Diane Dimond Misleading the Public? – MJEOL Bullet #113 Tabloid reporter Diane Dimond appeared on CourtTV’s Crier Live (March 22 2004) to discuss the Michael Jackson case. However, to say that Dimond wanted to “discuss” the case is a bit misleading itself. Her role, it seems to a number of people, was to attempt to mislead the public about some very important information regarding the case. Dimond says:

For example, this Dr. Katz who is the one who had several sessions with the boy and then went to the district attorney…I keep hearing reporters over and over say ‘oh well, you know, that’s the same psychologist or psychiatrist that did the first accuser, and you know they got the same lawyer’. Not true. Not true.

Well, no Dimond should rechecked what she’s been told because out of Dr. Katz’s own mouth—during an interview with Santa Barbara County police, he admits himself that he was involved in both cases. According to the Santa Barbara investigation documents, Katz says about the 1993 investigation:

I actually do know about that case…I worked on that one too.

Katz was referring, of course, to the 1993 case where another family asked Jackson for money before claiming that he molested their son. So, why is Dimond claiming that Katz was not involved in both cases when he has already stated that he is? What does she, and her prosecution sources, have to gain by misleading the public about this case? This isn’t the only thing which Dimond seems to get completely wrong. She also says:

The first boy, the first accuser came out in 93; saw a Dr. Abramson. This accuser never saw Abramson, he only saw Katz.

Well actually, according to sources, the first accuser saw a Dr. Mathis Abrams, not a Dr. Abramson (see GQ: Was Michael Jackson Framed?) However, Abrams has since admitted that he did not get to spend a lot of time with the first accuser. On December 12 2003, CBSNews reported Abrams said:

I think that this [children changing their stories] is a possibility in both cases, that there could be coaching, but, again, I wasn’t given the opportunity in the initial one to even try to find out” (see Abrams says he wasn’t given chance to find out if 93 accuser was coached)

The first accuser also saw Dr. Katz once the first accusing family switched lawyers: going from Rothman to Feldman. In comes civil attorney Feldman and he brings in Dr. Katz. Similar to the first case, in comes Feldman, who brings in Dr. Katz, and magically we have molestation allegations. Remember, there were never any allegations of molestation until Feldman and Katz enter the picture. Feldman has also since admitted to paying the doctor bills for the sessions of therapy given by Katz for this current accuser. Like in the 93 case, as Katz admits, this second case also involved him and was a result of a civil suit Feldman was going to file. Dimond, however, denies that Larry Feldman brought in a psychologist in both cases when Crier specifically asks:

CRIER: But were both accusers referred to their treating psychologist/psychiatrist by Feldman? DIMOND: No. Larry Feldman is a common attorney. But the first boy was uh, found his psychologist/psychologist through a completely different attorney.

Well now we know that isn’t exactly the case as Katz did see both accusers who were referred to him by Feldman:

Mr. Feldman actually referred these kids to me because they had come to him in this lawsuit…Feldman’s going to file.

Now, why is Dimond so intent on convincing the public that the same players from 93 aren’t also involved in this case, when it is more than apparent that they are? Dimond never mentions Katz discussing money with the current accuser. According to Mike Taibbi’s report, Katz brings up the subject of money. Reading from the Santa Barbara documents, Taibbi says, Katz states:

Look, if you go ahead with this civil lawsuit, your family will get money if they win…

Dimond further claims that she traced the Katz report to see where it came from. She also alleges that this “transcript” of a taped conversation between Katz and Santa Barbara police was given to the defense in discovery, and insinuates that Jackson’s team leaked it to NBC’s Mike Taibbi. However, in an interview with Dan Abrams of the Abrams Report (March 12), Taibbi says:

…I first head last week about the existence of this investigation, and then was able to confirm it with someone frankly who works for Santa Barbara county, confirmed it independently, and then thought that was gonna be the story. And then we got a chance to look at the records…and we, we saw the records, we saw that for the first time we could tell the detailed stories; the contrasting stories told by the accuser and his family. That became, even, a bigger story (see AbramsReport: SantaBarbaraInvestigation | transcript)

So nowhere does Taibbi even hint or insinuate that any documents came from the defense. And quite frankly, Dimond should be the last person insinuating that another reporter’s information is coming from someone with an agenda to push because her own “highly placed sources” on the prosecution’s side never draw any criticism or hints of inappropriateness from her. To continue the rampage of unfounded, untrue, unproven and unsubstantiated claims, Dimond emphatically states, as if she knows for an absolute certainty, that Jackson has made at least two other “payouts” to young boys from 1993 to 2003. She states on Crier Live:

DIMOND: In fact, as Tom Sneddon talked about at his very first news conference on this, there have been at least two other payouts of two other children that were successfully shielded from the media that never came out. CRIER:…audiotape that Sneddon has… DIMOND: Yes. CRIER: or at least he’s referenced it was not the 93 accuser… DIMOND: Right, right. CRIER: A 9 year old… DIMOND: I can tell you…there were two in between.

Besides being blatantly defamatory, there has not been one shred of proof either confirming or even alleging that there have been other “payouts” to anyone. The ridiculous way in which Dimond claims to know this information for a fact is very irresponsible and highly misleading. She offered no proof at all to back up these claims on the show. Not to mention the fact that Jackson can’t even go into a freakin’ Walmart without there being news coverage. Who in their right mind could honestly believe that there could have been other multimillion dollar “payouts”/settlements without the entire world knowing even before the ink is dry on the contract? It seems to be a ludicrous, defamatory way to suggest that Jackson has “other accusers” as an attempt to shore up public support for the prosecution’s so-called “case”. Dimond also says, at the very end of the Jackson segment on Crier Live, that the two accusers’ stories are “very, very similar”. However, according to sources, there has never been an allegation that Jackson called wine “jesus juice” in the first case. But if the “stories” were similar, it would not be a shock considering that thesmokinggun.com posted the first accusers entire unproven affidavit online for the entire world to read, download, and draw from. All of the 93 accusations are in black and white, for anyone to see. So it wouldn’t be shocking at all if the accuser or his mother pulled ideas from that affidavit. Dimond, to no surprise, does not even mention the availability of the first accuser’s affidavit as a possible reason why there would be similarities between this case and the previous one. Dimond—through her seemingly ludicrous denials of Feldman’s involvement, Katz involvement, the incorrect name of the very first psychologist on the 93 case, the defamatory statements about there being two other “payouts”, and alleged similarities between the two cases—only help to raise more questions than she answers. Just why does Dimond attempt to persuade the public from information that has already been proven to be true? What is the real reason why she’s downplaying Feldman’s involvement? What is the point in misleading people—whether intentionally or accidentally—about the very words that have come out of Dr. Katz’ own mouth regarding this case? Why claim that Katz didn’t see the 93 accuser, when he has already admitted he worked on that case? Why emphatically state that Jackson paid off two other accusers when neither her, nor her sources, have provided any evidence of such? Only time will reveal what Dimond’s real role in this current case is. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *