as a human being they should have never invited Dimond AT ALL. She never talked to him, she never met him in person, so what was she doing there then?

    The TV company should have had the decency to invite someone who at least met Michael – for example, Taraborrelli. And what was the purpose of inviting Dimond? Only to refute anything good those two bodyguards would say.

    I don’t see any fault in the words of these two men. They spoke up for Michael as best as they could and their sincerity was their best recommendation. Their genuine feelings and spontaneous words were a big treat to see in comparison with the well-rehearsed monologue of this mechanical doll.


  185. January 20, 2012 4:59 pm

    “I tried to watch that supposed round table discussion and couldn’t get through the Diane Dimond garbage. I know that I’m preaching to the choir, but my gosh — she covers herself by saying that she’s not calling Michael a child molester — but then at every opportunity she throws in what the prosecution said. I’m sorry but I thought Michael Jackson went to trial in 2005 and was acquitted. I didn’t realize she was holding a mock trial during the round table discussion. She smiles while she’s stabbing MJ in the back.”

    Julie, let me shake your hand. Fully agree with you!

    “The host, who seems like a nice person, must either be an absolute idiot or is just doing what his producers are telling him to do.”

    No, he doesn’t look like an idiot, so it must be the second variant.


  186. January 20, 2012 5:21 pm

    “Remember, Joe Vogel had originally been scheduled to be in Diane’s place on that very show. Guess they figured they couldn’t have an entirely pro-MJ group…”

    I wonder what explanation they gave to Joe Vogel?

    Joe Vogel did not provide any when he tweeted on August 28, 2011 – he just said that he was replaced at the last minute. However Dimond lashed out at him even for that, as if he was responsible for the replacement and shouldn’t have informed his readers about the changes. How can anyone talk to this woman if she picks on you for something you did not do?

    This is from Twitter:

    JoeVogel1 Joe Vogel
    Busy week ahead, including interviews w/ Positively Michael (wed.), CNN’s HLN (Friday), and MJ Preservation Project (Sun.)

    22 Aug
    JoeVogel1 Joe Vogel
    The HLN taping is this Friday but will air in early September. I’ll let everyone know the exact time/date when I know.

    But then:

    JoeVogel1 Joe Vogel
    Never mind about my scheduled appearance on HLN. Just found out I was replaced on the panel. People will hear from Diane Dimond instead
    15 hours ago

    Diane Dimond answered:

    DiDimond Diane Dimond
    @ @JoeVogel1 What are you talking about? I had nothing to do with picking a panel and you’ve got all Jacko fans screaming for my head. Come on
    7 hours ago

    DiDimond Diane Dimond
    @ @JoeVogel1 you have no idea what you’ve unleashed on my head.
    6 hours ago

    Joe Vogel:

    JoeVogel1 Joe Vogel @
    @DiDimond Never said you picked the panel. Read the tweet
    10 hours ago


  187. ares permalink
    January 20, 2012 10:01 pm

    – Okay, guys. Test your memory now. What color is the wall?-

    Helena, the wall is definetely NOT yellow. But Diane Dimond is definetely a delusional woman who needs a psychiatric help.


  188. January 21, 2012 12:01 am

    “the wall is definetely NOT yellow. But Diane Dimond is definetely a delusional woman who needs a psychiatric help”.

    Ares, if you are talking of the analogy with Michael Jackson – NO, the wall is definitely NOT yellow!

    But what I wanted to show to everyone by speaking about a “not yellow wall” is the lingering effect of some word if it is repeated a hundred times. You know that the wall is not yellow, but the moment you recall the word “wall” “yellow” springs into your memory together with it. Why?

    This is a psychological effect and it has nothing to do with psychiatry. Psychology studies why a healthy human being behaves in this or that way and how human memory, perception, emotions work. Diane Dimond is absolutely sane in the technical meaning of the word. She is simply using (on purpose) a well-known psychological mechanism every teacher of foreign languages is familiar with.

    I’ll explain. If you want someone to remember the word “yellow” it is absolutely not enough to state the word as it is. How will a foreign language student remember this word if you do not put this word into a context? You show him pictures and give this word in various combinations – a yellow wall, a yellow book, a yellow lemon.

    Or speak of a girl in a yellow dress who is eating a yellow apple and is sitting in a yellow car which is driving up to a yellow house with a yellow fence and garden with yellow flowers in it.

    You’ve guessed it – the word is best remembered in a text and the more colorful the context is the better the memory effect is. If a bright picture of a girl in a yellow car has been implanted into your memory it is just enough for you to remember the image to recall the necessary word.

    Diane Dimond is doing absolutely the same with Michael Jackson and … (that other word). She is painting the same kind of picture and is implanting it into our memories in the same way I did it with a “yellow girl”.

    And what does it matter if I insert NOT into the picture?


    The girl not in a yellow dress is not eating a yellow apple and is not sitting in a yellow car which is not driving up to a yellow house which has no yellow fence and no garden with yellow flowers in it.

    Though I inserted “not” into the same text you still memorized the word “yellow”, don’t you? Actually almost nothing changed? The same girl and the same yellow are still coming together?

    So this is exactly what the media has been doing to Michael Jackson all these long years. They repeated these words in association with Michael not a dozen times (the way I did it now), but thousands, probably millions of times and for many years at that. They wanted him and that word to merge and form a firm link of associations. Even if they were using NOT with it.

    They could have very well gone without the repetition of that word because there a lot of other ways of saying the same thing – but no, they insisted on refreshing in people’s memory of the old and nasty image.

    The damaging effect Diane Dimond did to Michael in that program by repeating “I am not saying he was ..” is impossible to calculate. Is it horrendous.

    And this is why they introduced her into the show at the last minute. Someone wanted her to speak of the “old things” and wanted to nullify new associations formed in people’s minds – Michael Jackson was a great father, Michael Jackson was innocent, Michael Jackson was slandered, Michael Jackson was harassed, Michael Jackson was a loving soul, Michael Jackson had a heart of gold, Michael Jackson was a great human being…

    And this is why the sincere and genuine words said by those bodyguards were also very good in support of Michael. The recollections of these people are drawing a different image of Michael in people’s minds, and though they are unable to undo the damage done by Dimond’s tricks, they still leave a warm feeling in their hearts.


  189. lynande51 permalink
    January 21, 2012 3:43 am

    I know that you are right about that Helena repetition is how we learn a task and it has a lot to do with how we are shown what we learn. In this case it started with the Bashir program where he asks Michael about having boys sleep in his bed. Michael answers the question fully and completely but Bashir had it edited to say something different. I finally realised where this misconception came from. In the trial briefs the prosecution wanted to admit the Bashir piece, not all of it for the truth of the matter asserted, just a certain portion of it. That portion was the portion that has Michael in Miami when Hamid was filming him. That was when Bashir asked him that leading question that Michael did not pay attention to and he answered it “yes”. Well that was all the prosecution wanted the jury to consider for the truth of the matter asserted which to them was that Michael said he slept with boys. The rest they were calling hearsay and self serving hearsay because of course Michael went on to explain himself and that can only be heard in the out takes filmed by Hamid Moslehi. When they did that they were saying he said yes and yet he did not which can clearly be heard. First Bashir actually asks him about children not boys.Michael says yes and he continues yet the only part they wanted admitted was up to the word “yes”. Then Michael makes it plain from the first time with Gavin that he shared his bed meaning he gave it to the company and he slept on the floor. At no time does Michael say he sleeps with boys but it has been repeated that way over and over again. He clearly explains that he gives the beds to the company just like every other person has said that has been in his bedroom suite. So from now on when someone says that he admits that he slept with boys give them the correct answer. No he said he gave the bed to the company and he took the floor.
    There are also a lot of misconceptions out there based on the court documents that untrained people are reading and using. If you are going to interpret some of the language in a trial brief you should know what some of the legal phrases mean. A good example would be the two terms ” based on information and belief” and “not for the truth of the matter asserted”. Both of those are legal phrases having specific and special meanings when added to a pleading. The term information and belief means that the person is qualfying a statement they are making, not from what they know, but from what they have been told and that they believe what they are told, otherwise it is rank hearsay and cannot be used as testimony or evidence. Then there is the term “not for the truth of the matter asserted”. That means that some evidence that would be considered hearsay is not to be taken as the truth of that hearsay but is offered for another reason altogether.
    I look at some of the things that Diane Dimond writes and says about Michael and people like her and Bashir and I just shake my head at how awful they are but they are the media. The one that is truly to blame for what happened to Michael in 2003 and 2005 was Tom Sneddon. He had a media machine working for him and he played it. Those guys were just doing a job, as distasteful and unpleasant as they are but Sneddon was the one that abused his power when he brought that case to trial once he found out what the Arvizos really were about. He had a choice and no one will ever know what drove him to that choice but he could have ended that case before he searched that ranch by investigating the Arvizo family as well as Michael. That whole thing was a one sided investigation from start to finish in 1993 and in 2003. They searched everything about Michael and never investigated or searched through the Chandler houses or the houses that Janet Arvizo lived in. If they had they would have known what they were doing was wrong and when he did find out he just twisted the charges so they fit his agenda. That is what is known as an abuse of power.


  190. January 22, 2012 2:23 am

    “I just shake my head at how awful they are but they are the media. The one that is truly to blame for what happened to Michael in 2003 and 2005 was Tom Sneddon. He had a media machine working for him and he played it. Those guys were just doing a job, as distasteful and unpleasant as they are but Sneddon was the one that abused his power”

    Lynette, it seems to me that both the media and Sneddon abused their power – the obligation of prosecutors is to prosecute criminals and not to set up innocent people, and the media’s obligation is to inform people of true information and not tell lies or play nasty jokes on others. Both were involved in ugly things and each played an ugly part of his own.

    But as regards Sneddon it is interesting to note that all Michael’s detractors are trying to distance themselves from him now – very few of them recall him or pronounce his name. Speaking about the media and how cleverly they mask their bias, did you notice the strange slant in Dimond’s vocabulary in that recent show? She never mentions Sneddon but says “prosecution” only, she does not call Michael by his full name, but says Jacko instead (if I am not mistaken) but she pronounces the word “ped-le” so clearly, with so much emphasis and so many times that this alone shows that she came to the show with an agenda of her own.


  191. January 22, 2012 9:52 pm

    @ vindicatemj What you’ve been saying is true about the use of repetitive phrases, which is why when anyone who really knew Michael firsthand says he was caring, kind and loving are never wasted and well-worth repeating and the more the better. The truth is necessary to overcome the abuse knowingly inflicted on all of us by the likes of the lie-peddling Dimond, even if she, herself, was used and abused by corrupt officers of the justice system. Oh and it’s her reporting that’s yellow, the wall is really white!


  192. January 22, 2012 11:20 pm

    “What you’ve been saying is true about the use of repetitive phrases. ..when anyone who really knew Michael firsthand says he was caring, kind and loving are never wasted and well-worth repeating and the more the better.”

    BG, and also the word “innocent”. I think the other word (you know which one) should be totally forgotten by us when we talk of Michael Jackson. Even with “not”!

    Michael’s supporters of course mean well when they say, “He wasn’t a ..” but without knowing it they are doing him only more harm. They allow themselves to be led by the media who know perfectly well what they are doing.

    Let us agree to never use the word with Michael’s name, okay? In fact in this blog it is a rule, but I would very much like to see it as a rule in Michael’s community as a whole. Many fans by the way avoid the word instinctively, as they simply cannot bring themselves to put it beside Michael’s name (I can’t).

    And BG, you’ve found another good use for the word “yellow” – yes, Diane’s reporting is indeed yellow!

    P.S. Guys, you may be surprised that I am getting increasingly more interested in the ways the media did it to Michael, and some might think it a far-fetched idea that media is using psychological methods of brainwashing the public. But I just noticed some things and couldn’t help looking into them. And when I found that there is a special journal called “Journal of media psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications”, containing lots of articles on the subject, it became clear that media people are even learning how to do that – in “theory, method and application”.


  193. sanemjfan permalink
    February 6, 2012 9:57 pm

    Here is a video interview of Anthony DeCurtis of Rolling Stone that was conducted on June 26th, 2009. It’s amazing how knowledgeable he is of MJ’s musical accomplishments and influence in this interview (and this round table with Dimond), yet when the subject of the allegations came up, he sat there like a bump on a log! He didn’t have a word to say! (Click the “streaming video” link to view the video.)


  194. Marina Aparecida permalink
    February 10, 2012 5:10 am

    Diane Dimond is a contradictory person as well as all slanderous people.

    We can hear and read above:

    Diane Dimond: And you do know Ryan, if indeed the charges were true…………nope, let me say it this way………you do know Ryan that a child molester does not molest in front of other people! They’re very secretive, they’re very crafty. Anybody at the FBI, who wrote the profile of what a pedophile is, will tell you that they’re the most charming, fascinating, engaging people in all of criminal life!

    But take a look here:

    In this video she states that Michael was bouncing the boy up and down on his lap in front of everybody. She adds that the scene was very embarrassing. Watching this video, it would appear to me that Michael is reacting to the sound of music.

    On the other hand, Bob Jones should be ashamed of his contradiction too (I know he has already passed way), if we compare his attitude in this video with his foreword in Lisa’s Campbell book – “Michael Jackson The King of Pop’s darkest hour”, where he talks about the same subject. We can read there:

    “Lisa has presented here a fair overview of the
    events that took place when Michael became the victim
    of false and cruel allegations, and the irresponsible
    persecution he suffered at the hands of the media. We
    have long been the victims of rumors and lies through
    the media but nothing could have prepared us for that
    to which he was recently subjected.
    Michael experienced pain and humiliation to a
    depth he never realized existed. The tremendous
    distress he suffered during this period had profound
    effects on him both emotionally and physically. He has
    now overcome those difficulties with knowledge of his
    complete innocence and his deep faith in God.”

    “His goal is to spread pure and simple love around
    the world. Children are his greatest source of joy. That
    is a part of him which will not ever change.”


  195. sanemjfan permalink
    February 10, 2012 7:39 pm

    @Marina Aparecida
    Thank you! That was an excellent observation! You really know your stuff! Not a lot of fans know that Bob Jones wrote the forward to Lisa Campbell’s book, so I’m glad that you brought that up. In a few weeks I’m going to summarize and analyze all of Bob Jones and Stacey Jones’ lies from their testimony and their book “Man Behind The Mask”, so stay tuned!


  196. February 10, 2012 8:08 pm

    Bob Jones also wrote a piece in a newspaper before the allegations in 1993 about what a saint he thought Michael was.

    I’m not sure if it would be possible but there are fans who’ve had first hand dealings with Bob Jones and Stacy Brown and might be interested in speaking about it in an article, maybe you guys could contact them?


  197. sanemjfan permalink
    February 10, 2012 8:26 pm

    I know that MuzikFactoryTwo has conducted two interviews with Stacy Brown on her blog, and I’ve personally clashed with him on Twitter (he has NO REMORSE for insinuating that MJ was guilty on MSNBC; in fact, he still believes MJ is guilty!)

    Do you know what paper Bob Jones’ article was in? Maybe we can find it on Highbeam or Google.


  198. February 10, 2012 9:03 pm

    Here’s the Bob Jones article, to say he praised MJ is an understatement, he said MJ was chosen by God….

    BOB JONES: The Man Who Stands Firmly Behind the Man in the Mirror

    Los Angeles Sentinel



    Entertainment Editor

    Do you believe in prophesy? I do. Now more than ever. Everyone is party to the fate that has befallen the legendary Michael Jackson recently, but no one, but perhaps Michael himself, feels it more than Bob Jones,vice president, MJJ Productions, Michael’s right arm.

    This didn’t start out to be a piece in defense of the famous pop icon, nor when the interview was taped, were either Bob Jones or myself aware of the charges that would soon be leveled against the young superstar. We talked Wednesday, Aug. 18, three days prior to Jones accompanying Jackson on his now infamous world tour.

    It started out to be a “what’s he really like” piece, but in light of recent events rearing their ugly head, I felt the public had a right to know Jones’ foreboding. He was a frightened man, but not in the way you’d suspect. Uncannily, although most probably, his fears were realized when he himself was least undupable. But herein lies Jones’ prophetic statements which in my naïveté, I thought his anxiety unfounded. After all, how could you stop the wake of Michael Jackson. But in his wisdom, he knew the inevitable. A curse came with Michael’s kind of stardom. A curse where he was damned if he did, and damned if he didn’t.

    In a roundabout fashion, Jones took me back to his first days on the job in Michael’s camp. Prior to that he worked public relations for Motown and prior to that public relations with the famous firm of Rogers and Cowan Public Relations. “I came to work for Michael in December of 1987 and have not regretted it one bit. And I thought having worked with the Supremes, the Temptations, the Commodores, Stevie Wonder, Smokey Robinson, the Four Tops–all of those people who were a part of the Motown stable–that I had seen it all. That I had seen everything America had to offer.

    “All of a sudden, we went to the first out-of-the-country date. We went to Rome, Italy, and we played the Coliseum in Rome to 55,000 people. We did three nights at 55,000 persons per show. It was mind-boggling. I had never seen anything like this. To see zero blacks there. It was mind boggling, and to see that one black man had drawn all these people in to see this show, I was awe struck. We not only played Rome, we played touring Italy. We went to Paris, France, and the audiences kept growing, and we went to London, England, and played five nights at Wembley Football Stadium at 72,000 persons a show. All coming out to see this one black man. I saw white folks passing out and fainting and all of this sort of stuff, and I couldn’t believe it. I couldn’t believe it, and it really frightened me.”

    I sat perplexed in Jones’ office by his diffidence, but now I see the farsightedness in his statements. “Because I’m aware and a believer in the system … when you sit back and know that you can take the president and our mayors and our governors and put them all in a stadium together, and you can’t draw 20,000 people, and to see a black man draw these kind of people, I became frightened, because I know how this system operates.” Now for the prophecy.

    “They are frightened. The system becomes frightened if they see a black man with this kind of power, and especially a black man that they don’t have total control over. That they have not given a white woman and who doesn’t have the white babies and the monies going back into the white system. A black man who is basically clean, that they can say nothing about, who neither smokes nor drinks.

    “The system is not ready to conceive of this and who ( Michael) is like a pied piper to white youth. Who if he decides to make a statement or take sides in situations, I’m sure the same system would remove. It becomes detrimental to what the system in America, in the world, is all about. Nobody but the Pope has followings like this.”

    We go off on another tangent, try to make him crazy. They try to do everything. The system would rather praise Elvis Presley, who we all know was a drug addict. They make every excuse in the world rather than say this man was a drug addict. He died from an OD of drugs. If they could just come back to the same sober fact. Jones feels Michael is in a league of his own, “He doesn’t deteriorate his body, his health. He’s a clean-liver, and if they could, I’m sure they would–well you read the press reports–they try to make him weird. They find Michael Jackson with a marijuana cigarette, forget all the other stuff, they’d destroy him.

    “Anything that the system can’t control, it does not allow to exist. We’re not all of those who have dared challenge the system. I’m a firm believer, we live in a society that is programmed–these people are walking idiots, programmed idiots. That idiot box tells us what to buy, when to go–it’s football time so come watch your television show–and the couch potato goes plop. It’s amazing how man no longer uses his mind to think, and the system is aware and the system knows it. So they take advantage of it. In politics. In everything else.”

    Jones intimate alliance with the standout superstar follows Michael Jackson for 30 years. He was there representing James Brown, and that was during the hey day of James Brown, when he had put out such records as ‘Say it Loud, I’m Black and I’m Proud,’ and he was the number one black man in America. I began to work on the Motown account. Among the acts that e Jackson Five first debuted their act in Los Angeles. He worked for Rogers and Cowan Public Relations when they were handling all the Motown acts. “I worked at Rogers and Cowan and learned from some of the best. At that time Rogers and Cowan was had the James Brown account. We had a party one night for James at The Playboy Club when it was on Sunset Boulevard. It was for an artist called Randy Crawford and a group called the De Felise Trio (excuse spelling). They were recording for James Brown’s sub label. “And we had a big press party at the Playboy Club which was from 6 to 9 p.m. At nine o’clock the same night, there was a party that Rogers and was also having at The Daisy Club to introduce a new group called the Jackson Five. So the people came to the party that I had for James, and then about 8:30-8:45, we shut down and everybody rushed over to The Daisy to be there for the debut of this young group that Motown was introducing. And that was the first night that I met The Jacksons and the first night that I saw them perform.

    “I was still at Rogers and Cowan at the time, but I worked on The Jackson Five account also. I was covering all their interviews, etc. That was the beginning of my association with The Jacksons, and even though I was working at Rogers and Cowan, I would tour with The Jacksons when they toured on their first tour dates.”

    That was the introduction of a lifelong cultivation of friendship between Jones and Michael. Of the juvenile Michael, Jones states, ” Michael was always a devilish little kid. He loved to play games and loved to run in your room and see what you had in there or if you had a beer or something in there because he was gonna go and tell the whole tour about it. He loved to pillow fight. He always loved animals and rodents and things like that. Actually, I don’t like rats and never have, and he had pet snakes, and I don’t like snakes, so he

    always made it a point to run me around. Rats and snakes, that was enough to get me out of that room and as far away from him as I could.”

    You can take sides if you chose to, and everyone has an opinion. I’ve met Michael, and I chose to believe the best about him. I saw his compassion and his loving kindness towards children. Yet, although I chose to believe all things, I know all things are not expedient for me. But Jones has lived with Jackson upwards of 30 years, and if there was an inkling towards misbehavior on Michael’s part, he would have gleaned it, or Michael is a darn good actor at espionage.

    In ending this first of a two-part story on Jones’ long association with Michael, and what happens when mega-minds converge, let me end on Jones’ words and Jesus’ and not Michael’s detractors for we’ll all have to wait until the final verdict is in. And then will we even know the thing-in-itself, Jones’ above statements make it abundantly clear, can we ever be really sure? Jones told me, “God has given him some kind of gift, and he ( Michael) believes in sharing that gift. And he realizes that there is something that God has given him that is special, and that is the reason he does and shares with the kids and the youth the way he does.” Truth. God knows. Michael has always let his moderation be known to all men.

    And in the immortal words of Jesus, “Let he who is without sin among you, cast the first stone.”

    PART 2

    One would assume creating a legacy for the eminent Michael Jackson is one easy task. Just sit back and let Michael do his thing. Not so, says Bob Jones, vice president, Communications and Media Relations, MJJ Productions, whose job it is to never let the superstar’s name die in the embers of oblivion, as has been the fate of many that have gone before him.

    Bob Jones is mighty in battle for that cause, just as dynamic at what he does as Michael is potent in his performances and songs.

    Jones as a dynamo, helps Michael, the diplomat, deal with the rigors of superstardom, while keeping Michael’s name going long after the superstar has ceased and deceased. It is Michael who makes the headlines, but Bob Jones who manufactures them.

    Jones says, “There is an important factor that Michael feels. Michael has studied and read about all the legendary performers. He studied their mistakes, and he knows one thing, that if we don’t create a legacy, there will never be one for us. “Because until Natalie sang ‘Unforgettable,’ Nat Cole was forgotten. Sammy Davis–it’s only been four years–and you don’t hear anything. Sammy was the greatest, and he kissed a__ whenever he had to, to try to hold on to make you like him, and even though he was dying of cancer, he had to go out there, work around the world. “Whereas when theirs (whites) go down, they give them a talk show or something, so they won’t have to go through those struggles. There is none of that for us. When those football players come off that field, they either go to a cigarette company, a beer company or a whiskey company. That’s it. Otherwise it’s over. The white boys get announcers on television. There’s a whole new career that’s for them. It’s not for us, and my thing is to try to create a legacy for Michael.”

    To date Jones has been successful at Michael’s bequeathal building, albeit even with the fame of Michael, Jones has hit snags in the way to immortalizing Jackson. Jones was able to get the renaming of the auditorium at the school Michael went to, to the Michael Jackson Auditorium. Jones has created awards such as The Boy Scouts coming out with a Michael Jackson Award, BMI Publishing has a Michael Jackson Award, as does Jack the Rapper, “To keep the name going. Because,” Jones says, “if you don’t darling, do you realize the greats that have gone down that have been black. You don’t hear anything about these people. It’s over for us once we are done. And if we don’t place your name on a building or your name somewhere …”

    It isn’t an automatic given to assume Jones’ job is cushy. “It isn’t automatic,” he explains to me. “I’m working right now to try to get them to rename the elementary school Michael went to the Michael Jackson School. First they said, you’ve got to be dead. Why do you have to be dead? Your contributions are done while you’re alive.” Jones also bears the brunt of the trouble with the mural in Hollywood which they have been working towards more than three years. “We started over three years ago with the Hollywood Arts Council. They approached me about doing a mural for Michael Jackson. Then some red necks out of the woods said no we want Orson Wells. Anything but a black man up there on that wall. So it’s that kind of thing. Look, racism is alive and well and festering here in Los Angeles. I don’t fool myself.”

    Jones came to inherit his job by a long arduous path. He got into the journalism business while attending USC. There he was a big fan of the late Walter Winchell and Louella Parsons. And he saw all the Hollywood parties going on and wanted to attend them. He started out by writing a column about kids in high school for the California Eagle, and that didn’t last long, and then he moved over to the Herald Dispatch where he was a writer and entertainment editor at the height of that publication. After syndicating his Hollywood column to more than 80 black newspapers, a little down the line he met Bobby Darin, who was quite an entertainer during those early days, he says.

    They became fast friends, and that association would lead him to his next job as a publicist for Rogers and Cowan Public Relations. Jones had tried to secure a job at Motown earlier, but he says, “Now mind you, I had applied to Motown before going to Rogers and Cowan, and as typical of what we sometimes go through, I guess I didn’t qualify until I was accepted by Rogers and Cowan.”

    From Rogers and Cowan, Jones went to Motown and thought he would die there. But as fate would have it, Michael Jackson called him one day after the release of “Bad.” Jones skeptical, they met, and Michael asked him what it would take to bring him on board, and Jones told him. Michael only had one stipulation, “He said, ‘you got the job as long as you handle telling Berry Gordy and not have me having any problems with Berry Gordy. We have a good relationship.’ I said Okay,” and Jones proceeded to make the transition from Motown to Michael’s camp.

    Jones tells me that Michael was always a very, very inquiring mind, who wanted to know what was going on and who wanted to delve deeper of how things worked. “Perhaps,” he says, “a great degree of his success today is based on the fact that he had an inquiring mind, and he wanted to know and he wanted to explore and find out what was going on above and beyond his brothers.”

    The Michael Jackson mystique and mania, Jones says he thinks is food to Michael Michael’s ego. “It’s soothing to know that God has given him this kind of a strength, and he doesn’t misuse or abuse it in the wrong manner.” Jones tells me of firings when people on Michael’s staff take advantage of the fans. Jackson doesn’t tolerate it.

    Jones credits Michael Michael’s mother for much of the talent that Michael absorbed. “They don’t give his mother enough credit. They didn’t have a television during those early years back in Indiana, and they lived in what amounted to a box. And the mother liked country music. They’d have hootenannies and sing, because it was the way they entertained themselves, and that was what brought them along and developed this great thing. At least there was a togetherness. That everybody participated. I think it was the beginning of the end of that togetherness within the family.”

    Jones says Michael is very close with his mother and tries to be close with his family, but it becomes difficult. “It becomes very difficult,” Jones emphasizes.

    When I ask Jones is Michael a shrew businessman? he replies, “He’s a kid at heart, but he knows what he wants, and I have the good fortune that he knows me over the years. I don’t have to be a hand-holder.” He goes on to say that Michael doesn’t like entourages, and Michael’s very private. Jackson wants to be by himself. Jones find himself being the bull fighter in Michael’s arena. Jones fought to have the Oprah Winfrey interview advertised in Ebony and Jet and on BET. During those face-offs, Jones found himself saying, “Wait a minute, let’s back up. Oprah may not care, but that’s the reason I’m here. I care. And it’s most important. Michael Jackson is black, first and foremost.”

    Besides acquiring certain properties for Michael’s private collection and handling all facets of the awards shows, it is Jones who goes to the black book stores and buys hundreds of black books at a time so that Michael knows who the black inventors are, so he knows who the black composers are.

    “He has been educated about his people,” Jones says, “Those things are important, because if you don’t know where you came from and who you are, you don’t know where you’re going. And he knows, and he tells me all the time, ‘Bob don’t give up. Never give up, never say no,’ he says. ‘That’s what the system wants you to do is to say no and give up.’ And he says, ‘I never give up. I never disbelieve that it can’t happen.'” Jones says he has been around the entertainment industry for 40 years, but Jackson has taught him things, “and it causes me to continue to grow.”

    Of Michael and Jones’ activities on his behalf, Jones states, “He’s a gentle … one of the nicest–he doesn’t use curse words. It’s like, because when I know what a dog-eat-dog world it is out here, thank God that he has me and a few others like me to fight off the lechers, because there there, and I’m able to become that alter ego and say go to hell. Because you won’t believe the propositions that come here.

    “He is truly the nicest, and if there is anything such as being God-like, he doesn’t smoke, he doesn’t drink, he doesn’t believe in thinking bad thoughts. That’s why I am suspicious of most of them who come through here, because everybody has an agenda, and it’s either to get over or something, and we live in a society of that. The society we live in is ruthless, and it’s all the buck and nothing else, and that’s what America’s become. When I look at him ( Michael) I say, ‘It’s good that God chose you.’ That’s the way I look at it. It’s good that God chose you.”


  199. February 10, 2012 9:11 pm

    If you’re on KOP there’s someone there who goes by the nick “Writer” who has a story to share about Stacy Brown. Josephine Zohny would be a really good get because she also knew Jordan Chandler.

    Jefferey Scott Beasley was around and in and out of that kind of circle back then, I don’t know if he knows any stories about Bob he could share but it might be worthwhile asking. For one thing, Bob Jones was gay and it was he himself who would be asking young male fans to speak alone with them for a bit….


  200. February 10, 2012 11:03 pm

    Who is Jefferey Scott Beasley?


  201. February 10, 2012 11:07 pm

    He used to write for Right On! magazine which did many pieces on MJ, he met and knew MJ from back in the 70s


  202. Carm permalink
    February 11, 2012 12:47 am

    …”he has NO REMORSE for insinuating that MJ was guilty on MSNBC; in fact, he still believes MJ is guilty!’
    I wonder if he truly believes MJ was guilty (is he that dumb?) or if he is just trying to save face. I don’t know what these people hope to gain by not admitting their mistakes. As time goes on they just look more and more like fools. They have dug themselves into a hole.

    For those who haven’t read it, here is the Amazon website description (July 2009) of “The Man Behind the Mask”. At one time this would have been disturbing–now it’s good for a laugh:

    ‘Michael Jackson: The Man behind the Mask’ is the INSIDE STORY of the truth behind the rumors, ugliness and mystery surrounding Michael Jackson.Is Jackson just a confused person who got too much fame too soon or is he a cold and calculating villain who will stop at nothing to have his bizarre appetites satisfied? Now you can read about it for the first time from the man who knows everything!The author, Bob Jones, is not a journalist conducting interviews but somebody who has known and been with Jackson for 34 years as his chief of Public Relations; by his side since Michael was 11 years old. Bob Jones is the one person with this unique inside view of Michael Jackson’s world. To a certain degree, Bob Jones CREATED Michael Jackson. He created his image. For example, Bob Jones created Michael Jackson’s famous nickname “The King of Pop”.This book is explosive and will make any other book about Michael Jackson instantly forgotten. You won’t find this inside information anywhere else.


  203. February 11, 2012 2:37 am

    But take a look here. In this video she states that Michael was bouncing the boy up and down on his lap in front of everybody. She adds that the scene was very embarrassing.”

    OMG, Diane Dimond and Victor Gutierrez in Peretti’s “documentary” are saying so many lies and pour so much dirt on Michael that I consider this documentary much worse than anything Bashir ever did!

    I touched upon it in this post (though the most of it is about Victor Gutierrez who is seen in the video sitting in a car):

    David also made a post about it: The “documentary” we were writing about was conveniently misnamed “Michael Jackson: what really happened”.

    When it was first broadcast in October 2007 one of the viewers said about it: “It makes the Bashir piece look almost impartial. Unreal. I was disgusted”.

    Now this documentary has been broken into Youtube episodes and is posted by Michael’s worst haters called MJnewsonline.NET site.

    LET ME BRING EVERYONE’S ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THIS SITE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MJnewsonline.COM site – which was an international MJ fan club and which isn’t found on the web any more for some reason (?).

    The place where this documentary comes are HATERS who assumed the name of a MJ fan forum, adding “net” instead of “com” to its name. These are the tricks they widely employ now. To see what their lair is like you can have a look here (not that I recommended it):

    On Youtube they call themselves MJNOmjnewsonline – but these are the same people as they themselves state in the introduction to the video!

    Now they are spreading lies from Peretti’s film under the name of “The story you have never heard” (mimicking “The footage you were never meant to see”).

    But not only have we heard the false Diane Dimond and Gutierrez’s stories innumerable times but this Peretti’s film was broadcast again by French, German and other TV channels recently, in March 2011 (this is what I know of – the number of broadcasts may be a hundred times as much). So saying that we have never heard their lies is a grave understatement, meant to lure the public into watching this filth.

    Guys, let me ask you to be top careful with the videos produced by these people. They are part of a very big and widespread new hatred campaign raging against Michael Jackson in the web now.


  204. February 11, 2012 3:10 am

    And a couple of words about Bob Jones. This time I couldn’t bring myself to watch Peretti’s filth, but I remember from the previous time I saw it that if you listen to him carefully you will not see him providing any facts or saying anything incriminating against MJ – all his story is made up is pauses, silence, some looks and things like that, and a big part of it is the doing of the author of the film.

    Peretti makes long and affected pauses to set off phrases like “they would lie together on the carpet and imagine flying over Neverland” (as if it were something sinister!) or falls into a horrified silence for several minutes after hearing Bob Jones saying that “they were in the bedroom at night too”.

    So what? All this has been chewed up for 19 years now, if we start from the year 1993! Of course if you take ANY phrase and add to it the look of horror on the listener’s face, long silence and sinister music it will turn into a horror film even we talk of an innocent thing like imagining flying over Neverland!

    The film is edited in such a way that it conveys the impression that Bob Jones is saying something sinister. In fact Bob Jones even CANNOT say anything bad about Michael – simply because he didn’t know him and never had any personal relationship with him. In spite of him being his PR man he seems to be the man who knew Michael least of all. He worked mostly at home and seldom met Michael. As far as I remember he even tried to distance himself from him in order to be “his own master”.

    So the whole of Peretti’s video is just a vulgar theater meant for the street crowd.

    And as regards Diane Dimond’s words about Michael “bouncing” Jordan on his lap I’ve specially made a video for you to see that it is A DIRTY LIE!

    First, Michael took the children to his seat because there were no more seats in the first row. And it was exactly Bob Jones who told us about it.

    Second, it was Lily who sat on Michael’s lap. Her head bounces a little as she is leaning on Michael’s shoulder and he is clapping his hands. He also tenderly touches her curly head.

    And third, Jordan did not sit on Michael’s lap – he sat on his SEAT, only in front of him. And we can prove it. Michael is moving to the rhythm of the music and Jordan IS NOT! He is sitting still while Michael is almost dancing. Jordan doesn’t even notice Michael waving his hands over his head, until Michael accidentally touches his hat.

    Diane Dimond is a Dirty Liar with a Dirty mind, Dirty words and Dirty deeds.

    It is time we renamed her into Dirty Diane.


  205. appleh permalink
    February 11, 2012 7:01 pm

    Guys, let me ask you to be top careful with the videos produced by these people. They are part of a very big and widespread new hatred campaign raging against Michael Jackson in the web now.

    @vindicatemj, do you know who these people are and why they are spreading their hate all over the net ?


  206. February 12, 2012 12:10 am

    “@vindicatemj, do you know who these people are and why they are spreading their hate all over the net?”

    Appleh, no, I don’t know it. But one thing I am sure of – they are absolutely the same people who worked against Michael when he was alive. The ferocity of their fight against Michael’s supporters is the thing which amazes me most. The scope of their activities is so big and methods so horrendous that I suspect that there are someone’s huge interests behind all this.

    It might be a fusion of different interests and agendas, but my best guess is that it is a pedophile lobby which is working on an international scale.

    First, they desperately wanted (and still want) MJ to be their poster boy. To use him for this purpose they first need to prove that he was a p. and then press every button to show the public how unjust the society was to a nice guy like MJ.

    “Pressing the buttons” is done by convicted pedophile Thomas O’Carroll and those professors who backed up his book (and continue teaching students in their universities). These people are simply dying to have Michael’s fans to support their “cause”. Therefore their primary aim is to brainwash Michael’s fans into thinking something like “So what if he did it? He made great music and was a genius. All geniuses have their flaws”.

    Another reason for the pedophile lobby to be interested in persecuting Michael is distracting them from real crimes against children. Fight against him is a sort of a smokescreen for them. These people are the ones who do the first part of the job by fiercely attacking Michael. The idea is – while everyone is busy with MJ they can be sure that no one will pay attention to real criminals. And this is exactly what is taking place now.

    Remember what Corey Feldman said about the “big secret” of Hollywood? He said that when he was 14 he was surrounded by pedophiles – SURROUNDED by them – but no one cared! He even told the police the name of the Hollywood mogul who molested him but they were not interested. They wanted Michael only, though Corey Feldman could not remember a single bad thing about Michael! And he is the one who should know!

    The conclusion from Corey Feldman’s experience is that real pedophiles hold positions of power and are very influential people who can exert pressure on the police.

    In case you missed it here is Corey Feldman’s interview again:


  207. sanemjfan permalink
    March 2, 2012 4:29 am

    If you’ve ever wondered what do MJ’s parents really think about MJ, then watch the video that I added to the end of the post!


  208. appleh permalink
    March 2, 2012 7:20 pm

    Hi, sane

    I just watched the second video, but I couldn´t bear DD Bull**** too long. What do you think, is the caller at 13:39 real ? I doubt, because she seemed a little too professional to me, let away her slimy “hero” statement to DD.

    BTW have you heard, that Gloria Allred accidently published her personal mail distribution list ?
    There are some interesting people on it !!!


  209. June 10, 2014 9:16 pm

    Reblogged this on Michael Jackson – Fact or Fiction and commented:
    Great great great website with incredible research!


  210. September 25, 2014 6:00 am

    You can’t help but feel a little bewildered when reading what Dimond wrote about Gavin Arvizo’s wedding last year

    A DJ played one of Michael’s songs, and Gavin just shrugged and smiled?
    Whether this is true or not – she can write what she wants, because nobody there will complain and we weren’t – that is not a response I’d imagine a “victim” to have over their “attacker”.
    It’s the same with Wade. Praised Michael for many years, til last. Even then, he still added a few little compliments.
    These people do NOT reflect the minds of people DAMAGED by abuse.

    I can’t imagine victims to compliment Jimmy Savile for being a “wonderful” DJ/Entertainer.
    Will one of the boys who were by Jimmy Sandusky say
    “He was a brilliant coach and I often smile and shrug when I think back on our games together”?

    Gavin wanted to be an actor at what point didn’t he?
    Should of have acted like a real victim of abuse.


  211. September 25, 2014 6:04 am

    Correction – Jerry Sandusky.
    Heads up my arse today.



  1. Dimond – Duplicity is Thy Name. | mjjjusticeproject

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: