Diane Dimond Misleading the public again? – MJEOL Bullet #120 Sources say tabloid reporter Diane Dimond appeared on the Today Show (April 3) spreading more false information and half-truths wrapped in pure speculation about the Michael Jackson case. Almost as a counter to the positive news yesterday, Dimond seemed to make it point to continue to tow the line for the prosecution. During the program, Dimond supposedly said that she spoke to Joe Tacopina, the attorney for Frank and Vincent, two of Jackson’s associates. She says Tacopina said his clients would only testify in front of the grand jury if they were granted complete immunity. Now, I have to wonder where in the world Dimond got this information from because Tacopina appeared on CourtTV’s Crier Live yesterday (April 2) and talked specifically about these issues; saying nothing remotely like Dimond is supposedly claiming he said. To refresh, Tacopina’s clients, Frank and Vincent, are alleged by the accusing family to have held them hostage at Neverland; a charge that Tacopina says is totally untrue. He’s also previously admitted that he has seen the very detailed evidence that his clients kept at the time and that they are completely innocent. During that conversation, Tacopina states no such thing. In fact, he unequivocally said his clients will not testify in front of this grand jury at all because he feels Sneddon is already made his mind up and nothing his clients would say to a grand jury would change his mind. Here are Tacopina’s words on the program, the video of which you can download in the Downloads section:

TACOPINA: They’ve been asked to come. My position’s been all along that we’re not running in there because I believe the district attorney has set in stone his position. I believe he’s drawn the line in the sand: he believes who he believes and he doesn’t believe who he doesn’t believe. I don’t think my client’s gonna go in there and change his opinion of this case. That being said, it’s my intention to sit on our hands—as the law permits us to do—and not go in there to make statements that we know aren’t gonna be deemed credible [by the district attorney], although I wholly believe them. I wholly believe in Frank and Vinnie’s positions. I think they’ve done nothing wrong. But that being said, that’s not a pre-cursor for not being charged. So the only conversation, as I’ve said, we’ll have with Mr. Sneddon is in front of 12 jurors if we’re demanded to by law.

Those “12 jurors” are the jurors in a possible trial, not the 19 grand jurors currently listening to the prosecution to decide whether to hand down and indictment against Jackson. He has basically said that his clients absolutely will not testify in front of a grand jury at all. So why has Dimond supposedly represented his position as such? When specifically asked about the question of whether or not his clients would testify if they are offered immunity, Tacopina flatly says this:

CRIER: And you, if they were coming to you wanting to plead-out, get a little immunity, have a little conversation… TACOPINA: I try not to plea-out clients who’ve done nothing wrong. Just a little practice tip I try to follow.

So again, why is Dimond allegedly claiming Tacopina says his clients would only testify if they get immunity?? Is she lying on purpose to mislead the public again or did she simply misunderstand what he meant? Is she now calling Tacopina a liar and saying he told her something different than he’s told the public? Was she specifically sent out to these shows to fan the flames with innuendo and pure speculation? Further, is she trying to keep her career alive because it depends on Jackson being guilty of these charges? These are only a few questions being asked about her eyebrow-raising statements on the Today show. DImond also attempted to suggest that Bob Jones, long time friend of Jackson and the subject of a highly interesting article entitled “BOB JONES: The Man Who Stands Firmly Behind the Man in the Mirror”, was going to testify to something negative towards Jackson. This is utter speculation on her part, however. She says Jones is quoted as saying: “I will not lie for him; I will not go to jail for Michael Jackson.” It is unclear, given her penchant for telling half-truths, if she actually spoke to Bob Jones or if she’s just quoting what some other misinformed source is saying. I personally do not believe Bob Jones is in the habit of giving interviews to people of her caliber. This quote has yet to be confirmed by anyone from Jones’s camp. The more important question is what would Bob Jones have to lie about? Jones should be insulted because not only are these people suggesting that he saw Jackson behave inappropriately with children, but they are also insinuating that he’s a criminal by continuing to let it happen and doing nothing about it. All of Jackson’s employees, especially those with children, should be outraged at such inferences. It has become common knowledge that the current district attorney is fishing for anything that could help this floundering case and that a number of Jackson’s employees have been subpoenaed in an attempt to find dirt on Jackson. So if Jones has indeed been subpoenaed—meaning he’s being forced to testify not that he voluntarily came to the district attorney with “something”—he will answer whatever questions he’s asked. Of course simply reporting this information doesn’t seem good enough for Dimond. In an atmosphere where real investigative reporters—like Mike Taibbi, Linda Deutch and Dawn Hobbs—have refused to take sides, these people have stolen her thunder on this case. She is, in fact, no longer the ‘go-to’ person for Jackson information. And maybe that’s the reason why she’s chosen to…’jazz up’ her information. If I were Tacopina, I’d be sending Dimond a message right about now. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

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