Dimond – Duplicity is Thy Name.

Bottom Line? She needs to Go!

DD has proven time and time again that she is not a journalist: She is a tabloid reporter, always has been, always will be.   To understand just how truly unscrupulous Diane Dimond is, it’s important to look at the her style of reporting with a critical eye. Her mode of operation is quite a sight to behold. Without proof she theorizes, insinuates, inserts details, affirms and makes concrete assertions. Shrewdly, she will interweave bits of information in effort to tie her story to it. She’s very adept at this ruse and has used it for many years while attempting to get her theory of Michael Jackson to somehow fit the facts. Unfortunately, for her, they never have . Below is first part of transcript that was provided from the case cited below.

Question put to DD by interviewer in BLACK- Dimond’s responses  in RED-  Observations analyses and questions of Dimond in BLUE 

MICHAEL JACKSON, Plaintiff and Appellant,



Defendants andRespondents.  Filed 10/28/98

Note from case: There is no “official” transcript, but virtually identical written transcripts of the audio recording of the broadcast were prepared by the parties and presented to the trial court. We have deleted only the speakers’ stammers and repetitions.

The first occurred on January 9, 1995, on the “The Ken and Barkley Show” broadcast by KABC-AM radio

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.”

Right off the bat she brings in the “red hot”  DA’s office investigation so this gives her the salacious factor then by using words  “top investigators” she purports to show how authoritative her report will be. By using a detail “27 minute video tape” she gives her story a life. 

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 yards[.]”

“it was taken”  this is an affirmative statement that it actually occurred. – then she deftly adds “everybody knows that he likes to bug rooms”  to reinforce MJ as a person involved in other not so savory activities. 

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 -[-]

It was “convoluted”, complicated and confusing, because the story was untrue. Time and time again,  DD never let a little thing like proof or facts get in her way of reporting a story.  BTW- “bottom line” is one of her favorite phrases.  She uses it to give the impression that her core points are in fact salient, even though she has not yet confirmed this extremely defaming rumor as even being true. There was NO story to report but yet she gave this interview and another on Hard copy later the same night. 


Q: “It is an x-rated tape?”

Dimond: “It is .. . yes.”

Notice the concrete assertion.

Q: “Of Michael Jackson[?]”

 Dimond: “Truly explicit.”

Notice the concrete assertion.


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.”

This sounds oh so familiar – let’s harken back the the ‘love letters’ that her “best source” had also seen during the Arvizo’s false allegations. Love letters didn’t exist either, but that didn’t stop DD from making a report about them on Larry King as detailed by Charles Thomson in his Huffington Post article, “On of the Most Shameful Episodes in Jouranlistic History”, June 13, 2010

Excerpt- “For example, Diane Dimond appeared on Larry King Live days after Jackson’s arrest and spoke repeatedly about a ‘stack of love letters’ the star had supposedly written to Gavin Arvizo.

“Does anyone here… know of the existence of these letters?” asked King.

“Absolutely,” Dimond replied. “I do. I absolutely know of their existence!”

“Diane, have you read them?”

“No, I have not read them.”

Dimond admitted that she’d never even seen the letters, let alone read them, but said she knew about them from “high law enforcement sources”. But those love letters never materialized. When Dimond said she ‘absolutely knew’ of their existence she was basing her comments solely on the words of police sources. At best, the police sources were parroting the Arvizos’ allegations in good faith. At worst, they’d concocted the story themselves to sully Jackson’s name. Either way, the story went around the world with not a shred of evidence to support 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?”

She “never doubts”  her “sources” in the DA’s office. The fact that she has a source in the DA’s office that is leaking investigative information is highly questionable to begin with but then to turn rumor into fact is even more heinous. So you can see by this interveiw in 95 and her later interview with Larry King in 05, her unethical reporting of rumor as fact did not change. What would make anyone think that she reports truth? Why then, is she hired to cover the Murray trial?

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.”

Notice how she makes a concrete assertion. 

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.”

Notice how she makes another concrete assertion.

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.”

She makes two concrete assertions about this story she has not yet confirmed ..then plants a thought of how pediophiles keep momentos for self gratification.  This is a technique calling subliminal linking.  Nevermind that the molestation that she is claiming was caught on video, never happened. Again, just remember that little details of fact are not of importance to DD, when she’s out to assasinate a man’s character. 

Q: “. . . It looks to me. I think old Mike had better get his checkobok 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 tape.”

Mentions the DA office again for that authoritative and official emphasis- and observe the oft used phrase “I got to tell you” because it pops up again later. 

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.”

A statement can be correct or true or both. If it’s true, it’s also correct. But if it’s correct it’s not always true. We all know that as it turned out NOT  true. 

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.”

Again with the second “I have to tell you”  she reiterates that her ‘source’ is correct, because “he always has been” therefore she reinforces the validity of the story by the veracity of her source. But the second sentence is the most insidious because she tries to connect the previous accusation of Jordan to this one.  Nevermind that two grand juries found no evidence to charge MJ with any crime in the Evan Chandler allegations.  Fact is,  her “source”  was incorrect and he most probably “always has been” as most of her stories have no basis in truth.

Q: “Well, I mean you don’t need to beat around the bush. What are those acts?”

Dimond: “We are talking about oral sex.”

Notice how she makes a concrete assertion.

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.”

Notice how she makes a concrete assertion here – but what unfolded was a big fat nothing because there was no molestation and no video. 

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.”

FACT- No molestation, no video, ergo – no copy. 


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.”

No charges were ever brought up against Michael Jackson after two Grand Jury investigations, but by referencing “what happened during 94” the host and DD are claiming that they know something that the authorities don’t and they implied guilt. 

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.”

By saying ‘I got to tell you’ TWICE more, she’s using these words in an affirmation that what she saying is correct. Then she fills in here with substantive details to give the story some teeth.  Reinforces the authority of the “Top guys” then she paraphrases what the mother, who supposedly got the tape, said to authorities. To top it off she proffers what the mother “said to herself” ?!  If this part doesn’t make the blood run cold nothing will.  She is willing to assert, affirm and give details of what was said by third parties when she has no personal knowledge of any of 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-[-]”

Notice the concrete assertion here.

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.’”

‘If we get this tape’ infers that there is a tape to get. Maybe the idea of  “putting handcuffs on Michael Jackson” made DD almost wet her panties, as it seems to have been her life’s goal, whether he was guilty or not was of no importance to her.  


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 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.

With her coy little ‘insightful questions’ she infers that their questions reveal truth. She hung up because she’d thrown just the right amount of dirt onto Michael Jackson and created another story that had no basis in truth or fact and left sound bites that permeated the minds of many.  Just how many people, who listened to this program thought to follow up on the story to find it was all fabricated? 

How many people know that Diane Dimond was sued along with Victor Guiterrez,  by Michael Jackson for this false story? The fact that the court ruled that she showed no malice and could hide under the ‘shield law’ of relying on her “sources” whether or not they have any credibility proves that MJ was up against more than just Dimond. It is our opinion that Sneddon pulled some strings to get his gal Friday out of hot water. Michael Jackosn won 2.7Million dollar settlement against Victor Gutierez- Gutierez fled the United  States and has spent his life slandering Michael Jackson out of the reach of US legal authority. 

Initial lawsuit did include Dimond

Initial lawsuit did include Dimond

“Jurors told us that they not only wanted to compensate Jackson and punish Victor Gutierrez, but to send a message that they are tired of tabloids lying about celebrities for money,” Jackson’s lawyer, Zia Modabber, said after a jury decided against Victor Gutierrez on Thursday.

Link to NYDaily News article- DA Helped Dimond Out of a ‘Hard’  Spot Courtesy of  NellieO231

Legally, malice is hard to prove out and this is why Michael didn’t go about fighting EVERY malicious story that came down the pike. It was costly, time consuming and the odds where against him. This is the wall of avarice, greed and inequitity he was up against. 

However, based on her own words the veracity of this woman must be challenged.  How is it that she retains a job in any media outlet with this type of manipulative and deceptive story telling in her arsenal? 

This woman has made a career out of this type of reporting.  For years, she has purposely and with malice acted in a way to demonize Michael Jackson, by innuendo, false assertions and with her opinion based reporting.

Will it stop?

Using her own words –

Here’s the deal, I have to tell you, the bottom line—

is it needs to stop – NOW!

Please contact TruTV –   Ask them to remove Diane Dimond from their employ  http://tl.gd/d6d10i

Please read the latest post on VindicateMJ wordpress detailing the very same kind of left handed and selective way of purporting facts to suit her opinion,  on the TruTV, InSession panel –  Fact Checking Diane Dimond’s Lies from TruTV’s “In Session” « Vindicating Michael


Michael Jackson v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, et al.



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

7 Responses to Dimond – Duplicity is Thy Name.

  1. Marie Paul says:

    Can’t believe that they have got her back reporting with all the evidence of her blatant lack of morals, mind you that’s what media are known for.


  2. This is an article that appeared in the New York Daily News, March 16th 2005 regarding Dimond and questioning her methods, veracity etc. http://articles.nydailynews.com/2005-03-16/gossip/18287023_1_diane-dimond-tom-sneddon-court-tv

    “Santa Barbara district attorney – whose prosecution of Michael Jackson is Dimond’s beat – played a key role in killing a slander suit that Jackson filed against her a decade ago.
    In 1995, when Dimond was working for “Hard Copy,” she reported that Sneddon was searching for an explicit 27-minute videotape showing Jackson molesting a boy.
    Sneddon soon concluded that NO SUCH VIDEO EXISTED, but not before Dimond appeared on L.A.’s KABC radio and her Paramount-produced tabloid show to trumpet the imagined X-rated details.
    “It was taken right before Christmas, as the story goes, and it was recorded by one of Michael Jackson’s own security cameras,” Dimond said on the radio, touting her “Hard Copy” scoop. “Truly explicit,” she added, noting that she had not seen the alleged tape.”


  3. Thank you darlin’.. We will add this NY Daily News article to our post .. God Bless you for finding it. It’s somewhat gratifying to know that there were some journalists that confirmed Diane Dimond slithered with Sneddon in the tall grass.


  4. Pingback: Fact Checking Diane Dimond’s Lies from TruTV’s “In Session” « Vindicating Michael

  5. Jill says:

    I totally can’t believe she will be reporting during the trial. Who the hell would hire her? She’s a nobody, she only got a career off of Michael.
    And to top it all off on her twitter she talks sh** of MJ’s fans and trying to tell us that we need to read up on the facts! This women needs to just go away, go find another job, leave Michael Jackson alone!

    When Michael was here, I made it my duty to defend him always and I will continue to defend him for the rest of my life. We need to email her and tell her to stop her trash talk about Michael. I’m sick to my stomach, she needs to get a life!!


  6. Pingback: Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 4 of 6: So-Called “Christians” Who Have LIED Against Michael! « Vindicating Michael

  7. Pingback: Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 4 of 7: So-Called “Christians” Who Have LIED Against Michael! | Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s