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

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! 

 

DECLARATION OF BRIAN OXMAN

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.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

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 18^th, 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?

THE WITNESS: No.

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.

9 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

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:

WHY DID DIANA’S INTERVIEWER FAKE THESE BANK DOCUMENT?

Byline: NICK FIELDING; JASON LEWIS

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!