Skip to content

Be careful who you trust. The 1995 VIDEOTAPE LIE of D.Dimond and V.Gutierrez

September 17, 2010

Peretti’s filmabout Michael Jackson misnamed by its author “What really happened”is relying heavily on the commentaries from our two grand investigative journalists – DIANE DIMOND and VICTOR GUTIERREZ whom she always called her best sourceBoth are considered experts on Michael Jackson and both pride themselves on revealing ‘the whole truth’ about the man.

The literary legacy of these writers is gigantic and this makes it hard to analyze the results of their creative activity in a single post. This is why today’s piece will be solely about the so-called “explicit videotape” allegedly recording an instance of “molestation” by MJ of a boy.  

The story began in early 1995 and lasted until 1998 when Michael Jackson won a slander suit against Victor Gutierrez while Diane Dimond managed to hide under the Shield law protecting journalists.

This post has a collection of various pieces of information about that case and I suggest that you read it as a kind of  the Dimond/Gutierrez dossier and decide for yourself once and for all whether you want to sustain any relationship with these characters any further or whether you have already had enough of them.

Veritas Project about the “videotape story”

Happily I’ve found a working link to the great Veritas Project which tells us some details about Victor Gutierrez and Diane Dimond making up a fictional “molestation” video story about Jackson:  http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/part4.html

None of Diane Dimond’s and Ray Chandler’s activities could have been possible without the help of Victor Gutierrez. In 1997, Victor Gutierrez released “Michael Jackson was my Lover”, a tell-all book that describes in detail the alleged relationship that took place between Michael Jackson and his accuser [this filth will be dealt with in a separate post].

Shortly after releasing the book about Michael Jackson, Gutierrez began making the TV rounds. During an appearance on the tabloid television show Hard Copy, Gutierrez told reporter Diane Dimond that he had seen a videotape of Michael Jackson molesting his nephew Jeremy.

According to Gutierrez, the alleged tape had been captured by one of Jackson’s security cameras and given to the boy’s mother by an unknown source. Upon viewing the tape’s contents, Gutierrez says, the mother contacted the Los Angeles Police Department only to have her claims ignored by investigators. Unsure of what to do, she got in contact with Gutierrez, arranged a meeting with him in a hotel room and showed him the alleged tape.

”And now she is scared,” Gutierrez told Dimond. “The District Attorney is trying to get these tapes and I guess through my sources, they already been in contact with the mother. So, it’s up to the mother now to make the final decision.”

In response to the allegations, Michael Jackson filed a defamation of character lawsuit against Victor Gutierrez and Hard Copy. During the civil proceedings, the boy’s mother MARGARET MALDONADO testified that, contrary to what Gutierrez had reported,

  • neither of her two sons had been molested by Jackson,
  • she had not received any money from Jackson
  • she had never met Victor Gutierrez.

Maldonado later discussed the case in her book Jackson Family Values:

  • The story was an outrageous lie. Not one part of it was true. I’d never met the man. There was no tape. Michael never paid me for my silence. He had never molested Jeremy. Period.”

In the book Jackson Family Values, by Jermaine Jackson’s ex-common-law wife, Margaret Maldonado, she writes that in early 1995,

“I received a telephone call from a writer named Ruth Robinson. I had known Ruth for quite a while and respected her integrity. It made what she had to tell me all the more difficult to hear.

“I wanted to warn you, Margaret,” she said. “There’s a story going around that there is a videotape of Michael molesting one of your sons, and that you have the tape.”

If anyone else had said those words, I would have hung up the phone. Given the long relationship I had with Ruth, however, I gave her the courtesy of a response. I told her that it wasn’t true, of course, and that I wanted the story stopped in its tracks.

She had been in contact with someone who worked at the National Enquirer who had alerted her that a story was being written for that paper. Ruth cross-connected me with the woman, and I vehemently denied the story. Moreover, I told her that if the story ran, I would own the National Enquirer before the lawsuits I brought were finished. To its credit, the National Enquirer never ran the piece.

“Hard Copy,” however, decided it would. “Hard Copy” correspondent Diane Dimond had reported that authorities were reopening the child molestation case against Michael. She had also made the allegations on L.A. radio station KABC-AM on a morning talk show hosted by Roger Barkley and Ken Minyard. Dimond’s claims were based on the word of a freelance writer named Victor Gutierrez. The story was an outrageous lie. Not one part of it was true. I’d never met the man. There was no tape. Michael never paid me for my silence. He had never molested Jeremy. Period.”

From http://www.mjcafe.net/the%20legend%20speeches%20&%20faq/c13.htm:

Because Jackson’s lawyers could find no sign of the videotape or the origin of the tale, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Reginald Dunn ruled that Gutierrez was no longer protected by the California Shield Law, and ordered him to name his source.

Gutierrez did not and instead claimed that a number of people, including Elizabeth Taylor and Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti, could verify the existence of the videotape (none of these people in fact supported him).

On October 15, 1996, Judge Dunn ruled that Gutierrez’s story was false and that he had acted with malice and was therefore liable for presumed and punitive damages. The amount of which would be determined at a later date. The writer then fled to Mexico.

In October 1997, a legal action to assess the amount of “presumed and punitive damages” to be paid to Michael Jackson by Victor Gutierrez was delayed due to Gutierrez filing for bankruptcy. Mr. Jackson’s lawyers stated that the  damages would be assessed and determined and that Gutierrez would not be protected indefinitely by his action.

On April 9, 1998 Michael Jackson won the slander suit against Victor Gutierrez. Superior Court Judge Reginald Dunn ruled that Gutierrez’s story was false and the jury subsequently awarded Jackson $2.7 million in damages.

From http://www.allbusiness.com/services/motion-pictures/4926892-1.html:

“Victor Gutierrez claimed to have seen a videotape of Michael having sex with a boy,” said Jackson’s attorney, Zia Modabber. “He claimed he was shown the tape by the boy’s mother. But the tape never existed. The mother testified that no such tape ever existed and that the incident never happened. The guy made the whole thing up, and we sued him for it.”

“We talked to the jurors afterwards,” Modabber said. “They said they wanted to send a message that they were tired of the tabloids telling malicious stories about celebrities for money. They said they hope this will send a message not to do this.”

Gutierrez may appeal, said his attorney, Robert Goldman, who maintained that the case was lost because Gutierrez refused to identify his confidential source.

“Before the trial began, the court ruled that the story was false because Victor refused to reveal his allegedly confidential source for the story,” Goldman said. “The jury was told the story was false without being told why.”

Modabber laughed at that assertion.

“Gutierrez told a D.A. investigator and two witnesses who testified at the trial that the boy’s mother was his source,” Modabber said. “He told anyone who would listen. The only people he would not tell were the ladies and gentlemen of his jury — that’s when he became ethical. Now he’s getting on his high horse saying he’s protecting his sources.”

Paramount, which produces “Hard Copy,” was dismissed from the suit last year. So too were former “Hard Copy” correspondent Diane Dimond and producer Stephen Doran. Jackson is appealing their dismissal from the case.

VERITAS PROJECT:

According to Ruben Rasso, a member of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office, Gutierrez then fled from the United States and moved to Chile in order to avoid paying Jackson the money.

However Diane Dimond was found not responsible for slander, and Michael Jackson’s lawyers appealed to the California Court of Appeal.

Below is the document dated October 28, 1998 which provides full information about the case handled by the Court of Appeal of the State of California. It is exceptionally interesting as it not only contains all details of the case filed by Michael Jackson against Paramount Pictures Corporation (producer of “Hard Copy”) and Diane Dimond and Doran(reporters on the show), but also provides the actual transcript of the slanderous program and shows the technology of making up lies about Jackson.

The precious text was sent by Shelly to whom I am very grateful for the find .  This post will have only some excerpts from the Court of Appeal paper, but even this way it is an absolute thriller to read. Here is a link to the full text:  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/b114354.pdf .

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Appellant Michael Jackson brought suit against respondents Paramount Pictures Corporation, Diane Dimond, and Stephen Doran alleging that he had been slandered by reports broadcast on the television program “Hard Copy” and in a radio interview with Dimond. During these broadcasts, the search for and purported existence of a videotape showing appellant inappropriately touching an underage boy in a sexual manner were discussed.

The KABC-AM Radio Broadcast

Two over-the-air reports dealt with the alleged videotape. The first occurred on January 9, 1995, on the “The Ken and Barkley Show” broadcast by KABC-AM radio. Respondent Diane Dimond appeared as a guest on the program. To keep the statements made in their proper context, we repeat the entire text of the interview as it related to appellant rather than rely on excerpts:

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.”

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.”

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 [–]

Q: “It is an x-rated tape?”

Dimond: “It is . . . yes.”

Q: “Of Michael Jackson?”

Dimond: “Truly explicit.”

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.”

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?”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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

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.”

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.”

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

Dimond: “We are talking about oral sex.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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 –“

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.'”

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, let 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 your 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.

After the KABC-AM broadcast and before the “Hard Copy” segment was aired, appellant Michael Jackson’s attorney, Howard Weitzman, sent a letter to Paramount Pictures, stating in part:

  • “I learned earlier today that Diane Dimond, one of Paramount’s Hard Copy reporters, was on KABC talk radio this morning and indicated that an untrue and defamatory story about an alleged videotape depicting Michael Jackson engaging in sexual relations with a minor was true, and that she believed such a tape existed. I understand that Ms. Dimond also made claims that the Los Angeles and/or Santa Barbara District Attorneys’ offices are reopening their criminal investigation of Mr. Jackson, based on the purported existence of this videotape.
  • Please be informed that Ms. Dimond’s claims regarding the existence of such a videotape are untrue and defamatory, as are her claims regarding the reopening of any criminal investigation concerning Mr. Jackson.”

The “Hard Copy” Broadcast

Later that evening, “Hard Copy” broadcast the following report related to appellant, which again we repeat verbatim.

The speakers on the tape include respondents Dimond and Doran; Victor Gutierrez, the “source” referred to by Dimond in the earlier broadcast; Barry Nolan, an anchorperson for “Hard Copy”; and Kevin Smith, a reporter, who was also seeking to track down the alleged videotape or obtain information about it).

First voice [apparently Kevin Smith]: “[Unintelligible]. then Michael Jackson will be in handcuffs.”

Second voice: “Reports that Michael and a teenage boy have been caught on tape.”

Third Voice [apparently Gutierrez]: “[Unintelligible] . . the tape, there is no doubt about it. It is very graphic.”

Second voice: “Now, investigators are racing to find Michael’s X-rated video.”

Barry Nolan: “New trouble for Michael Jackson tonight. This time police investigators are searching for what they believe is an incriminating x-rated video. Diane Diamond [sic] reports.”

Dimond: “If Michael Jackson thought the new year would bring him a new lease on life Barry, it just isn’t happening that way. Hard Copy has learned that there is now a renewed police investigation into the entertainer’s relationship with young boys. This time, authorities are hot on the trail of an explicit video tape they believe could make their case. Michael Jackson’s videos have been seen around the world. But it is not his music videos authorities are interested in. Nope. Hard Copy can now reveal that investigators from the L.A. District Attorneys office have been working around the clock lately trying to find an x-rated video of the pop superstar which they believe shows him naked and fondling a young boy.”

Gutierrez: “When you [Unintelligible] . . . the tape, there is no doubt about it. It is very graphic.”

Kevin Smith: “If the D.A. gets a hold of the tape and it shows what it’s supposed to show, then Michael Jackson will be in handcuffs.”

Dimond: “The investigators are working for this woman. Assistant D.A. Lauren Weiss. She was once a key player in the Jackson child molestation investigation. Last year, police helped question witnesses brought before a secret grand jury. Now she has her investigators scrambling to find that video tape. Journalist Kevin Smith was questioned by the D.A.’s office.”

Smith: “They are scared. Yes, this is yet another lead which is gonna be snapped up. And disappear mysteriously before they get their hands on it. What they are concerned of is if goes back into the Jackson camp and it will never be seen again.”

Dimond: “It is impossible to independently confirm the existence of the video but several sources including some as far away as London say that this tape is black and white, 27 minutes long, and reportedly recorded by one of Jackson’s own security cameras. Sources also tell Hard Copy the tape was somehow turned over to the Mother of the young boy seen on the video.”

Smith: “The investigator I spoke to said this is what they’ve been waiting for. If they had the tape, that’s all they needed to make an arrest.”

Dimond: “Victor Gutierrez has reported on Michael Jackson for the last decade and has a book about to be published regarding the entertainer’s relationship with various boys. Gutierrez has talked with this young boy’s mother.”

Gutierrez: “And now she is scared. And now, not only that, the District Attorney is trying to get these tapes and I guess through my sources, they already been in contact with the Mother. So, it’s up to the Mother now to make the final decision.”

Smith: “Even if the original copy damages or is destroyed or is hushed up, there has been a copy made and that is what the D.A. is going after.”

Dimond: “Could there actually be such an x-rated tape. Well, late today, Jackson’s lawyer, Howard Weitzman categorically denied the existence of such a video and he says to his knowledge neither the D.A. in Los Angeles or Santa Barbara has reactivated the case. We will have more on this developing story tomorrow. Barry?”

Barry Nolan: “Thanks Diane. . .”

The suit for slander

Appellant Michael Jackson brought suit against Diane Dimond, Stephen Doran, KABC-Radio, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation, Roger Barkley, Ken Minyard, and Victor Gutierrez for slander.

Respondents Paramount Pictures, Dimond, and Doran asserted that they had not made any false statements of factand had not acted with actual malice.

To demonstrate truth, respondents set forth the following facts, established in part through the declarations of Jack S. Gonterman, an investigator employed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, and Thomas Sneddon, the District Attorney of Santa Barbara County.

In December of 1994, the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office received information (1) that a videotape existed depicting appellant engaged in sexual contact with a minor, and (2) that Gutierrez, a freelance journalist who reports on appellant’s activities, had seen such videotape.

Gonterman had been assigned to the investigation of allegations that appellant sexually molested minor children, which investigation, according to Gonterman,”has continuously been an open investigation,” meaning that the office “periodically receives information which [they] evaluate, and where warranted, investigate.”

In early January 1995, Gonterman was instructed to interview Gutierrez “regarding the possible existence of a videotape of [appellant] molesting a minor child.”

On January 5, 1995, Gonterman had a telephone conversation with reporter Kevin Smith in which Smith asked him (Gonterman) whether he was investigating the existence of the alleged videotape. Gonterman told Smith he was intending to conduct some further interviews and asked Smith if he had any knowledge of such a videotape.

Also on January 5, 1995, Gonterman interviewed Gutierrez concerning his knowledge and “[s]hortly thereafter .. discontinued any further efforts in the matter.”

Sneddon handled the investigation of allegations against appellant on behalf of the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office.

In December of 1994, he “received information that a video tape existed depicting [appellant] engaged in sexual contact with a minor child.” According to the reports received by Sneddon, Gutierrez had seen the videotape.

At around the same time, Dimond contacted Sneddon to inquire about reports that his office was looking for such videotape or investigating new allegations of molestation against appellant. Sneddon informed her that he “was not at liberty to comment upon such reports” but stated that the investigation was “still open .. . .”

Although Sneddon did not discuss this with Dimond, at the time of their conversation, a decision had already been made to send Gonterman to look into the existence of the tape and procure it if possible. Gonterman’s investigation led to the conclusion that no such videotape could be located or proven to exist. According to Sneddon’s “recollection and belief” this conclusion was reached sometime after the “Hard Copy” broadcast on January 9. [of course it was proven non-existent only after the broadcast]

To demonstrate lack of malice, respondents first set forth facts showing Dimond’s lengthy experience as a reporter. According to Dimond, in late 1994, she heard from fellow journalist Brian Anderson that a new and significant story about appellant was developing. [In a declaration submitted by appellant, Anderson conceded having this conversation with Dimond but explained he was referring to a completely different matter.]

At around that same time, Dimond was contacted by Gutierrez concerning the possible existence of the incriminating videotape.

Thereafter, she contacted Sneddon and his refusal to confirm or deny that his office was attempting to locate such videotape led her to believe that to mean she was on the right track since, according to her understanding and experience, he would have given an outright denial had there been no truth to the story.

She subsequently talked to Kevin Smith, who related that he had been interviewed by Gonterman in connection with the videotape and had been told that Gonterman intended to conduct additional interviews.

On January 7, 1995, the London Sun, a British newspaper, reported that “Los Angeles police and legal officials were in a frantic race'” to obtain the alleged videotape was brought to Dimond’s attention.

[The Sun also reported that Gonterman said, “I am satisfied the tape exists.'”

Gonterman denied ever saying that he was satisfied that the tape existed.

A competing London newspaper, the Daily Mirror, reported that the Sun’s story was inaccurate. This was also brought to Dimond’s attention. Apparently, the late edition of the Sun did not contain the story, but there is no indication that Dimond or anyone else connected to “Hard Copy” was aware of that fact.] 

After being informed of that article, Dimond again spoke to Gutierrez, who claimed to have seen the videotape and agreed to do an on-camera interview.

Gutierrez had provided early and accurate information on a number of stories pertaining to appellant, such as his marriage to and divorce from Lisa Marie Presley.

During the on-camera interview, which occurred on January 8, Gutierrez related that he had met with the mother of the boy involved; that she had attempted to contact the Los Angeles Police Department and was not taken seriously; that she was told to take the tape to any police station; that the tape was “very graphic”; that the District Attorney’s Office had been in contact with the mother; that appellant’s “people” were trying to find the tape; that the tape was recorded three weeks before Christmas; and that the tape was in black and white.

All this led to undisputed fact number 38, the key fact on lack of malice: “Based on Mr. Gutierrez’s long track record as a reliable source, coupled with the other reports Ms. Dimond received from Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sneddon and Mr. Smith, inter alia, Ms. Dimond believed Mr. Gutierrez’s information to be accurate.”

Respondents in their statement of undisputed facts went on to relate that Doran’s involvement in the story was limited to the  on-camera interview of Kevin Smith, who was not named as a defendant and who made no statements alleged in the complaint to be false. Doran was not involved in the factual investigation, editing, or decision to broadcast the story.

Appellant Michael Jackson’s Opposition

The one significant area of dispute between the parties centered on fact number 38 concerning Dimond’s belief in Gutierrez’s accuracy. In this regard, appellant’s position was supported by the testimony of Brian Anderson’s wife, Lisa Marlowe.

According to her testimony, sometime during the weekend of January 7 and 8, 1995, Dimond called Anderson from whom she had first heard rumors about a new development concerning appellant. Anderson was not home, so Dimond spoke with Marlowe.

Dimond asked Marlowe whether she or her husband had heard the story about a video depicting appellant with a young boy. Marlowe replied she had not and stated, “That sounds like B.S.,'” to which Dimond responded, That’s what I thought.'” Marlowe also said, “Don’t tell me this came from Victor [Gutierrez], because he never mentioned it to us'” and “This sounds like a setup,’ because why would this surface all of a sudden” to which Dimond’s reply was “Yeah, that’s what I thought.'”

Appellant’s opposition was further supported by the declaration of Lauren Weis, Head Deputy of the Torrance Branch of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office, and Gonterman’s deposition testimony.

Weis learned that Gutierrez was claiming to have seen a videotape of appellant engaged in sexual conduct with a young boy, and informed Sneddon. They jointly decided to instruct Gonterman to interview Gutierrez.

Weis also asked Gonterman to speak to Kevin Smith, who had called and left a message asking about the videotape. During that interview, Smith told Gonterman he had heard that Weis believed he had the tape which Gonterman told him was not true.

Smith also told Gonterman that the tape was 27 minutes long and was recorded in black and white. After Gonterman spoke to Gutierrez and Smith, which interviews lasted a total of approximately one hour, nothing morewas done to search for a videotape.

The counter statement of facts sets out a number of actions Dimond could have taken, but did not take, to check out the story, such as asking Gutierrez the name of the hotel where he allegedly saw the tape or the name of the mother whose son was supposedly involved; insisting that Gutierrez produce a copy of the tape; talking to Gonterman about his investigative efforts; obtaining another source for the story; or contacting someone at the Sun about their videotape story.

