Skip to content

DIANE DIMOND, a Shark That Swims in Safe Waters Only

December 6, 2017

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

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

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

Another example of it is Diane Dimond:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can’t imagine it?!  

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


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

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

A Pause, Please, in the Sex Talk

November 20, 2017 by Diane Dimond

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 13, 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diane Dimond out at Court TV

Aug. 30, 2005 at 4:21 PM

By The Associated Press

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

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

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

Reporter Diane Dimond off Court TV

Aug. 30, 2005 at 12:22 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diane January 28, 2010 at 4:03 pm

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

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

Diane October 23, 2010 at 5:11 pm

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

DianeDimond October 3, 2009 at 3:50 pm

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

by DIANE DIMOND on JULY 2, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diane Dimond July 10, 2012 at 8:56 am

Dear Imat:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

And more of the same kind.

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

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

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

34 Comments leave one →
  1. December 7, 2017 10:07 am

    Helena, thank you that you picked this up and made a detailed informative post of it. It is in fact necessary to remind everybody time and again of the one-sided, spiteful attitude this woman had towards Michael, and of her biased actions and interviews which always showed her hateful obsession with him.
    For a short second I also wondered if she possibly regrets something in her behavior towards Michael when I read about her “doing things decades ago that she is not proud of”, but only for a second. It is simply impossible that this shark would admit any errors. She would never specify which things she is not proud of.

    However, the truth continues to make one step after the other:
    Now the Santa Barbara police admitted they found Corey Feldman’s recorded testimony of 1993 and gave it to the Los Angeles police for further investigation.

    And also, Dylan Howard now gets the attention of other media than his own, when he is accused himself of sexual abuse now.
    An interesting article of the New York Times even tells that Weinstein had cooperated with media people to invent stories on Michael Jackson and others to distract from his own scandals.

    This is the proof for what we always said: Michael Jackson has been established for decades as a scapegoat for the real predators to distract from their crimes. Now we need to see their names in the headlines.


  2. December 7, 2017 5:44 pm

    Diane Dimond is from the very same Jewish community of the Hollywood pedo ring!!!
    She is one of them!


  3. December 8, 2017 3:39 pm

    “An interesting article of the New York Times even tells that Weinstein had cooperated with media people to invent stories on Michael Jackson and others to distract from his own scandals.” – Susannerb

    Yes, this is a direct proof that this was and probably still is their modus operandi.

    The above article and two more by Ronan Farrow are a must read: and

    All of them are an eye-opener on how powerful Weinstein and evidently other moguls like him are and what power they can exert on public opinion through their connections in the friendly media.

    For countries where the media is under the foot of the political regime things like that are no problem at all – who is told to be got rid of will be humiliated, slandered and condemned, stripped of his/her last belongings, subsequently jailed on framed-up charges and even worse, and all of it following some mysterious ‘recommendations’ from the above.

    But in the US presidents and parties come and go, but some bigwigs stay and establish ties with similar big shots in the media to impose their agenda on the public – and Weinstein/Dylan Howard ‘cooperation’ is more than telling in this respect.

    When I was reading about Weinstein’s escapades I was constantly under the impression that some media even derived the wicked pleasure from describing ‘the real thing’ on the one hand, but attributing it to an innocent man on the other hand, knowing that the poor Jackson was so hunted down that he had no strength to fight back. In fact they didn’t even have to invent anything – they simply used what they saw Weinstein (and others) doing before their own eyes and used it as a blueprint for what to ‘describe’ about Jackson.

    Remember how many times we heard them claim that there were no more “victims” of MJ because all of them were “scared”? The claim was openly laughable, even if you looked at the frail and barely alive Jackson, but they still kept saying it.

    And now that we read about Weinstein we see how this system of intimidating and silencing people, men and women alike, really works. These people are not only scared, but they lose jobs and are blacklisted forever, their names are smeared in the press, their complaints never go anywhere and they face lawsuits for defamation, their best friends suddenly turn out to be agents working for the people they accuse, and they don’t understand who is who and where to turn for help.

    Ronan Farrow wrote:

    “McGowan said that the agencies and law firms enabled Weinstein’s behavior. As she was targeted, she felt a growing sense of paranoia. “It was like the movie ‘Gaslight,’ ” she told me. “Everyone lied to me all the time.” For the past year, she said, “I’ve lived inside a mirrored fun house”

    This must be how Michael Jackson was living too – like in a mirrored fun house. First they created another ‘Gaslight’ movie for him and then laughed at his paranoia. Well, he had every reason for it.


  4. December 8, 2017 4:36 pm

    More information about Diane Dimond is coming from unexpected quarters.
    On December 5th, the Daily Michael blog wrote about the fresh developments in Robson’s case.

    And the first thing we learn is that at the discovery stage Robson and his lawyers didn’t find anything new. They tried to depose the Chandler and Spence families, but they continued to be uncooperative. Just imagine it – one “victim” harasses other “victims” to make them testify against Jackson, but they resist him, which is a totally opposite situation from the stream of complaints that usually pour once the floodgate is open by the first person who speaks up.

    Secondly, we learn that Robson’s support team includes the same personalities as before – Orietta Murdock, Donald Stark and Leroy Thomas of the so-called Hayvenhurst 5 who didn’t even work for MJ, Blanca Francia and Charlie Michaels with the same old stuff to which even Robson’s own mother said: “WOW. None of that is true”.

    And thirdly, one of those Hayvenhurst 5 said that the Hard Copy where Diane Dimond was working at the time wanted them to lie and make up stories about Michael.

    “They pretty much said we could pretty much say anything. Pretty much the way I interpreted it is that if we could fabricate what it is that we wanted.” (Starks Deposition).

    You can find all of it in the reply of the Estate to Robson’s opposition to their motion which I’ve retyped.

    It goes without saying that the Corporations absolutely deny that Michael Jackson ever engaged in sexual conduct with any minor as an adult. This is not an issue on this motion, however. The Corporations, for purposes of this motion alone, are not contesting that Robson can raise a triable issue of fact on the “knowledge” requirement of #340.1(b)2. Accordingly, the pages-and-pages of Robson’s opposition devoted to this issue are irrelevant. They are no more than an effort to smear and defame a person who has been gone for almost a decade and has no chance at all to defend himself or respond to these absurd allegations. All of this is immaterial to this motion, but given the salaciousness of the allegations a brief response is called for.

    Despite promising in his operative complaint to uncover that the Corporations were “the most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization the world has known,” Robson has uncovered nothing. His silly claim that Michael Jackson was some sort of serial child molester rests on the same tired allegations that were discredited in the 1990s and early 2000s, when the Los Angeles District Attorney wisely declined to prosecute Michael; while an overly zealous Santa Barbara District Attorney pressed charges only to see them repudiated by a unanimous jury of twelve citizens (in the conservative Santa Ynez Valley no less).

    In fact, every single witness proffered by Robson in this motion who implies that Michael Jackson did something wrong was laid off by Michael or one of his companies (most sued Michael and his companies) before coming forward with allegations years later. And every single one of them was paid at least $20,000 each by tabloid media to say what they did (all by the tabloid TV show, Hard Copy, and some by others as well). (Finaldi Declaration, B. Francia Deposition, Starks Deposition, Michaels Deposition, Thomas Deposition, Murdock Deposition).

    Indeed, one of the witnesses testified at his deposition in this case that Hard Copy “wanted us to [lie or to make up stories]… Oh, they pretty much said we could pretty much say anything. Pretty much the way I interpreted it is that if we could fabricate what it is that we wanted.” (Starks Deposition). All of these “witnesses” only came forward long after leaving Michael or his companies’ employ (years after) and only during the tabloid feeding frenzy created in late 1993 by the Chandler allegations.

    Moreover, every single accuser of Michael Jackson first went to a civil lawyer (the three before his death as minors, with their parents’ financial encouragement, and the three “adults” after his death, who are all represented the same lawyers) before making any public accusations or reporting the allegations to the authorities (in the case of the three who accused Michael when he was still alive). Going to a civil lawyer to explore being paid before ever going to the police speaks volumes about the credibility of the accusers. Joy Robson explains it best: “if it were my son, no amount of money would make that okay… If I thought that Michael had touched my son, I would not stop until he was behind bars.” (J. Robson Deposition)

    For the full story go to


  5. Asma permalink
    December 8, 2017 7:23 pm

    Oh dear,

    Helena here is something pretty recent. I confess I did not read this whole article, but it seems to be the child’s account in life with Bryan Singer. Iin case you are interested in asessing it, here you go:


  6. Asma permalink
    December 8, 2017 7:55 pm

    Hi again Helena,

    Just read a bit of the article I posted below and noticed that the young man speaking is not a child but of legal age when he met Singer. I still think article managed to lay out Singer’s personality and predatory inclinations. One thing that stood out to me is his costume of a Catholic Priest. There is nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but *knowing* his history and he *himself* knowing that rumors *do* exist, why choose that costume? For me personally, the message comes across as less than savory.

    Thank you so much for this post, btw. Susanne’s post is also very informative. I am processing it all as usual, and if it hasn’t come across yet, I always have a lot to say regarding this Dimond character, but it isn’t nice and filled with emotion. She deserves it though. One thing that is for certain is that she is no “investigative” anything and as you pointed out, quite a coward to boot. The only thing she has in common with a shark is her nose for blood because her style and manner of “reporting”, particularly in the case of Jackson is downright predatory in her own right. She disgusts me, *SHAME* on her.


  7. December 9, 2017 3:26 pm

    “Just read a bit of the article I posted below and noticed that the young man speaking is not a child but of legal age when he met Singer.” Asma

    Yes, I’ve read about it. The boy was 17 and the alleged rape took place in Seattle where the age of consent is said to be 16. But if we are to believe him he didn’t give his consent and said NO.

    But even if there was a consent… what do 17-year old boys and girls understand about it? Essentially they are still children looking forward to adventures and only pretending to be grown-ups.

    His case has just been backed up by a much more detailed story by Singer’s teen lover Bret Styler Skopek. The way he describes it Singer and other power players have access to an endless stream of cute young boys exploited for their pleasure in exchange for promises of a career in Hollywood – much in the same way Weinstein did it with young women there. In both cases it is a well-oiled machine, for boys and girls alike.

    The difference of this latter boy is that his story is documented by text message exchanges and interviews with seven other young men. What struck me is that these power players start with plying these teens with alcohol and introducing them to drugs, so it’s no wonder that several years later they turn into hopeless drug addicts.

    Some excerpts from Skopek’s account:

    “It was a never-ending supply of cute young men,” Skopek recalled.

    Skopek left Los Angeles two years ago. But the story he tells — documented with text message exchanges and photographs with Singer, and verified in phone and email interviews with seven others — is reminiscent of the accounts of boy-toy-fueled excess depicted in Amy Berg’s 2014 documentary film An Open Secret.

    “I’ve seen wannabe YouTubers come. I’ve seen actors. I’ve seen singers. I’ve seen people like me that don’t know what they want to do,” Skopek told Deadline over several interviews. “You come (to LA) with dreams of being whatever. You’re still going to be caught up into this mess.”

    Meanwhile, others associated with Singer are in trouble all their own. Longtime Singer friend Gary Goddard took a leave of absence from his own entertainment design company after actor Anthony Edwards claimed the former Broadway producer molested him when he was a child. Another associate, former APA talent agent Tyler Grasham, who once credited Singer with helping launch his carer, was fired amid allegations of sexual assault.

    London-based director Duncan Roy, who said he has known Singer for more than 20 years, described the director’s “boy obsessions and sex tourism,” his use of prescription drugs, and his drinking in a 2014 blog post Some twentysomethings viewed a trip to Singer’s hot tub as a short-cut to the red carpet, he said.

    “In Hollywood, the question you get asked a million times is, ‘What wouldn’t you do to succeed?’ And your hunger is part of the deal with the devil,” said Roy in an interview with Deadline. “The horrible thing is that there’s an unwritten rule, an unspoken agreement, between anybody who arrives. Every single high school king and queen that arrives in L.A. knows what to expect. You do anything to get on because the riches, when they’re delivered to you, are profound.”

    “Watching the amount of people come in through the night,” Skopek said of the orchestrated sexual encounters. “The sad fact is this is how they think they have to live their lives. This is the only way to make it out there.”

    Skopek said the director had the power to lure almost anyone into his bedroom. Singer would watch a television show, see a hot guy, and ask his friends to contact the actor — as if casting the lead for his next big-budget film production.

    “It was like, ‘Let’s get on a roll. I want this guy in my room,’” Skopek said. “It’s shocking to me how easy it was.”

    Occasionally, Skopek saw the perquisites of being associated with a Hollywood A-lister, like joining Singer on the set of the CBS show Battle Creek in Manhattan Beach — even though he felt like an object on display.

    “I was looking over my shoulder while [Singer] was texting another person, ‘Hey, I have little Bret here. I want you to come over and do him,’ ” Skopek recalled.

    Over time, Skopek became disillusioned with a relationship that he saw as one-sided and emotionally vacant. He described himself as the “after-hours kid” who lived in service to director’s desires, awaiting Singer’s 2 AM text messages to come over. He lacked self-confidence, and barely recognized himself.
    “I was so depressed,” Skopek said. “They would lead me on that I could get an audition. But all you’re good for is sex.”

    While Skopek’s dreams of becoming a songwriter never materialized, despite his proximity to fame, the compositions he wrote about life in L.A. provided inspiration for his current project. He’s writing a fictionalized account of his time in Hollywood — a novel titled The Prince of Darkness, which he describes in his Kickstarter campaign as a coming-of-age story set in the City of Angels arrayed with “all kinds of colorful monsters.”

    “My book’s all about redemption,” Skopeck said. “It’s about having that voice and being able to use it.”
    The novel would bring Skopek back to Los Angeles in June of 2016 for one last encounter with a Hollywood power player.

    Grasham contacted Skopek, expressing interest in representing the young author. The agent sent a round-trip plane ticket and treated him to dinner — where he plied the young man with alcohol, an account similar to that provided by other accuserswho have come forward to allege misconduct against the former APA agent.

    The two men returned to Grasham’s place, Skopek said, where Skopek locked himself in the bathroom for two hours, feeling violently ill. When the young man emerged from the locked room and passed out on the agent’s bed, he claimed the agent sexually assaulted him, despite Skopek’s efforts to fight him off.

    “In the morning [Grasham] asks why there’s blood on the sheets. He said, ‘I guess I fingered you too hard. I’m sorry I was drunk.’ I was bleeding for a week,” Skopek recalled, adding. “It makes me realize these people don’t know what they’re doing sometimes. They are out to enjoy themselves. If they hurt someone in the process, they don’t even remember.”


  8. December 9, 2017 5:22 pm

    As regards the first Bryan Singer’s accuser – Cesar Sanchez-Guzman – some media says that “he apparently claims that he did not remember this alleged incident from 2003 until now.”
    He didn’t remember the RAPE?
    Well, if he really said it, it is a LIE.
    The same kind of a lie that Robson is now telling.
    Things like that are never forgotten.

    So either it was something consensual between Singer and Cesar Sanchez-Guzman, or it never happened at all.
    If he really said of course.


  9. December 12, 2017 9:25 pm

    As we’re on the subject of abuse allegations, Steve Bannon who runs the far-right wing website is campaigning for Roy Moore for the Alabama senate seat. In a previous post you made you pointed out how Andrew Breitbart and always had it out for Michael Jackson. They basically convicted MJ when he was accused of child molestation. Now Roy Moore is accused of molesting underage girls some 40 years ago. When it comes to Roy Moore, I’m not gonna convict him on an accusation alone. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. It’s too bad that the people who run don’t believe in the same philosophy when it comes to someone who was part of the entertainment industry like Michael Jackson. It’s amazing that Steve Bannon and are willing to give Roy Moore the same presumption of innocence that they denied Michael Jackson.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. December 13, 2017 3:49 pm

    “Steve Bannon who runs the far-right wing website is campaigning for Roy Moore for the Alabama senate seat. In a previous post you made you pointed out how Andrew Breitbart and always had it out for Michael Jackson. They basically convicted MJ when he was accused of child molestation.” – thevalleymovie

    Well, if I did mention them it could be only because they were one of many who convicted Michael on nasty gossip alone. Being a foreigner I can’t really differentiate who is who – right, left or other – and learning to know who is who and what they stand for will take much time and is not worth it.
    In fact all those who wanted to “get” Michael look to me the same kind and the only common feature they share, in my opinion, is their dirty mind and very often, their own depravity. I see a direct link here irrespective of their political views as a dirty way of thinking may be on both sides.

    Look at the utterly cynical Dylan Howard who showed porn to female employees at his office and even encouraged a journalist to have sex with people for information. Essentially it is the same as running a brothel – only there they get money from their prostitutes and here he wanted a story in repayment for sex. And I suspect that it didn’t matter to him whether the story was true or not as long as he could shift the responsibility for it to their ‘source’.
    So no wonder that people like him are able to look at others only within the limits of their own perception – they attribute to others their own motives and interpret other people’s actions only the way they see it. And since they are cynical and depraved they regard others as the same kind. People like that are and were intrinsically unable to understand Michael Jackson and his views.

    Now Roy Moore is accused of molesting underage girls some 40 years ago. When it comes to Roy Moore, I’m not gonna convict him on an accusation alone. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. It’s too bad that the people who run don’t believe in the same philosophy when it comes to someone who was part of the entertainment industry like Michael Jackson. It’s amazing that Steve Bannon and are willing to give Roy Moore the same presumption of innocence that they denied Michael Jackson.

    A very telling example, but hardly anything unusual. Michael Jackson was an easy target for these people and by going after him they evidently promoted their own – probably political – agenda and created for themselves an image of fighters against moral laxity, etc.
    And in case of Roy Moore it is their political image that may suffer, so they are demanding the “innocent until proven guilty” approach which they absolutely denied to Jackson. The usual hypocrisy and usual double standards which don’t surprise me at all.


  11. December 18, 2017 7:09 pm

    I’m still sick and tired of that same witch going on and on about Michael, her sick obsession and her harassment towards him just sickens me too much. I bet she’s severely knocked in the head as a baby, which makes her she doesn’t give a crap about actual evidence and keeps up with lying, feeding people too much poison in their heads.

    I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. If Dian Demon ever sets foot in my country of Canada again, I will deport her sorry ass back to where she came from.


  12. December 20, 2017 4:24 am

    Just a short information for the moment: The Robson case was finally dismissed yesterday by Judge Beckloff

    Also a link to the earlier ruling in 2015:

    I’m sure we will go deeper into this news at a later time. There is really to say a LOT about it.


  13. sanemjfan permalink
    December 21, 2017 12:49 am

    Here’s another article about the dismissal of Wade Robson’s frivolous lawsuit!


  14. Asma permalink
    December 21, 2017 3:06 pm

    I am glad thr case for Robson is dismissed but am quite angry at the way the media is reporting it. As always, they keep on (deliberately) leaving out details at how several things in Wade’s case do not add up as well as the claims his lawyers made (such as molesting Jane Doe because…she looked like a white boy?). How about Robson filing the lawsuit *after* not being hired by MJ’s companies for the cirque de soleil show.

    Correct me if I am off but are points like these so far off the factual radar, and that is why these papers do not report? Is there nothing in the way of concrete evidence that they can break down? I am *tired* of the media leaving room for speculation on Jackson’s every case and life and I am *tired* of bastards like Robson and Safechuck despite having cases that are thrown out in court, being treated like their issues are some sort of technicality therefore deserving of credibility and being financed for appeals. Who is financing them? Even in vindication, this man is never allowed his vindicatrd due. And I am *SICK* of it.


  15. December 21, 2017 3:50 pm

    Even though the matter is not fully reported by the media (no surprises here), this is still good news. At least from this moment on there will no longer be any more fake “victims” standing in a queue to extort money from the Estate. The window of opportunity for this type of industry is now closed.

    As to the details of the judge’s ruling here is a link to the document:


  16. Asma permalink
    December 21, 2017 5:32 pm


    Thank you for sharing the post. Question as I am ignorant in understanding legal language, could you explain to me what you mean by this type of industry of (of extorting money) is now closed? Meaning will there be no more fake victims from here on out? If so that is indeed terrific news. Forgive me, as legal language and understanding is a weakness of mine. Reading the document you posted right now…



  17. December 21, 2017 5:35 pm

    A very good review of Robson’s case and explanation of the judge’s ruling is on DailyMichael blog.
    We’ve all known that the judge’s ruling couldn’t be anything different and this piece once again explains the technical reasons why. But I was more impressed by Ivy’s comments on the content of Robson’s claims:

    Let’s be clear – Wade Robson is a liar

    Given how Wade has both claimed he was abused and he wasn’t abused and how it both cannot be correct, Robson is a liar. He either lied in 2005 or he is lying now. Estate repeatedly said they believe Robson is lying now for money. This also shows that Wade has no problems with lying under oath.

    This lawsuit has shown us multiple examples of Wade’s blatant lies. For example in an attempt to save his probate claim, Robson claimed he didn’t know MJ Estate existed. It turned out Robson himself reached out to Branca and went to meeting in Branca’s office wanting to work on Cirque projects. Not only Wade knew about the Estate but he knew about the executors – but he lied to save his probate claim.

    In his civil complaint Robson included a story by Charlie Michaels even though his mother told him it’s not true. And finally Wade extensively lied during the discovery process, hiding his emails and the book he was shopping around. (Link) There’s no ifs or buts about it, Robson blatantly lied during this lawsuit.

    “Why not exonerate him and let a jury decide”

    Another priceless gem by Robson’s lawyer Finaldi. First of all, Michael isn’t here to defend himself. News flash, it already happened, in 2005. Where Robson took the stand and denied any abuse under oath. During his recent deposition, Robson repeatedly stated that he lied during his testimony in 2005. So again, Robson had his chance to let a jury decide.

    What’s next?

    An appeal is very likely. Given how unrealistic Robson and his lawyers have acted throughout this process and they appealed Safechuck ruling, they will probably file an appeal in this case as well. The appeal would last 1-2 years, technically keeping this case alive. However odds of any appeal being successful is very low. They can’t win against Corporations Code, they will never be able to show that MJ Companies or anyone worked for Michael could have controlled Michael’s personal life.

    Robson has already started the next chapter of his life. He magically healed and went back to dancing – something he claimed he could never ever do and reminded him of his so called “abuse”. Robson is also getting ready to play the professional victim, motivational speaker, vedic meditation guru and so on. He might try to get his book published again. So in my personal opinion, neither Robson nor his abuse allegations are going anywhere soon.

    As Robson’s lawyers continue to misrepresent the case and the ruling in the media, let us address another comment that one of them, Vince Finaldi made to E! News.

    Finaldi’s comment: “We strongly disagree with the court’s ruling, as we firmly believe it is contrary to established California law and sets a dangerous precedent that endangers the State’s vulnerable children. For these reasons, we will be vigorously appealing this decision so that Wade’s case can be decided on its factual merits before a jury of his peers. The days of Hollywood legal teams’ usage of threats, bullying, intimidation, and disingenuous arguments to convince judges to dismiss cases are numbered.”

    First, the ruling is totally in accordance with California law. Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff is a very meticulous judge who gave Robson all the opportunities in the world to make his case. Among other things, throughout the four and a half years that this case has been going on, the Judge gave Robson four opportunities to amend his complaint, discovery opportunities and everything that is imaginable. So if Finaldi thinks they had a case then they had plenty of time to make it during the court proceeding. They did not.

    Second, Finaldi has some nerve talking about “threats, bullying, intimidation, and disingenuous arguments” as their side is the one which is guilty of all of the above.

    He did “reach out” to Jackson’s 1993 accuser, Jordan Chandler, but not in the way one would expect from a compassionate fellow “victim”. His “reaching out” only meant that he was trying to depose Jordan in support of his lawsuit, despite of Jordan obviously being opposed to it. Jordan, as he always does whenever it is time to tell his allegations in a court, ran away once again and refused to be served with the subpoena. As Wade’s legal team could not find him, they tried to depose his sister and his fianceé, who filed motions making it very clear that they do not want be dragged into Wade’s case. Instead of respecting the Chandlers’ obvious wish to stay away from the case, Wade’s legal team aggressively pursued them, filing counter-motions and trying to force them to testify. They even bragged in a tabloid article that they were trying to “hunt down” Jordan wherever he is hiding.

    They also aggressively pursued Jonathan Spence, a man who befriended Jackson in the 1980s as a child. Spence never accused Jackson of any wrongdoing and he still says that Jackson never did anything wrong to him, but he was one of those boys that the prosecution at the 2005 trial tried to represent as a “victim” despite of him claiming otherwise. Spence called out Robson’s lawyers for bullying him in one of his motions. “Plaintiff’s bullying behavior toward a non-party is inexcusable and speaks for itself”, his motion said.

    And the real disingenuous argument here is to blame Jackson’s companies and people employed by it for Robson’s alleged sexual abuse. Those companies were incidental to the relationship between the Robsons and Jackson, as one could clearly see from the deposition of Wade’s mother, Joy Robson. Despite of that Wade was suing them instead of his mother who was the one seeking contact with Jackson, who was the one allowing her son sleep in Jackson’s room even after the Chandler allegations, who was the one pursuing Jackson to help them move to the United States from Australia. This mother is only mentioned as some distant bystander in Wade’s complaint. Meanwhile employees of Jackson’s companies, such as Norma Staikos, are called a “madame” or “procurer of child sexual abuse” – that for things like putting the Robsons on the phone with Jackson when they went to Staikos and asked to meet Jackson. There is nothing more disingenuous than Robson’s arguments in this case.

    Full review is here (highly recommended):


  18. Asma permalink
    December 21, 2017 6:09 pm

    Thanls Helena and Sanemj as I see he also posted the link for daily Michael.

    Btw, in case you haven’t seen this already and would *like* to, here is an article regarding Gary Goddard:,amp.html?__twitter_impression=true


  19. December 23, 2017 5:35 am

    legal language and understanding is a weakness of mine”- Asma

    Legal language is difficult to understand for everyone and this is one of the reasons I think people will not read anything except what they are told by the press. And since the media explains to them that the case was dismissed due to ‘technicalities’ and ‘without ruling on the merits of the sex abuse claim’, this is the only thing people will remember. Michael will not be vindicated by this ruling.

    “could you explain to me what you mean by this type of industry of (of extorting money) is now closed? Meaning will there be no more fake victims from here on out?”

    Yes, this is what I meant. Exactly due to those ‘technicalities’ the business of extorting money by making allegations against Michael Jackson is now over. I’ve called it ‘industry’ because this is what it actually was.

    Even if the law is amended and there is no statute of limitations on sex abuse crimes as Corey Feldman wants it (which I fully support in the interests of real victims of child sex abuse), in my opinion this law cannot be extended for the deceased. It should concern only the living who also have the right to face their accusers and defend themselves in court. The deceased have no such opportunity, so making charges against them would be the equivalent of denying them justice.

    But in any case Corey Feldman is talking about criminal charges, while Robson filed a civil lawsuit and wanted money. And now, unless the civil law is not drastically changed, there will be no more opportunities for fake ‘victims’ of Michael Jackson to make allegations about him. This is the only positive result I see in this extremely long-running lawsuit.

    The only one.


  20. December 23, 2017 3:51 pm

    Don’t forget that in 2008, about a year before Michaels death Michael and WR with families
    had a pleasant get together.
    Diane Dimond made persecuting Michael her life’s work. Michael sued her for 100 millioh$
    but she ran to the unscrupulous bigot Sneddon for a” journalists shield” Is that not a technicality? DD is totally corrupt ,rotten to the core.


  21. Asma permalink
    December 25, 2017 3:15 pm

    Hello Helena,

    Thank you for explaining! Since you put it that way I feel a small tinge of relief that the statute of limitations are not extended just yet. I think, as you broke down, they really should incorporate deceased and living before making that law a reality just yet. It is bad enough that the laws here allow for slander of the deceased in the media is bad enough. I do understand though, and support Feldman’s endeavor like you, and hope the laws will take all these things into account.

    As for Diamond…I just hope Karma will publicly bute her in the you know where and we can all have the satisfaction of witnessing it. Not very mature of me to say, but I just hate her. Always have since I was 16.


  22. Asma permalink
    December 25, 2017 3:29 pm


    I also wanted to add agreement to what you said regarding most people not understanding technical language turning to more easy to understand, watered down language of the popular press and how much harm that does. As you know I am a former school teacher returning to study psychology and the science and research of it. You had mentioned eloquently before in one of your posts how the science of psychology gets, well…bastardized for lack of a better word.

    People cannot not only understand legal language terms, but science and research either or any technical speak. Which imo, is one of the cornerstone reasons for Michael’s malignancy in the public and popular press. Sometimes I wished a meteor would just destroy the stupid pop media and we can be done with it but obviously, it isn’t that easy as gossip originates in the human mind(s) and will find other means to manifest. I hope one day we can invent a technique for keeping our gossip, and need to commit harm and malice under strong check.


  23. December 26, 2017 9:55 am

    Dear Helena, I wish to thank you for this blog at the end of year 2017.I am also following what is happening in your country of late.


  24. December 27, 2017 3:31 pm

    Dear Kaarin222, Asma and all readers, thank you for being so patient with me and reading this blog even despite my irregular posts. The events Kaarin referred to had their toll on me, but I am slowly learning how to live with all of it. It is difficult, but hopefully not forever. Probably just another three years or so 🙂 before we see the light at the end of the tunnel. In the meantime it is just a matter of survival.

    Getting back to the issues of this blog, I hope to make a post within the next few days and share a couple of thoughts with you. There is actually so much to say that the enormity of the task makes it difficult for me to focus on just one point. My credo now should become “one thing at a time, please” instead of “all of it in one post” as my mind impatiently suggests it. I am trying to balance between the two…


  25. sanemjfan permalink
    December 28, 2017 1:06 am

    This is off topic Helena, but I wanted to share this story that was recently uploaded to YT regarding MJ’s time in Russia. I thought you may be interested in seeing this. Thanks!


  26. Asma permalink
    December 28, 2017 3:09 am

    Dear Helena,

    It is such a *pleasure* to read your gems of wisdom, truly. I cannot tell you how excited I was to find this blog nearly two years ago. I never thought a site like this could even be possible considering Michael’s constant maltreatment in all forms of media. I echo Kaarin222’s sentiments and hope to the best of hopes that things in your country start improving sooner rather than later. We seem to be connected now in regards to not only fighting for just logic, and truth for MJ but in our own nations as well. The three year time frame is a similar wish here in America now. We’re rooting for each other. Keep rocking. 🤘


  27. susannerb permalink
    December 30, 2017 5:37 am

    I also want to wish everybody a Happy New Year. And I want to thank everybody who keeps this blog going – first of all Helena, but also all our readers and friends with their wonderful comments. It’s a pleasure to see that we could attract new readers during the years and that Michael is still in the minds of many truth-seekers.

    While many health problems of myself and family members incapacitated me in the last 3 months, Helena remained a rock for the blog and for myself, and I could rely on her during difficult times. I hope to give it back and be back with my own contributions.

    A Happy New Year to the world! I hope the nations will come together again one day instead of isolating themselves from each other. We as the people should act otherwise and show the politicians that we want a world as one and not a nationalistic separation demanding the own country to be the first and only one. This won’t help our planet to survive!

    Be safe everybody!

    Liked by 1 person

  28. susannerb permalink
    December 30, 2017 5:47 am

    I want to add this short video on the second Christmas celebration of Prince Jackson’s successful Heal LA project, in which we can recognize the footsteps of his father. Doesn’t it remind us of the playful events at Neverland Michael once organized? It’s great to see Michael live on in his children.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Des permalink
    December 31, 2017 4:54 am

    Watching Prince the tears roll down on my face,how I wish their father was here to watch his children blossom and follow his steps, and am sure they wish the same thing, and I know we all feel the same.Happy new year to every one, and Thank you again all of you, and as we getting older and wiser all of us, and we all humans and face similar problems all sorts of problems you people find the time to do what you do,and all for love and truth. I feel deep in my heart that people who understand Michael Jackson are good people,they all want a better place for all of us.May God give you health and strength to continue,you don’t know how much we valued and appreciate you.


  30. December 31, 2017 5:39 pm

    Happy New Year to all of you!
    I also feel that those who understand Michael Jackson are people with pure hearts.
    Stay the good and honest people you are, and keep to the truth.

    It must be an impossible dream, but I wish liars and hypocrites could see the irresistible beauty of truth and started growing its seeds in their hearts.
    I can’t believe that they can’t.


  31. sanemjfan permalink
    January 3, 2018 12:53 am

    This is off topic Helena, but I wanted to let you know that in December, MJ producer Brad Sundberg will bring his “In The Studio With MJ” seminar to Moscow! Tickets are now on sale, and I truly hope you are able to attend.


  32. SeptSpirit permalink
    May 27, 2018 1:47 pm

    I experienced great pleasure confronting DD in 2009 and exposing the liar (sociopath) she is. I copied the interaction in the comments on a CNN page in Jul 2011 because she and Sneddon had been busy deleting unfavorable information and videos from the internet. I wanted this to remain in the ‘anals’ of internet history. Search SeptSpirit


  33. Angie permalink
    June 8, 2018 10:35 pm

    Great article. MJ was influenced by Elvis, he even did a similar song called “Heartbreak Hotel” that Elvis did. He may have even gotten the side burns from Elvis. Elvis was also his rival, he stated during a 2001 speech: “I broke Elvis’s records”. MJ studied the greats and became greater.


  34. Deer aj pm permalink
    September 2, 2018 5:50 pm

    This women s a sick lier and disgrace to American media and humanity !!! How come a journalist like this women get away with the karma


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: