DD Implying or just lying?

We shall examine just one of Dimond’s responses on her blog, under the “Michael Jackson” section. As usual she spouts off with her unsubstantiated “beliefs” and “opinions” this time regarding, Michael’s sexual preferences and the paternity of his children. We are purposely focusing on bits and pieces of what she says because that’s how someone “appears” credible over a long period of time. It’s a tactic of hers to seemingly have all the answers when in fact, she’s got a whole load of nothing.  Well, it’s a load of something, but it needs to hauled off in a wheelbarrow.

Diane Dimond January 5, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Sarah – I give Lester’s story credence to this point: I believe MJ DID ask him to donate sperm, he apparently had no compunction doing so. In the “different” world of Michael Jackson things like asking others to have children for you seemed perfectly normal. Dr. Arnold Klein says MJ also asked him to donate sperm and I continue to believe – because of what various confidential sources tell me – that Klein is the father of the older two. I believe there was a pact made early on between Dr. Klein, his nurse Debby Rowe and Jackson to make babies for MJ to take home to Neverland.
 Yes, I do subscribe to the idea that he probably didn’t have sexual relations with women. Jackson himself told a story about how a teenage Tatum O’Neil came at him in a romantic way and he panicked – this at a time when most teen boys would relish sexual attraction Jackson was repelled by it. Much has been said about my televised statements that he and Lisa Marie Presley never had relations, but I believe that to be true. I’ll add to that and report now that Debbie Rowe has also told close friends SHE and Michael never had sex either. Their children were conceived in a laboratory. ~ DD

Let’s break it down, shall we?
Let’s examine her word choice first “credence “ “subscribe” “probably” and the word “believe” numerous times. It’s always quite interesting that Dimond gives credence to anyone who happens to be reported as popping out of the woodwork claiming  sperm donorship. To her their words are credible, believable and probable. It is obvious, to Dimond, that anyone and everyone is telling the truth except Michael Jackson.

#1 Dimond gives “credence” Mark Lester saying he was a sperm donor.

Watch the interview between Matt Lauer, on the Today Show and this man, Mark Lester, who Dimond seems to believe is ‘credible”

There isn’t a single question fired at him by Matt Lauer that he can answer with a definitive yes or no. He stammers and stutters through the whole interview “Umm, I don’t know.. er .. uh.. ahh…umm.. “
Lester’s ex-wife says the timing doesn’t match up and many in the Jackson camp say he is full of it. Then the split screen shots of Lester’s daughter, Harriet who was 15 yrs, and Paris speaks volumes. He sputters on about ‘high cheek bones’ and is unable to say with a straight face that he could possibly be her father, sense there is obviously NO resemblance whatsoever. Lester says at one point – “Whether or not Michael is the biological father is irrelevant.” He further states says he won’t ask for a paternity test and he doesn’t want any money, so we have got to ask – WHY he even came forward with this preposterous story?

Well, his last claim to fame was when he was a child actor in “Oliver” in 1968. Seems he’s had a bit of a dry spell, so our guess is perhaps, this is his way to get his mug in the media.
Credence? Really now.

#2 Dimond claims – Dr. Klein also stated he was asked to donate sperm and that a confidential source told her that Klein is the father of Prince and Paris.

She has made the claim that these children are not biologically related to Michael, and a whole bunch of other outlandish proclamations on this radio interview and other videos that we shall address later. Please just focus on her statements regarding paternity.

In this story by People magazine, July 9, 2009, which was picked up by a many other media outlets, Dr. Klein clearly states he donated to a sperm bank and it WAS NOT for Michael, so Dimond distorted this news report.


On Febuarary 10th  1993 Oprah Winfrey was allowed access into his home at the Neverland Ranch. It was during this interview that Michael revealed to Oprah that he had the disease Vitiligo and most likely he inherited it from his grandfather.  Somehow, Diane Dimond missed one of the most watched interveiws ever or facts seem to allude her.

Additionally, recent pictures of Prince clearly show that he has white patches on his fingers, and under his right arm which would indicate early signs of vitiligo. There are many pictures of Michael has a young child where the white patches on his fingers are clearly visible.

Since vitiligo affects a mere 2-3% of the world’s population, and 30% of the patients are genetically predisposed to the disease*, it is more likely that Michael is his biological father. Perhaps Dimond needs to pay more money to her “confidential” source, because it appears she’s not getting quality information.

Please watch this excellent video produced by one of our ardent  MJJJusticeProject warriors – AnnieMJJlover,  highlighting Michael’s vitiligo issues and proof of his children’s paternity.

Please also check this link for quotes and information regarding the diagnosis of Prince’s vitiligo –  http://lacienegasmiled.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/michael-jacksons-children-are-his/

Now since we have proven that it is more likely that Prince is Michael’s biological son, we can also assume that Paris is also Michael’s child. Since the autopsy states that Michael was actively producing sperm up until his untimely death, we can assume he would not have needed sperm donors. We might also assume that a man of Michael Jackson’s obvious talent, high IQ, and good looks would want to pass his OWN genes on to his offspring, regardless the conception method. Her absurd claims that Michael suffered from body dysmorphic disorder has been dispelled in our thread entitled LABELING Michael Jackson.


#3 Dimond says Michael didn’t have sexual relations with women and bases this “probable” assumption on his telling of the Tatum O’Neal story as proof that he was “repelled” by the thought of it.

Michael has mentioned in his book ‘Moonwalker’, that he did not believe in gratuitous sex and would try to dissuade groupies from sleeping with his brothers. Just because he wasn’t interested in Tatum, who by her own accounting of the story was all of 12 yrs old when he was 17, does not mean he wasn’t interested in women. On the contrary, anyone else would have honored him for maintaining the chastity of such a young girl, but I guess Dimond thought he should have ‘hit that’ young thing and been on his way to the next sexual conquest, to prove his hetereosexual manhood.

#4 Dimond claims that Lisa Marie and Michael did not have sexual relation within their marriage.

Despite the fact that Lisa Marie has discussed the intimacies of their marriage in several interviews in detail, Dimond would have us believe that SHE knows better? This is the best example of how delusional she is in regards to her ‘expert’ knowledge of Michael Jackson. Lisa Marie Presley told Sawyer, in her 1995 that she and her then husband had sex, regularly and went so far as to say he was quite good at it. Rabbi Shmuley released the infamous taped sessions with Michael where he discusses his marriage with Lisa Maria and the fact that his sexual ardor cooled for her ONLY after she refused to keep the promise of giving him the children he so deeply desired. Since only the two principle parties within the marital bedroom, are the only two that can subscribe and or attest to whether or not they had a sexual relationship, Dimond is clueless.

#5 Dimond makes the statement that Debbie became pregnant in a “laboratory”.

Again, the method of conception between a married couple is their own “private” decision, and they are in no way required to share this information with the public.
Apparently, Michael Jackson and Debbie Rowe had a clear understanding and she has stated on more than one occasion that the children where gifts from her to Michael, because she believed, he needed to be a father. We might assume that he married Debbie because he wanted no questions regarding paternity and to ensure that his children would inherit his financial legacy. To that end, he has been successful.

Besides the obvious flaws in Dimonds random jumping to conclusions, which is her want to do, WE find it odd that there have been NO court ordered paternity test requested by any of these so called “sperm donors,” and no long drawn out custody battle that Dimond had predicted some time ago. Alas, not one of her employers have any more ethics than she nor have they ever called her out on the many falsehoods and delusional predictions she has blustered on about.  This proves the lack of intergrity of not only her but of the institutions in which she has or is now employed.

MJJJusticeproject — Exposing one “improbable belief” at a time.

JOIN US in our endeavor to protect, defend and honor the true legacy of our brother, Michael

This entry was posted in Deconstructing Dimond, Media Spin and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to DD Implying or just lying?

  1. Seven says:

    “I believe” is not a valid argument, particularly when desperately clung to in spite of facts that directly challenge that “belief”.

    Dirty Diane cannot distinguish her own personal beliefs or opinion from fact. She obviously suffers from a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

    She is not a journalist. She’s a tabloid-level character assassin.


  2. Mjsara62 says:

    With all the letters n the petition we signed, how can they let her publish her personal opinions as facts and let her cloud and mislead people to believe these Lies about Michael. She is really that blind to not see that Michael children carry his blood and heart? I agree with you 7. She is a a tabloid-level character assassin. You know freedom of speech is one thing but making a buck on lies is another. All she writes and interviews should start out or titles. “No facts just Diane Dimond’s Opinions.” Thank you for willing me share my feeling on this.


  3. mjbluemoon says:



  4. SeptSpirit says:

    Can’t figure why this is so important to Dimond. Unless she needs others to believe they aren’t. One more item in her list of things that make Jackson “wacko”.
    If it were discovered tomorrow that the oldest two were not his biological children, so what then? What would change? Nothing that I can imagine. Except Dimond publicly gloating about it, as if it were somehow significant.

    The children would still be his beneficiaries. They would still have their memories, which she can’t destroy. They would continue to know in their hearts, beyond a shadow of doubt, that he loved them more than anything in the world. That’s all that matters.
    Word to the Slamloid and Medialoid reporters out there- if you lack basic social skills and delve into people’s personal lives, asking questions that are none of anyone’s business- Be prepared to be lied to. By your “sources” and your prey. Know, that WE know, most of what you report amounts to gossip and wild imaginings.


  5. sylvia sands says:

    Maybe DD is sorry that she was never in Michaels life. that’s probably why she is overly obsessed about him. i truly believe that Michael is the father of the said children. we know Debbie is the mom of two of the children and if Michael is not their father , the father is somebody who is not a white person like Mark Lester or the dermo doctor. it’s really none of DD’s buisness. Michael was a Jehovah witness at the time of the Tatum O’Neil incident, he didnt refuse her, he said that when she started to unbutton his shirt that he simply covered his eyes because he was shy and she stopped. (I was shy when i was 17) Diane Dimonds claim to fame is centered around spewing venomous lies about Michael. she is in the grip of an evil force where only repentance can save her for stalking Michael to the grave and beyond.


  6. Lezlie says:

    For Diane Dimond to spew this garbage on the airwaves, and on paper, and to those that give her a platform in which to do so, is uttterly disgusting. Dimond has NEVER liked Jackson, was never fair in her reporting of any of the allegations that plagued him in the last half of his life, but now since he’s dead she chooses to place her vitriol onto his kids?! Seriously?! As if their paternity is actually her business, or anyone else’s for that matter. It’s absolutely the most disgusting thing I’ve ever seen. Then, you’ve got the interviewer cosigning her assertations when it comes to whether or not Jackson’s kids are actually his saying “they’re not” with such a finality, as though he was present when Debbie and Michael “plotted” with Dr. Klein to be the sperm donor for Prince and Paris! It is my OPINION that Paris and Prince aren’t biologically his but I hope that I’m proven wrong. (It is no question that Blanket is his! He looks just like him!) I say this simply because, to me, they really don’t look like Michael. Again, I could be wrong. With that being said, Michael was STILL their father in every way that matters. When they were hungry, he fed them. When they needed clothes, he clothed them. When they were sick, he nurtured them. He gave them love and comfort like any normal father would do for their children. My father isn’t biologically connected to me but I DARE anyone to say he “isn’t” my father! I’m willing to bet that Paris and Prince feel the exact same way that I do. Diane, ask those children who their father was and listen to the response you get!

    But for Diane Dimond to continue spreading her nastiness about Michael to his children is just reprehensible. Yet she tells Jackson’s fans that we need to “get a clue”?! No! YOU need to get a clue. The paternity of Michael Jackson’s children isn’t any of your business. And the sooner you realize that the better.


  7. HesOuttaMyLife says:

    Why in the hell does Diane Diamond need a Michael Jackson section? She’s already dissected him with her ego!


  8. For me it just proves how utterly bereft she is of any solid sources on Michael. If she could be so uninformed and LIE about a subject like this, what’s to say she can be trusted with any other info?

    Like the list of people who claimed immediately after Michael’s death that he was on all kinds of drugs only to be proven wrong in his autopsy, all the people who said they had sources confirm Mike wasn’t the father now have egg on their faces.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s