DIANE DIMOND, a Shark That Swims in Safe Waters Only

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.”
http://www.dianedimond.com/a-pause-please-in-the-sex-talk/

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?

NOTHING CHANGED

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.
http://www.dianedimond.com/lets-ban-secret-sex-harassment-settlements/

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?”
“Yeah.”
“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.

THE TURNABOUT

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 20^th 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 TREND

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 29^th, 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.

SAFE TARGET

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.”

 https://nypost.com/2005/02/13/jacksons-shadow-a-confidential-report-led-to-the-story-of-diane-dimonds-career/

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.”

https://www.today.com/popculture/diane-dimond-out-court-tv-wbna9129732

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.

https://www.upi.com/Reporter-Diane-Dimond-off-Court-TV/47411125418954/

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.

A WORD ON MICHAEL JACKSON’S DEATH

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.

DIANE DIMOND AUGUST 31, 2009

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.

‘SIMILARITIES’ AND DIFFERENCES

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

http://dianedimond.net/only-adults-can-stop-pedophiles/#more-5433

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…

THE STORY IS NOT FINISHED YET

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:

by DIANE DIMOND on DECEMBER 9, 2013

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.

http://dianedimond.net/life-after-a-tabloid-scandal/#more-7084

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.

http://dianedimond.net/the-almost-forgotten-sex-crime-victims/#more-7537

TRUE CRIME?

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.