opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
diane dimond
Diane Dimond
6 Feb 2016
Personal Responsibility From Public Servants -- Too Much to Ask?

The law says dangerous or illegal actions have consequences. Countless U.S. citizens enter the justice system … Read More.

30 Jan 2016
Juveniles and the Justice System

Everyone knows youngsters aren't mentally or emotionally equipped to make good decisions. That's why most … Read More.

23 Jan 2016
The Supreme Court Decision That Could Change the Presidency

It will be a monumental decision either way: one that has the potential to shape national politics and public … Read More.

How About Getting the Facts First?


There are two sides to every story. So, why do the media sometimes run whole-hogged with the most sensational version of events, and why do we eat it up like candy?

It is time for some critical thinking about a widely reported crime story currently in the news.

More than a month ago, a tragic incident occurred in a gated community in Sanford, Fla., when a neighborhood watch volunteer shot and killed a 17-year-old young man. The teen was black; the man with the gun was mixed race Hispanic. The teen was walking back from the store; the adult was in his car going to the store.

When I read the first accounts of how young Trayvon Martin died, I was outraged. Seemed as though a 28-year-old, gun-toting man named George Zimmerman — a guy who had called 9-11 dozens of times over the last year — was one of those modern day gunslinger types who went around his neighborhood hunting for suspects to bully. Several news accounts called him a "cop wanna-be" who likely targeted the hoodie-wearing teen because of his race.

TV news played a 9-11 tape on which Zimmerman was heard reporting the suspicious activity of young Trayvon, and even though the operator clearly told the older man not to leave his car to follow the suspect, Zimmerman did so anyway. The media reported Martin was on his cellphone telling his girlfriend that a man in an SUV was following him, and she told him to run away. Within minutes, the defenseless teenager was inexplicably dead with a bullet in his chest.

Zimmerman was not arrested, and there was much speculation that it was because of Florida's controversial Stand-Your-Ground law (which allows threatened people to defend themselves with their guns).

I was left with so many questions! Common sense told me Zimmerman didn't stand his ground anywhere. He had obviously gotten out of his vehicle and followed the kid, so was there another reason he wasn't arrested for the shooting? And if the Stand-Your-Ground law was the reason there had been no arrest, why was Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee forced to step aside? He didn't pass the law — the state legislature did. Shouldn't the anger have been focused on lawmakers, not police?

Finally, five weeks after the Feb. 26 shooting, I opened the paper to learn that there was more to this story than an overzealous adult stalking and killing a black kid.

The new perspective came from the original police report, which noted Zimmerman had a bloody nose, gashes on the back of his head and grass stains on his back.

Obviously there had been some sort of fight. Zimmerman had told police that as he moved to go back to his vehicle, the teenager asked him if he "had a problem." When he answered "No" and reached for his phone to make another 9-11 call, Zimmerman said Martin declared, "Well, you do now," and knocked him to the ground.

The young man then bashed his head into the concrete several times, and in the scuffle, Zimmerman claimed, he shot Martin in self-defense. An eyewitness backs up this account, saying the person in the red shirt (Zimmerman) was being beaten by the person in the dark hoodie (Martin). However, ABC News then broadcast video of Zimmerman arriving at the police station in handcuffs, and none of the injuries listed on the report were visible.

Look, I don't know the complete truth of what happened that awful night when Trayvon Martin died. And neither do the loudmouths who have descended on the scene to demand "justice." Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton led a protest in Sanford. They had their picture taken with Trayvon's grief-stricken parents and demanded that the city arrest Zimmerman or risk "going down as the Birmingham and Selma of the 21st century," as Sharpton put it.

The New Black Panther Party said it was mobilizing 10,000 black men to capture Zimmerman, who has been in hiding since the shooting and is reported to be extremely distraught after several death threats. The Panther Party's Hashim Nzinga announced on CNN there was a $10,000 bounty on Zimmerman's head. Another party member, Mikhail Muhammad, said of the shooter: "He should be fearful for his life. You can't keep killing black children."

The Rev. C.L. Bryant, a onetime NAACP official from Texas, said what I was thinking about these self-aggrandizing vigilantes. He called Jackson and Sharpton "race hustlers" and said they are "acting as though they are buzzards circling the carcass of this young boy." The facts show there is no epidemic of whites killing black children in America. As the conservative Bryant put it, "The greatest danger to the lives of young black men are (other) young black men."

The bottom line to this case and the media's coverage of it is this: None of it feels like it is leading us down the path to true justice. It feels like a mob of uninformed, hot-headed people playing to the cameras is leading the way.

A young man is dead, and his pitiable parents, instead of being allowed to grieve, are being paraded around by opportunists demanding unattainable instant "justice." This is not the way our justice system works. It should be slow, deliberate and fair to everyone involved. There are always two sides to every story.

Visit Diane Dimond's official website at for investigative reporting, polls and more. To find out more about Diane Dimond and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at



90 Comments | Post Comment
This is not the way our justice system works. It should be slow, deliberate and fair to everyone involved. There are always two sides to every story.

Right Diane, there are two sides to every story in our justice system, the money side and the political side. Michael Jackson and OJ got off because of money and celebrity, Bush got selected and Obamacare will probably fail because of a corrupted political Supreme Court.
I see it and it sickens me every day,

Conservative Mantra: I've got mine, screw you

Comment: #1
Posted by: Bloom Hilda
Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:40 AM
We've all learned more about this case. The killer's father is a Judge. Or as I see it, the killer knew he had a "get out of jail free" card before he killed. Everyone, anyone else goes to jail.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Steve
Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:11 AM
Re: Bloom Hilda - Micheal Jackson was acquitted by a middle-class white jury because there was no hard evidence to suggest he did any wrong - politics, celebrity and money had nothing to do with it - in fact his celebrity status went against him rather than in his favor, as the media circus surrounding this case was unsurpassed.
The testimony of his accuser was found to be inconsistent and his mother had a history of fraudulent claims of sexual harassment and benefit fraud. All other witnesses for the prosecution either had a personal grudge against Jackson, or had a monetary agenda in testifying against him. The intent and motivation of the D.A. Tom Sneddon are what should be called into question in this case, as many in the know have stated the case should never have been brought to court in the first place, so inconsistent was the so-called evidence. Transcripts of the trial are readily available on the net should you wish to check it out, so please educate yourself before making incorrect statements which cast doubt on Jackson's innocence.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Mags
Sun Apr 1, 2012 11:25 AM
"The bottom line to this case and the media's coverage of it is this: None of it feels like it is leading us down the path to true justice. It feels like a mob of uninformed, hot-headed people playing to the cameras is leading the way.
Ahhhh, just like your role, Ms. Dimond, in the Michael Jackson accusations. While it does not have to be included in her bio, Dimond was sued by Mr. Jackson for malicious slander. Her old buddy, prosecuting attorney Tom Sneddon, who is widely suspected to have participated in prosecutorial misconduct in the 2005 witchhunt trial against Mr. Jackson, backed up her fabricated lies. So true justice is not something she sought at the time. Better to boost her own ratings for money and try and make a name for herself, than worry about the actual facts of the case!
Comment: #4
Posted by: Lana
Sun Apr 1, 2012 1:37 PM
"There are two sides to every story. So, why do the media sometimes run whole-hogged with the most sensational version of events, and why do we eat it up like candy?" Ms. Dimond's hypocrisy is very evident in this statement. Facts, truth, and 2 sides to every story have not been her trademarks. Her reporting/stalking of Michael Jackson through the years was never objective. Trial transcripts, insurance documents, and FBI files tell a much different story, one that she chose not to report. Is paying for a story, the more sensational, the higher the payment acceptable journalism? She hid behind the first amendment in the malicious slander case mentioned above but her source was found guilty. Funny how she has never apologized for her misreporting on Michael Jackson. Can't believe a word that comes out of her mouth or pen.
Comment: #5
Posted by: ChrisB
Sun Apr 1, 2012 9:08 PM
"So, why do the media sometimes run whole hogged with the most sensational version of events, and why do we eat it up like candy?"
Oh, I don't know. Perhaps this author could answer that question herself. It certainly wasn't that many years ago when she 'ran whole hogged' with every tidbit of sensational copy about Mr. Jackson, right or wrong, truth or not, vetted or not, substantiated or not, reliable 'sources' or not...just jaw dropping that a short 6 years later this same person has apparently forgiven herself for the very thing she criticizes here.
Well, history cannot be re-written, ma'am. It is way too late for deliberate and fair in regards Mr. Jackson. Perhaps the Trayvon Martin case will see an improvement in media treatment of this story.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Layne
Mon Apr 2, 2012 4:37 AM
You know, in Alcoholics Anonymous, one of the tenets of healing is that the perpetrator of misdeeds against others ADMIT his or her misdeeds. In this case, it sounds like Diane Dimond may have had a come-to-Jesus moment. She's now bewailing the very journalistic malpractice she herself engaged in during years of dogging Michael Jackson for imagined crimes. That's fine—anyone can and should turn from sin—but she should ADMIT that she recognizes herself in what she criticizes now. Until she ADMITS that she used deplorable tactics to assassinate Michael Jackson's character, she's nothing but the World's Biggest Hypocrite. I'm looking forward to an article from Dimond wherein she ADMITS that she was once what she now deplores and she has seen the light, which is why she's now critical of the same tactics she routinely employed.
Another tenet of AA is seeking forgiveness. In my opinion, journalistic* irresponsibility and malpractice are crimes against humanity. People like Dimond and her ilk betray society in the worst way. They pander to society's weakest character traits and brainwash, through their public megaphone, media consumers into accepting as truth that which is clearly not true or only an accusation.
* Diane Dimond is not a journalist. She's not a graduate of any accredited university with a degree in journalism. As such, she's nothing but a jeernalist, having sucked at the teat of tabloid media for most of her dubious career.
Comment: #7
Posted by: LibelFreeZone
Mon Apr 2, 2012 8:01 AM
Honestly, is this Diane Dimond calling out the Media for "running whole-hogged with the most sensational version of events"? and then blaming viewers for "eating it up like candy." ? Ms. Dimond is one of the worst offenders of leaping before she looks, jumping in with both feet in her Hard Copy fake news style, telling us that "what I have found is----
SHOCKING!" Later we find out that either: 1. There is nothing new and shocking about what she is saying at all or
2. her story was NOT well-researched and turns out NOT to be true.

Really, Ms. Diamond, your pointing your finger at other Media members trying to pretend that you are the good guy and they are the bad guys to try to make yourself look good is getting REALLY OLD!
Comment: #8
Posted by: Nancy Jensen
Mon Apr 2, 2012 5:10 PM
Ms. Dimond: I've commented at length on The Daily Beast regarding your ever-so-subtle propensity to color the stories you report, and how you use language nuances to lead the unsuspecting reader along the path YOU have chosen for them to go. Seems like a huge case of the "pot calling the kettle black" when you accuse "the media" of not fact-checking or ignoring accuracy - you are a large-scale and high-profile poster child for unethical behavior in various mediums and have made your living doing what you currently protest. The suffering you have caused is the scarlet A you wear on your chest. Your credibility is non-existent. Roll back time to your decision to report malicious lies and half-truths because true or not, "either way, how could I lose?" - and admit that you are one of the two biggest examples of media malfeasance we have in the U.S. today, and perhaps someone will listen to you. Embrace truth for once in your life. You have a lot of karma to make up for.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Stanley Driver
Mon Apr 2, 2012 6:08 PM
Ms. Dimond, you would not know fair, balanced and unbiased journalism if it stepped up to introduce itself to you! This is one of the most hypocritical articles I have ever seen. You say we will never know the truth of what happened between Zimmerman and Martin that fateful night, and you excoriate the voices that call for "justice". If you do not, and will "never" know the truth of what happened that night, then we do not need to hear from you at all. If the police had bothered to investigate this tragedy when it first occurred, including interviewing percipient witnesses, then we just might get to the truth. In the meantime, take your mean spirited, soulless self out of the "journalistic" arena, as no one is interested in your judgment on this or any other issue you spout off about with no research and no integrity behind your empty words.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Elizabeth
Mon Apr 2, 2012 6:36 PM
"How About Getting The Facts First?" What an interesting title, which leads me to wonder, Ms. Dimond, whether or not you are capable of decerning 'fact from fiction', or do you live in a world where 'fiction' is fact and vise versa.
From all I've heard and read about you, Ms. Dimond, it would seem you are more interested in your own personal version of the facts (whether or not these facts have anything to do with reality), case in point, all the 'facts' you've spread all over the internet about Michael Jackson, including the 'fact' that you were always a 'fan' of Michael Jackson.
Ms. Dimond, the time has come for you to wise up and realize the people who read your column are not interested in your 'poison pen' way of doing things. It is time for you to stop behaving like a 'naughty child' who after being punished wondered "what did I do?' and "Why are people picking on me?" ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, Ms. Dimond. Michael Jackson was a decent, moral, Godly human being who was raked over the coals and 'thrown under the bus' more times than he deserved to be. The time has come for you to stop labelling his fans as 'crazy', the time has come for you to do some ACTUAL research for once, and to write a truth-filled article about Evan Chandler and Janet Arvizo--the two extortionists in the Michael Jackson drama. It is Janet Arvizo and Evan Chandler who are the true criminals here--and not Michael Jackson.
Finally, Ms. Dimond.--it is time for you to GET THE FACTS FIRST--from sources other than your tabloid commerades--and present these facts to the public. If you are unwilling to do some honest research, and change your poison pen /tabloid journalistic ways...then perhaps, Ms. Dimond, it's time for you to find another line of work, work where the 'poison from your pen won't continue to harm innocent, undeserving people.
Comment: #11
Posted by: Mary Kesterke
Mon Apr 2, 2012 6:58 PM
On Jan. 9, 1995, Diane Dimond was interviewed on the "Ken and Barkley show" KABC-AM radio, where she insisted there was a tape showing Jackson abusing a child. It turns out no such tape existed. She was subsequently sued for defamation of character, along with Victor Guttierrez. Here is an example of how shoddy and unethical her work is as a reporter. She is the last one who should be writing on the topic of ethics in journalism.

Q: “You are going to give us the first scoop on Michael Jackson of 1995.”
Dimond: “You know, . . . just when you think the story is going away, it's
not. It . . . the investigation is red hot again and here is the deal. The District
Attorneys' Office, the top investigators within the District Attorneys' Office are
looking for a 27 minute video tape that they believe shows Michael Jackson and a
young boy.”
Q: “This is a recent video, or something[.]”
Dimond: “Yes. . . . It was taken right before Christmas as the story goes and
it was recorded by one of Michael Jackson's own security cameras. He likes,
everybody knows that he likes to bug rooms and put cameras up and the whole 9
Q: “How do they know about this?”
Dimond: “Well, it's kind of a convoluted story but the bottom line as I
understand it is: someone close to . . Michael Jackson knew of the existence of
this tape. It is an x-rated tape, I must tell you and [ --]
Q: “It is an x-rated tape?”
Dimond: “It is . . . yes.”
Q: “Of Michael Jackson[?]”
Dimond: “Truly explicit.”
Q: “It's what? Michael Jackson and little boy. Are you 100% sure that this
tape exists?”
Dimond: “I am as sure as I can possibly be.”
Q: “You have not seen it?”
Dimond: “I have not seen it but one of my best sources on the Michael
Jackson story has seen it.”
Q: “Who . . . you have no doubts about.”
Dimond: “I have never had a doubt about this person, ever. I know the
District Attorneys' Office is looking for it because they are calling up reporters
saying ‘Have you seen it.' . . Do you know where we can get it?”
Q: “Who had it and was showing it? His security people?”
Dimond: “Well, someone close to Michael Jackson found this tape and, in
deep concern for the boy involved, gave it to boy's mother.”
Q: “Uh oh. Should Michael not know that one of his own security cameras
was recording what he was doing?”
Dimond: “Oh no, he knew. He absolutely knew.”
Q: “He is asking for trouble. Inaudible.”
Dimond: “You know, I remember way back when, more than a year ago, we
interviewed the head of the pedo[ph]ile unit at the FBI in Quantico, Virginia and he
said you know the down fall of pedo[ph]iles is that they love to keep a momento of
their victims. Or, they love to take pictures or take videos. We don't know why,
but they do this. It is for their own self gratification later but it always comes back
to bite them.”
Q: “. . . It looks to me. I think old Mike had better get his checkbook out
again. . . . That's the way this is going to end up.”
Dimond: “I got to tell you, Ken, is what the DA's office is worried about.
There is like a mad scramble to get to this tape before the Jackson camp gets to this
Q: “Here is what happened. . . . If that tape . . . does exist as you say.”
Dimond: “Right.”
Q: “Somebody close to Michael Jackson got a hold of it and thought holy,
baloney this is worth a lot of money. Look, I'll split it 50/50 with you and we can
get maybe $50 million.”
Dimond: “That could very well be.”
Q: “And he gave it to the mother of the boy?”
Dimond: “Correct.”
Q: “So she has it.”
Dimond: “And, I have to tell you, if my source is correct, who has seen this
tape, and again, he always has been. The acts that are being performed on that tape
are exactly what the accuser a year ago said Michael Jackson did to him.”
Q: “Well, I mean you don't need to beat around the bush. What are those
Dimond: “We are talking about oral sex.”
Q: “Um, hmm. Performed on Michael Jackson or by Michael Jackson?”
Dimond: “By Michael Jackson . . . So, . . . You know, it is going to unfold
this week. I am trying to confirm right now, we understand that there might
. . . have been copies made of this tape.”
Q: “I bet there was.”
Dimond: “And you know, if . . the Jackson camp gets it, or if it is somehow
hushed up or bought off or whatever. I understand there might be a copy of it.”
Q: “Now, wait a minute. After all that happened during 1994 with Michael
Jackson. What was a parent letting their kid do with Michael Jackson in his house.”
Dimond: “Bingo.”
Q: “Is this up in Santa Barbara?”
Dimond: “No, it was here in Los Angeles.”
Q: “In LA, so it's our own District Attorney.”
Dimond: “And, I got to tell you, I know, I know many of the investigators
within the District Attorneys' Office. They got the top guys on this. They are not
beating around the bush. I got to tell you too, this mother, when she got this tape,
made an initial contact to the LAPD Sexual Exploitation Unit and they told her
unbelievably. Well, okay, you say you have the tape, just take it to any local
precinct and turn it in. And she said to herself. This is not the kind of protection I
need, thank you very much, forget it.”
Q: “Well, . . . so why didn't she?”
Dimond: “Because she is afraid. This is a very powerful man you are talking
about. This is a man who has a lot of money to spread around, who can make your
life very miserable. He can make -[-]”
Q: “Well, but if you got [--]”
Dimond: “He can make it wonderful and very miserable.”
Q: “It looks to me that if you got him on tape doing it, he is going to have a
pretty hard time.”
Dimond: “One of the DA's investigators was quoted as saying, ‘if we get
this tape and . . . if it shows what we think it shows, we put the handcuffs on
Michael Jackson.'”
Q: “Well, Diane. You have to keep us informed on this. I know that Hard
Copy will have it on tonight.”
Dimond: “And, listen, if anybody calls you with this tape let, me know.”
Q: “I will let you know.”
Dimond: “I will let you know.”
Later on in the broadcast, they briefly returned to the story:
Q: “Going back to the Michael Jackson video.”
Dimond: “Yeah.”
Q: “How did you[r] friend see it? Who showed it to your friend[?]”
Dimond: “Oh, I just can't tell you that. That would go- -[]”
Q: “The mother?”
Dimond: [inaudible]
Q: “Well, it had to be either the mother of the boy or [inaudible].”
Q: “Or the security person who gave the tape.”
Dimond: “You guys always have the most insightful questions. I think I
better hang up right now.” That concluded The Ken and Barkley Show interview.
The “Hard Copy” Broadcast
Later that evening, “Hard Copy” broadcast the following report related to
appellant, which again we repeat verbatim:
The speakers on the tape include respondents Dimond and Doran; Victor
Gutierrez, the “source” referred to by Dimond in the earlier broadcast; Barry Nolan, an
anchorperson for “Hard Copy”; and Kevin Smith, a reporter, who was also seeking to
track down the alleged videotape or obtain information about it.
First voice [apparently Kevin Smith]: “[Unintelligible ]. .. then Michael
Jackson will be in handcuffs.”
Second voice: “Reports that Michael and a teenage boy have been caught on
Third Voice [apparently Gutirerez]: “[Unintelligible] .. . the tape, there is no
doubt about it. It is very graphic.”
Second voice: “Now, investigators are racing to find Michael's -Xrated
Barry Nolan: “New trouble for Michael Jackson tonight. This time police
investigators are searching for what they believe is an incriminating-r axted video.
Diane Diamond [sic] reports.”
Dimond: “If Michael Jackson thought the new year would bring him a new
lease on life Barry, it just isn't happening that way. Hard Copy has learned that
there is now a renewed police investigation into the entertainer's relationship with
young boys. This time, authorities are hot on the trail of an explicit video tape they
believe could make their case . [¶] Michael Jackson's videos have been seen
around the world. But it is not his music videos authorities are interested in. Nope.
Hard Copy can now reveal that investigators from the L.A. District Attorneys office have been working around the clock lately trying to find an- rxated video of the pop superstar which they believe shows him naked and fondling a young boy.”
Gutierrez: “When you [Unintelligible] .. . the tape, there is no doubt about it.
It is very graphic.”
Kevin Smith: “If the D.A. gets a hold of the tape and it shows what it's
supposed to show, then Michael Jackson will be in handcuffs.”
Dimond: “The investigators are working for this woman. Assistant D.A.
Lauren Weiss. She was once a key player in the Jackson child molestation
investigation. Last year, police helped question witnesses brought before a secret
grand jury. Now she has her investigators scrambling to find that video tape.
Journalist Kevin Smith was questioned by the D.A.'s office.”
Smith: “They are scared. Yes, this is yet another lead which is gonna be
snapped up. And disappear mysteriously before they get their hands on it. What
they are concerned of is it goes back into the Jackson camp and it will never be seen again.”
Dimond: “It is impossible to independently confirm the existence of the
video but several sources including some as far away as London say that this tape is black and white, 27 minutes long, and reportedly recorded by one of Jackson's own security cameras. Sources also tell Hard Copy the tape was somehow turned over to the Mother of the young boy seen on the video.”
Smith: “The investigator I spoke to said this is what they've been waiting
for. If they had the tape, that's all they needed to make an arrest.”
Dimond: “Victor Gutierrez has reported on Michael Jackson for the last
decade and has a book about to be published regarding the entertainer's relationship with various boys. Gutierrez has talked with this young boy's mother.”
Gutierrez: “And now she is scared. And now, not only that, the District
Attorney is trying to get these tapes and I guess through my sources[, t]hey already
been in contact with the Mother. So, it's up to the Mother now to make the final
Smith: “Even if the original copy damages or is destroyed or is hushed up,
there has been a copy made and that is what the D.A. is going after.”
Dimond: “Could there actually be such an x -rated tape. Well, late today,
Jackson's lawyer, Howard Weitzman categorically denied the existence of such a
video and he says to his knowledge neither the D.A. in Los Angeles or Santa
Barbara has reactivated the case. We will have more on this developing story
tomorrow. Barry?”
Barry Nolan: “Thanks Diane. . . .”
The Complaint
Appellant brought suit against Diane Dimond, Stephen Doran, KAB-ACM
Radio, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation, Roger Barkley, Ken Minyard, and
Victor Gutierrez for slander. The first cause of action alleged that on the morning of
January 9, 1995, Dimond appeared as a guest on “The Ken and Barkley Show”
broadcast by KABC and falsely stated that there was a “renewed” and “‘red hot'”
police investigation in Los Angeles County into new allegations of child molestation
by appellant. As set forth in the complaint, “ .. . Dimond stated that her most
reliable source had seen a 27-minute black-and-white videotape of [appellant]
molesting a young boy recorded by his security cameras. Dimond reported that the
tape was ‘x-rated,' that she believed her source, and that she was ‘as sure as [she
could] possibly be' that the tape existed. Dimond further stated that ‘the top
investigators within the District Attorney's office' are looking for the tape, which
she stated was taken just before Christmas 1994, and that the tape had a date and
time electronically imprinted on it.”
The second cause of action alleged that “on January 9, 1995, Hard Copy,
aired a piece in which Dimond stated that there was a ‘renewed police investigation
into [appellant's] relationship with young boys.' Dimond further stated that
investigators from the L.A. District Attorney's office were working ‘around the
clock' looking for an ‘x-rated video' of [appellant] allegedly showing him ‘naked
and fondling a young boy.'”
The Motion for Summary Judgment
Respondents Paramount Pictures, Dimond, and Doran moved for summary
judgment. As to both the first and second causes of action, respondents asserted
that they had not made any false statements of fact and had not acted with actual
To demonstrate truth, respondents set forth the following facts, established in
part through the declarations of Jack S. Gonterman, an investigator employed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, and Thomas Sneddon, the District Attorney of Santa Barbara County. In December of 1994, the Santa Barbara County
District Attorney's Office received information (1) that a videotape existed
depicting appellant engaged in sexual contact with a minor, and (2) that Gutierrez, a freelance journalist who reports on appellant's activities, had seen such videotape.
Gonterman had been assigned to the investigation of allegations that appellant
sexually molested minor children, which investigation, according to Gonterman,
“has continuously been an open investigation,” meaning that the office “periodically receives information which [they] evaluate, and where warranted, investigate.” In early January 1995, Gonterman was instructed to interview Gutierrez “regarding the possible existence of a videotape of [appellant] molesting a minor child.” On January 5, 1995, Gonterman had a telephone conversation with reporter Kevin Smith in which Smith asked him (Gonterman) whether he was investigating the existence of the alleged videotape. Gonterman told Smith he was intending to conduct some further interviews and asked Smith if he had any knowledge of such a videotape. Also on January 5, 1995, Gonterman interviewed Gutierrez concerning his knowledge and “[s]hortly thereafter .. . discontinued any further efforts in the matter.”
Sneddon handled the investigation of allegations against appellant on behalf
of the Santa Barbara District Attorney's Office. In December of 1994, he “received
information that a video tape existed depicting [appellant] engaged in sexual contact with a minor child.” According to the reports received by Sneddon, Gutierrez had seen the videotape. At around the same time, Dimond contacted Sneddon to inquire about reports that his office was looking for such videotape or investigating new allegations of molestation against appellant. Sneddon informed her that he “was not at liberty to comment upon such reports” but stated that the investigation was “still open . . . .” Although Sneddon did not discuss this with Dimond, at the time of their conversation, a decision had already been made to send Gonterman to look into the existence of the tape and procure it if possible.
Gonterman's investigation led to the conclusion that no such videotape could be located or proven to exist.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Pat
Mon Apr 2, 2012 6:59 PM
Everyone deserves to grow and learn from their mistakes however there is nothing more disturbing than the obscene hypocrisy of this sentiment from Diane Dimond regarding salacious chequebook journalism. A public apology is the very least that can be expected from this woman who subscribed to the character assassination of Michael Jackson. Not only was the reporting biased and poorly researched the recognition that the mass character assassination he suffered would inevitably damage his career is particularly cruel. The impact on his health would become obvious as he struggled with multiple health problems and depression until his untimely death at 50. But of course you knew that - just made it all the more fun didnt it.
What a shame the general public can expect no better from journalists than fiction, slander and libel in their relentless pursuit of top dollar return. No other industry engages in this behavior simply because they respect codes of conduct and basic human rights.
Comment: #13
Posted by: Linda Baird
Mon Apr 2, 2012 8:01 PM
So, here I am again with more sickening news about Diane Dimond in my face!!!
I have personally given this "woman" a piece of my mind on several occasions after Michael Jackson's death on her website, and she is definately NOT someone who can take as well as she dishes out!
Very defensive and sooooooo rude to me in response to my confrontational posts to her, but I am anonymous compared to her and NOT hurting anyone with falsely reporting events! She needs to have a piece of everyone's mind in the hope that she will learn what a dispiccable existence she is.
Diane Dimond, I loathe you! Nothing has changed there. I haven't seen your face in years and just one look has fired me up again! Blaaahhh!
You are and always will be a sad and sorry human being who does not deserve anything that you have managed to accumulate in your life. How did you become famous? Because if you can, then ANYONE can!

Start reporting the TRUTH with REAL facts and maybe (MAYBE!!!!) someone might take you seriously. But, we would all prefer you to crawl under a rock and stay away from the light of day and keep your mouth closed forever. At least from the public. Isn't it clear that you are NOT wanted???? GO AWAY!

Always and forever,
Comment: #14
Posted by: Tracey Vlouhos
Mon Apr 2, 2012 8:17 PM
Re: Nancy Jensen Absolutely Nancy. And she dare call two Reverends "loudmouths". Ha ! her calling anyone a loudmouth is laughable. At least these two Reverends are real Reverends and have purpose to what they stand for. Ms. Dimond on the other hand isn't even an accredited journalist. She never even acquired a degree in journalism. She simply manipulated her way as a dishonest tabloid "journalist". What purpose could she herself have other than an attention-seeking loudmouth ?
Comment: #15
Posted by: cawobeth
Mon Apr 2, 2012 8:52 PM
At best this article by Diane Dimond represents breathtaking hypocrisy. At its worst, it shows just how conniving a third-rate tabloid journalist can be, attempting to reinvent herself as a voice of reason concerned about evidence and its corollary, justice.
In a review of a 1994 PBS Frontline episode on the unethical, frenzied media coverage of the late Michael Jackson, Jeff Silverman offered this review:
It is tabloid princess Dimond, of "Hard Copy," who, unwittingly, puts so much about the popular media into perspective with a single observation on the Jackson stampede: "It was either gonna be a superstar being falsely accused, or it was gonna be a superstar perhaps guilty of one of the most heinous crimes we know. Either way, I couldn't lose."
Not Jackson. Not the kid. Not the public. Not the truth. But Dimond herself.
And now Dimond hopes that at least the darker swamps of the blogosphere offer a refuge where no one knows who she is.
Comment: #16
Posted by: Mark Bentley
Mon Apr 2, 2012 9:10 PM
The title How About Getting the Facts First just jumped out at me because it sounds so reasonable and fair. Of course when I saw who wrote it I was floored since Diane Dimond has made a career out of doing just the opposite. It is very hard to take this author seriously when you look back on a body of work most notably her salacious tabloid trash "coverage" of Michael Jackson. It seems back then Not Having the Facts First never stopped her. Wow, hypocrisy much?
Comment: #17
Posted by: LInda Chatfield
Mon Apr 2, 2012 9:33 PM
Need I have read on from the head-line ? "How About Getting the Facts First ? "
OMG, if the isn't the epitome of hypocrisy !
This woman dare speak of facts as being important ? Since when does she consider facts as being valuable WHICH THEY ARE ! This self-proclaimed "investigative journalist" has distorted facts over & over. She's even written books full of lies and deceptive innuendos. She lives in a world of denial of facts.
Until such time that she come forth with the truth she discovered about Michael Jackson, Ms. Dimond is considered a liar. The lies in her articles, commentary and books were proven to be lies in a court of law, based on hard-core evidence that refuted the lies of the extortion-attempting accusers. She "made" (and I mean made as fabricated) her career on the heels of the proven corrupt LA prosecutor who stopped at nothing to TRY and convict Mr. Jackson. She's despicable was even fired from a tabloid TV show.
And Dimond, your'e wrong again, "hot-headed people playing to the cameras is leading the way". NO ! It's who the media shines their cameras on that unfortunately leads the way. At least these people have reasons to be upset. You however don't seem effected by the killing of a young man in the least. You simply capitalize off off what is popular in news like you always have. A follower you are with nothing authentic, let alone of any integrity to say. Integrity being something that obviously means nothing to you.
The only reason I bother commenting is that some people haven't been able to see you for who you are yet. Media needs to clean up it's act and weed-out people the likes of you. Reporters of your type do nothing more than cause further controversy, something this country is hardly in need of.
Comment: #18
Posted by: cawobeth
Mon Apr 2, 2012 9:52 PM
I am absolutely stunned at the title and first two sentences of this article. The level of Ms. Dimond's hypocrisy just astounds me. Is she seriously attempting to rewrite history, or is there an element of delusion here? She is THEE tabloid queen of the 1990's and 2000's. She made her living distorting facts and making up complete lies. She constantly refers to herself as a "journalist" even though she has never completed any accredited journalism school or program in her life.
The interview outlined in a previous comment is not her only fabrication. Around the same time, she called in on Larry King Live and claimed that she knew of love letters from Mr. Jackson to a boy. Mr. King, an actual journalist, made her look ridiculous by getting her to admit she never read any such letters and only knew of them through some mysterious source. Like the tape, the letters never materialized. She is acutely aware that once something is said in the media, people tend to believe it, true or not.
Ms. Dimond's lies and sensationalistic tabloid practices insult the very intelligence of the American public because she arrogantly believes that people are so stupid they will buy what she sells hook, line and sinker. She knows that people have short memories and will forget her past unethical behavior. This article is just another example.
Sorry Ms. Diamond. This is not the 1990's nor 2005. Viewers and readers have wised up, and no matter how many articles you write championing journalistic integrity, you will never be able to gloss over your unscrupulous tabloid antics. However, you can atone for your behavior by acknowledging your past misdeeds and apologizing for them. When you hold yourself accountable and seriously apologize, intelligent people may begin to take you seriously.
Comment: #19
Posted by: VeteranTeacher
Mon Apr 2, 2012 10:14 PM
Re: Bloom Hilda

It's obvious you're watching everything Diane lies about. She got you, and you believe all her lies because she expresses her own opininons with such personal feelings, it shows she's not a real journalist.

An objective journalist should report facts and facts only without referencing her own feelings and opinions.
Every respectable jounalist reports objecively.
Diane does not have one objective bone in her body, and by wathcing her report on any story it's quite obvious she has her own agenda in every story.

That's not journalism. So what you're reading and watching my dear is tabloid junk and nothing more.
Diane Dimond has connections and deals in every story, getting her own benefits for writing what she's paid for.
That was quite clear to me when Michael Jackson trial was on. She approached Tom Sneddon (who was a prosecutor at the trial), and made herself cosy and frendly with him. There is a footage of their meeting, where both of them are quite clearly making a deal. Funny how she didn't do the same thing with the defence team.
Lies sell, and she knows it.

Lies sell and you buy them.

Comment: #20
Posted by: Mirela Saban
Mon Apr 2, 2012 11:04 PM
Diane diamond will never tell the truth let because they see. She was from the outset against Michael Jackson why whatever.
Why now the truth say or have come to understand? No is a reporter and always on sensations out there take it not with the truth as accurately.... She will be only recognition and best reporter.
There is no such thing as a Pulitzer Prize?
With the story of Michael Jackson on this price was - so a person to bring pillory - that would be something - increases the edition of your newspaper and it should be true then she uncovered it and would get the Pulitzer Prize for this perhaps.
What it but does to the people who it concerns thus, not interested in it...
Why should you speak precisely now of 2 pages of a story?
Michael Jackson's story had 2 pages - why has it afterwards, or about not looking for and spoken?
Diana diamond go to hell-- no I don't want her this - I have only pity with you!
Comment: #21
Posted by: ThunderballM
Mon Apr 2, 2012 11:49 PM
there's the pot calling the kettle black! from Italy...we know you, yes!
Comment: #22
Posted by: Michela
Mon Apr 2, 2012 11:52 PM
"There are two sides to every story. So, why do the media sometimes run whole-hogged with the most sensational version of events, and why do we eat it up like candy?"
Ms. Dimond, how can you possibly ask this question without realizing that you have been part of it all? You have been a perpetrator in media bullying. Mr. Michael Jackson was relentlessly and mercilessly bullied by YOU and others like you all his life. It is tragic and shameful what you did to him. I cannot respect you as a journalist or believe a word that you write. The power that people like you have over the everyday consumer is very scary. If you really believe that journalism must be cleaned up and set right and forced to follow a set of ethical rules, than start with yourself, "The (Wo)man in the Mirror"!
Comment: #23
Posted by: marcieannie
Tue Apr 3, 2012 4:01 AM
I cannot believe that Diane Dimond has found herself a spot to post her uneducated and completely biased opinions on this website ( - a syndicate for talent - really????). How are Diane's thoughts on any legal situation even relevant, given her history of smearing Michael Jackson's reputation without regard to the facts of the case? She herself engaged in the very behavior she supposedly deplores in this article, and if I may say, has continued down her favorite path of skewing information to serve her own purposes. She is desperate for media attention, and the only way she can get it is by blabbing about things she knows nothing about. For her to perpetuate Gavin and Janet Arvizo's version of events during Michael Jackson's trial without recognizing how inconsistent and ludicrous they were was beyond unprofessional - it was criminal. She and Tom Sneddon carried out the worst example of character assassination against Michael Jackson by perpetuating the accuser's lies with their own.
My personal message to Diane: it is comforting to know that people around the world recognize you for the third rate hack you are - now, if only the owners of "" would get the message. You do not have the credibility to contribute to any type of opinon column in any format - print or online!
Comment: #24
Posted by: Patiencejo
Tue Apr 3, 2012 6:35 AM
This is precisely what is so wrong with the media reporting of today. Does anyone honestly think that Diane Dimond has one ounce of remorse for her part in misreporting and outright lying regarding Jackson? No, she lives in denial feeling fully justified in her actions because it gave her a little fame and I'm sure fortune. If anyone dare call her on it then they are immediately mocked by her as being a "rabid" fan. One does not even have to be a fan of Jackson to spot her unethical and slimy reporting. She then has the nerve to write something such as this knowing full well she is a guilty of what she is stating in her piece as the ones she is writing about (and this is not the first time she's written a hypocritical piece on media reporting). People need to truly wake up and realize that 99% of what is put out there by the media is all opinion based and no longer are journalists held to any type of standard (I hate to put her even in a category with other journalists even though she calls herself one) in reporting anything.
Comment: #25
Posted by: juliusm
Tue Apr 3, 2012 6:43 AM
Ms. Dimond, are you the pot or kettle? Is this article an attempt at some self-introspection? I would like to think so, but spending years as this nation's tabloid queen has blinded you from seeing how you played a major role in the sensationalism in the media over the years. Your tabloid career has also fooled you into thinking you're a real journalist, but that's probably for self-preservation. Who wants to spend more than half their life as tabloid trash peddler when their childhood dream was to be a real journalist reporting stories with integrity that impact society in a meaningful way? Christiane Amanpour and others like her achieved their dreams and I'm sorry you didn't achieve yours.
As a reporter you are not expected to claim a person's innocence, but you are expected to write stories that are not tainted with bias and conjecture and above all you are NOT to have personal relationships with the people involved. How is your good friend, Sneddon, doing by the way?
Comment: #26
Posted by: Daisy
Tue Apr 3, 2012 6:46 AM
Re: Bloom Hilda - you are also what's wrong with the world today. You don't have the ability to think for yourself, but you would rather take the lazy route and listen to what Dimond says even though she has not spoken the truth. Do a little research and quit making this democrat v. republican. Is should be right v. wrong. What was done to this young man was wrong and what was done to Jackson by people like Dimond was wrong too. Also, for heaven's sake quit lumping OJ in with Jackson when the two cases are nothing alike whatsoever.
Comment: #27
Posted by: juliusm
Tue Apr 3, 2012 6:46 AM
Getting the facts first? Wow, Ms. Dimond writes about how to get the facts first? I can't believe it. What about getting the facts first in some of her own reports in the past? Did she forget how she made up this story together with Victor Gutierrez in 1995 about an alleged video of Mr. Jackson molesting his nephew? She never saw this video, she was sued by Mr. Jackson for slander, who won the case, and it was proven in court and confirmed by Judge Reginald Dunn as well as the mother of the boy, that this video never existed, yet Ms. Dimond reported it as a fact.
Did she forget how she reported also in 1995 about another boy in Canada who according to her was molested by Mr. Jackson , and when she travelled to Canada it turned out as a fake and she had to admit it on TV? And the man who incited the boy to accuse Mr. Jackson was arrested?
Did she forget how she told on the Larry King show on Nov. 24, 2003, that she knows for sure about "love letters" Mr. Jackson allegedly wrote to his accuser, but had to admit that she never saw them? Yet she told she knows about them from her "secret sources", but when DA Tom Sneddon was asked he admitted there were no "love letters".
Did she forget how she told that she is 99.9% sure that Jordie Chandler will testify before the Grand Jury, but Jordie Chandler never testified because he didn't want to?
Did she forget her many claims and allegations against Mr. Michael Jackson which she never could prove? Where are the facts in all her sensational allegations of which she made a living?
And she seriously writes a sentence like: "So, why do the media sometimes run whole hogged with the most sensational version of events, and why do we eat it up like candy?" You should answer this question yourself, Miss Dimond. You should admit your own tactics of sensationalized, biased and nonfactual reporting!
This is schizophrenic, Miss Dimond!
Comment: #28
Posted by: Suba
Tue Apr 3, 2012 7:13 AM
Getting the facts first? Wow, Ms. Dimond writes about how to get the facts first? I can't believe it. What about getting the facts first in some of her own reports in the past? Did she forget how she made up this story together with Victor Gutierrez in 1995 about an alleged video of Mr. Jackson molesting his nephew? She never saw this video, she was sued by Mr. Jackson for slander, who won the case, and it was proven in court and confirmed by Judge Reginald Dunn as well as the mother of the boy, that this video never existed, yet Ms. Dimond reported it as a fact.
Did she forget how she reported also in 1995 about another boy in Canada who according to her was molested by Mr. Jackson , and when she travelled to Canada it turned out as a fake and she had to admit it on TV? And the man who incited the boy to accuse Mr. Jackson was arrested?
Did she forget how she told on the Larry King show on Nov. 24, 2003, that she knows for sure about "love letters" Mr. Jackson allegedly wrote to his accuser, but had to admit that she never saw them? Yet she told she knows about them from her "secret sources", but when DA Tom Sneddon was asked he admitted there were no "love letters".
Did she forget how she told that she is 99.9% sure that Jordie Chandler will testify before the Grand Jury, but Jordie Chandler never testified because he didn't want to?
Did she forget her many claims and allegations against Mr. Michael Jackson which she never could prove? Where are the facts in all her sensational allegations of whom she made a living?
And she seriously writes a sentence like: "So, why do the media sometimes run whole hogged with the most sensational version of events, and why do we eat it up like candy?" You should answer this question yourself, Miss Dimond. You should admit your own tactics of sensationalized, biased and nonfactual reporting!
This is schizophrenic, Miss Dimond!
Comment: #29
Posted by: Suba
Tue Apr 3, 2012 7:31 AM
I hardly can believe my eyes reading this! Miss Diane Dimond dares to speak of facts as being important? Isn't that hypocrisy at its best? Obviously Miss Dimond forgot that she didn't get the facts first in some of her own reports in the past!
Obviously Miss Dimond forgot how she made up this story together with Victor Gutierrez in 1995 about an alleged video of Mr. Jackson molesting his nephew. She never saw this video, she was sued by Mr. Jackson for slander, who won the case, and it was proven in court and confirmed by Judge Reginald Dunn as well as the mother of the boy, that this video never existed. Yet Miss Dimond reported it as a fact.
Obviously Miss Dimond forgot how she reported also in 1995 about another boy in Canada who according to her was molested by Mr. Jackson, and when she travelled to Canada it turned out as a fake and she had to admit it on TV! And the man who incited the boy to accuse Mr. Jackson was arrested!
Obviously Miss Dimond forgot how she told on the Larry King show on Nov. 24, 2003, that she knew for sure about "love letters" Mr. Jackson allegedly wrote to his accuser, but had to admit that she never saw them! Yet she told she knew about them from her "secret sources", but when DA Tom Sneddon was asked he admitted there were no "love letters".
Obviously Miss Dimond forgot how she told that she was 99.9% sure that Jordie Chandler would testify before the Grand Jury, but Jordie Chandler never testified because he didn't want to!
Obviously Miss Dimond forgot her many claims and allegations against Mr. Michael Jackson which she never could prove! Where are the facts in all her sensational allegations of whom she made a living?
We didn't forget what Miss Diane Dimond did, and she first should take a long look in the mirror before she dares posing the question "why do the media sometimes run whole hogged with the most sensational version of events?"
In fact she could give the best possible answer to that question herself!
Comment: #30
Posted by: Christine Wijgerse
Tue Apr 3, 2012 8:11 AM
This article is hysterical. Is Diane Dimond a comedian now? Is she making fun of herself - at last? The previous commentors hit it right on the head -Ms Dimond is speaking like some holier than thou reporter when in fact she doesn't care one iota for the truth, the facts or anything else resembling honest reporting. She and her "pal" Sneddon had a vendetta against Mr Jackson and attacked him with a vengence unlike this world has never seen. An innocent man (which was proven in court) was put through the ringer for nothing other than Dimond's and Sneddon's gain. How they live with themselves and what they have done is beyond all comprehension. This article made me physically ill and so does Ms Dimond. I sure hope she doesn't have kids. I am surprised she has a husband.
Comment: #31
Posted by: Lady J
Tue Apr 3, 2012 8:22 AM
How can you pontificate when you were guilty numerous times of the very thing you speak of in your article? You were relentless when it came to Mr. Michael Jackson and running with unfounded rumor and innuendo to spike your ratings on television. I would have so much more respect for this article and you had you addressed your own shortcomings. Have you changed or is this just another way to jump on the bandwagon of trying to appear caring and concerned for a 'hot topic' tragedy that is everywhere in the media??

Shame on you...some of us have not forgotten your unfair and painfully damaging treatment of Mr. Jackson. Your treatment of him, along with others of your kind in the media were killing him before any propofol.
Comment: #32
Posted by: mre
Tue Apr 3, 2012 8:24 AM
Wow Ms. Dimond you've got some nerve calling out the media with your hypocritical nonsense. Just where do you get off saying that the Trayvon Martin case is going whole hog without any facts to support its findings??!!!! Are you serious??!!!! You seriously need to shut your big mouth because you don't know what you are talking about. I remember not too long ago that it was YOU who pulled the exact same garbage on Michael Jackson. So YOU don't have any grounds to say ANYTHING about the Trayvon Martin case. YOU are the one who needs to get YOUR facts straight because YOU are the one who knows NOTHING about this case PERIOD. Maybe YOU are the one who needs to take a step back and look at the facts first before YOU decide to shoot off YOUR big mouth.
Comment: #33
Posted by: Sue Lifton
Tue Apr 3, 2012 8:27 AM
"This is not the way our justice system works. It should be slow, deliberate and fair to everyone involved. There are always two sides to every story." Wow! Amazing! DD, when did you acquire this new belief? It obviously has not been your philosophy until now, based on the vile reporting you've done in the past. Have you changed your ways? Have you decided to become a "fair and impartial" purveyor of the truth? Odd, I haven't seen any statements by you to that effect. Please enlighten us so that we might give you the benefit of the doubt. If indeed you've decided to become a true journalist (in the broadest sense of the word), you certainly owe many, many people many apologies for all the one-sided articles you've written in a reckless, defamatory style that you've become infamous for. We're all waiting for your admission of guilt, apologies and vow of integrity. Until then, you have no credibility.
Comment: #34
Posted by: Anna Wirt
Tue Apr 3, 2012 9:06 AM
By now truly I am NOT surprised at anything Diane Dimond says or writes BUT totally disgusted at her apparent ignorance at her own hypocrisy when it comes to an article such as this! The irony of the tone of this piece is simply STAGGERING! After all her skewed biased tabloid journalist style 'perspective' over the years regarding Mr Michael Jackson which served to humiliate and break a decent, good, kind and caring man; her audacity is infuriating; frustrating and totally sickening!

Pot calling the kettle black or what!!! Ms Dimond; don't label us "crazy fans"! We've just had more than enough of you trying to be "Little Miss Perfect" when you're CLEARLY anything BUT! Don't put forth biased, two faced statements and lies about Michael Jackson; write articles such as the above and THEN say "poor little me" because, according to my comments and all other above, you're riled up more than enough people to know that you, if you were to truly look in the mirror, the LAST thing you could ever possibly claim is to be worthy of any kind of pity!!!
Comment: #35
Posted by: Sue Adams
Tue Apr 3, 2012 11:06 AM
I find this a very interesting article coming from you Ms. Dimond since, as you so eloquently put it, "There are two sides to every story. So, why do the media sometimes run whole-hogged with the most sensational version of events, and why do we eat it up like candy? I remember not so long ago you being part of this same gutter media that aired "stories" with no concrete evidence and ran with your own version of events regarding Michael Jackson an INNOCENT man. The "book" you wrote and sold to people who were naive enough to "eat it up like candy" are the same people buying into this piece you have the audacity to write. We are trying to stop what is happening to Trayvon Martin, Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston and others who were and are constantly being defamed in life and death and you Ms. Dimond are the ultimate hypocrite for even attempting to write an article about justice for an innocent victim. You have made your “career” off the late Michael Jackson and now you try to "turn the tides" and make people think you are protecting the integrity of this young boy. Shame on you!. People have not forgotten how you dogged Michael for years and were part of the "cronies" that pushed Michael closer to his grave.
Christina T
Stop Global Airwave Abuse
Comment: #36
Posted by: SGAA
Tue Apr 3, 2012 11:56 AM
"The bottom line to this case and the media's coverage of it is this: None of it feels like it is leading us down the path to true justice. "

How ironic of you, Diane Dimond, to worry about the path to true justice, when it was you and your fellow wolves in the media world who led the public away from that path in 2005, in a feeding frenzy of salacious gossip and bias reporting. Where was your concern for the facts then? Where was your belief in two sides to every story? You, above everyone else, made it perfectly clear that you considered Michael Jackson guilty as charged even before he had been indicted, that you were not interested in the facts and the two sides of his story as you continued to denigrate and demonize him, not just until the day he was acquitted, but even beyond his death 4 years later. So, please, desist from this hypocrisy - “He does not believe that does not live according to his belief.” (Freud)
Comment: #37
Posted by: Dragons Pen
Tue Apr 3, 2012 12:15 PM
I agree with the majority of the above comments. These posters know you too well, Ms Dimond. They have your number, and they've done their research. FBI files, court transcripts, official documents - factually, it's all out there re. the Jackson case. Your own wild and irresponsible sensationalism is a matter of record, and you can't disown it now. Think you can suddenly pretend to have grown a social conscience and we will all conveniently develop collective amnesia about your past behaviour? Pur-lease. If you seek some kind of redemption, then let's see you walk the talk. Correct your past mistakes, admit your misdeeds, and do something to make a difference. If you seriously want anyone to take your words in good faith, then demonstrate good faith yourself by critically reviewing and evaluating your own past articles and wild claims against the kinds of principles you blather on about in this article. Short of that miracle, I for one will continue to regard you as nothing but a self-serving sociopath and compulsive attention-seeker with no conscience and no insight into the inappropriateness of your own behaviour.
Comment: #38
Posted by: MisterSpooky
Tue Apr 3, 2012 1:03 PM
..Seriously , was this an April Fools joke..>
This is the woman who PAID for salacious stories from disgruntled employees,,
misrepresented that there was an incriminating video of Jackson out there
misrepresented there was love letters from Jackson out there..
misrepresented the infamous INSURANCE settlement from the 90s,
misrepresented the testimony to favor her friends in the district atty office during the Michael Jackson trial .....A trial , of which he was completely exonerated, of all those trumped up charges ... made them all look like fools ...
and it goes on and on..
NEVER correcting the misinformation she has put out when proven fictitious,,,
She made her career representing the worst in tabloid reporting..,,,TRULY .the bottom of the barrel..
Now she is supposed to be taking the high ground..
You have to hand it to Diane..She has no scruples what so ever..LOL
Sorry there is WAY too much footage out there of you and your true colors...
Just because you may be at your keyboard in a fake nose and glasses, doesnt mean people cant see you for who you really
Comment: #39
Posted by: Marie Sullivan
Tue Apr 3, 2012 1:27 PM
How much money did you make from selling the documents about Michael's trial in 1993 when Hard Copy were the first to mysteriously get a copy from the DA? Reports were in the tens of thousands of dollars. How much money did you pay people in order to say that they had witnessed sexual abuse on your show? How much did you pay to sell Blanca Francia's photos to The National Enquirer? How much money did you pay to NAMBLA member Victor Gutierrez for getting him to tell you how much he knew about Michael molesting kids, except he managed to get sued by Michael for millions of dollars for those lies - much like you yourself have been, too. How much did Victor Gutierrez admit to paying a child in the Spiniak case in order to say she had been and witnessed sexual abuse, only for her to admit it was a lie? How much did he make from Bashir, Hard Copy, YOUR book who used his as a source, Daily Mail, GQ UK, who all used him as a source, despite these facts? He is your friend and your best source, you should know. How much was he originally going to be paid by Evan Chandler for ghost writing his book? You were friends with them, you should know. How much did Miss Chile USA sue him for when he lied about her having an affair with Paulo Cohelo?

We won't even get into your laughable pathetic branch of journalism where you chased Jason Pfeiffer in order to try and get a story about Klein/demerol/MJ during the Murray trial, except that was dumped 'cause his testimony wasn't relevant to Michael's death, not that relevant testimony has ever been a strong pursuit of yours.

Everyone here knows your name and number, you cannot run and hide anymore. The internet and Michael's death has made the truth raise to the top, and watch you flail around in despair as your lies catch up with you.
Comment: #40
Posted by: Kitty
Tue Apr 3, 2012 1:35 PM
Oh and let's not forget you already had a book deal in January 2005, before Michael Jackson's trial had even begun.

Once again: "How about getting the facts right first"?
Comment: #41
Posted by: Kitty
Tue Apr 3, 2012 1:36 PM
I don't care what race either of them are...the man killed someone and he should have been arrested! As for the rest of your bs, why don't you find something productive to do already instead of being a hypocritical journalist who played a major role in the death of one of the most wonderful and lovable human beings God ever graced us with?! You wrote more crap and made-up stories on Michael than I care to remember! Find a therapist and work through your issues already, before you harm anyone else!!
Comment: #42
Posted by: Lostchild
Tue Apr 3, 2012 1:39 PM
Two words Ms Dimond - Michael Jackson.
And here's another, especially for you- HYPOCRITE!!!
You are a disgrace, not just to journalism but to the human race.
Comment: #43
Posted by: Didi
Tue Apr 3, 2012 1:41 PM
This is really unbelievable! Dimond has no sense of shame at all! I'm not an American and I can tell you that people all over the world know this woman's lack of decency and ethics. I was not surprised when I learned that she is not a journalist, since she never studied journalism. It's so evident. She just can't be one. What surprises us is that the American media continue letting this woman's poison to stain the media. The other comments say it better than I do. But she talks about the way to true justice when that is something that she doesn't even know. How can she say that journalists have to get the facts first when we all know that she always has used lies stating that "her sources" had provided her with that information? Her sources? We all know where her sources come from: her own prejudiced and evil head. How long have we to stand this hypocrite and unsufferable woman? Get rid of her if you ever want the American journalistic prestige back! And for you Dimond: hell is waiting with open arms for you! And when that happens justice finally will be served.
Comment: #44
Posted by: IGGA
Tue Apr 3, 2012 3:42 PM
I wish Ms Diamond had felt this way seven years ago when she ran with any story trashing Michael Jackson without vetting the story prior to reporting it. Ms Diamon reported totally untrue things about Mr. Jackson and convicted him in the press EXACTLY what she is railing about in this article.

Is Ms Diamond ready to admit her hypocrisy?
Comment: #45
Posted by: Cindy
Tue Apr 3, 2012 4:24 PM
The media running hog wild with only half of the facts and sensationalizing the facts of a story is a technique that was taught by none other than Diane Dimond. When she attempted to cover very bit of false information about Michael Jackson, it was clear she would go to any length to capitalize on lies and assumptions to convict him in the court of public opinion. When she appeared on the Larry King show and declared there were love letters penned by Michael to Gavin, and knew for a fact of their existance, although she NEVER saw them ,what was she doing? When she stated on her radio show that there was a video tape of Michael molesting one of his nephews, NEVER having seen it, where were her efforts to check the facts? When Michael sued her over her lies about this video what did she do? She ran to her buddy Tom Sneddon to get a letter to say she was not responsible to attempting to destroy his good name, she was misled by a 'source'. When Diane appears on televison and gives only partial truths about Michael Jackson it places him in a very negative light for which Diane has prospered greatly. To hear her down-grade and belittle her fellow 'journalists' is a joke and insulting to the public in general. Diane, don't pertend to be surprised at the way news is reported, after all your career is the blueprint for journalstic hacking and false, careless and dishonest reporting.
Comment: #46
Posted by: A Taylor
Tue Apr 3, 2012 4:54 PM
Am I reading this correctly? Diane Dimond writes: HOW ABOUT GETTING THE FACTS FIRST? You've got to be kidding me. I almost read the article, and then I saw the author's name. She has proven her lack of credibility over and over. This woman lives by a tenet of spouting non-facts so this article not only didn't get my read, it angered me. This was my first time ever viewing this website. I think it's pretty safe to say it's also the last.
Comment: #47
Posted by: Shejeawil
Tue Apr 3, 2012 5:27 PM
Re: Bloom Hilda Michael Jackson was acquitted because there was no evidence to convict him. In order to believe he was guilty you have to believe;
1. He knew the "victim" for two years but didn't molest him until after the Bashir trash documentary was aired and the world's attention was once again focused on him and Neverland.
2. The "victim" had originally said the molestation took place before the documentary aired, but Jackson came up with a tape made after the documentary of the victim and his family praising Jackson and calling him a father figure.
So, the DA allowed the "victim" and his family to change the dates they said the molestation took place because he really believed the "victim" had forgotten the dates. It had nothing to do with the video tape Jackson found - wink, wink.
3. You have to believe the "victim's" mother brought the kids back to Neverland even after she thought Jackson was "molesting" her children.
4. You have to believe that despite the locks and alarms on Jackson's bedroom door, he left the door unlocked and ignored the alarms going off - not once but twice - so the "victims' brother could walk in and see Jackson molesting his brother.
5. Then you have to figure out a way to explain why what the brother said he saw didn't match what the "victim" said happened.
6. There is more but you need to read the trial transcripts for yourself, it's all in there including the above.
But of course you see it everyday and know it all because you've read Diane Dimond's trash not the trial transcripts.
Comment: #48
Posted by: Tom Watson
Tue Apr 3, 2012 5:29 PM
“There are two sides to every story. So, why do the media sometimes run whole-hogged with the most sensational version of events, and why do we eat it up like candy?”
Ms. Diamond, you make this statement as if you are one of us--the public that has grown weary of the increasingly tabloidish media attempt to distract critical minds from facts by tossing out handfuls of fallacious candy. Do not separate yourself from the drove . You do not stand with us, the beleaguered public. Frankly, we've had enough. However, you, and the tabloid media of which you are a part (not journalists by the way), are the problem. If memory serves, you may take credit for being one of the originators of reporting without getting the facts, any facts at all--either first or ever. Do you think the public has become so comatose from “eating up” biased and unverified stories that we would no longer recognize you? We know you as one who made her career by throwing the stones at innocent victims. Judging from this piece, we might think that you now prefer to hide your guilty hand. Your reputation precedes you and this attempted makeover on your part fails. We have the "before" pictures. Did you happen to check the facts when you were scooping the forthcoming arrest of Michael Jackson to CBS? For those of us who weren't around back then, YouTube will bear witness to the fact of your appearance there. You carry your "Hard Copy" background like a badge into every project. The description sometimes attributed to Mr. Zimmerman (rightfully or wrongfully) as being a “want to be“--aptly applies to your unsubstantiated claims of being a journalist.
Even in this essay, your argument in favor of facts rings false. Beyond your opening statement, this is not a plea for everyone to hold judgment in abeyance pending the outcome of thorough investigations. Did you think we would not notice the bait and switch? Your call for the facts belies your true purpose of painting the grieving parents of this murdered child and their supporters as media manipulators who are at fault for demanding the thorough investigation that should have been timely done when this incident occurred--not a month or more after the fact.
One thing for certain, you are right to admit that you do not know the truth of what happened that night--at this point in time, no one does. We will never hear the other side of the story because only two people were present and Trayvon Martin is now dead, silenced forever. Nonetheless, you have already proven to the public, in the past and by what you have written here, that if the truth were to be known, you would be absolutely incapable of delivering it..
Comment: #49
Posted by: P. Johns
Tue Apr 3, 2012 6:01 PM
I think the first reporter to call anything a person must have absolute integrity to cause a favorable impact on the public, I think it should be an honest and informed 100% of what is passing and should be a professional, as this pseudoperista not meet any of the three points mentioned above, I see that now wants to sell an idea forged his career in the media. Who may not remember the abuse lies mercilessly, falsehood always deal with Michael Jackson and his private life, does not remember what it was always ruin Michael Jackson or is that now is not the fault let live and is trying to wash your hands and pretend that nothing had happened? T his woman is evil, malicious, hypocritical and has nothing to do in the media IS EVIL and must pay for it, I hope very soon.
Comment: #50
Posted by: PATRICIA
Tue Apr 3, 2012 6:29 PM
Whatever you Say, whatever you do, the story of Michael Jackson can not be rewritten.
It's too late. Michael was destroyed by the media. You were part of the destruction of MICHAEL JACKSON. Michael could not keep dreaming. You are guilty of it, you have direct relation of the Michael ´s destruction. Ms. DIAMON YOUR weapon was never the truth, your weapon ever was the lied, the persecution, of Michael. You was and will be part of tabloid journalism. You are a lier and hypocritical.
You chose Michael Jackson, you lied about him, you DESTROYED MICHAEL by rating, by money. You area HYPOCRITAL!
There are two sides: the true, the money YOU CHOOSE THE MONEY.
Comment: #51
Posted by: Marcela
Tue Apr 3, 2012 7:33 PM
Whatever you Say, whatever you do, the story of Michael Jackson can not be rewritten.
It's too late. Michael was destroyed by the media. You were part of the destruction of MICHAEL JACKSON. Michael could not keep dreaming. You are guilty of it, you have direct relation of the Michael ´s destruction. Ms. DIAMON YOUR weapon was never the truth, your weapon ever was the lied, the persecution, of Michael. You was and will be part of tabloid journalism. You are a lier and hypocritical.
You chose Michael Jackson, you lied about him, you DESTROYED MICHAEL by rating, by money. You area HYPOCRITAL!
There are two sides: the true, the money YOU CHOOSE THE MONEY.
Comment: #52
Posted by: Marcela
Tue Apr 3, 2012 7:36 PM
I am awe struck by the topic this author has written on considering she committed journalistic malpractice with her constant misrepresentations of Michael Jackson. Talk about hypocrisy! It is writers like this woman that made me want to leave the profession.
Comment: #53
Posted by: Marci
Tue Apr 3, 2012 7:44 PM
Kitty, I thought - after reading over 30 books about Michael Jackson since his death - that I had heard it all but I am stunned by some of the information you present here. I wish I knew how to reach you to not only discuss your sources but also to give you a huge hug for your passion and courage in standing up for Michael-WITH FACTS-against this vicious purveyor of hate that nearly ruined his life.
Comment: #54
Posted by: corlista
Tue Apr 3, 2012 7:51 PM
Bravo, Christine, bravo. Dimond is now drowning in her own salacious bile. She's been outed. This time, we all knew, would ultimately come. No one listens to her or cares about her anymore. She is reaping what she sewed...
Comment: #55
Posted by: corlista
Tue Apr 3, 2012 8:02 PM
HOW ABOUT GETTING THE FACTS FIRST??????? Seriously you are parasite in black and white. When did you ever get THE FACTS FIRST concerning MIchel Jackson? You have spent your life trying to destroy him without EVER getting any facts first!! You hypocrite! You are a disgrace to humanity.
Comment: #56
Posted by: Lou Ann
Tue Apr 3, 2012 8:11 PM
Diamond you aren't worth the trouble to respond to with a long post, and others have already done so. I just want to say that I consider you without integrity and would encourage anyone not to consider you a responsible journalist. In fact you are a joke.
Comment: #57
Posted by: John Parton
Tue Apr 3, 2012 8:51 PM
Ms. Dimond, back when accepted your crown for "tabloid queen," we did not have the type of internet and social media outlets that we do today. However, now that we do, there is so much information out there that expose all of your antics during the decades of the 90's and 00's. Now, it is very hard to hide your past misdeeds and immoral acts. Everything you have done Ms. Dimond has been recorded and published for the world to see. You can not gloss over pretend that none of it happened.
What is the warning given when posting something to the internet? They say that the postings will be in cyberspace forever, and some day they may come back to haunt you. Well DD your past is out there and has come back to haunt you. You can lie and write as many indignant articles as you wish but there are millions of people who know better. Bet you didn't think all your garbage "reporting" and paycheck journalistic tactics would be exposed even in 2012, did you?
To quote a magnificent humanitarian and talent, "Your cameras can't control the minds of those who know." Well neither can your pen, or your keyboard, Ms. Dimond. Karma is a beyotch...isn't it!
Apparently my post is #53. Bravo for getting this much attention. Too bad is is 99.9% negative and calls you out on your unscrupulous past.
Comment: #58
Posted by: J. Greenwood
Tue Apr 3, 2012 9:00 PM
Correction, my post is #58 not #53. Five more people expressed their outrage as I replied.
Comment: #59
Posted by: J. Greenwood
Tue Apr 3, 2012 9:01 PM
Diane Diamond I am astounded at your hypocrisy.
Quote "There are two sides to every story. So, why do the media sometimes run whole-hogged with the most sensational version of events, and why do we eat it up like candy?" Unquote.
Instead of asking this question YOU should be answering it, given that you are one of the main offenders regarding this type of sensationalistic tabloid "journalism". In your arrogance maybe you think that people have forgotten your despicable treatment of Mr Michael Jackson, your total disregard for the truth and the other side of the story when it suited you.
Put your hand on your heart Ms Diamond,if you have one, and examine your conscience, do you like what you see?
Comment: #60
Posted by: Heather laidlaw
Tue Apr 3, 2012 10:44 PM
That title of yours, it's about time you head to it and GO GET SOME FACTS FIRST. Though you do have a talent after all: that of twisting stories to your own personal biased delusion so much that no one believes a word of it!
And Cheers to everyone who agreed to this and responded to her.
Go learn Journalism before writing nonsense
Comment: #61
Posted by: Shadow
Tue Apr 3, 2012 10:52 PM
So Demon how does that Karma feel?
everybody knows what a lying hack you are,
I couldn't have said it better than all the commenter s except for Bloom Hilda,
that's probably the Demon kissing her own ass,
she has no one to blame for her Karma than her own lying ass
and now everybody knows how she is
it's time for her to hang up her "poison pen"
Comment: #62
Posted by: mjlover4life
Wed Apr 4, 2012 1:08 AM
Since I'm blocked at the other site where this article appears, I'll post here.
Ma'am: I've always entertained the thought of a discussion between you and Tom Mesereau about 'that case'. A man of integrity, honesty and intelligence; a man who knew his client perhaps better than anyone ever could or would....vs. Alas, that will never happen because your exposure would be glaringly evident and your
career based on sensationalistic mumbo jumbo would be over. Too Bad.
Comment: #63
Posted by: Layne
Wed Apr 4, 2012 5:12 AM
Hello. In response to your article, I do hope that Diane Diamond really did embrace the Gospel as you mentioned. This is all the more reason that she really needs to make a public apology to Michael Jackson and to his family. Yes, she is forgiven by God but because she assassinated Michael's character pubicly, she also needs to admit her wrong to Michael
publicly! She did so much damage to Michael and to Michael's cause that a public apology is the least she can do. Nothing
that she does now can unravel her great injustice to Michael, but at least it will cause the listeners and readers to re-think
their opinion of the real Michael. And this can lead to the respect and honor that Michael is so deserving of! Thank you for a chance to express my sentiments. God bless you for all you do in this just cause for and on behalf of Michael Jackson!
Comment: #64
Posted by: Mattie Ramos
Wed Apr 4, 2012 6:06 AM
Diane Diamond you are such a two-faced, racist hypocrite! You have invented false facts and presented them as truth about MICHAEL JACKSON for years and now that you have taken up George Zimmerman's cause you have the nerve to talk about presenting two sides? You should be ashamed to present yourself publically in a journalistic manner period. I'm not surprised at all that you would defend Zimmerman. You and Zimmerman are both vigilantes who have MURDERED innocent black males!
Comment: #65
Posted by: Vee
Wed Apr 4, 2012 6:59 AM
The sad fact is : we all read this piece of no value written by DD, and even feel the need to comment (from Belgium). Mrs Dimond, as long as you don't admit in public you were not treating Mr. Jackson in a fair way, your work has no meaning, your articles will not been taken seriously, as you will already have noticed from the comments. Aphrodite Jones admits she only after the trial of Mr. Jackson, realized the media and the DA wanted Mr. Jackson guilty, but he really was innocent. She investigated and read everything again, and she changed her mind. She knew she was wrong, and admitted it in public. But you, Mrs. Dimond, you still have to admit you were wrong, otherwise, nobody will ever take you or your articles seriously. Only then people will acknowledge you as a "journalisgt". Or did you have an "agenda" when writing about Mr. Jackson ???? That could explain why you never said you were wrong. We are waiting.......
Comment: #66
Posted by: Greet Boete
Wed Apr 4, 2012 11:39 AM
Reading through these comments I see that there is only one person who fell for your act Diane. It's clear that this person has never researched the Jackson case for herself and is just parroting what you and other media sensationalists have told her to. The thing is, everything you said about Jackson over the years is on public record, and if a person goes through what you said and compares it to the actual evidence it's very clear that you were not honest about it. This is a fact that you can no longer deny, you have contradicted yourself many times, and it's all out in the open for everyone to see. You can no longer pretend that you were honest and objective in Jackson's case, and you certainly aren't going to fool any educated person into thinking that you are fair in any way, it's clear that you take a position on cases based on where it will get you personally, it has nothing to do with the facts.

I've seen many people say they hope that you will one day admit to your dishonesty, but I don't think it will happen, you spent too many years lying and building your career on those lies, you wouldn't be where you are today without them. If you were to admit you were lying it would result in you losing your career which you are clearly not prepared to lose. The thing is, the amount of information that is out there about the things you have said and the information that proves it wrong can't be hidden or denied any longer, and more people are becoming aware of it as time goes on. As much as it would pain you I wish you would admit to and apologise for your mistakes. At least that way you could go down in history as a woman who did the wrong thing but chose to do the right thing in the end, but I suspect that instead you will go out of your career kicking and screaming and still trying to deny the truth, and there won't be any dignity in it.

You can only continue this charade for so long before your lies will be common knowledge, this is well on the way to happening and it can't be stopped. For the sake of yourself and your family, please do the right thing.
Comment: #67
Posted by: Tahlia H
Wed Apr 4, 2012 3:26 PM
DD please! Stop insulting our intelligence and trying to hide behind the cloak of journalistic integrity and human decency when you have none. The fact is that you are nothing but a lying dog of a so-called reporter that will say and do anything for money and the opportunity to advance yourself. Your vicious slander and malicious stalking of Michael Joseph Jackson is public record and will haunt you for the rest of your miserable life. You need to realize that you can't go around destroying people's lives and expect to get away with it without consequences. What you did will not be forgotten.
Comment: #68
Posted by: Sunny
Wed Apr 4, 2012 6:32 PM
Getting the Facts First????????????? From Diane Dimond???? Is this some kind of bad joke??? really Diane??? really???
I just will say you hypocresy shocks me and I feel insulted by this whole articule. Shame on you!
Comment: #69
Posted by: Tania
Wed Apr 4, 2012 11:19 PM
Wow. I almost don't feel the need to comment after reading all the prior comments. But Ms Dimond, you certainly have earned it. After all, you've spent decades defining the kind of sensationalism and disregard for truth that you now denounce with such feigned disgust. I especially like your use of the term "bigmouths", now that nobody is listening to your big mouth anymore.
Apparently the game is changing. The type of "journalism" you practiced over the last 20 years worked well for you then. YOU. Never mind at whose expense. For the sake of YOUR ratings and YOUR bankbook, you were perfectly comfortable reporting unsubstantiated gossip and outright lies about Michael Jackson, helping your friend, D.A. Sneddon, attempt to send him to prison, with no apparent recognition that his innocence was even a possibility (a thought that would only occur if you were to see him as a HUMAN BEING, and not just a story on which to capitalize and perpetuate to the next level until you bleed it for all it's worth). You built your career by trying to ruin someone else's. And much to your delight, people "ate it like candy" (separate problem). But these days just about everyone has found their way to the internet and so many alternative sources of information!!! Your unscrupulous tactics are blindingly evident when your STORIES are stacked up next to the FACTS. The foundation of your career is crumbling very quickly and folks like Broom Hilda are learning to find their own information rather than to count on the likes of you to provide it.
New game, new strategy, right? Your holier-than-thou strategy will fail, because judging by the comments here, your only hope is finding an audience that isn't familiar with your complete lack of integrity, and also judging by the comments here, I am just one of many people ready to help them "get the facts first".
I hope you enjoyed your sprint, Ms. Dimond. The marathon is now underway.
As for Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, I don't think I've ever heard of a situation where a person shoots and kills an unarmed person on the street and doesn't get arrested. Fight or no fight. Bloody nose or not. Being arrested does not make a person guilty and at this point, an arrest wouldn't make him any more (or less) guilty in the court of public opinion anyway. As usual, he has already been judged on too little information. The fact that he wasn't arrested does make me suspicious of the police department and the investigation. And I agree with Broom Hilda that politics does play a part sometimes at some level. But I think I'll find a reliable source and "try getting the facts first".
Comment: #70
Posted by: Tammy M
Thu Apr 5, 2012 4:49 AM
Re: Mags
Excellent comment - agree with everything you said and appreciate all of it....Thank you for supporting Michael...It makes me so angry when people still bring up this garbage when Michael was exonerated completely and when even after his passing, some people (usually those that haven't bothered to educate themselves) post this crap. God Bless you and MJ
Comment: #71
Posted by: Wendy
Thu Apr 5, 2012 10:55 PM

Diane Dimond (DD) also published this article “Instant Justice Isn't Justice In the Trayvon Martin Case” on her website. Diane Dimond cannot control the comments on but she routinely will not allow negative comments on her website. This is an exerpt from a comment on the story on Diane Dimond's website:

“As far as the “loudmouths” being uniformed, hot-headed, and just playing for the cameras. Perhaps you should revisit some of your coverage prior to the OJ Simpson trial.”

The writer of the above comment did not mention Michael Jackson but DD replied:
“Before my OJ Simpson coverage (1994) there were many, many stories I covered. I'm assuming you are referring to my 1993 work on the Michael Jackson, suspected pedophile story. If that is what you were referring to I can only say I stand by my coverage of that case – from 1993 through the criminal trial in 2005. ~ DD”

I replied to DD's comment on 4/3/12:
"Standing by that biased, sensational, unsubstatiated and tabloidistic coverage, are you? Maybe that is why you were even fired from Hard Copy and are relegated to writing on your own website, The Daily Beast, and Hardly career boosting activities."

Though I did not leave my e-mail address on my comment, DD obtained my address through her website's sign-in and sent me the following e-mail.

From: Diane Dimond
Subject: Moron
To: Me

I wasn't fired from Hard Copy! How silly you are! And what you read on my website isn't a blog - its a reprint of a syndicated column I write once a week for Creators syndicate. I also write for Nrewsweek/

What do you do? Sit at home asnd write Moronic emails?

From: Me
To: Diane Dimond

Wow! You seem to be overly sensitive. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. I responded to a blog on your website with a comment. There you control the comments so only compliments come your way. I did not email you. You chose to misuse your power of knowing my email by sending me an email calling me a moron.

I also saw the same blog on where negative comments are allowed. You have a boat load of the truth about you in comments on the site.

Acting unprofessionally by responding in this manner to people who don't agree with you says a lot about you. Are you going to stalk me now? Truth and proof of your poison words are strangers to you. Much of the truth about you is documented and will not go away.

By the way, do you sit home and write hypocritical blogs? You absolutely disgust me with your childish and cowardly response to your detractors.

From: Diane Dimond
To: Me


From: Diane Dimond
To: Me

Whatever you think. You must be right. I must be wrong. Let's just disagree.

Note: I did not respond to either of her last two e-mails.

Comment: #72
Posted by: ChrisB
Fri Apr 6, 2012 5:16 AM
Bravo to ChrisB! Looks like you touched a nerve under that hysterical old witch's wrinkled skin. Good for you. DD is a known coward, a bully and a stalker so I'm not surprised at all that she sent you harassing e-mail and abused her power. She is very sick and extremely unprofessional. DD always operates using back alley, filthy stunts and intimidation. She wants to silence the truth so she can keep standing by her character assassination of an innocent man. The fact that she continues to stand by her despicable slander is confirmation that she has no integrity. DD needs serious psychiatric help and I'm sure she is sitting at her computer reading the comments posted here and having a major melt down. Take your Prozac and calm down D. The truth about you has been exposed so suck it up and deal with it.
Comment: #73
Posted by: Dawn
Fri Apr 6, 2012 7:13 AM
Where are my posts, people? I've posted twice on this article and neither have shown up. Based on the nature of most of the comments here I can't imagine why they would have been vetted. When people take their time to compose a response to something or someone deserving of criticism or "critical thinking", the very least you could do is to post it. Clearly, Creators has brought on board a contributor with questionable ethics and any posts here are justified, whether positive or negative. Of course, with the number of wholly negative comments about Ms. Dimond, it is quite clear the histrionics regarding her work are finally catching up with her. And she speaks of "opportunists"? It's darkly hilarious.
Comment: #74
Posted by: patjobu
Fri Apr 6, 2012 10:28 AM
Thank you for sharing those e-mails. I am not surprised that DD reacted this way. She tends to throw hissy fits when given any sort of criticism or is called out in any way. I am surprised that she is allowed to hack into your e-mail and send you an e-mail calling you names. That is not what a professional journalist does. However, I understand she is merely a tabloid reporter and has never completed any accredited journalism school or program. If she had, she would have had to take a course in journalistic ethics, and therein lies the problem.
I'm confused as to why she brought up Michael Jackson when you clearly did not specify as to what coverage you were referencing. Perhaps she has a guilty conscience about what she did to this man. I am just shocked that would allow her to write pieces for their blog when she is so immature and displays such a lack of integrity.
Comment: #75
Posted by: VeteranTeacher
Fri Apr 6, 2012 2:00 PM
Re: ChrisB

She got you too, didn't she?

she did the same to me a little over 2 years ago, I did the same called her out on all her lies,
I too can't comment on ANY of her blogs and now her FB page.
she can't control this blog I also got her on The Daily Beast where she eventually had all them comments deleted,
she can't delete The Creditors comments I think she can have you not be able to post on here because this is my 4th comment on here and the comments are never posted only one of them.
I hope this one gets posted if so go to "The Creditors The Enigma That Was Michael Jackson".
and check out all my handy work I posted the link them other 2 that didn't get posted I'll try without the link this time hopefully this one will work
Comment: #76
Posted by: mjlover4life
Fri Apr 6, 2012 2:29 PM
"There are two sides to every story. So, why do the media sometimes run whole-hogged with the most sensational version of events, and why do we eat it up like candy?" Are you not part of the media, the very media who run whole hogged with the most sensational version of events. In fact, you did the exact same thing to Michael Jackson. You painted one side of the story, the sensational one and did that for years. You wanted the public to believe Michael Jackson was guilty when the facts proved he was innocent. Diane, not only did you hound this man for a crimes he didn't commit you also attacked him in a personal level. You sat there in front of a camera and claim his children were not his biological children. Why...because at the time it was sensational. Anything to make money or get higher ratings. Why did you not get the facts first in regards to Michael Jackson? Where was this need to be fair and honest? To be ethical and objective in regards to Michael Jackson?
And this bullshit article you wrote. Did you honestly expect anyone to take you serious or take this piece of crap you wrote serious? Did you expect us to forget that anytime you are confronted about your treatment of Michael Jackson you Diana always state you stand by your work. Is funny, how can you stand by your work which is full of lies, unethical behavior, un-objective and then expect us to believe this bullshit you write. Get the facts first...woman until you learn to get the facts first then we can talk.
As for the Trayvon Martin death, if you were a reputable journalist then I'm sure your article will be worthy of reading regardless if we don't share your views. But the fact you are disreputable, unethical and quit frankly a disgusting human being We don't care to hear from you on this topic or any other topic. You sicken me!
Comment: #77
Posted by: chitexas
Fri Apr 6, 2012 9:51 PM
Re: ChrisB:
Thank you for sharing these communications between yourself and Diane Dimond. They reveal much about her character, her lack of professional integrity and her condescending attitude to anyone who disagrees with or disapproves of her method of "journalism". Her direct communication with you borders on hysteria . as she attempts to bully you with name-calling and insults. Your dignified replies put her ridiculous ranting in the shade - well done!
Comment: #78
Posted by: Dragons Pen
Sat Apr 7, 2012 6:16 AM
After a rigorous process through the US justice system, it was revealed that Diane Dimond had after all, ran "whole-hogged with the most sensational version of events" in the Michael Jackson case.

Diane Dimond you spread horrid lies about an exceptional human being.

You said on radio that you were absolutely certain there were tapes, but decades later, there are still no tapes.
Why did you do that? Did it bring you pleasure to hurt Michael Jackson in such a painful way?

Imagine what it felt like for him and his loved ones around the world. He bore such an injustice with no evidence whatsoever from you and all the other lowly liars.
Comment: #79
Posted by: Susan
Sat Apr 7, 2012 3:01 PM
How dare you criticize Rev Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson for standing up and saying George Zimmerman should have been arrested and investigated for killing Trayvon Martin! This is not 1935 and it's no longer legal to attack and kill black men in this country for no reason. Oh wait you did the same thing to Michael Jackson didn't you!
Comment: #80
Posted by: Veronica
Sun Apr 8, 2012 7:33 AM
Dimond SHUT UP! No one cares anything about you. I didn't read this junk you wrote here, never have, or will bother to read any of your crappy writings. I know all the stuff with your name attached is BULLS**T. I only comment because I'm an Michael Jackson advocate. And you are the snake that so pitifully tried to destroy him. A. Sharpton and J.Jackson care more about justice and fairness than you ever could care, respect, or even know about. As for Trayvons' parents, who in the hell are you to them advise, you know nothing about anything them. Fact is you just make up lies to spread. Get Out Of Those Peoples' Lives! Then again they probably feel the same way about you as most everyone else, if they even you of you. You are so creepy!
Comment: #81
Posted by: tober55
Mon Apr 9, 2012 7:11 AM
I just wanted to say that i am very pround to see my fellow Michael Jackson advocates posting here in his defense.
Comment: #82
Posted by: Maria
Mon Apr 9, 2012 11:45 AM
HA! this is priceless. When there is AN Innocent BLACK Man (Michael Jackson) Who didnt do anything except love and see the good in people, He's Accused of Heinous crime and "Ms. Demon" runs away with the story labeling the BLACK Man a child molester. When there is a WHITE Man that KILLED A BLACK Kid, ohhh…there must be a mistake, right? The black kid must have done something wrong to get killed huh?
Well Demon, I will say this to you personally,- You dont have the Knowledge, the brains, the common sense of trying to label people. As for you, ppl. before me have given you a good name, if i do say so my self, and I'd love to continue calling you that… HYPOCRITE!
Comment: #83
Posted by: Rom
Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:22 AM
Dear Diane. I read your article "How About Getting the Facts First?" with big interest. Because I thought that well, maybe, you would take a moment to share with us that you have seen the light. But no, sadly not. It's an article in which you tell others how to act. When at the same time you had no trouble throwing Michael Jackson under the bus. Every sane person that has taken the time to actually look at the evidence in the two cases against Mr. Jackson, knows that there was no merit to any of the accusations made against him. You should have known that, too. And you probably did. But for your own name and fame, you made the conscious decision to disregard the real facts, and chose to play a part in what turned out to be the slow murder of Michael Jackson. How's that for facts?
Comment: #84
Posted by: JaJa
Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:31 AM
Re: Bloom Hilda You realize Tom Sneddon, the guy who went after Michael Jackson, is a Republican District Attorney who follows the 'Conservative Mantra'?
Comment: #85
Posted by: Jonl
Tue Apr 10, 2012 1:00 PM
Diana, was a fake godess for the Ephesians. This name fits perfectly to this Diana here and her last name fits her better still : Dimond (Deamon) That is what she is.
As the Diana of the Ephesians she too will some day be vanished and forgotten. Not what happened to Michael who is still and forever loved and loved and praised and loved by millions of people who truly knew and understood who he really was.
Comment: #86
Posted by: Ivan
Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:53 PM
stop picking on Michael Jackson leave him alone
Comment: #87
Posted by: tina
Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:27 PM
Poor Diana is trying to reinvent herself and make people think she has morals and ethics. What a friggin joke. Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Everyone knows she is nothing but a low-down, stinking third rate hack who publishes junk and tabloid lies for a living. Go away you dumb two-faced old cow and peddle your moral outrage in the tabloid rags were you may be taken seriously.
Comment: #88
Posted by: Mary
Fri Apr 13, 2012 2:16 PM
LMAO at Diane DaMouth trying to sound all morally superior are you serious? Did you bump your head and wake up with amnesia or were you counting on the public not remembering that you are the queen of slanted, slanderous garbage can reporting? Enquiring minds what to know.
Comment: #89
Posted by: Trinity
Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:27 PM
Re: Bloom Hilda
Michael was found Not guilty because the evidence was not there, and unlike the OJ trial the alleged victims were present to testify and the jury did not believe them. The Department of Children's Services had already interviewed the Arizo's and the children and the mother DENIED Micheal ever touched or harmed them. Tom Sneddon knew this when he filed charges and my guess is Diane Diamond also knew this. It helps to have money in any criminal trial if you want a just and fair trail! That is unfortunate but Public Defenders do not have the huge source of funding a Prosecutor has and they often do not have the time to appropriately defend a client, especially against a DA like Sneddon who had a history of lawsuits for malicious prosecution. Michael was the victim in that case! He was NOT Guilty! Diane Diamond seemed to have a vendetta against Michael Jackson ! IMO
Comment: #90
Posted by: Arlene
Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:24 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Diane Dimond
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
David Harsanyi
David HarsanyiUpdated 12 Feb 2016
Suzanne Fields
Suzanne FieldsUpdated 12 Feb 2016
Patrick Buchanan
Pat BuchananUpdated 12 Feb 2016

23 Jul 2010 Keeping the "Most Dangerous" Locked Up Indefinitely

5 Aug 2011 The 'Re-composer' of the Decomposed

31 May 2014 Another Massacre, Another Meaningless Blame Game