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 Schaffel’s 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 can’t 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 he’s 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 they’re trying to claim. No I’m not kidding. As ill-conceived and unhinged as it sounds, that’s allegedly what her sources are using her to pump out into the public. Some observers have said that it’s 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 Fayed’s number on it was “evidence”. Just so you know what kind of collective mentality we’re dealing with here, they’re also claiming that a video of the family exonerating Jackson is evidence against him. A video shot in front of a full production crew—ie witnesses–no less. Dimond did take an excerpt from a letter supposedly written by Jackson attorney Zia Modabber confirming that Schaffel’s 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. Schaffel’s 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 couldn’t leave that non-incriminating fact out there. She just had to incase it with more ludicrous speculation. Unfortunately, Jackson can’t 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 Bashir’s 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 accuser’s stepfather’s testimony in court, they weren’t going to sign any contracts or releases until they received money from Jackson. They didn’t 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 workers—and invaluably, witnesses to the accusing family’s actions during that time. And of course, it was Jackson’s 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 context—there 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 row—with my family even there—and 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 entertainer’s 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 player—and dismissed by Jackson—is 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 doesn’t. 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 he’s on the outs with? And he’s supposed to do it all without knowing it’s 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 he’s supposed to be guilty of molestation and other untoward behavior because of that, right? Right?? Yeah. Sure. That’s 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 doesn’t appear to be working. If Schaffel’s past is as dirty as Dimond claims, he’s 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 haven’t quite figured that part out yet. Speaking of history….. If one wants to go digging into people’s 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 wouldn’t be surprised if some enterprising journalist/lawyer/reporter/etc, who wants to raise his/her profile wouldn’t, 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 Dimond’s past in relation to how she became involved in this case. Questions have already been raised regarding how she knew to be outside Jackson’s Neverland Ranch with two camera crews—one at the local police station just in case—just in time to catch the police coming in to ransack Jackson’s home. What a coincidence!? Don’t bet on it. In MJEOL Bullet #141, it was noted that an article from the HollywoodReporter.com told of Dimond’s 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 attorney’s office or the sheriff’s 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 Jackson’s ranch:

QUOTE——————————————————————————- Dimond…was at the Neverland ranch Tuesday [Nov 18 2003] morning with the cable network’s cameras trained on the cavalcade of police cars raiding Jackson’s property hours before any 24-hour news network got there—thanks 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 can’t tell you what it is; you just have to trust me. And you have to let me hire the camera crews because I don’t want anyone to know where I’m 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 privacy—and police departments can be sued—if 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 ain’t 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! Here’s Dimond back on the scene…again spinning the story; again beating the drum for the prosecution’s ridiculous theories; and again—like so many other leeches–benefiting from Jackson’s fame and notoriety. Throw one more log on the fire… Figuring prominently in today’s piece is an interview of Ian Drew from Us Weekly. Suddenly all of the trash articles about this “case”—even that ridiculous quadruplets story pushed so heavily by them and him—suddenly 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 Jackson’s back. Of course, the deal didn’t 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 it’s been one story after another, sources say, filled with inaccuracies and outright lies. A little TOO lucky?….. Whether it’s the contemptuous leaking of court sealed documents specifically to her or the drips of asinine prosecution speculation—in violation of the court’s gag order—she 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 prosecution’s 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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *