Customer Reviews

Be Careful Who You Love: Inside the Michael Jackson Case

5 star:		(25)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(104)

 

 

First, I am a fan of Michael Jackson's music and have been since I was a kid. Also, I was too young to really remember much about the 1993 settlement and in 2005 I was busy in college and didn't follow the case much. Aside from a few random stories on TV news and in newspapers and watching a little bit of the Bashir doc, this book is really the only info I have on the case.

That said, Diane Dimond's bias shown like an impossible-to-ignore glare off a TV screen. It was hard to focus on anything she was saying because her choice of language and the things she seemed to gloss over were so distracting.

1. Language: Repeatedly using terms like "OSS Agents" and "Jackson Operatives" both dehumanize Michael and make it appear that he has formed his own literal army. Diane Dimond would have us believe that a specialized group of men are at Jackson's disposal to harrass, threaten, and even attempt to kill accusers.

Supporters of Michael Jackson (not fans, but employees, friends, and family) are all labeled as "Jackson loyalists" in a weak attempt to discredit them. Anything Jackson's managers and lawyers did is repeatedly referred to as "attacks" on the accusers rather than as defense of the accused.

2. Glossed over facts:

After being portrayed as victims who were harrassed and threatened and either wrongfully fired or forced to quit, it is mentioned only in a single sentance that two of the former employees lodging complaints against Michael and his "agents" were found guilty of stealing from Neverland and selling the goods for thousands of dollars. Diane trys to discredit the idea that these employees were money-hungry and disgruntled, but it appears some were just pissy that their flow of free cash was cut off.

Dimond tries to portray the accusing kids as far too young and innocent to ever make up such sexually graphic charges while at the same time giving Jordie Chandler some praise for helping his dad and another screenwriter write the script for "Robin Hood: Men in Tights." Dimond totally ignores the obvious: 13 and 14 year old boys often know about sex, usually more than their parents give them credit for, and for a 13 year old boy who is also a budding writer, Jordie was certainly capable of making up lurid tales. (This is not to say it was made up, but that an unbiased reporter could certainly see the possibility, but Diane didn't).

When a kid denied that Jackson ever touched him, Dimond points out that the language the kid used sounded too adult, so perhaps it was coached. But later, when Jordie gives his accounts, the language is even more sophisticated. Dimond totally ignored that Jordie used language like "it then graduated to tongue-kissing" and "Michael Jackson had sexual contact with me on several occasions". Either Dimond didn't mention that these statements were prepared by adults and not in Jordie's own words or she decided not to draw too much attention to his writing abilities. It seems odd either way that one kid would be called out for sounding too grown up while another is totally ignored.

3. Editing: Nothing makes a book harder to believe than poor editing. Dimond loves to repeat herself, sometimes mentioning the same stupid fact several times in the same page (like mentioning that Adrian McManus was Jackson's personal chambermaid three times in less than 2 pages after already mentioning her previously in the book). There are random spots with misspelled words or improper grammar that make it hard to take Diane Dimond seriously as a reporter or author.

I did laugh when it became clear how much Diane loves herself. No sentence was written with such clear delight as "On November 18, 2003, at exactly 9:21 A.M., I was on the air, on location--live--to break the news of the raid." Perhaps she was just over excited at finally having a fact that could be backed up.

Over all, the book is interesting, but don't expect to take it seriously or to get any answers. Instead be prepared to hear a woman rave for over 300 pages about Michael Jackson being an evil super-villain complete with a fake voice, evil henchmen, and psychotic fans ready to go to battle for their star.

But if you are a tabloid Junkie---this is the book for you. Though Dimond trys to sound un-biased she de-humanizes Mr. Jackson by using the term "Jackson team" and believes every person she interveiws even after stating their financial intentions.She gives Jackson very little sympathy and believes him to be a molester based on interviews with poeple that were mysteriously fired or supoosedly quit or they really didn't even know Michael at all.

Lets face it we are going to believe what we want to believe, and Ms. Dimond wants to believe he is evil.

So I'll say it again...

This book is cheap and I am ashamed I read it.

During the trial, Dimond was all over the place. Larry King, CourtTV, just everywhere. Everywhere with the same slant: Jackson is guilty. Dimond achieved fame and fortune over her sensational accusations and dramatized "first-hand" court experiences. Were Jackson to be convicted, Dimond would have probably been offered a prestigious position on one of the big news shows and respect among the journalism community and the general public.

This did not happen. In fact, the opposite. CourtTV ripped the magic carpet right out from under her. I mean, you have to be pretty awful to not reach CourtTV's standards. Without a job or any stich of credibility, Dimond composed "Be Careful Who You Love," despaerate effort to salvage her image and career. Sad.

Today she writes for a site called "True Slant." Oh, oh, the irony. My suggestion, for those interested in Jackson's child molestation charges, is to go directly to the primary sources. Court transcripts are available online. There you will find a word by word account of the three ring circus that California tax payers paid $2.7 million dollars for.

I'm a fan of open-mindedness and honor. Unfortunately, these are concepts Dimond seems totally unaware of.

Thankfully, I got this book from the library (& finished it last night). The author attempts to present herself as a reporter who only represents the facts, but this is almosty laughably untrue! I grew up listening to MJ & purchased a couple albums, but never called myself a real "fan". With MJ's death, I thought I'd like to learn more about him and specifically about the allegations of molestation. As several of the other reviewers have noted, Dimond repeats some of the same information (always anti-MJ) throughout the book, each time attempting to represent the item as "new" and as proof of MJ's guilt. Initially, I found myself going back & re-reading parts, as I was sure I was mistaken in thinking I'd already read the same info earlier in the book! Simultaneously, she disregards any information that is "pro-MJ", or attacks it in an often irrational, openly slanted manner. Also, the grammatical & spelling errors sprinkled through the text give more weight to the fact that, although she likes to think she's an impartial, professional & educated reporter, Ms.Dimond is anything but! She obviously has a hidden agenda & is very "anti-MJ", so if, like me, you'd like to make up your own mind, don't waste your time with this mess!

I think it's pretty obvious that diane dimond is quite delusional and very biased just like her butt kisser tom sneddon

People can believe what they want to believe, but There was indeed a conspiracy against michael jackson. After reading trial transcripts and using common sense, I think it's quite obvious that nearly EVERY single prosecution witness was not telling the truth, Especially the so called "eye witnesses" who claimed they saw Michael Jackson abusing a child and did'nt do a damn thing about it until money came knocking on the door

Diane dimond can defend these clowns and make up excuses for them all she wants to, but the truth is, these former employees were all a bunch of disgruntled shysters and oppurtunists, every last one of them. First of all, it is ridiculous as hell that one would file a "wrongful termination" lawsuit against someone who they claim is a "child molester", but that's exactly what ralph chacon, adriane mcmanus, and kassim abdool did. If these people really saw these heinous crimes that they alleged, then why the hell would they sue Michael jackson after he fired them? would'nt they be happy to leave? or did they want to continue to work for a man who they claimed to see having sex with young children? absouletly ridiculous!

and another thing is, how is it that all these people were actually seeing all this stuff? Child molesters and pedophiles are very covert people. They usually molest children in private places behind closed doors. Not only does Tom sneddon want you to believe that michael jackson was a serial pedophile, but he also wants you to believe that he did his molesting out in the open and that 8 people just so happened to see it...LMAO

I honestly can't believe how no one picked up on any of this during the trial coverage. I guess people like nancy grace were all too busy bashing and trashing jackson to realize that this case was a joke from the very beginning

It never ceases to amaze me the way journalist "starving for a story" will take an incident in the life of a famous person and exploit it for their own personal gain. The problem I have with Diane Diamond is that during the Michael Jackson molestation trial all she was interested in was sensationalism, yet she consistently says all she wants is the truth. During the trial she did not report "one" not "one" good fact or happenings in the courtroom that were in Michael's favor; the facts that ultimately exonerated him. And there were many days of testimony that went in Michael's favor, testimony that tore the whole accusation apart, but none of it was reported by Diane Diamond. Now that he is dead, she wants to reap another round of financial gain. "Get a life Diane; because you will reap what you sow."

I watched this woman speak about MJ on Hardball with Chris Matthews and after hearing her voice the opinion that "The Jackson family has no biological ties to those children - the press has known for years that Jackson is not the biological father - I mean just look at them they have blond hair and blue eyes." I can truthfully say that I find her to be one of the most unintelligent, reckless, insensitive reporters I've ever heard: 1) Unless the woman was present for the conception of these children or is in possesion of a detailed DNA report - she has no business commenting on paternity - in this day and age most people are quite aware of the fact that a child born to a bi-racial couple is liable to have a wide range of possible physical traits - for this remark alone the woman deserves to have a libel suit lodged against her. 2) Michael Jackson is listed as the father on all three "live certificates of birth" and in the youngest child's case he is the only parent listed and MJ signed the birth certificates of both boys with D. Rowe having signed Paris' - also because MJ and D. Rowe were married at the time that the two oldest were born - the law considers MJ to be the father regardless of biology. For Ms. Diamond to make such an issue of this, or to even suggest that MJ was not the father in every way that counted is very mean spirited - the man is dead now and this only serves to hurt very young innocent children who have been orphaned and need their extended family. DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK - this woman does not report responsively, appears to be very biased against MJ and does not bother to research her facts properly.

I was never a big fan of Michael Jackson, but with his untimely death, I have been interested in finding out more about his life. Recent news reports say that the FBI monitored MJ for 10 years looking for proof of child molestation --- and the FBI failed to find any evidence. This writer goes to great lengths to point out every bad or negative thing that could possibly have been said about Michael Jackson and then glosses over the fact that the sources telling these negative stories are people who have their hand out for a big payout or are disgruntled or in some other way people with selfish motives.

Jordie's father (who recently committed suicide) asked for a multi million dollar payout upfront on his very first meeting with MJ. This is mentioned in passing, as if it was a small, unimportant detail. There are tape recorded messages of Jordie's father saying if he does not get the money he demands, he will destroy MJ.

Or the writer will go into great detail about how MJ supposedly fondled young boys, but then glosses over the fact that the witness was an ex employee, who for some reason never felt compelled to report this child abuse which he witnessed on multiple occasions while employed by MJ -- and he continued to work for MJ for years.

How did MJ get away with molesting children for months on end with their mothers and siblings right there ? The writer says MJ supposedly paid the parents off with generous gifts and big checks. If that is true, that makes the parents guilty of pimping their children to a pedophile. There is no explanation how the parents were never charged with endangering a child, nor how their sudden wealth was left unexamined by the courts and child protection agencies.

And finally, when MJ is proclaimed NOT GUILTY on all counts by a judge and jury in 2005, the writer keeps describing the jury as crying, their heads in their hands....implying that the jury did not want to declare MJ innocent. could it be because they were happy for MJ? or disgusted by the accusers/extortionists ? or just relieved to be going home? Then MJ is described as not emotional enough -- can't MJ behave in a dignified manner? or maybe he was too traumatized (or tranquilized) to react.

The writer even says she thinks MJ looks "insouciant" in his LAPD mugshot. If you look at the mugshot, he looks anything but insouciant -- he looks confused and scared -- as any of us would were we in his place. This writer deals low blows.

this writer also goes to great lengths to describe MJ's fury and angry behaviour (yelling, slamming doors etc) when the police came to photograph his genitalia. I ask you, if you were subjected to this kind of humiliation, would you be pleasant and polite ? Jodie testified to police that MJ was circumcised. Michael Jackson's autopsy report states he was not circumcised.

In my opinion, this writer is extremely biased. I have recently found out that this writer was successfully sued by MJ for her coverage of him (maybe defamation ? ) . The court AGREED with MJ and he won millions of dollars which he generously donated to charity. No mention of that, of course.

The writer has a way of writing that gives a negative slant on anything MJ did. For instance, the writer says MJ wore full make up at home every day -- she somehow makes that sound really bad -- it might be unusual, but it harms nobody and it is perfectly legal. And to be honest, there is a black middle aged man who rides the public bus with me several times a week. He wears heavy dark foundation on his face everytime I see him. It is very odd and noticeable, but I finally figured out that he has the same pigmentation problem that MJ had. So, here is a perfect example of how even everyday working men will go to great lengths to cover up blotched skin of vitiglio

It is the saddest thing that everything Michael Jackson did was somehow twisted by the media and the world. I am a resident of NYC and I was here on 9/11 when the Twin Towers were hit and the city was thrown into chaos. With all the press, all the media, I NEVER once heard one word about the fact that right after 9/11, MJ participated in a fund raising concert to help NYC and victims of 9/11. I just found this out by chance this week. There are photos of him performing, raising millions of dollars to help NYC when we needed it most. And to this day, I never knew this, never heard a word of this -- and I doubt anyone else in NYC knows it either. And this is the perfect example of how the media ignored everything good that MJ tried to do.

I have recently read on the internet that the royalties from Man in the Mirror did not go to MJ. He had all the proceeds from the song donated to charity. This would be a huge amount of money. Again, until now, I have never heard of this -- the media mentions nothing that is positive about MJ.

I also recently heard that all the money from one of his tours was donated to charity. Why is this never mentioned by the media ?

The media writers wanted MJ to be guilty, and by extension, they wanted children to be molested -- because the more sordid they could make the story, the more money they could rake in. It is my opinion that the Chandler family and the media killed Michael Jackson as sure as if they had stuck a knife in him -- they took away one of our brightest, kindest and most talented stars. They got their money and the rest of the world lost the all the creative works that MJ would have produced if he had been supported by us.

[...]

She is for the prosecution, no matter how neutral she may seem to appear. Her opinions mean nothing to me, and neither do the "sources' she claims to get her info from. This book sickens me. I think her book is full of lies and allegations and personal opinions and it trashes Michael Jacksons reputation for no other reason then personal glory. I rented it from the library. If you must read it, I suggest you do the same.

Diane Dimond, the author of this book, was fired after verdict in the 2005 trial came out. For months she talked trash about MJ, how surely he would have to go to jail, not looking a single second at the facts, the weird impression that the 3-day testimony of the accuser's mom gave (which gave everyone the chills) etc etc etc ...

Please, if you want to know anything about his trial get "Michael Jackson Conspiracy". It pretty much sums up every aspect of the trial. It's funny though, inside the courtroom it was obvious for every journalist and reporter that this was a staged hunt set up by the accuser and his family and even the district attorney. Even the judge was annoyed by the accuser and his family and especially the district attorney and his team, because the accusations were so ridiculous because no single claim was believable, there was simply no evidence and the evidence that was presented was quietly laughed at, from both the jury and the media in the courtroom.

I really do wonder why books like these surface ... oh, wait, I remember why: Even though it was so obvious that this was some kind of culprit-family that tried to gain access to Michael's money and to distroy him, the media thought they would get higher viewer ratings and more money if they present MJ as the biggest criminal in history, back then at least. Their (stupid) plan fell apart, of course, when MJ was vindicated.

Long story, short summary: Don't buy this book, rather get "Michael Jackson Conspiracy".