The Current Conspiracy and…The Australian Connection? Part 3

When We Ask "Who Really Wanted To Destroy Michael Jackson" There Are Always Two Names That Will Crop Up At The Root Of It All-Victor Gutierrez and Diane Dimond!
When We Ask “Who Really Wanted To Destroy Michael Jackson” There Are Always Two Names That Will Crop Up At The Root Of It All-Victor Gutierrez and Diane Dimond!














There have certainly been a lot of interesting developments since I last posted in this series. In an interesting coincidence (perhaps?) it was shortly after the last post in this series that one of the two main MJ hater sites that I reported on in that piece has completely disappeared off the face of the internet. What they may be a harbinger of, if anything, I do not know, but somehow I doubt that these very obsessed and persistent individuals have laid down their arms and given up the ghost that easily. Most likely, it simply means that they have figured ways to become much more subversive in their campaign. I would suspect that whatever happened to my adversary’s blog, “she” has most likely simply closed shop in order to merge the ranks. The Topix faction has been surprisingly mum on this sudden and abrupt silencing of their Queen B leader. But no matter. At least for now, there is one less available hub for the hatists and their propaganda.

What else is new? Well, we have the defection and sudden turnabout face of Alan Duke, a former respected CNN journalist who had always been noted for his fair and balanced coverage on all aspects of Michael Jackson. During the AEG trial, Alan Duke’s updates were always an oasis of reasonableness in a sea of biased gutter reporting. Now, for whatever unfathomable reason, he has hitched up with “the Aussie conspirator” incarnate, Dylan Howard. Which just goes to prove a theory I’ve long held to, which is that the integrity of any journalist is really no more believable than the fake on-air personas that radio dj’s adopt. I mean, have you ever noticed how your favorite radio personality will suddenly shift personas completely once they go to another station? So your favorite cool dj whom you thought loved all the same punk bands as you is suddenly over at the local country or AOR station, and voile’, they have a new on-air name and a whole, new on-air persona to match! Sometimes they even change their voices. It’s all a part of shedding that old skin so that, like a chameleon, they can now blend right into the new environment. When I was younger and cared more about stuff like that, I always took such defections quite seriously-and sometimes personally. It felt like a kind of betrayal. Of course, as we get older we get a lot more more blase’ about these things. In the case of those defector dj’s, for example, we start to realize that these people aren’t in the business for the love of music. It’s a job to them. And like any job, they go where the money is and where the opportunity for advancement presents itself. If that means changing their whole identity and ditching the loyal following they may have amassed, so be it. The way most of them will justify their actions is that they may lose a few followers but they will gain new ones. That’s how the game is played. Alan Duke has proven that journalists really do not operate much differently. For many, their integrity and loyalty depends on which side their bread is buttered. So now that Duke has hooked up with Dylan Howard, suddenly “Jackson” has become “Jacko” and Wade Robson is no longer even an alleged victim, but a “victim” who is being “silenced” by Jackson estate lawyers (if one of Duke’s more recent headlines is to be believed).

Last but not least, as reported in the previous post, Tom Sneddon passed away on November 1. But we can be rest assured that his death will hardly be the closing of a dark and ugly chapter, much as it would be nice to think so. Instead, what we are bound to see-and indeed it is already happening!-is that Sneddon’s death is only going to reinforce the bitter determination of those who counted themselves among his friends, and for whom Sneddon was a personal hero. This is the faction that now, more than ever, are pinning their hopes of ultimate vindication on two individuals who have recently been coerced into the family fold-Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck.

Which brings us to Diane Dimond, who used the occasion of her friend’s death to take a needless and tasteless dig at Michael Jackson and his fans. I have been patiently watching and analyzing this woman’s words and actions for the past five years. There was a time, very early on, when I gave her some benefit of the doubt. She is just a journalist, I thought, and her job isn’t to be Michael Jackson’s fan. A journalist is entitled to have their biases (the title, after all, doesn’t mean that we aren’t still human, although true journalists do nevertheless have an obligation to keep their personal biases out of their reporting). I was even almost fooled by her charade in reporting the Rodney Allen story (pretending to be the undercover journalist with integrity who unearthed a potential scam against Michael Jackson, when in reality she merely used that angle to cover her own ass when the “lead” she investigated turned out to be a gigantic hoax that nearly cost her job with “Hard Copy” who had footed much of the bill for her obsessive wild goose chase to Canada!). But after wading through much evidence over the years, it has slowly dawned on me that Diane Dimond’s role in all of this (i.e, what happened to Michael Jackson and is continuing to happen) is much more complex than what first meets the eye. Is Diane Dimond merely an objective reporter-as she would have us believe-or is her role in the Michael Jackson allegations-both past and present- a much more substantive and sinister one?

A huge part of the objective of this series has been an attempt to get to the bottom of who is really behind the allegations-and why. If Michael Jackson didn’t molest any kids-and there remains to this day no substantive proof or evidence of such claims-then who stood to gain by creating such allegations?

As I have explained before, I chose to subtitle this series “The Australian Connection” due to some curious coincidences that, while I have yet to fully connect the dots, are nevertheless quite intriguing. Wade Robson (Jackson’s current accuser), Dylan Howard of Radar Online (the only web source and media outlet that continues to act as a direct mouthpiece for Robson and his lawyers), the MJFacts website (responsible for perpetuating much of the internet flaming against Jackson and spread of inaccurate information), and at least one “insider” for the Wade Robson support page, all have ties to Australia. This could all be coincidence, of course. But one thing I have noted is that, time and again, the web of individuals who have worked in concert to either plant or perpetuate these stories (the “fan flamers,” so to speak) is surprisingly small and close knit.

These Birds Of A Feather Have Been Flocking Together...For Over 20 Years!
These Birds Of A Feather Have Been Flocking Together…For Over 20 Years!

And if we look past “the current conspiracy” to where it all began, two names in particular have been consistently intertwined from the beginning-Victor Gutierrez and Diane Dimond. From that hub, we have the whole satellite connection of other names-Paul Baressi and Maureen Orth, on down to  Sneddon  and Zonen, on down to the ring of disgruntled ex-employees befriended by Gutierrez and Dimond, and then on down to the actual accusers (all of whom appear to have been coerced in some way after coming into contact with either Gutierrez or Dimond, or both). I have little doubt that both are continuing to play a very pro-active role in current events.  Dimond, especially, who has never been known for her subtlety (or professional demeanor, for that manner) continues to give the game away in ways that she probably doesn’t even realize.  In other words, hot heads and weaklings are fairly easy to catch in their own trap. Diane Dimond’s hypocrisy and changing of facts to suit her own agenda has been called out more than a few times in mainstream media (a good case in point being when she jumped the gun in defending the fake FBI story and her friend Paul Baressi, only to have to embarrasingly retract in the light of overwhelming evidence that the story was a hoax-of which she was well aware all along!). In a now famous email to Susan Etok, whom she ingratiated herself with under the false pretense of a being a Michael Jackson “supporter” in order to gain an interview, she made a blatantly false claim that over twenty boys testified to having been molested by Michael at his trial. This was a blatant lie, purposely intended to pull the wool over the eyes of Susan Etok and unsuspecting readers who would not think to actually investigate the truth. There were, in fact, only five such witnesses who testified at Michael’s trial in 2005, and that is if we count Gavin Arvizo himself.  Of those five, three of them-Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes and Wade Robson-denied vehemently any wrongdoing on Jackson’s part. Jason Francia, heavily coached by his mother Blanca Francia, was the only one who claimed anything in the way of inappropriate behavior, but was reportedly such an unconvincing witness that he was laughed off the stand. That left only Jordan Chandler, who refused to testify and never even appeared.  So all in all, a total of five testimonies, and three out of those five claiming adamantly that nothing happened-a far cry from Diane Dimond’s claim of “twenty crying victims.” And in the same email, as she has at various times in the past, Diane Dimond made vague and dubious claims about phantom victims and these alleged dozens of distraught families who have supposedly cried on her shoulder (literally, she would have us believe) about being afraid to press charges.

Email in which Diane Dimond BLATANTLY LIES to Susan Etok about witnesses at Michael Jackson trial:

“I met Diane Dimond for the first time last week and found her to be intelligent, funny, down-to-earth and very open-minded. ”

Letter from Diane:

Are you telling people that I now think Michael Jackson was completely innocent of the child molestation charges?

I keep getting these random e-mails informing me of such.

Please tell me it isn’t so. Because, Susan, I don’t believe that. It was nice meeting you and I know you love your departed friend but I’ve covered this story since 1993. I’ve sat with damaged children and crying parents too many times, parents too scared to press charges for fear of the media onslaught. I’ve talked with police officers and seen sworn statements they’ve gathered. I sat in the nearly 5 month long trial and watched 20-something young men take the stand and tearfully describe what happened to them at Michael Jackson’s hand. Forget the outcome of the trial – where three jurors later said they were coerced into their acquittal vote and wish they could take it back. It cannot be that ALL these people are lying and Michael is just a victim of his own celebrity.

Please. Don’t speak for me on this very, very delicate and important issue. As you said – your friend was a drug addict. I’m here to tell you he was an addict for years. He was not a person in charge of his behavior. I know it’s hard to hear but he was also addicted to little boys – and that’s a fact – just as sure as he was addicted to alcohol and drugs.

I wish you all the best in your endeavors.

Diane Dimond

I have seen this statement before from Diane Dimond, and for me it really raises a troubling and disturbing question: Who the heck are these alleged, nameless families, and (presuming they even exist!) why on earth would they seek out Diane Dimond? You would think that if someone thought their child had been molested, they would go to the police. And if not to the police, at least an attorney. A psychologist. Something. Why would a sleazy, ex-“Hard Copy” tabloid reporter be their go-to person? If they were too afraid to press charges (as per the excuse that Dimond always uses) would not they have just as much to fear by going to the media?

It is clearly obvious, based on Dimond’s own track record and the way she operates, that if she has had any such conversations at all (which is debatable) it is very clear that she sought these people out, rather than the other way around. That is the only viable explanation of why they would be talking to her in the first place. But with nothing to go on but the word of a woman who has already been exposed time and again as an outright liar at worst and exaggerator at best, there is simply no way to authenticate these stories one way or the other.

Diane Dimond Uses The Occasion Of Her Friend’s Death As Just Another Excuse To Take An Unnecessary Stab At Michael Jackson!

Santa Barbara District AttorneyTom Sneddon has lost a year long battle with cancer. His wife Pam and many of their 9 children were at his side. 
In my opinion, we lost a man of integrity. Sneddon was an Army veteran, public servant for more than 3 decades, started his county’s first Sexual Assault Response Team and dedicated his life to helping victims try to get justice.
When word of his death was officially announced by his family ill-informed “haters” — fanatics who worship at the alter of Michael Jackson and never forgave Sneddon for prosecuting Jackson on child molestation charges — came out in droves to say the ugliest things. 
They are childish and ill-informed. Sneddon was the ONLY person who had the courage to do the right thing even though law enforcement knew for years about Mr. Jackson and his misbehavior with young boys. 
A testament to the facts is this: Five young men have now come forward to claim they were molested at the hands of Michael Joseph Jackson when they were young boys. Five. Five. I’m betting there are more. 
RIP, Tom Sneddon. Go with God.

What was the point of the above? Clearly, even on the day of Sneddon’s passing, Diane couldn’t shake Michael Jackson off the brain!

I have written extensively about Guiterrez and his motivations for beginning his aggressive, one-man campaign in the mid 1980’s to “out” Michael Jackson as a pedophile. But how did Gutierrez come to be so inextricably linked with Diane Dimond, and what was her motivation for becoming so doggedly involved with this man and his campaign? How did this Chilean reporter become a “mentor” for Diane Dimond?

Awhile back, a reader sent me an email with a link to a rather explosive video, an expose’ on the relationship between Diane Dimond and Victor Gutierrez . Since the view count on this video is still relatively low, I have to assume that a lot of fans still don’t know about it. This is an absolute “Must Watch” for anyone who cares about what happened to Michael Jackson in 1993, in 2003, and is continuing into 2014. The English translation is a little rough in spots, but bear with it. It’s well worth the effort.


Even if Michael Jackson fans are already familiar with much of this background info, it is still quite chilling when you see laid out the connection of these individuals and their motivations, stretching back over at least two decades or more. A couple of things that really stand out to me from the video: 1. How Diane Dimond willingly went along with a scam to create and report false evidence against Michael Jackson (the phantom tape that was alleged to show him molesting his nephew Jeremy) with only the word of Victor Gutierrez as a source! At the time, she falsely stated that the investigation into Michael Jackson was being re-opened, as a means of intimidating Margaret Maldonada Jackson under false pretenses! This goes far beyond the role of a reporter or journalist; this is someone actually taking a pro-active stance to create a story and evidence. Even more disturbing is that after learning the truth about Rodney Allen and his pedophile ring in Canada, she completely turns a blind eye to it, never bothering to follow up on what was obviously a far more frightening-and real!-case than the Michael Jackson story. Apparently, she was quite  content to let a real molestor off the hook when it turned out his name wasn’t Michael Jackson. To my knowledge, there was no attempt made by Diane Dimond to follow up on the case of a man whom she obviously knew was pimping teenage boys on the streets of Toronto. According to the clip and Dimond’s parting words, Rodney Allen’s case was left to the police to unravel. But if Diane Dimond was, as she self proclaims, so interested in justice for child abuse perpetrators, why didn’t she continue to obsessively investigate what was obviously a disgusting and frightening situation going on in Canada? Clearly, her obsession remained Michael Jackson, and Michael Jackson only. In fact, throughout that segment something interesting emerges: We see not only Diane Dimond, but the entire production team of Hard Copy carrying out the role of investigators and district attorneys-in other words, carrying out the work that normally would be handled by police and investigators in cases like this.

At 22:40, something is noted that has also been called out before by many fans who noticed this when Dimond’s Skype interview on Michael Jackson’s death first aired. On her wall, at her home, hangs iconic photos of Michael Jackson from the Panther Dance sequence of “Black or White.” Why does this woman, who professes so much animosity towards Michael Jackson and clearly believes he was a pedophile, surround herself with his images?


This image from Diane Dimond's Home-Clearly Showing Photos Of MJ Decking Her Walls-Made Quite A Splash When This Image Went Virale
This image from Diane Dimond’s Home-Clearly Showing Photos Of MJ Decking Her Walls-Made Quite A Splash When This Image Went Viral

Well, to back up to something I said in the last post of this series, when examining the psychology of Michael Jackson haters, I said that there is a fine line between love and hate: they are really just polar extremes of the same emotion, both of which are born out of the same passion. I, too, have many iconic photos of Michael Jackson on my wall. Those photos help provide inspiration, from a place of love, when I sit down to write about him. It would not be too big of a stretch to imagine that Diane Dimond, likewise, uses images of Michael to inspire, only in her case it is the opposite. Just as millions of us MJ fans keep images of Michael nearby to inspire and uplift us, Diane Dimond clearly keeps those images close by to inspire her in the opposite direction. It reeks of a strange, very bizarre, and very sad admiration/hatred for Michael Jackson that has become her obsession, and has been for over twenty years. Think on this: Many journalists covered the Michael Jackson story at the time. Most have long since moved on. A journalist’s job, after all, is to cover the latest stories-not to obsess incessantly over one story and one subject, to the point that it has dominated the last two decades of their life.

ETA: This passage from a NY Post article confirms it. Note what Dimond says here (thank you, Susan, for the link!):

“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.. “I wonder what Jackson would think if he knew that I had it.”

The headline of the story is quite revealing. The Michael Jackson story was indeed “the story of her career” and, according to her, it remains the story that was never finished because it didn’t have the outcome she wanted. It is also clearly BS that she considered herself still “in the middle” in 2005. This was the same year that she published “Be Careful Who You Love” so clearly she already had her mind made up on the case.

Interestingly enough, one of the most common things that haters of Michael Jackson love to insist is that they are not “haters.” I read a lot of their propaganda. I read it to understand both their mindset and the tactics that they use to manipulate. They will insist that they are “reasonable” people but this is far from the truth. I know people in everyday life who are skeptical of Michael’s innocence. I do not label those people as “haters.” Why? Because clearly, even though they have their beliefs, they are people who have actual lives and do not devote themselves 24-7 to the subject. Clearly, anyone who is so obsessed as to create websites, organize followers, and who spends countless hours on the internet stalking fansites and trolling any pro or anti article about Michael Jackson on the internet is clearly not a “reasonable” person but a person who is clearly mentally disturbed and fixated on hate. Thus, I use the term correctly.

As a celebrity who was constantly hounded by the press and by false stories, Michael Jackson had to deal with many devious and shady reporters. But both Victor Gutierrez and Diane Dimond have the dubious honor of being the only journalists Michael Jackson ever brought a lawsuit against-and won. As the video mentions, Tom Sneddon went above and beyond to write a letter that would prevent Diane Dimond from being charged in the case. Gutirrez was ordered to pay 2.7 million in damages, but avoided the court order by returning to Chile. Michael appealed the decision to exempt Dimond from the charges. The 2.7 million he was awarded was far short of the $50 million in damages he had sought. As it turned out, Michael never received a penny from either of them.

Michael Jackson Sues ‘Hard Copy’ Reporter and Radio Talk Show


Three days after a “Hard Copy” report alleged that Michael Jackson was videotaped in an illicit sexual encounter, the pop star filed a $50-million lawsuit against the tabloid television show’s reporter and a radio talk show that aired her assertions.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleges that “Hard Copy” correspondent Diane Dimond slandered Jackson with a false and unsubstantiated report, and compounded the injury by repeating the allegations on KABC-AM radio.

The suit also alleges that Dimond falsely reported that authorities had renewed their investigation of child molestation against Jackson.

The suit–which also names “Hard Copy” producer Stephen Doran, Paramount Pictures Corp. and KABC talk show hosts Roger Barkley and Ken Minyard–stems from a Jan. 9 episode of “Hard Copy” and an appearance on Barkley and Minyard’s show that morning.

Jackson’s lawyer, Howard Weitzman, said the show was based on British tabloid reports published last weekend and on a claim made by Victor Gutierrez, a self-proclaimed biographer of Jackson who is also named in the suit.

Dimond may not be an Aussie, but it is clear from recent events and headlines that she is much more than just a side player in current events. If nothing else, she definitely has a reputation among anyone who wishes to bring allegations against Michael Jackson, as someone who will lend a sympathetic ear and as a convenient gatekeeper to the media on the one hand, and authorities on the other, via her long standing friendship with Tom Sneddon. But her history reveals something far more disturbing, and that is her willingness to take a pro-active stance in these accusations. Far more than merely reporting events as they unfold, she has been a key player in shaping those events, and I believe has had some hand in coercing certain players to come forward. A trait that many haters share in common is a tendency to badger young men who were known to be close friends of Michael Jackson. In some cases, the bullying and harassing has been so bad that some have had to go into hiding. She has been, and remains, one of the key instigators of Michael Jackson’s downfall.

202 thoughts on “The Current Conspiracy and…The Australian Connection? Part 3”

  1. Raven,

    I completely agree that Dimond was an active participant in, not observer of, the story. Possible motivations include (1) making a name for herself – she was, after all, no longer welcome to work at NPR (2) simply not being bright enough to recognize that the scoundrels she interviewed weren’t reliable sources – this is possibly related to her departure from NPR as well. If she ever did have moments of doubting herself, well, she was too far in, having established herself as the “expert” on Jackson. Now, she’s got to spend all her effort being defensive and saying she wasn’t wrong. That accounts for her need to drag Michael back into her Facebook post about Sneddon’s death; those kind of comments are completely unnecessary if you don’t have anything to prove. But she does.

    It’s also worth noting that every single breaking story on this topic, over the years, was made by one reporter and one reporter only. What are the odds of that? Only after her last “Michael scoop” — the one on Robson — did this stop, and Radar take up the mantle. MJ supporters called out this “exclusive” pattern when she published her last story. Makes you wonder if even Robson’s PR people realized that she’s completely discredited and her involvement does nothing to help their client. As well, Dimond has been known to have snarky Twitter exchanges with Alan Duke while he was still at CNN. Perhaps he saw that there was an opening for the position of persecutor-in-chief.

    1. Yes, that was my point. I think it is important that people realize she hasn’t just been a reporter on this story. She has taken a very pro-active stance in actually shaping events-chasing down “would be victims,” trying to entice people she “thinks” are “victims” to come forward, creating fake evidence, etc.

      On your second point, you are absolutely right. People think that MJ fans are delusional with this talk of conspiracies and so forth, but it doesn’t take much intelligence to quickly connect the dots and realize that it is always the same people over and over-the same reporters commenting on the case; the same media outlets providing “updates,” the same group of ex-employees speaking out, over and over and over again.

  2. Wow. Just wow. I have never seen that video before. As much as she will deny it, DD is grossly obsessed with Michael Jackson and will continue to associate with sick individuals with their own agendas. As much as Michael brought light into this world, the shadow in response is deep and merciless.

    1. It is so very interesting how Michael has inspired so many both light and dark forces. I do not know of too many individuals who have inspired such legions of either devoted love on the one extreme, and devoted hate on the other.

      1. It is interesting and even more so when one considers how it continues with such force even after his physical being is gone. I am at a loss to name another person in history who engenders such a ying/yang response. Perhaps it really does speak to individual hearts rather than anything about the man.

      2. I was also going to point out Jesus Christ. And Dr. King. When someone’s light is that bright the dark can become a wild monster in its attempts to extinguish it.

  3. In an effort to stem huge losses, CNN fired its entire entertainment division. Alan Duke maintains that he resigned and was not fired, probably because he read the handwriting on the wall, and realized that his twenty-five year career at CNN was over. Journalism jobs are very hard to come by. Radar Online was likely Duke’s only option. At RO, Dylan Howard is his boss. Howard comes up with the headlines, not Duke. Like Jen Heger, Duke has to write what he’s ordered to write.

    Diane Dimond appears to be in the grip of an erotomania. As long as she writes smack about Michael, she is connected to him. She is important. She is an ‘authority’ on him. The facts mean nothing. I’ve heard that DD has one of Michael’s fedoras. She probably sleeps with it.

    Interesting that you mention Susan Etok. I’m convinced that Ms. Etok’s entire existence is a media creation, aided and abetted by Diane. Then the two of them had a falling out. I don’t believe Etok ever met Michael, yet, with cooperation of dishonest media, she wormed her way into the Jackson story.

    I don’t know why the Australians and the English are so invested in Michael Jackson hatred, but I suspect it’s basically racism, and resentment over his purchase of the Beatles catalog. Howard Stern described how Michael being called the King of Pop filled him with rage. It makes no sense, but racism makes people crazy.

    The “hatists” – love that term! – are busy trying to shoehorn Michael into the Bill Cosby saga. In the many articles online about Cosby’s accusers, comments pop up trying to compare the two – “where there’s smoke there’s fire” is their favorite term. “Just like all those boys Michael Jackson tried to silence” is another favorite. Thankfully the remarks don’t seem to have much traction, but whenever I see them, I get the suspicion these people are connected to the Robson case.

    1. Please forgive the source (NY Post) – here is the article where Dimond claims she bought the fedora along with 3 prints – most likely the ones hanging in her home.

      Note how she says she wanted “to touch it and put it on” and goes on to wonder what Michael would think if he knew she had it. She states that the only reason she bought was as a reminder that it is the one story that she hadn’t finished and claims she is not obsessed with him.

      She’s a delusional idiot who refuses to let him go. She’s in need of a good mental health practitioner.

      1. Thanks for the link, Susan! I edited the post to include what she said about owning those items.

        I hate to break it to Diane, but forking over $1200 for these items just to be reminded of “the story that isn’t finished” is indeed obsession. I don’t know what else you would call it. This article was from 2005. Note how gloatingly she was already predicting what life would be like for him in prison! As I stated in the piece, her obsession is with the fact that the story didn’t have the ending she wanted.

        On another note, I never bought into the idea that her and Sneddon were lovers. I agree that was a little ridiculous BUT what it shows is that fans in 2005 were already well aware of her unusually close connection to Tom Sneddon. I think the idea of her being his mistress was more of a joke than anything. Of course, she would use that to try to make fans look delusional! I believe that they simply became very chummy over this case, since they both had similar objectives, just as most of those directly involved in this obsession to “get” Michael Jackson at all costs have become chummy due to the bond they share-a common cause. They are really a very small group who has most of the world pitted against them (for as stated, most of the world does not share their obsession) so it is only natural they must stick together.

        The writer of this piece did make a glaring error, though. I don’t recall that Michael ever wore a fedora in “Thriller,” lol. I figured they must have confused “Thriller” with the “Billie Jean” live performances. I am actually wondering if it might not have been the fedora from the “Black or White” video since it was sold along with the prints. Anyway, another glaring example of how these reporters often can’t be bothered to get even the simplest details correct.

      2. Murderers driven by psycho-sexual obsessions are known to keep “souvenirs” of their killings, too. DD wearing Michael’s fedora, and wondering what HE would think of her doing so, marks her as a nutjob. But if she actually believed he committed heinous crimes against children, I don’t believe she would do that. Even her cray cray has its limits.

        Erotomania has been defined as “the pathologically obsessive pursuit of a disinterested object of love”. Tabloid journalism is the means by which DD exercises her delusion. It doesn’t matter that Michael is dead, although I suspect she reached peak gratification when he sued her, thereby validating her existence.

        1. Erotomania – that’s interesting! Let’s not forget that CNN interview where she proudly dangled a worn underwear that she found at an auction and that seems to have been MJ’s!

          GRACE: From Jackson`s stage costume in “Thriller” all the way to dirty underwear, bulletproof vests, platinum records, and tubes of bleaching cream. Help me out, Diane Dimond, what`s the story?

          DIANE DIMOND, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: Briefly, Nancy, there was a man who won the contents of some storage closets from the Jackson family, Mr. and Mrs. Jackson, actually. It`s a long drawn-out court affair. His name was Henry Vaccaro. He finally sold his whole collection that he had gotten from the Jackson family, and that`s what we see on auction out there in Vegas today and tomorrow.

          GRACE: But how did he get it originally, Diane?

          DIMOND: Well, again, it`s an eight-year-long battle, but I`ll make it brief. He had a beef with the Jacksons. He sued them. It took a long, long time. You know Brian Oxman. He was the attorney for the Jackson family at the time.

          And as I understand it, it came down to the fact where, if Brian Oxman had come to court with a check, he could have had the contents of those storage closets, but he failed to do that, so the judge in the case awarded them to Henry Vaccaro for recompense for all of his years of trying to fight the Jacksons. He told me — Henry Vaccaro told me, “I opened the closets. I thought, you know, maybe I`ll have some dusty old clothes or something.” He said he couldn`t believe the amount of items in there. I`ve seen them all. It is an amazing collection.

          GRACE: What are some of the items that went on the block today, Diane?

          DIMOND: Well, it`s today and tomorrow, so I`m not sure which days, but there`s a bulletproof vest that Michael Jackson wore in the Victory tour. There are rows and rows of platinum and gold records under glass. There`s wardrobe, wardrobe chests full of specialty items. There`s that big head of E.T. Michael Jackson took a looking to it, and he bought it, and it was in the collection. I saw the big bicycle that was in the video that he made with Paul McCartney, “Say Say Say,” the bicycle with the big front wheel.

          And lots of personal correspondence in Michael Jackson`s own hand. The thing that was most compelling to me was a little note that he had written to his sister-in-law warning her to watch out for child molesters. He was worried about his three nephews.

          GRACE: Diane Dimond, investigative reporter, has been through the warehouse, has seen all these items. We`ll be right back on this story.

          But very quickly, to tonight`s “Case Alert.” Parents in search of their 4-year-old little girl, Maddy McCann, snatched during a luxury resort vacation, meet with the pope. The Pope says he will pray for Maddy`s safe return. Baby Maddy vanished early May, while her parents were at a dinner party. The couple released the last video of baby Maddy, dressed in pink, with the family on an airport shuttle bus and tarmac.



          UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s his trunk. See this? It`s somebody`s white briefs that were soiled right here.

          DIMOND: Calvin Klein underwear.

          UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t know whose they are, and I`m not about to find out, but they`re soiled.

          DIMOND: How big are they?

          UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t know. I don`t want to…

          DIMOND: Mind if I check?

          UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go ahead.

          DIMOND: They`re a size 28.

          UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, they`re not mine.

          DIMOND: Henry, you know…

          UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They`re not mine.

          DIMOND: That might have some DNA on it.

          UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It probably does.

          I wonder if Dimond bought the underwear. Wouldn’t be surprised. LOL.

          “Murderers driven by psycho-sexual obsessions are known to keep “souvenirs” of their killings, too. DD wearing Michael’s fedora, and wondering what HE would think of her doing so, marks her as a nutjob.”

          I agree that Dimond’s behavior is not far off from this…

    2. As for Duke, that is probably true. I really wanted to give him benefit of the doubt, but those last few articles especially were just so mean-spirited and nasty that it was hard to believe this was the same guy from CNN. As I said, this is the side where his bread is buttered now. I don’t blame him for doing what he has to do to keep a job, but it really does call into question the whole idea of journalistic integrity. How can someone with integrity knowingly attach their name to these kinds of pieces? You can’t tell me that he isn’t aware of the power of words and how they shape the public’s perception of truth-he of all people would know that. I understand the predicament he was in with losing his position at CNN, but I would have respected him a lot more if he had just hung up his hat and said maybe it is time to find a new line of work-one that doesn’t involve lying, slandering, and creating distorted headlines to make a buck. Of course, if he does still have his integrity intact (there is a small part of me that thinks maybe he does) he will quickly enough get fed up and may not tear too long with Howard and company. I hope that proves the case. But as always in these kinds of situations, an element of trust has been lost, and that will be difficult to ever regain. I’m sure he’s not losing sleep over a few thousand MJ fans unfollowing him on Twitter, etc but I think in the long run he may come to realize that he has sold himself out.

      “Erotomania” is an interesting term in association with Diane Dimond (gertrude had raised the issue of the nature of her mental disorder). I don’t know if she ever fancied Michael in love with her, but clearly she has gotten a high off being associated with his name. This has been at the root cause of all those, from journalists to prosecuting attorneys, judges, etc who have found themselves attached to his name in some capacity or other.

      Yeah, “hatists” is a word I coined, lol. And yes, I suspect those commentors who are spamming the Bill Cosby articles are the same, usual suspects. They are easy to spot, as they repeat the same talking points over and over. Be aware of the phrase, “he had a picture of a nude boy believed to be Jonathan Spence,” lol. That is always the dead giveaway. They love repeating that phrase like parrots (btw I will be addressing this along with some of their other so-called “evidence” in future posts).

      1. Alan Duke has a very positive story on MJ Jr. on the Radar Online website today. I really don’t think Duke has changed his stripes and is out to trash MJ, but he is working for Radar, which is a National Enquirer outlet.

    3. “I’m convinced that Ms. Etok’s entire existence is a media creation..” Could not agree more. She is featured, as a supposed good friend of his, in one of the more salacious tv presentations and on a video released within a year of Michael’s passing talking about his “epic drug use” and finding pill bottles in his bathroom when she visited. There’s also a video of her telling Dimond in an interview that Michael wanted her to be surrogate mother to another child. Why would Etok, all the while claiming to be ever so close to Michael, willingly give an interview to Dimond knowing her intentions were to destroy Michael, if her pocket wasn’t being lined by Dimond and/or her backers?

      As for Alan Duke, at the time he was transitioning from CNN to ROL, he tweeted Heger glad to be joining his “cohort”. I suspect they were “cohorts” long before he and Jane V-M were dumped by CNN.

      1. Oh yes, paying people for interviews, too. We must not forget to add that to her list of activities.

        I am on the fence as to whether I believe Susan Etok was a media plant, but it is kind of odd that she just surfaced from out of nowhere in 2009, giving an exclusive to Diane Dimond of all people. But then again, a lot of people suddenly surfaced during that time whom we never knew were connected to Michael (Cherilyn Lee, etc). The story was hot and everyone even remotely connected to him was coming out of the woodwork for their own fifteen minutes of fame

        1. Etok claimed to have traveled on vacations with Michael for ten years, yet she cannot produce one single photo verifying this. She first claimed to be Prince Michael Jackson’s mother, even though she is a very dark-skinned, pure Nigerian Brit. Then she said Michael offered her $800,000 to buy propofol, even though Murray had stockpiled a huge supply, at $22 per vial. She claimed she was in his hotel room in London, although she has nver been mentioned by any of the people who actually were there. While supposedly in his suite, she claimed that she found benzos and other medications in his bathroom and ‘confiscated’ them. In other words, she admitted stealing controlled substances, which is probably a felony in the UK as it is here. She presented herself as Michael’s ‘physician’ on Geraldo Rivera’s show, even though she doesn’t have a medical degree.

          A quick Google search, and common sense, would confirm that this woman s a total and complete fraud, but national media enabled this “Billie Jean type”, as Karen Faye called her, to enrich herself at Michael’s expense. DD and Geraldo HAD to have known she was a fake. Conspiracy, indeed.

          1. Good lord, I didn’t know about the claims of being Prince’s mother, too! I knew she claimed Michael wanted a 4th child with her.

        2. Susan Etoks story may be disturbing and it is probably exaggerated but I dont think she is a media invention. How much did we know about the Cascios , Uri Gellers connection to Michael and many others before he died.Who knew about Murray ? Michael had a whole entourage travelling with or visiting him when he was on tour. Most of them we never saw photos of or the pop up incidentally. It is not farfetched that he asked Etok for assistance re propofol in the UK, he asked nurse Lee who was not qualified either. She told that Michael asked her to get his baby but she never said that she was Princes mother. Maybe you mistake her for the Billy Jean character who sued for custody of ‘her” kids. She told Geraldo that she was NOT a medical doctor, but that she had family in the medical field and if she wanted she could have assisted Michael.
          If you google her you find her CV and where she got her degree, I dont think you make up something like that, its easy to find out. She was questioned by the LAPD, which means they took her more seriously than Dr Treacy who asked to be called as a witness but was ignored.
          Re Alan Duke, It must be humiliating for him to stoop to that level to make a living. It again proofs that given the right circumstances, anyone can be bought. I think fans should stop looking for loyalty in anyone who writes about Michael, worked for him or knew Michael in any capacity. I have always find it strange that a journalist should be praised because they write positively or fairly about Michael. They are expected to do their job with integrity. The same goes for categorizing (self proclaimed) friends of Michaels who none of us know personally or what their relationship with Michael really was. You set yourself up for disappointment because in Michaels world even friendships are of a different order than friendships as we know it.

          Although I do believe in a conspiracy against Michael, I dont realy see an Australian connection, other than Wade Robson being from Australia and a handfull of Australian connected media supporting him. But it is so futile in the scheme of things. Even the public is already bored. And here is when they will start to fabricate stories.

          1. Now that he’s almost a teenager, I try to refer to Blanket as Prince Michael Jackson, his actual name – Susan Etok claimed to be Blanket’s mother. The idea that Michael would seek to have a child with this ugly liar is truly laughable. Would anybody believe her if she claimed that George Clooney took her around the world and begged her to give him a baby? Hell to the no!

            There are innumerable photos, taken over the years, of Michael with the Cascios and Uri Geller. The bodyguards and others confirm the presence of Conrad Murray and Cherilyn Lee. NOBODY connected to Michael has ever said one word about Susan Etok, except to say she’s a phony and a liar, and they’ve never seen her around him. This woman never met Michael Jackson.

          2. We did know about the Cascios and Uri Geller before MJ died. In fact, the Cascios were involved in the 2005 as Frank was named as an unindicted co-conspirator. So there was lots of talk about the Cascios just during the trial. Moreover they have dozens of photos with him. Where are Etok’s photos with MJ?

  4. Diane Dimonds obsession with Michael is well known and documented. Lynette Anderson of VindicateMJ and I had a little discussion about a recent interview Dimond in March 2014-On The Opperman Report where she tells this interviewer that she actually met Jordan Chandler – listen around 55:12- She says that Jordan’s family would drop him off every Saturday at the theatre, during all of the brouhaha and allegations (never mind they claimed they had death threats by MJfans, cuz you know anyone being threatened with death would drop off their son by himself at a mall in San Fernando Valley. But I digress…… Diane found out about this. By stalking him, no doubt. Then she followed this 12/13 yr old to the Mall and confronts him – Can you imagine how unethical she is to stalk and seek out this young man who had no adult sitting with him during this so called interview? Then to top it off ..she got NOTHING from him. That speaks volumes .. She says “some of what he said was unreportable” But yet it was this young boy’s statement to authorities that would be the basis for the initial investigation in 93- and “I put a little in the book but didn’t dwell on it cuz I didnt want people to think I was in kahoots with JC? or his father” If this isn’t the most disingenious statement she’s ever made in her life I do not know WHAT is. She had the The boy who supposedly was the catalysts for the take down of this horrible pedophile but she didn’t “dwell on it” ? And she claims she wants to put Michael’s case behind her -Yet she can’t stop tweeting about Michael and having contentious tit for tat tweets with MJfans who confront her hypocrisy. She continues on in the interview and makes claims that Rita Crosby and Geraldo have been wined and dined so that they would be biased for HIM… LOL.. the whole interview is a real hoot. You must listen to get the full effect of just how obsessed this woman really is. Link –

    1. I see that the clip is over an hour long, so unfortunately I don’t have time at the moment to listen to the whole thing. I did fast forward to the part you mentioned (I will listen to the whole thing as soon as I get a chance). But this is exactly what I mean about someone who isn’t merely “reporting” stories, but going out of her way to pro-actively create them. Of course she was stalking Jordan! She as good as admits it here.

      1. So she was stalking Jordan? That’s so ironic because then she will go on TV and talk about that myth about the “crazy MJ fans” with a dramatic face and blame it on them why the Chandlers never went to criminal court. She has some nerve! (Not that it was either because of fans or the media why the Chandlers did not want a criminal trial. But that’s another subject.)

  5. “(if one of Duke’s more recent headlines is to be believed)”

    No they aren’t. I read the court docs and he totally and deliberately misrepresents them. That particular debate in the court docs was about Robson’s insistance that the MJ Estate should answer questions about what MJ supposedly did sexually to him behind closed doors. The questions went like this: “Do you admit that Michael Jackson put his hands in Robson’s pants?”, “Do you admit that Michael Jackson anally penetrated Wade Robson?” and so on with each and every type of act he alleges. The Estate simply said in their answer that since they are saying that they do not admit ANY sexual abuse by Michael Jackson or ANY sexual contact between MJ and Robson there is no reason for them go through a million questions of that nature when that one answer where they say they do not admit ANY sexual abuse and ANY sexual contact covers them all. Not to mention that they already answered these same detailed questions in the probate court proceeding. How is that silencing the ALLEGED victim? BTW, since then the Judge actually agreed with the Estate on this point.

    “I sat in the nearly 5 month long trial and watched 20-something young men”

    I think she worded it in a sneaky way leaving a way out of if for herself. “20-something young men” could be interpreted as a reference to their ages, but it can also be interpreted as a reference to their number. I think she deliberately worded it this way. Even if she would defend herself by saying she referred to their ages, well that would still make her a liar, because the only 20-something man on the stand testifying against MJ was Jason Francia. There were no 20-something men, in plural. Gavin was not 20-something during the trial and the other young men testified for MJ and not against him.

    “It is clearly obvious, based on Dimond’s own track record and the way she operates, that if she has had any such conversations at all (which is debatable) it is very clear that she sought these people out, rather than the other way around.”

    I don’t believe she really has people who were seceretly crying on her shoulder about abuse by MJ. If there had been such people she would have quickly tipped her friend Tom Sneddon off about them. I have no doubt about that. Plus in that e-mail to Susan Etok she does not talk about supposedly secret accusers, but about the trial. She tells a blatant lie about the trial itself counting on the fact that many people probably do not know the details of that trial.

    I noticed how these people are so desperate to try to boost the number of MJ’s accusers and make them look more than there had been. I think they know that even with Robson and Safechuck the number of his accusers are very few compared to what a “preferential child molester”, that they claim him to be, typically has, which is at least dozens but usually hundreds of victims. (Eg.: “One long-term study of hundreds of sex offenders found that the pedophile child molester committed an average of 281 acts with 150 partners.” )

    I agree with you about Dimond. Just like Gutierrez she’s not merely reporting about these allegations but is shaping them. I’d like to know what’s the connection between her and Safechuck, since it was very interesting how that story came out. Safechuck filed his lawsuit on May 9 (Friday). The next Monday (May 12) Dimond published the story. It had to come directly from Safechuck’s camp because court docs do not show up that quickly in the IT system of the court. It seems to me that they deliberately filed the complaint and quickly got it out to Dimond in order to coincide with the release of Xscape (May 13) to hurt the Estate commercially, financially as much as they can. IMO it’s part of the blackmail game by Robson, Safechuck and their lawyers – trying to force the Estate into a settlement with bad publicity. According to Safechuck’s lawsuit he started to work with Robson’s lawyer in September 2013, so eight months before. So that timing of his filing to concide with Xscape was totally, utterly deliberate IMO. And not only they filed only a couple of days before Xscape’s release but by giving the story to Dimond they made sure of it becoming public info right before Xscape was released. That’s a game plan right there. From the little we have seen from Safechuck’s allegations it looks like a “best of” collection of tabloid rumours from the past 20 years and I do wonder if Dimond assisted him.

    Re. her VG connection: fans already gave her the memo about VG being a pedophilia advocate but she just closes her ears on that. When there are actual quotes from VG supporting pedophila. She just doesn’t want to know. Like you said she does not care as long as the accused is not Michael Jackson, which is revealing about her true agenda.

    1. I agree, Suzy. She doesn’t want her VG connection to be discussed today and probably hopes that people forgot about it. The moment you mention Victor Gutierrez in a comment on one of her sides she will block you.
      In the past I wrote several comments on the sides where she published articles, but every time I talked about her connection to VG in a comment I was blocked.
      That’s why we should not stop telling it! It’s a sore point of her career and proves her true agenda.

    2. I wasn’t insinuating that I believed the headline. At least, I hope that’s not how it came across. I was merely interpreting how it was intended to sound to RO readers.

      Yes, my whole point of even bringing her up at this time is that I know she is working with both Wade Robeson and Jimmy Safechuck. That much is obvious. And yes, that was very deliberately planned to have that story drop on the eve of Xscape’s release, although judging from the album’s reception, their plot didn’t have its intended effect.

      1. Tell me, what is your opinion of Jim Clemente? In case you don’t know who Jim Clemente is, he’s a former criminal profiler at the FBI and a supposed expert on child sex crimes. The MJ haters are having a field day on the internet because Tom Mesereau was interviewed by Clemente and apparently Mesereau couldn’t counter Clemente’s arguments on child molestation. Our friend Mike Par is hailing Clemente a hero for “disseminating” Mesereau on Clemente’s show. It’s so sad that a man of Clemente’s position would rub shoulders with people who have absolutely no class and no professionalism especially with one who called me racist things and who keeps attacking my dead brother.

        1. Question why Sneddon did not use Clemente’s expertise at trial. Even if he was unable to be present, another profiler could have testified to similar opinions. Either input was considered too esoteric and non-supportable or Sneddon simply decided it was not necessary and potentially balanced by a counter witness.

          1. I do not think much of expert testimony in the field of child abuse and psychology. Sure in certain cases it can be an interesting addition to a case, maybe there are situations where it’s important even, but thing is for every Clemente the Defense too would present their experts who would say the exact opposite as Clemente. And they all have their credentials. I know, for example, that this famous scientist in the psychological field, Elizabeth Loftus was on the Defense’s witness list. Check her out, just by her speech she seems so much more sophisticated than Clemente:

            The fact that Clemente is clearly not aware of the limitations of his field is very telling about him not being a good expert. He thinks he can judge people without knowing the full story – because he clearly bases his conclusions on erroneous, incomplete and biased information, yet he thinks he is an authority to tell whether someone was guilty or innocent simply based on his biased behavior analysis and ignoring everything else. Actually it is eye-opening and alarming at the same time that this is the quality of “experts” we have testifying in US courts. I’m sure that Wade did not find it hard either to find some psychologist to vouch for him. There is a whole industry built around this in the US.

        2. As always haters are lying. You can watch it for yourself:

          No “disseminating” Mesereau by Clemente at all, as you can see.

          You can also read the comment section where I and some others called him out on his BS and he stopped responding when he could not operate with throwing around general terms any more but was called to discuss the actual facts of the cases instead and it turns out his knowlede about it is very superficial and incorrect.

          1. The MJ part is from 34:15.

            I’m actually surprised that you say haters celebrate this as victory when watching the video my impression was surprise that the FBI would employ such dumb guys as Clemente with basing his conclusions on the usual fallacious myths about child molestation (“people do not lie about sex abuse” etc.). But I guess that’s why he was the perfect “expert” for the prosecution.

            Then the debate continued with fans in the comment section and all he tried to do was to hide behind an appeals to credentials fallacy which I called him out on. He seems to think that just because he has qualifications he is automatically right – and that without giving any real arguments about why he he is right. From that behavior alone I know he is not a good expert. He makes untrue, uncorroborated statements ex cathedra such as “MJ was in love with dozens of boys”. Then I told him, “OK, let’s talk about the facts of this case then instead of generalizations and assumptions”. You say MJ fell in love with these boys. Would you please show me what do you base that on, for example, in the case of Gavin?

            His answer:

            Jim Clemente
            2 days ago

            +Suzy Suzy Sure, the interactions that I saw with my own eyes between an unrelated teen aged boy and MJ, holding hands and leaning on shoulders and “No you sleep in the bed” playful banter following many hours spent frolicking around Neverland playing games and having adventures and shopping sprees and caring for a sick child and being a “father figure” to him, and his interviews and statements to the grand jury and his disclosures of being molested by MJ and his brother’s witnessing of two such events and there’s more… But you reading the transcripts and not being educated in the field of Child Sexual Victimization, I can see where your love of MJ would overcome this overwhelming evidence of grooming followed by compliant sexual victimization of that child. 

            This post along with the rest of his posts shows how little he knows about the actual case. I replied to him:

            Suzy Suzy
            2 days ago

            +Jim Clemente The problem with what you said here is that it’s not consistent with even what the accuser alleged. Not consistent with their timeline. You making such conclusions from the Bashir interview is excting because thing is MJ and Gavin met before that scene once in 2000 and some two other times at NL when according to Gavin’s own testimony MJ actively avoided him. There were no hours of frolicking and shopping sprees together. So you concluding from that scene that MJ “was in love with Gavin” is interesting. That was a set-up scene and actually even Gavin admitted on the stand that the portrayal by Bashir in that documentary was false. As for the “disclosures” of Gavin of being molested. Lots of, lots of changes and contradiction in his story during the course of the process. Same goes for his brother. They contradicted both their own earlier statements and each other on the stand and not only on some minor points but in significant ones. If there had was actual overwhelming evidence of grooming why wasn’t it shown?

            He has not replied ever since.

          2. I post all of my conversations with him on YT, so that you can see for yourself this guy that haters so celebrate:

            Suzy Suzy
            2 days ago

            I took the effort to read the court documents about MJ’s this trial. And I base my opinion that he was innocent on that. Unfortunately often people rely on pretty little catch-phrases like “pedophile profile” instead of actually doing research about the facts of a case.

            Jim Clemente
            2 days ago

            The court case is a show for the jury or judge. It is not always the full story and it certainly wasn’t in MJ’s case. 

            Suzy Suzy
            2 days ago

            +Jim Clemente No, the court case is a process where evidence and testimony pro and contra is shown. It definitely gives more information about a case than your appeals to authority (“I’m an expert so I’m right and you are wrong”) fallacious arguments here.

            Jim Clemente
            2 days ago

            +Suzy Suzy Suzzzzzzzzy, you don’t know sarcasm do you. Let me spell it out for you. 1. I’m a lawyer. 2. I’m a former prosecutor, 3. Im an FBI Profiler with 25+ years of law enforcement investigations into violent and sexual crimes. You, not so much. So, spare me the juvenile definitions of the court process. Even Mesereau admits that they are an opportunity for each side to promote its “theory” of the case. Good prosecutors tell the truth, and good defense attorneys try to poke holes in it or mislead the judge or jury to prevent conviction. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a difficult thing to achieve especially against an icon. But, in this case… Michael Jackson, fell in love with about a dozen boys over time and acted out sexually with them. He never “hurt” them as he said, but he did molest them. That is my expert opinion based on my training, experience, expertise and listening to the victims recount the grooming and victimization process.

            Suzy Suzy
            2 days ago (edited)

            +Jim Clemente Once again this fallacy of “I am right by default because of my qualifications and expertise”. When it’s clear from your comments that you do not know much about this actual case that we are talking about, just incomplete, surface stuff. Qualifications alone won’t make you right.

            As for my “juvenile definition” of the court process: I did not intend to define it. However, if this is your “definition” of it then I’d rather stick to mine:
            “Good prosecutors tell the truth, and good defense attorneys try to poke holes in it or mislead the judge or jury to prevent conviction.”
            So you say that a court process is about the prosecutors telling the truth and a defense is only “to mislead the judge or jury to prevent conviction”. Sorry, but this is very biased, one-sided “definition” of a court process with the wrong premise of prosecutions always telling the truth.

            Suzy Suzy
            2 days ago (edited)

            +Jim Clemente OK, instead of these generalizations and appeals to your “expertise” in your posts, let’s talk about the actual case. You say MJ “fell in love” with these boys. OK, let’s take the subject of the 2005 trial. Can you show me in that case where is evidence of MJ “falling in love” with Gavin and from what did you conclude that?

            Jim Clemente
            2 days ago

            +Suzy Suzy Sure, the interactions that I saw with my own eyes between an unrelated teen aged boy and MJ, holding hands and leaning on shoulders and “No you sleep in the bed” playful banter following many hours spent frolicking around Neverland playing games and having adventures and shopping sprees and caring for a sick child and being a “father figure” to him, and his interviews and statements to the grand jury and his disclosures of being molested by MJ and his brother’s witnessing of two such events and there’s more… But you reading the transcripts and not being educated in the field of Child Sexual Victimization, I can see where your love of MJ would overcome this overwhelming evidence of grooming followed by compliant sexual victimization of that child. 

            Suzy Suzy
            2 days ago

            +Jim Clemente The problem with what you said here is that it’s not consistent with even what the accuser alleged. Not consistent with their timeline. You making such conclusions from the Bashir interview is excting because thing is MJ and Gavin met before that scene once in 2000 and some two other times at NL when according to Gavin’s own testimony MJ actively avoided him. There were no hours of frolicking and shopping sprees together. So you concluding from that scene that MJ “was in love with Gavin” is interesting. That was a set-up scene and actually even Gavin admitted on the stand that the portrayal by Bashir in that documentary was false. As for the “disclosures” of Gavin of being molested. Lots of, lots of changes and contradiction in his story during the course of the process. Same goes for his brother. They contradicted both their own earlier statements and each other on the stand and not only on some minor points but in significant ones. If there had was actual overwhelming evidence of grooming why wasn’t it shown?


            There is another exchange I had with him. It started with a conversation with some of his supporters then he joined in.

            Suzy Suzy
            2 days ago (edited)

            +Jay Mur
            I have to agree. Mr. Clemente is entitled to have an opinion, but he sounds very unprofessional with his fallacious arguments like “I am right and you are wrong because I am a behaviour expert”. Wow! You may be that Mr. Clemente, but that does not make you a know-it-all God who can tell guilt or innocence of people by just looking at them and based the incomplete and very one-sided info that you keep repeating here. I may not be a behaviour expert but I am pretty much knowledgable about Jackson’s 2005 trial because I took the time and effort to look into that. To base a judgement on things like how many boys MJ hang out with, instead of actually looking into the facts of a case and judge based on that, is very unprofessional, I have to say.

            Look how his followers are already picking up his fallacious notions, such as trials do not matter, they are just shows and it’s what we did not see would be the big bomshell evidence that would get MJ convicted. LOL.

            Karla Ortiz Gil
            2 days ago (edited)

            +User Friendly I understand what you’re saying, but why the word “LEGITIMATE” in caps? Do you think Mr. Clemente is making up his resume in order to appear on an internet show? I know there’s a lot of information on every side of this issue, but I’m sure there are A LOT of things that are not published and only the investigators know, due to the fact that we’re talking about minors. I believe this kind of information is what makes people like Mr. Clemente believe he did actually perpetrate the crimes. We have to remember that not everything comes into the trial, and that trials are a kind of show put up to convince the jury one way or another. If we had the same amount of info the investigators had on the issue, maybe we all would think differently. Just because we watched the trial and read about it doesn’t make us experts, which is what those two guys in the video are: CERTIFIED experts in their fields. 


            Suzy Suzy
            2 days ago

            +Karla Ortiz Gil If there is sensitive info then there is a way to present that without public scrutiny, but they absolutely would present that because after all the goal of a prosecution is to get a conviction and not to do a “show”. If a prosecution knowingly holds back evidence that would change the outcome of a trial then that prosecution is guilty of assisting a criminal. But that’s not what happened here. This prosecution threw everything but the kitchen sink at MJ and their case was still weak. Not only that, but when you know about facts such as the timeline and its significant changes, the kids allegations and how and when they emerged and then how they changed when the initial ones did not work, then you would maybe see our point. It wasn’t just a lack of evidence against MJ, but actually there was heavy evidence about this family lying through their theeth.


            Karla Ortiz Gil
            2 days ago

            I see. I respect your opinion, and I believe this is a tough topic because people feel so strongly about Michael Jackson. I do agree with Mr. Clemente, and believe the guy is super guilty of molestation, but we will never know for sure, so let’s agree to disagree.


            Suzy Suzy
            2 days ago

            OK, agree to disagree, but never forget that to have an informed opinion you actually have to be INFORMED. Clemente may have his degree and credentials which seems to be his main argument for why he is always right, but a lot of the things he said about this case in the video or here in the comment section is simply incorrect and very misleading. Facts are facts, independently from anyone’s credentials.

            This is where Clemente joins in:

            Jim Clemente
            2 days ago

            +Suzy Suzy Suzy, you heard Mesereau, I was scheduled to testify in this case but had cancer at the time and had to have a bone marrow transplant during the trial. I know the facts that I am talking about, I lived them. I did not watch them on TV or read about them. You are entitled to your opinion, I just thought you’d like to know from someone who actually studied and taught the subject. Lawyers call me, not Tom Meseareau when they want expert testimony. I was interviewing Tom for this segment. So, I let him make his points, challenged him on a few and went on. If he were interviewing me, I would have given much more detail about my basis of knowledge in the case. 


            Suzy Suzy
            2 days ago

            +Jim Clemente I know you were supposed to be on a prosecution expert witness in this case. However testifying generally about child abuse does not necessarily mean you are aware of the detailed facts of the case and by some of your comments here and in the video my impression is that you are not. For example basing judgement on the Bashir video – when if you actually knew the case you would know that your conclusion about that scene is not consistent with even the accuser’s own story! So there goes your “expertise” in judging scenes and situations by just looking at them! Also you said earlier that the 1993 and 2003 accusers had very similar stories about the grooming. As someone who knows a lot about both cases (by studying both sides’ stories and arguments) I’m a bit puzzled by that statement:

            1) Even if it was so, it would obviously be a no-brainer for Gavin and his family to make up similar stories as in the allegations of 1993. So that would not prove anything.

            2) That is not even so. Jordan and his family were “friends” of Michael, while the Arvizos not so much. By Gavin’s own testimony MJ kept avoiding him on purpose. So what is so similar in those so called “grooming” stories then?

            Again, he did not reply since.


            So if this guy is a hero for haters… LOL.

          3. Hi, it’s me again. I just came across another video featuring Clemente. It’s right here:

            Between 1:33 and 14:06 they talk about the scandal involving actor Stephen Collins. If you don’t know who Stephen Collins is he once was the star of the T.V. drama “7th Heaven.” Two months ago he was embroiled in a sex scandal where he admitted in a taped conversation with some therapist that he acted inappropriately with underage girls between the 70s and the early 90s. He didn’t know the conversation was taped because he now ex-wife taped it without his knowledge as is now using the tape in the court proceedings. Recently Stephen Collins went on a “20/20” interview with Katie Couric where he apologized somewhat for his actions.

            In this YouTube I’m showing you, Jim Clemente is basically not buying Collins’ apology as was to be expected and is basically painting Collins in the most negative light possible. Clemente is making mountains out of anthills for things Collins said or didn’t say. But Clemente says something very interesting at 5:45. Clemente takes issue with Collins saying that he (Collins) has the say “my truth” not “the truth.” If we all can recall correctly Wade Robson in his interview with Matt Lauer Wade uses the same exact phrase “My truth” to describe his allegations against Michael Jackson. Not “The truth.” Strange isn’t it? Personally, I think Collins is genuinely sorry for what he did to those girls. But I have to ask why does Clemente find Collins’ use of “My truth” as an act of deception and Wade’s use of “My truth” as being truthful?

        3. Actually Mesereau did counter Clementes claims quite handily, so what Clemete did, is wait until the NEXT show with Mike Cavalutti , and went on a rant about MJ AFTER Mesereau was no longer there it defend him self..
          Kinda a cowardly move imo
          I will have to look for the clip.
          I have followed Jim for quite some time, he is a child sex abuse victim , and it colors everything he sees.
          He really knows nothing about the 2005 trial, becasue he only knows what the prosecutors cherry picked ., for instance he thought Gavin and MJ had a long standing friendship , when in Gavins own testimony , he only met MJ like twice, and was angry because he was avoiding him..
          I dont even think he knows the DA changed the entire time line..

          he starts talking about MJ at the 25 minute mark

          1. Yes, he is a coward and a very dishonest man. He stopped replying to me on YT when I showed him his beliefs about basic facts of the case are wrong and he bases his conclusions that he is so sure of on those wrong beliefs, yet he further spouts his crap on the next show? At least he should admit that his knowledge is lacking about this case and move on.

            If being a child abuse victim as a child clouds his judement and makes him biased to this extent he should have chosen another job. Like I said it’s scary that people like this do the profiling at the FBI.

          2. The way he handles comments really marks him as an arrogant prick. I never saw so much circular arguing in my life.

          3. Do you remember this guy named Michael Egan who accused “X-Men” director Bryan Singer of sexual abuse when he (Egan) was 15 years old? Back in August Egan voluntarily dropped his suit against Singer. There’s this documentary about child sexual abuse in Hollywood called “An Open Secret” which features Egan. What that film doesn’t depict is that Egan has a very checkered past, pretty much like the Arvizos, plus Egan’s accusations against Singer were very inconsistent especially considering that Egan himself admitted that he wasn’t even in the place during the time frame when the alleged abuse occurred. It’s so sad that the makers of that documentary didn’t properly vetted Egan before featuring him. Now Egan is facing charges for fraud. You can read the article right here:

            I get a lot of flak from the MJ haters for saying that every accusation, especially sex abuse, has to be vetted thoroughly. They always tell me in return that I’m a rape apologist and that I’m the reason why child sexual abuse victims can’t come forward. I just wish they’d understand that if an accusation or a claim isn’t properly investigated you might have a situation similar to say the McMartin Scandal, Michael Egan and even Susan Smith even though her case doesn’t involve child sexual abuse. I’d like for Jim Clemente to analyze Michael Egan’s accusations, I really do because according to him an adult, especially a male adult never lies about being sexually abused as a child.

          4. I had a longer comment I typed earlier today, but it was accidentally deleted before I could finish it. But yes, that argument from the MJ hater faction is one I am weary with. According to them, every person who cries “I was molested” is supposed to be believed without question. They tend to conveniently overlook the fact that we already live in an era, and in a society, where the accuser is automatically given every advantage and every benefit of the doubt, while the person accused may face criminal charges or, at the very least, have his/her reputation ruined.

            I would be the first to agree, of course, that a person’s moral character or background is not sufficient to say that person was not abused. Michael Egan could well have been sexually abused by Bryan Singer and still be guilty of fraud. Most MJ haters are quick to point out that just because the Arvizo family had a checkered history does not mean Gavin couldn’t have been molested. While this is undeniably true, nevertheless, it does give cause for reasonable doubt when we know that a person has a history of being a con artist.

          5. It was definitely no long standing relationship, and yes, as I have reported here, Michael grew tired and annoyed with this needy, clingy kid and his equally clingy, needy family fairly quickly.

        4. After watching the clip, my honest opinion is that no one was “disseminated.” It felt like a balanced debate and I don’t think there was a clearcut “winner” or “loser” here. What came across quite glaringly obvious is that Clemente knows nothing about the actual specifics of the Michael Jackson case, which is where Mesereau clearly has the upper hand. The problem with putting too much stock in “profiling” is that there really is no such thing as a pedophile profile. True, there are certain characteristics that some pedophiles share in common; however, that is a lot like saying anyone of Middle Eastern descent fits the terrorist profile. Mesereau, I think, could have taken a more confrontational approach with this guy but I think he conducted himself quite coolly and civilly. I will only say that I was a bit disappointed to see him falling back on some of the same, cliched’ fallacies that fans often fall back on-MJ was a good and charitable person; he didn’t have a childhood, etc. None of these arguments are going to win over skeptics because, just as Clemente did, a skeptic will always come back and say, “Yes, but people who are charitable and kind can still be a pedophile” and they can say, “Michael’s brothers grew up under the same conditions as he did.” The only thing that is going to punch holes in the skeptics’ beliefs is countering their own fallacies with actual, factual information-not simply countering fallacies with more fallacies. It’s one thing to say “Michael never had a childhood.” Quite another if you can say something like, “The prosecution completely changed the timeline of events” or that Gavin Arvizo claimed to have been shown a magazine that wasn’t even published at the time the alleged incident took place.

          One thing Clemente did say that is correct-and it has been a sore spot for me for a long time-is that Michael’s statement of saying “I would slit my wrist before I would hurt a child” is often used as a defense, and indeed Michael stated it as a defense, but it was a weak one imo that has not done him any favors in the skeptics’ court. Here he is equating the idea of sexual abuse with physical violence (just as he did in his “who is Jack the Ripper in the room” comment) but any savvy pedophile profiler knows they are two completely different ideas-and usually it is true that pedophiles honestly do not believe they are hurting children when they have sex with them.

          But as I have said before, Michael was also not always his own best spokesperson when it came to off the cuff interviews. He was always at his best and most articulate when he had time to prepare his speeches or statements, and when he did not have wily reporters like Bashir tossing dodge balls at him. Michael made some blunders, but he also made very powerful testaments to his innocence such as his December ’93 telecast.

          All in all, if I were a neutral person listening to this interview, I wouldn’t have come away either convinced or not convinced of Michael’s innocence. So maybe while not exactly a victory for Mesereau, certainly not a case of dissemination. The haters are totally missing the mark on that one.

          1. Jim Clemente was supposed to testify in the 2005 trial, but came down with cancer from being a first respond er on 9/11, according to what he said in an earlier interview
            He was undergoing chemo,at the time, perhaps he identifies with Gavin for that as well as alleged abuse
            I think he may think, he missed his chance to save the day for the prosecution , however we all know that , he isnt the only expert with the FBI , so that isnt true,and we see that even the FBI files show nothing criminal regarding MJ
            This prosecution got 14 not guilty verdicts , that is a H@ll to the No , for sure
            I had talked to Allison Hope wiener about him a long time ago , because of one of his older shows where he was going on about mj being “in love’ with Gavin which is ridiculous ,and to ask him to pleaseask him, to just even read Gavins testimony , and he would see from the kids own mouth , it wasnt true, but he refuses ..
            He even addresses why he refuses to read them in one show with her , because I had asked her to.
            He feels all the evidence was not shown , and had it been it would be obvious.
            I would also think that if he had actually interviewed supposed victims , and it was recorded or transcribed , that the judge would have allowed it in as 1108 evidence .
            After all, look at the leniency he gave the prosecutors for that stuff.
            if he interviewed all mj supposed victims , that would include Mac, Brett and Wade , so why didnt he crack Wade himself years ago..
            Instead , they all come in for MJ ..Just doesnt add up to me ,
            I think he read the grand jury transcripts .
            I would guess, that is why he got along like a house on fire with the Santa Barbara team, because any exculpatory evidence was discarded by them also , and they were in denial , even after all those witnesses .
            Seems to me all his info comes from those prosecutors who were also using VG book.
            It is a shame they didnt look at the actual author of the book and insist on checking his computers and credentials .
            To go out for victory celebration before the verdicts and had not have felt what the jury was thinking, just shows tunnel vision imo.
            Allison has said, that is his personality , and he is a nice person,( Ive also seen him being a very engaging person, however , he never feels there is need for debate , once he has quickly made his mind up.He talks over and throiugh people , as he did to Mesereau at times . but he is just of that mindset about many cases .
            He did a report for clearing the coach that worked with Sandusky(Joe Patero) and I really felt it was written, almost as an indictment against MJ too, just with the way he was wording things ..I felt that at some point he would like to be interviewed about it and was preparing to compare his finding to MJ ..I do feel , due to celebrity , he is kinda obsessed with mj ..
            I did notice one case he is absolutely convinced the prosecutors were up to no good, was the one about an American girl in Ttaly? accused of killing her roommate.BIG MEDIA CASE.Forget her name , but she is back in the states now..
            I thought it interesting that he could be so incredulous that something like that could take place, but he cant seem to fathom it happening in this country ..and at the time when he was speaking of th prosecutors, all i could think of was Sneddon
            As far as how MJ said he wouldnt hurt a child , I agree , he should have been more specific , more blunt , however he has a camera in his face and this is supposed to air on tv,with a family audience, not a private conversation , where he may have said i dont scr#w kids , instead he says “your thinking sexual , it is not sexual”I would never hurt a child, I would slit my wrists before I hurt a child..
            Later i think with Ed Bradley , he said he would never do anything sexual to a child also
            I think MJ was always mindful of the fact that people of all ages would be watching the shows..
            ..In an earlier deposition , where he didnt think it would be for public consumption , he bluntly said , “Im not gay , I dont do kids ”
            YOu might think the prosecutors would have seen that clip

            I wonder if Mr Clemente has ever seen the uncut version of the documentary., and the way Bashir cut it, even leaving out their conversation about pedophile priests ..he seems to have no information from after the trial took place, only info that was already shot down.

          2. Thanks for your thoughtful post and yes, I agree that Clemente is not only ill informed, but willfully ill-informed, which is even worse.

            I sometimes wish Michael HAD been as blunt in those interviews as he was in private conversations and depositions. The Jacksons all have a tendency to censor themselves in interviews (I think this is, in part, due to the era they came up in and their early Motown training). To hear Michael Jackson say something like “I don’t do kids” or “Why in hell is this kid leaning on me?” (as he supposedly said in reaction to Gavin’s actions during the Bashir interview) might take some people aback, as it is so out of character with the public Michael, but it would go far in redeeming a lot of those weak and often misinterpreted statements that he gave in public interviews.

          3. “if he interviewed all mj supposed victims , that would include Mac, Brett and Wade , so why didnt he crack Wade himself years ago..
            Instead , they all come in for MJ ..Just doesnt add up to me ,
            I think he read the grand jury transcripts .”

            Obviously none of these guys told anything incriminating to Clemente about MJ, otherwise it would have been used in court. I don’t believe he even talked to any of them, to be honest.

            “He even addresses why he refuses to read them in one show with her , because I had asked her to. He feels all the evidence was not shown , and had it been it would be obvious.”

            Same tactics as what he uses now and what haters constantly use. Because the facts of these cases clearly point in the direction of MJ being innocent and his accusers being fraudsters these people always try to hint at some never seen phantom evidence or never seen phantom accusers who would have certainly got a conviction for MJ. That’s just some convenient cop out and clearly BS. We are not talking about a case where the prosecution covered up stuff for the Defendant. We are talking about a case where the DA was obsessed with putting MJ in jail for over a decade and turned every stone so that he could do so. He was even allowed to present “prior bad acts” evidence. So to suggest that this guy somehow neglected to present the real, bombshell evidence that would have surely convicted MJ is just ridiculous. The very fact they had to go with a family that was as compromised in their credibility as the Arvizos shows that they had nothing.

            As for MJ in interviews. First, like said, he wasn’t always very sophisticated in expressing himself, but he was always very adamant and passionate about his innocence and there were no wishy-washy answers or non-answers a la Sandusky or Cosby. If someone wants to say that the “slit my wrist” comment does not explicitly deny sex and leaves open the door to the notion that he might not have considered sex with children harmful, well then Wade’s own lawsuit would refute that theory, where Wade says that MJ told him in 2005: “They are making up all these lies about you and I, saying we did all this disgusting sexual stuff.”

            So there you go. “Disgusting sexual stuff” – that’s what MJ thought about it, not that it’s something loving and not harmful to children. There is simply no basis to the theory that MJ considered sex with children “loving” and harmless. In fact in his autobiography he talks about the bad implications it had on him that he was exposed to sexuality at such a young age (strip clubs, his brothers having sex with fans next to him etc.) and he fully realized how wrong that was. Moreover he sings about child sexual abuse in songs like Do You Know Where Your Children Are or Hollywood Tonight. He condemns it in both songs. Or remember that note he wrote to Dee Dee about that article he read about child sexual abuse. And Taj said recently how MJ was a big help to him after he had been sexually abused by someone else in the family. So MJ understood it very well that sex with children is harmful and not something that is loving and harmless and he never said anything that indicated any other attitude towards the topic by him that the attitude that it’s wrong.

            Instead it’s people like Victor Guiterrez who spout such pro-pedophilia propaganda, yet that somehow remains undetected by people like Dimond or Clemente… Says it all.

          4. All of that is true but I am talking about how the “I would slit my wrists” comment can be perceived by skeptics as something that is not a viable denial. We have already discussed in the comments section of my previous post how powerful MJ’s denials were as compared to the wishy-washy hemhawings of Sandusky, or the outright silence of Cosby, and I agree that they were. Now, as to whether I personally believe Michael equated sex to being a loving act with children, I obviously do not because I have read all of the same sources as you mentioned above. But there are skeptics who may base their assumptions only on what they heard Michael say in that interview, and imo it is a weak defense. I can appreciate Michael’s sincerity in what he felt when he stated it (and it was an off the cuff but passionate response to a question that had been put to him on spot) but I think it was a mistake for Mesereau to fall back on it during this debate with Clemente.

          5. I agree that a defense against child molestation that is not based on facts of the matter but on irrelevant aspects such as Michaels supposed character or child-hood does not help the case, especially coming from his lawyer.
            I understand that Mesereau wants to ‘humanize’ Michael, but he has to choose his battles. You cannot expect the general public to read volumes of court documents before they can have an opinion. I do not know the details of the allegatons against Cosby, but I do have an opinion. But as he is not convicted , for now its innocent untill proven guilty, which is more than the general public gives him and still gives Michael.
            It would be hard to win the Chandler case because Michaels defense team was an incompetent mess, Pellicanos MO was incriminating and would backfire on the case, Michael was struggling with addiction and it could not be denied that he had spent time alone with the kid sleeping in his bedroom. That is what makes it hard for the public to accept. And the fact that the case was settled for an outrageous sum, which unlike in business deals in sex related cases is seen as an admittance of guilt. Michael was also not interviewsavvy, the 60 minutes interview was a big mistake that will stay in the collective memory.

          6. I do not think the Chandler case would be hard to win. In fact, I think people think of it as a “strong case” exactly because it never went to court and there was never a real opportunity to expose the Chandler family in court like with the Arvizos. When you know the details of the case it falls apart just like the Arvizo case does. This situation where only superficial info is known to the wider public about a case (settlement etc.) is always better to the accusers than when the actual details come out.

  6. I’d also like to add this from Ray Chandler’s book:

    Larry Feldman: “Right. Listen to this, Evan. Maureen Orth is writing this big Vanity Fair article. And when she went out to see Fields he said, we’re going to litigate this case hard and heavy, we’ve got nothing to hide. Now he wants a six-year stay! She’s fuckin’ gonna see this and flip . . . and Diane Dimond too, you know, who’s really your closest ally.”

    “Diane Dimond is your closest ally” – I always found that remark interesting.

    1. Diane Dimond has all but admitted to witness tampering. She doesn’t have Sneddon to protect her any more. Wouldn’t it be loverly if she was indicted!

  7. You may already know thins, but according to her parents D Dimond is a self-taught journalist. I think the quote at the end of the article explains a lot:

    From Dimond’s hometown paper,The Albuquerque Journal : “I told her she ought to go to college, and we were prepared to send her to college,” said her mother, Ruby. “But she didn’t want any part of it. I thought she was crazy to go off on her own like that. She was so young. But she knew from the beginning she could do it. She just waded in with both feet.”
    While Dimond was in her junior year of high school, her friend, Linda Hebenstreit, whose father owned the local CBS television affiliate, KGGM, got her a job as a weekend receptionist at the station.
    “One day the news director came out to the front desk in a panic. All of the writers went out to dinner and got into a car accident. He asked me if I could write and I said ‘you bet!’ Of course, I’d never done it before, though I did like to write and had even entered writing contests. So I wrote copy based on the wire service stories, and the anchor read it on air. I was hooked. I loved it when it came out of the anchor man’s mouth. My God, he’s reading my words!”
    Dimond started hanging out more in the news room, and the staff took advantage of it, putting her to work writing news copy. KGGM, which also owned a radio station at the time, liked Dimond’s voice and taught her to do promos and station identifications. Before long, she was reading the news on KGGM’s radio station.
    She also began dating the KGGM-TV anchor, Chuck Dimond.
    It was there in 1976 that Dimond won a Silver Gavel Award from the American Bar Association for a series of reports revealing that the Sheriff’s Office had misused federal law enforcement grant money.
    “I learned there and then what goes into making an investigative report,” she said. “It was exciting, like being a private detective. It felt exhilarating. It felt important.”

    1. “I learned there and then what goes into making an investigative report,” she said. “It was exciting, like being a private detective. It felt exhilarating. It felt important.”

      There you have it – cue “What a Feeling” from the movie Flashdance. That Silver Gavel moment was the highlight of DD’s life. She’s spent thirty plus years chasing the high she got from bringing down rich and powerful lawyers.

      As DD is largely self-taught, she apparently had no training in vetting and confirming sources, and journalistic ethics. Or maybe she’s just a lousy human being with no conscience. Only a sleazebag would hook up with the likes of Victor Gutierrez.

      1. You’re right – a lifetime trying to regain that feeling and attention at MJs expense. Diane Dimond is as pathetic as she is despicable.

    2. Exactly. Diane seeks validation in the profession. But in all her years in the business, she has never been able to rise above the rank of a Hard Copy gumshoe. “Breaking” the Michael Jackson story was the first and only really important story of her career, and she constructed dreams of glory atop that pyre.

      Her entire history is one of power seeking and the validation that comes from having that power.

    1. Well, as I said to Curt Pierre, I don’t really know much about the guy. I can say he comes across as a bit of an opinionated jerk, but that is as much as I could say at this time. I would have to do a lot more research to try to determine if he is a key player. Right now I am inclined to say he isn’t. Again, being an opinionated jerk doesn’t mean he’s involved in a conspiracy against Michael. You know the old, crude saying about opinions and a certain region of the human anatomy. Everyone has one. I’m kind of inclined to think that’s where it begins and ends with this guy. However, the unfortunate thing is that his FBI credentials may lull some with a false sense of authority. He is obviously playing that card but his knowledge strikes me as surprisingly limited and quite narrow in scope.

      1. Jim Clemente said on Youtube comments that he had interviewed many of Mike’s special friends and gone through the evidence in the 2005 trial. I’m guessing he is basing his opinion on that.

        1. I highly doubt he has done either. He doesn’t strike me as knowledgable about the details of the cases, only as someone who knows a bit about pedophile profiling.

        2. Jim Clemente said a lot of things which are demonstrably not true. Like Raven said it’s actually pretty clear that his knowledge about this case is very superficial at best and he doesn’t even know basic stuff.

          And notice that when I asked him about what he based his conclusion on that MJ was “in love” with Gavin he did not say “I interviewed Gavin” but he said he based his conclusion on things like the Bashir interview and started to spout all the usual fallacious crap about shopping sprees, Neverland, but nothing that suggests that he ever talked to Gavin personally.

        3. How do you go through the evidence in the 2005 trial, when you admit you refuse to read the testimony?
          You havent , of course .
          What you have gone over is the case, the prosecution is putting on from their point of view only and counting on you to bolster , because you are an expert for the prosecution and there will be a expert for the defense also for the same reason , which is why people usually ignore paid experts
          I will have to look over the Youtube thing again , but I think he was only supposed to testify as to what grooming is , not how he had any personal knowledge of the facts of this particular case .
          Mr Clemente is also a consultant on the show , Criminal Minds , which is interesting, because that is show biz also ,rubbing elbows with actors , and of course it is just a tv show, he is asked his opinion and he is the last word..nobody is arguing with him over his expertise
          I would assume he likes the job and the attn he gets or he wouldnt be doing it
          An interesting thing I saw him talking about was an exercise, he performed on someone who had lost their keys , couldnt find them, didnt know what to do .. and he was helping them ..
          With a lot big words he described having the subject go back and retrace , and go over the events of the day etc, and as if it was some major accomplishment , the person remembered where they left their keys.
          My mother would do the same thing if , we couldnt find something .
          It was called retracing your steps .
          She was a telephone operator, not a behavioral expert
          I think alot of his musing, on the subject of MJ have to do with ego, and the fact that he WAS on the losing side and you simply couldnt lose any bigger than they did

          1. “How do you go through the evidence in the 2005 trial, when you admit you refuse to read the testimony? You havent , of course.”

            I agree. No serious expert or scientist would ever say such a BS which is “I have my opinion, period, and I do not care about the validity of the actual facts on which I base my opinion.”

            “I think alot of his musing, on the subject of MJ have to do with ego”

            Yes, that’s my impression also.

    2. I don’t think every single person on the prosecution’s team has to be a part of a “conspiracy”. Clemente would have been only a minor player at the trial, do not fall for his posturing of making himself an important part of it. I think he probably genuinely believes what he says, he is simply very biased and a bad expert since all he bases his conclusions on are logical fallacies, which is why he was picked by the prosecution.

      BTW, if Clemente wants to make it a pissing contest of credentials then I guess the Defense would have won on that department too. See Elizabeth Loftus’ credentials:

      1. The idea of how memory can be shaped by suggestion is very interesting, and something I would like to explore further in relation to Wade’s and Jimmy’s allegations. I tend to believe that such accusations don’t come from out of thin air. It is possible, of course, that out of pure malice they just decided to make all this stuff up. But generally, human beings tend to rationalize their actions, and they will rationalize based on something they can hang a hat on to justify their claims. The power of suggested memory doesn’t require much. Under the guidance of a skilled and clever, manipulative therapist, it doesn’t take much for things like innocent hugs or kisses on the cheek to be construed as “inappropriate touching” and even, perhaps, joking around about girls, etc-which might have been perfectly innocent behavior-to suddenly escalate into “inappropriate sexual behavior” with minors. In other words, the person can become convinced that what they remember is sexual abuse, when in fact no such “abuse” may have been the intent. I tend to believe that Wade and Jimmy know what they’re doing, but are probably rationalizing their actions internally based on memory suggestion. Once the brain starts looking for reasons to assume abuse, most any action the accused person did can then be construed as “abuse” in the mind of the accuser. What continues to be most interesting in Wade’s case is that he was still an ardent MJ advocate and self proclaimed MJ protege’ right up to getting fired from the Cirque du Soleil project and replaced by Jamie King. Then suddenly, he had a breakdown and remembered “years” of abuse. I half wonder if, in some twisted way, Wade has justified his actions as a stab at the estate, rather than to his dead friend. This is really twisted logic, but we’re not exactly dealing with a normal mindset here. In his mind, he could be thinking, “The man-the human being and friend I knew-is dead. So what I do now can’t hurt him. But it can sure as hell hurt his executors.” That sounds pretty far fetched, but it would not shock me in the least if this is the reality that Wade has lulled himself into. A body language expert stated that she does not really get a sense of anger or outrage from Wade. This would be in keeping with someone who actually bears no malice toward the person he is accusing but, rather, perhaps, against a corporate entity. Of course, that he is, in fact, doing irreparable damage to his late friend and his family and children is not something he would consider because Wade is most likely a sociopathic personality and sociopaths are not wired to think that way. As for Jimmy, I think he is just more or less along for the ride. Wade was the real initiator of this. Jimmy is just thinking if there is any chance that this works out favorably for Wade, he might stand a shot at getting a slice of the pie, too.

        1. I agree that humans tend to rationalize their actions and probably there is some rationalization going on with Wade and James as well. While I think in both cases the most important motive, without which none of this would be happening is money, but I do think both guys have some underlying issues too. With Safechuck from the things I have read about his lawsuit I can imagine he was bitter about the fact MJ and him drifted away after a while. There is some info in those articles about his lawsuit which to me suggests that he tried to pursue a showbiz career with MJ’s help in the 90s and it eventually did not go anywhere and then they just drifted away and from being a friend of the biggest pop star and travelling all around the globe etc. he just dropped back to being a community college student and eventually ended up with an average, boring 9-to-5 life. Maybe that left him bitter about MJ. My experience is that a lot of people around MJ seem to have entitlement issues and feel that MJ owed them to be their BFF and if he did not they get bitter and even turn on him. So that entitlement may be Safechuck’s way of rationalizing of why MJ was “a bad man” and why he is not totally wrong for turning on MJ and pulling this crap. (And IMO it was a pretty similar rationalizing by the Arvizos.)

          As for Robson, I think there are underlying mental issues and entitlement issues as well.

          I also think these guys, while knowing MJ did not do anything to them, may convince themselves that he was guilty of abusing the other accusers so that makes them not that wrong for joining the bandwagon, after all this was a “horrible man”.

          “The power of suggested memory doesn’t require much. Under the guidance of a skilled and clever, manipulative therapist, it doesn’t take much for things like innocent hugs or kisses on the cheek to be construed as “inappropriate touching”…”

          I think this happened with Jason Francia and that’s how some innocent tickling became sexual abuse in his story. Initially he said he did not remember any touching by MJ that was inappropriate or made him feel uncomfortable. But the prosecution pushed and pushed him to “remember” such things and even blatantly suggested to him what he should “remember”. Eventually Jason gave in and told what they wanted to hear and he was quickly put in therapy by a therapist paid by the prosecution. I can totally imagine that they eventually convinced him that while tickling MJ touched him on the genitalia and even put his hand in his pants. It does not take much for a therapist to convince someone about such a thing, especially if it’s someone like Jason Francia who had memory issues anyway (which is obvious from his 2005 testimony). So many people, prosecutors, cops, therapist telling you it happened years ago, after a while you start to believe it happened and then these newly suggested memories become your actual “memories”.

          “I tend to believe that Wade and Jimmy know what they’re doing, but are probably rationalizing their actions internally based on memory suggestion.”

          I am wondering about that too. Wade clearly surrounds himself with abuse victims now, reads all these sexual abuse books, goes to abuse victim meetings where abuse victims tell their stories etc. so I wonder (also considering his probable mental issues) if he is trying to convince himself it happened to him as well. Surrounding yourself with such stuff day and night can actually “help” you to make up such “memories”. Like in this video, the story of that woman at 0:42:

          On the other hand, I do not believe Wade REALLY thinks now MJ anally raped him and all the other stuff. Maybe he’s trying to convince himself of that but I think eventually he does know it’s all a lie, but maybe he’s trying to suppress that knowledge and replace it with a fantasy story.

          BTW, Wade says in his lawsuit that what he went through is insight oriented therapy. I found a very interesting paper about it. It’s worth reading:

          “I half wonder if, in some twisted way, Wade has justified his actions as a stab at the estate, rather than to his dead friend…. A body language expert stated that she does not really get a sense of anger or outrage from Wade. This would be in keeping with someone who actually bears no malice toward the person he is accusing but, rather, perhaps, against a corporate entity.”

          That’s very interesting and I agree. In fact, Jonathan who we talk about below, used to post this in the comment section of a RadarOnline article in the summer of 2013:

          “There is also many people who knew what Michael was doing, and potentially
          facilitated it because he was making them money, who are still alive,
          and still profiting from Michael’s estate. People for example who
          organised for Wade to come from Australia to America, and other children
          like Wade.

          I don’t have anger for Michael, he had a very troubled life (although it doesn’t excuse what he did). But there was people around Michael who at the very least turned a blind eye, and those are the people that make me very upset”


          I always found this very strange. You guys claim MJ anally raped Wade for years but you are not really angry with MJ but with his Estate? WTF is that? (I do think that Jonathan is basically echoing Wade’s sentiments here.)

          1. I dont believe Wade was abused by anyone , and I think this lawsuit is just payback from being disrespected , iho, by the estate .
            Already upset that his career wasnt going his way, I think he looked at the estate as a life line , that cut him loose.
            I have no proof but my feeling would be , that he had felt close to the Jackson family, had always been loyal, had even helped Jermaine with the book , ..Jermaine made money off it , but Wade didnt, and now he was looking for their help or intervention with the decision the estate made ,and they were wrapped up in the AEG suit , potentially coming into a windfall, for the family , and perhaps not helping him as much as he had thought they would.
            If he supposedly realized he had been abused , why do an interview the way he did ?
            After all, his children were innocents in this entire thing..Why hurt them in such a devastating and public way ?
            That is why I think he was killing 2 birds with one stone .
            If you notice in his Lauer interview , he is asked if MJ paid him to testify and he says “there was no money , no se..then stops , and goes in a completely different direction
            Seems to me he almost said sex.
            I think he is hanging around doing public service videos for abuse , only because he is playing the victim ,and is expected to try and “heal”, and use his pain in a positive way, so he will be some kind of hero/survivor type, and slowly come back to his old self , after he gets his potential cash payout
            He could have healed in LA but TMZ would have been asking him questions, and the people out there , that knew him , dont believe it IMO
            I would think it was an excuse ot get out of a town , you thought you were going to own, and are now in a tough situation, with no education, not even as much formal dance training as others.
            Almost like losing face and coming up with a jackpot explanationjmo

          2. Interesting that you noticed that slip, I’m going to watch the interview again and see if I come to a similar conclusion. I will post my thoughts here as an edit to this comment once I’ve done so.

            ETA: Just came back from watching the interview again. I can’t say with certainty what his intentions were, but it definitely sounded like he was about to say a word that began with “se-” before he stopped himself. What is interesting is that the question that precipitated this comment had been if he was ever offered any form of bribery by Michael or his people in exchange for Wade’s testimony, money of course being the main thing. This would have been at the time of the 2005 trial when Wade was an adult. The question Lauer put to him was an understandable one in attempting to set the record straight. In other words, had he ever been bribed in any way by Michael Jackson or his lawyers to give a favorable testimony? The implication of this “slip” (if indeed “sex” is what he almost said) is that he could have been “bought off” not only with money, but with sex. Like I said, that is one of those very interesting “Freudian”-type slips. WAS Wade, in fact, in love or infatuated with Michael in that way? He instantly censors himself, it seems, because such a slip would have said far more about himself than it would have about MJ, who is already being accused, anyway. The fact that he would even think to equate sex with money as a form of potential bribery in this situation is indeed very interesting IF that is the case (but I don’t want to judge too harshly based on what could have simply been a syntax error in speech, which is quite common when speaking publicly in a stressful situation; the brain sometimes jumps ahead of the tongue and/or vice versa) but all I can say is that it is a VERY interesting slip.

            Also, as was I watching, it occurred to me again just how telling his body language was throughout the interview. The only time he became truly animated or showed any real conviction or emotion was when reacting to what Weitzman and Jermaine had said, and when he was talking about his son. When he said he could understand how confusing this would be to people, and when he talks about his feelings for his son, are the only points in the interview where he seems forceful, assured, and confident. This all occurs during the latter half of the interview, but during the first half, where he is mostly discussing his allegations against Michael, he shrinks in his chair, speaks in a low, uncertain tone, fidgets about, and avoids eye contact other than the occasional flick. But during the latter half he grows visibly more self assured because he has no doubts about what he is saying.

            Another thought is that “there was no sex” could have been an automatic and intuitive response from all those years he denied anything sexual had occurred (sometimes old habits die hard) but even if that were the case, why would he almost say such a thing in response to being questioned about bribery for his testimony?

          3. @Nan

            “If he supposedly realized he had been abused , why do an interview the way he did ?
            After all, his children were innocents in this entire thing..Why hurt them in such a devastating and public way ?”

            There is an interesting discrepancy here in his story and behavior. Initially when he filed his complaint on May 1, 2013 he asked the judge to seal it citing the privacy interests of, no not even himself, but Michael! Here are the relevant parts from his motion to seal:



            It was only after the media found out that he switched to this “needing to say it loud in order to heal” thing, but initially they tried to keep the whole thing hush by asking the judge to seal it in order to protect the privacy interests of the Defendant! So I think plan A was to try to scare the Estate into a hush settlement and when that did not work out because the media got wind of it, suddenly it became about having to say it loud to heal. The excuse for Wade to go on Today’s Show was to “defend his reputation” after Weitzman called him a liar on TMZ and after his allegations became public, but Wade’s lawyer called MJ a “monster” so of course MJ’s representatives are going to react to that and deny the allegations and call Wade a liar. They knew they would react and Wade can use that as an excuse to give a TV interview to “defend his reputation”.

            I think though that they expected the whole thing to blow up bigger than they did and more outpour of sympathy for Wade etc.

          4. I still wonder about Wade doing those interviews ..
            and at what point and time , did the estate learn that Wade intended to exploit his friendship with Jackson, into a financial settlement
            I would think they had already requested to be paid off by the estate, or else they would make accusations, before they filed the papers and the estate probably balked..
            These are top notch lawyers , so it would just seem to me , since they all practice in LA, they would know that TMZ always goes through court records and filings looking for dirt.
            I read something today about one of the lawyers for someone making accusations against Cosby , that he made a mistake in filing by naming Cosby.
            That the court doesnt allow you to name someone in a case , because an accusation of sexual abuse can ruin someone life , before the court even determines , it should be heard.
            Although…I certainly could be wrong
            And of course it is Robson , so if he was making a claim for sexual abuse , it would be obvious that is would be MJ would be the person he was accusing.
            Robson had already put his house on the market , the day after AEG lost their bid for dismissal,which is an odd coincidence, and it sold very quickly , for above asking price and he immediately runs away from LA and off to Hawaii, directly after his interviews , makes me feel , like they knew they would be leaked .and it was like turning the heat up on the estate , ..
            His wife and son had already moved to Hawaii.
            They already seemed to have their ducks all lined up
            They even mentioned his accusations on the same shows the estate was promoting the Vegas shows on, at the same time..
            Harvey Levin said that Branca reaction was to say”Wade child was sick, and he didnt have a contract” so obviously he had an idea that something was afoot..Weitzman immediately took over making statements for Branca.
            I did notice that Levin did try and play up the accusations initially, even bringing up Blanca Francia testimony about seeing them in a shower , however I think he was quick to get rebuttals from people telling him to read Robson testimony and Blanca cross, when she admitted she hadnt seen anything .
            Plus him changing his story from repressed memory to whatever it is now .
            I cant find it right now but it was on the TMZ youtube , Harvey reading Wades testimony and stating how specific he was in answering questions.
            Did he touch you on the head
            Did he kiss you on the cheek etc? yes
            Did he kiss your mother and sister on the cheek ? yes
            Did he kiss you on the lips ? no
            Did he hug you , your mother and sister ? yes
            So I think that is what made Harvey back off , and not take this story seriously.
            Harvey just wasnt buying it.
            Just the way Wade timed it, to clear out of town , his wife and kid are already in Hawaii,right after filing that stuff, makes me wonder if they did that on purpose, expecting it to be leaked, and then Wade doing interviews like a one -two punch..
            I would love to ask when the estate found out , he was going this route after he lost the Vegas jobs to Jamie King
            I wonder if they knew he had mental health issues before these accusations ..

          5. I honestly don’t think it has anything to do with AEG. Robson is perfectly capable of having his own motivations (greed, mental illness). I see no convincing connection with AEG.

            “I read something today about one of the lawyers for someone making accusations against Cosby , that he made a mistake in filing by naming Cosby.
            That the court doesnt allow you to name someone in a case , because an accusation of sexual abuse can ruin someone life , before the court even determines , it should be heard.”

            It’s one thing having to name the Defendant “Doe” in initial court papers instead of his real name, but what Wade’s side requested was to seal his complaint citing the privacy interests of Michael as a reason. See:



            This goes directly against the notion that Wade did it because of having to say “his truth” loud to heal. If that is the case then why filing a request to seal – moreover, citing the privacy interests of the Defendant as a reason?

            As for TMZ, yes I too wonder what happened between them. Initially it looked like TMZ were ready to pick up the story and blow it up big but then it looked like they kind of backed down on it and Wade’s camp moved over to RadarOnline. I wonder if something happened behind the scenes, like Wade’s camp being deceptive with TMZ which TMZ realized or something.

            And yes, I agree that Wade’s been preparing it for a while. Selling his house, moving to Hawaii etc. I think ideally they would have loved a quiet settlement, but of course they had to know that it getting out was a big possibility as well.

          6. I know the video you’re talking about. They stuck it to Wade pretty good and starting giving him the same treatment as Conrad Murray. Whenever there is a news story about Murray, TMZ will run the story (just like any tabloid, they want the clicks!) but they always end up making Murray look like a buffoon. Wade probably wasn’t too thrilled when they started giving him the buffoon treatment every time they ran a story on the case. It was TMZ that broke Joe Jackson’s response to Wade, at which time Wade allegedly had another meltdown and ran crying to his lawyer. After that, I noticed the Robson/TMZ relationship cooled considerably.

          7. I just think the reason that Robson was so quick to answer Lauer about the question of whether MJ paid him to testify and lie , is because he was telling the truth .
            There was no money (MJ didnt pay him to testify and there was no sex(that is just my opinion,as to what he was going to say, which is what he testified to in the trial
            He showed up , not for money or obligation, but to tell the truth .
            He was even asked by Zonen , if he had been following the trial or spoken to MJ about it, his answer was he hadnt spoken to MJ about it and was only following it sporadically as he was busy and working
            His mother said he was probably one of thelast people on the planet to know the verdicts because he was on a long plane flight .He was very busy at that time ,

          8. That could be, too, and I might be trying to read too much into the “almost” “there was no se-” comment. This was during the part of the interview where he seemed to have switched into “honest” mode. It could be possible that, just for a split second, he forgot to switch back. Lol.

          9. Susie , that is very interesting about trying to get the court papers sealed.
            Do you think the initial game plan was to threaten the estate with an awful allegation, not just about mj but all of them as well, and hope for a quick settlement.
            I wonder how TMZ was able to hear about this , did they bribe someone , that they could get the information..
            I was looking at Wades cousins page and he has a lot of the same stuff up regarding thoughts and how people let the world effect them , that reminded me alot of Wades kinda self help stuff
            I wasnt sure if maybe they have the same kind of depression , or if Wade was using it as a template.
            Could just be he has the same personality .
            I was looking to see if he made any comments regarding Wades accusations , but I couldnt find on his pagge the timeline for when Wade made that accusation.
            I did notice that Wade never liked or commented on anything I could find but Chantal and her husband did once or twice
            If he was defending wades position on ROL, I thought they may have had some interaction on his page , but I couldnt find any
            I find it hard to believe that Wades sister actually believes him , thinks these awful things were done to her brother at the hands of MJ and she shows up , at Justin Timberlake concert , who is working with the estate lawyers, who they claim facilitated his abuse and at the end of the concerts , JT sings Human Nature , to honor the man , and she is tweeting a picture out from the concert .
            Who is their right mind would go to that concert , if you really believed he did stuff to your brother ..
            Very strange.
            Thank you for the links

          10. @Nan

            “Do you think the initial game plan was to threaten the estate with an awful allegation, not just about mj but all of them as well, and hope for a quick settlement.”

            I think yes, Plan A was to scare the Estate into a hush settlement. I think maybe they did not realize that TMZ are routinely checking out the court IT system to look for celebrity cases and they saw something about child sex abuse was filed by Robson against MJ’s Estate and that was it, it got out. TMZ did not have to bribe anyone, there is a website that you can go to and check out the ongoing filings. Robson filed on May 1, 2013 and TMZ aired it a week later on May 7. I don’t know how much hope Wade’s team really had for being able to keep the case under the radar, it never had much chance (also because Judges do not really like to seal things unless there is relly good reason for that) but maybe they had a slight hope for that, but then it quickly got out because TMZ is checking for celebrity cases in the Court’s IT system.

            To me the point about it is that in public interviews Wade said he does not do it for money, but because he learnt to be able to heal he needs to say it as loud as he can. And then you see a motion like that where they initially ask the court to seal the case in protection of the privacy interests of the Defendant. So where is the need to say it loud in that? That makes the whole thing ONLY about money. “Let’s keep it hush, see, I’m being very sensitive to your privacy interests, just give me the money.” If it’s really about you wanting to let the world know about what a “monster” MJ was and what Wade allegedly went through then you would never file such a motion. In fact, if it’s really about letting the world know you do not even have to file anything. It would have been enough to write an open letter to the New York Times and LA Times or something. And then you would not have to compromise your credibility with ridiculous claims such as not knowing about the Estate until March 2013, just to be able to get around statutes of limitations. So it clearly IS about money to him, otherwise he would not bother with such lies just to get around statutes.

            “I wasnt sure if maybe they have the same kind of depression , or if Wade was using it as a template.
            Could just be he has the same personality.”

            I think mental illness is running in Wade’s family. Now after the information about his cousin I’m more sure than ever. This family has serious mental problems running in it. I do not doubt that Wade himself too has mental illness. I do not doubt he did have those breakdowns (and probably even more problems that we do not even know about). But his handling of it and identifying his problem is wrong. He claims in his lawsuit that the reason of his breakdowns and inability to work and become an international superstar is alleged abuse by MJ but then it turns out that severe mental illness is running in his family. I think that would become significant info in any court case.

            I don’t know what Chantal or Joy believe. I wonder about it myself whether they are on the plot with Wade or Wade told them lies as well.

      2. The funny thing is, as a supposed expert who testifies in court cases , it would seem , only for the prosecution side, any defense lawyer could pull up the remarks he made in the YOUTUBE comments section, that show him to be a very opinionated and biased person.
        I just think it is ridiculous , that he would make those kind of comments with his name attached to them.
        I can only assume he never intends to be used in any official capacity as an expert ever again

  8. Talking about “the Australian connection”. I read on a fan forum from a fan who follows haters that apparently Jonathan Keller died last week. Jonathan Keller was Wade’s cousin and he was active in comment sections on RadarOnline and on Facebook, especially in the months after Wade’s allegations came out, actively supporting Wade. He was a young man and apparently his death was unexpected, but I have no further information about what happened.

    1. Hmm. Interesting. Most likely, Keller was the familial source on Mike Par’s page that he kept referring to. I guess they will try to find a way to pin THAT on Michael like they did with Wade’s father’s suicide.

    2. Curious – I found an internet memorial page for Jonathan Leslie James Keller, with dates and funeral information, but that’s it. No obituary, no memorial messages from friends or family, no death details. He was just thirty years old. Could it be another Robson family suicide?

      On his Twitter page, Keller re-Tweets this post:

      “This is a really good video about depression and how to talk about it with someone:…”

      (I’m sure this is the right person – the resemblance to Wade is very strong.) Keller was at the age when bi-polar disorder tightens its grip, and there is a strong genetic component. It may have nothing to do with Wade. Or maybe being involved in Wade’s drama was overwhelming.

      1. Thanks. That seems to be him indeed.

        I would be interested in the circumstances of his death and whether it was suicide or in any way connected to mental issues, because mental issues may run in that family which may explain Wade’s behavior as well. I think his breakdowns have to do with that and also with some mommy issues he has and not with MJ.

        1. Wade said this k a conversation regarding this book

          You mean Conversations WITH God?
          If so, wow, also my first spiritual book that I ever read. 12 years ago!
          Coming back to his writing now via a book called HOME WITH GOD. Inspired by the fact that I just lost my cousin in OZ to depression.
          The book is fantastic so far and to come back to his writing so many years later, and it be so relevant and validating of everything else I have been learning is amazing.
          The above status quote is from that book.

          1. This is really sad. Wade’s cousin is dead at thirty, and he manages to make it all about himself. He all but confirmed that it was indeed suicide. RIP Jonathan. You deserved better than to be embroiled in this mess.

          2. I also find it interesting how much Wade is into this new age stuff. I hope I do not offend anyone here with it, but I think books like that are very shallow and I never got their huge mass appeal. The interesting thing about the philosphies of this and similar books is that they are extremely self-centered. It’s all about “me, me, me” and what is good to me and never about how what is good to me sometimes can be bad for my community or other people and therefore is not right. On the contrary, this book, for example, promotes the idea that “there is no wrong and no right”, that you should focus on what is good to you bla-bla-bla. I’m no Christian and I disagree with many things in Christianity as well, but at least Christianity teaches some kind of responsibility for your actions, that yes, there is wrong and there is right and you should not hurt others for your selfish reasons etc. Not this fluffy (and IMO very harmful) thing about “whatever you do is alright if it’s alright to you”.

            Also the book talks about reality supposedly not being real and things like “Physical reality is an illusion” or “Reality is a representation created by will” – as if reality is some kind of make believe that we construct. And that whatever we believe or want to believe IS reality.

            And I find it very interesting considering Wade’s current running amok and the make believe he is playing with these claims about MJ sexually abusing him and him being a sexual abuse survivor. It’s also interesting in the context of the paper I earlier linked in about insight-oriented therapy ( ) which has some very similar philosophies and some liberal treatment of reality as well. (This is the therapy that Wade went through acc. to his lawsuit.)

            Some quotes from that paper:

            “First, the mere acquisition of insight is not a guarantee that the insight is true. This is the case even if the acquisition of insight is the culmination of months of hard work and struggle in a setting that constantly reinforces the image of insight-oriented psychotherapy as a legitimate venue for exploration and authentic discovery.

            For example, what might appear to the client to be veridical insight may in fact be the product of a pervasive and undetected strategy of self-deception that finds support within the therapeutic setting, or it may be a false realization which becomes apparent with further (post-therapeutic) self-inquiry and further (post-therapeutic) consideration of the evidence.”

            “Second, the client’s level of conviction about the validity and authenticity of a newly
            won insight is not a guarantee that the insight is true. The client may be deeply convinced about—even form strong identifications with—an insight that is in fact psychologically and historically false. The client’s level of conviction simply may be a function of a temporary lapse of judgment that is the result of systematically distorted epistemic and interpretive standards brought about by prolonged exposure to the epistemic and interpretive standards of the therapy.”

            “… I will begin with the opposite assumption: that the insight-oriented psychotherapies are likely to generate illusions, deceptions, pseudo-insights, and adaptive self-misunderstandings that convincingly mimic bona fide insight; and that their failures to generate bona fide insight are not merely failures in the application of the treatment methods but failures in the methods and the therapeutic theories themselves.”

            “Placebo insights help clients feel that they are more insightful, more coherent, and more in touch with themselves than they would otherwise have had occasion to be, even if
            there is a clear sense in which they are significantly less in touch with themselves than
            they believe themselves to be. Moreover, placebo insights have the potential to serve the purely instrumentalist function of offering up useful guides or tools for post-therapeutic self-inquiry, which might ultimately lead to genuinely truth-tracking insights—or to further insight-mimicking illusions and deceptions.”

            “But if placebo insights can be said to “work” for clients, they do not work for the reasons that clients and therapists think they work, that is, because they get at the truth, and because they supply accurate explanations of the client’s target disorders and psychological make-up. Rather, they work to the extent that they bring about a more fictionalized contact with reality, including the reality of the self. Because how things
            seem to the client and the therapist and how things are are quite distinct…”

            “If one of the central functions of placebo insights is to mediate the harsh impact of reality through explanatory fictions, then one of the potential consequences is the editing or filtering out of negative social feedback—that is, the criticisms, advice, disapprovals, and hurt feelings of other persons. But while this may be beneficial from a strictly self-regarding standpoint, it can result in a kind of “other-blindness:” that is, a systematic misrecognition or misinterpretation of the effects of one’s actions upon others. If therapeutically induced illusions and deceptions leave clients less responsive to negative social feedback, then they are less capable of experiencing the kinds of moral and personal growth that are only possible in contexts of interpersonal relations unencumbered by illusions and deceptions.”

            “Finally, embracing explanatory fictions and therapy-induced self-deceptions for their therapeutic value runs into conflict with some of our deeper convictions about what it is to be a fully developed and fully self-aware human being.”

          3. To relate a bit of personal information, I have a sister who was diagnosed with bipolar disorder a few years ago. Major depressive disorder is something that runs in our family genetically, and I’ve had many major depressive bouts but she was the first to actually be clinically diagnosed with bipolar. Granted, some of the circumstances under which we grew up would be enough to give anyone depressive disorder! But my sister actually got a lot WORSE under therapy, and only after backing away from therapy did she start to show signs of improvement and to become more like her old self again. This therapist that she was going to just had her ALL screwed up in the head, to the point of being nearly suicidal. What the therapy was doing was actually having the reverse of its intended effect, by forcing her to DWELL non-stop on everything that was wrong with her life, wrong with our parents, etc. I’m not saying it is healthy to repress all of that stuff in the interest of “getting on” with life, but I think for some people, perhaps, it may be the best way to cope. In her case, she started obsessing over all this stuff, endlessly going back twenty, thirty years and obsessing about things that were said and done to her as a kid, to the point that she became, for awhile, almost completely dysfunctional in her present adult life. Then, these same therapists would come back and try to tell her this was a result of her illness. I would tell her, no, it is not. You were fine until you started letting these people mess with your head. I knew because I had the same childhood that she did; raised in the same house, by the same parents, under the same circumstances. I realize that everyone copes differently but. still, I knew my sister and I knew what I was witnessing was that she had managed to live a very productive life until all of a sudden these doctors had turned her into a shell of herself. All of a sudden, she was spouting stuff and bringing up “memories” that I knew were inaccurate. Why? Because I was several years older than her, and had a more clear and vivid memory of a lot of the incidents she was relating. And I knew a lot of it was bs. For example, one time when she was little, she drank a bottle of perfume. I remember that incident quite well, because she was really sick afterward. She saw the bottle of perfume, and being a curious kid, wondered what it would taste like if she drank it. That’s all it was-natural childish curiosity. Well, after going through therapy, she was saying things like, “I drank a whole bottle of perfume when I was little because I was thirsty. I had to eat paper because I was hungry.” The reality was that neither incident had anything to do with being physically hungry or thirsty. I know because I was there. She did stupid things when she was a kid, like we all do as kids. “Oh, what would this perfume taste like?” and “I wonder what paper tastes like.” But under therapy, someone had coerced her into believing those silly childhood incidents were indicative of an abusive situation, and she had become convinced that this was her “reality.” I am not excusing our parents because abuse and neglect DID occur in our home. But none of these memories she was dwelling on were directly linked to that abuse. In other words, the memories of these silly childhood incidents were being manipulated and exaggerated in her mind into something they never were. And obsessing over these planted “memories” was pushing her over the edge. I cringed so often listening her say things like, “I had to eat PAPER because I was so hungry” but it was useless to argue with her; useless to try to say I was older and remembered that she did it only because she wanted to know what paper tasted like, just like she drank the perfume because she wondered what it tasted like. Her “reality” had been firmly planted, and nothing I would have said could have dissuaded her. And this was just two of many “false memories” that she came to believe were absolute truths (also during this time, she fell out with our aunt over a perceived childhood incident that was not what she had become convinced it was).

            Thankfully, she has either switched therapists or has stopped altogether. She finally got her medication stabilized, and that was all she really needed. She married her partner of two years last July and seems to be doing really well. We don’t live close (she is in Rhode Island, and has been for many years) so I don’t know everything that is going on with her, but we do talk and I saw her in July at the wedding and she seems very happy with her life now, looking ahead rather than dwelling on the past. I told her all along that this was the only therapy she needed, because the past can’t be changed. We can only change ourselves and how we choose to cope. This is what any GOOD therapist would tell a patient. Nothing can be gained from putting a patient into a state where all they are doing is obsessing over past memories and how to interpret them.

      2. Now that you say that Simba , you are right about Wade making it about himself , the death of his cousin.
        His sister , doesnt mention on her page losing a cousin to depression ,specifically, just this:

        I lost a cousin this week But I Thank You Jony for your time with us, I hope you are flying now. I wanted to share the beauty in his eyes, the feelings in his heart and his ability to make everyone think and feel. Take a moment and hold a thought for someone you love.
        Love you Jony.

        Video by Jony of a place in Australia I call home.

        I knew they had lost someone to depression , butI didnt know this was someone that had been posting on Wades behalf on ROL

        Kind of strange Wade mentions depression , but nothing really about what kind person his cousin was or anything ..
        Unfortunate, that it shows depression and mental health issues could run in the family ..Wades father , this poor young man , and Wade too, but Wade has a rich friend to try and blame for it all,I guess.

  9. Your comments reminded me of this open apology from a McMartin Preschool accuser. Sadly for actual victims, our witch-hunt mentality makes this all too common.

    ” But Sapp, now known as Kyle Zirpolo, says he never had false memories: He always knew his stories of abuse were made up. The adults at the McMartin Pre-School “never did anything to me, and I never saw them doing anything,” he says today. “I said a lot of things that didn’t happen. I lied.” Why? Now married and with young children of his own, he feels the need to explain publicly…..”

    1. I sat up late last night reading this piece. Thank you so much for posting it here! This is a valuable confession that clearly and adamantly debunks the notion that children who claim sexual abuse are ALWAYS telling the truth. It also clearly shows how children absolutely can be coerced into these claims by adults. The most poignant part of the whole article to me was when he tried to tell his mother the truth and she REFUSED to believe it, preferring to think that her son had been molested. What it goes to show is the whole, interesting psychology that goes into the process once parents and authority figures become invested in the idea of convicting someone. Part of the problem, too, is the mindset that allegations of sexual abuse are almost always considered to be true, whereas a statement of no wrongdoing is often perceived as the child lying, reneging, or “covering up” for the accused abuser. There really needs to be an overhaul of the system and a change of mindset in the way these investigations are carried out. In this case, it became clearly obvious why the child lied-and it was not his fault. I think this is also very important for understanding the psychology of Jordan Chandler, Gavin Arvizo, and Jason Francia, who we know were manipulated grossly by the adults in their lives. And although I have said many times that it does not excuse the fact that they are now grown men who “could” set the record straight-as Kyle Zirpolo has done here-it makes it easier to understand the trap they fell into, and perhaps now, to protect themselves and their own families, they will always feel an obligation to live the lie. I can remember that, as a child who had undergone abuse, I was actually much more terrified of the interrogations by adults and the never-ending stream of personal, embarrassing questions than I was by the actual abuse. In such cases, children will often “go along with the program” just to have the ordeal over and done with. That can be a good thing if there actually is abuse going on, but not so good if the child is truly being honest in claiming that nothing happened. To continue to terrify a child with endless interrogation and embarrassing questions until they “break down” and tell them what they want to hear really SHOULD be considered an unethical and unlawful practice. But instead it is a practice that is sanctioned and encouraged.

      1. When WR first came out with his claims, my first thought was that he had gone to some quack therapist who filled his head with nonsense tales of abuse upon learning that he had spent time with Michael. Despite all evidence, there are professional “abuse pimps”, like Oprah, and Clemente, who refuse to accept Michael’s innocence. (I would include Dimond in the bunch, but I believe that she knows that he didn’t abuse anyone, but she’s in too deep to admit it. She has shown zero interest in other abuse cases in Hollywood, like Michael Egan’s claim, and you’d think she would be all over it. I guess Bryan Singer doesn’t turn her on.)

        A few years ago, there were people who claimed that they could assist profoundly autistic children to communicate by ‘helping’ them to point out letters on a board. Some of these handicapped kids relayed horrific, detailed accounts of sexual abuse at the hands of their family members, who found themselves under investigation and threatened with prosecution. Fortunately their defenders were able to prove that the facilitators were composing these stories, and that the autistic children could not communicate anything on their own. Some of these facilitators were shocked by the stories that came out of their own imaginations. If this could happen to trained therapists, it could certainly happen to Wade. (Not Safechuck, though – he’s just a tag-along grifter trying to turn a quick buck.)

        1. I saw a special on 20/20 or some similar show about that – it was horrifying! A man was accused of molesting his severely autistic daughter based on what she wrote while under this therapy. He was arrested, imprisoned, the kids taken into custody by Child Services and separated (they didn’t trust the mother who defended her husband)….they showed police video of the interrogation of his 13 year old son being verbally tortured into saying his dad raped his sister. At one point the cop got what he wanted and left the room and the boy collapsed, sobbing. There was no other person present, just the boy and the cop.

          The truly appalling thing was that eventually this therapy was debunked, the man acquitted tho’ his life ruined, and the reporter (John Stossel I think) found the “therapist” who’d actually written the “memories” and followed her through a parking lot. She ignored him, hurried to her car and left. NOTHING happened to her. How is that possible?

      2. I’ve often wondered if, after being given sodium-amytal, Jordan went through a period where he didn’t know for sure what happened, if he couldn’t reconcile what he thought was a memory with what he knew about his friend MJ. As you’ve said, no one determined to convict MJ seems to give a damn about the kids used by their sick parents.

        1. I do not believe the Sodium Amytal story. I think it came from the Chandlers as a distraction. It was first claimed by Harvey Levin in the spring of 1994 and they way it is worded in Mary Fischer’s article to me suggests his source was someone from the Chandler side:

          “A newsman at KCBS-TV, in L.A., reported on May 3 of this year [1994] that Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son’s tooth and that while under the drug’s influence, the boy came out with allegations.”

          “The dentist claimed” and notice how they stress that he used it only to pull a tooth – being defensive about it. Because of that to me it seems it came from the Chandlers. But why would they claim that (only later to deny it)? Rememeber at the time the settlement was already signed but the prosecution were still after the Chandlers trying to pressure them into testifying at a criminal court. I wonder if it was their way to get them off their back because at the time there was another high profile case in the US media where Sodium Amytal was a protagonist. In that case a 23-year-old woman accused her father of raping her when she was a child. However, her father counter-sued her therapist for implanting false memories in her mind with hypnosis and with the use of Sodium Amytal. In that trial it was proven and ruled that the drug was unreliable and with its help it was possible to plant false memories.

          I do believe that Evan drugged Jordan on July 16, 1993. The Chandlers actually admit that officially, they only dispute it was Sodium Amytal. Something shady did happen there because why would you sedate a kid for pulling a baby tooth? Something fishy went on there but either it really wasn’t SA or if it was it did not have Evan’s desired result. I have to admit that (among the many BS he writes) Ray Chandler made a good point about it in his 2005 article when he says:

          “Ironically, the person who best refutes Fischer’s drug fairytale is none other than Anthony Pellicano. In December of 1993 Pellicano described Jordie’s behavior at the August 4 Westwood Marquis meeting as follows:
          The father began to read the psychiatrists letter, which cited the criminal statutes that applied to child abuse. “Jordie was looking down,” [Pellicano said] “and he pops his head up and looks at Michael like, ‘I didn’t say that.’”
          According to Pellicano, just two weeks after the alleged brainwashing Jordie wasn’t brainwashed at all! He was acting embarrassed and guilty about the accusations his father had made.”

          This is logically correct. However there is an irony in Ray’s defense as well: by citing this story as a defense against the SA claims he acknowledges the credibility of Pellicano’s account.

          I studied the Chandlers’ story a lot – mainly based on their book – and I came to the conclusion that despite of what was later claimed by them Jordan – with or without SA – probably did not “confess” anything at all on July 16. His alleged July 16 confession was a hindsight invention because Evan should have returned him to his mother on July 17 and Jordan’s alleged confession was his defense why he did not. I believe that Jordan’s turning on MJ happened much later, some time mid-August, after having spent almost a month in his father’s care. Why I think so is explained in this article:

          And here is a more detailed explanation about the SA thing:

          1. Addition: I believe rather than SA, in Jordan’s case the manipulation was of different nature. By the time he turned (which, like I sad, was some time mid-August IMO) his father already committed things which could have put him in jail in case Jordan had not turned and lended support to him by claiming what his father wanted him to claim. Evan already demanded money from MJ, tried to extort him, threatened him etc. So what I think happened is that probably Evan explained that to him and obviously as a son you would not want your father to go to jail, so he started to support him.

          2. Evan Chandler knew that if he said he had given Jordan Sodium Amytal, the prosecution would not allow him to testify, thereby protecting him from cross examination.

            Jordan was old enough to understand hat he was doing. He wanted Michael’s money as much as his parents did.

          3. Thanks for posting those links. I just started reading but so far, Ray’s story makes clear Evan engineered the whole thing. I’ll never understand how anyone even superficially aware of this case believes any of this – FIRST thing you’d do is go to police. All this maneuvering, manipulating, it would be funny if it hadn’t been so tragic.

            Ray’s version of Evan interrogating Jordan and getting a confession (assuming it really happened) sounds a lot like what the former McMartin accuser said happened to him. As tho’ some parents want to believe their children are victims. I don’t get it.

  10. Talking about the fallacious notion that children never lie about sexual abuse. Here is an interesting documentary made by Sean Penn. It’s called Witch Hunt. It’s about a series of sex abuse allegations that swept through a town at a time and put many adults in jail for many years, even decades. And money wasn’t even a factor in this case, only over-zealous prosecutors who managed to get kids say things about certain adults (including their own children):

    And this is a movie about the McMartin case:

    1. I’m about halfway through the first vid. What I find interesting is that there are a lot of parallels with what happened in Salem in 1692, which is why I suppose the events of 1692 will always be analogous with the term “witch hunt.” A mind blowing fact about those trials is that the convicted persons could have actually had their lives SPARED had they confessed to being witches. Those who were hanged were people of high moral principle (and very courageous) who refused to damn themselves in the eye of the Lord, and went to the gallows rather than confess to what wasn’t true. The tactics used in the Bakersfield case were eerily similar, in which the convicted could actually bargain to get their sentences reduced by admitting the crime. So the logic is that a “guilty” person is punished much less severely than an “innocent” person who refuses to knuckle under.

      ETA: It’s very interesting that these cases all occurred about the same time, around 1983-84. Really kind of makes you wonder what was in the water during that time. For whatever reason, the political climate seemed ripe for these kinds of witch hunts.

      1. From what I read this book started the the whole hysterical moral panic:

        “Michelle Remembers provided a model for numerous allegations of SRA that ensued later in the same decade.[10][12] On the basis of the book’s success, Pazder developed a high media profile, gave lectures and training on SRA to law enforcement, and by September 1990 had acted as a consultant on more than 1,000 SRA cases, including the McMartin preschool trial. Prosecutors used Michelle Remembers as a guide when preparing cases against alleged Satanists.[13]”

        And this is happenining not in the Middle Ages but in the 20th century America. Very scary…

        Actually, Maureen Orth tried to go there in her articles with MJ as well – giving the MJ allegations some kind of ritual abuse spin. She claimed in one of her articles that MJ was practicing voodoo and massacred cows on the Swiss border to bath in their blood. And she wrote that with a straight face in a supposedly “reputable” magazine, Vanity Fair…

        1. As per the Maureen Orth story, I have often wondered what the seeds of that story were. In most cases, such rumors start from something very small and innocuous that takes wings in the minds of over zealous people. I know that Michael was interested in many subjects, especially the religions of the world. I have many books on voodoo and have always found the subject rather fascinating (obviously, many do, hence the success of novels like “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil”). I love to read about the voodoo culture in New Orleans, and famous practitioners like Marie Laveau, etc. If Michael likewise had an interest in these subjects, out of curiosity-let’s say he had a book in his library on voodoo rituals in Africa or whatever-I could see someone like Maureen Orth being willing to take that bit of information and run with it. All it takes is a bit of imagination to go from there. When a person is in the public eye-and especially once that person has fallen prey to being scrutinized and judged-everything they own or read; any subject they study or internet search they conduct, can be used against them. Often, Michael couldn’t even go into a bookstore and buy books, or buy movies from a video store, without his purchases becoming tabloid news, where he would then, of course, proceed to be psychoanalyzed or profiled based on whatever titles he purchased.

          1. I only mentioned it because I find it interesting how there were attempts at introducing the “satanic ritual” element here as well – an element that was so characteristic in the mass hysteria of the 80s. I do not think there is any kind of basis to it in MJ’s own life. As far as I remember the story came from some African guy, some crook – a totally unreliable tabloid whore type of guy and that was the whole “basis” of it, nothing in MJ’s own life. For a hater like Orth one does not need to offer corraboration to run with any negative story about MJ no matter how ridiculous it is.

          2. The voodoo story was concocted by Michael’s embittered ex-accountant Myung Ho Lee. Like most racists, Maureen Orth was ready and willing to accept any preposterous tale about a black man in general, and Michael in particular, while spreading misinformation about a religion practiced by millions in Africa, the Caribbean, and South America.

          3. Voodoo is without doubt the most maligned and misunderstood religion on the planet. Its romanticizing by Western culture certainly hasn’t helped. Hollywood continuously exploits it, contributing to the mass ignorance about what it really is.

          4. Speaking of the Hollywood treatment of voodoo, I love the movie Skeleton Key, set in the bayous of Louisiana, with a side trip to New Orleans. It’s spooky and hilarious at the same time, with great actors like Gena Rowlands and Peter Sarsgaard playing their characters to the hilt beside a hapless Kate Hudson. For a black viewer, it’s worth sitting through just for Sarsgaard’s last line.

            As for MJ’s lying accountant, to borrow a line from hip hop, these Hos ain’t loyal! (Sorry – I couldn’t resist.)

  11. Have you notice how quiet oprah has been lately concerning the plights of bill cosby,brian singer and woody allen when you realised how hard and relentless she went after michael jackson during his travail.but then i heard that bill cosby was one of her mentors.even that idiot chris rock was saying he hopes the aligations against bill cosby turned out to be untrue,all the benefit he did not give mj when he was alive.

    1. If Oprah doesn’t speak out against Bill Cosby we will know for sure she is the biggest hypocrite in the industry. Granted, I am still standing by the fact that Cosby has only been accused and I do believe staunchly in innocent until proven guilty, but if that is Oprah’s thinking on this she should have likewise extended the same benefit of doubt to Michael.

      1. I can’t stand Oprah, and I despise how she treated Michael, after he gave her career a huge boost with that exclusive interview. But the idea that she is required to speak out against Bill Cosby is problematic. She hasn’t said anything about Woody Allen, or Roman Polanski, or Stephen Collins either, to my knowledge. Maybe she has, wisely, gotten out of the speaking out business – unlike Michael, some of these guys might decide to sue her, even though they might be unlikely to prevail. They have the time and the money to tie her up for a very long time, sapping the energy she needs to run her network.

        Certainly it’s been known for years that Cosby was a scuzzy womanizer. But some things about the way this scandal has unfolded don’t pass the smell test. Even if you accept their stories at face value, most of these women come across like opportunists looking for a come up. It’s telling that, of the original thirteen witnesses from the Costand case, the media led with the most attractive one, with a glamour shot on the cover of People Magazine no less, for a mere accusation, with no evidence whatsoever. Like Michael case, this has the trappings of an industry hit – somebody wanted to thwart Cosby’s current ambitions, just as they stopped him from buying NBC. I’m not defending him, but until there is concrete evidence of his alleged crimes, I presume him to be innocent.

    2. At one point Bill Cosby was someone Oprah looked up to , but after his son was killed, and it came out he had an affair behind his wifes back, she pretty much , dropped him.
      As far as Singer and Woody Allen.yes , these recent accusations were largely ignored , imo
      Barbara Walters , who introduced the Bashir fiasco, had nothing to say about Woody Allen.
      And as for Chris Rock , and his attitude toward MJ, it was always open season , to get a laugh , off throwing stones at Jackson.
      I thought it interesting , that Roger Friedman just posted this regarding Allen and Rock.:
      From Roger…
      As for Chris Rock and Woody Allen: when I interviewed Woody this summer, he told me that when he married Soon Yi Previn, Chris Rock send him a wedding gift. They didn’t really know each other, though. So I asked Chris — a big Woody fan– why he did that, Chris said, “I figured he wasn’t getting a lot of wedding gifts, if you know what I mean.”

      That speaks volumes to me regarding the double standard , with these people

      1. For whatever reason (and when I say “whatever” we know the REAL reasons have roots that go back for centuries in this country) the lynch mob mentality against black celebrities who commit or are accused of crimes is always far worse than for white celebs-or any other race, for that matter. This is not true in every case, as there have been some exceptions, but generally, the entertainment community will tend to circle the wagons around some, like Woody Allen and Roman Polanski,while others (most often blacks) will be tossed under the bus in the event of a scandal.

  12. What is interesting about WRs claim is that it mimics 2 recent cases of accusations and (late)claims against companies or institutions for covering up child sexual abuse of their employee ( not including the RC priest scandal). The Sandusky case, where Pennstate College had to pay 26 Sandusky victims $ 60 million and the BBC ,being sued by at least 20 of Jimmy Savilles victims. Another similarity is that Sanduskys adopted son Matthew – who lived with him as a foster from 9 years old and was strangely adopted shortly before he turned 18, when the allegations first broke defended Sandusky , gave a declaration before a grand jury and was going to be a defense witness. He even insisted that his children be allowed to visit him in detention. Later on he turned against him and basically helped to convict him . He went on Oprah to ‘tell all’, but some suspect that he made the U turn when Penn state College decided to compensate the victims . Now there is no doubt that Sandusky molested the boys because there are witnesses. But its hard to say whether Matt Sandusky was one of them .

    There is at least one Sandusky accuser who turned out to be a fraud and maybe more. So there are always golddiggers who jump the bandwagon re Daniel Kapon and Rodney Allens ‘protege’ and Im sure many women who accuse Cosby. There is a guy who (still) defends Sandusky and is trying to expose the accusers, especially Matt. He thinks that the accusations are false and the victims were ‘led’ by the prosecution . Which is crazy considering Sanduskys and witnesses testimony . But he might be right with Matt Sandusky.

    Interestingly Wade uses the same excuse as Matthew that he was manipulated to lie hence his initial defense of Michael. He probably saw how easy Matthews U turn from supporter to accuser was accepted by the prosecutor, the public and most of all as a claimant to the PennState college victims fund. He knows that the more accusers and so called witnesses, the more people believe it- as we see with Cosby- hence the need for Safechuck, Arvizo and ex employees like pathological liar Blanca Francia .

    Reading this LAPD statement, Wades case may not be thrown out any time soon , and what is the use of a SOL anyway:
    “Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said Thursday that his department is pre-pared to investigate any accusations brought forth against performer Bill Cos-by, even if the alleged incidents occurred beyond the legal deadline for any prosecution. “We don’t turn people away because things are out of statute. You come to us, especially with a sexual allegation, we will work with you,” the chief said. “We address these things seriously, and it’s not just because it’s Mr. Cosby.”

    Imo the American claim culture is a perverted trigger for false accusaton. It pays off to be ‘raped’ ’neglected’or whatever can be thrown at celebrities that may stick. Not that I put it past celebrities that they can be psychopaths . Power is corruptive. But they are easy targets and anyone can just threaten to ruin their reputation to get paid.
    And it gets harder to say whether an accuser is a real victim or not.

    1. The difference here is that the claim is in Probate and the accused is deceased… it has been acknowledged in hearing that
      said deceased cannot be sued. As explained to me, and if I understand correctly, WR is targeting corporations and the Estate and must have evidence that these entities knew or should have known about alleged abuse, thus the request for prior transcripts and depos. In the Church cases this was established; I am not versed on Saville’s case.

      1. A deceased is not a legal entity (he cannot personally defend himself, cannot be indicted, a possible verdict cannot be executed etc etc ) but he can be sued through his estate for anything that is a result or effect of his actions , be it a debt that has to be cleared or injury that has to be compensated . Claims should be made preferably when the will is still in probate because that is when debts and litigation matters are set if they are within the due timeframe. So Wades claim against Michaels estate is right as far as the procedure is concerned.
        However, his claim is not only late but he will first have to prove the probablity that he was molested . If there is not enough substance that he was molested then the claim that the corporation covered up the abuse is automatically void.

    2. I agree absolutely and as per the Cosby cases, I just find it a little too convenient that all of a sudden twenty women have come together and all have decided to break their silence at once. In any “witch hunt” hysteria case like this-and the same can be said for Sandusky, Saville, and others-is that there may well be some legit victims, but once the smoke has been created, there is absolutely nothing to stop ANYONE from saying anything, if for no other reason than to get their fifteen minutes of attention.

    3. I always wondered why Wade alleges anal rape. No other accuser of MJ before him went that far, so I wonder what inspired him to make those claims. And when I look at the timeline at the time when he claims he first “realized” in therapy he’s been allegedly abused is the time when the Sandusky case was heavily feautred in the media. So I do wonder if he got the inspiration for his stories from that case which includes anal rape as opposed to former allegations against MJ.

      1. It IS interesting, and something I had planned to discuss at a future point in this series. The haters, backed by their usual slew of pseudo “pedophile profile” research, claim it is not unusual because pedophiles tend to progress in their behavior, gradually getting bolder and bolder with every victim. There is logic to this theory, of course, and I know in many cases it is true. But it makes no sense in Wade’s case because according to his own timeline, that would have meant Michael was “abusing” him even before he was allegedly abusing Jordan, and it is well known that Jordan Chandler never made any such claim, nor did Gavin Arvizo many, many years later. So there goes the “progression” theory right there. In the days when I was much more neutrally inclined about the allegations-and even prone to believing he was most likely guilty-I had made the assumption based off Jordan’s report and Gavin’s testimony as was leaked to the media that Michael must have been someone fixated at a very pubescent stage of sexuality, one that had never progressed much beyond masturbation, mutual fondling and fellatio because those were the only types of activities that had ever been claimed. And remember, that was a conclusion I reached many, many years ago before I had even researched the cases. I was basing my assumptions off what I knew from the media reports. At the time, my impression was that there DID seem to be a certain consistency to these allegations-a pattern, if you will-which raised a question mark for me as I think it would have for any reasonable person. Of course, at the time I wasn’t aware that the Arvizos had actually consulted the same attorney as the Chandlers. There was a LOT I didn’t know back then, and it is the kind of stuff that most people WOULDN’T know unless they bothered to research it.

        For me, Wade’s outrageous and over the top claims have actually served to make his story even LESS credible than it already was. But Wade is in a kind of catch-22 either way he goes. He knows if he makes his story sound too much like Jordan Chandler’s and Gavin Arvzo’s he is going to be accused of just copying their claims. But by going the opposite route and dropping in all of these extraneous acts, he runs the risk of losing credibility even more by having a story that is NOT consistent with previous claims. So either way, he’s in a lose-lose in the credibility department.

        The anal rape claims also up the ante’ of the shock value. It makes for more graphic headlines, which in turn could potentially (as per the plan, I am sure) increase pressure for a settlement. Admitting to being a victim of anal rape-even if such claims are totally false-is very humiliating for most men and I can’t imagine any guy, especially a public figure, willingly putting this kind of information out there but I think what happened in the Sandusky case does raise an interesting point. These boys received an outpouring of public sympathy, rather than condemnation because they were recognized as victims. That could well have bolstered his courage to make such a claim. These days, with the stigma of being a male rape victim dissipating (which is actually a good thing and a progression in the right direction) Wade’s confidence in making such a claim may have been bolstered. And, as he claims, he is doing a lot of self-educating about being an “abuse victim.” What that translates to is that he’s reading a lot of case histories so that he can better understand how to act, walk and talk like a victim. He thinks that such outrageous claims will give him more credibility, will get him more attention, and will win him more sympathy than Jordan or Gavin ever got.

        1. “The haters, backed by their usual slew of pseudo “pedophile profile” research, claim it is not unusual because pedophiles tend to progress in their behavior, gradually getting bolder and bolder with every victim.”

          The gradual thing is true and like you said THAT is one of the reasons why it does NOT make sense in Wade’s case. The escalation point is one of the main points in that “Conversations with a Pedophile” book Wade recommends on his website. For example the pedophile in the book says:

          “My acting out and my obsession were to continue for another twenty years. During that entire period, the frequency of my abusing and the extremes to which I went to carry out my abuses continually escalated.”

          But like you said Wade is alleged to be one of the first victims of MJ so how come he was anally raped but later alleged victims were not? Moreover, all but one alleged victim of MJ come from the late 80s, early 90s. So how was it? MJ was molesting boys left and right during that period, but then gave up for 10 years and then molested Gavin and that’s it? That’s not the way it is with real pedophiles. It’s the opposite. Starting with mild acts with one or very few victims and then both the nature of acts and the number of victims escalating. That phenomenon is actually well explained in the above mentioned book. The pedophile in the book says:

          “Unfortunately, for many of us, the need to reprove our “power” becomes more and more constant . And frequently the level of proof we need to validate our sense of control continues to escalate.”

          “What I didn’t see at that early age was that each time I felt the thrill that came when a victim gave in to my demands , the thrill quickly left me wanting to have it again. At first I tried to re-create the feeling by having a victim do what he had done before, but it was never the same—pleasurable but not exciting . Every time I proved that I was able to make someone do what I wanted, I found myself having to prove it again, and again, and again. I also learned that making a new victim do the same act was electric. Now I had two tools for feeling the excitement— finding new victims and making the current victim do something new.”

          The pedophile in the book abused more than 1000 boys.

          “For me, Wade’s outrageous and over the top claims have actually served to make his story even LESS credible than it already was.”

          Yes, I think he shot himself in the foot with that claim and the above described reason is just one of the reasons. Another one is that in case of anal rape it becomes even harder for him to explain how he would never realize its wrongfulness until he went into therapy when he was 30. It’s easier to make people believe a boy would mistake mutual masturbation for “love” because it feels physically good. But anal rape does not for a child. It’s very painful – no child can mistake it for “love”. It would be a horribée experience for a child. And it’s worth to note that he actually claims RAPE! Not “just” anal sex, but RAPE! The penal codes he references in his lawsuit are about sodomizing someone with the use of force. – ie. rape. So how is that consistent with other parts of his story where he claims he did not realize its wrongfulness until therapy at the age of 30 and mistook it for “love” bla-bla-bla? To me it is not. The story is all over the place and the anal rape claim makes it only more difficult for him to explain it. Also to explain how his mother or doctors never noticed anything (physically, psychologically), how he never showed symptoms of sexual abuse when he was a child. What he claims is extreme and I don’t think a child would likely be able to hide it well. Unless he is willing to accuse his mother of negligence and deliberately turning a blind eye too. And I don’t think a child who would go through that stuff would likely want to still be around his abuser – no matter how famous that person is. A child going through that would do anything NOT to have to be near his abuser and definitely not to stay alone with him.

          Like you said it also makes it harder to explain from MJ’s part. MJ was not known to be violent or aggressive. On the contrary, he was known to go out of his way to avoid confrontational situations. Even for sceptics it is hard to see him as some kind of violent rapist. Even pro-prosecution therapists like Stan Katz or Jim Clemente went rather with the profile of an abuser who was somewhat clueless about the harmfulness of his acts and was “in love” with these boys. Remember when Katz told in 2003 to that police officer on phone how he did not think MJ was a classic pedophile, probably he just thought of himself as a little boy who would jerk off with his friends. That’s also BS, of course, there is no evidence of MJ ever jerking off with any of these boys, but the point is even very biased pro-prosecution people would have a hard time in seeing MJ as some kind of violent rapist and they would rather need an alternative explanation and to try to put him in a different box.

          I think Wade does try to pull in some elements to try to create a pattern with former allegations (for example the porn claim), but I think he may have claimed this anal rape crap when he first went to his therapist (and that was before his lawyer advising him) and maybe that’s why he cannot backtrack on it and make it more like the previous allegations. And yes, I agree another reason is probably the shock value. Another may be his greed – that the more extreme acts he claims the more money he could collect in puntitive and compensatory damages.

          1. Speaking of Katz, someone sent me a link to a very interesting video. Stan Katz has made absolutely ridiculous claims about a 9-year-old girl who was sexually assaulted, just because of her apparent low IQ:

          2. Thanks very interesting. Just another proof that some of these therapists regularly used in court cases are actually very poor ones. Katz seems to be one who will say whatever he is paid to say.

  13. Now comes the news that a dozen former Playboy Bunnies also claim to have been raped by Bill Cosby. It’s a wonder that Cosby had time for a career. The sheer number, and the entrance of Gloria Allred in the matter have convinced me – while there may be merit in a couple of the claims, I believe that most of these ‘victims’ are lying. While they may have been too intimidated to say anything to the authorities, surely they would have discussed it with each other. Yet they maintain they were all working together at the same club, and no one mentioned being invited out by the star headliner, and the unfortunate outcome of their dates? Perhaps, but it strikes me as unlikely.

    Now comes the breaking news that “Jackie”, the UVA student rape victim written about in Rolling Stone, has serious discrepancies in her story, and RS no longer stands by her account. While it has nothing to do with Cosby, it does show that allegations of rape, even vivid, detailed allegations, may not always be true. When there are millions of dollars on the line, and no evidence, a little skepticism is in order.

    1. I have a sneaking suspicion that at least some of these claims may have actually been cases of consensual sex. It wouldn’t shock me if Bill Cosby turned out to be a pervert who used his position to get vulnerable girls to sleep with him in exchange for industry favors (getting parts in films, etc). The “casting couch” is an age-old cliche in Hollywood and Cosby would hardly be the first or last to make use of it. While people may understandably question the ethics of a man using his authority and power to get sexual favors, the bottom line is that if the women consented then it is not rape. Of course, all of the claims of being drugged considerably muddies the waters. If Cosby was using date rape drugs on these women, then their judgement would have been impaired, which raises a very interesting debate question. If someone consents to sex while under the influence, is it truly consent? Still, from what I gather, many of these women apparently did elect to voluntarily put themselves in vulnerable positions with him, often agreeing to meet him alone, etc. That doesn’t excuse what he did-if he did it-but it does lead me to wonder just how “naive” or “innocent” some of them were in these situations. If you do have a situation where a young woman is willing to do whatever it takes to get a part in a show or a movie, then I think it would be tacky for her to come back twenty, thirty, even forty years later and call it rape because she willingly put herself in that position.

      Most likely, Cosby is no angel in all of this. He apparently does have a history. But I think there is a distinction between actual rape (which would be the act of forcing himself upon a woman) and simply being a dirty old man who coerces a willing participant. That is a hard line to draw. And I could certainly understand why a young woman who didn’t enjoy going along with it in the first place-who maybe had guilt issues over it-would come to think of it over the years as an act of rape (also, I would imagine, the less successful the career, the more that bitterness would fester).

      In other words, where I’m going with this is that Cosby most likely IS an adulterer, a womanizer, etc. But those things, as unadmirable as they are, do not necessarily make one a rapist. Cosby may have been someone who abused his power in the industry to sleep with women, but again, would that justify accusations of rape? There doesn’t seem to be much corroborating evidence with these stories; just a lot of he said, she said (make that, more like “she said” in these cases). It is very sad but, again, I think a lot of people are looking at his stonewall silence and are starting to wonder.

  14. As for Cosby, maybe he is guilty in some of these, but I’m sure there are a lot of bandwagon-jumpers. The involvement of people like Gloria Allred is a big red flag.

    I guess this is the kind of impact and scandal Wade and his lawyers hoped for to put pressure on the Estate in hope of a settlement, but all they have is one bandwagon-jumper in Safechuck and the only media that seems to be interested in them is RadarOnline (which is probably used by them as some kind of mouthpiece). The Cosby case is everywhere, but the Robson/Safechuck case never really got picked up by the media. Probably a main reason for that is that MJ is not alive and not not here to be tortured by the media, but I think there’s also a sense of unfairness in suing a dead man for money while you had lots of opportunities to make these allegations while he was alive.

  15. Curiouser and curiouser – it seems that the Playboy bunny who claimed that Bill Co by drugged and raped her, along with a dozen other bunnies, testified against sportscaster Marv Albert when he faced similar charges in the 1970s. She claimed that she only escaped because she tore off his toupee.

    Albert took a plea on a lesser charge. But he told Barbara Walters that he’d never had sex with the woman, in those days, he didn’t wear a toupee, and her story was a complete fabrication. I’m starting to think that Cosby himself is paying some of the accusers. Based on comments, people are starting to see how easy it is to get ‘victims’ to weep on cue when there’s big money involved.

  16. BTW, RadarOnline published another motion that was filed by Safechuck this week. It’s still about the statutes of limitations mainly, but this makes Safechuck’s story just as confusing as Robson’s:

    For example, in this motion Safechuck claims he did not know about the illicit nature of his alleged abuse until seeing Robson’s lawsuit:

    But in a previous motion he claimed he told his mother in 2005 that MJ was “a bad man” and that he had allegedly abused him. As quoted from an earlier Estate motion:

    So which one is it?

    Not to mention the ridiculousness of him not knowing about the illicit nature of such alleged acts until seeing Robson’s claims. What made Robson a bigger trigger for him than 1993 or 2005? In 2005 he was already an adult, 27 years old. I guess the aspect of making $$$ with such allegations is a huge trigger…

    Wade too takes some elements from previous allegations, but Safechuck especially does it. I’m pretty sure he went to hater websites, read all about the Chandlers, Arvizos before constructing his story. In this motion, for example, he says:

    “Having won Safechuck’s parents’ trust, Jackson began grooming Safechuck for sexual abuse by encouraging him to become a ‘miniature version’ of Jackson, and intensifying the emotional connection between them.”

    This reeks of Evan Chandler’s ideas! These are quotes from the Chandler book:

    “Monique reiterated her opinion that Michael was taking up too much of Jordie’s life. But this time she offered an additional observation. “Jordie doesn’t even know you’re in the room, Evan. Can’t you see what’s going on? They’re in love!”
    The minute the L word left Monique’s mouth, Evan believed she was right. “It should have been a dead giveaway,” Evan recalled weeks later, when Jordie came walking in the house that night wearing tight black pants, white socks, black loafers and a black fedora, and Michael came walking in right behind him wearing the same riling. ”

    “Even if there was no sex, Jordie’s personality had been seriously altered. As he morphed day by day into a pint-sized clone of Michael, he withdrew further and further from his family and friends.”

    There is no actual reason to relate dressing like MJ to sexual abuse (I never got the point of this in the Chandler story either), but Evan did that and Safechuck is picking up on this notion. And that is not the only element. In previous motions his allegations look like a copy and paste patchwork of the Chandler and Arvizo allegations plus 20 years of tabloid rumours.

    1. Well, the thing about these boys starting to dress just like Michael (and a lot of them did!) is not a complex matter at all, as I’ve stated before. This was hero worship, pure and simple. And at the time, Michael Jackson was the most unique performer on the planet, with a look and a style that millions of little boys everywhere were copying. Nothing grabbed attention back then like being a “mini Michael” and this is true even today. Boys thought it was cool to dress like Michael. And nothing at the time could have been more “cool” than being with Michael Jackson and dressed as his mirror “mini me” image and all the attention that naturally would have fallen on one as a result. They were “wearing the brand,” so to speak. And I think Michael largely encouraged this because he found it adorable himself, not to mention it was sure to get lots of press attention, which it did (mostly positive at first, then negative after the allegations sullied the whole “Kid Power” idea he was creating).

      I don’t know why either “Monique” or Evan would have been shocked that Jordan had no notice of them when he was in the same room with Michael Jackson! What normal kid WOULD have been paying attention to his parents when he has MJ in the room? That would be the equivalent of having Santa Clause in the room and expecting a kid to behave like everything is perfectly normal! What I’m trying to say is that the kind of infatuation they’re talking about would have been perfectly normal for any kid if he had Michael Jackson in the room. Of course the parents are going to blend into the wallpaper, at least for a little while (until the novelty wears off). Withdrawing somewhat from family and “ordinary” friends would have been normal for the situation (not to say it was healthy or the best thing for him) but given Michael’s celebrity and status, it’s not something that can be automatically equated to sexual abuse. The boy was most likely star struck and, naturally, having a celebrity friend was feeding his own ego, making him feel important. We don’t know to what extent Michael encouraged this and it would be hard to say because these are just the kinds of emotions a kid would normally have under such circumstances. In most cases, for a kid to meet their idol is a one shot thing, if they’re lucky. It’s quite rare that a child gets to form a friendship with their idol, so I don’t know if there is really much in the way of precedence for determining how a child is supposed to behave under such conditions. The Cascio boys, for example, were so young when they met Michael that I think they just always kind of viewed him as an extended family member. The relationship felt very normal, whereas in the case of Jordan it would have been “Wow, this is Michael Jackson!”

      Perhaps Evan had gotten somewhat used to being around celebrities, what with his screen writing and dental practice, but it sounded like he was expecting his son to be perfectly blase’ about Michael Jackson but the natural reaction of most kids at that time would have been to go a bit ga-ga. It sounds like Evan couldn’t even allow his son this “moment.” He was already jealous. I think back to the title of an early piece I wrote on Evan Chandler: “Was Daddy Just Jealous Cause Daddy Couldn’t Play?” From the very beginning, we have ample evidence that if Evan could have been allowed half the attention that June, Lillian and Jordan were getting, everything would have been just peachy keen.

      1. IMO Evan is simply trying to find something to point to why he would be suspicious of sexual abuse. Of course, the theory that Jordan dressing like MJ would somehow imply a sexual relationship between them does not make any sense, just like many other things Evan says do not make any sense. Do not forget that we are talking about a man with mental issues (bipolar disorder). This is why I find it interesting and telling that Safechuck incorporates such things into his story. Because these are clear signs of him doing his homework and reading the previous allegations and modelling his allegations after those. Outside of Evan Chandler’s sick mind there is no logical reason to relate a kid dressing like Michael Jackson to sexual abuse. By the way, in 2005 June testified that Jordan dressed like MJ even before they met so certainly it was not that special as Evan tries to make it out to be. It’s just him desperately trying to find reasons to be “suspicious” – in the hindsight of explaining his story.

  17. I was just reading the comments about the allegation of anal rape by Wade. It also has another connection that you might remember.
    Our pseudo science friend from the now defunct blog ( it was taken down by Google by court order and her account was suspended so she is upset) had that image in many of her stories about Michael and the other boys that Sneddon accused him of molesting.
    That person as you know was fixated on the story that Kassim Abdool told to the court about a jar of Vaseline. It was one of her favorites and it goes to that story because they think they can verify that it happened with him as a witness and it goes to her own beliefs of what she says happened to Brett Barnes. Starting to sound familiar isn’t it.
    I would like to go into a very long litany of why Kassim Abdool was told to say that by Victor Gutierrez but can’t right now.It has to do with something that very few people outside the Psychiatric community have knowledge of about the symptoms of this mental disorder.
    You can also tell that it is something that someone researched from the wrong side of the fence so to speak. It seems that one of them researched anal sex ( there are entire threads devoted to it on Topix) and came up with another claim that was also mentioned by Robson.
    The anal licking ( street slang for it is rimming) is a technique that people that practice anal sex believe dilates the anal sphincter enough to not cause injury. It’s funny because when I Googled the exact phrase that WR used it took me right to the Topix Human Sexuality Forum which was a most enlightening read.

    1. That’s interesting. I started to suspect that D. took down her blog because Robson and Safechuck might have taken some of their ideas from it and she might want to hide some traces. So it wasn’t that but she was suspended. Nevertheless I do think many of the claims in Robson and Safechuck’s allegations can be traced back to these hater websites. Yes, the anal rape thing was a special obsession of haters, even when no accuser ever claimed that. So yeah, it is very possible that Wade took the idea from reading these hater blogs and websites. Maybe reading those he got the impression that it was alleged by former accusers when it was not, it was just haters’ and VG’s fantasy.

  18. Jordan Chandler and Wade Robson also , were mimicking MJ is dress and dance , before they ever met him..
    June testified to it and so did Joy.That is why Wade entered the dance contest , in the first place.
    And wasnt Safecucks commercial about a kid who is so star struck, he sneaks into MJ dressing room., and tries on his hats and stuff.? Seems to be every little kids fantasy, according to Pepsi., at that time.
    Beyonce and Jay Z just dressed Blue Ivy as MJ for Halloween.
    If these kids were dressing like MJ as small children , it was with their mothers blessings.
    As far as Wade and his very graphic accusations…I think that he has read the VG book and figures he has to come up with some really over the top stuff, to explain, why he is supposedly so damaged , and somehow , would not understand these acts.
    To me , is it also to show the estate lawyers , who dropped him from the shows , that he is a force to be reckoned with and can cause a lot of damage ,
    The more I read about this stuff, the more ridiculous it seems..
    I dont know how they can say this stuff with a straight face .But really , they havent ..They give it as a statement in a document , and hide behind their lawyer, who then , walks in with a straight face and tries to push this agenda,, in court , in hopes of a settlement , because it is a nuisance to the estate.
    I really cant picture either of these people coming in and getting on the stand and trying to pass any of this off as the truth..

    1. “As far as Wade and his very graphic accusations…I think that he has read the VG book and figures he has to come up with some really over the top stuff, to explain, why he is supposedly so damaged , and somehow , would not understand these acts.”

      But in me it achieves the opposite effect. Like I said it would be easier to believe a boy would be confused about masturbation and not realize its wrongfulness, but there’s hardly any room for that in case of anal rape. Like I said Wade claims anal RAPE – not even just anal sex in which he was somehow mentally tricked into. He claims rape. It becomes clear when you look up the penal codes he references in his lawsuit.

      For example Penal Code 286(c)(2)(A), that they reference says:

      (2) (A) Any person who commits an act of sodomy when the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.

      1. I know Alabama law isn’t relevant to the discussion of the Wade Robson case, but since you brought it up, it’s interesting that in Alabama, the sodomy law is still on the books and it doesn’t matter if it is by force or not. These days, of course, it is something they rarely, if ever, enforce except maybe in child abuse cases. No one these days really cares about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. However, there was a case here a few years back (can’t remember all the details now) where a woman decided to use the law to bring charges against someone. The guy ended up with a prison conviction, so it is still a crime here punishable by prison sentence IF a person cares to make a case for it and press charges. It is very interesting how many laws are actually still on the books here that many people assume have long since been abolished.

        1. Oh, there’s a website dedicated to the dumbest laws in various US states:

          Some selected ones:

          No horses are allowed into Fountain Inn unless they are wearing pants. (South Dakota)

          Movies that show police officers being struck, beaten, or treated in an offensive manner are forbidden. (South Dakota)

          If three or more Indians are walking down the street together, they can be considered a war party and fired upon. (South Dakota)

          Every adult male must bring a rifle to church on Sunday in order to ward off Indian attacks. (South Carolina)

          Horses may not be kept in bathtubs. (South Carolina)

          It is illegal to give or receive oral sex in South Carolina. (South Carolina)

          State officials ordered 400 words of “sexually explicit material” to be cut from Romeo and Juliet. (New Mexico)

          The English language is not to be spoken. (Illinois)

          The value of Pi is 3. (Indiana)

          Oral sex is illegal. (Indiana)

          A man with a moustache may never kiss a woman in public. (Iowa)

          Kisses may last for no more than five minutes. (Iowa)

          It is a crime to share your Netflix password in Tennessee. (Tennessee)

          More than 8 women may not live in the same house because that would constitute a brothel. (Tennessee)

          It is illegal to use a lasso to catch a fish. (Tennessee)

          The definition of “dumb animal” includes every living creature. (Tennessee)

          Interracial marriages are illegal. (Tennessee)

          It is illegal to snooze on a train. (West Virginia)

          Unmarried couple who live together and “lewdly associate” with one another may face up to a year in prison. (Repealed: 2010) (West Virgina)

          In New York, adultery is still a crime. (New York)

          Citizens may not greet each other by “putting one’s thumb to the nose and wiggling the fingers”. (New York)

          It’s strictly prohibited to pronounce “Arkansas” incorrectly. (Arkansas)

          A man can legally beat his wife, but not more than once a month. (Arkansas)

          Oral sex is considered to be sodomy. (Arkansas)

          You may not have more than two dildos in a house. (Arizona)

          Donkeys cannot sleep in bathtubs. (Arizona)

          And so on… 🙂

          1. I’ve seen those. Most are just so ridiculous, lol. A lot of them are just old laws dating back over a hundred years or more; laws that probably had some practicality at the time, but have long since outlived their purpose. It’s just that no one ever got around to taking them off the books.

            Another interesting bit of trivia about my state: The law against interracial marriage was only abolished a little over two decades ago.

      2. The graphic accusation is another attempt to extend the statute of limitation. ,

        Cal Code Civ Proc § 340.1 (a) (“In an action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse, the time for commencement of the action shall be within eight years of the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority or within three years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual abuse, whichever period expires later, for any of the following actions: (1) An action against any person for committing an act of childhood sexual abuse. (2) An action for liability against any person or entity who owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, where a wrongful or negligent act by that person or entity was a legal cause of the childhood sexual abuse which resulted in the injury to the plaintiff. (3) An action for liability against any person or entity where an intentional act by that person or entity was a legal cause of the childhood sexual abuse which resulted in injury to the plaintiff .

        Suing for aggravated rape (rape that involves a weapon, more than one person, or seriously injures the victim) in Califoria basically has no deadline.

        “After the Catholic Church abuse scandals, California also enacted a law that allows for lawsuits against people whom were aware of the unlawful sexual conduct by their “employee, volunteer, representative, or agent”, and failed to take “reasonable steps” to prevent it.
        Upon his discovery of this person or entity, a plaintiff has one year to sue.”

        1. I’m following Wade’s case from a legal POV, reading all the court docs that are available and the nature of the abuse he claims does not seem to have anything to do with the statutes. They do not make any such argument or intepretation of CCP 340.1. The psychological injuries or illness mentioned in CCP 340.1 are simply his claim that until he went into therapy in May 2012 he was unable to realize that he was allegedly a victim of sexual abuse and that his mental illness is connected to that alleged abuse. Nothing about rape making a difference in statutes.

  19. I would like to know how the Lawyers for Wade and James can explain away the opportunity they had in 2005 to come forward and state their claims about abuse then. Are we meant to believe that during the very public investigation and trial they still did not understand what child sexual abuse was.

  20. There was a curious comment left by a troll on our blog under a Wade Robson entry that stated that we haven’t thought about the risks that Wade is taking and the risks involved seem to make this person think it isn’t just about money.
    I haven’t replied to it because there are a couple of implications behind the statement like “I am a big Michael Jackson but want you to consider that it is true”. Second they call the allegations ” Michael’s Pedophile issues”.
    To me it became obvious early on that Wade was misinformed about any risks he might have to face when he brought the case. I think he was given misinformation from the wrong source and expected a quick settlement based on peoples perception of what settled the Chandler case. The group that I am talking about believe that MJ settled do solely on the media onslaught that was going on. I think that he was told the Estate of Michael Jackson would settle with him without question and behind closed doors. He was sadly misinformed by someone because The Estate will never settle. Never.
    That is why you have all these negative articles about MJ coming up on ROL and a few other places that are gossip sites. They are desperately trying to keep the story alive in the media. They think that it was settled because of negative press and nothing could be farther from the truth.
    The Chandler case was settled because Michaels defense was forced into something like a Double Jeopardy situation with a ruling by Judge David Rothman on December 14th,1993. Whenever I link the article that speaks of it they only see the part about a gag order and don’t see the other part.
    That other part was when he gave the Prosecutor’s offices in two counties access to the civil discovery in the case and we know what that discovery was now. It was statements from previous employees that was skewed based on their own desires to sue Michael for something. Needless to say Michael’s primary concern and that of his lawyers would have been a criminal case. That is what Wade Robson simply did not understand. There is no Michael to go to jail so the Estate has everything to loose in a settlement and nothing to gain from one. They will never settle.

    1. Lol, I get comments like that here from time to time, from persons I am sure are trolls although they try to cloak it behind a facade of “just being reasonable” or skeptical. Of course, I can’t judge the intent of any commentor until I have justifiable reason, and healthy skepticism alone (or having an opinion that goes against the grain) isn’t enough to label them a troll. They may be on the fence, and certainly those are the kind of people we want to reach. But yeah, sometimes you get those who are obviously “nettling” (my favorite word for it). Pretending to be a skeptical MJ fan is one of their favorite tactics. It’s a much more sneaky and subtle way of getting a “shoe in” than outright stating their agenda, which they know will only get them banned and/or their comments deleted.

      To be fair, I’ve considered exactly what Wade’s risks have been. After all, despite some fame, Wade Robson is really a nobody compared to Michael Jackson. One might say he had nothing to gain by bringing such an accusation, at the expense of public humiliation, the loss of support from many within the entertainment industry, and of course the condemnation of millions of Michael Jackson fans across the globe. On the surface, it would seem that he had it all by associating himself as Michael’s friend and protege, and everything to lose by cutting those ties. But the motivation is really not that mysterious. In the beginning, as has been discussed, Wade sought to keep the lawsuit under wraps in hopes of a speedy settlement. TMZ got wind of the filing, but mocked his intentions. He started to realize that he was not going to get a quick and easy settlement, so he ups the media ante (going on The Today Show) in hopes of putting more pressure on the estate. The story, however, never really picks up steam in the media and RO becomes the only outlet that treats his case sympathetically.

      I suppose some are basing their justification of the idea of an estate settlement on the fact that negative publicity could hurt the MJ brand, thus putting a dent in future profits. Some think they might be willing to settle to prevent that from happening. But that theory makes no sense because settling this case would be the absolute nail in the coffin, not only permanently staining his legacy and brand (for everyone at that point will assume Wade’s story is true) but also opening the door for anyone who wants to make a claim and get rich. It’s simply not going to happen. There is no motivation to settle and no justification why they should. The downside is that I fully suspect in the event of this case getting thrown out or Wade losing, if it does go to trial, he will probably pitch a very public tantrum and try to do a media blitz or write a book telling “my truth.” But this is a one step at a time battle and if that happens, it’s just something we’ll have to prepare to weather. It may be the cost of ultimately proving that Michael’s innocence can’t be bought for a price. Also, the media already hasn’t shown much interest in this case, and I imagine what little interest there is will quickly dry up if the case is tossed or if Wade loses. The public’s tolerance and patience for flogging a corpse is extremely limited.

      1. As for Wade’s “risks”. In my opinion his mental issues are very real (only in reality not related to his imaginary abuse, but to his family genetics – see his father and cousin) and I think those mental issues have made him struggle in his work for a while now. There is information about him getting into projects and then suddenly leaving them even before they could take off (Britney tour, Cirque show, movies etc.). I think that is probably related to whatever mental issues he has. So while he had a successful career up until the mid-2000s I think recently he was declining because of his mental issues. I also think he does have “lost childhood” issues as well. Which is not to be blamed on Michael but rather on his mother (it wasn’t Michael who took him to four-five auditions a day when he was a child etc.), but to him in his mind it’s probably more convenient to shift blame on someone from outside the family. So I think his mental illness and his getting tired of showbiz made him realize that he will need to find an alternative way to finance his family in the future. And then he cooked this crap up as it promises more money than if he would go to work at McDonald’s or something, I don’t think he “risked” his career because I don’t think he wants a career any more. I think he grew tired of showbiz and he is also incapable of working any more because of his mental illness, so this is what he cooked up as a solution.

    2. “The Chandler case was settled because Michaels defense was forced into something like a Double Jeopardy situation with a ruling by Judge David Rothman on December 14th,1993”.

      Here is Howard Weizman talking about the 2005 case ( while in the midst of the trial !). He does not say anything about double jeopardy ,he blames the settlement on ‘the client’ From 1.57

      “ This (the 2005 case) is the result of poor planning and bad advise1. I don’t believe he is a pedophile but the bottom line : I wasn’t there isn 1993 I wasn’t there in 2003, I don’t know what happened. but I choose to believe he is not a pedophile, I choose to believe he hasn’t molested children and I hope Im right ” “.Youre talking to someone who didn’t agree to what happened. The client makes the decisions for whatever happened , sometimes it is havng to avoid to go trough the risk of a trial because its always a risk, when youre going trough the criminal justice system . I wish it hadnt happened, I said it back then, I sa it but that is history, and now he has to deal with 2004……I thought back then it was a case that could be tried…. “

      If its true what he says( Mesereau has a different opinion ) it is interesting that he could not convince Michael NOT to settle. He also says Michael was hard to control, while Mesereau thought Michael was the most cooperative client he ever had.
      I think Weizman was just incompetent for the case. Chandler was aware of it and took advantage of it .

      1. Weitzman of course going to say things to save his own face. Not only Mesereau has a different opinion, but according to the Chandlers book the Chandlers were counting on the fact that their lawyers were friends with Weitzman.


        “Feldman, Shapiro, Hirsch, Weitzman & Weis, (Oy vey!), all were part of a neat little “old boy” network, just the ticket for getting this nightmare over and done with — quietly.”

        “We have a unique situation here,” Hirsch added. “Bob and I have known Howard Weitzman for at least twenty-seven years. Howard and I had an office together for many years. We’ve had cases together and Bob has had cases with him as well. He’s one of my dearest and oldest friends, which has nothing to do with my approach to the case. If I have to take him head-on I’d do it, and he knows I’d do it.
        Lauren Weis also happens to be a good friend of mine. She’s a personal friend and she trusts us. We’re not playing both ends against the middle here we have entree to both sides in this case, which is very unique. And if something is going to get done we have the ability to make it happen before it gets into all-out war.”

        They thought these relationships would help them to push the case in the direction of a settlement and well… they did settle. I somehow do not buy it that Weitzman had nothing to do with it, sorry.

        Having said that, I hope this case will be treated well and the lessons are learnt from any mistake made by anyone in 1993.

        1. That is VERY interesting regarding The Chanders book saying how the lawyers were all good friends.
          We know Tom Mesereau read that book , so he knows that too.
          Maybe that is why he is so adamant to be on them about not settling ..
          Wonder how good a friends these people are with Wades lawyers?
          It is interesting too that Geraldine Huges has mentioned that none of these lawyers wanted to be on the losing side of the 94 case.
          Nice way out for all of them to get paid and save face, all at MJ expense .
          I think that is one reason Johnny Cochrane told them to get Mesereau for the 2005 trial.
          Mesereau is somewhat of an outsider .
          He isnt at it to be famous or rub shoulders with other lawyers over his own client best interests.
          I have no faith in Weitzman at all, and it disturbs me greatly , that Mesereau thinks Wades atty know that Weitzman could possible settle like he did before .
          When Weitzman says it was the clients decision to settle, well the client was being advised by his lawyers .
          And MJ said to Diane Sawyer , his lawyers advised him hands down to settle the case and move on..
          I think Weitzman is not truthful .
          I hope this thing is thrown out

          1. “Wonder how good a friends these people are with Wades lawyers?”

            Hopefully there’s no “old boy network” this time.
            I’m not going to attack Weitzman yet about this case. So far they are doing what they have to do. We will see how it goes. But I don’t buy he had nothing to do with the settlement in 1993. Like you said, MJ said on Diane Sawyer he was advised by his lawyers to settle. And then there is the Chandler book boasting about the friendship between their lawyers and Weitzman and how it was “just the ticket for getting this nightmare over and done with — quietly.”

            But whatever happened it happened and cannot be changed. Hopefully this case will be handled well.

          2. I have some impressions of what Michael revealed in that Diane Sawyer interview that I plan to post on soon. I can’t say when that will be, exactly, because I am working on the Susan Fast review and there is a lot of MJ news happening right now, so as usual I have a lot of irons in the fire but I do think it’s time for an in-depth analysis of that interview. I recently re-watched the whole interview again following a very interesting discussion on the Dancing With the Elephant blog, which was not related to this topic (it was about Michael’s HIStory teaser film) but did pique my interest regarding his answers to a lot of the questions, among them the Chandler settlement.

            This seems to be a real issue with the “good ol’ boy” network of attorneys. Attorneys can certainly respect one another, even when they are fighting opposite sides of a case, but it should be considered a conflict of interest to allow personal friends to take on cases that will have them facing off in court. In such cases, it would seem as you say that neither would have the client’s best interests at heart. The case, for them, is a one shot deal and they know their client-attorney relationship will end when the case is done, but their best bud is someone they will be continuing to play golf, dine, fish, and ski with for years to come. So which relationship would one think they actually value more? If they are friends, they are more likely to do whatever it takes to ensure that nobody comes out a loser.

          3. Weizman sounded embittered because he was let go from the case (in 2005). Going by his harsh words about Michael Im not sure had Michael been alive that he would want him on his legal team again. His involvement in Michaels businesses has more to do with being Branca’s lawyer than Michaels choice. Now that he is also a target Im sure he will find a way to have the case dismissed

            If you look at connections and dots, Weizman and Wade have a history together. In 1993 Wade(together with Brett Barnes) on instigation of Michaels defense team had a press conference to ‘defend’ Michael. I don’t know if Bert Fields was still in charge or was already replaced by Weizman and it could have been Pellicanos idea, but it was one of many damaging decisions of Michaels defense team, leaving him with no other option than to settle.
            In 2005 Wade defended Michael again.
            Fast forward 2009, Wade is in business with the executors/ Weizman, he gets a whole page in Michaels Opus and is in talks for Cirque . 3 Years later out of the blue when the AEG trial starts , Wade has no cirque deal and here comes his allegations. The connection to the AEG case may be that one of the witnesses was Eric Briggs, who valuated Michaels assets and placed the value of his estate at $7.2 million, his share of the music catalog worth $0 and his likeness at $2,105, under the pretext that his image still suffered from the allegations. Here is where Wade came in handy. Briggs role in the trial was to downsize Michaels earning potential, so as to lower his ‘worth‘ for damages if AEG should lose the case. This was in contrast with the money Michaels estate was making at the time from his catalogue and the cirque shows. Briggs was also in conflict of interest as a witness for AEG and hired by the executors who had publically distanced themselves from the beneficiaries in the AEG case . What we didn’t know but came out at the trial was that the IRS had disputed Briggs valuation and accused the executors of grossly undervaluing the assets , leaving Michaels estate with a$ 700 million tax claim.
            It is a very dark thought, but in Michaels world nothing is impossible.

            Also Wade may feel taken advantage of by Michael or his lawyers for publically defending him in 1993 AND in 2003 and not getting anything in return. Who knows what promises were made to him and what happened that changed it.

          4. That TV interview with Wade and Brett in 1993 was organized by Pellicano. I don’t think it had anything to do with Weitzman. And I do not agree with the theory that Wade’s case has anything to do with AEG. So far it seems nothing but a fan conspiracy theory to me.

          5. Of course there is no direct corroborating evidence but, like many, I agree that the timing of those accusations coinciding with the start of the AEG trial just seemed too bizarre to be something conveniently brushed aside. I think it bears at least keeping an open mind to. It could have been coincidence that the two events just happened to line up at the same time, or maybe (as some theorize) the idea was planted in Wade’s head because of the AEG trial.

          6. It is not a theory, just a thought based on a string of events involving the same people, that are unlikely to be coincidences. Truthfinding always starts with an idea or a thought no matter how farfetched or outrageous it seems. There are enough examples of things we know now that before I would not have imagined to be possible. Some of the emails that came out at the AEG trial are downright conspiracy, intended to mislead Michael.
            Michael spoke about conspiracy pointing at Sony and he more than anyone else, knew the business in and out.

            The recent Sony hack is an eye opener of what goes on behind closed doors. Here are some examples.

            ‘A series of emails by one of the MPAA’s (the Motion Picture Association of America) top lawyers, Steven Fabrizio, and six major Hollywood studios – Universal, Sony, Fox, Paramount, Warner Bros., and Disney indicate they have teamed up against “Goliath”, their adversary in the online piracy battle. The plan, started in January, involved major studios donating money to a special $500,000 annual legal support fund. The executives debated legal and technically advanced tools to block pirated content. Top Hollywood bosses talk about “the problems created by Goliath” and the need to “respond to/rebut Goliath’s public advocacy” and “amplify negative Goliath news.”

            Another one

            An email dated October 31, 2013, from David Steinberg, head of Sony Pictures Entertainment’s legal department, to Leah Weil, SPE’s general counsel, touches on Bill Murray’s alleged reluctance to star in Paul Feig’s planned all-women Ghostbusters adaptation. If the email exchange is to be believed, Sony was planning “‘aggressive’ litigation counsel” to evaluate the situation, but wanted to keep it quiet so as not to harm the studio’s reputation by publicly going after a celebrated actor like Murray.

          7. The recent revelations about Sony are interesting indeed (though hardly shocking). Michael was trying to tell the world the truth about Sony in 2002, and was written off by the media and even other music insiders as a madman at worst; at best, as a has-been artist spouting sour grapes over the “failure” of his album. Just as the very songs and lyrics he once sang that are now being universally embraced were once mocked by a world that wasn’t ready to hear them, his views about many things he spoke out against are now coming to light as truths. To reiterate what D.B. Anderson so eloquently said, “Maybe it is time we finally listened to Michael Jackson.”

          8. I am so hoping some Michael related emails will pop up that will shed light on issues Michael had with sony and who were in cahoots with them . Like boycotting his album, undermining his endeavours, trying to get his catalogue and the posthumous controversies sony had a hand in. I really believe that all these things will eventually come to light . Maybe even where the false allegations come from.

          9. Wouldn’t that be great? Although I wouldn’t hold out much hope for emails going back that far to ever surface. That would have meant somebody would have had to hold onto them for over a decade. Probably not likely, although you never know.

  21. I would like to see a dismissal not based solely on a late claim. The judge has allowed discovery requested for the most part and a final denial needs to include the inability to find corroborating evidence…a definitive judgement of ‘no case’ in addition to time issue would dampen expected response. So, for now, I’m being patient with the judge’s rulings, although it can be frustrating.

  22. The John Doe error in the Cosby suit reminds me of the movie Body Heat, where the luststruck dope of a lawyer gets hired because he had a history of making crucial errors. The Cosby mistake is so basic, it had to be deliberate. The suit will be thrown out, as planned. It’s part of the orchestrated takedown.

    Speaking of orchestrations, there are a number of reasons to believe that Wade was working with AEG. For one, his last show biz job was with them. Every day there’s a story about some celebrity lowering the price on their property because it isn’t selling, yet, on the brink of the AEG trial, Wade’s place sells for more than the asking price. Wasn’t there a witness prepared to testify that he overheard Randy Phillips talking about Wade’s involvement just as the trial was getting underway? (Following that line of inquiry would have led to criminal charges, and I don’t think the Jacksons’ lawyers wanted to go there. That’s not what they do.)

    I watched CNN in amazement as six women were encouraged to spout lies and exaggerations about their involvement with Cosby, in a manner sickly reminiscent of the Arvizo hysteria. In case you’re wondering, I’m no Cosby fan, but this story has gotten absolutely ludicrous. It’s really opening eyes about the lengths people will go to in seeking a cushy payout.

  23. Are any of you catching this? Bill Cosby just “broke his silence” to . . . Stacy Brown???

    What the eff? How crazy is that???

    Is Bill Cosby just incredibly stupid? Or is there method to this madness? Me, I’m rather dumbfounded.

    Unbelievable . . .

      1. It does not really sound like an “interview”. It seems like Brown just called him and Cosby gave him a short comment. Brown was always very manipulative in how to represent himself and he always could sell himself for more than who he is. He’s just a stalker and not a journalist. He did the same (calling and stalking people) in the MJ case as well.

        1. Also, Brown shouldn’t be too quick to give himself any pats on the back. He didn’t exactly get an exclusive, since Cosby still did not address the allegations, only saying the black press should stay “neutral” and addressing how his wife was holding up. Brown is also being too quick to insert his own bias into the piece. What Cosby “sounds like” or whether it “seemed” like he wanted to say more is beside the point. Anyway, why is he so quick to want to be on Cosby’s good side, with twentysomething allegations against him, when he was so quick to condemn Michael based on far less?

          1. Stacy Brown doesn’t care about “sides”. He’s going for the scoop – he actually got Cosby to SAY something, even if it was just vague generalities. SB is probably so excited at getting his Diane Dimond moment. He’s managed to insert his name into the scandal du jour. After all those years of smearing Michael, to little effect, he sees himself getting rich and famous on another black icon’s misery.

  24. Stacy Brown is being interviewed on CNN by Don Lemon right now, along with Gloria Allred’s daughter Lisa Bloom. He’s so happy!

    1. And this is how Stacy Brown got the so called interview.

      However, the Cosby camp is refuting how the supposed brief interview went down. A lawyer for the actor released the following statement on Monday:

      “On Saturday, the New York Post published an article by Stacy Brown indicating that Bill Cosby ‘broke his silence’ Friday in a discussion with Mr. Brown. Various media outlets have reported on the story with the headline ‘Bill Cosby Speaks Out.’ Mr. Cosby and Mr. Brown did in fact have a telephone conversation. Mr. Brown identified himself as a free-lance reporter for a number of African-American media outlets, which prompted Mr. Cosby’s comment regarding the African-American media. Mr. Brown did not indicate that he was interviewing Mr. Cosby for publication, did not say that he was reporting for the New York Post, and did not tell Mr. Cosby that the conversation was being recorded. In a discussion of journalistic standards, Mr. Brown failed to adhere to the most basic standards of his profession.”

      So far, no comment from Brown or the Post.–defends-bill-the–victim-225205358.html

      As usual !

      1. GOOD! (Claps hands enthusiastically). It’s about time people like this got called out. I hope Stacy Brown is publicly humiliated enough to crawl under a rock for awhile. To add further insult to injury, the article continuously refers to Brown as “she.”

  25. Yep, that’s the modus operandi of Stacy Brown. Always selling himself for more than the little, insignificant stalker that he is.

  26. There was a court hearing in Safechuck’s case yesterday:

    Judge skeptical on man’s late claim against Michael Jackson estate

    A judge expressed skepticism Tuesday about whether a man who alleges he was abused as a child by Michael Jackson can file a late claim against the singer’s estate, but took the matter under submission and said he would rule later.

    Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff noted that James Safechuck told his mother in 2005 about the alleged molestation and broke ties with the pop star.

    The judge also noted that Safechuck that year rejected Jackson’s request to testify on his behalf when the singer was on trial on sexual abuse charges involving another young man — allegations for which the entertainer was acquitted.

    “Mr. Safechuck said, ‘No, I won’t testify in your criminal trial and don’t call me again,”‘ Beckloff said.

    Safechuck did not file his petition for a late claim against the Jackson estate until August.

    Attorneys for the estate maintain Safechuck had 60 days to file the claim after he began to understand what allegedly happened to him after seeing a May 2013 television interview with Wayne Robson, who also claims he was sexually abused by Jackson as a child.

    Safechuck’s attorneys maintain he did not fully comprehend what happened until he obtained therapy and that therefore he is not bound by the 60-day statute.

    Howard Weitzman, an attorney for the Jackson estate, has said Safechuck’s claims should be dismissed.

    “Mr. Safechuck’s request to file a late claim against the Jackson estate so he can recover money from Michael’s beneficiary will hopefully be rejected,” Weitzman said previously. “This is a person that made his claim five years after Michael died, more than 20 years after the incidents supposedly happened and has given sworn testimony that Michael never did anything inappropriate to him.”

    Safechuck, 36, alleges he was abused by the King of Pop after the two appeared together in a late-1980s Pepsi commercial, when Safechuck was 10.

    “(Jackson) engaged in a calculated course of conduct to lure both (Safechuck) and his parents into a false sense of security and normalcy that was far from reality,” Safechuck’s attorneys allege in the court papers.

    They claim Jackson “was successful in his efforts to the point that (Safechuck) endured repeated acts of sexual abuse of a heinous nature and was brainwashed by the decedent into believing they were acts of love and instigated by James himself rather than the decedent.”

    Jackson had Safechuck dress like him to the point the boy looked like a “miniature version” of the singer, Safechuck’s attorneys’ court papers state.

    “After the first incident (Safechuck) regularly began sleeping in (Jackson’s) bed in his hotel room during the rest of the ‘Bad’ tour in 1988,” Safechuck’s attorneys’ court papers state.

    Safechuck alleges the pop star went molested him about 100 times for four years, up until he reached puberty.

    Last year, the 31-year-old Robson, an Australian former-choreographer, also filed a petition for a late claim against the estate, alleging Jackson sexually abused him at a young age.

    According to Safechuck’s attorneys’ court papers, their client was able to gain “insight” from Robson’s claim and then obtained psychiatric help that has allowed him to come forward with details of the “loathsome nature of his childhood sexual relationship with (Jackson), the effects of which he has buried for decades.”

    Jackson died June 25, 2009, of acute propofol intoxication.

    — City News Service

    1. I have seen this. It is encouraging, although I think some fans are getting a bit carried away and running with the “judge skeptical” headline. There is nothing here that indicates Beckoff is skeptical that the alleged abuse occurred (though he may be); only that he is skeptical of Safechuck’s ability to file a late claim. The alleged quote from Safechuck in 2005 seems to be the clincher, clearly indicating that he could have brought charges or at least testified then, but obviously made a conscious, adult decision to not do so. The problem with this reasoning is that he will still try to use the excuse that he was brainwashed or afraid to speak out.

      I also have a problem with the fact that if Safechuck’s claim is merely thrown out due to late filing, it still leaves an open door for people to assume that Michael was guilty, and that he merely “got away” with it due to Safechuck waiting so long to file the complaint. So far, based on what I have seen, there is nothing that is actually being argued in the way of guilt or innocence-only whether the plaintiffs are within the statute of limitations.

      And what is up with his statement of ruling later, if he is so skeptical? It sounds to me like just another excuse to keep dragging this thing out indefinitely. If Jimmy Safechuck doesn’t have a leg to stand on, then his case should be dismissed. End of story.

  27. Judge Beckloff thoroughly enjoys being assigned the Jackson Estate. He tends to wring every bit of drama out of the most mundane decisions.

    It’s hard to figure out whether it’s the judge or the journalist who is responsible for the inaccuracies in the article. It has not been established that Jimmy told his mother that Michael was a bad man in 2005, or that he told Michael he wouldn’t testify for him, only that he claims it in the suit. (And if Jimmy did all that, what precipitated it, given that he tried to keep in touch until he was well into adulthood.) Of course if Michael had abused Jimmy, he would have been certifiable if he asked him to testify. I recall that Sneddon didn’t bother to call Jimmy because there was never the slightest suggestion that he had been abused. It was the DA’s decision, not Jimmy’s.

    1. This is what Mesereau said to the judge regarding Safechuck, when he was arguing against 1108 being brought into court

      18 Six, Jimmy Safechuck, who we are informed

      19 says nothing happened. They don’t propose to call

      20 him as an alleged victim either, but they’ve got the

      21 same old gang again coming in to try and capitalize

      22 on the case, people who have been adjudged to be

      23 liars, and they are. People who asked for money

      24 from tabloids, who’ve asked for money from Mr.

      25 Jackson, et cetera.

      This is who the prosecutors wanted to be able to testify about Safechuck from this document
      Blanca < Mark Quindoy and Charlie Michaels

      So just like Brett , Mac, Robson….the DA never spoke to Safechuck, either, to ask him if he would testify , because he never said he had been assaulted , and MJ wouldnt have needed him to testify , because Safechuck wasnt included by the judge, in his ruling
      There wouldnt have been any need , for MJ to ask him to testify.
      And of course, I find it insane that his mother , wouldnt have gone right to Sneddon, if he told her MJ had done anything to him , in the middle of a huge trial, where people are already to sue if he is found guilty of anything .

      It is really incredible , what people will do or say for money

      1. What you linked in is a prosecution motion and in this case prosecution allegations kept changing all the time. At the beginning of that doc it says they had testimony from Blanca Francia, Charli Michaels and Mark Quindoy about Safechuck. However, eventually none of that was even offered by the prosecution to get introduced. In fact the claim about Charli Michael’s is puzzling right away because when you read the part about her in that very same doc she did not claim anything about Safechuck.

        Blanca Francia claimed this about Safechuck according to that doc:

        However, her court testimony contradicted this claim when she said she’s never been in the theater when MJ was there with kids!

        5 Q. You would see those children running around
        6 Neverland a lot, correct?
        7 A. Yes.
        8 Q. And Mr. Jackson used to run around with
        9 them, didn’t he?
        10 A. Yes.
        11 Q. He used to take them to the theater to watch
        12 movies, didn’t he?
        13 A. Yes.
        14 Q. And children would sometimes sit in his lap
        15 in the theater watching the movies, didn’t they?
        16 A. I —
        17 Q. Did you ever see that?
        18 A. I never see that. Because I —
        19 Q. I’m sorry.
        20 A. I was never there when he was there with
        21 kids.


        So either the prosecution lied in that motion about what Blanca Francia told them or Blanca Francia changed her story once again and now that testimony about Safechuck was not allowed she was careless enough to admit that she’s never been in the theater when MJ was there with kids.

        And the Quindoys were not called to testify in 2005. Diane Dimond said in her book that’s because Mark Quindoy died, but whatever is the case the Quindoys were not credible witnesses either and they too were people who only came up with their allegations when the media offered them money for it.

        Fact is that at the end of the day, despite of the claims in this prosecution motion, they only offered testimony regarding Safechuck about supposed “grooming” (ie. Michael buying him gifts) and that is why the Judge did not allow in testimony about him:

        26 But ultimately the decision I’ve reached,
        27 and which I’ll now announce, is that I am going to
        28 permit the testimony with regard to the sexual
        1 offenses, and the alleged pattern of grooming
        2 activities, which is 1101 material, leading up to
        3 the sexual offenses against Jason Francia, Wade
        4 Robeson, Macaulay Culkin, Jordan Chandler, and Brett
        5 Barnes.
        6 The witnesses that would be permitted to
        7 testify under this order would be Jason Francia,
        8 Blanca Francia, Charlie Michaels, Phillip LeMarque,
        9 Adrienne McManus, Ralph Chacon, June Chandler, Bob
        10 Jones, and Charmayne Sternberg. The evidence of
        11 alleged grooming of the other children will not be
        12 permitted. Evidence as to Jimmy Safechuck and
        13 Jonathan Spence will not be permitted.
        14 The witnesses that would be precluded under
        15 this ruling would be Jolie Levine and Mary Coller.
        16 And there was only one part of Bob Jones’ testimony
        17 that I would consider admissible, that relating to
        18 the one physical act that he observed. And some of
        19 the testimony of Blanca Francia and June Chandler
        20 and Charmayne Sternberg would not be admissible.
        21 But I think if you can see the way I’ve
        22 divided that up, the grooming testimony is limited
        23 to those cases where there’s actual physical sexual
        24 conduct that’s been observed by somebody. That
        25 really is where I’ve drawn the line.

        So yeah, MJ did not need Safechuck to testify because there was no testimony about Safechuck. Having said that, I can imagine that Michael called him before this decision, during the preperation of the trial, but I’m also sure that Safechuck is now twisting what happened to fit his current story. I’m sure MJ did not threaten him like he claims and I’m sure Safechuck’s reasons to refuse to testify (IF he indeed refused) were something else than what he now claims. I realized that a lot of people around MJ had entitlement issues and expected MJ to be their BFF and when it did not go like that and if they drifted away over the years (like it happened with Safechuck) some of these people turned bitter and held a grudge against him. Also from what I read about Safechuck’s lawsuit it seems he had showbiz aspirations back in the day in which MJ helped him for a while but then they drifted away and his career went nowhere. So that’s another reason why a person with entitlement issues would feel bitter towards MJ. Of course, it’s also possible that the call never happened or that Safechuck actually did agree to testify only there was no need, so now he can claim he refused. Any of those versions is possible.

        1. Suzy, thank you so much for all the research work you do regarding this case.

          It’s enormously helpful to all of us that you post the results.

          I am impressed with your unflinching search for verifiable evidence and truth.

        2. Thank you , I had forgotten about Blanca saying she wasnt in the theater at all, when MJ was there with kids..
          I suppose MJ could have called Safechuck to tell him about his ordeal and ask if he could count on him to come in and tell the truth..,if needed, or one of the defense people could have called him.
          And he could have said he didnt want to get involved .
          That would make sense to me , too.

          I wouldnt blame him if he didnt want to get involved in the trial ,
          That was a real media frenzy situation, but I think he is now just using this supposed conversation with MJ , for his benefit.., which , of course , MJ isnt here to say what , if any conversation, happened.
          But , if MJ did call him ,the rest of his supposed conversation with MJ and with his Mother sounds ridiculous , to me.
          For MJ to hope that all these people he allegedly abused , would come in to be grilled by Zonen,, and not be tripped up ….flies in the face of logic, to me
          I know that the prosecutors were trying to portray MJ as some master manipulator, but if that were the case, he never would have let Bashir follow him around and been hoodwinked by him, the way he was .
          Or the Arvizo family either.imo
          Nothing , to me , that Robson or Safechuck says makes any sense to me , because they continue to contradict , statements made in recent times, when the past 20 years , statements have been consistent with Robson, and not an utter of negativity about Mj from Safechuck either , that I know of.
          Something I hadnt really considered with the Chandler accusations , is how MJ had said his lawyers had said that civil trial could have dragged on for years .
          Looking, at how long ,this pile of manure, is taking to hopefully, get thrown out, is something to think about too, when he was advised to settle back in 94.
          How stressful it must have felt to have , that , drag on as long as it did.
          It is really something , how people can litigate you to death.

        3. @ Ara


          @ Nas

          Yes, it would not make much sense for MJ to try to drag the guy to court who he supposedly molested over 100 times. Why would he want to see such a guy on the stand so desperately? It would be totally foolish from him to put the guy on the stand whom he supposedly molested for seven years and anally raped- and even make him his first witness (Robson) and it would be even more foolish and risky for him to put Safechuck on the stand, if he had molested him, because he did not even have any contact with Safechuck for years at the time. So if he was one of his victims how would MJ know he would not fess up on the stand? Why would he be so desperate to take that risk? The story would make a little more sense if Safechuck’s lie was that MJ threatened him to go into hiding and keep away from the courtroom.

          1. That’s the same thing I was thinking. If I molested a child for seven years straight and I’m put on trial for molesting another child would I ask the child whom I molested for seven years to testify in my defense as a first witness when there’s a good chance that witness might crack? I would simply be begging for a guilty verdict.

          2. I had another thought, also. He might be saying this as a way to bolster his friend Wade’s story. The biggest reason many people doubt Wade’s story now is that he testified in 2005. Wade is trying to claim (now) that this was due to Michael’s manipulation, but obviously it is the one big credibility issue in this case that he has to be able to overcome in order to convince a judge and jury. Jimmy’s story would “appear” to bolster the idea that Michael manipulated all of his past friends into testifying for him-or tried to. That could explain why he’s going with such a story even though it is obviously hurting his own case. Who knows, maybe Jimmy doesn’t even really care what happens with his own case, whether it gets thrown out or not. Either way, he and Wade may be thinking that if Jimmy being on board can help bolster Wade’s case it’s still a win-win for them. I could just imagine Wade promising him that he’ll still get a share of the money if he (Wade) is granted a trial and wins.

          3. I do suspect that Safechuck is only brought in to play a supporting role for Robson. I think his own case is so weak that his lawyers must know that he has even less chance to proceed than Robson. I agree that there might be a deal between them that even if his own case gets thrown out he may get a share of Robson’s money if he supports him with testimony etc. and if they win. (Of course, this deal would not be openly about this but under the disguise of some other, legal business.)

            I agree that probably some of his claims would be constructed in a way to lend support to Robson, so it would make sense for him to make these strange claims about 2005 for that purpose. I also wonder about what kind of sexual abuse he claims. It was not yet revealed, only in his latest motion it was mentioned that the first time it started with masturbation and then it “escalated” to other acts. This suggests to me that, like Wade, he might claim anal sex as well. Robson actually badly needs such a testimony by someone else because his allegations are so out there and at odds with all other earlier accusers of MJ who claimed “only” milder acts.

  28. @ Raven

    This is just how the law works. This judge will not say (at least not if he sticks to the law) that he believes MJ was guilty or innocent. This phase is not about that and this judge does not have the authority to decide about guilt or innocence (that’s up to a trial jury). In fact, he already said (for example in the hearing on October 1) that his job is not to decide about guilt or innocence. His job is simply to decide about whether the case is within statutes of limitations. That’s what the case is about at this point, so do not expect declarations from this Judge about guilt or innocence. And if they throw out the case on statutes, again the decision will not declare anything about guilt or innocence, simply that the allegations were not brought within statutes. That however is not a reason (for me at least) wanting it to go forward. The last thing MJ needs is yet another high profile trial dragging his name through the mud. Yes, if it gets thrown out on statutes haters and sceptics and some of the media will say it was due to a technicality but honestly, did the not guilty verdict in the Arvizo case ever matter to haters, sceptics and the media?

    As I see it, the general media do not really care about this case. Just look at the reactions to Cosby and this case and see how big the difference is. IMO the case is not even on most people’s radar. However if it goes to trial it may change and although I do not think we would have 2005 all over again, but probably the allegations would get a lot more publicity than they do now. Moreover, a civil trial is a lot more risky for the defendant than a criminal trial, there is no guarantee it would come back with the right decision. And Michael is not even here to defend himself so it would also be utterly unfair to him and his Estate that they had to defend him with their hands tied behind their back (him not being here not being able to be consulted etc.). So I personally think it would be better if it got thrown out on statutes. Most people made up their mind about the allegations against MJ a long time ago either way amd they will think whatever they want to think no matter whether it goes to trial and he wins at a trial or not.

    @ Simba

    Again, what you read is just how the law works. At this stage the Judge is required to treat everything the accusers claim about their story as “true” (regardless of what he personally really thinks of it). So of course he is going to speak as if Safechuck’s stories (for example this story about 2005) are true. That’s what he is required to do by law at this stage. Of course he could add “allegedly”, but everyone understands in a courtroom that at this stage everything that is being claimed is an “allegedly”, so there is no really need for that in a courtroom.

    For the record, what the Judge said is about this: In his latest papers Safechuck argued for equitable estoppel saying this:

    Pay attention especially to this part:

    However in earlier documents he said something that was totally contradictory. An Estate motion quotes him here:

    So did he not know about the illicit, non-consensual nature of alleged sexual abuse until 2013 or did he tell his mother in 2005? Which one is it? As you can see, like Wade, he is saying whatever he needs to say to try to get around statutes of limitations but he could not keep his story straight. Since it’s in the core of their argument for equitable estoppel that he did not know about the illicit, non-consensual nature of the alleged acts until 2013 of course his earlier contradicting story about 2005 would be brought up and that’s what the Judge did here. (This is just one of the problems with their argument for equitable estoppel – IMO there are more which were not mentioned in the article. )

    1. That is a good point to keep in mind, that these are only hearings right now-not the actual trial. And as you said, the purpose of the hearings is to determine if Wade and Jimmy can even be granted a trial, at which time guilt or innocence would become a factor. I still think a lot of it is being pointlessly dragged out, though.

      1. It s a double edged sword , either the Judge finds enough reason to proceed despite the- disputed- statute, which in it self is bad enough because of the suggestion that something did happen. The standards for the accuser to prove his case are pretty low and it will come with all the salacious details to give him credibility. If the case is thrown out, it may leave a feeling of doubt. The only thing I hope is that they do not settle in Michaels name.

        The fact that we see no legal experts in the media discussing the case shows how little interest there is, apart from the fact that there is no Michael to chase.
        Cosby gets alot of attention because it is new , because of the massive number of accusers who keep coming and Cosbys silence. But the Arvizo case got the same media frenzy back then.
        Btw charges against Cosby for ‘annoying or molesting a child under the age of 18″ in the 70s were recently dismissed because of the the statute of limitations , prompting Gloria Alred to make this statement
        “It is our understanding that the decision not to prosecute was based on the statute of limitations and not on the merits of Ms. Huth’s claims,”
        This is the probem with a- rightfull- dismissal of Wade and Safechuck case on the SOL.

        1. But whoever wants to make excuses can make excuses regardless of what the outcome is: if it goes to trial and Michael wins – it will be called “celebrity justice”, a jury blinded by Michael’s fame and status etc., just like the media spun it in 2005. And I do not even want to think about what happens if the jury comes back with a “liable” verdict (remember, civil cases are more risky to a defendant) – that would be tragic. The Arvizo case showed that even with a sweeping no-guilty verdict people will find excused to believe why the defendant was still guilty if that is what they want to believe. So excuses will be made no matter what. I think it’s best for Michael if it does not get much publicity and the case stops as soon as possible. I do not wish it to go to trial – that opens up a lot of bad publicity and a lot of risks.

  29. Speaking truth to media — Excerpt from an article which appeared online in TheWrap today:

    “Attorney for Bill Cosby, Martin Singer, has fired off a heated legal letter to CNN accusing it of a smear campaign against the famous comedian.

    “In the letter to CNN president Jeffrey Zucker, Singer said that CNN decided not to use an interview with Beverly Johnson’s live-in boyfriend from 2006-2009, Mark Burk, because he didn’t corroborate her story of being drugged by the “Cosby Show” star.

    “We continue to be shocked by CNN’s ongoing refusal to investigate and run balanced stories about my client,” Singer wrote in the letter.

    “While airing untested stories from accusers who have seemingly been subject to little or no vetting,” Singer continued, “CNN takes the opposite approach and with anyone who comes forward with information undermining accusers’ claims or with relevant information supporting Mr. Cosby.”

    “According to Singer, CNN reporters interviewed Burk, who told them that Johnson had never made a negative comment about Cosby and even said she admired the TV star and saw him as a mentor during the time they lived together. Singer accuses the CNN reporters of trying to “manipulate and coerce” Burk into saying statements that supported Johnson’s accusations. And when he wouldn’t corroborate Johnson’s account of events with Cosby, the reporters began attacking Burk and his background.

    “This reckless approach to ‘journalism’ is outrageous,” the attorney wrote. “Accusers are being given a national platform by CNN without first exercising the most rudimentary journalistic investigation as to their claims and motivations. In contrast, CNN disregards and attacks sources with anything positive to say about my client or with relevant information undermining allegations that have been made.”

    CNN representatives have not responded to TheWrap’s request for comment.

    1. I have a feeling the tide will be turning soon in regards to the Cosby allegations, as more and more of these stories are discredited. This almost always happens in these typical “witch hunt hysteria” cases and people end up usually feeling very foolish for allowing themselves to be swept up in it, not to mention many media outlets and journalists end up with egg on the face. But the damage to Cosby’s reputation has been done. Most people now are probably going to assume that at least some of the stories must be true, and if even one of these women is telling the truth, that is one too many. But cases like this-as sad and tragic as they are for the victims (either the accused or accusers, as the case may be)-are always fascinating for the lessons they enable us to learn about how the media operates. I think they also teach us a lot of valuable-and painfully ugly-lessons about our own human nature in how we respond to mob mentality.

  30. Seems to me , everyone goes to a lawyer before they decide they have been accosted by Jackson.
    I was looking at Robsons page, and he had written this statement.
    Wade Robson
    Yesterday at 12:42pm ·
    The following quote played a role in helping me to step out of my previous version of life that had become irrelevant to me.
    “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used in creating them.”
    Albert Einstein

    This to me, doesnt sound like someone who is grappling with an abuse situation.
    This sounds like a guy who was dissatisfied with the way his life was going ..his choices..
    At any rate , when it came to MJ , the police never investigated the people making accusations

    1. Someone should tell him that you also cannot solve problems by creating an alternative Universe in your mind that is based on lies. I have read exactly about the insight oriented therapy that Robson follows that it is able to drive clients into starting to believe in explanatory fictions of their own history. This article also said that such explanatory fictions can have therapeutic effect on the client even if they are fictions and not true. But I suspect that sooner or later such fictions and self-deceptive strategies collapse. Especially when there is a serious, real underlying problem that is not addressed, which IMO may be the case with Robson. His real problem IMO has to do with hereditary mental illness and with a mourning of a lost childhood for which he made Michael his main scape goat, probably because his whole career, that he so hates now, is so linked to Michael in his mind. He started to dance because his mother showed him Michael videos. His mother was a pushy stage parent and made him work hard as a child. This together with his hereditary mental problems led to his breakdowns and now he managed to project all his anger onto Michael and made him the scape goat for it through a fictional story (instead of his mother who he should really blame for his lost childhood if he wanted to blame someone). Like he says his old life became irrelevant to him – he wants to break up with everything that links him to his past because he thinks it will help him with his mental illness. But all he knows is dancing and choreography and to step out of that world would mean that either he would have to go to work at McDonald’s to financially support his family and struggle financially… or sue Michael Jackson and win enough money in court to not to have financially worries for the rest of his life. Since he made MJ his scapegoat I’m sure in a twisted way he managed to convince himself that MJ owes him this money because he is the reason of his failed career, even if he knows the molestation claim is a lie.

  31. In light of Bill Cosby, examining the strategy & wisdom of Weitzman’s/Estate’s approach in defending Michael against the Robson/Safechuck allegations:

    Raven (past post): “Weitzman irritates me to no end with his one-note lame statement every time these allegations are mentioned. But…who knows. Maybe there is method to his strategy in not overstating the case.”

    Michael: “People believe a lot of crazy stories that were written — some is true, some is not…”

    Question: “Does it hurt when you see those crazy stories?”

    Michael: “Sometime… but it’s part of the work, you know…”

    Question: “Do you ever want to shout at them, take their typewriter and yell at them: ‘Hey! That’s not true!!’”

    Michael: “Yes, a lot of times. But why bring more attention to a thing, you know.”
    Ebony-Jet-Interview, 1987

    “Cosby Team’s Strategy: Hush Accusers, Insult Them, Blame the Media” By Lorne Manly and Graham Bowley, New York Times, Dec. 28, 2014 (excerpts)

    “During this recent spate of accusations, the Cosby team has…systematically directed its ire at the news media. In the past 10 days [ Martin Singer, a Cosby attorney] has sent angry letters to CNN and The Daily News, accusing them of abandoning any journalistic rigor in their coverage. “The media has consistently refused to look into or publish information about various women whose stories are contradicted by their own conduct or statement,” he wrote in his letter to The Daily News.

    “An examination of how [Cosby’s] team has dealt with scandals over the past two decades…reveals an organized and expensive effort that involve(s) quashing accusations as they emerged while raising questions about the accusers’ character and motives. His team has never been shy about blasting the news media for engaging in a feeding frenzy even as the team made deals or slipped the news organizations information that would cast Mr. Cosby’s accusers in a negative light.

    Playing hardball with people who make (and report on) incendiary claims is hardly a new tactic in the celebrity world. But…some legal and public relations practitioners question the wisdom of continuing to counterpunch.

    “Sometimes in a case like this, less can be more,” said Benjamin Brafman, a criminal defense lawyer. “Attacking someone who is perceived to be a ‘victim’ can often be unproductive. I would suggest a softly spoken denial rather than an outspoken challenge to the integrity of the women now coming forward.”


    “Pulling Back The Curtain On Bill Cosby’s Dirty PR Game”
    By Emily Atkin posted on December 29, 2014 (excerpt)

    “Attempting to personally discredit an alleged rape victim by combing through her past statements is a common tactic.”

    But, casting doubt on or aiming vitriol at the accusers can have terrible consequences. . .

    Bill Cosby and his public relations/legal team have made one disastrous move after another as they have been confronted with the current accusations: deliberate/suspicious silence during an NPR interview query into the veracity of the allegations; stone-cold silence, refusing to address the issue of possible innocence in any kind of public statement; smearing/attacking the alleged ‘victims’; intimidating/threatening journalist interviewers; attacking (repeatedly) the press; speaking with Stacy Brown (Bill! What an idiot!); seemingly asking for favoritism from the black media (via Sleazeball Stacy — bad move, Bill).

    All of which brings me to Michael Jackson and all he did right. Denied television time by the major national news networks, Michael passionately addressed his innocence in national broadcasts for which airtime he paid for himself. He never publicly attacked or smeared his accusers by name, decrying the nature of greed and deception instead. He never intimidated or threatened (even slyly snide) interviewers, responding with honesty and humility instead–even if (and when) it brought him more ridicule. He passionately attacked the press, yes–but spoke out against only the sleazy tabloid media, and never limited his disgust to coverage of just himself but to all who were hounded & hunted in its cruel and destructive searchlights.

    Michael Jackson taught the world about grace under fire by refusing to become corrupted with hatred despite being mercilessly bullied and hated himself. He behaved with dignity and grace under the most trying of circumstances. In the aftermath of his death, his influence was evident in the outpouring of gratitude and love expressed by people who felt inspired to become a better person because of the example he set. (Please, please–no backlash here for seemingly blindly portraying him as a saint).

    “No matter how hard the world came down on him, he only came back with more love, ” Kenny Ortega said.

    In the face of the media disaster Bill Cosby & Team have created for themselves, maybe there is wisdom in Weitzman’s & the Estate’s approach in defending Michael against the Robson/Safechuck allegations.

    They have not attacked the press. In fact they have not really attacked anybody. They have refrained from vilifying Robson or Safechuck personally, knowing it’s almost political suicide to publicly attack an alleged victim of child sexual abuse–even worse to insinuate they might be lying.

    They have avoided making this into a media circus by not lashing out, perhaps inspired by the philosophy of Michael: “Why give more attention to a [crazy] thing?”

    When RadarOnline is the only “news source” covering Robson/Safechuck, Weitzman & the Estate must be doing something right, in my opinion–even if it’s not unleashing the fighting gorilla we might like them to.

    Just my thoughts, and also my hope . . .

    1. Thanks for sharing this and your aptly worded response. I have been thinking a lot lately about the comparisons between how Michael handled those allegations and how Cosby and his team have been conducting themselves. In December of ’93, it has been said that Michael’s approval rating rose substantially after his televised statement. It seemed to be a definite turning point in the case, when public sentiment swung strongly back into his court. My sister once said, “It took balls to do what he did.” She was right. I think Michael’s demeanor and how he conducted himself has everything to do with how the public was always able to forgive him and still love him on such a mass scale, even after being accused of such a heinous crime-not once, but twice. There was always a humility and grace about him that made people truly question whether such awful accusations could possibly be true. At the very least, I think it made those on the fence at least more willing to give him benefit of the doubt.

      Bill Cosby, likewise, has been a beloved entertainer but there is something about his demeanor and the way this whole thing has been handled that I think strikes people as a bit sneaky, suspicious, and now even downright dirty. It kind of reinforces the idea of the “dirty old man” who will do most anything to get even-not exactly the family friendly image that Cosby has worked so long to cultivate.

      1. I dont think you can compare the Cosby case with Safechuck and Robsons case . It is all hindsight talk and people have short memory. People said the same thing about Michael then, they called him the teflon kid and celebrity justice when he was found not guilty in the Arvizo case .
        It is not BECAUSE OF Weizman that the case does not get media attention, but IN SPITE OF him because both Robson and Safechuch have a history with MJ that make them unbelievable. And dont forget Michael is not here for the media circus , Weizman is not mediagenic enough to be interesting and there are other reasons too why Michael was targeted and Weizman is not.

        Before the Chandler case was settled the majority was pro Michael. After the case was settled with Weizman as the head of Michaels ‘defense’ team ( who later accused his client of the settlement) , the public in general thought that Michael had paid off his guilth and many still think so.
        Now he himself is in the hot seat he will know how to handle the case .

        If Weizman had done such a great job back in 1993, there would never have been an Arvizo case or a Robson Safechuck case.

        1. Not only that he messed up the Chandler case he had the nerve to give this interview after he was kicked out of Michaels defense team ,in the middle of the 2004 trial while Michael was fighting for his life.
          So much for not making it into a media circus .

  32. I was not talking about the 1993 or 2005 media circus in my post above, all of which Weitzman may have played a nasty role in creating.

    I was specifically discoursing on the current situation. Which, for whatever reasons, has not turned into a media circus, thank God.

    In this respect–no media circus this time–something, so far, is tending in Michael’s and The Estate’s favor.

    In my opinion, The Estate has displayed some decorum this time. And even if it is not intentional on their part, I am grateful for the absence of media attention so far. “Do you ever want to shout at them, take their typewriter and yell at them: ‘Hey! That’s not true!!’” Michael was asked. “Yes, a lot of times,” he answered. “But why (and it would) bring more attention to a thing?”

    1. I agree and understand why Michael hardly ever responded to media stories. Not to fuel the fire but also not to have his words twisted . This also seems to be Cosbys strategy, but it works contraproductive.
      Though I dont think these allegations would happen if Michael was still here, he would not be spared if he was.
      The fact that he was cleared of the Arvizo allegations , supported by Robsons( adult) testimony , Robsons backstabbing mentality and maybe a common concensus that you do not attack a deceased who cannot defend himself ,may be reasons why the public does not sympathize with Robson and has moved on. Right now its only MJ fans and a few tabloids who pay attention to the case.
      Robson makes a mockery of the justice system and with his accusations is implicitely taking a jab at the system that found Michael not guilty . That will not sit well with the judge .
      Like you, I hope that this smearing of Michaels name will be over asap.

Leave a Reply