Be Careful Who You Love: Inside the Michael Jackson Case by Diane Dimond Summary and Reviews
|
List Price: Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
(Click here)
Book Reviews of Be Careful Who You Love: Inside the Michael Jackson Case
Book Review: tabloid baby
Summary: 1 Stars
Dimond's history and original connection to the Jackson case can be found in the book, Tabloid Baby by Burt Kearns, that she, as a truth-seeking journalist and powerful CNBC cohost of Geraldo Rivera, led the fight to repress because at the time she was trying to sell a similar book of her own .
Sorry, Diane, but that's the truth.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1580291074/qid=1133634727/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-1616613-5369466?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
Book Review: Provides a very fair and enlightening account of Jackson's downfall
Summary: 5 Stars
Nearly all of the negative reviews of this book were written by rabid fans that have not even read Dimond's book. If they read it with open minds, they would see the truth as it happened, not as Team Jackson wants them to believe.
Dimond has done her job well and I commend her for her truly compassionate investigative reporting and writing. She has put human faces on a terrible tragedy and opened the eyes of many who only saw a small coverage of the trial. Good luck with your book, Diane!
Book Review: Fandar???????
Summary: 5 Stars
Wow! I have seen the feedback, and few people could even consider that Dimond might actually NOT "hate" Michael Jackson, or could even be obsessed with his story. To me it seemed self-evident because of the way she studied his appearance and health every day of the trial that he attended. And it is possible to be a "closet fan." I have met such people, and while they deny it, the evidence is always clear in their actions and words. I know that fans do hate this woman, but I would rather understand than hate. And she wants desperately to get at the entire truth as she sees it. It is as though she "needs" to know certain things. I agree wholeheartedly that Jackson's own horrifying childhood (see pages 40-41) needs more extensive and thorough coverage. What he experienced is no simple "excuse"; it is the only window into how he experiences the world and his own life. If she cannot corroborate certain elements, she must now truly dedicate herself to doing so because she does seem to care about this type of child molestation of which MJ was accused several times. Without this knowledge (in-depth), the scourge of this problem in society will never end. So many people had the opportunity to help young Michael Jackson when he was a young child, but no help ever arrived. And as he grew, he cried out for a concerned ear very often, and yet no one seemed to care. Until now. Now, when all the horses have left the proverbial barn. We will never know the whole truth of any of this story, but we can get awfully close. This book is a step on that road, but is only a first step. And still, I think, the people who grew up alongside the Jacksons and MJ and cannot forget his remarkable acheivements despite formidable obstacles, ought to want all the truth that is available - from the beginning, to now. I am sorry if this review offended anyone's feelings or if it made them feel that even a reporter with an obvious bias could still feel compassion feel compassion and concern is impossible. I do not see it that way. Life is much more complicated than that and that is what I had hoped to convey. I am a fan and I care about MJ's future and this is why I want to know the details of his life situation. For reasons I may never totally understand, it matters to me. And after all these years of watching Dimond cover this particular story, it seems to matter to her. Heck, it is a much larger social problem than just this one situation, but Dimond is clearly obsessed. That is what I wished to point out. Out of this obsession, she has gathered much information and has tried to get to truth of the matter. The saddest part is that the truth of the matter is that the truth of this matter is hidden in the dimmest corners of a tormented soul's past. As I said, understanding is not an excuse. And accepting unpleasant details does not make one any less of a "fan" (for whatever that term is worth). Perhaps I am wrong about Dimond and she actually does "hate" him: that could be true, but it is unlikely. When you hate someone, truly, you really do not wish to learn more about them. It would be nice if this country could have some sort of "truth and reconcilliation" commission where truth-telling is encouraged and people are embraced for their goodness and helped with their flaws, however awful. (And we will never really know for sure.)
One more addendum: Judge Melville let the trial go completely out of control and he had numerous opportunities to declare a mistrial, after which an agreement could have worked out that would have caused much less pain for all concerned. No matter what, Michael needs love, friendship, and a helping hand. There could have been a more humane resolution to the matter instead of a trail of ruined lives and clearly searing pain for almost everyone directly involved.
You know, until recently, I had thought that the appelation "gaydar" to gays and lesbians was just another slur, but I also knew that some straight people used to think I was gay because I needed to wear my hair short (it's a bear to work with) and because I insist on comfortable, yet somewhat slick clothes, but clearly comfortable. The thing was, though, that gay women always knew that I wasn't one of them, and there was a bit of rancor because they also knew that many straights did not know this (hell it rancored me when I was after some guy who got it wrong! Or, God help me, when I had NO gaydar and found a gay man extremely attractive and a joy to be around. Damn.) Anyway, guess what? This strange people-radar does NOT just apply to one's sexuality, but to other areas of interest as well. And I knew Dimond was a fan by the first week of the first major scandal. And by her continuing interest. And by her concern for his physical conidition though the trial, and even at other times. There were times when Michael Jackson seemed so truly alone in the world that I felt that Dimond was probably his only true friend and he never realized it. It was my fandar, and I stick to it through almost everything she has ever said or written. I know that most "dedicated" fans hate her, and they do, but these are same sort of fans who have said things like "if I thought he was guilty, I wouldn't be here (a rally or whatever) tonight." Or one fan told a friend of mine that if she felt ever he was guilty (this was several years ago, and I do not know what she has chosen since), she would "drop him" instantly. Diane Dimond will never drop Michael Jackson because she, unlike a lot of so-called "fans," really seems to give a damn about this man. It could be her age: I am sure she was very exposed to the Jacksons and J-5 as she grew up. But so have a lot of people who do not care one way or the other, or who lack the fandar to see the secret fan that lurks just barely beneath the surface of her outrage. See, only a fan, or someone who really, really cares could stick with such a story, in such detail, for so long. Yes, she has great compassion for the youngsters whose parents toss over the gates of Neverland (not the place so much as Michael Jackson's life wherever he is [and hey, I said that to a friend long before Bashir thought he was being so original; he was not]). Look, hating Bashir is like shooting fish in a Barrel, but Dimond is different. Bashir saw something easy to snare and mutilate, and he did, and then set in motion the very series of events that created the most recent scandal. Seeing that the case was a work of pure idiocy and total lack of concern not just for MJ, but for the youngsters who were demanded on the stand (thank God they didn't demand too many on either side: the testimony of all of them was brutally destructive and I almost blame Michael Jackson but not when one finds out from a number of sources that he begged to "end this!" That's pretty transparent: he wanted clearly to plead out and escape the skycraper of lawsuits and other problems that await his eventual return to the states.) And the trial was sickening to him because he did not want to do these things, whatever they actually were. Yeah, eventually ... it will take a while, but he will come back and try to salvage something of such total loss and devastation. (not to mention the debt) and his most heartfelt work of art: the Neverland Valley Ranch. It is difficult to believe that he will want to sell it off for any reason. Actually, and he realizes this, a prison sentence, even a relatively short one (which I think the judge was trying to push the jury towards so he could manage the situation rather that 12 people who were incredible clueless regarding "reasonable doubt" as a legal concept. They were divided because some of the more vocal particpants actually wnated to be "sure" of their verdict, and the law does NOT require something as inhuman (not to mention inhumane) as surety or certainty. The law allows jurors to look at the juridicial evidence, a pile of legal terms and concepts, and then asks for spirit of the law from ordinary citizens. To ask for perfection of knowledge of that which is hidden from plain view, for evidence of things not seen, is just impossible. So you take all this mass of evidence and you spread it in front of you. And you realize, first of all, who is on trial in the matter at hand and what might their state of mind been at the time of the alleged crime. Because that was the essestial question: why then? Not why, becauae that's too easy, but why THEN. A cover-up prior to a crime? It's so crazy that it had to be a Michael Jackson trial. Ron Zonen made a whopper of an error: he saw Jackson not as tormented human being, but as a monster. The kid involved did NOT see him this way, and even forgave an earlier transgression that upset a kid with cancer who maybe wasn't thinking clearly while on chemo (this was much earlier when he got ticked off about a small perceived brush). Later, Michael called him back, and he was eager. And I guess in a sort of childish love, which has NOTHING to do with adult sexual preference or sexuality. He was drawn to Michael, but at that time, he was 12, and his motivation or "consent" is not of legal significance, but would help jurors search of a "why then" in the spirit of the law. After all, they needn't have asked such a question if they were not concerned with the spirit of the law. That's a "who cares?" issues. But not to people who were perplexed, as was Larry Feldman, who could not understand what missing furniture had to do with some small-potatoes lawyer sending the family to him for his "Jackson expertise." He couldn't make sense of why Michael Jackson would want their belongings in the first place, and what the hell could he do about a missing storage truck of poor people's furniture and stuff? But he knew something reeked of deeper reasons for screwy behavior (stealing cheap furniture?), had an aftertaste, or whatever, and having seen Stan Katz on TV as a yokel "Dr. Phil." (NO, he did *NOT* send Jordan Chandler to Katz or to any therapist to get young Jordie's story. In fact, late in the game, to be as absolutely sure as he felt he needed to be, he hired Richard Gardner (a false memory advocate and hired gun in breaking stories - he is now deceaced, and so the tape was useless to explain why "'tweens" are terrible at remembering times, places, and other minutae, but were clear as to the "what." A well-scripted kid would get everything perfect.); Jordie was instead a typical 13-year old (with a Beverly Hills vocabulary).. although Jordie seemed younger at first in how he looked. As was the little "tough guy" of this case - who wanted to appear older and even tougher, but was "frontin'" as the kids say. He wanted to look like a real man. To be thought gay in early high school, or Jr. High is like death for ANY boy, gay or straight. They often go to the hospital because they are beaten up so badly. This kid went on the offensive, and at any slur, he struck out with his developing fists. But when when a school authority demanded he tell him "is any of this true?" what the hell would YOU say? You're trying to crush ruomors based on a TV show and much whispering and sluring aloud. It is ridiculous to the point of absurdity to call his denials of what were then just rumors "lies." And, hey, nobody "raped" him as the kids alleged. So it wasn't quite even a denial. It was a as much truth as he was ever going to tell at that time. Remember Bill Clinton, who later confessed? "There IS no relationship." Never said there WAS no relationship. When people's backs are up, and consequences are in the balance, they will try hard to save themselves from catastrophe, or perceived catastrophe. Sure it would have been better if he admitted it the first time it happened and asked to leave the Ranch. But the boy, as Michael was sinking in a deeper and deeper depression after the film, after his ex-wife was shredding him on every network and web chat, after every documentary predicting his end, for this boy to give in totally to Michael by just getting drunker and drunker every night until he could no longer see straight or remember ANYTHING of the night(s) clearly. "How many times" the 6-foot-3 Mr. Clairol batters him on the stand?!?!!!! From transcription, I had the feeling of the large, beautifully fashioned attorney holding the boy by his ankles until he caved. And he never did cave even with every dirty trick he threw at him. As for MJ, the morning of the kid's testimony, he "fell" coming out of the shower and "all my weight" (all 78 pounds of it?
Dimond should admit that she is a total fan and that she really cares about Michael and that's the WHOLE truth and nothing but. Even if it's hard to take. Horribible crimes against children, any and all children, are supposed to make you sick, reviled, and repulsed. But we must listen, because there is NO HUMAN FAILING OR EVEN MADNESS that is "incurable." We just need the guts to stare it all in the face. At least Dimond demands much truth because she cares. Now, Ms. Dimond, care even a little more and rip down the curtain hiding some of the worst crimes, even if it so happens that the defendant was the victim who discloses. All you gotta do is listen. If that doesn't happen, this societal blight (and not just one accused offender, of course) will never end. I am a lifelong fan, but I know I must face all truths. I love Michael and I love the truth. And boy does it hurt, all of it. But a real fan can do nothing less. Whatever you think, Dimond is one of those fans, too. I can see her on the fandar.
Be brave and get the book. Will you be there? Will you still care? Did you once say yes? Did you not know what he was asking of you? Did you not think he spoke of serious matters? I will not "drop him." When I said yes to "Will You Be There," I meant it. It seems Dimond did the same. My fandar is beeping.
Peace
Book Review: Dimond Does a Fine Job and Showcases Both Sides
Summary: 3 Stars
Ordinarily I would avoid any book about Michael Jackson like a plague of vitiligo, but I heard that Diane Dimond included portions of various authentic court transcripts and filings in her account. Now that I wanted to read, because between the pro-Jackson camp, the anti-Jackson camp, and the media, who knows what anyone actually said? Ardent fans seem rabidly blind to their idol's eccentricities and some people only want to hear salacious news, regardless of its validity. Most genius is accompanied by quirkiness or downright oddity, but one can't necessarily make the leap to accusations of lewdness.
So what happened when? What does the record say? We can't rely on the jury verdict, since several jurors have already recanted their decision, for all the good that does anyone other than possibly their booking agents. If Jackson is truly innocent, how could the prosecution have gone as far as it did? If Jackson is truly guilty, then how was the wool pulled over the jury, and over fans worldwide? How did the prosecution machine proceed? How did Camp Jackson respond?
Dimond does a good job of setting out an objective account of the investigation leading to the child abuse allegations and 2005 trial, beginning her story in 1993. She rarely permits her own opinion to overtly intrude, but instead allows witness statements and court pleadings speak for themselves. She footnotes any areas she feels are remotely journalistically questionable, calling them potentially unreliable. In spite of what some clearly zealous reviewers have opined, Jackson's version of events is also strongly portrayed, through witnesses, testimony, and court papers. The book may have been enhanced by some description of Jackson's own accounts of child abuse at the hands of his vicious father, but likely most readers know of this from the Bashir documentary and others. While that does not excuse, it may help to explain.
This is very much a behind the scenes documentation of what is absolutely a tragic story. So many lives were damaged, and continue to be damaged by these events. The only people likely to understand this book, however, are those who approach it with an open and inquiring mind; an attitude seemingly not present in many who have criticized this book without reading it.
Book Review: Why are people so gullible?
Summary: 1 Stars
Ok, so Michael Jackson is different from most people, but that doesn't mean that every ridiculous thing written about him is true. Diane Diamond needs to stop using MJ's name for fame and fortune and actually do some real journalism. This book is just sensetionalized garbage like the other 100 books written about what a "disturbed" individual he is. Half the people who write these books don't even know him that well. They just need his name to pay there rent. He was found innocent, let him live in peace. He has that right like every other human being, I don't care how famous he is!