Skip to content

DIANE DIMOND in a case of a HOMELESS KID and a pedophile RODNEY ALLEN

November 19, 2012

Diane Dimond’s adventures over a fictional molestation case of a Canadian boy were already covered in an earlier post here, but recent discussion of the same subject made me look into that 1995 story once again –  this time in the light of Diane Dimond’s ‘cooperation’ with a pedophile named Rodney Allen.

BACKGROUND FOR THE CANADIAN SCAM

The report about the MJ scam aired in April 1995

Judging by the weather and fur coat Diane Dimond wore upon arrival in Canada the story took place either in the winter/spring of 1995 or late autumn the same year.

That year was notable for Diane Dimond as in January 1995 she and Gutierrez publicly lied about a certain “graphic” but totally non-existent video tape allegedly involving a ‘young boy’ and Michael Jackson.

This non-existent tape got Dimond and Gutierrez into big trouble as Michael Jackson sued them and Stephen Doran of “Hard Copy” for slander for the sum of $100 mln. The suit was eventually won by Michael Jackson, but only against Guttierrez who was the source where the lie originated. All those who repeated and promoted the lie got away with it while Guttierez had to flee from the US in order not to pay the $2,7 mln. awarded to Jackson.

Diane Dimond managed to escape justice after getting help from no other than Tom Sneddon, who made some misleading official declaration concerning the case. This enabled her to hide behind the Shield Law which protects journalists who in theory don’t always know whether their sources tell the truth or not. In theory no, but in reality the matters of truth have long stopped to have anything to do with Diane Dimond and Gutierrez – however this point was somewhat overlooked by the court. The court also made a mistake of thinking that there was ‘lack of malice’ on Diane Dimond’s part and let her go in peace, alas.

A quote from the court papers:

  • Appellant Michael Jackson brought suit against respondents Paramount Pictures Corporation [producer of “Hard Copy”], Diane Dimond, and Stephen Doran [its reporters] alleging that he had been slandered by reports broadcast on the television program “Hard Copy” and in a radio interview with Dimond. During these broadcasts, the search for and purported existence of a videotape showing appellant inappropriately touching an underage boy in a sexual manner were discussed. The trial court granted summary judgment to respondents based on the truth of the statements made in the broadcast and the lack of evidence of malice.  http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1288872.html

By now I have already found the earlier comments by Shelly, who provided us with exhaustive information about the Canadian scam (thanks a lot to her for the materials!) where she says that the Canadian story aired on TV Hard Copy on April 27th of 1995 and Michael Jackson sued Dimond and Co. two months prior to that, so if the dates are correct the Canadian scam was running parallel to Michael Jackson’s lawsuit against Gutierrez and Diane Dimond cited above.

The report from Canada was directed by the same Stephen Doran who was a defendant in the slander lawsuit filed by Jackson

This lawsuit makes an intriguing background for the Canadian story.

The key players in it were the same as the defendants in Michael Jackson’s lawsuit against the Hard Copy reporters.  Both Diane Dimond and Stephen Doran as well as the Hard Copy producers surely wanted a new huge scandal to break around Michael Jackson and hoped that the boy’s allegations would be true. The new scandal could effectively wipe away MJ’s case against them by channeling all his attention and financial resources into another direction.

However the plans to have a huge international scandal did not work out. Though the Santa Barbara police officials stood by waiting for the Canadian case to be brought to them by Diane Dimond, thanks to the Canadian police the scam was nipped in the bud. The boy was interviewed by them so professionally that by the end of the interview he had to admit that the whole thing was a mere invention.  The case turned out to be an elaborate scam, so Diane Dimond had to return to Tom Sneddon empty-handed.

But she and her team did not lose heart. Even as a scam the case was still extremely helpful to them and especially to Diane Dimond. The image of an objective journalist was something she very much needed at that particular moment in time, when the $100mln. lawsuit was looking into her motives of malice in the suit filed by Jackson. All she needed was a vivid illustration presented to the jury of how terribly “unbiased” and “lacking malice” she and Hard Copy in general were towards Jackson.

So even if no Canadian scam had taken place on its own the Hard Copy producers should have invented it in order to boost their good image in the eyes of the public and potential jury, and prove to them that there was absolutely no malice in their actions towards Michael Jackson – now or ever.

This way both outcomes of the Canadian story were benefiting Diane Dimond and her crew, and it is difficult to say which one was even more preferable – in the face of a potential danger to pay $100mln as damages to Michael Jackson it was a matter of life and death for Diane Dimond to either get ‘incriminating’ material against him or lull the jury into thinking that she was an objective reporter who could not bear responsibility for the actions of the malicious source who simply let her down.

Following the second scenario did not mean that Diane Dimond was going to give up her harassment of Michael Jackson – no, certainly not. The only thing it meant was that now the job was to be done by subtler methods. The idea was to use the Canadian fiasco to show her in an extremely favorable light and simultaneously throw more innuendoes against Jackson, only in a much less apparent way.

A NOTE ABOUT DIANE DIMOND’S VOCABULARY

When you watch the Canadian episode again please note how often Diane Dimond uses the word ‘molestation’ in connection with the innocent name of Michael Jackson. Mentioning it so often is absolutely not a chance occurrence on the part of Diane Dimond. Even if the word is used in negation (“he didn’t molest anyone”) it still forms a strong association link between the name of the person and the phenomenon imposed on the person this way. The idea is to form a stable connection between the two and make the viewers recall the right word each time they hear the name of the person.

This is actually a full-time propaganda technique which is well-known to me as a former teacher of English – we also used it in our work when helping students to memorize new foreign words. Whether in negation or not it does not matter – the word is memorized equally well if you repeat it often enough in whatever form it is.

What’s crucial here is the context for introducing the word (notion, idea, etc.). If the context is dull or non-existent, as in a plain enumeration of the new words, they will simply not stick – but if the context is colorful or even thrilling the words intended for memorizing will sink in beautifully. In fact the more fascinating the story is the better it is, as the thrill only adds extra force to the memory glue.

INNOCENT!

Afterwards the memory will retrieve the word only when you remember the context – so the more memorable the context is the better the words around it are memorized too. The context is like muscles building around the bone. Psychology, you know. We tested some of the ways how the memory works in a “yellow wall” experiment if you remember.

All these small and big tricks of the trade are used by Diane Dimond in great abundance. The first and most vivid of them is the totally unnatural number of times she uses the word ‘molestation’ in connection with the name of the man she intends to smear. And though the overall report seems ‘positive’ towards Michael Jackson in reality it is absolutely not, especially since almost each time she uses the word, it is accompanied by the picture of Michael Jackson for stronger effect. To help you detect the trick I’ve marked the places in the transcript where MJ’s face appears in the narration. Check up which word accompanies each of those pictures and you will see what I am talking about.

Here is the transcript of the video about the Michael Jackson scam.

HER STORY

Announcer: When our Diane Dimond began to investigate she uncovered a trail of lies. Diane?

D.Dimond: Terri, ever since the MJ child molestation scandal broke we’ve gotten a constant stream of calls and letters from people making dubious claims about the singer. Frankly, we ignored most of them. But when I heard the facts of this story, I just had to go to Canada and check it out myself.

START OF THE VIDEO

Boy: I’d like to make a confession of what happened between me and Michael Jackson.

DD’s voiceover: “He is only 15 years old, so we cannot show you his face or let you know his real name. But the 11-minute home video he sent to our Hard Copy several weeks ago could have become Michael Jackson’s worst nightmare.


Looking straight into the camera, using no notes this boy proceeded to tell us in graphic detail how he and another teen were allegedly molested by the super star. “

Boy: He started touching me on my stomach, we grabbed my stomach then and then he gets lower, that’s when I asked him, “What are you doing?”  he said “Okay, do not worry, boys are meant to be touched.”

DD’s voiceover: “But the boy wasn’t acting on his own. He had help – a man who identified himself as John Templeton of Mississauga, Canada. That is a suburb of Toronto. He sent us the boy’s video taped statement and even called several times to make sure we looked at it. Then, I got a call from the boy himself… 

Over the next few days I spoke with the boy for hours, and he never wavered, his story staying consistent. The boy said he met Michael Jackson at a Canadian video arcade . He said he was supposed to spend the weekend with a friend, but when Jackson invited him to visit Neverland instead, off they flew in a private jet. This 15 year-old described in detail the people in Jackson’s entourage [Michael Jackson getting off the plane], the layout of the ranch, and even Jacksons’ family home at Encino. Later he would draw us incredibly detailed maps of both Jackson’s homes. It was clear: Either the guy was telling the truth or he had been well coached. To get to the bottom of it, I agreed to meet the boy and John Templeton in Toronto.

The plan was to meet the pair in the lobby of the airport hotel, but when I arrived the only one to greet me was the young boy. He came with me into town and told me he lived on the streets of Toronto, in a section called Boystown where the street kids gather. He explained that his mother had kicked him out of the house and that John Templeton was just a man he met on the streets.” 

Boy: He kind of helps street kids, he just talks to them and things like … is something like guidance or counseling on the street… that’s what it seemed like.

DD’s voiceover: “The boy appeared to be on his own. There was no sign of John Templeton, and frankly that seemed suspicious. But over the next few days our Hard Copy team conducted hours of interviews with the boy. Standing by were police officials in both California and Toronto. They were waiting to conduct their own investigation of the boy’s charges. “

Man on the phone: Hi, my name is Frank Grimes, I work for the TV show Hard Copy …

DD’s voiceover: “Producer Frank Grimes and I worked to check out countless pieces of information the boy gave us. While sources were able to confirm much of what he said, there were some troubling inconsistencies. Still the boy stubbornly stuck by his story and he had an incredible knowledge of Michael Jackson’s lifestyle. “

VIDEO INTERVIEW

Though the boy is 15 he is thin and small

D.Dimond: A saddle shop, I see it on the map here.

Boy: Yeah ..

D.Dimond: People gonna think that you are for his money.

Boy: I do not care for his money.

D.Dimond: They’ll think you made it up …

Boy: Yes, I know, but I don’t care for his money, he can keep it …

D.Dimond:: Really, you tell me the absolute truth?

Boy: Yeah.

END OF VIDEO

Frank Grimes:  He talked for hours, and he knew so much, so much in fact  that we thought, well, let’s give him a test and see if we can trip him up.

DD’s voiceover: “We showed the boy several photographs. Some of them were of Neverland employees, and he was able to identify each and every one of them.”

Boy: Yes, that’s him.. that’s him…

DD’s voiceover: “If this was a scam, this boy had really done his homework. He even went so far as to draw us a picture of what he said Michael Jackson looked like during the alleged molestation [a horrible drawing of Michael Jackson’s face]. Always he came back to his claims of mo-le-sta-tion. 

Boy: His eyes were big and dark …like… the eye sockets were… you know…

[the drawing of Michael Jackson’s face again]

D.Dimond: But there was one thing I didn’t tell the boy. I did not tell him that for the last year I’ve been getting Michael Jackson related letters from his same small suburb in Canada. The letters were supposedly from other young boys who also claimed that they had been molested by Jackson. Two of the letters even included pictures of the boys. Well, someone was behind all this, but still there was no sign of the man who’d sent us the original video statement by the boy – no sign of John Templeton.

DD’s voiceover: “There is Detective Campbell downtown. He doesn’t know your name and doesn’t know anything yet. But he is waiting to see us.  Want to go?”

Boy: Yeah.

DD’s voiceover: “From the beginning, the boy never asked us for money, and he repeatedly said he did not want any money from Michael Jackson either. So what was his motivation? Well, he said it was simple. He said he wanted justice, and now he was about to give a sworn statement to the police. “

Look how small and frail the book looks. And this is a 15-year old!

D.Dimond: I want you to remember one thing…. Please tell the truth.

Boy: Okay.

DD’s voiceover: “We delivered the boy to the Toronto metro police headquarters, where the detectives of the Sexual Assault Unit had been waiting for us.”

Detective: I understand you want to speak to me? And that’s okay, we’re going to go upstairs and talk. Okay?

Boy: Okay.

Detective: Okay?

Boy: Yeah.

DD’s voiceover: “For 6 solid hours police questioned the boy, took his sworn statement. He told them just what we told us – that super star Michael Jackson had molested him.”

Det. Darryl Campbell: I found it fairly believable too.

DD’s voiceover: “While the boy talked to police we continued our investigation. We had to find this John Templeton. So we drove to the Toronto suburbs to check out the return address from the video tape that he’d sent us.  That’s when we ran into somebody we knew.”

VIDEO ON THE STREET

D.Dimond: What the hell is going on?!

Male: Okay Diane, let me explain something to you …

DD’s voiceover: “Say hello to John Templeton … only his real name is Rodney Allen. We’ve known about Rodney for a long time. Right after the Michael Jackson scandal first broke he was on the phone with us claiming that another Jackson family member had molested him years ago. Rodney has never offered any solid proof of this claim. He appeared to be a man bent on revenge, and Rodney admitted – he was the one who’d been writing me all those letters. “

VIDEO ON THE STREET

D.Dimond: I care about this one kid who gave me all sorts of information about Neverland, about Havenhurst, about  Disneyland, about Michael Jackson’s body. Where did he get all that information?

Rodney Allen: He got it from me.

D.Dimond: You planted all this stuff in the kid’s head?

Man: I didn’t plant it in his head. He was asking questions, I answered them the best I can. I told him what I could tell him about the place. I want Michael to face it. 

D.Dimond: So the kid is a… a number one liar?

Male: Professional.

DD’s voiceover: “The whole story was a scam. A Toronto street kid meets a man obsessed with the Michael Jackson case, and the result could have been an international scandal. Meanwhile, back at the police station, the boy finally broke down. He admitted that he and Rodney Allen had made up the whole story. “

D.Dimond:: The young man was lying?

Det. Campbell: Emm … that’s my belief, and as a result of that he was charged, yes.

D.Dimond: Can you tell us what he was charged with?

Det. Campbell: Public mischief.

D.Dimond: Well, the boy is still in custody tonight and police continue their investigation of Mr. Rodney Allen. Terri?

*  *  *

Let us not allow Diane Dimond to fool us by her fake “objectivity”. She has used each and every minute of this report to effectively slander Michael Jackson, only in a much more subtle than usual way. Even if we put the vocabulary point aside the dark innuendo suggesting that Rodney Allen was molested by someone in the Jackson family is bad enough to send us into wild guesses about who that person might be, especially since Michael Jackson himself once wrote a warning note to his nephews’ mother that someone in the family was an abuser.

And what about the mysterious story that the boy allegedly “recognized Michael’s employees” and “drew incredibly detailed maps of Neverland and Havenhurst”? This will leave you guessing how that was possible if he had never been there. Or had he? These drops of poison leave you with an uneasy feeling that though the scam was uncovered some skeletons in the cupboard were still left there untouched.

No, there are no more skeletons there, at least in MJ’s cupboard. Rodney Allen said it pointblank – the boy repeated what Rodney Allen told him to say and was professional in the art of lying. Everything he said to the police was what had been implanted into his head. The rest of the story is what Diane Dimond and her producer Frank Grimes are just telling us and what they want us to think.

DD: Where did he get all that information?
Rodney Allen; He got it from me.

Upon hearing the story from Diane Dimond we – as usual – face the choice of whether to believe her or not. If we believe her we will have to derive conclusions from the premise that the facts reported are true, including the “recognition of the Neverland employees” part. This will take us along one road and the journey that ensues may be quite fascinating.

Or we can disbelieve the details Dimond embellished her story with on the grounds of her proven reputation of a professional liar. This attitude will be fully understandable too as total disbelief for Dimond’s stories is what she actually deserves and over here she is only reaping what she has sown herself.

And though throwing away her stories as garbage would be the most natural thing to do under the circumstances I am still curious to see where her own story will take us if we accept her words at their face value and therefore regard the details described as true.

DRAWING A BIGGER PICTURE

Putting the scam story aside, the most interesting part of what remains is how the boy who had never been to Neverland or Havenhurst could make the detailed maps of both places. Of course we can assume that Diane Dimond only said that the boy drew them while in reality she drew them herself, but if we go by her story we will need to find out if there was a possibility for the boy to ever visit both Jackson’s homes and go to the US twice at different points in time.

The map of Neverland

If the boy lived with his family before, and his family took him to the other coast of the US, and he went both to Havenhurst and Neverland on two separate occasions, or if Rodney Allen took him there in both cases, one problem will still remain – when Michael lived in Havenhurst (the end of the 80s) the boy was too young and could not remember the details well enough to be able to draw a big and detailed map of the place.

So this leaves us only with Rodney Allen’s explanation which implies that Allen himself has been to Havenhurst and Neverland and simply coached the boy, probably using some photos made from the air as no other pictures of it were available at the time (cameras were not allowed in Neverland).

the map of Havenhurst

We cannot rule out the possibility that Rodney Allen has indeed been to both Havenhurst and Neverland. How he could get there I have no idea – he could be there as a visitor or accompany some children to Neverland (in Toronto this animal was a bus driver who carried children to school and recreational activities).

What is clear though is that he wasn’t there as a friend of Michael Jackson as his obsessive desire to ruin him speaks exactly to the opposite. Rodney Allen spent an incredible amount of time and effort to set up Michael Jackson.  The preparation work he did is astonishing – every single little detail was attended to, up to recording the fact that Michael Jackson had a collection of saddles for his horses kept somewhere on the ranch.

Another possible explanation for those maps is that Allen wasn’t there himself and was just retelling what someone else had seen in Neverland and Havenhurst, provided him with the drawings and described the details seen in both places.

This contact person could also supply him with photos of some employees from Neverland and considering that the period of 1995 was when two more lawsuits were raging (the Neverland bodyguards and maid Adrian McManus were suing Michael Jackson and he was suing them back (they eventually lost), we have at least five former employees who were ready for a revenge, were interested in a new huge scandal around Michael Jackson and could provide their photos to the scammer of their own free will. Incidentally some of those people, as they said at the 2005 trial, were in contact with Gutierrez and Diane Dimond, who due to the $100mln. lawsuit against them also had a big motive for a new scandal around Michael Jackson.

“Okay, Diane, let me explain something to you”

So if we draw a bigger picture around that Canadian scam in one corner of it we will see a certain Rodney Allen who for some reason was terribly set on framing up Michael Jackson. For at least a year this person was in close contact with Diane Dimond as she herself says that she and Frank Grimes of  “Hard Copy” knew Allen very well. Indeed they were all smiles when they met as old friends in the suburb of Toronto.

In their turn at that very moment Diane Dimond and Stephen Doran of “Hard Copy” were involved in a big lawsuit filed by Michael Jackson against them for slander about a fictional video tape. Another co-defendant in the suit was Diane’s ‘best source’ Victor Gutierrez who was the reason why that lawsuit emerged at all.

In his turn Victor Gutierrez was close to some former employees making up the Neverland 5 team who were also in the midst of litigation with Michael Jackson at exactly the same moment in time. These people didn’t know Rodney Allen but they knew Victor Gutierrez and Diane DimondGutierrez most probably had common interests with Rodney Allen  as he attended a NAMBLA conference in 1986 and Rodney Allen was a proven pedophile who was incarcerated for life for crimes against children several years after the Canadian scam, so this could form the necessary link between the two. These common interests didn’t even require a personal meeting – everything could be done via computer communication (on his inmate page Rodney Allen says that he loves computers).

To coach the boy Rodney Allen evidently showed him the pictures of some Neverland employees (probably sent to him by someone). Diane Dimond also showed him the pictures of the Jackson ‘entourage’ which were available to her and as a result of these two processes the boy recognized some of those people.

This was the general disposition of the case. The number of players and their motives allow for a myriad opportunities, and though I absolutely cannot claim that all these people were involved in the Canadian scam, their interconnection with each other is really fascinating. Seeing them so nicely grouped together in one picture against the background of all those pending lawsuits and at the time when the Canadian scam was being thoroughly prepared gives me a really titillating feeling….

Someone said that the photos of Neverland employees could be taken from newspapers. Yes, probably they could. Only now we read the same papers and don’t really see that many pictures of Michael Jackson “entourage” – I for one have seen only the faces of those who made allegations against Michael Jackson. The photos of Philippe Lemarque and his wife who slandered Macaulay Culkin were posted by the Smoking Gun, the faces of Filipino couple flashed in some videos a couple of times, Adrian McManus the maid appeared in connection with the 2005 trial, a little bit of Blanca Francia was sprinkled here and there in some old papers and a bit of the bodyguards was seen due to the 2005 trial again, and yes, Bob Jones was there of course  – but that’s it.

No, the offer of the employees’ photos is actually very scarce while the demand for them is big.

THE ROLE OF RODNEY ALLEN

Okay, now another question arises – what about that allegation that Rodney Allen was molested by someone in the Jackson family?

The inmate page of Rodney Allen (2010)

Could it be MJ? No, absolutely not. The ‘Inmate-connection’ page that Rodney Allen filled out while serving his time in the Ontario prison says that he was born on September 17, 1956 – so he is two years older than Michael Jackson and couldn’t possibly be a child when Michael was a grown-up. However Rodney Allen never claimed that he had been molested by MJ – all he alleged was that it was someone else in the Jackson family, and hence his revenge (taken for some reason on a totally innocent person who himself didn’t enjoy the best of childhoods in that family).

Whether Rodney Allen’s “molestation” story is true or not we don’t know, though we cannot absolutely rule it out as Michael himself once wrote a note to his female relative warning her of an abuser in the family.

What cannot be disputed about Rodney Allen though is the fact that he was terrilby obsessed with Michael Jackson. If we are to believe Diane Dimond’s story his desire to compromise Jackson was so big that he besieged her for a year with letters written in the names of various boys and sometimes accompanied by pictures of those fictional ‘victims’.

Dimond says that the correspondence started a year before the scam was uncovered, and this takes us back into the winter of 1994 which was the period when the settlement agreement with the Chandlers had already been signed but the criminal investigation carried out by Sneddon and Garcetti was only gaining momentum.

Rodney Allen wanted Michael to face what he never did

Rodney Allen wanted to be part of it and over here we needn’t doubt Diane Dimond’s word for it as thanks to Shelly we have independent proof that Rodney Allen did really began his provocations against Michael Jackson as early as 1993/94.

The proof arrived in the form of a document made prior to the 2005 trial. The document is a motion from Susan Yu where she asks the prosecution to provide the defense with all the documents enumerated in the evidence list with regard to the 1993 investigation.

To our great surprise the list includes a certain fax listed as item 8336 involving Rodney Allen at the time of the Chandler allegations! We do not know of course the contents of the fax but from the attention paid to it by both sides the fax seems to be significant enough to be included in the list of evidence by the prosecution and requested by the defense in the year 2005!

Tom Sneddon about the 2005 trial: “Rodney Allen will not be a part of THIS case”

In their description of item 8336 the prosecution says that Rodney Allen would not be a part of the 2005 case, which makes us immediately think that he could probably be part of the previous 1993 case. Does this mean that Rodney Allen was involved in Michael Jackson’s affairs to a much bigger degree than we initially expected? And was his active involvement in the 1993 case the reason why Diane Dimond knew Rodney Allen so long?  And could it be the reason why Allen was familiar with the Neverland and Haverhurst layout and was able to draw their maps?

What role was he playing in the 1993 case? Could it be different from the role he played in 1995 when he tried to set up Michael Jackson with the help of a Canadian boy? I doubt it very much indeed that there was a difference in his plans. Only two years passed since then and what Rodney Allen intended to do to Michael in 1995 could have easily been attempted against him in the year 1993 and vice versa….

But then it means that it wasn’t only Gutierrez who was working against Michael at the time! And pedophile Rodney Allen joined him too! Isn’t the consistent work done by these people against Jackson the best proof that he was not one of them? These people stand by each other like blood brothers, and the fact that they were doing so much damage to Michael is the best sign that they didn’t regard him as their own kind.

It would also be interesting to know why the crucial information that some pedophiles were actively involved in the case against Jackson is not made known to the general public. Or is the prosecution and the media (Diane Dimond) shy to admit that they used the services of real pedophiles in an attempt to nail down an innocent man?

Please don’t even try to shove me a hypothesis that Rodney Allen was part of the 1993 case and did this huge preparation work for the Canadian scam in 1995 due to some hypothetical homosexual love for Michael Jackson. In fact the ferocity with which he was hunting for him is more suggestive of a revenge or love “unshared” by the other side.

Diane Dimond: “The whole story was a scam”

Whatever the reason for it was Rodney Allen was clearly doing his utmost to ruin Michael Jackson and was doing it on a long-term basis too. Using the terminology of one of our readers the fact of this harassment is a hard fact which cannot be disputed and should never be underestimated.

  • And the fact is that a person named Rodney Allen made some allegations against Michael in 1993 and was probably even part of the case as the prosecution document suggests it.
  • For at least one year after that he went into much expense and trouble in order to falsely incriminate MJ in child abuse activities.
  • In order to do so in 1995 he set up an elaborate scheme involving a 15-year old boy as a fictional ‘victim’ of MJ, but the scam was uncovered by the police.

Rodney Allen’s tenacity in following MJ and his consistent desire to harm him are an important precondition for a new assumption we can make about him. The assumption is that Rodney Allen could be very well involved in other undercover activities against Jackson, and what we see now is only the tip of the iceberg.

If he was so keen on setting up Michael Jackson in the year 1995 and also worked against him in 1993, who can guarantee that he didn’t try to inflict any harm on Michael earlier?  Who knows what else this person was capable of?

I for one am of the opinion that the book sent to Michael by a fan called “Rhonda” (in quotations) could actually be a present from Rodney Allen.

Why did he do it? Because a book with boys in bathing suits (partially undressed) may turn into a supporting evidence in case there is a police raid of the ranch in connection with child molestation allegations. So if someone was set on framing up poor Michael Jackson at the time, this book could become the ‘evidence’, though under normal circumstances it would not have had any special significance of its own.

Why I think Rodney Allen could be setting up Michael Jackson this way? Because he wanted to set him up in 1995, so what prevented him from doing the same in the year 1993, 1992 or earlier?

Another supposition is that pedophile Rodney Allen as a sure member of NAMBLA could very well work in cooperation with another suspect member of it, Victor Gutierrez, who in the year 1995 was under very much fire from Michael Jackson and who could easily approach his comrade to help him with a scam that could potentially turn into a huge international scandal all of them so much counted on.

The scam didn’t work but the effort and money which went into it was enormous. Have you noticed that the homeless street kid was able to call Diane Dimond to the US and speak to her for hours describing his story to her? To be able to speak that long over international lines this street kid should have had a big amount of spare cash, shouldn’t he? Rodney Allen who stood behind the scheme was the only one who could supply this money to him …

And though Allen shifts the blame onto the boy (“he is a professional liar”, “he asked questions” and Allen “only answered them”) the money sponsored for the project and the duration of Allen’s overall preoccupation with Michael Jackson prove that the idea of the scam rests with the adult rather than with the boy.

But why was Rodney so preoccupied with Jackson? Could it be the money? I doubt it as Allen was part of the criminal investigation against Michael Jackson in the year 1993/94 and over there he could hardly count on any money reward.

Then what could be the reason? Is it the one voiced by Gutierrez in an interview to that German paper? I mean that fact that the NAMBLA members talked at their 1987 conference about the need to turn Michael Jackson into their poster boy and use his image to break public resistance to their ‘cause’. To this end all they needed was Michael Jackson’s agreement, however since he flatly refused to participate real pedophiles were determined to prove their case by themselves and break the man this way….

THE STORY OF RODNEY ALLEN

What was a shocking surprise for us several years ago is now a well-known fact, at least for Michael Jackson’s supporters. Rodney Allen is a pedophile who was incarcerated for crimes against children. Now he is serving a life-long sentence in a Canadian prison.

Some sources say that he was arrested in 1998 which was only three years after the scam he arranged for Michael Jackson (this is probably when he drew attention of police to himself). Other sources say that Rodney Allen was detained sometime around the year 2000 and this is a more correct date as he committed some offenses in 1999 and his Inmate page says that by the year 2010 he has done 10 years in custody.

