| 2122 registered | |||
![]() | Last: | |||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
|
Latest MJEOL Bullets
Streaming Now
MJ Fan Project
Don't forget how important donations are to help keep the site online! Whatever you can give will be much appreciated.
Home
News
MJEOL BULLET
Controversy Brewing Over False Statements from Dimond, Court TV - MB#194
News
MJEOL BULLET
Controversy Brewing Over False Statements from Dimond, Court TV - MB#194
|
|||||||||||




Faye is a private citizen. One can’t get away with citing the first amendment and the California shield law as protection from damaging her reputation after accusing her of engaging in illegal acts.
What are the ramifications of this demand for a retraction? Some observers say that this could affect the coverage of the Jackson “case”. At the very least, it could cause certain reporters to stop speculating wildly and be more cautious when blindly reporting things with no confirmation.
It’s quite clear that Faye was talked to by the AG investigators, so Dimond’s “sources” were wrong about that. It is also clear that none of the “makeup” allegations were even addressed in the AG’s letter, which could lead one to believe that Dimond’s “sources” made that up as well.
Will Dimond be removed from covering the Jackson case? Who knows. However, some have already admitted that they were puzzled as to why Dimond has been allowed sole rights and free reign in covering the Jackson pre-trial hearings. She is not a judge (or former judge). She is not an attorney (former prosecutor or defense attorney). She is not a legal expert either, obviously.
Thus, the question is while other cases are being covered heavily by former prosecutors, defense attorneys, law professors, legal analysts, and even judges, why has Court TV allowed Dimond to be their ‘go to’ person concerning the Jackson “case”? Time will tell.
Faye’s statement, however, provides more insight as to the larger picture:


