Page 1 of 1

Rogues Gallery

Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:44 am
by Dialdancer
The Murray Defense Team's PR machine is cranking up in preparation for the trial and the salacious and gutter butt stories have begun popping up to include a Michael Jackson Black exploitation movie starring none other than Dimond & Guiterrez with guest star Randy T. and a very brief clip of T. Mes speaking. Because of this and it is time I am going to bring information from our own MJEOL Bullets, Vindicating Michael site, MJ777 and several other excellent sites on the below people.

There was a time when reading the likes of Dimond, Chandler & Guiterrez would get a Fan blackballed. Beside being seen as financially supporting these lying scavengers it was considered a mark of disrespect to Michael. I cannot measure amount of respect I have for Michael for it is that great, but I have learned with his death the liars crawled from under their rocks and began to start up again and the only way to shut them the "F___K up is to know exactly what they had written and then produce evidence they lied. (tomorrow posting information on Victor Guiterrez)

Dimond's book is like her reports, sensationalized vague innuendos, a lot of "I know this and that" and no proof. She gives the impression she's met and knew Michael for a long time. Oh and almost every piece of evidence she claim to have someone stole it (Those Big Bad Black Muslin Guys) or her dog ate it.

Chandler's reads like he was there and all the official documents he claimed you could see on line are practically gone. That is because Helena of Vindicating Michael took him on and tore him a new one causing him to piece by piece remove his BS. No wonder he was scared to death of the subpoenas requesting he bring all of his "official evidence" for show & tell. The first thing that would have happened is Tom Mesereau would have had them authenticated that would have included the flip flop Diary. (first Jordan's then Evan's) If I hadn't been given a copy of any of these books I would have sent them back for a return of purchase.

Lastly there is V. Guiterrez. If this man is not a pedophile I am not a female and I am definitely a female. This man claims to abhor Michael and the things he alleged was done to Jordan and Brett. However through out this piece of subtle and legally allowed child exploitation he uses phrases like "they were in love" (this is one I saw in Chander's too) and Michael took him on a honeymoon. Sorry I am not trying make you sick or offend, but I have found that Michael told me the truth. He did not molest any child and therefore other than holding down my food I don't fear the liars and the lies. Michael generates great love and great hate and for the same reasons,

I hadn't intend to, but I am going to add another scavenger to this list. By many Fans he is thought to be a life long friend of Michael. BULLSHIT. (Sorry Whisper) Randy T. is really the worst of the bunch and here is the reason why. He used information and stories he got from Diane Dimond & Victor Guiterrez and put them in his books and fed them to us. They are among his "unnamed sources" His lazy lying ass implanted us with their garbage and we have been carrying it around in our heads and spreading it to other for over a decade like you would a nasty mutating disease.

After I read my first book of his published released July 2009 and found thing that did not make sense, did not add up (I have a mistrust of phantom people & unnamed sources) (You can either tell it or you should not, if you tell it show your face)
Then he parroted Brain Oxman's unprofessional and totally inaccurate analysis that Michael died of "drug" overdose leaving people to think MJ had taken up shooting heroine.

When I finished reading the book I wrote my review asking him if he planned to do a reprint since he had NOT waited for the Coroner's report. Sure enough the new book was out within weeks of the official report giving him two books released within four months. After reading Ms. Jones' book I knew he was full of it. I wrote my second review on the Oct 2009 book. I promised Randy I was going to exposed his butt and I am going to this week. 30 year friendship my fanny. It is not enough that he plans to pander to the romantics by adding more love words and scenes btw MJ & LMP, it is not even that he may have been on the fence about Michael. Randy fed us lies from two of the people who conspired and actively worked to destroy Michael and never said a damn word, but of course if he had we would not have bought his books AND THAT IS WHAT WAS MOST IMPORTANT.........Money. If there was a heavy market for Michael bashing Bios he'd write that instead.


You, Michael and Sneddon are the only ones I've made a promise to about the trial & allegations. I like keeping my promises. I am going get you.

Rogues Gallery

Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:17 am
by Dialdancer
I am going to delay posting about Victor Guiterrez. While preparing I found something very interesting in his book. (no I did not buy it, not even 2nd hand) I know the answer to my question, but I want an expert to confirm so there is no doubt what I post is the absolute truth.

Rogues Gallery

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:18 am
by Dialdancer
I have the perfect story for any who reads this. The article comes from the Vindicating Michael site and it hits upon all the rogues here to include one or two I will have to add.

For the attention of fans of Peretti’s film about Michael. Its main “source” VICTOR GUTIERREZ is a PEDOPHILE?

"The tone of the narration is triumphant and is seething with deep satisfaction and delight at the mission accomplished. Jacques Peretti, the producer of the film, portrays himself as a lifelong Michael Jackson’s fan which is a flat lie of course — the goal of the lie is to send the world a message that even Michael’s fans know how deeply fallen and corrupt their idol is."

Diane Dimond But no matter how vicious the way of presenting the material is, the main characters of the film are the triumphant DIANE DIMOND and a less known guy who was Diane Dimond’s right hand for many years whose name is VICTOR GUTIERREZ. The film is a true shining hour of these characters and a tribute to their life-long meddling with Michael Jackson’s life.

How do we know that Victor Gutierrez was Diane Dimond’s best source who consistently supplied her with ‘information’, a better word for which would be actually misinformation?

Well, Diane Dimond named Victor Gutierrez as her best source herself - in her infamous report about a certain video tape which allegedly caught Michael Jackson’s “molesting” his nephew and which naturally never existed as the mother of the boy, who was supposed to show the video to Victor Gutierrez, never knew the man and never heard the story until it was told to her by a friend.

Please see the transcript of the show which later laid the basis for a defamation suit filed by Michael Jackson
against Diane Dimond and note the triumphant and confident way in which she is presenting her lie there:

Q: “It is an x-rated tape?”

Dimond: “It is . . . yes.”

Q: “Of Michael Jackson?”

Dimond: “Truly explicit.”

Q: “It’s what? Michael Jackson and little boy. Are you 100% sure that this tape exists?”

Dimond: “I am as sure as I can possibly be.

Q: “You have not seen it?”

Dimond: “I have not seen it but one of my best sources on the Michael Jackson story has seen it.”

(Funny how she continues to be so emphatic on the existence items she will later admit to have never seen)

The idea behind their present plans to re-air the film today (March 2, 2011) on French/German television is also clear — now they want to make sure that the public doesn’t feel a morsel of respect, pity or compassion for a “criminal” like Michael Jackson and knows which side to take during the forthcoming trial of a doctor who gave Michael Jackson a lethal doze of propofol.

[left]Read it all at:

Rogues Gallery

Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:23 pm
by Dialdancer
Diane Dimond more commonly known as The Demon. Using Tabloid Writing Tricks To Lie and Mislead The Public.

[align=left]Dimond has been on my mind a lot lately. Some of you may or may not know she has several Blogs on Michael. I am not advocating posting on these sites why pay her? What I am advocating is reading the articles again and see how many of the Tabloid Journalist tricks you can pickup that were missed the first time you read them.[/align]

Example: Dimond's "The Feds' Jackson Whitewash"
The article opening narrative reads: ""The FBI's "explosive" Michael Jackson files only reveal one thing, says the saga's chronicler, Diane Dimond: The feds had no real interest in actually prosecuting the King of Pop.""
The whole is inaccurate and deliberately misleading. Most Media, Advocates & Supporter who intended to read the file had not sufficient time to do so thoroughly, but she reports on it as if read from cover to cover. I wished I'd thought to ask her what she knew that was left out. Maybe one day I will get that opportunity.
Dimond's opening narrative:
"The FBI's "explosive" Michael Jackson files only reveal one thing, says the saga's chronicler, Diane Dimond:
The feds had no real interest in actually prosecuting the King of Pop."

Here is the trick and a piece of inaccurate information:
1) The FBI does not "PROSECUTE" Their job is to investigate, collect, analyze and arrest persons suspected of violating Fed Laws.

2) The DOJ (Dept of Justice) are the Federal Lawyers they prosecute persons suspected of violating Fed Laws......(when there is evidence)

3) Whitewash = To cover up Or To acquit/vindicate (Did the FBI remove statements from informers that were blatantly false or remove Sneddon initial accusations from persons like the kid who claim molestation at 2 yrs?) or was there information that we would look at and know they realized they had vindicated Michael prior to the trial?

4) "had no real interest" = Over 90 Agent involved (From FBI website) At least 5 FBI & DOJ agencies involved (FBI reports within File) Millions in
Federal Tax payer dollars in man hours, travel, living expenses and analytical services.


Thanks Helena for teaching me to look beyond the obvious of an article.

Rogues Gallery

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 12:12 am
by Dialdancer
Maybe we are learning…..then again maybe not.

How many remember the likes of Nancy Grace telling her audience “maybe we will get Michael Jackson to testify so he can try to prove his innocence”? or “both DA’s say the 93 charges stand”? I am no lawyer, but I have learned during the past 18 months there is a difference between accusations and charges, and in a criminal court case the burden of proof lies with the Prosecution. Our law says the Defendant is presumed innocence until proven guilty. Proven guilty by the evidence of credible witnesses to the crime; evidence that has weight can be tested and shared by both sides, and analyzed for relevance to the crime for which a person is charged

Too often crimes dealing with murder, children or sex become a circus, one that jeopardizes the Defendant’s right to a fair trial and sometime hampers the Prosecution ability to comply with a speedy trial and selecting reasonably untainted jurors. Because of a thrust for blood equaled to that of the Christians and the Lions neither the famous nor unknown are exempt from sacrifice. The only measure of how much attention a story will get is how sensational a journalist can make it. The trial starts long before the scheduled date. Law Enforcement, Prosecution and Defense attorneys are pleading their cases on television. Delivering confidential information, evidence and witness statements to the Media prior to the trial is now the norm. PR firms are employed as a pipeline unlawfully leaking information and creating misinformation which distracts the public attention from the relevant aspects of a case

Although I suspect Michael’s case would be the last used for example of Media misconduct during Journalists ethics seminars and conferences, it should be the first. I can think of several titles which would be appropriate.

1. “The wholesale slaughter of facts for ratings.”

2. “Having used our voices to make the innocent guilty.”

3. “How we implanted prejudice in 10 easy lessons.”

4. “Better to reign morally dissolute, but famous than serve with integrity.

Earlier I used Nancy Grace as an example, because she is this week’s star of our Rogues Gallery.

Rogues Gallery

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 12:29 am
by Dialdancer
Nancy Grace aka, Nancy DisGust, DisGrace, Putzette (new) and Tweety Bird. (She really hates the last)

Nancy is advertised as a gustsy, former prosecutor who is for truth and justice or some such lie.

Nancy is a former Prosecutor who uses her show to support other Prosecutors by implanting the presumption of guilt before innocence. She largely appeals to those who would rather have her tell them then to find out on their own. There is a projection that only she is capable of deciding who is guilty or not and she invites her viewers to support her bias judgments. I was collecting videos of her show during the “Shaniya Davis” kidnap and murder investigation. This little girl’s death is one of three which haunts me. I have a theory about what actually lead to Shaniya’s death and if I put enough reasonable information together to support my suspicions I will post it here.

Nancy says the murder of her first love caused her to turn to law, I am not here to demean her personal life only her actions as a Journalist with a legal background. Although she does have a habit of preaching to other parent about what is best for their children which is ironic considering she works at least 5 days a week on two programs which probably leaves her little time for rearing her own children. I may call her by one of her nicknames from time to time.

I have a series of videos and articles on or from Nancy. The first is Michael’s acquittal. I could not find the video when Debra Opri gives her a beat down. If you find one please post it. I do have this and it is her continuing to try the case. She is saying Michael is running away in case there are any more boys. (Bitch)

Rahul Manchanda on the Nancy Grace Show (Michael Jackson and Bahrain)



Nancy Grace No Stranger to Controversy
After a jury acquitted singer Michael Jackson of child molestation, Grace harshly criticized the verdict on her show, saying it was a case of "not guilty, by reason of celebrity."

Minutes later, an attorney for Jackson's parents blasted Grace on her show. "Well, this is the bitter pill you're going to have to swallow, Nancy," said Debra Opri. "This is the reality, not the reality you have created for the last year. Michael Jackson is not guilty. Let him live his life in peace and stop trying to retry the case, and that's what you're doing."

My link

[align=left]Nancy DisGrace Pt 1 of 3[/align][/align]

Rogues Gallery

Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 12:54 am
by Dialdancer
Well one of the our more infamous rogues has made an new appearance. Diane Dimond was on CNN's Reliable Sources 7/10/2011.

The topic under discussion was "When a trial becomes entertainment". Dimond one of the guest speaker waxed the eloquent on how she is among the few who possess real journalistic credentials and objectivity, neatly throwing her buddy and partner in collusion in 2004 Nancy Grace and other female Media scavengers under bus. :poop

Rather than try an write this comedic tale I am posting the video. Hopefully CNN will not do it usual job of editing to protect the guilty.


Sounds to me like Dimond is moving in for the kill. She wants back in, to get a regular pay check. There are a lot of potential vacancies on CNN, who knows maybe she'll push Behar out the spot she is slowly losing ground on HLN.

Rogues Gallery

Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:53 pm
by Dialdancer
what is the quote by Edmund Burke?
All that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing

Here is the 2nd example of good people doing nothing, not questioning or saying anything:
I've never read where even Michael's jurors had their lives threatened:

Casey Anthony Juror Flees Her Home out of Fear,00.html

In 2010 there were many comments made about the way Nancy Grace was handling the reporting of this case, comments about how the other Media outlets were being to follow suit, but there was no effort to look at cause and effect. No real effort to join to together and stop her from vaporizing the accused right to a fair trial or insure the DA stopped grandstanding and came to the court ready to bring about real charges.

The effect the most rampant lynch mob mentality seen since 2005, but in this case it has deprived the Judge, jurors and the family and friends of these people of their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You would think we'd learn our lesson, but that is not the case, if anything American are even more ignorant about the law of the land, unable to distinguish between a real journalist presenting objective information and a prejudicial, power drunk self-glorifying gutter-butt like Grace and her colleagues

This is part of the same evil that stole Michael's smile, made it so it was impossible to stay in his own home, stay in his own homeland. A smug privileged people who would contribute to his death.

Rogues Gallery

Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:27 pm
by Dialdancer
We did not topple the ivory tower of one of the bad guys, but we sure as hell put a serious dent in his grand design. It is time these people started paying, are held a countable and if it had to come by way of another misdeed I will still find satisfaction and mourn Michael and his other victims. This man and those who follow his lead do not need any more power, do not need to control the source of information necessary for our day to day survival.

Murdoch’s BSkyB Deal Put on Hold

Rogues Gallery

Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 1:07 am
by Dialdancer
Harvey Levin

A rogue who is a favorite of many. An attorney turned journalist who has become a multi-millionaire by selling what the people like.....gossip, often sleazy, always overly sensationalize and frequently misleadingly inaccurate.

Thanks to a MJEOL Admin who posted a video narrative I was able to locate a copy of a CNN Transcript (Int) which is no longer found under their original USA listing. In this article Harvey Levin express doubts about the 93 allegation and the accusers.

CNN TRANSCRIPT: President Bush Holds End-of-the-Year News Conference

Aired December 20, 2004 - 10:00 ET

KAGAN: OK, quickly now. Michael Jackson, a hearing in his case in Santa Maria today. Prosecutors in that case want to be able to bring up previous charges that were never filed. Isn't that like the first thing they teach you on the first day of law school, you're not allowed to do that?

LEVIN: No. You can do it. It's called Prior Bad Acts. And you don't have to actually be criminally charged with it. If you can prove that the defendant has some kind of an M.O. that he always follows.

In this case I can tell you what the prosecutors think the M.O. is, plying the alleged victim with wine. Showing them pictures of naked women. And if you can show that, then the judge can allow it in. My feeling is that it may be admissible, but I don't think it's smart at all for prosecutors to do it. You open up a
Pandora's box.

The first case, the '93 case has a lot of problems. The kid took money, ran away from the case. The parents had their own issues. and I'm not so sure it's real smart for prosecutors to go down that road.

JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RED SENTENCE:...."Ran from the case", none of that business about MJ not cooperating, or the DCFS did not do their job. Harvey KNEW "Jordan" stalled this case out and if he knew it, Diane Dimond and many others do as well.

The transcript reminded me this was not the only time Harvey Levin has publicly admitted having doubts about allegations against MJ, in a 2010 TMZ video his partner Mike makes Harvey begrudgingly admits the 2003 allegations were bogus.


With all these doubts and what was obviously private conversations with others Harvey continued to beat the same old drum.



Additional Resources: MJEOL VIDEO:

CNN Live Today: Harvey Levin has doubts about 1993 Dec 20 2004