Concerning Doran, the counterstatement sets forth the following facts to establish his culpability: that he failed to ask Smith the names of his sources, that, according to his testimony, he “did not care who Smith’s sources were,” that he “didn’t particularly care” whether the videotape existed, that his job was simply to “get a good sound bite,” and that he “entertained the possibility that the videotape never existed, but he never shared this with Dimond” or others connected to the program.

The Trial Court’s Order

…The Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown the ability to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.

It is true that Dimond was merely parroting what she had heard from “sources” but, as we have seen, under common law, it is no defense to an action for defamation to say that one is merely accurately repeating rumor or a statement made by a third party.

The court held in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. 254, that “constitutional guarantees require . . . a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with ‘actual malice’ — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

Purporting to apply the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan malice standard, the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded that defendant had broadcast false information about plaintiff “recklessly, though not knowingly.” (St. Amant v. Thompson, supra, 390 U.S. at p. 730.)

In the present case, Dimond did more than profess her good faith. Not only did she state that she believed Gutierrez to be accurate, she backed up her statement with evidence of his reliability as a source on other stories pertaining to appellant even some that initially seemed far-fetched. In addition, she established a palpable reason to believe the story about the videotape due to the fact that the District Attorney’s Office was searching for a tape such as the one Gutierrez described (as confirmed by Kevin Smith, who had spoken with Gonterman, and the “no comment” reply from Sneddon), and the story describing the videotape which appeared in the London Sun. Moreover, the report did not come out of the blue. Appellant had been the subject of a lengthy criminal investigation by the District Attorney’s Office which was widely reported in the press, and had settled a lawsuit in which allegations of sexual molestation were made.

We agree with the court’s assessment.The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan standard does not require that the reporter hold a devout belief in the truth of the story being reported, only that he or she refrain from either reporting a story he or she knows to be false or acting in reckless disregard of the truth.

The statements to Marlowe indicate that Dimond had doubts, not that she “knew” Gutierrez’s story to be untrue. A healthy skepticism is a normal part of a reputable journalist’s makeup and leads him or her to obtain corroborating evidence to back up a source’s story. Dimond did not act recklessly in the face of her doubts, but instead sought out corroborating evidence through her conversations with Smith and Sneddon, each of whom confirmed, in their own way, that they had heard a similar report.

The story in the Sun provided further corroboration. It may be that the sources for the information relayed by the District Attorney’s Office, Smith, and the Sun can be traced directly or indirectly to Gutierrez, as appellant now claims, but there is no evidence to suggest that Dimond had any reason to know or suspect this at the time. The statements attributed to Dimond by Marlowe evidence neither knowledge of falsity nor reckless disregard of the truth.

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

Let me ask a question after all that – if Diane Dimond got away with her lies about naked MJ ‘fondling a young boy’ so easily, could she have the decency to at least apologize to Michael Jackson for all the harm done to him by her groundless accusations?

The reaction to Diane Dimond’s lies was a stormy one:

MINDEN, NV (PRWEB)

January 13, 2004

Source: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/01/prweb98204.htm

Michael Jackson fans from around the world have expressed outrage at the recent announcement that NBC’s “Today” show has signed Court TV journalist Diane Dimond as an analyst. Dimond joins the “Today” show this week to provide reports pertaining to the Michael Jackson case after signing a contract reportedly worth several million dollars.

In a recent interview, Dimond stated, “He [Jackson] is like Jesus Christ. I’ve become the vilified one, because I’ve dared to report it. I don’t give my opinion. I put things in perspective.” [and this is said instead of the apology?]

Sweet, Editor of http://www.OnlineLegalReview.com and co-host of a Jackson-related radio show, recently wrote an open letter to producers of Court TV and the “Today” show calling for Dimond’s “immediate and mandatory resignation” because of her “inexcusable disregard for objectivity, integrity, and professionalism.” Sweet contends that Dimond has “single handedly made a mockery of a Network (Court TV) that built its reputation based on investigative and factual based reporting.”

“Diane’s experience and talents will be a tremendous asset to our coverage,” said “Today” Executive Producer Tom Touchet.

“Someone really should tell Mr. Touchet that he just hired Diane Dimond, not (ABC’s) Diane Sawyer,” Sweet says. “Dimond’s reporting has a lot less to do with her journalistic skills and more to do with her highly publicized connection with the D.A.” Sweet was perhaps referring to recent reports that questioned the extent of the relationship between Dimond and Santa Barbara District Attorney Thomas Sneddon.

Dimond and Hard Copy Producer Stephen Doran were party to a lawsuit Jackson filed in 1997 against journalist Victor Gutierrez. Gutierrez told Dimond he had seen a videotape of Jackson having sex with a young boy. Jackson attorney Zia Modabber stated “He claimed he was shown the tape by the boy’s mother. But the tape never existed. The mother testified that the incident never happened.”

Dimond and Doran were later dismissed from the case, in which Jackson won a $2.7 million judgement when Gutierrez failed to produce the alleged videotape.

Shortly after the verdict, Gutierrez left the U.S. for his home country of Chile, but has recently told several newspapers that he has signed an exclusive 4 month contract with NBC’s Dateline. NBC Publicist Caryn Mautner refused to confirm or deny the contractual status of either Gutierrez or Dimond on their Network.

Veritas Project:

In November 2003, when Jackson was accused of child molestation for a second time, Gutierrez began giving interviews about the case to Chilean newspapers. He claimed that the new set of allegations validated the contents of his book and as a result, Jackson had defamed his character and now owed him money. Gutierrez even went so far as to say that Jackson’s 2,700-acre ranch would soon be his.

During an interview with La Cuarta, Gutierrez alleged that Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddonhad contacted him about being a potential witness in the current case against Jackson. A week later, a member of the District Attorney’s office contacted La Cuarta to refute those claims.

In early 2004, Gutierrez was offered $25, 000 a month from Dateline NBC to cover the Jackson case. He accepted the offer and became a consulting producerfor the news program.

In 2005 Dateline NBC aired a report entitled “Inside the Michael Jackson Case”; the credits reveal that Gutierrez was the consulting producer for the program.

Not surprisingly, Inside the Michael Jackson Case was heavily slanted in favour of the prosecution’s version of events and was laced with numerous falsehoods, half-truths and innuendos. Again, Gutierrez is a proven liar, particularly when it comes to Michael Jackson.

Was NBC intentionally trying to taint the jury pool by hiring a man who clearly had an axe to grind with Jackson to produce a program about his case? How this man has enough credibility to have a job with ANY network is beyond belief.

And now it is DIANE DIMOND who is releasing a book about the media credibility named BE CAREFUL WHO YOU TRUST?

I can’t believe it that it will be her who will be teaching us on the integrity of journalistic work and showing us how to tell a true journalist from a tabloid one…

72 Comments leave one →
  1. Suzy permalink
    October 19, 2011 7:48 pm

    @ Ares

    I know. But it’s very sad that DD can spout her lies and mislead people who don’t know all the facts.

    Notice how she rarely tells about facts. All she does is appealing to people’s emotions, biases and prejudice. She portrays MJ as this big mafia boss, who was “nothing short of criminal” even in his employment of people and intimidated people etc. She hopes people will believe it based on the fact there’s a lot of jealousy out there regarding the rich and celebrities, so people will be ready to believe that a “powerful” celebrity did all that to a poor, working class person.

    Also when fans cite the facts of the trial to discredit DD she uses ad hominem tactics to discredit them. She never addresses the fact itself (of course, because she couldn’t say anything) but says things like “MJ fans are a bunch of kids who are delusional about their idol” etc. Again that is appealing to people’s biases regarding MJ and his fans and avoiding having to answer about the real issues with her claims.

    Like

  2. shelly permalink
    October 19, 2011 7:17 pm

    Suzy,

    She couldn’t leave. She stole 30 000 dollars from 2 kids and she had to give the money back.

    Like

  3. ares permalink
    October 19, 2011 5:12 pm

    Suzy, don’t bother. People who know the facts, the fans that is, know what kind of scums all these people are. Dimond obviously is adressing the things that he is supporting to people who don’t have a clue about the trial, the accusations and MJ and so they will believe her. She counts on that, that people don’t have a clue about all those things, that why she keeps lying without any hesitation. But when someone confronts her, she then negates that she said or claimed something. She has no shame, no morals and she a little delusional fool.

    Like

  4. Suzy permalink
    October 19, 2011 4:30 pm

    Jackson’s former maids squabble over testimony
    May 10, 2005 – 8:51AM

    Michael Jackson’s lawyers launched a frontal offensive today on witnesses who claimed they saw the pop star molest young boys, including former child star Macaulay Culkin, at his Neverland Ranch.

    Kicking off the first full week of the defence case in Jackson’s child-sex trial, former Neverland maid Francine Contreras labelled co-worker Adrian McManus, who testified to seeing the singer fondle Culkin and two other boys, a liar and a thief.

    Insisting she had never heard McManus say anything negative about Jackson when they had worked together at the ranch, Contreras said she cut her friendship with the other maid when she realised she was stealing on the job.

    “She had hats that belonged to Mr Jackson … pyjamas, watches, T-shirts … items that belonged to the ranch,” Contreras said, adding McManus would smuggle the singer’s clothes out in a laundry basket under the pretext of taking them home to iron.

    “There was a hat. You can’t iron a hat,” she said.

    As a prosecution witness, McManus, who worked as Jackson’s personal maid in 1992 and 1993, told jurors she saw the pop icon kissing three young boys as he touched their rear ends or crotches.

    She identified one of those boys as “Home Alone” star Culkin, who has denied ever being abused by Jackson and is expected to testify on the singer’s behalf later in the week.

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/People/Jacksons-former-maids-squabble-over-testimony/2005/05/10/1115584935974.html

    McManus claimed she saw MJ molest Mac and Brett Barnes. Both were on the stand telling it’s not true. So why does DD trust this woman so much?

    Like

  5. Suzy permalink
    October 19, 2011 4:14 pm

    Someone perhaps should ask DD:

    1. How does she know McManus tells the truth? She seems to trust her “sources” a bit too blindly. No wonder she ended up supporting a suspected NAMBLA member.

    2. If it was so horrible to be employed by MJ (minimum wage etc,) what made them want to stay in the job even after they saw things? If anything these horrible circumstances should have made them want to leave the job even easier as soon as they have seen MJ doing those things. How come they only came up with claims after the Chandler scandal broke?

    Like

  6. Suzy permalink
    October 19, 2011 4:08 pm

    LOL @ Diane Dimond’s comment. Talk about revisionisom. So the Santa Maria court found McManus guilty of stealing from Michael without any proof? LOL. Hard to believe.

    These people are really the scam of this Earth. Making a living out of lying about MJ and then they even have the nerve to play the victim.

    Like

  7. October 19, 2011 2:45 pm

    From her facebook

    “Diane Dimond This will be the final back and forth on Adrian. She is a wonderful person who, as she says, “got caught up in MJ’s web.” There are many others who loyally served Mr. Jackson who also came to know the “sting” of his lawyers, private detectives and other “fixers.” Adrian is so viciously attacked by pro-Jackson people because she knows and saw so much. She attended to the Master Bedroom suite during her employ as a Neverland housekeeper and Adrian was one of the first people sought out by police detectives who wanted to know what went on in that suite between the Master and the little boys he invited in to stay. What I saw happen to Adrian – and to others in the employ of Mr. Jackson was nothing short of criminal. They worked for minimum wage + a tiny bit and once the boss got himself in hot water with law enforcement the big guns turned out to the ranch and began a massive case of intimidation. They dug into all the workers pasts, they made up charges like stealing, lying or the like. THIS WAS IN THE YEAR 1993….and former Neverland workers like Adrian are still dealing with the fallout. There is much more to Adrian’s story – I wrote about some of it in my book on Jackson. But the point here is: so many people around Michael Jackson have been forced to pay an ugly price for their association with him – Casting stones at them by using Jackson defense attorney claims is very unfair. In my book its almost criminal. No more attacking comments will be tolerated here. ~ DD”

    Like

  8. October 19, 2011 2:40 pm

    Is it true

    “Speaking of Diane Dimond…:

    Jackson Defense Investigate Diane Dimond

    MICHAEL Jackson’s defense is trying to find out if Court TV’s Diane Dimond has been nosing around prosecutors.

    Newly released documents show that Jackson’s lawyers cast a wide net of “discovery” — prosecution evidence entitled to the defense — in July, and asked for any notes made by DA Tom Sneddon of talks he might have had with Dimond.

    The TV reporter, who has been a thorn in Jackson’s side going back to the 1990s in her years at “Hard Copy,” scored the best Jackson story of the year so far.

    Back in mid-June, she obtained previously secret documents that fully detailed Jackson’s $25 million civil settlement with young accuser in 1993.

    DA Sneddon has so far denied the defense’s Dimond mining expedition — claiming Jackson’s request fell outside the scope of discovery.”

    http://majic-mjj.deviantart.com/blog/?offset=110

    Like

  9. shelly permalink
    September 27, 2011 5:38 am

    A 27-minute video allegedly showing Michael Jackson molesting a 13-year-old boy is reportedly threatening to reopen the sex abuse case against the singer.

    According to the Sun and Today newspapers, the tape was shot a week before Christmas and, investigators say, “the video would be all they would need to convict the singer.” As one police insider told the tabloids: “If we get this, it’s all over for Michael Jackson.”

    But the source warned, “If Jackson’s people get to it first and pay enough money, it will be destroyed and we can’t prove a thing.”

    Jackson biographer Victor Gutierrez claims to have seen the video, shot by hidden security cameras in the star’s Hollywood hideout.

    According to the British papers, the video, which is dated, begins with Jackson and the boy playing indecently. They watch television, and then Jackson fondles him.

    A member of Jackson’s staff reportedly has offered the tape to the boy’s mother, who at first tried to sell it but then changed her mind.

    However, Sandi Gibbons, public information officer for the Los Angeles district attorney’s office, said there was no truth to the newspaper accounts.

    “The story, as far as we’re concerned, is not true. We have not seen any videotape,” she told the Daily News.

    “We have not reopened the investigation. As District Attorney Gil Garcetti said (when he announced in September that he was closing the probe because three boys would not testify), if for some reason new evidence surfaces, we will look at it. We would be remiss if we didn’t. That hasn’t happened.”

    Like

  10. shelly permalink
    September 8, 2011 3:30 am

    There is something that I don’t get that kid is from the US

    “On the dangerous offender application, the Crown led other evidence to show that Mr. Allen sought out pubescent boys. In one case, he induced a fourteen-year-old boy – who was interested in an acting or modeling career – to come to Toronto from Rochester on the pretext that he was an agent for young boys and worked for a company called “American Entertainment”.

    Why wasn’t he charged for taking a kid from his parents?

    Like

  11. shelly permalink
    September 7, 2011 9:31 pm

    In all honesty, I don’t think Dimond believed that story at all. You have to be very stupid to believe that a kid who claimed he was molested would choose to go on TV but not to the police. I think qhe and her producers were pissed off because MJ filed a slander suit against 2 months earlier. That story was on tv on April 27th of 1995. MJ filed the slander suit in January the same year.

    Like

  12. shelly permalink
    September 7, 2011 9:15 pm

    The haters will say that MJ had one book of nude boys like that guy, but he had no child porn.

    Like

  13. lynande51 permalink
    September 7, 2011 7:37 pm

    Shelly “paydirt” is a slang term for finding the right person and the information is valuable. The next time someone refers to the boy in Canada just show them the source that should keep them quiet. This is exactly what we have been talking about here that the organization of these people went after Michael to make him appear as if he was one of them. And a special thanks to Diane Dimond for going after the story,without her no one would know about a convicted child molesters self imposed connection to Michael.
    What is even more valuable is to see the history of Rodney Allen. This is not a one or two time occurance like the haters would like to believe, it is a lifelong perversion starting in their own childhood and most often not connected to them being abused but starting to abuse at a very young age.

    Like

  14. shelly permalink
    September 7, 2011 2:40 pm

    ” Just likeevery other inmate he is in prison for a crime he did not commit.”

    I wonder how many innocent people pleads guilty to a crime they didn’t commit.

    Like

  15. shelly permalink
    September 7, 2011 12:56 pm

    I wonder if is the kid in the video

    “On the dangerous offender application, the Crown led other evidence to show that Mr. Allen sought out pubescent boys. In one case, he induced a fourteen-year-old boy – who was interested in an acting or modeling career – to come to Toronto from Rochester on the pretext that he was an agent for young boys and worked for a company called “American Entertainment”.

    Like

  16. shelly permalink
    September 7, 2011 12:01 pm

    What does it means ” paydirt”?

    You know what, I think I understand why the molestation part of the story seemed credible. Allen was arrested for 2 sexual assaults on a 14 years old boy and that kid was 14 or 15. He was probably molested but not by MJ.

    Like

  17. lynande51 permalink
    September 7, 2011 7:50 am

    I think you hit paydirt with that one Shelly. Just likeevery other inmate he is in prison for a crime he did not commit. It really does look like him and he would have aged considerably in prison.

    Like

  18. shelly permalink
    September 6, 2011 11:28 pm

    The man at 7:46 really looks like him

    http://www.inmate-connection.com/profile_6131/

    Like

  19. lynande51 permalink
    September 6, 2011 7:35 pm

    Meaning that he could be held longer and indefinitely if he was found to be as dangerous offender. That was not in place until the early 2000. There are laws of incarceration everywhere. It just means that they are given a certain sentence based on what they did.

    Like

  20. shelly permalink
    September 6, 2011 7:17 pm

    What do you mean by the law of incarceration changed?

    Like

  21. lynande51 permalink
    September 6, 2011 6:51 pm

    Here is a link to the Appeal that Michael filed against ABC and corp. It has the text of the shows that Dimond was on promoting VG’s lies.
    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1288872.html
    Margaret Maldano also gave a story to the press about Sneddon in 2003-2004 about how he more or less harrassed her and her son Jeremy. They went as far as saying that the car she had purchased for herself was paid for by MJ to buy her silence. She was very insulted.

    Like

  22. lynande51 permalink
    September 6, 2011 6:37 pm

    Yes that is the real Rodney Allen. He was sentenced and then the criminal laws of incarceration changed in Canada. It seems eerily similar that he is what he was making Michael out to be. Is he another member of NAMBLA. I think there is a connection between Allen and VG. It is just too coincidental that the two of them supporting the same sick cause chose the same person to target. Just more proof that they did target Michael.

    Like

  23. shelly permalink
    September 6, 2011 2:20 pm

    Yes, but I think the article I posted makes that whole story horrible. That kid, who lived on his own in the street of Toronto, was with someone who is a dangerous pedophile. Maybe the best thing that happened in that kid’s life was to go to the police to accuse MJ of molesting him. Maybe after being charged with public mischief, he was helped by real social worker.

    Like

  24. ares permalink
    September 6, 2011 2:03 pm

    Yes, i have seen the video before. Dimond was really tricked to this. Not such a bright woman after all.

    Like

  25. shelly permalink
    September 6, 2011 1:44 pm

    It’s him, look at 1:21

    Like

  26. ares permalink
    September 6, 2011 1:40 pm

    @shelly
    I’m sure that in the letters that Rodney Alley send her, he would have included informations in order to get her attention. Informations that the other letters didn’t have which made his fabrications more trusworthy

    Like

  27. shelly permalink
    September 6, 2011 1:24 pm

    Yes, but how could she knows that? She only had the letters and nothing else.

    By the way, look at that map, Mississauga is only 30 minutes from Toronto

    http://www.explorezlequebec.com/carteClient.php?adresse=3669%20Queen,%C2%A0%3Cbr%3ERawdon,%20Canada%3Cbr%3E%20J0K%201S0&nom=Boutique%20Concept%20Ados%20et%20Adultes&tel=450-834-5013&telSF=

    Like

  28. ares permalink
    September 6, 2011 1:17 pm

    @shelly
    You are wondering why Dimond chose to investigate only the bogus allegations of the the Canadian boy ,right?
    My take is because the others who made complains weren’t trustworthy and they didn’t have the informations that the Canadian boy had thanks to Rodney Allen.

    Like

  29. shelly permalink
    September 6, 2011 1:12 pm

    Is it the same guy?

    Sex predator still a danger, court rules

    Ontario’s Court of Appeal has ruled a 50-year-old Mississauga man who admitted to committing a number of sex-related offences against teenage boys in Meadowvale deserves “the most serious punishment in the Criminal Code.”
    A panel of three judges ruled last week that Rodney Allen should remain incarcerated as a dangerous offender.
    Allen, a former private school bus driver, was declared a dangerous offender by Justice Marvin G. Morten in April of 2002, about one year after he pleaded guilty to six offences. His list of crimes includes two sexual assaults on a 14-year-old boy and indecent assault and gross indecency on two other boys.
    Under Canada’s Criminal Code, dangerous offenders may be subjected to an indeterminate prison sentence. The purpose of the legislation is to detain offenders who are deemed too dangerous to be released into society upon completion of their sentences.
    Crown prosecutor Christine Tier told the appeal judges that a person may be declared a dangerous offender if that person is unable to control his or her sexual impulses and, as a result, will likely cause injury or harm to other persons.
    “A dangerous offender declaration is perhaps the most serious punishment in the Criminal Code,” the judges said in their ruling.
    Allen suffers from homosexual hebephilia, the hearing was told. He is attracted to boys entering puberty.
    “His disorder manifests itself by his seeking out, often by deceit, boys aged 11-14, so that he can be near them,” the judges heard.
    Allen appealed the dangerous offender designation, claiming the trial judge overstated the seriousness of his conduct, and therefore his danger to the public. He also claimed the judge misunderstood the evidence on whether he could be treated and whether his risk of reoffending could be managed in the community.
    But the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected those arguments, saying there is evidence from psychiatrists that Allen “had a high risk of reoffending,” and has not been willing to get medical treatment.

    http://www.mississauga.com/mississauga/article/5511

    Like

  30. shelly permalink
    September 6, 2011 11:52 am

    I wonder another thing, the video was on TV in April 1995, exactly 2 months after MJ filed a slander suit against them. If she really had letters from other boys complaining about child molestation why did she chose him?

    Like

  31. Suzy permalink
    September 6, 2011 7:52 am

    @ Shelly

    It’s interesting if Rodney Allen was behind the train story. I wonder if he has a connection to Victor Gutierrez.

    Like

  32. shelly permalink
    September 6, 2011 4:50 am

    I forgot he was convicted in Canada.

    Like

  33. lynande51 permalink
    September 6, 2011 4:13 am

    No he was convicted in Canada. he would not be in the US registry.

    Like

  34. lynande51 permalink
    September 6, 2011 4:10 am

    My guess is that someone provided him the information either that or he worked on the remodel construction that Michael had done when they bought the house. That way he would know exactly where each room was.

    Like

  35. Teva permalink
    September 6, 2011 3:49 am

    Maybe he has an FBI file – IDK

    ….But he sure has some criminal file.

    Like

  36. shelly permalink
    September 6, 2011 3:48 am

    It’s possible that Dimond lied about that in order to save her ass, but anyway the kid spent I believe 6 hours before admitting that he lied.

    Like

  37. Teva permalink
    September 6, 2011 3:46 am

    “He claimed he was raped by another Jackson when he was a kid and it’s why he hated MJ so much.” – Shelly

    He is a liar. Wouldn’t you hate your rapist more than their family member? Still to my point how does he have such intimate knowledge of Jackson’s residences? Either he was a guest, worked there, someone provided him the information, or his knowledge of the layout is completely fabricated.

    Like

  38. shelly permalink
    September 6, 2011 3:42 am

    Is he still alive? If he is dead he probably have an fbi files.

    Like

  39. shelly permalink
    September 6, 2011 3:36 am

    He claimed he was raped by another Jackson when he was a kid and it’s why he hated MJ so much.

    Like

  40. Teva permalink
    September 6, 2011 3:21 am

    A bigger question: How does Rodney Allen know so much about Havenhurst and Neverland? Was he a former employee? Sometimes the small things could lead to big things.

    Like

  41. shelly permalink
    September 6, 2011 3:10 am

    Dimond said the kids was able to identify some Neverland employees and I have the feelings that those employees were probably the Neverland Five and maybe Blanca Francia.

    Like

  42. shelly permalink
    September 6, 2011 3:08 am

    One of the producer said he started sending them letters about other kids being molested just a few days after the beginning of the scandal. He claimed he is a social worker in Toronto like the people in the fbi files. Why is he in one the legal document if it’s not him?

    Like

  43. lynande51 permalink
    September 6, 2011 3:01 am

    Yes they mention a fax about Rodney Allen in one of the later discovery motions. I have thought about that too that it was possibly Rodney Allen and an accomplice that called about the train. It is too coincidental not to be them. Also in the video DD says that he was a familiar face and they had known about him for a long time. So he was probably the one that helped with the Havenhurst 5 story. About 2 years after the DD video Rodney Allen was arrested and convicted of child molestation.

    Like

  44. shelly permalink
    September 6, 2011 2:15 am

    Rodney Allen is in one of the document.

    Like

  45. Teva permalink
    September 6, 2011 1:36 am

    “I wonder if there are articles about the Rodney Allen story except for that famous video. I believe he and one of his friends are the people who called the FBI. The call was made by a woman social worker from Toronto and he said he was a social worker from Toronto and he had an accomplice for the Dimond’s story.” – Shelly

    I have always suspected Rodney Allen was behind the Canadian couple FBI story.

    Like

  46. September 5, 2011 10:05 pm

    Never,ever trust Diane Diamond,Conrad Murray,Gene Simmons, Evan C.(though he is dead),Martin Bashir,Oprah the Chandlers, the Arvizios,
    now callad Janet Jackson(!).They have trusted V.G.The list is long, you know them.

    Like

  47. shelly permalink
    September 5, 2011 3:25 pm

    I wonder if there are articles about the Rodney Allen story except for that famous video. I believe he and one of his friends are the people who called the FBI. The call was made by a woman social worker from Toronto and he said he was a social worker from Toronto and he had an accomplice for the Dimond’s story.

    Like

  48. shelly permalink
    September 5, 2011 1:40 pm

    I just found that

    Case Number: BC119778
    MICHAEL J. JACKSON VS DIANE DIMOND, ET AL

    Filing Date: 01/12/1995
    Case Type: Other Compl-not Tort or Complex (General Jurisdiction)
    Status: Verdict 04/09/1998

    ——————————————————————————–
    Future Hearings
    None

    ——————————————————————————–

    Documents Filed | Proceeding Information
    Parties

    BARKLEY ROGER – Defendant/Respondent

    CHRISTENSEN MILLER FINK JACOBS ET AL – Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    DIMOND DIANE – Defendant/Respondent

    DORAN STEPHEN – Defendant/Respondent

    GOLDMAN ROBERT E. ESQ – Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    GUTIERREZ VICTOR – Defendant/Respondent

    JACKSON MICHAEL J. – Plaintiff/Petitioner

    KABC-AM RADIO INC. – Defendant/Respondent

    KATTEN MUCHIN & ZAVIS LAW OFFICES OF – Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    MINYARD KEN – Defendant/Respondent

    PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORP – Defendant/Respondent

    ZOELLER JEAN E. LAW OFFICES OF – Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    ——————————————————————————–

    Case Information | Party Information | Proceeding Information
    Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)

    Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
    10/16/1997 06/03/1997 10/30/1996 05/21/1996

    04/22/2009 Miscellaneous-Other (Criminal History Assessment )
    Filed by Clerk

    06/18/1999 Satisfaction of Judgment
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    01/19/1999 Order (ORDER MODIFYING PROTECTIVE ORDER RE DISCOVERY FROM VICTOR GUTIERREZ )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    01/19/1999 Ex-parte Request for Order (EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR MODIFI- CATION OF PROTECTIVE ORDER RE DISCOVERY FROM VICTOR GUTIERREZ; DECLARATION OF STEVE COCHRAN GRANTED)
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    01/11/1999 Remittitur (AFFIRMED IN FULL. )
    Filed by Clerk

    11/19/1998 Appl for Writ of Execution & Ord
    Filed by Clerk

    11/19/1998 Writ issued (TO LOS ANGELES )
    Filed by Attorney for Creditor

    08/03/1998 Remittitur (**VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL** )
    Filed by Reviewing Court

    06/10/1998 Judgment (JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    04/08/1998 Notice of Motion (EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CURATIVE INSTRUCTION )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    04/01/1998 Application – misc (FOR A FINDING OF WILLFUL FAILURE TO APPEAR AT TRIAL BY DEFENDANT VICOTR GUTIERREZ )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    03/31/1998 Proof of Service (PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE OF APPLICATION )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    03/31/1998 Proof of Service (PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE OF (PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    03/30/1998 Application – misc (FOR ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT VICTOR GUTIERREZ TO COMPLY WITH NOTICE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    03/27/1998 Notice (OF MOTION FOR USE OF QUESTIONAIRE TO FACILITATE JURY SELECTION )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    03/20/1998 Motion in Limine (TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR MENTION TO THE JURY DEFENDANT GUTIERREZ’S PETITION FOR BANKRUPTCY )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    03/19/1998 Notice (NOTICE OF LODGING (2 VIDEOTAPES AND 1 AUDIOTAPE) )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    03/02/1998 Reply/Response (TO PLFFS REPORT AND AGENDA RE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    02/25/1998 Notice (OF PLAINTIFF’S REPORT AND AGENDA FOR FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; EXHIBITS )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    12/03/1997 Order (ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE THE TRIAL DATE )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    12/03/1997 Ex-parte Request for Order (EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE THE TRAIL DATE; NOTICE OF RELIEF FROM BANKRUPTCY; DECLARATION OF STEVE COCHRAN )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    10/29/1997 Notice (OF BANKRUPTCY STAY (11 U.S.C. SECTION 362(a)). )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    10/28/1997 Notice of Ruling
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    10/27/1997 Report of Referee (TENTH REPORT OF DISCOVERRY REFEREE REGARDING (A) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND (B) SANCTIONS IN CONNECTION WITHT HE EIGHTH AND NINTH DISCOVERY REFEREE (AND ORDER))
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
    TOP 10/16/1997 06/03/1997 10/30/1996 05/21/1996

    10/16/1997 Ex-parte Request for Order (TO AMEND THE JOINT PRETRIAL STATSEMENT WITH AN ADDITIONAL WITNESS (SUPPLEMENT) )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    10/15/1997 Reply/Response (TO SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM BY GUTIERREZ RE MOTION TO QUASH SUBPEONA ON MICHAEL JACKSON )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    10/15/1997 Declaration (OF GEORGE MASTRAS, JR. RE NOTICE OF MICHAEL JACKSON’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO AMEND )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    10/15/1997 Report of Referee (Tenth report of discovery referee regarding(A) motion to compel responses to discovery and (B) sanctions in connection with the eighth and ninth discovery reports )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    10/14/1997 Notice (OF MEMORANDUM RE RIGHT TO JURY TRIAAL )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    10/14/1997 Notice (OF SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM BY GUTIERREZ’ RE OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPENA ON MICHAEL JACKSON )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    10/14/1997 Ex-parte Request for Order (TO AMEND THE JOINT PRE TRIAL STATEMENT WITH AN ADDITIONAL WITNESSES )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    10/14/1997 Brief (RE VICTOR GUTIERREZ’S WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    10/10/1997 Order (ORDER ON MEDIA REQUEST TO PERMIT COVERAGE )
    Filed by Interested Party

    10/10/1997 Request (COURT TV’S MEDIA REQUEST TO PHOTOGRAPH, RECORD, OR BROADCAST )
    Filed by Interested Party

    10/09/1997 Opposition Document (GUTIERREZ TO MOTION TO QUASH NOTICE TO JACKSON TO APPEAR )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    10/09/1997 Joinder (BU GUTIERREZ TO MOTION BY MEDIA TO TELEVISE TRIAL )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    10/08/1997 Proof of Service (OF MMICHAEL J. JACKSON’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF NOTICE TO APPEAR )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    10/08/1997 Proof of Service (OF ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF NOTICE TO MICHAEL J. JACKSON TO APPEAR AT TRIAL )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    10/08/1997 Motion to Quash (SERVICE OF DEFENDANT VICTOR GUTIERREZ’S NOTICE TO MICAHEL J, JACKSON TO APPEAR AT TRIAL )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    10/08/1997 Order (ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF NOTICE TO MICHAEL J. JACKSON TO APPEAR AT TRIAL )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    10/08/1997 Points and Authorities (MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MEDIA REQUEST FOR TELEVISION COVERAGE OF TRIAL )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    10/08/1997 Notice (O SET OF ALL REPORTS OF DISCOVERY REFEREE AND ORDERS OF THIS COURT )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    10/08/1997 Ex-parte Request for Order (SHORTENING TIME ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF NOTICE TO MICHAEL J. JA CKSON TO APPEAR AT TRIAL; DECLARA- TION F G. MASTRAS, JR. )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    10/07/1997 Opposition Document (TO MOTION IN LIMINE RE SHIELD LAW )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    10/07/1997 Opposition Document (TO MOTION IN LIMINE RE 1993 ALLEGATIONS )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    09/30/1997 Motion in Limine (TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE SUPPOSED TRUTH OF THE STORY AT ISSUE )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    09/30/1997 Motion in Limine (TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO PUBLICIZED 1993 ALLEGATIONS )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    09/24/1997 Report of Referee (EIGHTH REPORT OF DISCOVERY REFEREE )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    09/24/1997 Notice of Ruling
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    09/24/1997 Report of Referee (NINTH REPORT OF DISCOVERY REFEREE )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    09/22/1997 Notice (OF SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT RE REFEREE’S 9TH REPORT CONCERNING CHANDLER DEPOSITIONX )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    09/08/1997 Motion for an Order
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    08/07/1997 Ntc to Prepare Reporters Transcrpt
    Filed by Plaintiff

    08/07/1997 Ntc Elect Proceed 5.1
    Filed by Plaintiff

    07/28/1997 Notice of Appeal
    Filed by Plaintiff

    07/15/1997 Stipulation and Order (STIPULATION AND ORDER RE COSTS AWARDED TO DFTS PARAMONT, DIAMOND, DORAN, KAPC-AM RADIO, INC, ROGER BARKLEY & KEN MINYARD ($52,500.00) )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    07/11/1997 Stipulation and Order (STIPULATION AND ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS PURSUANT TO CRC 870 )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    07/08/1997 Points and Authorities (MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    07/08/1997 Notice (OF ERRATA OF DEFENDANTS RE OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    07/07/1997 Stipulation and Order ( STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS PER CRC 870 AND ORDER )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    07/02/1997 Opposition Document
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    06/20/1997 Stipulation (STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS PURSUANT TO CA RULE OF COURT 870 [Extended to July 7, 1997] )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    06/13/1997 Motion for Reconsideration
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
    TOP 10/16/1997 06/03/1997 10/30/1996 05/21/1996

    06/03/1997 Notice of Entry of Judgment (AND ORDERS GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    06/03/1997 Memo of Costs
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    05/30/1997 Summary Judgment (JUDGMENT BY COURT UNDER CCP 437c +COSTS IN THE SUM OF $52,500.00* *PER STIP & ORDER 7/16/97)
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    05/30/1997 Order (ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    05/19/1997 Opposition Document (TO PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    05/15/1997 Proof of Service (by hand delivery in connections with judgment by court, etc… )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    05/01/1997 Report of Referee (SEVENTH REPORT OF DISCOVERY REFEREE RE PUNITIVE DAMAGE DISCOVERY AND ORDER )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    04/24/1997 Declaration (SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JONATHAN H. ANSCHELL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    04/24/1997 Reply/Response (TO PLAINTIFF’S RREVISED OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    04/17/1997 Points and Authorities (REVISED MEMORANDUM OF P’S AND A’S IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    04/17/1997 Declaration (SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JEFREY I. ABRAMS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    04/03/1997 Points and Authorities (REVISED MEMO OF P’S AND A’S IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    03/28/1997 Proof of Service (OF THE PARAMOUNT DFT’S REPLY )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    03/20/1997 Reply/Response (THE PARAMOUNT DFTS’ REPLY )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    03/20/1997 Reply/Response (THE KABC DEFENDANTS’ REPLY )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    03/20/1997 Declaration (SUP. DECL. OF J.H. ANSCHELL IN SUPPORT OF THE DFTS MOTIONS FOR SJ OR SA FILED UNDER SEAL )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    03/20/1997 Notice (SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX OF FEDERAL AND NON-CALIFORNIA AUTHORITY )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    03/17/1997 Declaration (OF HOWARD L. WEITZMAN IN SUPPORT OF MICHAEL J. JACKSON’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ SUMMARY )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    03/13/1997 Brief (MICHAEL J. JACKSON’S MEMO. OF POIN & AUTHORITIES )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    03/13/1997 Declaration (OF LAUREN WEIS AND HOWARD L. WEITZMAN )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    03/13/1997 Declaration (OF JEFFREY I. ABRAMS )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    03/13/1997 Declaration (OF JEFFREY I. ABRAMS FILED UNDER SEAL )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    03/13/1997 Declaration (OF JEFFREY I. ABRAMS FILED UNDER SEAL )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    03/13/1997 Declaration (OF JEFFREY I. ABRAMS FILED UNDER SEAL )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    03/13/1997 Notice (OF LODGING OF THE VIDEOTAPE OF THE 1/8/95 INTERVIEW OF VICTOR GUTIERREZ BY DIANE DIMOND FILED UNDER SEAL )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    03/13/1997 Notice (OF LODGING OF THE EARLY & LATE EDITIONS OF THE 1/7/95 LONDON SUN )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    03/13/1997 Notice (OF LODGING OF THE VIDEOTAPE OF THE 1/8/95, INTERVIEW OF KEVIN SMITH BY STEPHEN DORAN FILED UNDER SEAL )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    03/13/1997 Proof of Service (P/S OF OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS FOR SMA/MSA BY ALL DFTS EXCEPT DORAN )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    03/13/1997 Reply/Response (RESPONSIVE SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED AND UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MSJ/MSA BY DFTS KABC-AM, BARKLEY & MINYARD )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    03/13/1997 Reply/Response (OF MICHAEL J. JACKSON’S SEPARATE STATEMENT )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    02/27/1997 Declaration (OF JONATHAN H. ANSCHELL )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    02/27/1997 Points and Authorities (IN SUPPORT OF PARAMOUNT PICTURES )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    02/27/1997 Declaration (OF JACK GONTERMAN )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    02/27/1997 Declaration (OF THOMAS SNEDDON )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    02/27/1997 Notice (OF LODGING )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    02/27/1997 Declaration (OF JONATHAN H. ANSCHELL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION, DIANE DIMOND AND STEPHEN DORAN FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF CAUSES OF ACTION)
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    02/27/1997 Declaration (OF JONATHAN H. ANSCHELL ATTACHING EXCERPTS OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORP.,DIANE DIMOND AND STEPHEN DORAN FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF CAUSES)
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    02/27/1997 Proof of Service
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    01/21/1997 Ntc to Prepare Reporters Transcrpt
    Filed by Appellant

    01/21/1997 Ntc to Prepare Clerk Transcript
    Filed by Appellant

    01/09/1997 Notice of Appeal
    Filed by Respondent

    12/18/1996 Points and Authorities (POST-HEARING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES (FILED UNDER SEAL) )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    12/18/1996 Notice (OF FILING BOOK BY DEFENDANT GUTIERREZ )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    12/18/1996 Objection (TO COURT’S OFF-THE-RECORD CONTACT WITH DISCOVERY REFEREE )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    12/12/1996 Reply/Response (REPLY MEMO OF P’S & A’S IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST V. GUTIERREZ AND COUNSEL )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    12/09/1996 Opposition Document (TO MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    11/13/1996 Notice-Change-Firm Name / Address
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    11/06/1996 Notice (OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING ISSUE AND EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT VICTOR GUTIERREZ )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
    TOP 10/16/1997 06/03/1997 10/30/1996 05/21/1996

    10/30/1996 Order (ORDER GRANTING ISSUE AND EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DFT VICTOR GUTIERREZ )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    10/30/1996 Reply/Response (TO PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO PROPOSED ORDER; REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    10/25/1996 Reply/Response (TO PARAMOUNT’S AND KABC’S OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED ORDER )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    10/23/1996 Objection Document (THE PARAMOUNT AND KABC DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS TO PLFS NOTICE OF RULING AND PROPOSED ORDER RE ISSUE AND EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS AGAINST VICTOR GUTIERREZ )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    10/10/1996 Reply/Response (MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    10/10/1996 Declaration (OF ROBERT E. GOLDMAN IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION BY GUTIERREZ TO MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND MONETARY SANCTIONS FILED UNDER SEAL)
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    10/08/1996 Opposition Document (TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    10/08/1996 Opposition Document (OPPOSITION BY GUTIERREZ TO MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND MONETARY SANCTIONS )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    10/04/1996 Ex-parte Request for Order (CONTINUINGHEARING AND REFERENCE TO DISCOVERY REFEREE )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    09/30/1996 Notice of Motion (FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    09/30/1996 Notice (OF LODGING OF DISCOVERY MOTIONS AND VICTOR GUTIERREZ’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    09/13/1996 Notice of Change of Address (AND TELEPHONE NUMBER )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    07/25/1996 Opposition Document (TO MOTION FOR SUSTAINING OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY REFEREE’S RECOMMENDATIONS RE DEPOSITION OF VICTOR GUTIERREZ )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    07/18/1996 Notice (OFPARTIAL WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION RE OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY REFEREE’S RECOMMENDATIONS RE DEPOSITION OF VICTOR M. GUTIERREZ )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    07/12/1996 Notice (OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    07/09/1996 Notice of Conference Date
    Filed by Clerk

    06/28/1996 Proof of Service (OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF PROTECTIVE ORDER )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    06/28/1996 Order (ORDER MODIFYING PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY FROM VICTOR GUTIERREZ )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    06/28/1996 Ex-parte Request for Order (FOR MODIFICATION OF PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY FROM VICTOR GUTIERREZ )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    06/24/1996 Stipulation (AND ORDER FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE DISCOVERY PRODUCED BY VICTOR GUTIERREZ )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    06/05/1996 Report of Referee (SIXTH REPORT OF THE DISCOVERY REFEREE (AS MODIFIED) )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    06/04/1996 Declaration (DECLARATION OF ROBERT E. GOLDMAN IN SUPPORT OF VICTOR GUTIERREZ’S MOTION RE SUSTAINING OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY REFEREE’S RECOMMENDATION RE DEPOSITION OF VICTOR M. GUTIERREZ)
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    06/03/1996 Reply/Response (MEMORANDUM POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SANCTIONS )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    05/31/1996 Reply/Response (BY VICTOR GUTIERREZ RE OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY REFEREE’S RULINGS RE FOURTH, FIFTH AND SIXTH DISCOVERY REPORTS )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    05/30/1996 Opposition Document (BY VICTOR GUTIERREZ TO MOTION BY PLAINTIFF JACKSON FOR SANCTIONS )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    05/30/1996 Proof of Service (P/S FOR MEMO OF P’S & A’S IN OPPOS TO DFT GUTIERREZ’ OBJECTIONS )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    05/30/1996 Opposition Document (DFT GUTIERREZ’ OPPOSITIONS TO MOTION BY PLF FOR SANCTIONS )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    05/30/1996 Proof of Service (FOR MICHAEL JACKSON’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO OBJECTIONS )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    05/29/1996 Points and Authorities (MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY REFEREE RECOMENDATIONS )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    05/29/1996 Declaration (OF ZIA F. MODABBER )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
    TOP 10/16/1997 06/03/1997 10/30/1996 05/21/1996

    05/21/1996 Notice (OF LODGING OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    05/14/1996 Notice of Hearing (DFT GUTIERREZ’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION RE SUSTAINING OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY REFEREE’S RECOMMENDATION IN THE 4TH, 5TH, & 6TH DISCOVERY REPORTS (FILED UNDER SEAL) $14.00 PAID)
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    04/23/1996 Request for Arbitration (FIFTH REPORT OF DISCOVERY REFEREE AND ORDER )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    04/23/1996 Request for Arbitration (FOURTH REPORT OF DISCOVERY REFEREE AND ORDER )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    02/26/1996 Report of Referee (RECOMMENDATION OF THE DISCOVERY REFEREE RE: CONFIDENTIALITY OF CERTAIN DISCOVERY RESPONSES (AND ORDER) )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    02/26/1996 Report of Referee (THIRD REPORT OF DISCOVERY REFEREE (AND ORDER) )
    Filed by Referee

    02/20/1996 Stipulation and Order (STIPULATION RE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    01/20/1996 Stipulation
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    05/22/1995 Notice of Change of Address
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    05/18/1995 Answer to Complaint
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    05/04/1995 Answer to Complaint (Answer To First Amended Complaint )
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    04/20/1995 Proof of Service (SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    04/20/1995 Proof of Service (SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    04/14/1995 Answer to Complaint
    Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    04/11/1995 Proof of Service
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    03/24/1995 Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl (proof of service of summons on Fir first amended complinat and first amended complaint )
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    03/10/1995 Summons Issued
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    03/10/1995 Amended Complaint
    Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    01/12/1995 Complaint

    Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
    TOP 10/16/1997 06/03/1997 10/30/1996 05/21/1996

    ——————————————————————————–

    Case Information | Party Information | Documents Filed
    Proceedings Held (Proceeding dates listed in descending order)

    Click on any of the below link(s) to see proceedings held on or before the date indicated:
    5/1/1997 6/29/1995

    04/09/1998 in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Jury Trial – End of Trial

    04/08/1998 in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Jury Trial – Jury Deliberating

    04/07/1998 at 09:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Jury Trial – Full Day of Trial Held

    04/06/1998 at 09:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Jury Trial – Full Day of Trial Held

    04/02/1998 at 10:00 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Jury Trial – Half Day of Trial Held

    04/01/1998 at 09:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Jury Trial – Full Day of Jury Selection

    03/31/1998 at 09:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Jury Trial – Trial continued

    03/30/1998 at 09:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Trial – Start of Trial

    03/06/1998 in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Ruling on Submitted Matter – Granted in Part

    03/04/1998 at 08:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Final Status Conference – Completed

    12/03/1997 at 08:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Exparte proceeding – Granted

    10/27/1997 at 01:30 pm in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Jury Trial – Proceedings Stayed

    10/16/1997 at 08:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Exparte proceeding – Granted

    10/15/1997 at 09:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Jury Trial – Trial Trailed

    10/10/1997 at 08:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Final Status Conference – Completed

    09/24/1997 at 08:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Motion Hearing – Motion Denied

    07/10/1997 at 08:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Motion for Reconsideration – Motion Denied

    06/02/1997 at 08:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Further Status Conference – Completed

    05/30/1997 in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Court Order – Completed

    05/02/1997 in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Ruling on Submitted Matter – Granted

    Click on any of the below link(s) to see proceedings held on or before the date indicated:
    TOP 5/1/1997 6/29/1995

    05/01/1997 at 08:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Motion for Summary Judgment – Submitted

    03/20/1997 at 08:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Court Order – Completed

    02/07/1997 at 08:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Further Status Conference – Completed

    12/20/1996 in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Ruling on Submitted Matter – Motion Denied

    12/16/1996 at 08:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Motion for Sanctions – Submitted

    12/11/1996 at 08:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Motion for Sanctions – Off Calendar

    10/30/1996 in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Court Order – Completed

    10/15/1996 at 08:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Motion Hearing – Granted in Part

    09/06/1996 at 08:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Further Status Conference – Completed

    08/01/1996 at 08:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Motion Hearing – Motion Denied

    06/28/1996 at 08:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Further Status Conference – Completed

    06/05/1996 at 08:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Motion Hearing – Granted in Part

    04/23/1996 in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Court Order – Completed

    03/07/1996 at 08:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Further Status Conference – Matter continued

    02/26/1996 in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Court Order – Completed

    01/17/1996 at 08:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Further Status Conference – Completed

    12/19/1995 in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Court Order – Completed

    11/16/1995 at 08:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Status Conference – Completed

    08/17/1995 at 08:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Court Order – Completed

    07/11/1995 in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Court Order – Completed

    Click on any of the below link(s) to see proceedings held on or before the date indicated:
    TOP 5/1/1997 6/29/1995

    06/29/1995 at 08:30 am in Department 44, REGINALD A. DUNN, Presiding
    Motion Hearing – Off Calendar

    Like

  49. shelly permalink
    August 30, 2011 2:29 pm

    “Kevin Smith” did spoke to the Neverland 5 at one point and he was linked to Victor Gutierrez.

    Like

  50. Dialdancer permalink
    April 2, 2011 6:23 am

    And now the reason for Dimond SUPPOSEDLY exposing the Canada extortion attempt on Michael makes sense. She with the able assistance of her partner in crime T. Sneddon were once again covering her lies. In mid 94 the SB Police had checked out a story of a young Canadian male (bet if not the same boy was one of the gang) and found they could not use it so it was shelved…… until Diane Dimond over reached. Sneddon kept her from getting sued then gave her something she could use to show she was not bias against Michael.

    Now the reported 95 extortion attempt make more sense, it explains why there was such a lack of detail on how the extortionists came by their almost exact knowledge of Neverland & Encino and why when she reported the man stated he was after MJ for money, but had been molested by another Jackson when younger no names were given. I’d still like to see her explain away in public why she did not ask those questions and if she did why she did not report the answers.

    Like

  51. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    September 22, 2010 8:29 pm

    This research by David is outstanding.

    With the work being done here and on Seven’s site, hard, indisputable facts are coming to light, and more importantly, so is the documentation.

    It is interesting that Dimond is making her presence felt on Huffington Post. As the biggest news aggregator site in the US, its reach is extensive. So, with a new book to promote it’s a logical choice for her to head to.

    There is also the possibility that she will hold forth on HP during Murray’s trial. Unfortunately, the policy of HP is that guest bloggers are given ultimate moderation rights.

    Like

  52. Suzy permalink
    September 22, 2010 7:56 pm

    Don’t worry, guys!

    Look at the number of responses to Charles Thomson’s article and to Dimond’s (especially the supportive responses). LOL!

    Like

  53. September 22, 2010 7:42 pm

    “Why the Huffington Post? This not her normal territory.”

    Dialdancer, I know of one journalist who wrote two great articles in the Huffington Post and who has been lately associated with it – it is Charles Thomson. It seems that the recent attack against him from Michael’s foes (who present themselves as his fans) was only an introduction while the real attack is starting only now and is being launched by DD as our top defamation technique master.

    Frankly all these maneuvers produce the impression of being orchestrated by someone.

    Like

  54. Dialdancer permalink
    September 22, 2010 5:38 pm

    I think there is something being overlooked about her recent article. Why the Huffington Post? This not her normal territory. Her particular talents are better suited to the NY Post or Trash Bin Weekly. She is not here to attack another journalist unless it is Aphrodite Jones or Geraldine Hughes. That is not the way she operates. She bolsters the bad guy and lie on the good guy or take potshots at any book on Michael which is having a positive response.

    Like

  55. September 20, 2010 7:13 pm

    “Why is she writing about media lies now? What could possibly be her motive? I think she’s beginning to realize that writers like Charles Thomson and Deborah Ffrench are starting to have an impact on destroying her carefully constructed caricature of Michael; she doesn’t like it and is setting the stage for undermining them.”

    Hello, guys. Happy to see you going strong! Susan, I am 100% per cent sure that the media people, not only Dimond, have sensed a new element in the air (Aphrodite Jones, Charles Thomson, Deborah Ffrench, Geraldine Hughes, William Waneger and others) and noticed that control over people’s minds has started slipping from their hands.

    Imagine their surprise – Peretti’s film was a kind of a report meant to dot all their ‘i’s and imprint the dirtiest ever picture of Michael into people’s minds FOREVER – and here, when the victory seemed so was overwhelming and complete – they suddenly see that the attitude is changing! They regard is as a direct menace to their monopoly over Michael’s image and are taking swift counter action now. Diane Dimond is just their loudest barking dog (despite her ladylike appearance) who is doing her usual defamation job, but she is far from being alone – she wouldn’t have been able to do so much damage if she had been the only one. There are a great many of them – and they are trying to nip this dissonance with their ‘teaching’ about Michael in the bud.

    Like

  56. shelly permalink
    September 19, 2010 10:24 pm

    The whole text is here

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/b114354.pdf

    Like

  57. Dialdancer permalink
    September 19, 2010 4:03 am

    I will tell you what is sickening, the sheer stupidity of these people. They always over reach. Margaret Maldonado tells in her book that Jermaine Jackson used to be a volunteer police officer or sheriff. Besides being very well known why would a cop ignore the mother of Jermaine Jackson’s child on a molestation complaint?

    Like

  58. Susan permalink
    September 18, 2010 1:16 pm

    Hi everyone:

    Helena, your quote – “As to Diane Dimond I bet her final aim is to attack journalists like Charles Thomson for their lack of integrity.”

    Helena, I think your’e on to something here. Why is she writing about media lies now? What could possibly be her motive? I think she’s beginning to realize that writers like Charles Thomson and Deborah Ffrench are starting to have an impact on destroying her carefully constructed caricature of Michael; she doesn’t like it and is setting the stage for undermining them.

    Like

  59. Suzy permalink
    September 18, 2010 9:23 am

    Dimond makes one good point though:

    “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.”

    How come they NEVER found anything like that in MJ’s possession since he is such a raging p, according to Dimond and the media?

    Like

  60. September 18, 2010 7:32 am

    “I don’t know what sick logic VG operates under.”

    Gigi, their logic is probably to shock the reader with all these revolting details so that he no longer thinks or tries to think or even wants to think. Their aim is a huge quantity of lies (even ridiculous ones) which at a certain moment turn into a new quality of people believing anything they say.

    People are prone to believe stories and if a story is full of colorful details like ‘naked’, ‘fondling’, ‘we saw it with our own eyes’, ‘the tape was seized by the other side’, ‘it was graphic’, ‘ explicit’, etc. – no one will be interested in the fact that no such incident ever occurred at all.

    And that the ‘complaining’ mother never saw the person to whom she allegedly complained.

    If the story is colorful it starts a life of its own

    Like

  61. Dialdancer permalink
    September 18, 2010 7:21 am

    Isn’t strange how the dog always eat their homework. This reminds me of Dimond’s lie about her car…..no it was her home, depending upon whom she was talking to was broken into and all of her Michael Jackson files were stolen.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/17/us/hollywood-s-investigator-to-the-stars-heads-to-jail.html

    There is another interview where she says it was her car that was broken into and the files stolen.

    Like

  62. lcpledwards permalink
    September 18, 2010 7:15 am

    @ Gigi

    Those are my thoughts exactly! When I first read about this case last year, the minute that I saw that the LAPD “ignored” that tape that the mother contacted them about, that AUTOMATICALLY destroyed all of this story’s credibility! There is NO WAY that the LAPD would “ignore” such a devastating piece of evidence, whether it’s MJ or the guy living down the street.

    Similarly, Dimond and Ray Chandler mentioned some “phantom victim” that MJ m’d in Germany in the early 90s. When MJ was arrested in 2003, Court TV tried to track him down, but to no avail. Dimond destroyed her credibility by mentioning how nobody in law enforcement “specifically remembered” that kid. Puleeazze! Helena and I updated the “Phantom Victim” post with this new information, so check it out for more details:

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/phantom-victims-of-mj/

    Like

  63. September 18, 2010 7:10 am

    “I have the original court document. I got mine from The California Court of Appeals whenI went shopping there.I also have Articles from 2003/2004 that verify what Victor said about working for NBC if you need them.”

    Lynette, of course we need all the documents we can lay our hands on. It means that the DD/VG’s saga will be continued – this post says only a fraction of what should be said about both of them.

    And the excerpt you provide from MJWML also shows that Victor Gutierrez was working in close contact with Evan Chandler as this type of information could have come only from him. I fully agree with your conclusions – Evan Chandler was most probably asking of Dr. Abrams opinion to make sure that he believed their concocted story. When you are a screenwriter you never know whether the viewer will be engrossed by your story or not.

    As to Diane Dimond I bet her final aim is to attack journalists like Charles Thomson for their ‘lack of integrity’. I regard her as someone whom you should listen to and then do exactly the opposite – this way you will never make a mistake.

    Like

  64. September 18, 2010 6:57 am

    vg acussed falsely a politician of being a pedo here in Chile if i remember correctly i think he paid a false witness and he spent some time in jail.

    Like

  65. September 18, 2010 3:08 am

    My mind is spinning after reading this.

    “Upon viewing the tape’s contents, Gutierrez says, the mother contacted the Los Angeles Police Department only to have her claims ignored by investigators. Unsure of what to do, she got in contact with Gutierrez, arranged a meeting with him in a hotel room and showed him the alleged tape.”

    I don’t know what sick logic VG operates under. How in the world is a mother going to contact LAPD about a tape (VG conjured up) she just saw, but she has to go running to VG, because investigators ignored her. Now, with the words “Upon viewing” and “contacted” common sense tells us, that means the mother would be standing in a police office (or any local in the presence of police) showing the police a tape. Additionally, it would mean the tape would have then been taken from the mother and moved directly in the LAPD’s possession, and MJ picked up on the spot. There would NOT have been no tabloid talking heads playing hide and go seek with tape. VG (& Co. 4 that matter) expects us to believe after showing the police a tape, LAPD would turn around and ignore the mother. VG must have been slapped with the stupid stick, use the man is walkin’ Stupidity with a demented mind.

    Like

  66. lynande51 permalink
    September 18, 2010 12:28 am

    I have the original court document. I got mine from The California Court of Appeals whenI went shopping there.I also have Articles from 2003/2004 that verify what Victor said about working for NBC if you need them. I also scanned more pages of MJWML and will email them to you.It is a wealth of knowledge. Let me give you an example here . He is discussing the day that Jordan went to see Dr. Mathis Abrams on MJWML page 122 it reads:
    Rothman called Dr. Abrams when the interview with Jordie was over. He asked if a written report would be favorable to Evan.THE DOCTOR SAID IT WOULD BE AGAINST THE LAW FOR HIM TO COMMENT,AND THE ONLY THING THEY COULD DO WAS WAIT.
    I have said again again that NO DOCTOR be it Dr. Abrams or Dr. Richard Gardner could ever give them an answer to that question or give them a transcript, and will someone PLEASE TELL ME WHY THEY WOULD ASK IF IT WOULD BE FAVORABLE OR NOT OR IF JORDAN WAS BELIEVED UNLESS THEY KNEW IT WAS A LIE. It is my opinion that Victor Gutierrez USED that stupid, stupid, FOOL Diane Dimond for his own agenda and she went right along with it because it made her career for her. She wouldn’t know journalistic integrity if it jumped up and bit her you know where. Now she has a book bad mouthing the very media she was once a part of. HYPOCRISY THY NAME IS DIANE DIMOND.

    Like

  67. September 17, 2010 11:34 pm

    Guys, I am happy to say that I’ve found a working link for the Veritas Project. Here it is:

    http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 4 of 6: So-Called “Christians” Who Have LIED Against Michael! « Vindicating Michael
  2. Fact Checking Diane Dimond’s Lies from TruTV’s “In Session” « Vindicating Michael
  3. A Dossier on Dirty Diane (Dimond) | MJJ-777

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: