Debates with the public

[Soundmind]

double post

 

[Soundmind]

I get you, and I agree that the settlement changed and ruined everything. When I heard about it, it was a knife to the heart. And would you believe, after that, I never mentioned Michael to a single solitary person until 2009?

Not that I still didn't believe in him, or love him even more than ever, (actually, more and more every single day) but the hatefulness from people that would come with it just enraged me to the point where I didn't know what I would do-not that I'm in any way violent, but the anger I felt scared me-so I would just walk away if anyone talked about him.

I still think it was the reasons mjresearcher listed, though, not incompetent lawyers. Remember how badly Michael was doing taking the painkillers for his scalp to numb out the stress and anxiety he was going through-I just feel like they didn't have a choice. The courts put Michael's back against the wall.

He did have a choice. He was ill advised and ended up paying the ultimate price. Everything he thought would be avoided by settling happened eventually and the settlement has done nothing but make everything worse for him until this very moment.

 

[barbee0715]

He did have a choice. He was ill advised and ended up paying the ultimate price. Everything he thought would be avoided by settling happened eventually and the settlement has done nothing but make everything worse for him until this very moment.

You know, I can't disagree with that. It was the settlement rather than the allegations themselves, that destroyed everything. Eventually Including Michael himself.
This is really hard to talk about. I just will never get over this.

 

[Bad7]

The one thing that is sticking in my head right now is the video i saw never saw it before my first time seeing it it was when he had learn about the allegations against him where Michael was saying the words to The Way You Make Me Feel and that moment he stop saying the words and you saw Michael with his head down a person was rubbing his back and right then and there i felt the pain Michael was going through. The one things that was so dear to Michael heart his love for the children was turn against him and his life was never the same.

He knew about the allegations before then. That is if you're meaning in the said video he'd just heard about them.

He did have a choice. He was ill advised and ended up paying the ultimate price. Everything he thought would be avoided by settling happened eventually and the settlement has done nothing but make everything worse for him until this very moment.

You have to also bare in mind some other factors. His health had deteriorated and it could of gotten worse. Add to that things weren't going in his favour. You say the settlement did more damage than the civil trial would of done. We just don't know. Yes other's came out with claims, but that's hindsight.

With the civil trial going before the criminal trial it would have been a violation of MJ's constitutional right to not self-incriminate. The case could of been won by something as meagre as a 51% - 49% in favour of the Chandlers. That would of been used against him in the criminal trial. Another issue is he would of had to of put his defence strategy on the table. MJ's lawyers fought for his defence to be used by the prosecution in the criminal trial but the motion was denied. Sneddon would of used it in the criminal trial. Thus meaning he could of amended the flaws in Jordy's story, of which there would of been many. A bit like he changed dates in the 2005 trial. MJ couldn't of pleaded the fifth in the civil case, unlike in a criminal case, as it could be used against him.

Overall, MJ was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Of course we look back in hindsight and it was seen as a sign of guilt by so many but, we just don't know what would of happened had there been no settlement. The prosecution could of had a major advantage over him going into the criminal trial.

Another thing is the possibility of the trial being televised. For such a shy person like MJ, and such awful allegations, his health probably would of plummeted even further.

That's not to say he didn't have some bad advisors either though. Weitzman wanted a settlement from day one and brought in a friend of Larry Feldman's so he'd get his way. Which is so dodgy.

Lisa Marie also told MJ to settle due health issues.

Another possibly aspect is MJ's concern for Jordy. Now initially some will scoff at that possibility. However, it's so clear Evan was the one behind the allegations. He was an abusive father who couldn't care less for the child. Then his Mother smelt the money and decided to join forces with Evan. Perhaps MJ felt sorry for Jordy in some way. After all he was a 13 year old kid brought up by two parents who have no morals whatsoever. Given Evan tried to kill Jordy I dread to think what he'd of done to the boy once Jordy's case inevitably fell apart under his biggest fear... cross examination.

We also unfortunately live in a world of gutter press. Where the facts aren't reported. Instead we're given their hugely biased take on situations. They also played a roll in a settlement. Their totally biased viewpoint based on not a single shred of evidence was disgraceful. It was one of the down sides to the man being a superstar.

The media didn't care whatsoever that a child had supposedly been abused... they cared that it was Michael Jackson who was accused of doing it.

 

[redfrog]

You know, I can't disagree with that. It was the settlement rather than the allegations themselves, that destroyed everything. Eventually Including Michael himself.
This is really hard to talk about. I just will never get over this.

But what if MJ had lost the civil trial? Did you think about that?
the Judge was clearly biased. His decision to allow the Chandlers have a trial within just 120 days and forcing MJ
to give a deposition and on top of that letting Sneddon get access to the civil discovery was an absolute travesty of justice!

Think about it. The chandlers were telling everyone he was a criminal criminal criminal and at the same time
they were doing their best to avoid a criminal trial we all know why. They even admitted in their book that if MJ wins in criminal court
they would get nothing.

Judge Rothman would have presided over the civil trial. The burden of proof if low. No unanimous verdict is necessary.
MJ has barely any time to prepare for it while his stuff was held by Sneddon and the SBDS.
To make it worse the media was clearly on the Chandler's side and since they were willing to pay anyone ready to
sell some pedo story people like Chacon, Francia, Abdool would have been Chandler witnesses.
This was before the 1994 Neverland 5 lawsuit. But these pigs already backstabbed MJ. McManus would do it in the middle of 1994 as far as I know.

Also, any African American would have natural distrust of the justice system for obvious reasons.
But MJ's case was even worse. Blacks might resent him because he looked white. Whites hate him because well he is weird and black.
Latinos would hate him because he has money and he is black.
Put yourself in his shoes in Jan 1994 with everything that had happened in the preceding 5 months.
Would you believe that you could get a fair trial?

Wouldn't you be afraid that Sneddon might get an indictment later on having all the advantage of knowing your defense strategy?

Honestly, I would have done what MJ did. It was the lesser of two evils.
When it comes to MJ we saw how people just lose their morals and start to see dollar signs. There were two people on the 2005 jury who wanted to profit from
a guilty verdict and were ready to convict him despite the avalanche of evidence that the Arvizos were rotten to the core.
One of them actually made the argument that he doesn't think MJ could spend 365 days in bed with Brett and do nothing but watch TV.
And that is such a good example how someone can get screwed up in court by even something a defense witness says!
This whole 365 days nonsense is based on nothing but Karlee Barnes's flawed memory.

In reality MJ was with the Barnes family during the first leg of the tour a t maximum from
June 27, 1992 - to October 4, 1992. I would say it's probable that they went back to Australia when the schoolyear started in Sept.
So that would be about 3 months not 6 months.
And MJ wasn't alone with Brett. He invited 17 year old Gotham Chopra who hung out with him in his hotel room up until he got bored.
Chopra has been unequivocal that MJ was the perfect gentlemen, he also knew the Barnes and would have noticed if something fishy had been going on.
Chopra's presence clearly undermines the narrative that MJ invited the Barnes to that tour because he wanted to molest Brett.
Why would he then invite 17 year old Chopra?

So after those 3 months MJ was not with the Barnes or Brett in particular in October November he came back to the US.
Then he went to Japan in Dec where Brett was not with him.

And then he wasn't on tour until August 24, 1993! The South American part didn't last for 3 months as the Barnes said, it only lasted from October 8, 1993-November 11, 1993 about a month. this is where the Barnes once again joined MJ.
But once again Brett was not alone with him. The two Cascio brothers were there too.

Zonen in his closing argument painted a picture where MJ slept in bed with Brett alone for 365 days continuously
when in reality Brett was with MJ for 3 months in 1992 then again a YEAR LATER for a month and he was not alone with him during either of those periods.

This footage was made in South American in 1993 showing Brett, Frank and Eddie. If anyone had seen this in court they could have seen that molestation was
not part of the menu, as the three boys are completely at ease with MJ and they are clearly having a good time.


[video=youtube;vgo-TFArcK4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgo-TFArcK4[/video]

Of course both Eddie and Frank were first hand witnesses to what happened in South America and they too spent the night in Mj's room not just Brett.

However, the fact that Zonen 365-day alone in bed tale was not challenged by the defense and influenced the jurors in a negative way is an example
of how easily an innocent man can get screwed in court.


Frankly, if I had been MJ, by Jan 1994 I would have had ZERO confidence in the American justice system.

The thing is if Jordan confessed tomorrow you just know the media would barely report it. So therefore the average person probably wouldn't see it.

Evan was a piece of sh1t, tbh. He was a pathetic father. The other thing hater's ignore about Evan and this supposed father who cared so much, and managed to get Jordy away from the 'abuse', is in the Dr. Gardner interview Jordy thanks his Father and deems it the greatest thing to have ever happened in his life that Evan saved him from the supposed ordeal.

“What would you say is the best thing that ever happened to you in your whole life?”

“When I told my dad what Michael was doing to me.”

“Why do you say that?”

“Because once I told him, I knew that Michael would never be able to do that to me again. And when something horrible ends, it’s most likely the best thing in your life.”

Oh yeah. This is one of my favorite part. :crazy
Just a few pages earlier he said this

"Because I was having fun. At the time, the things Michael was doing to me, they didn't
affect me. Like, I didn't think anything was totally wrong with what he was doing since he
was my friend, and he kept on telling me that he would never hurt me. But presently I see that
he was obviously lying."
"You're saying you didn't realize it could hurt you? Is that what you're - - "
"I didn't see anything wrong with it."

He didn't see anything wrong with it but the moment when he told his father he knew that something horrible ended!
I wonder why he only came to the realization on July 16 that what was MJ doing was horrible after all, especially since in May he told Evan
"it's disgusting I'm not into that" - reacting to Evan's question whether Jordan and MJ were "doing it".
I also wonder why he said even on July 16 that he loved Michael and he didn't want to hurt him.
I guess the realization that MJ was horrible came once he told Evan that MJ touched him.

What a highly probable chain of events indeed!


And then this

"What about trust of your mother? Do you think any trust of your mother has been
affected?"
"Well, not because she, as people would say, she wanted to pimp me out. More because of
maybe, I tried to tell her one time and she didn't believe me."
"When was that? Do you remember?"
"No."
"How do you feel about that?"
"I feel that if there's any remote, itty-bitty thing in your mind that your kid may be getting
hurt, you should put an army together, you know, if there's a suspicion as strong as that, that
my Dad had carried out this far. She should have at least listened to what I had to say."

Numerous problems with this, and Jordan keeps insulting everyone's intelligence:

1. Jordan, who even on July 16 was reluctant to tell his father -- who clearly wanted to hear that MJ did something sexual --
earlier tried to tell his mother but she didn't believe him. (June never said such a thing by the way)
Shouldn't he have been glad that his father was more than happy to listen and grab the opportunity right after Evan first asked him?


2. Since he didn't think anything was wrong with it I guess he wanted to break the good news to June:
hey MJ is molesting me but it's fine, nothing is wrong with it I just wanted you to know.

3. He wanted to tell her what MJ was doing because he did think something was wrong then despite that he still happily went back to MJ
instead of visiting his father on weekend.


4. Even though he didn't think anything was wrong with what MJ did he still blames his mother for not doing anything when she
suspected that he was being hurt. Well if he didn't show any sign of being hurt why the hell should June have suspected that he was hurt?

 

[barbee0715]

But what if MJ had lost the civil trial? Did you think about that?
the Judge was clearly biased. His decision to allow the Chandlers have a trial within just 120 days and forcing MJ
to give a deposition and on top of that letting Sneddon get access to the civil discovery was an absolute travesty of justice!
Put yourself in his shoes in Jan 1994 with everything that had happened in the preceding 5 months.
Would you believe that you could get a fair trial?
Honestly, I would have done what MJ did. It was the lesser of two evils .

Think About it? Did you not read my posts just a few posts back, that said I think the judge/courts had Michael's back against the wall? That I felt he had NO choice?

And put myself in his shoes ?
I JUST said if I were him, I would have settled in a heartbeat.

That still doesn't change the fact that the settlement turned out to be the worst thing ever in the long run.

Now I will admit that although I know about the court decisions being against Michael, which was a hideous violation of his civil rights, (that every American should be concerned about) I don't know every single exact detail and names of all the people involved and "who did what when" like you do.

I knew Michael didn't do it period and had no need to look into it further.

The stuff I do know I learned just in the last few years while reading other things.

 

[#MJforever57]

He knew about the allegations before then. That is if you're meaning in the said video he'd just heard about them..

Yes i though he did not know thank for clearing that up for me. So Michael did know before this video was done right and he finally broken down.

I have a question why was the civil case allow to go before the criminal trial? That not how it work in the courts right? That i do not understand it mention that Michael want the criminal trial to go first so how was that allow Michael was not charge yet right?

 

[HIStory]

Yes i though he did not know thank for clearing that up for me. So Michael did know before this video was done right and he finally broken down.

I have a question why was the civil case allow to go before the criminal trial? That not how it work in the courts right? That i do not understand it mention that Michael want the criminal trial to go first so how was that allow Michael was not charge yet right?

http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-settlement/

 

[#MJforever57]

Respecr77 thank you so much i get the picture now i see why the civil case went before the criminal trial. California laws need to be change same thing in Wade case a lie was treat as the true because it was a 13 years old boys end of story.

 

[barbee0715]

Respecr77 thank you so much i get the picture now i see why the civil case went before the criminal trial. California laws need to be change same thing in Wade case a lie was treat as the true because it was a 13 years old boys end of story.

They changed the law after this. I remember and the spin on it at the time was people like Michael couldn't pay off and silence their victims before the criminal trial.

Anybody thinking it through, would realize this only works in the accused person's favor. It's the only way to make sure they get a fair trial. This is what should have been law all along.

 

[MJresearcher]

Let's be realistic here. The settlement ended up causing a much bigger damage to MJ than a civil trial could have done. Nothing was more damaging to MJ at the 2005 trial more than the 1993 settlement. It was so damaging that Mez fought tooth and nail not to allow the prosecutors to mention the true figure to the jurors. It has had a detrimental effect on his finance, reputation. We should be very glad than no one but Francia thought about trying her luck in 1993 because it seems MJ’s team were on a let's settle at all costs mood.

The chandler's settlement led to Francia claims and settlement, led to Evan second extortion attempt, led to the Neverlan employees lawsuit, led to the Arvisoz nightmare, to Wade and to Safef@ck. It was the worst decision he had ever made at the very ill advice of his incompetent lawyers.

The reason MJ settled was due to the incompetency of his lawyers who for whatever reasons put him into a corner and told him eventually that the best option was to settle.

I do not know how MJ's team expected the public to react in a different way. The public reaction was nothing but normal given the heinousness of the accusations and the astronomical amount MJ paid to settle them.

Of course settling did a lot of damage in the long run and yes, his legal representation was garbage. That was just one more problem on top of everything else, but ultimately he had the decision on which way things would go and I think he did what he thought was best for him in the short term because of his health and the other factors I mentioned. Hindsight couldn't help him back then.

 

[#MJforever57]

So true. I am glad Michael did not back down this time around in 2003 he went to court and in 2005 a jury of his peers found Michael not guilty in the eyes of the law.

 

[Bad7]

So true. I am glad Michael did not back down this time around in 2003 he went to court and in 2005 a jury of his peers found Michael not guilty in the eyes of the law.

The law was changed after the 1993 case. It meant the civil trial couldn't go before a criminal one.

 

[analogue]

They changed the law after this. I remember and the spin on it at the time was people like Michael couldn't pay off and silence their victims before the criminal trial.

Anybody thinking it through, would realize this only works in the accused person's favor. It's the only way to make sure they get a fair trial. This is what should have been law all along.

Some people reaction before the 2005 trial:
''They got him! He can't pay himself out of this one!''

The same people's reaction after the 2005 trial when Michael was found not guilty@
''He obviously paid himself out of it!''

 

[HIStory]

The same people's reaction after the 2005 trial when Michael was found not guilty@
''He obviously paid himself out of it!''

Which is why they went to not one, but two civil lawyers before the lawyers told them the only way to get money now was through a criminal trial. LOL.

 

[analogue]

Which is why they went to not one, but two civil lawyers before the lawyers told them the only way to get money now was through a criminal trial. LOL.

Sadly a lot of people don't know about that. Many people assume that the criminal trial happened first because the Arvisos wanted justice. I remember the media putting that spin on it

 

[barbee0715]

Sadly a lot of people don't know about that. Many people assume that the criminal trial happened first because the Arvisos wanted justice. I remember the media putting that spin on it

Correct about the media. That's what you heard everywhere. You still hear it today. Ridiculous.

 

[#MJforever57]

Sadly a lot of people don't know about that. Many people assume that the criminal trial happened first because the Arvisos wanted justice. I remember the media putting that spin on it

I agree with you 100% on this. That why i believe the ppls were thinking that way that why it is so important to get the facts right. it was all lies no proof that Michael did this and that is the sad part.


Barbee0715 that why today when ppls talk about the settlement they really do not know the real reason behind it they just figure Michael want to get this over.

 

[redfrog]

I need some help.

I know Corey Feldman defended MJ repeatedly and I remember he said that MJ never showed him porn
but I can't locate where and when he said that.

Was Corey ever on 20/20 and said this?

This shit sounds like Bashir's invention but I'd like to have the receipts cause idiot haters still claim
that Corey said MJ showed him porn.

http://www.mtv.com/news/1496823/corey-feldman-says-michael-jackson-showed-him-nude-photos/

 

[HIStory]

Corey did say that about a book about venereal diseases. Supposedly it was a book that he saw on MJ's table and when MJ realized he saw it he explained to him what it was. That was it. How does that become "MJ showing him porn"? Where is the "porn"? LOL. Since when is a book with disgusting venereal diseases "porn"? Let alone with the intent to groom a boy? These haters, in their desperation make everything "porn". Probably even the David statue is "porn" to them, especially if they could link it somehow to MJ and children. LOL.

Corey did say he did not think anything of it at the time, so obviously nothing untoward happened. When pedophiles show porn to their victims it's with the intent of make them more comfortable with sexuality and to arouse them before a sexual act. How does a book with venereal diseases serve any of that purposes? It's disgusting, not desirable. If anything, it turns you off, not on. It's ludicrous to think such a book would make sex desirable to anyone. And if it was with the intent of grooming him, how come it wasn't followed up with any action? Or more grooming with porn (I mean real porn, LOL)? He just discussed a book about venereal diseases that he saw on his table and that in itself is supposed to prove something? LOL. It doesn't, but these are the kind of things that haters have to cling on which just shows how desperate their situation is when they try to "prove" MJ's "guilt".

It obviously wasn't a big deal. Corey himself said it wasn't a big deal at the time and he didn't think anything of it. He was just trying to make something out of it in the wake of the Arvizo's allegations and porn claims, IMO as a pity revenge for that 9/11 thing when MJ did not take him with him or something and when he "abandoned" him.

BTW, this is what he wrote about MJ in his 2013 autobiography:

6. Corey Feldman and Michael Jackson once went to Disneyland in disguise. To avoid being spotted during their trip to the amusement park, Feldman wore aviator sunglasses and a faux mustache, while Jackson donned a fake nose (!), sunglasses, and “a giant afro.” The close friends stayed for the entire evening without being recognized. They got a last-minute room to stay overnight, and when Jackson realized the room contained only one bed, he ordered a cot for himself and insisted Feldman take the bed. Throughout the book, as he has previously, Feldman maintains that Jackson never acted inappropriately toward him nor, to his knowledge, other children. “He was adamantly against drugs and alcohol, he was extremely straight-laced; I couldn’t even swear around him,” he writes. “Being with Michael brought me back to my innocence.”

http://www.vulture.com/2013/10/10-stories-from-corey-feldman-memoir-coreyography.html#

 

[redfrog]

Corey did say that about a book about venereal diseases. Supposedly it was a book that he saw on MJ's table and when MJ realized he saw it he explained to him what it was. That was it. How does that become "MJ showing him porn"? Where is the "porn"? LOL. Since when is a book with disgusting venereal diseases "porn"? Let alone with the intent to groom a boy? These haters, in their desperation make everything "porn". Probably even the David statue is "porn" to them, especially if they could link it somehow to MJ and children. LOL.

Corey did say he did not think anything of it at the time, so obviously nothing untoward happened. When pedophiles show porn to their victims it's with the intent of make them more comfortable with sexuality and to arouse them before a sexual act. How does a book with venereal diseases serve any of that purposes? It's disgusting, not desirable. If anything, it turns you off, not on. It's ludicrous to think such a book would make sex desirable to anyone. And if it was with the intent of grooming him, how come it wasn't followed up with any action? Or more grooming with porn (I mean real porn, LOL)? He just discussed a book about venereal diseases that he saw on his table and that in itself is supposed to prove something? LOL. It doesn't, but these are the kind of things that haters have to cling on which just shows how desperate their situation is when they try to "prove" MJ's "guilt".

Thanks. Exactly when and where did he talk about that?
Do you have a link to a video?

I found this but is this what he really said? Or just what the press put into his mouth?

"The book contained pictures of grown men and women naked," Feldman tells 20/20. "And the book focused on venereal diseases and the genitalia."

Feldman, who was then about 13, said Jackson sat down and leafed through the book with him.

"I was kind of grossed out by it. I didn't think of it as a big deal. And for all these years, I probably never thought twice about it," Feldman says on the ABC newsmagazine. "But in light of recent evidence...I have to say that if my son was 14 years old, 13 years old, and went to a man's apartment that was 35, and I knew that they were sitting down together talking about this, I would probably beat his ass."

http://www.eonline.com/news/49222/corey-feldman-s-michael-memories

Corey was not 13 when MJ was 35. MJ was 26 when Corey was 13.

I don't remember any 20/20 interview with Corey where he said this.

Corey was never actually subpoenaed by anyone, right? This sounds just another bullshit made up by the media.



We learned about venereal diseases in school when I was 14! I didn't know I was being groomed but whatever.

 

[HIStory]

Thanks. Exactly when and where did he talk about that?
Do you have a link to a video or interview in print?

Didn't you read the article that you linked in? The answer is in that.

 

[redfrog]

Didn't you read the article that you linked in? The answer is in that.

I read it I just don't remember any 20/20 interview when Corey said this.
I'd like to make sure these are indeed his words not just words put in his mouth.
It's odd that he supposedly said 35 when MJ was 26 when he was 13. How could he miss the real age by almost 10 years?

 

[Bubs]

Is this Corey thingy brought up now because Demon is stirring s..t again on her twitter?

My advice would be that just re-tweet Jake Tappers tweet to Demon
Jake Tapper ?@jaketapper Jun 22
@DiDimond I don't need lectures on journalism from someone tweeting falsehoods and calling them facts. You're embarrassing yourself. Stop.

Btw, it still makes me lol because as much Demon likes to call herself journalists, but she and her work is joke for real journalists

 

[redfrog]

Is this Corey thingy brought up now because Demon is stirring s..t again on her twitter?

Yeah I found this issue coming up on MJJJusticeProject's timeline.

https://twitter.com/MJJJusticePrjct

I don't have a twitter account others put her in her place.
I just wondered about this whole porn book/medical book story,
I'm still not sure Corey said those exact things on ABC.
Without a video how can we be sure? They can print anything.

 

[HIStory]

Is this Corey thingy brought up now because Demon is stirring s..t again on her twitter?

My advice would be that just re-tweet Jake Tappers tweet to Demon
Jake Tapper ?@jaketapper Jun 22
@DiDimond I don't need lectures on journalism from someone tweeting falsehoods and calling them facts. You're embarrassing yourself. Stop.

Btw, it still makes me lol because as much Demon likes to call herself journalists, but she and her work is joke for real journalists

I read on another forum that Dimond apparently claimed recently on Twitter that Corey used to say MJ molested him only he later retracted it probably because he fears a lawsuit.

LOL. There are so many wrongs with that claim it's not even funny. Corey NEVER claimed MJ molested him. The most "incriminating" thing he ever said about him was this thing about the book with venereal diseases (if someone wants to twist it into something "incriminating" - although it is not, actually). He was always very consistent about MJ NOT molesting him. He said that in 1993 when the police interviewed him and pressured him and tried to get him say something incriminating and he kept saying that all through the years. He even said that to Bashir when he told this venereal diseases book story.

And Dimond is stupid with the lawsuit excuse as well. A dead person cannot be slandered and cannot sue for slander, so no Corey would not have any reason to "retract" something he never said in the first place for a fear of a lawsuit.

You know, these haters claim that the five alleged "victims" they have are enough to prove MJ was guilty. Yet, they keep digging and digging for other "victims" and make up untrue claims about them that they never said. Why if their five alleged "victims" are so convincing? They must feel each one of those five guys are VERY problematic, each one of them had/has a monetary motive, so they know damn well that they would need more "victims" and definitely more credible ones than the ones they have now. LOL.

Dimond also claims she is not obsessed with MJ and that she has a career outside of MJ. Last time she tried to prove that by writing an article generally about pedophilia supposedly being rampant in Hollywood. The article did not bring up MJ. However in the comment section (commenting her own article, LOL) she was quick to bring him up. There too she started to claim some BS about Corey and MJ. This seems to be her new obsession. IIRC she and a hater talked about whether the unnamed molester in Corey's book was MJ (but actually I suspected she was just talking to herself via a sock puppet account, LOL).

Corey's book actually makes it VERY clear it was not MJ who molested him or Corey Haim. Not only he states that straight, but the description of the molester does not fit MJ at all. It's some fat guy from the movie industry. But it seems Corey Feldman is now haters' and Dimond's new obsession.

So all she talked about in the comment section of her own article was MJ and accusing him of crimes the person she alleges to be a "victim" never claimed, but she is not obsessed with MJ, alright.

 

[Bubs]

She is seriously mentally ill person, and have sick obsession over MJ.

 

[HIStory]

She is seriously mentally ill person, and have sick obsession over MJ.

She is. I am pretty convinced of that. I mean who collects memorabilia, moreover puts it on her wall, of a person who she thinks was a child molester? There is some strange psychosis going on in that woman.

 

[Bubs]

Every time when something brings up her name, I see the image of her in my head waiving Michael's pearly whites above her head, like she won 1st prize.
She is total freak in my book.

 

[barbee0715]

She's married, isn't she? If I were her husband, I'd be trying to get her some help or divorced her long ago.
This is really starting to get disturbing. I'm serious.