Part 2: Dimond Goes Into Destroy-Mode w/Alleged Co-conspirators MJEOL Bullet #187 Continuing the tirade against Marc Schaffel, tabloid reporter Diane Dimond aired part two of a three part series into desperately and ridiculously trying to link Schaffels sordid past with Michael Jackson. The guilty by association garbage seems to have been designed specifically to use the people around Jackson to destroy his credibility. Needless to say, it failed miserably. On a side note, we also get a glimpse into why Us Weekly magazine cant seem to write a fair and accurate Jackson report to save its figurative life.
Dimond furthered her whatever-sticks story yesterday (Aug 26) on Schaffel, possibly because hes seen as the easiest target and most subject to blackmail of all the 5 prosecution-alleged co-conspirators. She also revealed, according to her sources (so take it with a grain of salt), that law enforcement may actually be using a disgusting theory which has Schaffel finding young men for Jackson.
Without so much as an ounce of evidence, proof, or information relating to that theory, it is apparently what theyre trying to claim. No Im not kidding. As ill-conceived and unhinged as it sounds, thats allegedly what her sources are using her to pump out into the public. Some observers have said that its quite clear they want to make their case, instead of searching for the truth. Speaking of their inability to further plausible theories, remember, these are the same law enforcement officials that thought an issue of The Robb Report (a financial magazine) with Muhammad Al Fayeds number on it was evidence. Just so you know what kind of collective mentality were dealing with here, theyre also claiming that a video of the family exonerating Jackson is evidence against him. A video shot in front of a full production crewie witnesses–no less. Dimond did take an excerpt from a letter supposedly written by Jackson attorney Zia Modabber confirming that Schaffels background was unknown to Jackson before he was hired to work on a few projects with him. As soon as Jackson found out, the letter states, he severed his personal ties with Schaffel. From her own report, she quotes the letter written on November 2001:
QUOTE——————————————————————— Information about Mr. Schaffels background, previously unknown to Mr. Jackson, has just been discovered. As a result Mr. Jackson terminates the business relationship with Mr. Schaffel. END QUOTE—————————————————————
But she couldnt leave that non-incriminating fact out there. She just had to incase it with more ludicrous speculation. Unfortunately, Jackson cant tell other people who they should hire and fire. And for that, Jackson is speculatively linked to Schaffel by Dimond as if he and Schaffel were the Doublemint Twins. She also claims it was Schaffel who masterminded the rebuttal video aired on Fox in late Feb 2003. Not so, says other sources. It was not Schaffel who thought up the idea to have Bashirs own words broadcasted on TV to show what really happened at Neverland during the filming of the original Living with Michael Jackson documentary, sources say. It’s unclear if he assisted, but he was far from the one calling the shots, as Dimond seems to insinuate. The public never got to see the video of the accusing family exonerating Jackson because, according to the accusers stepfathers testimony in court, they werent going to sign any contracts or releases until they received money from Jackson. They didnt get a dime from this failed attempt, nor was the video shown as part of the rebuttal program. The ones involved in putting the rebuttal program together was Ronald Konitzer, Dieter Weisner, other production workersand invaluably, witnesses to the accusing familys actions during that time. And of course, it was Jacksons videographer, not Schaffel as Dimond has previously reported, who shot the behind the scenes footage during the various Bashir interviews. Konitzer told the Santa Barbara News-Press, in an article dated July 31 2004, that there was no conspiracy. From the article:
QUOTE———————————————————————- Mr. Konitzer said there was nothing conspiratorial about the actions of Mr. Jackson and his associates. It was a very natural development of events and a normal professional move that has been taken out of contextthere was no cover-up, Mr. Konitzer said in an interview Friday. We were working around the clock at the ranch for 10 days in a rowwith my family even thereand I can tell you the one thing I remember is a bunch of kids running around and having fun. There was nothing I saw that even resembled anything near imprisonment. END QUOTE————————————————————— (see Jackson Associates Speak out about Prosecution’s Allegations (July 31 2004))
Konitzer also says he remembers himself and Weisner in Miami when they received a transcript of the Bashir documentary:
QUOTE——————————————————————– Mr. Konitzer recalled that he was in a Miami hotel room with Mr. Weisner putting the finishing touches on a business strategy to boost the entertainers career when they received a transcript of the [UK] documentary by Martin Bashir Living with Michael Jackson, that was to air in England. END QUOTE————————————————————–
What seems to be happening here is that Schaffel, a fringe playerand dismissed by Jacksonis being purposely given a false sense of importance by prosecutors and Dimond because he, again, has the seediest background. For example, Schaffel was seen having lunch with Jackson ex-wife Debbie Rowe and ex-Jackson employee Ronald Konitzer during a time when the media was also claiming that she and Jackson were on the outs. So how does that ousted ex-employee being seen in public with Rowe show a connection to Jackson? It doesnt. However, Dimond never seems to let the facts get in the way of a good story. I guess now Jackson is supposed to be able to dictate and control what ex-employee meets with another ex-employee as they talk with an ex-wife who hes on the outs with? And hes supposed to do it all without knowing its happening too, huh? And that connection to Jackson is supposed to be there because, hey, all of the ex-persons are there talking to each other, right? And hes supposed to be guilty of molestation and other untoward behavior because of that, right? Right?? Yeah. Sure. Thats not ridiculous at all! Geez. Schaffel is seen as the most subject to threats and other leans on him to flip against Jackson. It is a thuggish plan that doesnt appear to be working. If Schaffels past is as dirty as Dimond claims, hes used to people trying to both blackmail him and use him to get to other people. So how is this lean on Schaffel tactic supposed to work exactly? Well, to steal a phrase from a Chandler movie, I guess they havent quite figured that part out yet. Speaking of history .. If one wants to go digging into peoples background, some police and/or prosecutors may have a past themselves in which Dimond could figure prominently. As a wise person once said, if you live by the media-sword, you figuratively may die by it as well. Right now, I wouldnt be surprised if some enterprising journalist/lawyer/reporter/etc, who wants to raise his/her profile wouldnt, too, be playing connect-the-dots on the other end of these types of one-sided reports from Dimond. One thing that person or persons may touch upon concerns Dimonds past in relation to how she became involved in this case. Questions have already been raised regarding how she knew to be outside Jacksons Neverland Ranch with two camera crewsone at the local police station just in casejust in time to catch the police coming in to ransack Jacksons home. What a coincidence!? Dont bet on it. In MJEOL Bullet #141, it was noted that an article from the HollywoodReporter.com told of Dimonds all-too-exclusive scoop. In the article, dated November 20 2003, Andrew Wallenstein reports that Dimond was the first to report news of the raid. She was the first reporter at Neverland even before the police made it there, according to sources; ready and waiting with her camera crew recording. The report states:
QUOTE——————————————————————————- Dimond flew from New York to Santa Barbara on Tuesday [Nov 18 2003], arriving at 2 a.m, enough time to get three hours sleep and have one of her two camera crews stationed at Neverland when the police arrived at 6 a.m. She was at the local police station with the other crew when the raid commenced just in case Jackson was arrested, but she soon sped back over to Neverland. END QUOTE————————————————————————– (see Court TV coup: Dimond lands another scoop, Nov 20 2003 (Hollywood Reporter) )
It seems she was definitely tipped off by law enforcement, which is unethical by the way, before the raid because she had to fly to Santa Barbara in order to cover the scoop. Sources say she obviously knew about the ransacking no later than the day before it was set to happen. Not only does it seem she was tipped off by either someone in the district attorneys office or the sheriffs department, but she was given so much specific information that she executed a plan to have 2 camera crews ready; one to catch the raid and another for when Jackson was supposed to be arrest and taken to the police station. As a matter of fact, the HollywoodReporter.com reports Dimond knew weeks in advance of the raid at Jacksons ranch:
QUOTE——————————————————————————- Dimond was at the Neverland ranch Tuesday [Nov 18 2003] morning with the cable networks cameras trained on the cavalcade of police cars raiding Jacksons property hours before any 24-hour news network got therethanks to her highly placed sources that tipped her off to the pending search weeks beforehand. END QUOTE————————————————————————–
According to the report, she was working on digging out this Jackson story months, or at least weeks, before it happened. How strange. Maybe not so strange. From the article:
QUOTE——————————————————————————- She said: I told them, I want to go get you a big, juicy story, but I cant tell you what it is; you just have to trust me. And you have to let me hire the camera crews because I dont want anyone to know where Im going. END QUOTE————————————————————————-
This raises another set of questions. How is this possible? Can law enforcement get away with tipping off reporters to places they are about to raid? Further, what if a certain reporter was actually allowed to come inside the premises while police are raiding a property? No one has said, to my knowledge, that Dimond or any other reporter was allowed on the premises during the police raid. But would it be a violation of law to allow such practices? Yes. For the record, according to a 1999 US Supreme Court decision, it is a violation of privacyand police departments can be suedif they allow reporters inside the property of someone whose house is being searched. It is also unethical to tip off media to raids before they happen. Thus, as the very least, someone investigation/prosecuting Jackson was involved in unethical behavior. Oh, say it aint so! *rolling eyes* And as always there lay Dimond waiting to benefit from it. Some observers say that Jackson is her meal ticket. Before this newest case broke, she was on a downward spiral sources say. Then suddenly some other family takes a crack at the 1993-plot, and boom! Heres Dimond back on the scene again spinning the story; again beating the drum for the prosecutions ridiculous theories; and againlike so many other leeches–benefiting from Jacksons fame and notoriety. Throw one more log on the fire Figuring prominently in todays piece is an interview of Ian Drew from Us Weekly. Suddenly all of the trash articles about this caseeven that ridiculous quadruplets story pushed so heavily by them and himsuddenly make sense now. Ian Drew, who works for Us Weekly now, claims Schaffel introduced him to Konitzer and Weisner earlier. He claimed he was offered a deal to write good stories about Jackson in exchange to be let inside the inner circle. Sources say whatever little deal being struck was going on behind Jacksons back. Of course, the deal didnt go through because Jackson started to kick a number of people to the curb, including those who promised Drew his inside track. I guess hell hath no fury like a jaded wanna-be insider scorned because its been one story after another, sources say, filled with inaccuracies and outright lies. A little TOO lucky?….. Whether its the contemptuous leaking of court sealed documents specifically to her or the drips of asinine prosecution speculationin violation of the courts gag ordershe seems to be a bit TOO well connected for mere coincidence-sakes. And the questions will continue to be raised: Was this a legitimate scoop? Is she being used to push the prosecutions story? Or, on a more sinister and jaded note: Did she play a part in creating this story? Did she seek out the accusing family and play any part in urging them to come forward with allegations the same way she did previously with another false accuser? We have no way of knowing the answers to these questions yet. Stay tuned. -MJEOL