The story below says that in 2001 Rodney Allen pleaded guilty to six offenses against boys, in 2002 he was incarcerated as a dangerous offender and in the year 2007 the Court of Appeal refused to change his interminable sentence:

June 18, 2007

Sex predator still a danger, court rules

Ontario’s Court of Appeal has ruled a 50-year-old Mississauga man who admitted to committing a number of sex-related offences against teenage boys in Meadowvale deserves “the most serious punishment in the Criminal Code.”
A panel of three judges ruled last week that Rodney Allen should remain incarcerated as a dangerous offender.

Allen, a former private school bus driver, was declared a dangerous offender by Justice Marvin G. Morten in April of 2002, about one year after he pleaded guilty to six offences. His list of crimes includes two sexual assaults on a 14-year-old boy and indecent assault and gross indecency on two other boys.

Under Canada’s Criminal Code, dangerous offenders may be subjected to an indeterminate prison sentence. The purpose of the legislation is to detain offenders who are deemed too dangerous to be released into society upon completion of their sentences.

Crown prosecutor Christine Tier told the appeal judges that a person may be declared a dangerous offender if that person is unable to control his or her sexual impulses and, as a result, will likely cause injury or harm to other persons.

“A dangerous offender declaration is perhaps the most serious punishment in the Criminal Code,” the judges said in their ruling.

Allen suffers from homosexual hebephilia, the hearing was told. He is attracted to boys entering puberty.

“His disorder manifests itself by his seeking out, often by deceit, boys aged 11-14, so that he can be near them,” the judges heard.

Allen appealed the dangerous offender designation, claiming the trial judge overstated the seriousness of his conduct, and therefore his danger to the public. He also claimed the judge misunderstood the evidence on whether he could be treated and whether his risk of reoffending could be managed in the community.

But the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected those arguments, saying there is evidence from psychiatrists that Allen “had a high risk of reoffending,” and has not been willing to get medical treatment.

From: http://www.lipstickalley.com/f227/exposing-diane-dimond-276571/index12.html

The court of Appeals which dismissed Allen’s case in 2007 details the facts about Rodney Allen:

  • Mr. Allen, who is now fifty years old, suffers from homosexual hebephilia.  He is  attracted to boys entering puberty.  His disorder manifests itself by his seeking out, often  by deceit, boys aged eleven to fourteen, so that he can be near them.
  • In March 2001, Mr. Allen pleaded guilty to six offences: two sexual assaults, each  on a fourteen-year-old boy; threatening to burn the property of the father of one of the  boys; carrying a pellet gun for a dangerous purpose; indecent assault and gross indecency  on two other boys.  The first four offences took place in the summer of 1999; the latter two offences took place in 1983http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2007/2007onca421/2007onca421.pdf

So by the year 1994/95 when Rodney Allen was in close and regular contact with Diane Dimond he had already had a record of offenses against boys! Diane Dimond probably didn’t know about it, but it doesn’t really matter – the fact that she worked in cooperation with a pedophile gives me a strange feeling of satisfaction anyway. It serves her right to carry the stigma of having pedophiles as her assistants and this stigma looks to me like a heavenly retribution for the many years of her harassment of a totally innocent man…

By now there are already two of them around her associated with pedophilia – the first one is a suspect pedophile Victor Gutierrez who once attended a NAMBLA conference and later became Dimond’s ‘best source’  feeding her with his pedophilia fantasies, and the second Dimond’s best connection was Rodney Allen who is now serving a life sentence for pedophilia. What a nice company!

All her life Diane Dimond claimed that she was fighting a child molester but now it turns out that the person she thought guilty was innocent and it was actually she who cooperated with two pedophiles all these years! This is what happens when the Heavens laugh…

The court papers say that in addition to being a pedophile Rodney Allen was also bordering on the mentally retarded:

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

Wiki explains it:

  • Borderline intellectual functioning is defined as a categorization of intelligence wherein a person has below average cognitive ability (generally an IQ of 70-85), but the deficit is not as severe as mental retardation (70 or below). Persons who fall into this categorization have a relatively normal expression of affect for their age, although their ability to think abstractly is rather limited. Reasoning displays a preference for concrete thinking. They are usually able to function day to day without assistance, including holding down a simple job and the basic responsibilities of maintaining a dwelling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_intellectual_functioning

The court papers also say that Rodney Allen worked as a long distance bus driver and had a bus company of his own. He drove the bus to take children to various school and recreational activities and who knows what he was doing on the way?

At the time of his guilty plea, Mr. Allen owned his own bus company.  He drove navy cadets and private school children to and from a variety of school and recreational activities.  

Rodney Allen presented himself as an agent for young boys who worked for an entertainment company. In some cases he called himself an FBI agent which is a fact that immediately reminded me of Victor Gutierrez. Gutierrez also made rounds of the families associating with Michael Jackson and presented himself as a secret police agent. We can easily make this supposition as Gutierrez spoke about it to several Chilean and German journalists quite openly. It is quite possible that this is the way pedophiles like to win trust of their victims and their parents. Rodney Allen used the method too:

On the dangerous offender application, the Crown led other evidence to show that Mr. Allen sought out pubescent boys.  In one case, he induced a fourteen-year-old boy –  who was interested in an acting or modeling career – to come to Toronto from Rochester  on the pretext that he was an agent for young boys and worked for a company called  “American Entertainment”. 

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

Despite his case bordering on mental retardation Rodney Allen is described by the court papers as manipulative and deceitful which contrary to popular belief can indeed accompany some cases of mental impairment:

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

Rodney Allen was prone to seeking out street children! So this is what his ‘target audience’ was! And this is why he was beating about that boy and the other teens in the Boystown in Toronto where the homeless kids lived! There could be no doubt whatsoever that his relations with them were sexual…

So all this time while Diane Dimond was making up her fictional stories about an innocent person’s ‘victims’ she was talking to the real victim of molestation and to his real molester! And all this time she had a truly precious journalistic material in her hands, only she never used it because her goals in the profession were twisted and false, motives mean and all her ‘concern’ for the abused children feigned!

MY CASE AGAINST DIANE DIMOND

I want to ask Diane Dimond a question. Instead of carrying out her fictional ‘investigation’ of false allegations against Michael Jackson she could have done a proper investigation of the real molestation case she was handling and could have brought a real pedophile into the open.

Why didn’t she, a self-proclaimed fighter against pedophilia, didn’t use this rare chance and move her little finger to try and research the real pedophilia problem that was glaring in her face in the streets of Toronto?

The kid was homeless and lived on the streets of Toronto. Diamond speaks of it in a very matter-of-fact way

Was it possible for her to find that the kid she was interviewing about Jackson was actually a victim of real molestation only by someone different? Easily so!  The section in Toronto she describes as the place where the street kids live and ‘gather’ is one of the biggest centers of homosexual activity in the world and it didn’t require too much brainwork to put two and two together and see that the street kid living in that area could earn his living only by selling gay sex to the adults.

She alone wouldn’t have been able to solve the problem of street kids of course, but as a reporter ‘concerned’ about the safety of children she was obliged to raise the problem the moment she encountered it.

Only one condition was required for it – the desire to really help those poor kids whose fate she proclaims she is so much concerned about. Every normal person in her place would have been horrified with what she encountered in that situation. But did she ask the boy how he was making his living? Did she wonder where he lived and why he wasn’t taken care of by social workers? Did she raise the problem of street kids in her report on Hard Copy? No, she didn’t.

At least 28% of homeless children admit that they have to engage in sex (with adults) in order to survive…

Real problems of kids sexually abused by adults evidently never bothered Diane Dimond despite all her loud proclamations to the contrary – all of it is sheer pretence on her part. She cannot care less about the life and future of these poor souls. All she was ever interested in was bringing down a totally innocent person who was unable to hurt even a fly….

Street kids are easily seduced

Instead of discussing fictional stories told by a pedophile she could have returned to the US with a thundering report about a real social problem – street kids who fall easy prey to freaks like Rodney Allen. She could have called public attention to the problem. She could have used this chance to speak about street kids who are being exposed to the danger of molestation on a daily basis. She could have done a lot of good to these children by raising public awareness about it – however she totally failed to do and all of it because she is completely blind and deaf to the problems of real abuse of children….

What a terrible contrast it is to the goals set by the man whom she chose for a life-long harassment! If Michael Jackson had been in her place he would have found a way to do something about it. In fact it is surprising that though he could hardly see the problem with his own eyes due his isolation in the paradise of Neverland and his fame and glamor shielding him from the dark sides of life, he nevertheless somehow managed to know about the ills of the society and was so concerned about the problem of abandoned and abused children that he wrote several songs about it.

“Lost children” and “Do you know where your children are?” are only some examples of his desperation and poignant appeal he constantly sent to us  – Don’t be indifferent, wake up to the problem, it is very much there and something needs to be done about it before it is too late!

This is what Michael Jackson was screaming about:

Do you know where your children are
Because its now twelve o’clock
If their somewhere out on the street
Just imagine how scared they are

She wrote that she is trying to stop daddy using her
Saying that he’ll buy her things while sexually abusing her
Just think that shes all alone somewhere out on the street
How will this girl survive, She ain’t got nothing to eat

Now she’s on the move shes’s off to Hollywood
She said she wanna be a star she heard the money’s good
She gets off from the train station a man is waiting there
I’ll show you where the money is girl just let down your hair
He’s taking her on the streets of Sunset Boulevard
She’s selling her body hard girl that was taken for
The police come round the corner that somebody there had told
He’s arresting this little girl thats only twelve years old

Save me, from this living hell….

(from “Do you know where your children are?” by Michael Jackson)

SAVE ME FROM THIS LIVING HELL!

These words were said not by Diane Dimond as a self-proclaimed defender of children’s safety and well-being. These words were said by Michael Jackson – the man who was relentlessly harassed by her for decades and who in contrast to this useless creature really cared about the children’s safety and well-being….

When looking for information about Rodney Allen, the Boystown in Toronto and the problem of sexual abuse of street kids I accidentally came across a report made in 2001/02 by Pennsylvania University sociology professors. Delivered in a dispassionate manner typical of scientists it shook me to the very core and showed the deepness of the inferno all of us are living in now – in respect of the problem of child molestation.

But this subject will have to be left for the next post.

(to be continued)

48 Comments leave one →
  1. lynande51 permalink
    January 4, 2013 9:42 pm

    My money is on Blanca first because I think they were there waiting to be found since she was friends with VG. At the time that Neverland was first searched Adrian McManus was telling everyone that there was nothing to the story and she knew it was a lie.

    Like

  2. lynande51 permalink
    January 4, 2013 9:38 pm

    In her direct testimony she was asked about the day that Neverland was searched and she said she was at home, she had called in sick and was called into work because she had to open the doors and the file cabinets for the police. That is what I was trying to say about a year ago. There is more prooof that they were put in Michael’s file cabinet by someone else than there was that he locked them away. He never had the keys the maids that cleaned his rooms were the only ones that had those keys. That is why they had to call her at home to have her bring in the keys to open everything.

    Like

  3. lynande51 permalink
    January 4, 2013 9:33 pm

    Helena I was photographed that way and so was my daughter. We were both laying on our stomach on my grandmothers white fox coat ( my dad was an amateur photographer), My nephew was actually shot sitting in a large porcelin basin. So it is not that long ago that it was thought that any nude photo was wrong. If people remember one of the first shots with Michael and Prince Prince was nude but Michael was holding him covering up the particualrs. I didn’t see anything wrong with that but there are people out there that see that as something else and to me that is there problem, the entire world does not feel that way.
    As for the books being found in 1993. They were found in that cabinet and the only one that had keys to Michael’s room and his cabinets in 1993 was Adrian McManus and immediately before her was Blanca Francia so I guess we know who put them there don’t we?

    Like

  4. January 4, 2013 4:12 pm

    “It could be possible that the books found in the file cabinet at Neverland were sent to him by various individuals or Rodney Allen himself. That would explain why a man with 20,000 books only had 3 art books with nude children in them.” – Louis

    Not only was it possible, but I am sure that this was the case. Do you inscribe books when you buy them for yourself? No, you don’t. And even if you suddenly want to write a text on the cover of the book how often do you put your signature to it? Never. After all when people write memos for themselves they never sign them, right?

    This was the case with those two Michael Jackson’s books – one was inscribed by him and carried his signature, while the other was inscribed by someone else and carried another person’s signature.

    “Boys will be boys” had MJ’s inscription:

    “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces, this is the spirit of Boyhood. A life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children. MJhttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/national/30jackson.html?fta=y

    Why boyhood and not “girlhood”? Because there were boys on the cover jumping into river water (in swimming trunks). If the cover had depicted girls playing with dolls Michael would have written something about little girls and girlhood.

    The other book “The boy” (with a naked boy on the beach seen from the back on the cover of it) had an inscription from a fan, signed Rhonda, who in my opinion is actually Rodney Allen, considering that this “Rhonda” was in quotation marks. Naturally no one noticed, Michael himself included, but now that we inspect every comma in Michael’s books and life in general these quotation marks begin to attract attention.

    This was surely a present, and probably even from a pedophile, and all Michael Jackson is “guilty” of is that he didn’t throw it away. But first, he didn’t know who this perfectly legitimate book came from, and second, out of respect for his fans Michael never threw away their presents – this we know from Talitha, MJ’s huge fan, whom Michael assured on many occasions that he kept all fans’ gifts: http://www.michaeljacksonthelastangel.com/michael-jackson-2009.html

    As to the third book with “nude children” I know nothing about it – there were only two of them. And the word “nude children” is a big exaggeration too. Most of them were clothed, some had swimming trucks (naturally) and a couple were nude photos.

    You know, I belong to the generation when children were very much allowed to be photographed in the nude. I myself was photographed that way by my parents when I was an infant and our old photo albums still keep those pictures. My mother as an infant was photographed that way, and even my grandmother was too. We didn’t think much of it at the time, though for some perverts it is really a very big thing. People have been so sexualized since then that they completely lost their innocence of perception. It is like the Adam and Eve story – until they were told that their nakedness was sinful they hadn’t realized it.

    Same here. Now I know that a photo of a naked boy is “bad” and oh, how I crave for those innocent times when I thought that it was nothing!

    Michael most probably didn’t realize either that having those pictures in his home was “sinful”. It is only probably when someone explained to him how “awful” it was that he took them away into a closet, just to be on the safe side. On the other hand I do not rule it out that some “well-wisher” locked them in the closet on purpose (for example, Adrian McManus, a personal maid) in order to theatrically open it up and show to the world (and police) what “terrible” things MJ was keeing there.

    Only those two “terrible” books? Confiscated with so much ado in the 1993 and put to a trial in 2005? And nothing else except that?

    Oh my God, I can’t believe that I even have to talk about it for so long….

    Like

  5. TatumMarie permalink
    January 4, 2013 10:44 am

    @louis
    Those books were given to him which is why there werent many but if they were questionable in nature he wouldnt have kept them, let alone wrote an inscription in one. The media was purposely misleading when saying child nudity, there are magazine photos of African children that are taken to show the starvation struggles and usually these children are nude.

    Like

  6. Louis Gonzales permalink
    January 4, 2013 9:11 am

    It could be possible that the books found in the file cabinet at Neverland were sent to him by various individuals or Rodney Allen himself. That would explain why a man with 20,000 books only had 3 art books with nude children in them.

    Like

  7. November 25, 2012 11:01 pm

    “Dimond may not be a pedophile herself, but I don’t know; I find it hard to believe that she is that indifferent and hypocritical without there being any serious ulterior motives. The lengths to which she’s gone over the last 19 years to take Michael down convey to me something much deeper and darker than simple indifference or hypocrisy.” -Free spirit

    You know, hypocrisy and indifference are not just ‘simple’. I see hypocrisy, cynism and lies as the embodiment of extreme evil. As to indifference, someone clever said it is due to indifference that the biggest crimes on earth take place at all. Diane Dimond is a vivid example of all these features, so she doesn’t really need to be a pedophile herself – her mere association with real pedophiles and harassment of an innocent person is just enough. She is a cynical and callous liar who is proud of her professional liar’s killing skills.

    The Michael Jackson case indeed revealed the true face of the media. Journalists showed themsevles in the worst light – first Victor Gutierrez, then Diane Dimond, Nancy Grace, Maureen Orth and all the others, then Bashir and now Sullivan. What a collection.

    And all of them successful. What a disgrace.

    Like

  8. November 25, 2012 10:39 pm

    – “Michael while this one was ten years younger, but the same name made me think that possibly the fax in 1993 concerning “Rodney Allen Rippey” could refer to that boy?” VMJ
    – “Maybe, but why not use his family name?” Shelly

    Shelly, if Rippey is the boy’s family name, than the matter is settled of course. So the 1993 fax Tom Sneddon referred to concerned Rodney Allen, the Canadian guy who was not a child at all but was in fact older than Michael, and all the things said in this post remain valid. I was just double-checking.

    Like

  9. Free Spirit permalink
    November 24, 2012 11:11 am

    Thank you, Helena; my nickname describes my own inner self, which is finally starting to emerge.

    Granted, Dimond may not be a pedophile herself, but I don’t know; I find it hard to believe that she is that indifferent and hypocritical without there being any serious ulterior motives. The lengths to which she’s gone over the last 19 years to take Michael down (including blatantly downplaying or ignoring anything that put Michael in a positive light) convey to me something much deeper and darker than simple indifference or hypocrisy. The worst part is that she does it in such a subtle, cunning, and manipulative way, which makes her look more believable than those who scream and rant, like her self-described “friend,” Nancy (dis)Grace.

    There is the old saying, “Methinks you doth protest too much.” Or in more modern terms, those who complain the loudest are often guilty themselves. That she worked tirelessly for that many years to take down an innocent man–and in the process exhibited such personal offense toward anyone who would dare challenge her with those dreaded things called facts–is an indication of her trying to assuage her own demons.

    Of course, I could be wrong, but I strongly believe that she has something terrible to hide, in very much the same ways that Rodney Allen and Victor Gutierrez do. The problem is that she is such a saint in the eyes of similar bad people, both behind the camera and out in society, that no one will ever question her motives, except us Michael fans.

    Like

  10. lynande51 permalink
    November 24, 2012 3:02 am

    No meet Rodney Allen Rippey.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Allen_Rippy

    Like

  11. shellywebstere permalink
    November 24, 2012 2:34 am

    “Michael while this one was ten years younger, but the same name made me think that possibly the fax in 1993 concerning “Rodney Allen” could refer to that boy?”

    Maybe, but why not use his family name?

    Like

  12. shellywebstere permalink
    November 24, 2012 2:31 am

    “I wonder if Rodney Allen for the Canadian scammer could be a pseudonym?”

    They don’t use pseudonym in court doc. Rodney Allen’s pseudonym was John Templeton.

    Like

  13. November 24, 2012 2:14 am

    Guys, I hate to say it but from this damned Sullivan’s book I learned that when Michael was sixteen (in 1974) he befriended a boy who co-hosted with him a Music Awards show. His name was Rodney Allen Rippy.

    It could NOT be “our” Canadian Rodney Allen who was involved in a scam against Jackson in 1995 as that Rodney Allen was 2 years older than Michael while this one was ten years younger, but the same name made me think that possibly the fax in 1993 concerning “Rodney Allen” could refer to that boy?

    Sullivan says that when they befriended each other it was mere talking on the phone. As I said earlier the words “taken aback” are absolutely out of place here:

    Shortly before his sixteenth birthday, it struck Michael hard that he had never in his life made a real friend. His attempt to rectify that confused everyone around him, especially the members of his family. At the 1974 American Music Awards ceremony, Michael and Donny Osmond had served as cohosts with six-year-old Rodney Allen Rippy, a child actor who had appeared in several feature films, including Mel Brooks’s Blazing Saddles, but was best-known for a series of sickly sweet Jack in the Box commercials that had featured his frustrated attempts to get a grip on a Jumbo Jack. The boy had been taken aback when Michael asked for his phone number, and was stunned when the pop star began to call him every Saturday morning, at exactly ten o’clock. They were buddies, nothing more, as Rippy would take pains to make clear later: “ Michael would give me advice about how to handle myself in show business, about smiling at people and shaking their hands. It was just stuff like that we talked about. Very ordinary. It absolutely amazed me that Michael Jackson was interested in what was going on in my little world.”

    I wonder if Rodney Allen for the Canadian scammer could be a pseudonym?

    Like

  14. November 23, 2012 6:17 pm

    “she is obviously a pedophile herself who cannot face her own demons.” – free spirit

    Free spirit, I like your name but think that Dimond isn’t a pedophile, though her spirit is rotten inside out.

    Using the expression attributed to Pellicano, she is worse than a pedophile. She is someone totally indifferent to real crimes against children as her own account of the Canadian boy story shows it. She is a specimen of those who only pretend that they are “deeply concerned” but in reality don’t give a damn.

    Diane Dimond is the embodiment of HYPOCRISY which was and is making its big business on Michael Jackson’s case. Hypocrites are a big evil – they feign concern for the “commmon good”, pretend that they care about the ills of the society, lull their own and other people’s conscience into thinking that “measures to fight the problem have been taken” and all this time under the cover of all this noisy pretence real criminals feel absolutely free to commit their crimes.

    Child abusers also take part in this common hypocrisy which allows them to do what they like after they do their own portion of hypocritical “fighting the problem”. Hypocrisy in social affairs, hypocrisy in religion, hypocrisy in the media, hypocrisy in law enforcement bodies – there is a lot of hypocrisy all around us, and as a result of it the civilization is quickly going downhill with this loud hypocritical noise making a perfect background for the collapse. They make so much noise that no one hears the screams of the real victims behind it.

    Like

  15. Free Spirit permalink
    November 23, 2012 11:42 am

    Dimond *says* she’s against pedophilia, but her actions tell a different story, and much more loudly than her words. Why else did she correspond so exclusively with a now-convicted pedophile and a man whose actions lean very heavily toward such as well?

    Here’s why: she is obviously a pedophile herself who cannot face her own demons. So she hurts those who are better than her. That’s why she took Michael down. He was perfection; a saint; a ray of light who absolutely cared about the well-being of children at any cost. His pure goodness angered her to the core because it reminded her of her own vile, putrid fantasies. He wanted to change the world for the better; she could not let that happen. She wanted to see children continue to suffer at the hands of people like Rodney Allen and possibly Victor Gutierrez, so she took down the one man who cared more for children than any human being ever. In other words, she was a bully who hated herself and used Michael as a scapegoat to suffer for her own self-righteous indignation.

    Real pedophiles use their facade of “care” as a front to fool the world of their true intentions, just like Jerry Sandusky did. Dimond knows this and used that same tactic for herself; her false compassion and dis-ingenuousness was blatantly obvious over the last 19 years that it made me want to slap her many times. She always came across as condescending and morally superior, which only idiots and other vile people fell for. Michael never came across like that. And the fact that–when confronted on either television or off the air–she exhibits abusive, manipulative tactics like diversion, evasion, denial, and condescension, should tell anyone with a modicum of common decency and common sense that she is a pervert herself. She is cunning and deceitful, just like Allen. She’s nothing more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

    The reason children flocked to Michael is that he was genuine. Children sensed and felt something in him that they loved and could relate to. The late Fred Rogers (of the show “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood”) always believed that “children can spot a phony a mile away.” I have no doubt that if the same children who flocked to Michael were to watch Dimond’s self-righteously indignant rants on TV, they’d be put off by her in an instant. I know I was back in 1993; I knew in my heart and soul that Michael could never hurt a child. The rantings from people like Dimond turned me off completely. Now I know why: they are terrible people who only care about destroying the world. They took Michael down because he wanted to heal it.

    Like

  16. November 22, 2012 6:01 pm

    Congratulations on your three years of fact finding !!..So much great information has been put out by this blog.. – Nannoris

    Thank you! It is our joint work! Isn’t it a surprise how the time is flying?

    Happy Thanksgiving to all Americans!

    Like

  17. nannorris permalink
    November 22, 2012 7:39 am

    Congratulations on your three years of fact finding !!..So much great information has been put out by this blog..
    Think of all the progress made on behalf of MJ legacy, and how many people have access to it..
    It is amazing how much has been accomplished on this blog..
    Happy Anniversary<3

    Like

  18. Mado permalink
    November 22, 2012 2:03 am

    Thank you so much. I read all your articles with a hungry eye. God Bless you.

    Like

  19. November 21, 2012 1:13 pm

    “What has been done by Diane Dimond, Martin Bashir ,most with a connection to pedofiles. A book that includes this pertinent information of Michael´s life is yet to come.” – kaarin

    Yes, that book is yet to come. All of us are writing it here.

    Like

  20. November 21, 2012 12:13 pm

    Also Happy Anniversary from me! It’s amazing what was accomplished within these 3 years and that so many people came together to make a change.
    Thank you so much, Helena, for all your hard work, and all the others who made their contributions.
    May your health also stay strong, Helena, and I wish especially that your mother’s health will improve again.
    I will stay tuned for the next 3 years and hope that we will see more changes in the public perception of Michael.
    His inspiration is endless and will show us the way.

    Like

  21. November 21, 2012 3:28 am

    VMJ you have come a long way in making up for wrongs done to MJ.Numerous books have been published.None of them have described the systematic destruction of Michael´s public image.What has been done by Diane Dimond, Martin Bashir ,most with a connection to pedofiles.The list is long.Even so there are some bright spots on the horizon, some writers with integrity have written articles very positive re MJ.A book that includes this pertinent information of Michael´s life is yet to come.

    Like

  22. November 21, 2012 2:51 am

    Congratulations and Happy Anniversary VindicateMJ (Helena).!!!

    Oh Susan, Tatum, Aldebaran, everybody – thank you so much! It feels like a birthday!

    P.S. Helena, sending prayers and good wishes for the good health of your Mother.

    I am very thankful to you and to all those who prayed with me – I know that you did because some small miracles have indeed taken place! I just keep my fingers crossed and know that if we pull through this hard period in our life it will be only due to your prayers for us. This is the power of love which is totally incredible.

    I wish all of you good health too. We still need to do a lot together and simply cannot afford to be weak.

    Like

  23. Susan M-S permalink
    November 21, 2012 1:24 am

    Congratulations and Happy Anniversary VindicateMJ (Helena).!!!

    Many thanks to all who contribute by their research and comments. You are wonderful people.

    Your hard work and research are most appreciated. Thank you for all you do! Much love, from Canada!

    P.S. Helena, sending prayers and good wishes for the good health of your Mother.

    Like

  24. November 21, 2012 1:11 am

    “With that IQ he did quite well, owning a bus company. Is it possible that he was a member of NAMBLA too? I would think they would be careful with someone that careless in his activities, mental heath problems and possibly addictions as well.”

    Kaarin, of course we can be almost sure that Rodney Allen was a member of NAMBLA. Their application form is very simple and they do not test the IQ of their applicants – definitely not! From what I’ve read about it they ask for a fee and request their members to confirm their dedication to their “cause” by, for example, writing greeting cards to incarcerated boylovers or contributing articles to their journal (under a pseudonim of course).

    Over there they have chatrooms, forums, etc. where they post as “John”, “Bill”, etc. and since they need someone to share their ideas with getting into the “club” is one of the ways to get to know their kind. Otherwise how will they know each other? They are terribly afraid that they will make a mistake and befriend a secret police agent who will uncover their activities. And many years of membership in the “organization” gives them some guarantees of “safety”. They also receive special publications from their organization (don’t know how though).

    This is why I think that Rodney Allen was a member.

    Like

  25. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 20, 2012 10:25 pm

    Thanks for all YOU do, Helena, and thanks to all those who have been inspired by Michael and who work to reveal the truth of this great artist.

    Happy Anniversary, VMJ!!

    Like

  26. November 20, 2012 10:07 pm

    To: Vindicating Michael & Helena.
    Happy 3rd Anniversary. Word from the Musical “Dolly” comes to mind. “It is so nice to have you back where you belong”
    – Dialdancer

    Oh my God, Dial thank you! You are right, it is indeed three years since this blog started! I always forget. Today is November 20th? On November 21, 2009 an American whom I “met” on the MichaelJackson.com forum (her internet name was MJJmahal) created this blog and asked me to continue with it by copying here what I was writing in the forum. I could never imagine that it would become a new home for me (and probably for other people who feel that way here too).

    I am very thankful to MJJmahal. Without her I would have never started it – at the time I didn’t even know what blogging is. And I didn’t know that wordpress was providing these services free. I thought that it was a terribly expensive and sophisticated thing which I would never manage to do and was afraid even to think of. People never know what they are capable of until they try… It was the same with Susanne who actually wrote a book about Michael never expecting it of herself either.

    Michael Jackson had a miraculous effect on all of us. I don’t know how you feel but I see myself now as a totally new person and don’t even remember what I was like “before Michael”.

    Now he is my family, my brother, my teacher and advisor, and the people whom he brought into my life are my dearest friends. Even those of us who I clashed with in the blog only recently are also like a family to me with whom we have a sort of a family quarrel which is forgotten with time.

    All of it is nothing short of a miracle.

    I love my readers very much. You are incredible people who love thinking, learning, researching. You do a lot on your own and the example of what you do inspires me to go further when I feel that I can no longer walk. You support like no other…

    You are great people and I am very thankful to you. And I thank Michael that he has brought us all together – so different and still so close to each other. He should be proud of us.

    Thank you very much, my dear ones.

    Like

  27. November 20, 2012 8:00 pm

    To: Vindicating Michael & Helena.

    Happy 3rd Anniversary.

    Word from the Musical “Dolly” comes to mind.

    “It is so nice to have you back where you belong”

    Like

  28. November 20, 2012 7:53 pm

    @ differentkindofree

    DD was not hellbent on “getting” Michael. That implies she believed him guilty. She IS hellbent on returning to her days of Media glory as Queen of the Tabloids.

    Like

  29. November 20, 2012 7:17 pm

    “when I tried to write the same comment on the Huffington Post site on the same article, I was blocked. I couldn’t write any comment anymore on her articles in the HuffPost”

    Yes, Susanne, I had absolutely the same experience and also with the Huffington Post site – some of my comments stayed while the most important ones, about her reliance on information from Victor Gutierrez, could not be posted no matter how I tried. When the comments stopped posting I thought it was some malfunction, but since you also have the same experience it is clear that she doesn’t want anyone to know about her cooperation with Gutierrez! Well, this is the best proof that we are right…

    I’ve noticed it long ago that ALL of them are a little embarassed when it comes to the name of Victor Gutierrez. Sneddon would not name him either. When asked about Gutierrez he said that his whole department read the book, but he didn’t mention the author. It seems that all of them want Gutierrez to be invisible or non-existent.

    Like

  30. November 20, 2012 6:54 pm

    Has anyone made the same experience? – As soon as you mention DD’s relationship with VG in a public comment she tries to block you.
    Some time ago I wrote a comment about DD’s contacts to VG on this Creators website where she had published her recent articles. It’s still there, obviously she couldn’t do anything about it, but when I tried to write the same comment on the Huffington Post site on the same article, I was blocked. I couldn’t write any comment anymore on her articles in the HuffPost.
    She apparently tries to conceal this part of the story – her contacts to real p……s, perhaps hoping that it will be forgotten.
    That’s why your article is of huge importance, Helena.

    Like

  31. nannorris permalink
    November 20, 2012 4:40 am

    Diane Dimind doesnt care about children, she cares about her career..I wrote, on her page,when she came out with her comparison on mj and sandusky… that Sandusky was an actual pedophile and MJ was the poster child for having your life ruined by false allegations and that there were plenty of people in that courtroom abusing children , but MJ wasnt one of them….and she blocked me.
    These prosecutors ,, and DD didnt care one bit about these kids, or they would have taken Jordan away from his mental father (notice they didnt drag Evan Chandler into court), they wouldnt have brow beat Jason Francia into making false accusations, and they never would have taken the Arvizo case to court..if it wasnt about getting Mj because it was blatantly obvious the kid was lying..Now MJ is dead and these kids are despised world wide, all for their own selfish ambition..
    In my opinion, DD doesnt even care about her buddies , the prosecutors .She was using them too..Zonen is going to be defending that case for the rest of his life..And its not going to get any easier because more people are finding out the truth.
    She and VG, are cut from the same cloth…..they lack integrity and conscience …She knows MJ was innocent , or she wouldnt specifically need to leave things out , when she is talking about settlements and other things and she know VG is a pervert,, because anyone who looks at that book and the man that wrote it,, that put disgusting remarks under a childs picture, has to know..Instead she used her powers of persuasion on Sneddon, who ate it up like a hungry dog..He thought DD and him were going to be famous for putting MJ away, but it was him who had his professional reputation ruined , because he abused the power of his office on their behalf…..She wont be ruined because she is already the lowest ….she is a.tabloid reporter.

    Like

  32. shellywebstere permalink
    November 20, 2012 4:11 am

    “Oh, I see what you mean. You think that the kid Diane Dimond talked to was the one from Rogester because he wanted to be an actor and was a “professional” as Rodney Allen said? “

    Yes, it’s what I meant. I believe Allen almost said it when he claimed the kid was a professional liar. In a certain way it’s what actors do.

    Like

  33. November 20, 2012 3:50 am

    Diane Dimond,the pedofiles best friend.She deserves a medal from NAMBLA:
    Tell me who your friends are and,,no tell me who your sources are, DD a ? JOURNALIST?
    Congratulations for the great job,Helena!This Allen Rodney looks real rotten on the prison photo.On an earlier photo you only see him vaguely,but he looks OK.With that IQ he did quite well.owning a bus company.Is it possible that he was a member of NAMBLA too?
    I would think they would be careful with someone that careless in his activities, mental heath problems and possibly addictions as well.

    Like

  34. November 20, 2012 2:41 am

    This is what I am talking about: [12] On the dangerous offender application, the Crown led other evidence to show that Mr. Allen sought out pubescent boys. In one case, he induced a fourteen-year-old boy – who was interested in an acting or modeling career – to come to Toronto from Rochester on the pretext that he was an agent for young boys and worked for a company called “American Entertainment”.” – Shelly

    Oh, I see what you mean. You think that the kid Diane Dimond talked to was the one from Rogester because he wanted to be an actor and was a “professional” as Rodney Allen said? Probably it was even some kind of a game Rodney Allen played with him – you pass the test with all your acting and I arrange a role for you in a movie? It is quite possible!

    If this supposition is correct, then it means that Allen induced the boy to leave his home and stay at Allen’s premises. The story about him being a street kid could be an invention, though he could indeed live on the street when in Rogester.

    There is no doubt that since he stayed in Toronto in one home with a pedophile he was subjected to at least some kind of molestation. And this is why this case was brought up by the court.

    But if the boy really lived with Rodney Allen then it explains Diane Dimond’s total indifference to their official version that this boy “lived on the streets of Toronto”. It shows that she knew that he wasn’t living on the street. After all she had received numerous calls from Canada and could trace back the number from which he was calling. She also saw that the boy was wearing clean clothing and didn’t look like a vagabond.

    But in this case she should have realized all the more so that there was an unnatural connection between Rodney Allen and the boy. She could have easily guessed it (if she did not know it already). I think she knew…

    Like

  35. shellywebstere permalink
    November 20, 2012 2:07 am

    This is what I am talking about

    [12] On the dangerous offender application, the Crown led other evidence to show that
    Mr. Allen sought out pubescent boys. In one case, he induced a fourteen-year-old boy –
    who was interested in an acting or modeling career – to come to Toronto from Rochester
    on the pretext that he was an agent for young boys and worked for a company called
    “American Entertainment”.

    http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2007/2007onca421/2007onca421.pdf

    Like

  36. November 20, 2012 1:58 am

    “I wrote Dimond on her Facebook page about this scam when she tried to compare Michael to Sandusky.” – Tatum

    I’ve been thinking about the difference between them – and I mean not the real difference we know of, but the outward signs of this difference, and have to say the following.

    It will be difficult to point out these outward differences, and not because Michael was anything like Sandusky (he absolutely wasn’t!), but because of the formality of this approach.

    If you look at the outward side of the story a car presented by Michael to a boy looks like a present pedophiles make to their victims. The big difference emerges only when you look at the details. The car was presented to a boy ill with AIDS (Ryan White) to whom not only pedophiles but all the others were afraid to come up.

    Michael went to a jacuzzi with Rhyan White, and again the fact that the boy was ill with AIDS shows all the difference in the world between him and real ped-les who would run away from an AIDS victim like the plague.

    Michael called his friends and they talked for hours, and ped-les also do it, only Michael called not only boys but Glenda, or Princess Diane, or Elizabeth Taylor, for example and they also talked for hours. He even sang songs to people over the telephone or had singing lessons with his teacher. For a person who is sitting in a hotel miles away from home and cannot go anywhere a telephone may be the only link with the outside world, so though outwardly it looks similar to what ped-les do, the essence of it is totally different.

    Michael’s case may also outwardly look “the same” because it was handled by professionals. I mean it was handled by “professional” pedophiles who introduced into the picture all the “trademarks” of their style and interpreted each and every move of Michael Jackson the way pedophiles do it. This is why Diane Dimond, Tom Sneddon and the others used the services of these people. They needed the specific ped-lia interpretation of each MJ’s move and they also needed their help for arranging provocations against him (like those with “Rhonda” book, for example).

    Do ped-les show pictures with naked people to children? They do. But why did MJ show a book with photos of naked people to Corey Feldman? Because it was a book on veneral diseases and the essence and goal of that conversation was totally the opposite to “grooming”. How could it be “grooming” if the sight of all the horrors can only cool the desire to have sex with anyone at all? But formally it is the same – “he showed the pictures of naked people to a boy”…formally yes…

    However there is one big, even huge difference between Michael and real p-les – and it is the children who associated with him, their behavior, their attitude, their mood, their impressions, their memories of him. In contrast to real victims who, even when adults, completely break down when they remember their experience, the children who associated with Michael are like the rays of light – they brighten up when they recall him, they smile, they tell jokes, they feel relaxed and if they do feel sad it is only when they recall that Michael is no longer alive.

    Mind you that these are the children who, like Michael, were harassed for many years of their lives – they were humiliated, ridiculed, laughed at and dragged through the mud – in short they suffered a lot as a result of their friendship with Michael, but despite all that they are still smiling when they recall him!

    We can say that these children are Michael’s best vindication. He enveloped them with profound but innocent love, and now they are paying him back with his full exoneration. Michael always thought children to be the saviors and they are.

    Like

  37. shellywebstere permalink
    November 20, 2012 1:25 am

    @vindicate,

    In the Rodney Allen court doc, they said he had a minor previous criminal record. He convinced a kid from Rochester, a kid who wanted to be an actor Orchestrée, to come to Toronto. Allen told him he was a movie producer.

    Like

  38. November 20, 2012 12:56 am

    “I agree that the victims Dimond claims she spoke to were probably molestation victims – but they had nothing to do with Michael.” -Tatum

    Of course they had nothing to do with Michael! And of course they were molestation victims… Now that I’ve found a report of sociology professors from Pennsylvania University I know it for sure. All street kids are either current or future molestation victims. The impression I have of the report is that all of us should immediately drop whatever we are doing now and urgently – I mean urgently – do something to curb the situation which results in children finding themselves on the street.

    Previously I thought that they were somehow to blame for it, at least partially (“they shouldn’t have run away”), but now my understanding of the problem is completely different.

    I have to retype the report as it is doesn’t translate into Word (it is encrypted! and evidently not meant for the eyes of the general public) however I think that it should be known to each and everyone of us. When you read it all of us will understand why Michael was crying over every abandoned child. This report has turned me into someone like him as now I also see the problem of abandoned children as the worst problem on earth.

    Like

  39. November 20, 2012 12:12 am

    “I believe the kid from Rochester is the Dimond’s kid”

    Shelly, I am sorry, but since I also suffer from amnesia, can you remind me who the kid from Rochester was?

    Like

  40. November 20, 2012 12:07 am

    “It wasn’t that long ago that someone asked Diane about her connection to Gutierrez and the lawsuit that was filed. Her reply to them was that it was an urban myth.”

    Lynande, if this is what she is saying she should be placed in a respective mental institution for treatment before it is too late. How can Michael’s case against her be an urban myth if we have court papers of it? Could someone please send these papers to this Alzheimers patient?
    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1288872.html

    Like

  41. November 19, 2012 11:54 pm

    “It’s absolutely disgusting at how hellbent she was to get Michael that she was wiling to let a real pedophile go unnoticed.”-differentkindofree

    To be frank I think that all this time Diane Dimond knew that she was talking to a pedophile. And she knew about Gutierrez as well. Anyone will know after he/she reads Gutierrez’s book. And Gutierrez published his book in the US in 1997, however even after that Dimond continued to cooperate with him.

    ALL of them knew who these people were and this is the worst part of it.

    Have you noticed that the faces of Rodney Allen and Victor Gutierrez are never shown by Diane Dimond in full light? Do you remember Peretti’s “documentary” where Dimond and Gutierrez took part? Over there Gutierrez is interviewed in the dark of the car and all we see is a dark outline of his face. Compare it with the way they showed Bob Jones and you will see the difference.

    The same is in this video. Rodney Allen is shown from his back only or in so much dark that we are unable to see his face. Why so? One would imagine that after uncovering a scam a truthful journalist will find it necessary to show the face of the scammer, however she behaves as if she is protecting Rodney Allen from the limelight. The boy’s face is not shown for obvious reasons which Dimond explains at the beginning of the video, but why Rodney Allen?

    In both cases of Gutierrez and Allen Diane Dimond is covering up for them. And in this particular video the fact that she is covering up for Rodney Allen shows, firstly, which side this “objective” reporter is (the side of the scammer) and secondly, this way she displays her “understanding” of reasons why this person doesn’t want to be recognized. He has reasons of his own, and she KNOWS them.

    Like

  42. shellywebstere permalink
    November 19, 2012 10:30 pm

    Aldebaran, it’s probably him who called the FBI in 1993. He was living with his mom and he probably convinced her to call the FBI.

    Like

  43. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 19, 2012 11:31 am

    Great work, VMJ–really outstanding!! Your questions to DD are excellent, and you are so right that she walked away from a child in need (and other street children) and failed to investigate an extremely suspicious situation where an adult exploited a child to encourage him to lie, and I would say the police were too lax as well since they no doubt knew about Allen’s past offenses in 1983, and yet they detained the child and not, apparently, the adult. The contrast you make to how Michael really cared about vulnerable and suffering children is powerful.

    If Rodney Allen had a borderline intelligence, below average cognitive ability, how did he come up with such a detailed, well-developed plan, including believable drawings of NL and Hayvenhurst, photos of NL employees, and so on?? He must have had some help from someone with a greater mental capacity. It’s too bad the fax from 1993 is not available, not even the actual date it was sent. I am wondering how far that fax was followed up on by the D.A.s in 93. Was it as detailed as the 95 situation?

    Since we know VG and DD were both involved in 93, did they know about this fax and Rodney Allen back then? Did they set this up in 95 by deciding to follow up at last on his allegations? Or did they help him out in constructing the boy’s story? If this happened, it was probably VG who took that risk as he was in more danger from the videotape fiasco.

    Another question, why didn’t the prosecutors go to Canada to interview this boy–why did Hard Copy go instead? Supposedly, Sneddon was keeping the criminal case open, right? Or was this something Sneddon did for DD to help her with the defamation suit? It just seems so strange that a child alleges molestation and yet a TV show goes to investigate and not the police, either in Canada or in USA. For that matter, Sneddon could have asked the cops in Toronto to investigate and get back to him.

    The fact that Rodney Allen was involved in 93 is very suspicious. The police said they followed up on every lead b/c they wanted to find more ‘victims’–so what happened with this lead? If Rodney Allen’s fax was so unbelievable that they didn’t follow up in 93, how did he get so much better at putting together allegations, and having a child ‘victim’ who knew so much right at hand, in 95?

    You are right this is a cleverly manipulated PR ploy to smear Michael and make DD and Hard Copy look good.

    btw, there is a typo–you say ‘Susan Lu” but you mean Susan Yu, right?

    Like

  44. November 19, 2012 8:49 am

    Good article VMJ. I wrote Dimond on her Facebook page about this scam when she tried to compare Michael to Sandusky. She talked about how there are other victims that she talked to about Michael and blah blah blah. I wrote something along the lines of Really? Were they like the kid you interviewed in Canada or the ones you wrote about in your book that testified under oath it never happened?

    I must have hit a nerve because she actually took the time to respond to me. She claimed: in case you’re forgetting I am the one who ended up taking the boy to the police. This Canadian material could have been an attempt to seem neutral or to get more dirt. I believe it was an attempt to get more dirt and only because THEY ended up telling her the truth, she was forced to play private detective. She didn’t respond after that one.

    Why didn’t she, as a self-proclaimed fighter against pedophilia, didn’t use this rare chance and move her little finger to try and research the real pedophilia problem that was glaring in her face in the streets of Toronto? – Vindicate MJ

    I agree that the victims Dimond claims she spoke to were probably molestation victims – but they had nothing to do with Michael. I think it’s safe to say the prosecution interviewed victims and probably let dozens of actual pedophiles go to pursue a lie. It’s interested how you brought up the lawsuit too, because I saw Diane Dimond on CNN in 2003 lying about winning the case. She labeled VG, her source, and he was sued. It’s ridiculous how Dimond loves using pedophiles as sources. Ugh. Is she really against pedophilia, she can’t seem to tell when she’s working with one.

    Like

  45. lynande51 permalink
    November 19, 2012 8:17 am

    It wasn’t that long ago that someone asked Diane about her connection to Gutierrez and the lawsuit that was filed. Her reply to them was that it was an urban myth. Well here’s another urban myth for you Diane. Now, considering Rodney Allen’s locale do we for any reason think it was someone else that called the FBI about noises on a train?

    Like

  46. differentkindofree permalink
    November 19, 2012 7:05 am

    WOW!!! This is INCREDIBLE. I was wondering what the connection between MJ’s slander suit and this ‘scam’ was. You guys are geniuses for figuring it out. It’s absolutely disgusting at how hellbent she was to get Michael that she was wiling to let a real pedophile go unnoticed.

    Like

  47. shellywebstere permalink
    November 19, 2012 6:52 am

    I believe the kid from Rochester is the Dimond’s kid

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Mr. Hooker’s Hook-ups: Sham, or Shame-worthy? « Cross & Culture

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: