Skip to content

Summary and Analysis of Martin Bashir’s Testimony from the 2005 Trial, Part 1 of 2

December 6, 2011

Just when you thought that there was no limit to the depths of Martin Bashir’s deception during the 2005 inquisition of Michael Jackson, think again! As I read the Declaration of Brian Oxman in support of Order to Show Cause re: Contempt Against Martin Bashir, I was utterly stunned at the revelations of Bashir’s cowardice and treachery! I’ll summarize everything that is contained in this massive 185 page document, as well as his testimony from the trial, and at the end of this seriesI will reveal additional BOMBSHELL information, so let’s get down to business!

Before we begin, let me tell you about a new project that I will begin working on. Due to the appalling lack of knowledge by so many “hardcore” fans about the facts of the allegations, I have decided to summarize each and every person’s testimony from the 2005 trial. I want all fans to know who testified, and what they said. Everyone’s testimony will be analyzed, and extra attention will be paid to the “major players” of the trial, which includes (but is not limited to): the Arvizo family, Jason and Blanca Francia, June Chandler, Bob Jones, Stacy Brown, Kassim Abdool, Adrian McManus, Ralph Chacon (Abdool, McManus, and Chacon were part of the “Neverland 5”), the detectives who interviewed the Arvizos, Stan Katz, Larry Feldman, and of course Martin Bashir. I will put all of their lies in chronological order (e.g. Lie #1, Lie #2, etc.), list them as bullet points at the end of each post, and do each post as a daily summary, similar to what is on the MJ Upbeat site.

I was already working on this post about Bashir when I decided to embark on this endeavor, and it will take me well into 2013 to complete this task, but in the end it will be worth it because everyone will have an easy reference to research everything that happened during MJ’s inquisition. I’ll admit that when I began my research after MJ’s death, I made the mistake of blowing off the trial as one big joke, and I focused on fact checking and refuting other negative sources of information, instead of summarizing the trial.  But there are a lot of diehard fans (many of them know every song and dance) who need to be educated, and if I don’t do this, nobody will! 

With that said, let’s analyze Bashir’s testimony from the trial!

Here is a summary of Oxman’s declaration on behalf of Michael Jackson, and a few excerpts of his complaints against Bashir. (You can read the entire list on pages 1-7.) The heart of the matter is the fact that Bashir refused to answer 21 questions asked to him by Mesereau while under cross examination, and the defense requested that he be cited for civil contempt and incarcerated until he complied with the Court’s Order that he answers the questions. Unfortunately, Bashir was neither charged nor incarcerated! 



Brian Oxman fraternizing wth the enemy! Would Mesereau ever do this? I don’t think so!

I, Brian Oxman, declare and say:

1. I am an attorney law admitted to practice before all the courts of the State of California and I am the attorney for Mr. Michael Jackson. I submit this Declaration in support of Mr. Jackson’s Order to Show Cause re Contempt. Mr. Jackson requests a contempt citation be issued against Contemnor Martin Bashir based on the following:

(1) Contemnor Bashir is guilty of a direct civil contempt of court by refusing to testify when the court overruled all of Contemnor’s claims of privilege, and Contemnor’s refusal to testify was a willful violation of the of Code of Civil Procedure sections 1209(a)(5) and (9);

(2) Neither the California Shield Law nor the First Amendment apply to Contemnor Bashir because he is a percipient witness who waived all privileges by publishing the information to third parties.

(3) Mr. Jackson’s rights to cross-examination and confrontation outweigh Contemnor Bashir’s Shield Law and First Amendment privileges and Contemnor should be held in contempt.


2. Plaintiff filed this action on December 18, 2003, charging Mr. Jackson with seven (7) counts of Lewd Acts Upon a Child in violation of Penal Code section 288a and two (2) counts of administering an intoxicant to a minor in violation of Penal Code section 222. Plaintiff soon abandoned the Complaint and sought a Grand Jury Indictment which, not only changed the nature of the claims, but also changed the dates on which they took place. The April 26, 2004, Indictment charged Mr. Jackson with a vast conspiracy to falsely imprison, abduct, and extort the complaining witness family along with unindicted co-conspirators including Mr. Jackson’s attorneys, employees, and friends of friends Mr. Jackson hadn’t ever met.

3. Plaintiff claims the vast conspiracy was precipitated by the television program “Living with Michael Jackson” which aired in England on February 3, 2003, and in the United States on February 7, 2003. According to plaintiff, this program, which was an interview with Mr. Jackson conducted by Witness Martin Bashir, was supposed to be so devastating to him that he decided to kidnap a family depicted, in the program, extort them, and falsely imprison them from February 4, 2003, to March 13, 2003. In addition, despite a very public investigation being launched by the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office into Mr. Jackson’s possible child molestation on February 6, 2003, Mr. Jackson is alleged to have molested the children, not before the events of February 3-6, 2003, but rather only afterward, in an apparent effort to hand the District Attorney a case which never existed before, and in fact has never existed at all.

5. However, not only does the Bashir Program not contain any such “admissions,” but also plaintiff sought to misconstrue the actual language where Mr. Jackson and the complaining witness denied any such conduct. Undaunted nevertheless by the truth, on February 10, 2005, plaintiff filed a Motion for Admission of Certain Statements by Defendant on “Living with Michael Jackson” and “60 Minutes” as exceptions to the Hearsay Rule. (Exhibit “B”). Plaintiff claimed the statements made in September, 2002, constituted “admissions” within the exceptions to the hearsay rule that Mr. Jackson “shared his bed” with the complaining witness, (Exhibit “B,” Plaintiffs 2-10-05 Memo, p. 3, lines 11-24).”

8. Witness Bashir’s Motion stated pursuant to the First Amendment and the California Shield Law contained in Evidence Code section 1070, he was protected against forced disclosure of any information before the Court (Exhibit “D” Bashir 1-18-05 Motion, p. 2, lines 3-9). He claimed that he could not be compelled to be a witness nor to provide any testimony before the court (Exhibit “D,” Bashir 1-18-05 Memo, p. 7, lines 1-3).

9. On January 27, 2005, the Court denied Witness Bashir’s Motion. However, the Court modified the “gag” order of January 23,2004, and thereby permitted Witness Bashir to engage in conduct which defamed Mr. Jackson in two and one-half (2 1/2) hours of national television broadcasts which are the subject Mr. Jackson’s separate Motion to Dismiss for invidious discrimination. (Sec Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Permit Broadcast Response filed 2-23-05).

10. Witness Bashir then communicated with the District Attorney’s Office stating that despite the Court’s ruling, he intended to assert his privileges under the First Amendment and the California Shield Law and refuse to testify to anything not published in the television program itself.

11. “When Mr. Jackson sought to cross-examine the witness, Witness Bashir refused to answer questions regarding misrepresents he made to Mr. Jackson, how the television program was made, the number of hours of film that was taken, what statements he made to Mr. Jackson to obtain permission to film the program, who was present during the filming, what the process was whereby the film was edited, and a host of other questions regarding the depictions in the film. Witness Bashir invoked the First Amendment and the California Shield Law as the basis for his refusal to testify. When the Court overruled the objection and instructed the witness to answer the questions, Witness Bashir continued his recalcitrant refusal to testify just as he had informed plaintiff he would do before he was called as a witness.

12. Attached to this Memorandum is the Order to Show Cause re: Contempt against Contemnor Bashir that outlines each of the questions Mr. Jackson’s attorney asked of the witness, Contemnor Bashir’s objection to the questions, the Court’s overrule of the objections, and the witnesses’ refusal to answer. In the face of such recalcitrance, the Court stated that it would review the transcript and determine whether an Order to Show Cause re: Contempt should be issued against the witness. (Exhibit “E,” 3-1-05 Tr. p. 276, In 18-21). Mr. Jackson hereby requests the Court to issue the Contempt Citation because Witness Bashir refused to answer the questions without justification, and that refusal has destroyed Mr. Jackson’s rights to a fair trial. 

13. Contemnor Bashir was a witness to the events of September, 2002, when Mr. Jackson made statements to him which the prosecution now wishes to introduce as so-called “admissions.” Contemnor Bashir was the one who induced Mr. Jackson to make the statements, and any trickery, deception, misrepresentations, play acting, coercion, or other numerous possible types of conduct which were perpetrated against Mr. Jackson at the time are not only relevant, but also essential to determine the authenticity, voluntariness, and trustworthiness of the recorded statements. As a percipient witness to the so-called “admissions”, Contemnor Bashir does not qualify for Shield Law protection.


14. Without justification, Contemnor Bashir refused to answer the question of what other statements Mr. Jackson made to him during the filming (Exhibit “E,” 3-01 -05 Tr. p. 259, In 28 to p. 260, In 19). He refused not because of his feigned constitutional privilege, but rather because Mr. Jackson told Contemnor Bashir that Frank Casio was present in the bedroom at all times the complaining boy was present. The information was deliberately edited out of the Bashir Program, and the statements contained in the Bashir Program were fraudulently edited as a misrepresentation of Mr. Jackson’s statement.

15. Witness Bashir refused to answer the question of how Mr. Jackson signed the interview agreement with him or if an attorney was present (Exhibit “E,” 3-01 -05 Tr., p. 242, In 21, to p. 243, In 26). The fact is Witness Bashir forged Mr. Jackson’s signature to obtain the interview with him. Attached as Exhibit’ F” is the forged document witness Bashir produced to Mr. Jackson’s management and to Independent Television in London claiming it was Michael Jackson’s signature in order to obtain what would become a fraudulently edited interview with Mr. Jackson.

18. The Shield Law only permits a journalist to maintain “unpublished” information confidential. Contemnor Bashir has published claims about agreeing to be fair, that he was honest, that there was no betrayal. Mr. Jackson’s questions at trial inquired into these claims and Contemnor may not make such statements to the public and then refuse to answer questions about them. Contemnor waived his Shield Law and First Amendment privileges and he could be held in contempt of court.


Let’s go over a few points:

In bullet point #2, Oxman mentioned how the prosecution completely changed the charges and dates in between the filing of the initial complaint and the grand jury indictment. In the initial complaint, filed on December 18th, 2003, MJ was charged with:

  • 7 counts of lewd acts upon a child
  • 2 counts of administering an intoxicant

However, in the grand jury indictment that was filed on April 21st, 2004, the dates of the alleged offenses shifted to February 20th through March 12th, 2003, and the charges were materially altered as follows:

  • 4 counts of lewd acts upon a child
  • 1 count of an attempted lewd act upon a child
  • 4 counts of administering an intoxicant
  • 1 count of conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment, and extortion

This is what Oxman summarized in this motion, and it is indicative of Sneddon’s desperation to railroad MJ into a criminal trial at all costs! When he realized that one of the videotapes that was illegally seized from Geragos’ private investigator Bradley Miller’s office was the “rebuttal tape”, and that MJ was not even in California during the alleged dates in the initial complaint, he rearranged the dates of the alleged crimes and added the conspiracy charge to circumvent MJ’s alibi, and the fact that he kept receipts of the numerous shopping sprees that he treated the Arvizos’ to!

Mesereau recently gave an interview to Positively Michael, and in this excerpt from that interview he discusses the reasons Sneddon added the conspiracy charge:

First of all this was a very complex, confusing, terrifying situation. What Sneddon did, the DA who was after Michael as everyone knows, what he did was he brought these conspiracy charges for many different reasons. One of them was to terrify away witnesses that can help Michael Jackson. 

And what he did was and it was very strange, he had the grand jury indict Michael on various counts the first one being conspiracy. But the only one in the alleged conspiracy charged was Michael. He called everyone else an unindicted co-conspirator which is a giveaway right away that he had a nefarious purpose for bringing a conspiracy charge. 

So Michael was charged with conspiracy. Remember a conspiracy is an agreement among various individuals to commit a crime. the agreement can be in writing or it can be not in writing. It can also be an understanding. But nevertheless conspiracy involves more than one person and it requires a form of agreement to commit a crime. But the only one charged was Michael Jackson. So that ought to tell you something right there something is wrong. 

Everyone else was called an unindicted co-conspirator. Frank Cascio, Vinnie Amen, Dieter, Konitzer, Marc Shaffel. What I think he did was he wanted to scare the daylights away from these potential witnesses for Michael Jackson because they were there when Arvizo’s was around. And to do that he sort of hang the possibility of charging them over their heads, he forced them all to get lawyers and he terrified them. Let’s face it. 

As I said in other discussions there were other technical reasons he brought that charge. It would allow the Arvizo’s to testify about Cascio, Shaffer, Amen, Dieter and Konitzer and at the same time scare them away so Michael couldn’t bring them in to contradict or refute what Arvizo’s said. It was very very sinister in my opinion.

So Frank Cascio and the rest all got lawyers, you would expect them to. They were looking at the possibility of felony charges of conspiracy and years in prison. We were sort of preparing our defense and trying to figure out who everyone was and what they can contribute to our defense and what they had to say and what they said to other people, have they talked to Sneddon and company. You know this is what criminal defense is. This was a huge case, everything was magnified a million times. 

So Frank Cascio got a lawyer and I did not want Michael talking to him or him talking to Michael because this would open up the door to types of examination by the DAs in the trial. Although I believe they were talking anyway because they were friends for many years. 

And Cascio’s lawyer Joe Tacopina from NY started calling me and asking me what was going on and what I thought. I would tell him what I could and I would ask him what Frank was up to. My impression was Frank was listening to his lawyer. His lawyer was going very carefully, very professionally, very delicately through the evidence and trying to find out how to protect his client. That was what his job was. So his lawyer wasn’t right away saying “he’ll do whatever you want”, he was being careful about it and I think Frank was listening to his lawyer. I don’t know what he said to Michael or what Michael said to him. I know his family members were talking to Michael , I wasn’t privy to those conversations. You know they are all very close friends. 

At some point a perception that Frank was not being cooperative had developed. I’m not so sure why it might have developed. It might have been just his lawyer being cautious and careful. But I can say this in the end he was willing to testify. His lawyer told me he was willing to testify , he had a lot of conversations. What I think happened was he was scared, he was listening to his lawyer , his lawyer was being cautious that may have been construed as him not being cooperative but I will say this in the end he was willing to come in and testify. That’s what I think really happened with Frank Cascio.

Now you know I can’t blame him for being terrified. He does say in his book that I have to point out that Sneddon offered him immunity from prosecution. What that meant was if he came forward and cooperated with Sneddon and the DA’s office he could not be prosecuted. He also had to be willing to testify against Michael and he refused it. Even though that would have been a very safe way to go to make sure that you aren’t charged. You gotta give him credit for that. Gotta give him credit for that, gotta understand how terrified they were about being charged with felony conspiracy going to prison. You gotta appreciate he was listening to his lawyer who was going on cautiously and carefully to figure out how to best protect his client. So I don’t think anyone should blame Frank. Really don’t. 

Now other people weren’t as terrified as he was. For example Chris Tucker and Maculay Culkin were not unidicted co-conspirators. They were never facing charges. So they came right out and told their lawyers and agents and managers and advisers “we are testifying for Michael whenever he needs us. You know there’s no doubt about it”. And they did that. I sat with Maculay Culkin and his entertainment lawyer and his entertainment lawyer was scared to death. Whereas Maculay was cool as can be said “when Michael needs me I am there”. I met with Chris Tucker and his lawyer at his lawyers home and his attitude was exactly the same “When Michael wants me I don’t care what I’m doing I’m there”. But they weren’t also facing the possibility of a conspiracy charge. So I’m not hard on Frank, I understand the whole situation, in the end he was willing to testify. 

And as he correctly said in his book, and I read it and I enjoyed the book, I decided that I didn’t need to call him. I wanted to get this case to the jury, I actually shortened our witness list, and we initially expected the trial to last a few more months. But I wanted this to get to the jury, I thought we really rocked their world so to speak and I thought this case was ready for an acquittal. That’s what happened fortunately. 

In bullet point #5, Oxman describes how the Prosecution wanted MJ’s statements about sharing his bed admitted as evidence, and how they wanted jurors to consider the interviews in the documentary “only to the extent that those statements may tend to explain the conduct of defendant and the alleged co-conspirators as alleged in Count One of the Indictment, and the motive for that conduct.”  This will be discussed later in this post.

In bullet point #9, Oxman describes how the Court made a complete fool of themselves (in my opinion) by applying the Gag order to Bashir, but subsequently granting him an exception so that he could air the trash-umentary “Michael Jackson’s Secret World”, which I fact checked in this post.

In bullet points #11-14, Oxman describes the types of questions that Bashir refused to answer, even after his objections were overruled by the Court. Pay close attention to #14, where he points out how Bashir deliberately edited out of the documentary MJ’s statement that Frank Casio was always present with him and Gavin Arvizo!

That’s typical Martin Bashir!

Bullet point #15 contains a piece of bombshell information! Bashir forged an “Agreement for Filming and Broadcast” contract (page 174) in order to advance his agenda! So that tells me that he knew from the start that he would smear MJ in the worst way! Here is a photo of the contract, and I transcribed the contents of the contract below, to the best of my ability:

The contract that Bashir forged to get his documentary broadcast on television.

Granada Television

Agreement for Filming and Broadcast

This statement, signed by both parties, is to formalize an agreement between Michael Jackson and Martin Bashir, who represents ITV and GTV.

I, Michael Jackson, grant permission for Mr. Bashir and his team to film various scenes and interview me at my home (Neverland Valley Ranch) and elsewhere, and to make the film available for broadcast both cinematic and televised. I do not seek any financial return, nor do I pledge conditions on him. The only condition that I seek is that the film is a faithful representation of the truth as I experience it in my life.

I will show another example of Bashir forging documents at the end of this post, and I will include a link to another post on Bashir that discusses how he used a forged letter from Princess Diana to trick MJ into doing the documentary. For now, let’s look at what one of MJ’s lawyers, David LeGrand, had to say about the contract shown above:

Former Jackson lawyer to testify

Another lawyer says pop star was exploited

In testimony Thursday, Jackson’s former business attorney said the pop star had been exploited by unscrupulous business associates and misled by British journalist Martin Bashir.

It was Bashir’s documentary “Living with Michael Jackson” that turned into a public relations fiasco. The piece showed Jackson holding hands with a 13-year-old boy — the accuser in the case against the entertainer — and admitting he allowed underage children to sleep in his bed. David LeGrand said he viewed the boy’s family “as a personal liability” to Jackson and urged the entertainer’s business partner, Marc Schaffel, to find a way to “wean away” the family from Jackson. LeGrand also insisted he knew of no plot to control the family or hold them against their will, as the prosecution alleges.

He told jurors Jackson was “highly ill-liquid” and faced the possibility of bankruptcy in early 2003, with heavy debts and more than $10 million in unpaid bills. At the time, Jackson was exploring possible marketing opportunities, including a perfume, gambling machines, a movie of his life’s story and a TV special with the late Marlon Brando.

The contracts that Jackson signed with Bashir were “terrible,” said LeGrand. They consisted of two one-paragraph documents that gave Bashir and Grenada Television the rights to the footage shot at Neverland Ranch, including an interview with Jackson, LeGrand said.

Bashir never followed through on a promise to let the pop star “screen and edit” the final product, LeGrand said. And he told jurors he believed Bashir “had misrepresented to Mr. Jackson what they were going to accomplish in this production.”

Alleged exploitation

LeGrand testified that after being hired in 2003, he quickly became “suspicious” of Jackson associates, who he believed were trying to control Jackson’s business and financial affairs.

“It seemed everybody wanted to benefit from Mr. Jackson in one way or the other,” LeGrand said.

One associate, Ronald Konitzer, had obtained power of attorney to act on Jackson’s behalf, said LeGrand, and with another associate, Dieter Weizner, had developed a new business plan that was “disturbing” and “amateurish.”

LeGrand said he was fired in March 2003, two weeks after sending a letter to Konitzer demanding to know where certain money went.

He said an audit of Jackson’s finances and an investigation by private investigators found Konitzer had diverted $960,000 of the $3 million in fees paid by the Fox network to Jackson for a program rebutting Bashir’s documentary.

The defense has argued that Jackson was disengaged and unaware of what his associates might have been doing.

It was during February and March 2003 that the prosecution alleges Jackson conspired with Konitzer, Weizner, Schaffel and two other men to control and intimidate the family of Jackson’s accuser in the weeks after the Bashir documentary aired. The allegations include holding the family against its will at Neverland. And it was during that period the accuser, now 15, says Jackson molested him on overnight stays in the singer’s bedroom suite.

LeGrand said he met the accuser’s family during that period and they did not appear to be held against their will. He said during conversations with the accuser’s mother, “She seemed satisfied to be there.”

Bullet point #18 describes a transcript of a chat session that Bashir had with fans after the documentary aired. We will analyze this later on in this post.

Let’s look at how Judge Melville handled the situation regarding Bashir’s desire to hide behind the Journalist  Shield Law:

4 Q. First of all, Mr. Bashir, I did ask you a

5 question, and that question I’ll repeat: In order

6 to produce what the jury has just seen, you had to

7 make contact with Mr. Jackson, correct.

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. And you made numerous attempts to contact

10 Mr. Jackson, true.

11 MR. BOUTROUS: Again, Your Honor, I object

12 on the grounds that that’s unpublished information,

13 and it’s also unclear from the face of the tapes

14 that he had contact with Mr. Jackson.

15 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I have

16 correspondence from Mr. Bashir. It’s pretty obvious

17 that, in a nonprivileged context, he was trying to

18 make contact and say what he wanted to do.

19 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.

20 Do you wish to answer that question, Mr.

21 Bashir.

22 MR. BOUTROUS: I’m going to leave it to

23 Mr. Bashir. It puts him in a difficult position.

24 Because there’s a very important legal principle

25 that’s taken. It does not matter whether Mr.

26 Mesereau claims to have correspondence or that

27 there’s other documents. That’s the limits of the

28 permissible — 232

1 THE COURT: I think I understand the legal

2 parameters.

3 MR. BOUTROUS: — information…. I just

4 want to make sure I preserve the record and that

5 the —

6 THE COURT: You are doing an excellent job.

7 MR. BOUTROUS: Thank you, Your Honor.

8 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, my preface is to

9 simply stand by the film as you’ve seen it and to

10 testify as to its contents.

11 THE COURT: All right.

12 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll object, Your Honor, and

13 move to strike his comments. They were not in

14 response to any question.

15 THE COURT: Well, actually they were a

16 response to my question if he wanted to answer the

17 question.

18 THE WITNESS: Sorry, sir. That —

19 THE COURT: So I won’t let you strike that.

20 All right. He is following his counsel’s

21 advice and he’s not answering that question. Next

22 question.

23 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I would move for

24 sanctions against the witness. Or I would move to

25 strike all of his testimony, including the

26 prosecution’s playing of this tape, if he refuses to

27 be cross-examined.

28 THE COURT: The way I would like to proceed 233

1 with this is that he — he does have some protection

2 under the shield law that his counsel has been

3 pointing out. That protection is against contempt

4 of court.

5 What I think I’ll do is let you ask him the

6 questions, let his attorney make the objections, let

7 him decide whether he’s going to answer. And then

8 I’ll make a record — we have a record of those

9 questions, and then I’ll review them later to

10 determine whether or not I feel a contempt charge

11 should be issued. It’s really a ticklish area of

12 the law.

13 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

Here is a summary of the 21 separate refusals that form the basis of Michael Jackson’s request for contempt against Bashir, and for Bashir’s incarceration until he complied (which, as we all know, he never did!). I compiled the list of questions asked by Mesereau, each objection by Bashir’s lawyer Theodore J. Boutrous was overruled, and Bashir’s refusal to answer each question. You can read the entire transcript of questions on pages 8-18.

1. Q. First of all, Mr. Bashir, I did ask you a question, and that question I’ll repeat In order to produce what the jury has just seen, you had to make contact with Mr. Jackson, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you made numerous attempts to contact Mr. Jackson, true?

MR. BOUTROUS: Again, Your Honor, I object on the grounds that that’s unpublished information, and it’s also unclear from the face of the tapes that he had contact with Mr. Jackson.

2. Q. And how many hours of footage did you obtain during the time you spent with Mr. Jackson?

MR. BOUTROUS: Objection, Your Honor. Unpublished information, covered by the shield law and the First Amendment.

THE COURT: The objection is overruled. Do you wish to answer?

THE WITNESS: No, I don’t.

3. Q. Mr. Bashir, you communicated with Mr. Jackson’s assistant by letter before you began filming this show, correct?

MR BOUTROUS: Again, Your Honor, I object It’s unpublished information created and prepared in the course of news gathering and covered by the shield law and the First Amendment.

THE COURT: Do you wish to answer?


4. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, you had Michael Jackson sign an agreement without a lawyer present, true?

MR. BOUTROUS: Again, Your Honor, beyond the scope of the direct and covered by the shield law.

5. Q. Are you covering this case as a correspondent who is paid?

MR BOUTROUS: Objection, Your Honor, beyond the scope; and again, requiring him to cover news gathering activities is covered by the shield law.

THE COURT: Overruled. “Do you wish to answer that question?

THE WITNESS: No, I don’t, Your Honor.

6. Q. Mr. Bashir, in the show you prepared, which we’ve just seen, Mr. Jackson made statements to the effect that nothing sexual was going on in his bed, correct?

A Correct.

Q. To obtain the interview you had with Mr. Jackson when he made that statement, you told him that he was underappreciated, true?

R. BOUTROUS: Objection, Your Honor, on the shield law grounds ad First Amendment grounds, unpublished information, and the tape that the jury has seen speaks for itself.

7. Q. Mr. Bashir, in the show about Michael Jackson, Mr. Jackson says that nothing sexual went on in his bedroom. To obtain that statement, you told Mr. Jackson that your romantic development was partially shaped by his records, true?

MR. BOUTROUS: Objection, Your Honor. Same grounds. First Amendment; shield law.

THE COURT: Do you wish to answer that question.

THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor.

8. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, on the show we just saw in this courtroom, Mr. Jackson says that nothing sexual goes on in his bedroom. To obtain that statement from Mr. Jackson, you told him that when you looked at his relationship with children, it almost made you weep, correct? 

MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor. California shield law and the First Amendment. And I object to that questions as being ambiguous as well, the first phrase, lo obtain that statement.’ Object to that.

THE COURT: The objection is overruled. “Do you wish to answer that?

THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.

9. Q. MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, on your show, Mr. Jackson says that nothing sexual ever went on in his bedroom. To obtain that statement from him, you told him that you believe in his vision of an international children’s holiday, correct?

MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor. The shield law and the First Amendment

THE COURT: Overruled. Do you wish to answer that question?

THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.

10. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, in this interview you did of Michael Jackson, he says that nothing sexual went on in his bedroom.

To obtain that statement, you told him, ‘Neverland is an extraordinary, a breathtaking, a stupendous, and an exhilarating and amazing place. I can’t put together words to describe Neverland., True?

MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor. First Amendment and the California shield law.

THE COURT: Do you wish to answer that question?

THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.

11.Q. Mr. Bashir, to prepare the show you’ve just shown the jury where Michael Jackson says nothing sexual went on in his bedroom, you told him that you had an abiding sense that he is selfless and a most generous person, correct?

MR., BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you wish to answer that question?

THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your  Honor.

12. Q. Mr. Bashir, to obtain the statement from Mr. Jackson that nothing sexual goes on in his bedroom, you described Neverland as a beautiful landscape encouraging all of us to become a little children again, true?

MR. BOUTROUS: Objection, Your Honor, and 1 want to repeat my objection on the leading question ground, and I believe the improper form of the question, and again, reassert the California shield law’s protection of unpublished information prepared and gathered in news gathering, and the First Amendment.

THE COURT: The objection’s overruled. Do you wish to answer?

THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.

13. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, to obtain Michael Jackson s statement that nothing sexual goes on in his bedroom with children, you complimented him for what he does for disadvantaged children from the ghetto, true?

MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you wish to answer?

THE WITNESS: I don’t Your Honor.

14. Q. Mr. Bashir, to obtain the statement from Mr. Jackson that nothing sexual went on in his bedroom with children, you told him that you were going to arrange a meeting with Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United nations, and would plan a trip to Africa with Mr. Jackson and Kofi Annan to help African children with AIDS, true?

MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor.

THE COURT: The objection is overruled. Do you -wish to answer?

THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.

15. Q. Mr. Bashir, to obtain Mr. Jackson’s statement that nothing sexual ever went on in his bedroom with children, you told him that you had great admiration for his visiting sick children in hospitals in England, true?

MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor.

THE COURT: The objection’s overruled. Do you wish to answer?

THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.

16. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, I would like to ask you further questions about how you obtained Michael Jackson’s statement that nothing ever goes on in his bedroom that is sexual with children. Do you intend to not answer any questions along those lines? 

MR. BOUTROUS: Let me just say that I intend to continue making the same objections, if Mr. Mesereau is seeking to short-circuit the process — the First Amendment, the shield law — if that’s helpful

THE COURT: Do you intend to follow your counsel’s advice on those issues?

THE WITNESS: I do, Your Honor.

17. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, in the process of attempting to obtain statements from Mr. Jackson, you called him ‘the boss,’ Didn’t you?

MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections.

THE COURT: The objection’s overruled. Do you wish to answer that?

THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.

18. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, do you intend to not answer any question I ask you on cross-examination in this trial?

MR. BOUTROUS: To preserve the record, Your Honor, I will continue to object on the grounds which we believe arc well-founded, and Mr. Bashir is acting on my instruction and ray objections under the California constitution and the U.S. Constitution.

THE COURT: Do you intend to follow his advice on all questions relating to this interview and the trial?

THE WITNESS: I do, Your Honor.

19. Q. Okay. Now, while you were obtaining statements from Mr. Jackson, someone named Hamid Moslehi was present, true?

MR. BOUTROUS: I reassert the objection I made during direct Your Honor, which was First Amendment and California law. It’s unpublished information. Observations of a journalist during the journalistic process is protected under the California shield law, including people who are in public places.

THE COURT: Do you wish to follow your counsel’s advice ?

THE WITNESS: I do, Your Honor.


20. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, in how many locations did the filming take place that appears in your show?

MR. BOUTROUS: Objection, Your Honor, Again, the film speaks for itself. It was on screen. The jury’s seen it anything else is unpublished information covered by the shield law.

THE COURT: The objection is overruled. Do you wish to answer that?

THE WITNESS: The evidence of where we were filming was clear from the film, from the documentary which has just been shown.

21. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you fly to these locations with Mr. Jackson? 

MR. BOUTROUS: Same objection, Your Honor, first Amendment; shield law.

THE COURT: The objection’s overruled.  Do you wish to answer?

THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor. 


Since Bashir was too much of a coward to answer Mesereau’s questions, I’ll answer them for him!

1. Yes, Bashir made NUMEROUS attempts to contact Mr. Jackson! Bashir spent at least 5 years trying to court MJ into doing the documentary. In fact, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach (on page 39 of his book, screenshot below) wrote about how he was contacted by Bashir in 2001 to serve as an intermediary between he and MJ. He didn’t speak to Bashir personally; someone from his office called him. He utterly rejected the idea of MJ doing ANY type of documentary, but not because of Bashir (as nobody knew what type of treachery he was capable of at that time), but because he felt that MJ’s life wasn’t ready to be scrutinized. He assumed that the project was dead…………….until it premiered in February 2003!

If only Uri Gellar could have used the same good judgement regarding Bashir’s “offer”!


I know that Rabbi Boteach is a controversial figure in the fan community, and has some serious character issues (which you can read about here and here), but as you can see, he had the wisdom and the foresight to see that MJ should not do ANY documentary that would expose him to more media scrutiny, and for that reason alone I wish he and MJ could have remained close. In this instance (unlike with his book “The Michael Jackson Tapes”), Rabbi Boteach was NOT thinking about cashing in on MJ by “advising” him to trust Bashir and then subsequently getting a cut of the profits (as Uri Gellar did); he genuinely cared about MJ’s well-being and wanted what was best for him (in this instance!). Just imagine if they had never fallen out, and Rabbi Boteach was around to tell MJ not do the documentary in 2002?

2. Bashir recorded 10 hours of footage over the course of 8 months.

Bashir said a 16-second clip was being used to portray him as being unfair when he had interviewed Jackson for more than 10 hours. 

“The film was fair to his musical achievement and gave him every opportunity to explain himself,” he said.

3. Yes, of course he did! Here is an excerpt from the witness statement of Evelyn Tavasci, who served as the Executive Administrator of Productions at MJJ Productions (beginning on page 28):

3. My first contact with Mr. Bashir was in the following circumstances. At some time before 23 July 2002 I received a telephone call from a person whose identity I cannot now recall to say that Mr. Bashir was coming to the Ranch to do some filming. I had not previously heard of Mr. Bashir. Mr. Bashir rang me on or about 23 July 2002 and told me that he was proposing to come to the ranch to do some filming and that he would be accompanied by a film crew. He told me that he had been speaking to Mr. Jackson, who had agreed to this. I asked for the names of the film crew and said I would need to check with Mr. Jackson.

5. At about the end of July, I spoke to Mr. Jackson by telephone. I was aware that Mr. Bashir and his film crew were already at the Ranch. I asked Mr. Jackson if there was any protection in place in respect of what Mr. Bashir was proposing to do. I told him that I was concerned, because Mr. Bashir and his film crew were already at the Ranch. I asked him about protection, because although Mr. Jackson’s talents as a musical artist and performer make him a celebrity, he is nonetheless anxious to protect his private life. At the time, he said leave it with him.

6. Later that day, however, he telephoned me and told me to contact Karen Langford, of the law firm Ziffren, Brittenham, Branca, Fischer, Gillbert-Lurle & Stiffelman LLP, to make sure that he both owned and controlled the film master tapes and had editing rights as well as the right of final approval of the documentary. On the same day, I spoke to Karen Langford and told her to draw up an appropriate document to ensure that Mr. Jackson owned the film footage and had the editing and approval rights that he had indicated to me. I was not aware at that time that Mr. Bashir had in fact visited the ranch in June and had signed a confidentiality agreement on 20 June 2002. I am now formed by Mr. Jackson’s legal advisers that this was the case.

4. After looking at the vague, one page, one paragraph “contract” that Bashir allegedly forged, I think it’s safe to assume that MJ had NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER as he signed those two contracts! Let’s look at what David LeGrand had to say about those contracts on the witness stand:

8 Q. And you mentioned that there were very few

9 documents involving the Bashir documentary. What do

10 you mean?

11 A. The only — there were only two pieces of

12 paper that Mr. Jackson provided to the lawyers with

13 respect to the Martin Bashir broadcast. They were

14 basically two separate pieces of paper signed at two

15 different times, consisting of a little over a

16 paragraph on each piece of paper, and that

17 apparently represented the total contractual

18 arrangement with respect to the production of the

19 Bashir/Granada video.

20 Q. Did it appear that Mr. Jackson had gotten

21 any legal advice before he entered into this project

22 with Bashir?

23 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Speculation;

24 foundation.

25 THE COURT: Sustained. 

26 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Was it your understanding

27 that Mr. Jackson had had any legal representation

28 when he entered into any arrangement with Mr. 9983

1 Bashir?

2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Same objection.

3 THE COURT: Sustained.

4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know whether or

5 not, before Mr. Jackson did the Bashir documentary,

6 any lawyer had represented him?

7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Same — same

8 objection.

9 THE COURT: Overruled.

10 You may answer that “yes” or “no.” If you

11 can’t answer that “yes” or “no,” tell me.

12 THE WITNESS: It’s difficult to answer “yes”

13 or “no,” Your Honor.

14 THE COURT: All right. Then I’ll sustain the

15 objection to the question.

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Had you yourself

17 documented any transactions involving television

18 documentaries in your career before representing Mr.

19 Jackson?

20 A. No. 

21 Q. Did you have any understanding of what kind

22 of documents one would typically execute and sign

23 before doing a T.V. documentary at that time?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And what was your understanding about the

26 typical types of documents one executes before doing

27 a television documentary?

28 A. There are typically fairly extensive 9984

1 agreements that would document ownership of

2 copyright, licensing, you know, national,

3 international royalties, you know, method — there’s

4 just a host of issues that would typically be

5 addressed with a persona of the magnitude of Mr.

6 Jackson and a production of this type.

7 Q. And when you began to represent Mr. Jackson

8 and when you started looking into the circumstances

9 surrounding the Bashir documentary, did you see any

10 of those documents you just described?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Did you form an opinion about the kinds of

13 documents Mr. Jackson had signed before he did the

14 Bashir documentary?

15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; calls for a 

16 conclusion.

17 THE COURT: Overruled.

18 You may answer.

19 THE WITNESS: The two documents reflecting

20 Mr. Jackson’s agreement with Granada were terrible

21 contracts. They were vague. They lacked, you know,

22 precision, detail. There were numerous provisions

23 that simply were not addressed. They were very

24 simple, you know, one-paragraph documents.

25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever determine who

26 had drafted those documents?

27 A. I believe Martin Bashir drafted them.

28 Q. Was it your understanding that Mr. Bashir — 9985

1 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object and move to

2 strike. Lack of foundation.

3 THE COURT: Sustained.

4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: No personal knowledge.

5 THE COURT: Sustained. Stricken.

6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever learn who had

7 drafted those documents?

8 A. I honestly don’t recall today.

9 Q. Okay.

10 A. I’m sorry. 

11 Q. You reviewed — was it two documents?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And what were those two documents?

14 A. They were one-page — they each consisted of

15 one piece of paper, one page each, and they, you

16 know, to my recollection, were one, maybe two

17 paragraphs. They were very short. And they

18 basically granted the rights to Granada to make a

19 televisual production based on the life of Mr.

20 Jackson as he knew it.

21 Q. Did it appear to you that Mr. Jackson had

22 been taken advantage of by Mr. Bashir?

23 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Improper

24 opinion; calls for a conclusion.

25 THE COURT: Sustained.

26 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When you looked at these

27 documents and you learned about the circumstances

28 surrounding the development of the Bashir 9986

1 documentary, did you form any conclusion about

2 whether or not Mr. Jackson understood what he was

3 doing?

4 A. I found it hard to believe that this — that

5 these two pieces — 

6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object to the answer

7 being more than “yes” or “no.”

8 THE COURT: Sustained.

5. Yes! Bashir was hired by ABC in May 2004. I think it’s very likely that hiring Bashir was a requirement of the “deal” that ABC signed when they paid millions to broadcast “Living With Michael Jackson” in 2003.  For more info on Bashir’s hiring, read this bullet from MJEOL.

For questions 6-21, the answer to each is obviously yes. Mesereau intentionally asked loaded questions because he knew that Bashir wouldn’t answer them, so he wanted to give the jury the impression that Bashir was hiding behind the Shield Law to cover his rear end! You’ll hear Bashir make many of those statements in the rebuttal documentary “Take Two: The Footage You Were Never Meant To See”, which is based off of the footage shot by Hamid Moslehi.

What’s interesting to note is that Bashir was so cowardly in his appearance that he didn’t speak in his normal, “journalistic” tone of voice during his testimony, and he was repeatedly asked to speak up. In fact, here is where MJ himself told Bashir to speak up!

27 MR. SANGER: I’m sorry, Your Honor, it’s

28 hard for Mr. Jackson and for us to hear the witness. 243

1 THE WITNESS: I apologize. It’s my fault.

2 Sorry. I’m sorry.

3 THE DEFENDANT: Speak up!

4 THE COURT: And, yes, you don’t need to. I’m

5 going to review all of the questions.

6 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

7 Q. Mr. Bashir —

8 THE COURT: If you want to, you can.


10 Q. Mr. Bashir, you have been accused in England

11 of forging signatures, correct.

12 A. Incorrect.

13 Q. No one has ever made that accusation, sir?

14 MR. BOUTROUS: I’m going to object, Your

15 Honor. Hearsay; lack of foundation; beyond the

16 scope of direct examination.

17 THE COURT: Sustained on beyond the scope of

18 direct.

Yes, Bashir was accused of forgning signatures! This article from April 1996 summarizes the accusations:



IT WAS undoubtedly one of the great journalistic coups of recent years. On November 20 last year a virtually unknown reporter, scarcely recognisable even within the BBC, pulled off the now-notorious Panorama interview with the Princess of Wales.

To the amazement of Britain and the world, Princess Diana spoke freely to Martin Bashir about her problems with Prince Charles and her adulterous affair with James Hewitt.

The interview sparked the Queen’s insistence on a speedy divorce, months of speculation about the crisis in the Royal Family, and made the BBC millions of pounds in overseas screenings.

Today a Mail on Sunday investigation raises questions about Martin Bashir’s methods. 

It shows that Bashir commissioned the faking of two pages from a bank statement, purporting to be from the private account of the former head of security for Earl Spencer, Diana’s brother.

The Earl was in a legal wrangle with Alan Waller, the security chief, and had issued an injunction against him.

Two further questions arise from this. Did Bashir intend to show the faked documents to Earl Spencer? And, if he did intend to do so, was he hoping to convince Earl Spencer he was the right person to interview his sister?

The BBC, and Panorama, confirm the documents were ‘created’ but were not sanctioned at high editorial level and not used in the programme. Bashir too has stated that he ‘never used’ the fake documents, and Earl Spencer has told The Mail on Sunday that ‘it would not be helpful, for him to comment.

It was in early October, just weeks before the programme was recorded on November 5,that Martin Bashir phoned a BBC graphic designer and …

 In part 2, I will further analyze Bashir’s testimony, and drop some bombshell information on you guys that will make your jaws drop! Stay tuned!

33 Comments leave one →
  1. stacy2 permalink
    December 6, 2011 4:42 pm

    Uri Geller mentioned in an interview that Bashir showed him a crumbled up letter from princess Diana praising Bashir on what a great reporter he was and how his interview “turned her life around” and this is the same letter he showed MJ..Why would princess diana write praise letters after his interview basically ruined her marriage?..Did Princess Diana really write Bashir praise letters? or did Bashir write them himself to trick MJ into doing that interview?


  2. sanemjfan permalink
    December 6, 2011 5:06 pm

    I don’t believe for a second that Diana wrote Bashir a “handwritten letter of thanks”! I think Bashir forged it in order to con Uri Gellar and MJ into trusting him. Diana had no reason whatsoever to “thank” Bashir, based on the negative after-affects of their interview. The fact that the letter was crumbled up should have been a red flag to MJ and Gellar, because if it was truly authentic, Bashir would have had it framed!

    As stated in the post, Bashir forged Diana’s brother’s bank statements, and the defense accused him of forging MJ’s signature on that “contract”, so all of that combined makes Bashir’s word worthless.

    Read the post on Bashir from last August (which is linked in the post above) for more info on Bashir’s deception of MJ.


  3. December 6, 2011 7:42 pm

    It’s hard to believe that Bashir and Sneddon were able to get away with destroying Michael, considering how flimsy their presentations were. A lot of blame must be assigned to the judge. I can’t imagine Judge Pastor would have allowed such a travesty. But as Tom Mesereau just said in his interview for the fans, Sneddon had the power to terrify anyone he turned his attention to. The evil radiating from these men is palpable. And yet both derived their power from us, the people who elected one and obliged the other by tuning into his so-called documentary. I can guess that Bashir’s motivation was strictly fame and fortune, but how did Sneddon’s vendetta even start?
    Accusing people you don’t like of sexual misconduct has become a modern day witch-hunt. You can take anyone down with the most unfounded accusations, and yet our society allows children to watch lewd films (hard to avoid, these days) and condones endless porn-sites. It’s no longer safe for any adult to touch a child with the most innocent intent, unless they are their immediate offspring. In fact, it is not safe for any adult to be alone with any child not their own for even a few minutes. A culture is paranoid and schizophrenic when love and affection, the basic necessities of life, have become suspect.
    I don’t blame Frank Cascio and the other “co-conspirators” from being terrified. Without good attorneys to protect them, they could easily have been convicted of anything Sneddon desired. Hindsight doesn’t take into account the atmosphere of evil that surrounded them. Their cases could have gone either way–and guilt had nothing to do with it. If it hadn’t been for courageous people like Mesereau, the trial outcome would have been far worse. It’s easy to convict innocents who cannot understand the power of malicious intent.
    I will forever grieve for Michael, who wanted only to do good. My biggest desire is to see the scale of public opinion tipping to his side. May love prevail.


  4. December 6, 2011 9:00 pm

    David, Oxman’s declaration is a precious find.

    The information about Michael saying to Bashir that Frank Cascio stayed with him in the same room but Bashir deliberately editing it out is more than enough to show Michael’s innocence and Bashir’s malicious intent.

    Only one sentence is missing but it changes the whole meaning of what Michael was saying in the documentary! It is one thing to say that you give your bed to someone when there is no one else in the room, and it is a totally different thing when there is a witness to the truthfulness of your words.

    Bashir is an exceptional coward. The way he avoided answering even the most innocent questions was totally disgusting. These treacherous people are bold only with the innocent and trusting people – when it comes to answering for what they did they immediately turn into some hardly noticeable insects.

    But what struck me most is the direct correlation between Bashir’s documentary at that trial and Murray’s documentary after his own trial.

    AGAIN the pattern used in 2011 was the same as before, only it worked a little differently.

    Murray also kept silent in court but relied on the documentary to tell his false version of the events, hoping that his lies about Michael would whitewash him and draw him support and compassion from the public.

    Bashir also made a highly distorted documentary which he cut and edited to slander an innocent man, but when it came to the trial he preferred to keep silent and not take any responsibility for what he did.

    Absolutely the same pattern.

    In 2003-2005 this pattern was common and used by many as the legal system and decisions of judge Melville allowed it. Ray Chandler also did the same thing – he published a book of lies about Michael but never answered for it in court. All of them got away with their lies.

    It seems that in 2011 it was Judge Michael Pastor who changed it all.

    And I thought that he was just sitting there greeting people and making routine remarks! Now I see how big a role he was playing!


  5. December 6, 2011 9:21 pm

    Judge Pastor absolutely played a big role, and every word of his summation at the sentencing hearing is important for the written record, especially in case of appeal. His entire speech was carefully thought out. Seeing him makes me feel more hopeful about the justice system.


  6. jm51 permalink
    December 6, 2011 9:22 pm

    @sanefanmj – You have done an excellent job as all of the researchers do on this site. I don wonder what is the actual relationship of Brian Oxman to the family if you know through your research? Do you know if he was he really as close to Michael as he claims to be?

    As vindicatemj said – Bashir is a coward. The thing that truly saddens me is that a majority of the media continue to repeat the nonsense from LWMJ and totally dismiss what was really said even with the evidence produced by Jackson in the rebuttal piece.


  7. December 6, 2011 9:39 pm

    “It’s no longer safe for any adult to touch a child with the most innocent intent, unless they are their immediate offspring. In fact, it is not safe for any adult to be alone with any child not their own for even a few minutes. A culture is paranoid and schizophrenic when love and affection, the basic necessities of life, have become suspect.”

    It seems to me that the culture is really paranoid only when it concerns people like Michael who are honest and truthful in what they do and say. Those who live a life full of hypocrisy and pretence can get away with their crimes with no one ever noticing. All you need to do is keep up appearances and present a publicly acceptable façade – and no one will believe the complaints of some God-forsaken child.

    This is how real criminals commit most horrendous crimes and get away with almost anything.

    I’ve learned of a case of a terrible physical abuse of a child from my country.

    He was adopted by some middle-aged Americans. The horror of this case almost paralyzed me. And what is terrible is that some quack doctor (possibly someone like Dr. White) convinced the jury that the boy evidently pulled each of his joints in hips and shoulders out of their sockets on his own!

    Why did the media harass Michael Jackson for something totally fictitious but is not paying attention to such horrible crimes?

    I was hesitant whether I should post it at all but then decided that Michael Jackson’s whole life was devoted to preventing such crimes, so where else write about things like that if not here?
    * * *

    Forensic pathologist: Nathaniel Craver’s injuries could not be self-inflicted

    “Traumatic brain injury” and “failure to thrive” caused Russian boy’s death

    A close-up photograph of 7-year-old Nathaniel Craver’s face as he lay on an autopsy table showed his swollen head.
    How extensive that swelling was became apparent when his head was compared to the frailness of his neck.
    Dr. Wayne Ross, a forensic pathologist who has performed more than 9,000 autopsies and post-mortem exams, could not keep the astonishment out of his voice as he described the dead boy to the jury.
    “His head, virtually his entire head, was swollen up like a balloon,” he said. “And I don’t mean just a little bit of swelling. The entire skull and head looked like a watermelon. Like an alien.”

    Ross was on the witness stand for more than four hours, testifying about the boy’s injuries and giving his expert opinion how they occurred. He said Nathaniel died from “complications of a traumatic brain injury” and “severe failure to thrive.”
    He said he was told before autopsy that Nathaniel’s parents said he had a history of injuring himself.
    Michael and Nanette Craver, 55, have maintained the boy struck his head on a wood stove in their home. They told police, doctors and child abuse investigators Nathaniel seemed all right except for a mark on his head. They put an ice pack on the mark and put him to bed about 45 minutes later. In they morning, they said, they could not rouse him.
    Ross told the jury he began his examination from that aspect.

    Ross said he found evidence of injury to the right side of the boy’s brain, a subdural hematoma, from an impact “of hundreds of Gs of force,” inflicted about two weeks before he was brought to the hospital in a coma.
    Ross said the swelling of the boy’s head was the result of “multiple impacts.”
    Relying on photographs taken of Nathaniel during the summer of 2009, including one of a healthy, well-toned shirtless boy, Ross concluded that six weeks before his death the boy suffered repeated impacts to his head, pulled legs and arms, blunt force trauma to the chest, possibly was bound and was starved.
    The doctor also found evidence of a skull fracture on the right side of the head, a healing broken rib, compression spinal injuries, and high enzyme levels confirming liver and heart damage.
    The child otherwise was covered with small bruises and abrasions on his chest and back. In a picture of the dead child laying on his back, every rib could easily be counted.

    Ross said Nathaniel’s swollen brain at autopsy “was a mess.”
    “It was soft as anything,” he said. “It was purple and it was dead. Flat and mushy and just horrible.”
    On cross-examination, defense attorneys pushed Ross with alternative theories for the injuries, such as fetal alcohol syndrome, self-abuse, genetic disorders and diseases. Ross conceded such theories could account for injuries in some cases but “not in this case.”

    He said he specifically looked for and did not find evidence of alcohol fetal syndrome in Nathaniel’s brain.

    When York County Office of Children, Youth and Families placed Nathaniel and his twin sister, Elizabeth, in her foster care at age 5, “They asked me to watch them to see if they injured themselves in any way,” foster mother Lori Ferree said.
    She testified neither child did while in her care for about two weeks.

    Ferree said Nathaniel was an active boy who loved to play but seemed confused about being allowed to play in the dirt and get dirty. She said when she would take the children for supervised visits with the parents, the children would return in more “formal” clothes.
    She said Nanette Craver chided her one time for dressing Elizabeth in the wrong shoes for her outfit.”

    Catholic Charities parent educator Lisa Blake testified that Michael Craver railed against Children, Youth and Families’ “interference” in the family’s lives.
    She said during one meeting with him, he was so verbally abusive, she was happy to cut the session short.
    Andrew Blochichak, a family physician and Nanette Craver’s brother-in-law, testified he did not see Michael and Nathaniel Craver at any family gatherings the summer of 2009. He said he did see Nanette and Elizabeth. His testimony implied Nathaniel was being kept from sight.
    He said he asked Nanette why Nathaniel was not at a July 4th party and a later wedding.
    “Nanette said, ‘Nathaniel is a handful,’ and she didn’t want to bring him,” he said.

    The Cravers’ jury acquitted them of first- and third-degree murder. If
    they are granted a new trial, they can only be tried for the crimes for
    which they were convicted – involuntary manslaughter, two counts of
    endangering the welfare of a child and three counts of criminal
    Both were sentenced to 16 months to four years and a consecutive five years of probation.
    The statutory maximum sentence for the manslaughter charge is 10 years in prison.
    The Cravers had spent 567 days – almost 19 months – in custody without
    bail awaiting trial. Following their convictions, both were released on
    bail. They remained free after their sentences were handed down by
    Kennedy. At sentencing, Kennedy had called the verdicts “appropriate.”

    Now: The Cravers have filed post-sentence motions seeking a new trial, arguing the evidence did not support the verdicts.

    Full story:


  8. sanemjfan permalink
    December 6, 2011 11:25 pm

    Oxman has always been referred to as a “Jackson family attorney”, and I think he used to mostly represent Joe and Katherine in their legal issues. He was on MJ’s defense team in 2005, but was fired by Mesereau for sleeping during testimony, among other reasons. But he was suspended from practice earlier this year, and you can read the 2 links below for more info. I’ll try and find additional links to see what type of relationship he had (or still has) with the family.


  9. jm51 permalink
    December 7, 2011 12:29 am

    @sanemjfan – oh my gosh. Thank you for that site, it totally answered my question about him.


  10. AutisticOne permalink
    December 7, 2011 1:27 am

    I’m normally a very loving and caring person, but given how Bashir’s actions ultimately led to Michael’s death, I’m not ashamed to say this: I hope that Bashir dies a slow and agonizing death from his brain tumor and ends up in hell where he belongs. He, among others, does not deserve to live after what he caused Michael to go through. He is a sub-human being who has no place on this earth. This also goes for other prominent haters whose names I will not dignify by mentioning. I hope that all of us fans are there to witness the day that these evil bastards and bitches get their comeuppance.


  11. AutisticOne permalink
    December 7, 2011 1:33 am

    @VindicateMJ: the culture acts paranoid towards people like Michael because that is their way of lashing out in utter hatred at the really good people; the lashers are actually the bad people living lives of hypocrisy and pretense, like all those who believe Michael was a child molester, including his famous haters in the media. They ignore the real crimes because they themselves are closeted pedophiles and child abusers. Their actions speak louder than their words, and those actions reveal that they are trying to destroy society in an effort to bring us good people down with them. It’s a form of bullying, only it is not taking place in a school.


  12. stacy2 permalink
    December 7, 2011 3:08 pm

    Bashir was also caught sneaking into MJ’s hotel room and going through his luggage. This was mentioned by Dieter Wiesner.


  13. December 7, 2011 7:07 pm

    VMJ,the horror story about 7yo Nathaniel is beyond belief. It happened in NY County (no location there is mentioned) and apparently some medical care was given in Pennsylvania. Then it was mentioned that when the kids were 5 yo they were placed in fostercare for 2 weeks,no selfinjurious behaviour, but Natanieal was an active boy, but seemed a bit confused.There were at least 2 official bodies involved; The NY County Office for Children, Youth and Families, and then The Catholic Charities. One of their teacher visited the family and was so frightened by Mr. Cravers verbal abuse that she cut the visit short. There was allegedly some medical treatment in Pennsylvania too. This makes me wonder why these supervising authorities did not intervene as it seem the boy had been “active but confused” at age 5 and had obviously been seen in school for 1-2 years. The adoptive parents seem to be from hell.
    It is truly shocking that a young boy was malnourished and beaten to pulp.The adoptive mother had at some point stated that Nathabiel “was a handfull” and she could not take him to a social gathering.Weather the boy had some adjustment disorder or whatever the label they gave it is the responsibility of the parent to get appropriate care. The parents deserve their punishment, however the various childcare agencies also need to be investigated.


  14. December 7, 2011 7:11 pm

    The story of Nathaniel is in great contrast to how Michael and his cildren were treated.Some wanted to have his children removed.


  15. December 7, 2011 7:38 pm

    Bashir is a coward seeking fame at the expence of others.There are many tragic and heart breaking stories about children being abused, getting no education, being shot or tought to be suicide warriors at 5-7 years. And that in the native country of his parents. But he prefers to destroy the lives of people who fight against these atrocities.To do this he uses devious means as described in posts below.


  16. December 7, 2011 10:10 pm

    “the culture acts paranoid towards people like Michael because that is their way of lashing out in utter hatred at the really good people; the lashers are actually the bad people living lives of hypocrisy and pretense. They ignore the real crimes because they themselves are child abusers.”

    I think the key word here is HATE. The majority of people are mixed cases of love and hate, but some individuals manage in the course of their lives to drift into hate only. As a result of this process they find themselves in some other reality than those who were either born with love in their hearts (like Michael) or consciously chose to raise love and eradicate hate in themselves.

    Every person exists in the reality he creates for himself and their and Michael’s realities are poles apart.

    I think it is no accident that Michael’s detractors never even pretend to be more or less neutral in assessing the facts of his life and always spit hate when they talk of him – these people are simply charged with hatred which is streaming from them in torrents.

    Their inability to understand Michael is probably sincere. They themselves filled their lives with hate, cynicism, fraud, cruelty, arrogance and hypocrisy – so how can they imagine that anyone may be different? They think that Michael was only pretending and that his supporters are naïve that he was “for real”.

    They simply do not realize that people may be that loving and compassionate. If they have never felt love and compassion for others how can they imagine that Michael had those feelings for sick and unfortunate children and that his heart was tearing apart when he saw their pain?

    These people have chosen to be callous. When they see a child all they feel is annoyance that they are making noise or interfering with their watching TV. They will lock them in closets, discipline them heavily and beat all “nonsense” out of them.

    Love is only standing in the way of such a method – moreover it is regarded by them as a sort of a weakness. Love brings compassion and understanding, and these are a sure way to spoil a child (“spare the rod …”). They probably received the same kind of upbringing themselves and know nothing else.

    Michael with all his talk of love for children was like an alien to them. A highly dangerous and totally misunderstood alien who was spreading all this “love infection” around him. Discipline, beating him into proper behaviour, commands – this is all you need to raise a child, and all this is coupled with minimum attention and time given to him.

    Of course these people are real child abusers. I am almost sure that if we asked the Cravers who killed their adopted son by murderous disciplining they would say that they hate Michael Jackson.


  17. December 7, 2011 11:47 pm

    “It is truly shocking that a young boy was malnourished and beaten to pulp. The adoptive mother had at some point stated that Nathabiel “was a handful” and she could not take him to a social gathering. Whether the boy had some adjustment disorder or whatever the label they gave it is the responsibility of the parent to get appropriate care.”

    Of course the boy could have had some adjustment disorder, but this is no reason to murder him. I think that most Russian children who find themselves (and stay) in orphanages are born in alcoholic families from which they are forcibly taken by child care providers. They may turn out really good but may turn out difficult too. This should be understood in advance and people should weigh up their strength and goodwill before they embark on the road of such adoption.

    These children are our biggest pain as they have seen things children are never meant to see and have lived in conditions human beings should never live. This is why when they are adopted abroad most people are happy that they have at last found a home where they will be well taken care of and will get proper medical help if necessary.

    No one expects them to be starving and beaten to death. If this is what is awaiting them they’d better stay where they are – at least there they are alive. And some children from orphanages get a really good future (I was surprised to learn that the billionaire Roman Abramovitch who now lives in London was raised in an orphanage).

    As to Nathaniel the forensic expert did not find evidence of alcohol fetal syndrome in his brain. And all this talk about self-infliction of wounds is totally unrealistic and is blown out of proportion – a child cannot pull both his arms and legs out of their joints, simply because the fourth time he allegedly does it there is no hand left to pull it with.

    This couple is probably just sadists. With due respect for the prosecution they asked for a very harsh sentence but didn’t get any because some false “experts” evidently convinced the jury that it was a “disorder”. We have seen such quack experts represented by Dr. White at Murray’s trial – and if it hadn’t been for Dr. Shafer , Murray would have also got away with his lies due to that “expert”.

    But what I also find totally amazing is the double standard with which the public treats this horrible crime and Michael Jackson, and his “baby-dangling” episode (for example).

    Everyone behaves as if this is the most horrible thing a parent can do to his child – while to every normal person it is clear that Michael was simply showing his baby to the cheering crowd as a sort of a dear prize he won.

    The hypocrisy of those who are writing about this episode is unbelievable – “Michael’s children should be taken away from him”, “these children are in danger”, “it is criminal behavior”, and so on.

    No, showing a child to the crowd is perfectly okay – it is beating them to death which is criminal! And not paying attention that this is happening is also criminal. And the hypocritical position that this child “deserved it” is criminal too.

    By the way this Craver couple wants to get Nathaniel’s twin sister back to them, as far as I know. I hope this never happens.

    Here are some more details about Nathaniel’s story. Many people, including supervisors, saw that things were wrong but did not interfere or ask questions.

    Nathaniel Craver family member recalls injuries shortly before boy’s hospitalization

    Daily Record/Sunday News
    Updated: 09/08/2011 07:42:27 PM EDT

    York, PA – A week before Nathaniel Craver was rushed to Holy Spirit Hospital in a coma, his father’s aunt stopped by the Carroll Township home for a visit.

    Thursday in York County court, Sandra Adkins said the 7-year-old’s face was swollen on the left side and his eyes were swollen almost completely shut.

    Adkins said the boy’s bruised face already was turning yellow “like it was beginning to heal.”

    Just as disturbing to her, she said, was that Nathaniel was lethargic and only wanted to sit on her lap. While holding the boy, Adkins noticed a healing cut on the back of his head.

    “I asked Michael what happened and he said, ‘He fell as he always does,'” Adkins said. “He said Nanette fixed it. Michael told me how Nathaniel hurt himself all of the time and I certainly believed him.”

    Adkins had known Nathaniel and his twin sister, Elizabeth, since their adoptions by the Cravers in September 2003.

    “Nathaniel always wanted hugs and kisses,” she said. “Then he’d go play and come back for more hugs and kisses.”

    Adkins said that day Nanette Craver was leaving for work shortly after she arrived.

    “Both of the children went running to Nanette and hugged her legs,” she said. “They said, ‘Mommy’s going to work. Can I have a kiss?’
    “She pushed Nathaniel away and kind of blew a kiss over Elizabeth’s head.”

    In other testimony Thursday, Dr. Tapash Sengupta, a Danville-area pediatrician, the Craver children’s first American doctor who cared for them between 2003 and 2007, said he recalled no self-injurious behavior and did not observe any symptoms of reactive detachment disorder.

    On cross-examination, he confirmed the Cravers did not raise the subject of Nathaniel hurting himself until after they moved from Stillwater to Dillsburg and had been reported to authorities for suspected child abuse.

    The doctor the Cravers initially went to in Dillsburg had made that call and York County Children, Youth and Families went to the family’s home in April 2007. The allegations could not be substantiated.

    It was during a wellness examination with Sengupta in June 2007 that Nanette Craver said they were worried by Nathaniel’s short attention span and pinching himself, Sengupta said.

    He said he told the mother not to be overly concerned. He said most 5-year-olds have limited attention spans and he saw no evidence of the injuring himself.

    Dr. Jeffrey Herman, a child and adolescent psychiatrist, said the Cravers asked him to prescribe medications for Nathaniel for “aggressive and self-injurious behaviors.”

    He said they tried a few different drugs, including Prozac. He said the parents stopped the medications after Nathaniel became “more depressed.”

    Hermann said Michael Craver came to the last scheduled appointment on Aug. 13, 2009, without Nathaniel.

    He said he later learned, after York County Children, Youth and Families asked for Nathaniel’s records, that the child had died.

    Defense attorney Rick Robinson asked Hermann if the Cravers told him that Nathaniel pulled out two of his bottom teeth, one baby tooth and one permanent tooth.

    “Yes,” Hermann said. “That’s when we started the Prozac.”

    Hermann’s nurse, Sara Thrasher, testified that Michael Craver stormed out of the office the day he appeared for an appointment without Nathaniel.

    She said he got angry when she told him the child must be present for a medical appointment.

    “He said we would probably never see him again and slammed the door on the way out,” she said.

    Rande Fregm, a visiting supervisor with Catholic Charities, testified the Craver children repeatedly sought affection from their mother but were rebuffed.

    She said she saw Nathaniel rub his eyes and pinch himself when his mother helped him with his homework.

    “A lot of the discipline I observed was inappropriate,” she said.


  18. nan permalink
    December 8, 2011 1:56 am

    For what it is worth, when I read about the crumpled up letter from Diana.., and yes, who on earth would crumple up a letter from Diana, it would be framed of course..
    I guess the only person who might believe that was MJ , since he was friends with so many icons , he probably didnt think that much of it..
    But the spoon bender should have..
    He is the person who took the money in the form of a percentage of the profits (if I am not mistaken) and voughed for this slug Bashir..
    Knowing his friend as well as he did,and knowing how trusting he was of people, a true friend would have checked Bashir out and even stuck around to see how this thing was going ..After all he was making money off it.
    He probably figured it would just be another humiliating piece on MJ,he would get the money and play shocked by Bashir actions and it would all be like the white noise..Just another negative piece onMJ….I dont imagine he ever thought it would destroy his life, but all the same Geller is responsible also..
    I saw a clip somewhere , Geller was saying that he thought MJ was over it and they were going to repair their friendship….of course MJ is not here to dispute that..
    Frankly , I call baloney…lol
    The way MJ was portrayed in both those documentaries is really unbelievable ..I do believe Melville was bending over backwards for Sneddon, but Judge Pastor was more objective,,That saved the day …
    Thank Heaven for a fair and impartial judge this time..
    I think the way Pastor was so outraged that Murray could tape his patient like that is important …He said he couldnt imagine that happening to anyone else..
    Isnt that what Evan Chandler did??Go see a civil atty to get his own insurance policy in case things didnt go his way??

    People who dont think someone could be capable of doind such a horrific thing to an innocent person, for money should be be reminded of Murrays tape…
    MJ was an opportunity for some people to gain generational wealth, by setting him up…
    I have to say when ever the supposed dirty laundry of MJ is aired in court , he always comes up smelling like a rose..It is the garbage that surrounds him that stinks..


  19. December 8, 2011 4:22 am

    And Nathaniel would probably have made it with an emphatic mother and father.His aunt said he always run to her for kisses, and then would go off and play again.He seemed definetely looking for attachment. It is much more difficult when a child is withdrawn and uninterested in contact.I doubt they will give the sister to that couple. The husband apparently has an explosive and aggressive temperament.And the mother seemed to shove Nathaniel off when he wanted a hug.-If a baby is in an institution for longer than 8-24 months they will have difficulties forming secure attachments, ofcourse there are exeptions and” unofficial” adoptions do occur when a child finds someone who cares.
    It is not so easy to be very young and suddenly find yourself somewhere peolple do not speak your language.-Also Dr.s, pediatricians should not take parents complaints lightly.He should have sent Nathaniel and both parents to a child-psychiatric clinic or hospital for a full evaluation ann interviewed the child alone.(and confidentially,children do understand that)


  20. AutisticOne permalink
    December 9, 2011 3:55 am

    @VindicateMJ: I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said. The people you speak of are so saturated with negativity that they see any sign of pure, sincere, and innocent positivity as a complete threat to their way of thinking. Their scales are stuck on one side.

    This is just my theory, but I firmly believe that the root cause of this is bad parenting. Parents can be so abusive in the way they shape their children’s future belief systems that they don’t realize just how much damage they inflict, and they more often than not refuse to take responsibility for it. I read a quote on Facebook once which said, “Be careful how you talk to your children, for one day it will become their inner voice.” Most parents don’t realize how strongly they come on to their children, so much so that the child ends up suffocated by such to the point where they lose their sense of right and wrong and can no longer think for themselves. After all, Michael himself said that the longer you hear a lie, the more you believe it to be true. And the sad reality is that some parents go so far overboard that the child has no choice to believe anything else. It is so easy for others to say that people have a choice as to how they want to continue to live their lives, but they often forget how it feels to be in the shoes of the child.

    I also wanted to talk more about such haters of Michael, in this case, haters that are well-known.

    I wanted to share with you something that I wrote in 2005 to Gloria Allred. A few weeks after Michael’s acquittal, I gave her a piece of my mind in a 4-page letter over her obsession with Michael for the last (then) twelve years. Keeping with what you and I are discussing right now, I told her how I felt about her pursuing Michael versus not pursuing those who have a proven criminal history (that is, ignoring the bad people and going after the good).

    I am, of course, referring to Janet Arvizo, the mother of Michael’s accuser, Gavin. Her sordid past of extortion and fraud was revealed during Michael’s trial, and she was in fact charged with such afterwards, yet Allred has not said a peep about it to this day.

    Allred was more concerned with a man who had merely gone against a few non-illegal (I hope that’s the correct phrase) societal norms, had made a few errors in judgment, and had had such errors in judgment used against him, insisting that her concern was only for his children’s well-being, yet she did not seem concerned that Star, Davellin, and Gavin were being abused and shaped by their mother’s proven criminal behavior. I said to her that she had shown a complete lack of integrity and that I believed that she didn’t truly care about the well-being of children. I said that if you selectively show concern for one group of children and not another, then you are truly not concerned, except maybe for putting yourself out there for attention. After all, the ones who scream the loudest are often the guilty ones. I told her that it is all or nothing, and that she should either investigate the Arvizos, or drop her crusade of Michael. Surprise! She did neither!

    During and after the trial, she also showed blatant signs of racism, which I also called her out on in my letter. When asked in an interview whether or not she believed race was a factor in Michael’s trial, she said that it was a “ludicrous” idea, “given Mr. Jackson’s desire to look like a white man or white woman.” That alone told me that she was insensitive to racial and cultural issues which run much deeper than one’s skin color, and that she was biased against African Americans, especially those who broke such cultural and societal boundaries/stereotypes (namely Michael).

    Now, I don’t know what in Allred’s past could have shaped her into the person she is today, but I do know that her actions speak a lot louder than her words, and those actions tell me that she is indeed a selfish and evil person with no regard for anyone’s feelings but her own. This also goes for all of the other prominent haters in the media, whose names you already know. They felt threatened by Michael because they were insanely jealous of how wonderful a person he was, and they knew that they could never be that good themselves. So they went after Michael and used him as a scapegoat to suffer for their own indignities. In layman’s terms, they bullied him to death (I was bullied myself in grade school by students who had their own miseries to face because I was the polar opposite of them). And they screamed so loudly over his alleged wrongdoing to take attention away from their own inner demons. In other words, they did this to perpetuate their own personal denial. They latched onto Michael because he was being accused of a crime so universally reviled, which seemed to give them credibility. That is what a wolf in sheep’s clothing does: it pretends that it is on the side of the good people in order to gain credibility. That is where your statement about living their lives in hypocrisy and pretense fits into this

    Hell, when it was revealed during the trial that Michael possessed an unopened copy of a book with non-sexual nude pictures of boys from the 1960s, two of the haters took copies of the book onto television and not only proclaimed it to be child porn (which it legally was not), but seemed to get a thrill out of thumbing through the book themselves. I called one of those haters out in a letter as well and told her that her contradictory actions (accusing Michael of pedophilia for possessing the very book she herself was thumbing through it at that very moment) told me that she was the one with a dirty mind, and that she was scapegoating Michael so that she would feel better about herself and look credible in the eyes of the public.

    The sad fact of the matter is that our society (at least in my home country of America) is so filled with dumb people who do nothing but perpetuate this cycle of abuse because the haters play on their emotions, rather than their intellect (or lack, thereof). Something has to be done to break this cycle because too many good people are suffering. And the only thing necessary for evil to succeed is that good men (and women) do nothing.

    Thank you very much for allowing me to have this conversation with you. Keep up the good work in your vindication of Michael.


  21. December 9, 2011 5:52 am

    In remembrance of Michael and Nataniel please look up the song by Michael Jackson ,based on a true story:Michael Jackson-Little Susie, (ilovesexymj) from the History album. It is on Youtube.
    DD,MO, and Martin Bashir should give half their income to real problems and stop fattening their bank accounts on slandering Michael.And that tape-yes he had probably been given an iv dose of Midazolam so he would be in a semicoma when murray taped him.Pay attention to his words, the voice was slurred ,but you can easily make out the words.


  22. Suzy permalink
    December 9, 2011 12:08 pm

    @ AutisticOne

    Great post! I agree with every word of it. Michael was a mirror to society. He was a mirror because everyone projected himself/herself onto him. This means that evil people saw evil in him, but in reality this was just the reflection of their own mind. Michael actually talks about it in the lyrics of “Is It Scary” and he’s so right. Just take a look at any hater site or blog. They use Michael as an excuse to describe p-lic acts in great detail with undeniable pleasure.

    But it’s the same with TV personalities and journalists. I remember a description Dimond gave about Jordan – about his great looks. It was creepy to hear that description from an adult in that context when she was talking about the alleged molestation of this kid.
    And actually a lot of journalists did this. Tabloids quoted lengthy extracts from Victor Gutierrez’s book – when in fact that’s nothing but child porn in a written form. Why did tabloids keep quoting it when even the Chandlers said those stories aren’t true? What was the point? And they kept quoting it over and over again. Just a couple of days after Michael’s death I saw such an article again: a lengthy extract from VG’s book. It’s almost as if the allegations were an excuse for them to publish sexual fantasies about children legally.

    Or look at the creepy way Bashir describes Michael’s relationship with children when he knows damn well that nothing happened.

    So that makes you wonder about their minds rather than Michael’s.

    In the song “Threatened” Michael sings “I’m the dark thoughts in your mind” that’s why “you should feel threatened by me”. This is exactly what he means in my opinion. People are struggling with their own dark thoughts and demons but instead of facing their own issues they project them onto someone else.

    And I think that even if you are not an MJ fan, and never liked any song of his, you should feel highly disturbed by this phenomenon and everything that happened to him. Because like you said “the only thing necessary for evil to succeed is that good men (and women) do nothing.”


  23. December 11, 2011 2:57 am

    “The people you speak of are so saturated with negativity that they see any sign of pure, sincere, and innocent positivity as a complete threat to their way of thinking. Their scales are stuck on one side.”

    AutisticOne, unfortunately too many people are filled with hate. Frankly, I am a little dumbfounded why the people who are well-off and live a happy and comfortable life, are so charged with hatred. It looks like they have no real trouble in life, which would make them suffer and understand the sufferings of other people. This is probably why they are so callous.

    I really cannot explain why people were so ruthless to Michael. If they had researched the case, had looked into the facts and had found something to blame him for, this I would be able to understand. But they never really looked, easily fell for gossip and lies, and harassed him with no reason at all – enjoying the process too!

    Even now, when you ask them to look at the facts they don’t take the trouble to. For them hatred is easier than love.

    Okay, no one expects love of them, as this is really too difficult for them – simple understanding would suffice.


  24. December 11, 2011 11:12 am

    @sanemjfan The work that you and the vmj do on behalf of MJ is outstanding. It may be a moot point but is there any information available about whether or not Karen Langford drafted the document requested?


  25. Chip permalink
    December 13, 2011 11:05 pm

    MJ was a pedo he had books of nude kids come on!!!!!!


  26. ares permalink
    December 14, 2011 12:02 am

    @ Chip

    Really? Please can you show us those books and also explain to us why he wasn’t arrested and charged with that crime because as we all know, and i hope you know it too, child pornography is a felony that is prosecuted criminally.


  27. Teva permalink
    December 14, 2011 2:59 am


    Chippy knows it is a crime to have child porn, he is playing and hopes to strike a nerve here with the fans.


  28. December 14, 2011 4:50 am

    Projective identification is in fact an official term in use in psychoanalysis.Don´t remember if it was ´Sig. Freud himself who coined it, but it was by someone of the early people in this field, It is so apprpropriate in regard to many peoples intensly hateful reaction to Michael. What it means in ordinary speach is that people project their forbidden impulses or leanings onto somebody else and then proceed to severely condemn it. Now I don´t think all the hateful people have p.filic desires ,but it gives them an absolute opportunity to talk about sexual perversions, a topic they would not otherwise dare open for discussion. It is an unconscious process, so they do not need to feel any shame, all the shame is projected onto Michael.


  29. ozlan permalink
    March 20, 2014 2:45 pm

    20 Mars 2014

    Plusieurs années après le décès de Michael Jackson, je n’en suis toujours pas consolée. Pourquoi?
    Michael n’était pas de ma famille, pas même de mes amis. Je ne l’ai vu qu’une seule fois en concert mais il a marqué définitivement ma vie. Alors oui, pourquoi suis je encore tellement dans le chagrin?
    La raison est simple. Michael me paraissait être un des meilleurs êtres humains sur cette terre. Pour diverses raisons qui avaient trait à sa nature douce, à son aura, à son talent, à son approche de la douleur des autres, j’avais vu en lui un exemple à suivre, un espoir de le voir entraîner avec lui la masse de ses fans pour changer ce monde. Il appelait à ça de toutes ses forces. Il me semblait être une lumière alors que le monde sombrait dans le chaos des crises successives. Mais c’était aussi beaucoup lui faire porter. Je le sais.

    Mon chagrin est que des gens comme Bashir soient encore vivants et lui mort. Mon chagrin est que des gens comme Diane Dimond soit encore en poste et continue de salir la mémoire de cet ange. Ma colère est que des médias soient encore assez ignares en la matière pour relayer des idioties, cinq ans après sa mort. Ma douleur est que je ne peux pas parler de lui autour de moi pour expliquer ce qui s’est passé et que l’on sait maintenant. La majorité des gens se fout éperdument de l’injustice commise et jamais reconnue.

    Michael est mort de la haine, de la cupidité, de manque de soins et de secours. La mort de Michael est le salaire d’un péché énorme pour lequel beaucoup de gens sont à mettre dans le même sac. Managers véreux, producteurs maniaque du fric, médecins dealers et marchands d’ordonnances, procureur enragé à condamner un innocent pour des raisons d’avancement dans sa carrière, avocats pour certains trop contents de faire durer ses procès, accusateurs jeunes ou moins jeunes, pétris de jalousie et de cupidité, petites stars minables s’imaginant qu’il leur avait volé de la musique, familles détestables condamnant leurs enfants à être détestés.

    Mais, le pire c’est Bashir ! Bashir comme Judas, qui pour quelque argent de plus à commencé en provoquant la torture mentale et psychologique de l’Homme qui lui avait fait confiance.

    Et lui malgré tout, Lui, Michael Jackson nous a aimés, nous a éblouis, nous a rendus heureux. Il a aimé le monde et les enfants. Grâce lui soit rendue.

    I love you Michael.

    * * *

    VMJ: Google translation:

    20 March 2014

    Several years after the death of Michael Jackson, I am still not comforted. Why?
    Michael was not my family, not even my friend. I haven’t seen him only once in a concert, but he scored definitely my life. So yes, why am I still in so much grief?
    The reason is simple. Michael seemed to me to be one of the best human beings on this earth. For various reasons, which were related to his gentle nature, his aura, his talent, his approach to the pain of others, I had seen him as an example to follow, hope to see the mass of his fans following him into changing this world. He called to it with all his strength. He seemed to me to be a light that the world had sunk into in the chaos of the successive crises. But it was too much for him to bear. I know it.

    My grief is that people like Bashir are still alive. My grief is that people like Diane Dimond are still in position and continue to sully the memory of this angel. My anger is that the media is still quite ignorant on matters which are real baloney, five years after his death. My pain is that I can’t talk about it around me to explain what happened. The majority of people are frantically fucked up by the injustice committed and never recognized.

    Michael died of hatred, greed, lack of care and relief. Michael’s death is the wages of sin, which is huge for which a lot of people are put in the same bag. Corrupt managers, producers maniac for money, doctor dealers and merchants orders, prosecutor rabid to condemn an innocent person for his career, lawyers happy to take him to trial, accusing young or old, steeped of jealousy and greed, small shabby stars imagining that he had stolen their music, detestible families condemning their children to be hated.

    But, the worse it is Bashir ! Bashir is like Judas, who for a little money started causing mental and psychological torture of the Man who had trusted him.

    And it in spite of everything done to Him, Michael Jackson loved us, dazzled us and made us happy. He loved the world and the children. Thanks to god.

    I love you Michael.



  1. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 4 of 6: So-Called “Christians” Who Have LIED Against Michael! « Vindicating Michael
  2. It’s Not Up To Michael Jackson’s Fans To Prove That He Was Innocent; It’s Up To Michael Jackson’s HATERS To Prove That He Was GUILTY! « Vindicating Michael
  3. March 1st, 2005 Trial Analysis: Martin Bashir and Anne Kite (Direct Examination) « Vindicating Michael
  4. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 4 of 7: So-Called “Christians” Who Have LIED Against Michael! | Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: