Jan 17 2011

A Dossier on Dirty Diane (Dimond) – Part One

Category: JusticeSeven @ 2:16 am


Wrong again. As usual.

Wrong again. As usual.

It’s a wonder that the corporate media consider her a credible source at all much less an expert. But they consider Victor Guiterrez, Martin Bashir, and Schmuley Boteach ‘credible‘ and ‘experts‘ as well, so we can see where they choose to pluck their “Michael Jackson Experts” from: the bottom-feeders in the industry who will readily ignore facts while toeing the “Michael Jackson was a freak, pedophile, gay, drug addict, alcoholic, etc. etc.” line for them.

After all, the lame$tream media cannot – after 25 or more years of lying and creating sensationalized, tabloid trash stories about Michael Jackson for billions in profit – suddenly start telling the truth, can they? What would that do to their “credibility” (not that they collectively have much when it comes Michael). So, they only hire and put forth propagandists to peddle their anti-Jackson memes, whilst ignoring genuinely credible fact-driven journalists such as Charles Thomson or Aphrodite Jones.

At the top of that list is Dirty Diane…Dimond. And of course now that Michael is dead and there are pretrial hearings, and a trial coming up, she is right up front to make herself and her corporate owners lots of money off of the spectacle of putting Michael Jackson on trial. Again. Now, Michael Jackson has not been accused of a crime here. Conrad Murray has. But to listen to the likes of Dirty Diane, we’d never know it.

Below is an exceedingly condescending letter she recently sent to a fan, who questioned her narcissistic “authority” on Michael Jackson.

Dimon's condescending response

Dimon's condescending response

Beyond condescendingly calling all the millions of Michael Jackson fans the world over “die-hard Jackson fans“, as if that were a terribly bad thing, referring to them as “you fans“, and insisting we don’t know the facts as well she she believe she does, Dimond states that we can’t just look at only the autopsy we must take in the whole ‘totality’ of the evidence.

Really? As a matter of fact you can and should rely on an autopsy in determining whether or not someone is an addict, alcoholic or anorexic. It might be more accurate and truthful to rely on medical fact than on the hearsay of disgruntled employees of the deceased, statements from unnamed doctors, statements that Dimond says someone made on Oprah that they clearly did not make, and thoroughly discredited “sworn testimony” from a court case (while failing to mention that said testimony was in fact thoroughly discredited – so much so that the defendant was acquitted), and other tabloid stories that are as baseless as Dimond’s own. Those are the things that makeup that “totality of evidence” that Dirty Diane so desperately clings to while screeching that the autopsy results and cold, hard medical fact are meaningless.

Dirty Diane bases her assertions on the following:

1. Sworn testimony on 2005 trial of MJ’s “addictive personality and his nightly addiction to alcohol.“

2. Staff testified they often kept the children away from him.

3. Two doctors have come out and said he was dangerously addicted.

4. Mother said it too- & also worried for his “anorexic” lifestyle and wanted him to gain weight.

However her assertions are based on only partial fact, hearsay, tabloid stories and even outright lies. Worse, she often refuses to name her sources. If they are unimpeachable then she should have no qualms about naming them. That she does not is very telling.

Let’s more closely examine the basis of Dimond’s assertions about Michael:

1) The ‘sworn testimony‘ she refers to was thoroughly discredited in the courtroom by Tom Mesereau. Sworn testimony in itself means nothing if that testimony was later discredited by the cross examination of Mr.Mesereau, and the majority of the state witnesses were discredited. Most of these people held grudges because MJ had fired them or brought lawsuits against them and won, or wanted to write books about working for him after they were fired. If she wants us to believe this sworn testimony was not discredited, then she should provide names. Trial transcripts are publicly accessible. The fact that she omits the names is a well-known tactic of hers because she knows it is easier to insinuate than present proof or facts.

2) Reading through the transcript we found no such testimony from any staff person regarding keeping the children away from their father. It is possible that we have all missed it, but once again no names are given. No name: no credence. Dimond seems to be referring to the Nanny – Grace Rwaramba. However, Grace herself later said this tabloid story was a lie, see Part Two)

3) DD makes a reference of two medically educated professionals, doctors, stating that he was dangerously addicted but again, doesn’t give names. This time however, she doesn’t seem to say that they testified, which makes their statements, if they even do exist, suspect. Many people tell lies while being interviewed, but it’s a whole different story when you have swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, so help you God — and the veracity of your statement can be challenged in court. Also, several doctors and friends have since his death come forth to say that Michael showed no signs whatsoever of addiction or drug use. We have their names. I suspect Dimond refers to Hoefflin and Klein in this claim of hers. Both lack considerable credibility. Remember Arnie Klein was the dermatologist whose assistant insisted Michael was gay and that the two were having an affair. Klein backed up that claim to TMZ, a tabloid.

4) Katherine said in the Oprah interview that after the Pepsi commercial accident he began to take pain medications for the severe burns that he became addicted to them. Additionally, when Oprah inferred that he died from a drug overdose, Katherine corrected Oprah and said that Michael died of an overdose of Propofol. Katherine Jackson said nothing about being worried about his ‘anorexia’.. or that he needed to gain weight. That is an outright lie. Those videos are all over YouTube. As with the court transcripts, who does Dimond think she’s fooling?


If we’re going to build a dossier on this Corporate Queen of Anti-Jackson Propaganda, we’re certainly not going to stop here

I’m going to cite some other examples of Dirty Diane’s willful ignorance and malfeasance in the service of her corporate taskmasters, her wholly unearned “expert” title, and her parasitic life’s work in destroying Michael Jackson (and now, his memory and legacy). Dirty Diane has a penchant for chasing factually empty stories and touting them to the rooftops as truth, attaching herself to them like a flea, hoping to garner herself a place in front of a camera on ET or The View or today’s equivalent of Court TV or Hard Copy to spread her misinformation. Anything salacious about Michael – and it doesn’t need to be true – is Dirty Diane’s ticket to ride (remember the flea, they get a lot further if they’re attached to a host).

We all know about the 1993 allegations against Michael and that Dirty Diane  and other medialoid mouthpieces insist that Michael settled “because he was guilty“. The detailed facts about that are covered in detail in this piece on MJJ-777. The claim is thoroughly and factually debunked and discredited. Of course we don’t expect Dimond or her fellow media assassins to publish the facts any time soon, so we will disseminate them otherwise.

Lesser-known Dirty Trickery

But, to give a good example of Dirty Diane’s lesser known dirty trickery, let’s discuss one of the other alleged “victims” of Michael, Jason Francia. He is the son of Blanca Francia, who worked as a maid at Neverland until she was fired in 1991 for trying to steal a watch, rifling through MJ’s wallet, and for tardiness. These are the kinds of sources Dimond deems credible:

After the 1993 scandal hit the airwaves, Blanca was courted by Diane Dimond to do an exclusive, “tell-all” interview about her experiences at Neverland. She lied and said that she witnessed MJ showering naked with young boys on a number of occasions, and as a result she “quit in disgust”. She was paid $20k by Hard Copy for her salacious lies, but she was forced to recant them while under deposition by MJ’s defense team.

Blanca admitted she never saw Jackson shower with anyone nor had she seen him naked with boys in his Jacuzzi. They always had their swimming trunks on, she acknowledged.

Diane Dimond stayed in touch with Blanca, and when she decided to pursue a settlement just as Chandler did (after the criminal case was closed in September 1994), Dimond was there to offer her “assistance”. When MJ’s lawyers objected to any form of settlement, Diane Dimond aired a special report about the demands made by Blanca’s lawyers in December 1994 on Hard Copy in order to pressure MJ’s team with negative publicity. Sony, which was about to release MJ’s new “HIStory” album, intervened and compelled his lawyers to settle for a mere $2 million so as not to sabotage their multi-million dollar marketing campaign for “HIStory” with negative publicity, irrespective of the facts. This settlement was not an admission of guilt, but was meant to avoid negative publicity. Period. Those who try to use this as a sign of guilt would have said “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire” if the allegations had gone public. If he had gone to civil court and was acquitted, they would have called it “celebrity justice”, so MJ took Sony’s advice and just chose the lesser of two evils.

This settlement was revealed during a slanderous episode from Dateline NBC.  On September 14th, 2004, Tom Mesereau published a press release explaining why Michael had settled in these two cases (Blanca and Chandler). It read:

Mr. Jackson has been repeatedly advised by those who stood to make fortunes in his business affairs to pay money, rather than face certain false allegations. As a result, many years ago, he did pay money, rather than litigate, two false allegations that he had harmed children. People who intended to earn millions of dollars from his record and music promotions did not want negative publicity from these lawsuits interfering with their profits.

Of course Dimond would insist in this case too that Michael’s settlement meant he was guilty – nevermind the facts. This is the same stance she has taken with the Chandler allegations and subsequent settlement. But as I mentioned, if one simply knows the facts, Dimond’s meme of misinformation is easily discredited.


And yet another empty story Dimond attached herself to follows. She even wrote about this one in her book. Gloria Allred found another “phantom victim” that she thought would force MJ into another civil settlement. His name is Daniel Kapon, and in April 2004 he claimed to have been molested by MJ for several years, beginning in the 1980’s. Not only was he molested, but MJ also forced him to get plastic surgery, held him hostage, and (the most insulting accusation of all) MJ stole his songs that he wrote and used them for his albums!

He allegedly “forgot” about his abuse until “psychologist” and notorious Jackson hater Dr. Carole Lieberman “uncovered” his repressed memories, and notified police. On June 2nd, 2004 the LAPD dropped their criminal investigation like a hot potato once they realized there was no basis to his claims whatsoever.

In fact, Diane Dimond wrote about Daniel Kapon in her book “Be Careful Who You Love”. (She refers to him as “Donny”.) From pages 199-201:

Standing next to the DA at the news conference that day was the newly installed sheriff of Santa Barbara, Jim Anderson. He made a public appeal for anyone with any other complaints against Michael Jackson to call his office. He gave out a special phone number.

Sources at the sheriff’s office revealed that there were literally hundreds of “leads” phoned in that they were obligated to follow up. Calls came in to the district attorney’s office as well. It took countless man-hours to deal with them all. In the end, most if not all of the complaints went nowhere.

One such cold call was from an L.A.-based psychiatrist whose website says she is “recognized as the preeminent authority on the psychology of showbiz and the psychological influence of the media.” On a Sunday in late winter 2003, she telephoned authorities in Santa Barbara and dramatically told them they had to come to her Beverly Hills office immediately, as she had with her an eighteen-year-old boy who was claiming to have been repeatedly molested by Michael Jackson. A pair of law enforcement types quickly took the bait – how could they not check it out?

Once in the doctor’s office, they found a small, scared-looking young man I’ll call “Donny”. His story was not only dramatic but graphic. In a nutshell, he told them over the course of several years, when he was between the ages of ten and fourteen, his father had repeatedly driven him to Neverland Ranch and left him there for days at a time. Jackson, he said, had bought is father a new car to make sure he always had a reliable way to get to Neverland from his suburban L.A. home. At first he and Jackson just had fun at the ranch playing with all the games and riding the amusement park rides. But then over time, he said, Jackson gave him alcohol served in soda cans and drugs that made him “zone out”.

Donny told the investigators it got to the point where he didn’t mind because that way he could be “out of his body and not care what was really happening.” Asked to describe exactly what had happened, he told them about various sex acts, including penetration, that were performed upon him by the star. He claimed his mother had pictures of him with Michael Jackson and close-up photos of bite marks left on various parts of his body, inflicted by the King of Pop.

The Santa Barbara investigators listened intently. And then Donny’s mother entered the room. She was reported as having presented herself as confused and barely believable. She told of being attacked in a parking lot by a Jackson goon with a baseball bat who warned her to keep her mouth shut. She was sure they’d been sent by a private investigator Anthony Pellicano, apparently unaware that Pellicano hadn’t word for Jackson for years. She had no photographs of her son and Jackson to show the authorities, and when asked why it had taken her son so long to come forward with is story, the psychiatrist interjected, “Because this is a case of repressed memory.”

In cop shops across America those two words, “repressed memory,” cause eyes to roll. For the Santa Barbara team listening to the doctor, it was no different. Nonetheless, it was decided that Donny would travel back to Santa Barbara to undergo official forensic interrogation the next day. The U.S. Justice Department offers special training to only a handful of child abuse investigators. It’s an intense course on how best to deal with children who have suffered at the hands of deviant adults. Santa Barbara called in one of those specially equipped people to speak to young Donny, and after several hours it was determined that “there is nothing correct about this….it is bogus.”

The interrogator reported that the young man’s story kept changing. His original claim, that he’d been between ten and fourteen years old at the time of the molestation, switched in mid-interview. No, Donny said, he’s actually been three to seven years of age. Then later he reportedly said the sex abuse occurred when he was fifteen years old. There were other discrepancies, too. But Santa Barbara authorities didn’t leave it there. They traced the mother’s claim of being attacked in the parking lot and found it to be nothing more than an altercation between two neighbors, fighting over some perceived slight. They found the boy’s father and learned much more.

Donny’s dad told investigators he had never met Michael Jackson and certainly had never taken his son to Neverland – ever. He called his ex-wife “a certifiable psycho” who’d actually lost custody of Donny when he was just three years old. The father had raised the boy himself and the mother had no contact with him until his eighteenth birthday. She’d apparently hired a private detective to track down her son at his college and reentered his life.

Donny’s tale was described by insiders as “a tragedy, pure and simple.” A lonely, impressionable boy who so longed for motherly love that he allowed himself to be virtually brainwashed into believing an unstable parent’s incredible story.

Asked later what he thought of the Donny story, Santa Barbara district attorney Thomas Sneddon told me, “The story was pure voodoo. But that poor, poor kid.”

Dirty Diane’s Pattern of Behavior and Astounding Hypocrisy

Are we beginning to see a pattern here in Dirty Diane’s behavior? I think we are. She attaches herself to any story – no matter how false it is, to discredit Michael Jackson. She has made it her life’s work and has built her career upon doing so. She manufactures lies out of thin air, leaves half of the story out of her rants (the half she excludes usually contains very relevant facts such as what the coroner’s report says about his health and death, or that thoroughly discredited “sworn testimony” she likes to refer to while never mentioning that it was thoroughly discredited), and she relies on hearsay from very likely extremely un-credible and unnamed sources as ‘fact‘.

I wrote before about Dirty Diane’s hypocrisy. But let’s look at a that a bit more. Dimond wrote an article about the effect of ‘victim impact statements‘ on their victims. These are statements victims make to their perpetrators. She appeared to understand how difficult it is for actual victims of crimes to recount what happened in order to get justice for what was done to them. Actual crime victims will stop at nothing to get justice for abuse, and she appeared to sympathize with that. However, let’s think a moment about Jordie, Ray and Evan Chandler. These alleged “victims’” lack of cooperation in both 1993 and in 2005 in pressing charges and in testifying against Michael, even going to court to squash their subpoenas to appear – gives lie to their allegations against Michael. Had Jordy/Evan/Ray Chandler truly been a victim of any crime or abuse, they’d have gone through hell or high water to seek justice. But they didn’t. Instead, they vehemently avoided it, which this absolutely it SCREAMS “extortion“. Except – to Dirty Diane Dimond, who continues to insist that Michael was guilty and that Jordy was actually a victim of a crime. This demonstrates astounding hypocrisy on Dimond’s part.

But wait – there’s more hypocrisy from Dirty Diane. And, there’s a truckload of Irony thrown atop it to boot. I wrote about this before but it’s worth sharing again in this dossier. Herein we’ll see another example of Dirty Diane’s condescending arrogant attitude. This time, rather than being aimed at “you die-hard Michael Jackson fans“, it’s aimed at “inexperienced internet bloggers“. Dirty Diane says about her new book, aptly titled “Be Careful Who You Trust” (there’s that truckload of Irony):

Too many of today’s professional journalists, augmented by mostly inexperienced internet bloggers, are all too eager to jump on the story-du-jour for fear of being left behind. Too bad they don’t take the time to research facts before parroting what others have reported before them. -Dirty Diane Dimond

Her book is about how “the media lies to you“. Well. I guess she’d know, wouldn’t she? She’s been doing it for them all her life. Let me take that sentence that Ms. Dimond has so deftly twisted from truth into fiction and twist it back around to the truth so you can understand what the truth is:

Too many of today’s unsuspecting public are misinformed by mostly self-serving, abusive “professional journalists“, who are really tabloid trash-peddlers like Diane Dimond who are all too eager to jump on the story-du-jour for fear of being left behind (not to mention the benefits of those tidy corporate profits for their bosses). Too bad these “journalists” don’t take the time to research facts before trumpeting what others have alleged.

As I’ve said, Dimond is a notoriously biased, rabidly condescending and vicious tabloid reporter, not a journalist. Furthermore, she was known to be a mouthpiece for the prosecution in the 2005 trial and very close buddy and friend of DA Tom “Mad Dog” Sneddon for decades. Sneddon bailed her out of a defamation of character lawsuit filed rightfully against her by Michael Jackson. She has no room to wag her finger about media lies and exploitation of media stories. She has been a living epitome of them for decades.

Chasing another false story to destroy Michael gets Dirty Diane a promotion (what does that tell you about the media?)

Remember that Dimond was so utterly obsessed with finding “victims” of Michael Jackson, she was hoodwinked by some Canadian street kid claiming to have been victimized by Michael Jackson. This kid’s alleged “guardian” was a Michael Jackson-obsessed nut who was sending letters to tabloid show Hard Copy (instead of more appropriately, the police) claiming Michael had molested the boy. Dimond flew all the way to Toronto only to find out after dragging the kid to the Canadian police to “tell his story” that the kid was set up to lie about Michael by a man named Rodney Allen who wanted to ‘get back‘ at Michael for some imagined wrong Michael had done to him. The story was false, empty, zilch. Yet Dimond had prodded Court TV chairman Henry Schlieff for money to “dig out” the story and bragged to all and sundry about it.

I’ll share some of the text from http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/diane-dimond-s-suspicious-involvement-bullet-54.html which further details this incident:

In an effort to save face, Dimond pretended to be a victim in the entire scam when she turned in her report to Hard Copy.

You can view the video of the entire Hard Copy story for yourself here:http://www.cmjfc.ca/scam.rm or here at MJEOL: http://site2.mjeol.com/dimondscam.rm

Dimond herself had already begun to see the “rewards” of her Jackson scoops, whether they turn out to be true or false.

Despite heavily pushing a false story about “love letters“, which turned out to be from a London tabloid, she’s been given a promotion: hosting her own show on Court TV called Hollywood At Large.

Notice that last item about some alleged “love letters“. You can find the transcripts from the Larry King show on November 24, 2003 where Dimond appeared just days after Michael’s arrest and vehemently insisted that a stack of love letters existed which were written by Michael to Gavin Arvizo. She insisted that they are the ‘real thing‘, written in Michael Jackson’s own hand (even though she had not seen or read them):

KING: Do we — hold it! Does anyone here — does anyone here — anyone — know of the existence of these letters?
COCHRAN: I don’t. I mean, I think that’s…
DIMOND: Absolutely. I do.
COCHRAN: … again, speculation.
COCHRAN: I don’t know of this.
KING: Hold it!
COCHRAN: I’ve never seen them. The only…
DIMOND: I absolutely know of their existence!
KING: Diane, have you read them?
DIMOND: No, I have not read them, but I absolutely know that that…
COCHRAN: So how do we know?
DIMOND: … was tops on the list of the DA and sheriff’s department, things to look for inside Neverland. Listen, Larry…
KING: But you don’t know what they say.
DIMOND: … these are letters that are written in Michael Jackson’s hand. They are said to be — no, I’ve not read them, but…
KING: OK. Well, then…
DIMOND: … they — they went after them because they’re said to be so sensational and so salacious in nature…
KING: Yes, but how…
DIMOND: … that this could be a key to the prosecution…
KING: I see. Now, let me…
DIMOND: … if and when this goes to trial.

Now, Dimond claimed she learned of these letters from “high law enforcement sources”. But they never materialized! She had based her assertion solely on those “high law enforcement sources” who in turn were at the very best relying on the claims of the Arvizos at the time, if not at worst having concocted the story themselves. The bottom line is that those letters never existed and never materialized. So once again, Dirty Diane based her claims about Michael purely on hearsay with no proof and was clearly proven wrong.

Victor Gutierrez

We won’t forget that video footage that Dimond vehemently claimed to have where Michael had allegedly molested a child on film. The child in question was Michael’s nephew, Jermaine’s son by Margaret Maldonado. Of course Dimond chased this down based purely on hearsay of Victor Gutierrez (suspected member of NAMBLA) and never produced the footage. Why didn’t she produce said footage? It doesn’t exist! This is in fact what Michael sued Dimond and Gutierrez for. Michael won his suit against Gutierrez, but he subsequently fled the country and thus far has avoided paying the damages. As for Dimond, her bosom buddy Tom Sneddon rescued her from the defamation of character suit Michael filed against her.

During the civil proceedings, the boy’s own mother Margaret Maldonado, contrary to what Gutierrez had reported, said:

  • neither of her two sons had been molested by Jackson
  • she had not received any money from Jackson
  • she had never met Victor Gutierrez.

Maldonado later discussed the case in her book ‘Jackson Family Values‘:

The story was an outrageous lie. Not one part of it was true. I’d never met the man. There was no tape. Michael never paid me for my silence. He had never molested Jeremy. Period.

Dimond has meanwhile never produced one fact that shows Michael Jackson was ever guilty of anything. We have to wonder about this new book of hers. Is she perhaps worried that her lies about Michael Jackson will be exposed and is thus attempting to launch a pre-emptive strike against those who are likely to expose them (ie: the “inexperienced bloggers” as she so condescendingly called us)?  It’s worth considering. You can learn more about this videotape story from another of us “inexperienced bloggers” at this link.  You’ll get more fact there then you ever will from the media or Dirty Diane and friends.

I mentioned that Dirty Diane’s bosom buddy Tom Sneddon helped get her out of that lawsuit. Here’s how he did it: In an unusual instance of a prosecutor involving himself in a civil suit, Sneddon signed a declaration supporting Dimond’s version of events. The trial judge dismissed the suit, saying Jackson couldn’t prove malice or false reporting.  Michael appealed the judge’s ruling, and Sneddon’s declaration was cited extensively in the November 1998 California Court of Appeal’s decision affirming the summary judgment.

Interestingly, neither Michael Jackson’s lawsuit nor Sneddon’s role in snuffing it on behalf of Dimond is disclosed in Dimond’s official bio on the CourtTV.com website or in the detailed history of her Jackson coverage anywhere. You have to wonder, just how cozy these two were? Well, let’s talk about that: When Sneddon retired in 2006, guess who gave him a “heartfelt speech“? Dirty Diane Dimond, of course. The were absolutely partners in crime. Dimond’s “heartfelt speech” was no doubt payback for his arranging for her to be the only TV reporter on the scene to report exclusively on the 2003 raid on Neverland Ranch, and of course for getting her out of the slander lawsuit Michael had filed against her.

For that matter though, just how cozy are many of these media assassins? Here are photos of several of them. Below you will see Dirty Diane along with her buddies Ron Zonen, his “girlfriend” Louise Palanker (a friend of the Arvizos and a prosecution witness), and Jackson family traitor Stacy Brown. These are posted on Palanker’s blog.

Dirty Diane and her fellow assassins (1)

Dirty Diane and her fellow assassins (1)

Dirty Diane and her fellow assassins (2)

Dirty Diane and her fellow assassins (2)


Dirty Diane: guilty as charged.

She recently appeared in a radio interview, which was a retrospective of her career, and the differences between journalism then and now. It’s disgusting having to hear the host praise her as an “outstanding” journalist who delivers “good, clear, fact-based information“.  Diane Dimond is not a journalist. She is a tabloid reporter who built her entire career on destroying an innocent man with lies and misinformation, and she continues to do so. In this piece, we will continue debunking her tabloid-feeding assertions about Michael Jackson.

One of the interesting facts learned from this interview is that her boss from Hard Copy now runs Entertainment Tonight, and invited her to cover MJ’s death and aftermath for the show. This is indicative of the rampant cronyism and nepotism that has infested the media today. Dimond didn’t ask to go to ET, they invited her.

She also bragged about how she and Geraldo Rivera “practice a different kind of journalism“.  And at least for Dimond, she certainly does. It’s called bullying, abuse, and slander. And it’s not journalism. It’s called ruining an innocent person’s life with lies. That is certainly a “different kind of journalism“, if one can call tabloid garbage “journalism“. She mentioned that when she first heard about Michael’s death, she said she didn’t believe it because there is so much bad reporting on him. That’s pretty ironic coming from Dirty Diane – the veritable queen of bad reporting on Michael Jackson. I guess she’d know, wouldn’t she?

The most insulting and condescending thing she said about fans was at 31:00 in the interview, when she said that some fans blame her and her reporting for pushing Michael to take drugs. She insisted that’s not the case. She said fans directly blame her reporting for making the general public believe he was guilty in 1993, and for making them believe he was going to be (and should have been) convicted in 2005.

She’s right about that. We do blame her and she is in fact part and parcel of the medialoid machinery that made an industry and many careers off of destroying the spirit and life of Michael Jackson, an innocent man, and helped send him careening into an early grave.

To murder character is as truly a crime as to murder the body: the tongue of the slanderer is brother to the dagger of the assassin. -Tryon Edwards

When it was going on, the drug use was absolutely a side effect of all of the negative reporting from her and a whole slew of others. These media assassins made entire careers out of destroying the life, spirit, and livelihood of Michael Jackson. And their employers, very large media corporations, made billions from it and an entire industry from it. Dirty Diane’s behavior while reporting on the above-mentioned videotape that Victor Gutierrez claimed to have, “love letters” some London tabloid claimed were real, along with virtually all of her reporting on Michael Jackson, proves that she is absolutely not the sweet, innocent, oh-so-moral, justice-seeking angel she pretends to be. Quite the contrary. To use Michael’s words about Tommy Mottola, she’s a Devil. Along with many others in the media, Dimond is a character assassin, hellbent on destroying an innocent for her own personal gain and corporate profit.

You don’t get much more self-serving and murderous than that, unless your name is Conrad Murray.

A brief history of Dirty Diane’s involvement in various plots to destroy Michael Jackson over the years

(SOURCE: http://www.themjifc.com/forum/innocent/69-plot-frame-michael-jackson-terminally-ill-deceased-child.html)

1993 – Evan Chandler, the father of a kid in a family with whom Michael has just spent some time within a 4 month period, plots to frame him with fabricated homosexual child abuse allegations, using the decade-long media portrayal of Michael as a homosexual and also exploiting other social factors. He works with an unscrupulous lawyer to bring this about as well as certain media contacts. Diane Dimond becomes the first to leak the allegations the day after Pellicano states it is an extortion plot. She is to repeat this pattern of leaks for over a decade every time something positive is said about Michael Jackson or when he emerges with a project.

The plot is an attempt by Evan Chandler, with whom Michael has fallen out and stopped returning his calls after getting to know him for just a month, to use his son to falsely accuse him, so as to obtain a huge sum of money to advance his career.

1993/1994 – Diane Dimond and Evan Chandler’s lawyer hunting for anyone to beef up the false allegations, gain access to Blanca Francia, a maid that was fired for theft. Blanca is paid $20,000 to make up stories, later recanted under oath. Her 10 year old son is then targeted by police. Though he denies any abuse, he is pressured to make up allegations that he was touched inappropriately over the clothes when he was 7yrs old. Diane hangs onto Blanca and someone advises her to pursue a settlement just as Chandler did. When Michael’s lawyers object to any form of settlement, Diane Dimond makes a special report about the demands by Blanca’s lawyers in December 1994 on Hard Copy so as to pressure Michael’s team with negative publicity. Sony, which is about to release a new Michael Jackson album, intervenes and compels his lawyers to settle a mere $2 million so as not to sabotage their $890 million contract with Michael with negative publicity, irrespective of the facts.

1995 – Diane Dimond and her colleague, Victor Guiterez, target Michael Jackson, now seeking to exploit his 8yr old nephew. Diane, Victor and 2 TV stations get sued for $100million. With Tom Sneddon’s help, Diane uses the cover of the media shield law to escape conviction, but her colleague in 1997 is ordered by a civil jury to pay Michael $2.7 million in damages. He flees to Mexico claiming bankruptcy.

1995 – Diane Dimond and John Templeton (Rodney Allen) with whom she had teamed up in 1993 to gain information about Neverland, Encino and some staff/ex-staff members, some of whom later appeared on Hard Copy, team up again to get a Canadian street kid to come over and frame Michael Jackson with false allegations of abuse. The street kid had never met Michael Jackson, let alone been to the United States, however, he was well coached. When Diane tested to see how well coached he was, he could name all the staff and details at Neverland from the pictures she had brought along. Diane had to go through Toronto police before flying the kid to her colleagues in California to proceed with the frameup. However, the Toronto police exposed the kid as a scam and arrested him. Again, Diane used the cover of the media, and also proceeded to twist the story so as to portray herself as simply a bystander journalist who had been contacted, while heeping the blame on Rodney Allen, especially given the pending lawsuit involving her and Victor Guiterez. Her friend/colleague Rodney Allen was later arrested and convicted for peodophilia in 1998. In 2004, on a Court TV online question/answer session, she mocked someone whom she assumed was Rodney Allen, since she had used him and left him holding the bag for their misdeeds together.

In the aftermath of all this, Diane Dimond went silent after the 1997 lawsuit. She kept in touch with Tom Sneddon though, and exchanged Christmas cards and more. What had brought them together was the targeting of Michael Jackson. Meanwhile, Sneddon continued to defame Michael in the media at every opportunity, even in 1999 when the statute of limitations expired on the 1993 case. Meanwhile, as Diane Dimond stated in December 2004, she kept contacts with some of Michael’s ranch hands, ex-staff, associates and others. This enabled her to continue to gather information about Michael’s private life and how to gain access and stay close to him. (NOTE: Between 1993 – 1999, Michael was highly reclusive till Elizabeth Taylor tried to get him out).

January 2000 – a mother of a child who had a collision with the law enforcement in 1998 and was arrested for shoplifting, embarks on a plot to seek a settlement from Michael Jackson with allegations of child abuse. (Janet Arvizo) She seeks out lawyers to advance the plot, just as Blanca sought out lawyers. Since 1993, Michael Jackson is no longer accessible. Just anyone cannot get close to him or stay in his home other than charity day visits. The only way to gain access to him is through a terminally ill/dying child, so as to appeal to his sense of compassion and get into his life and home. The family meets Michael in August 2000. A possible plan may have been to let the child die, then accuse Michael of abuse.

2002-2003 – when the kid survives, a tabloid writer (Martin Bashir) cons his way into Michael’s life with the intent to frame him using the 1993 false allegations and the 2000 child that he cared for. Social services and police investigations conclude the allegations are unfounded.

2003 – Diane Dimond establishes contact with the family. They initially seek out an attorney, William Wasserman, then end up with Larry Feldman, the 1993 lawyer who represented Evan Chandler, after their inability to kickstart a scenario with Mark Geragos, similar to the Barry Rothman 1993 negotiations with covert threats.

Meanwhile, shortly before the family left Neverland for the last time in 2003, the kid (Gavin Arvizo) had began misbehaving, breaking into the wine cellar, gaining access codes to Michael’s room and snooping around. For unknown reasons or simply by coincidence, it was round this time that the wine cellar lock was broken. He was caught on the surveillance system during this time. An examination of the *288a law amendment that was advocated for by Tom Sneddon and Gil Garcetti after they failed to falsely prosecute Michael in 1993/94, and which is a duplicate of the 1993 false allegations, is (mis)used as explanation for why Gavin was suddenly misbehaving – the allegation was that he had been subjected to oral copulation and intoxicating agents by Michael.

*The 288a law amendment
The District Attorneys Tom Sneddon and Gil Garcetti sought to advocate a law amendment requiring no evidence, simply an accusation to convict, with the sole purpose of targeting Michael in the belief that anyone with a desire for money like the Chandlers, and who had ever met Michael Jackson would manipulate their child into accusing him (given that Michael had met millions of people ever since he was a child). He also left the case open based on false allegations, despite no evidence of wrongdoing, two grand juries not having returned an indictment, a contradictory affidavit, evidence showing a plot after millions were spent in the investigation and many kids vindicating Michael of any wrongdoing. They were aware from the lack of evidence of any wrongdoing, from explicit tapes of the extortion plot, from Jordy’s mother stating she had never witnessed any impropriety, as well as statements by several other kids — that Michael had never harmed anyone.


Continue to Part Two of ‘A Dossier on Dirty Diane (Dimond) . . .

31 Responses to “A Dossier on Dirty Diane (Dimond) – Part One”

  1. laurie solomon says:

    I will call ET and other networks as well as Creators’ Syndicate (California) where supposedly Diane Dimond writes a syndicated column on “criminal justice” or some bullshit like that.

    I would need several PAGES in order to talk about how I feel about Diane Dimond. Her book is a piece of trash and is the BIBLE for ALL Michael Jackson haters. Full of LIES, DISTORTIONS and INNUENDOS. Did she really think nobody would ever get on social media and check out her “FACTS”???? Well, I certainly did and I will make sure everybody knows about it.

    If there is such a thing as “losing your soul” Diane Dimond lost hers. Michael Jackson is in a much better place in my opinion. People like Diane Dimond can no longer hurt him. Thank God for that. Diane Dimond you have blood on your hands.