MJEOL

Dimond Trying to Cover for her ‘confidential source’? – MJEOL Bullet #157 Blaming Prime Time Live interview and resulting lawsuit for her having the ability to leak sealed court documents? Sinking to a new low, tabloid reporter Diane Dimond appeared to be blaming an old interview and a resulting lawsuit for the existence of the 93 settlement agreement which was illegally leaked to her recently.No, I’m not kidding.Dimond appeared on Court TV’s Crier Live (June 17 2004) and insinuates that blame lies with the targets of a lawsuit—Michael Jackson, Lisa Marie Presley (LMP), and others—for her being able to get her leaking little hands on the document.

Dimond Negligently Reporting 93 Settlement Details? – MJEOL Bullet #156 Update#3 Observers: Where’s the Beef? It seems that the 93 settlement agreement wasn’t as black and white as even we claimed. Initially, it looked as if Jackson had agreed to some unknown form of negligence not related to molestation. However, it turns out that he didn’t even agree to that much. There was absolutely no agreement of anything whatsoever; not even negligence. In short, to call the 1993 settlement a ‘molestation settlement agreement’ is erroneous and has no basis in fact at all. Below, you’ll still be able to read our original report. To read about this update in the story–and to read a transcript of a hearing where Mesereau addresses this issue–click over to MJEOL Bullet #166: 93 Settlement Was Not A Settlement for Molestation Claims One has to wonder if tabloid reporter Diane Dimond even read the 93 Settlement document before she broke into regular Court TV programming to talk about the details of her illegally obtained scoop.Starting yesterday, Dimond trumpeted this latest leak as if it were an admission of guilt in the 93 “case”.Nothing could be further from the truth once you read through the actual sealed and supposedly confidential document itself. The rag reporter of former Hard Copy fame has appeared on a number of shows, spinning this document in the stratosphere. But once you cut through all the bull, the unnamed sources, the dramatic pauses and the speculation, you begin to see that the “big scoop” isn’t big at all. It is 11 year old information that has been speculated on for the past….oh, 11 years.