Sunday, December 11, 2005

Ask LaMont Jones, well I am asking...

LaMont Jones,

How are you? I hope you're doing fine. I am writing to you after reading your review about Diane Dimond's book Becareful Who You Love. My question is did you follow the Michael Jackson case? Did you ever read the actual court transcripts? Because your review makes it seem as if Diane has previously unknown information about the cases. When in fact, it is only unknown to those who never followed these cases closely, and instead hear little bits and pieces in the media and conclude Michael Jackson is guilty. None of the information she revealed is secret and some of it, it's flat out speculation on her part. If you have followed the cases like many of us have done, you would be shocked to know Diane has left out the side of the story that makes Michael Jackson look like a victim of extortion. One of the biggest flaws in her books is the description of the body search done on Michael Jackson.

Even though a lot of photos of Michael Jackson's body were taken, the one photo that would have, allegedly, proven that there was a match, wasn't taken. How stupid does Diane think people are? The book is a big apology for the families who ran to civil attorneys; one sued Michael Jackson, two settled for millions of dollars. Diane always asks the question “Why did Michael Jackson settle? However, my question is why did these families settle? Michael Jackson had every reason to settled, these families morally had none. And LeMont, if you bother to read the settlement papers, which were leaked last year; you would be also surprised to find out; The Chandlers (1993 family) agreed on the settlement that Mr. Jackson had done nothing to their son. Now my question to you is? Would you have signed such document? Are you a parent? Where was Evan Chandler during the 2003 case? Perhaps enjoying the million dollars he personally obtained from the settlement?

One question I still can’t find answers to, why not one of these families went to the police 1st when they found out their child was molested; instead each family ran to civil lawyers. And two of those families ran to the same civil lawyer, Larry Feldman. Maybe Diane left that part out of her book? That it wasn’t the families who reported the abuse to the police, it was third parties, one of the parties included Larry Feldman and Stan Katz, the same team that obtained millions of dollars in 1993 and attempted to do the same in 2003. Did you read in the book anything about Janet Arvizo the mother of the current accuser, meeting in a parking lot with Tom Sneddon before charges were filed against Michael Jackson? And you know what Tom Sneddon was there to do? To give Janet Arvizo documents so she could obtain money from the California victim state’s fund, which guarantees money to anybody that makes an accusation of sexual abuse, even if the person accused is later found not guilty. How do I know this? I read the court transcripts! If it wasn’t in Diane’s book, then how was Diane not biased?

What about the ex-employees who are the main source of information for her book, what about their backgrounds? Do you know those ex-employees owe Michael Jackson million of dollars in damages? And it was awarded to him by a Santa Maria court in 1994. And do you know why a Santa Maria court ruled against the same ex-employees who are now the main sources in Diane’s book? Well, I will not tell you. If Diane is as unbiased as you stated, then you should know every detail about the backgrounds of these ex-employees. Diane is very proud to say one of those employees passed two lie detector tests to once again prove they’re not lying. Ted Bundy passed lie detector tests, the BTK killer passed lie detectors, and Jeffrey Dahmer passed lie detector tests! What if Michael Jackson would’ve taken and passed a lie detector test, would Diane even considered that a sign of innocence? I think not.

It is my opinion LaMont Jones that you already thought Michael Jackson was guilty before reading this book. In my opinion it does not matter how shady the other side accusing Michael Jackson is as long as Michael Jackson is the defendant, he will always be guilty in some people’s minds. All you need is Michael Jackson to believe the allegations, right LaMont? As far as Diane, she is obviously biased against Mr. Jackson going back to when Diane herself was sued by Jackson for slander in 1994. However, like many in her profession she claimed “she didn’t know her sources were lying…” so she was taken out of the lawsuit. And I wonder, when does Diane Dimond know her sources are lying or not?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perfectly stated! Diane Dimond is extremely biased, to the point where she didn't even write in her crappy book the dates of the non-existent molestation, and that they were changed to make a sham case look less sham.

1:21 PM  
Blogger holly said...

Diane Dimond talking about the case reminds me of a cockroach talking about life on mars. She doesn't have a clue what she is saying. Complete lies, fabrication and bias.

7:21 AM  
Blogger sheila said...

Diane Diamond is such an idiot! She is obsessed with Michael. And she's so biased to the point of being stupid. She makes the dumbest conclusions just to try and prove a guilt that doesnt exist. Michael was innocent plain and simple and she just cant seem to get over that

8:43 AM  
Blogger pyt in nyc said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:24 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Blog Top Sites