Summary and Analysis of Martin Bashir’s Testimony from the 2005 Trial, Part 2 of 2
Now, let’s look at the case the prosecution made for the admittance of the Bashir documentary as evidence in their MOTION FOR ADMISSION OF MARTIN BASHIR’S DOCUMENTARY “LIVING WITH MICHAEL JACKSON” AS EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S MOTIVE AND INTENT IN CONSPIRING WITH OTHERS TO COMMIT THE CRIMES ALLEGED IN COUNT ONE OF THE INDICTMENT. In a nutshell, the prosecution wanted to show the jurors the documentary – and not the British version, but the American version, which had additional commentary from Bashir and Barbara Walters – in order to show MJ’s motive to engage in a conspiracy to hold the Arvizos hostage at Neverland. Here is an excerpt from page 33:
C. Statements Admitted For Non-Hearsay Purpose
Evidence of defendant’s motive to engage in a conspiracy is surely relevant in this case. The broadcast of “Living with Michael Jackson” and the critical running commentary of Bashir and Barbara Walters provoked distress and the felt need to mitigate the damage done to Jackson’s reputation and to limit further adverse commentary.
Motive may be proved by competent evidence when motive is relevant to the jury’s consideration of the defendant’s guilt or innocence.
Many of the statements by Jackson and all of the statements of others, in “Living with Michael Jackson” and in the commentary on 20/20 concerning the documentary would be hearsay if offered for the truth of the matters stated. (Evld. Code, § 1220, subd. (a).)
With the exceptions noted above for admissions, nothing that was said by anyone in “Living with Michael Jackson” or in commenting upon it in the “20/20” rebroadcasts will be offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
If a given statement is otherwise relevant and it is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, it is not “hearsay” and is admissible. An out-of-court statement is properly admitted if a non-hearsay purpose for admitting the statement is identified, and the non-hearsay purpose is relevant to an issue in dispute. [Citations.]” (People v. Turner (1994) 8 CaL4th 137, 189.)
Here is an excerpt from the PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ADMISSION OF CERTAIN STATEMENTS BY DEFENDANT ON “LIVING WITH MICHAEL JACKSON” AND “60 MINUTES” AS EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE, page 43:
Evidence Code section 1220 provides, in. pertinent part: “Evidence of a statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when offered against the declarant in an action in which he is a party ” CaUTC 2.71 instructs the jury that “An admission is a statement made by the defendant which does not by itself acknowledge his guilt of the crimes for which the defendant is on trial, but which statement tends to prove his guilt when considered with the rest of the evidence.”
Defendant’s admissions include his acknowledgement that the Doe brothers shared his room with him for night. The Doe brothers agree this statement is true as to the first night they stayed at Neverland back in 2000. At that time the brothers slept in the bed and Defendant slept on the floor. As to all of the nights in February and March of 2003, where the defendant and the two brothers were all present at Neverland at the same time, they shared the same bed until James Doe witnessed the first act of molestation and then sought residence elsewhere. Thereafter Defendant slept with John Doe only. Defendant’s admission that he shared the room with the boys is admissible in that it establishes that the John and James Doe were in an intimate setting with the defendant when they said they were.
Defendant’s statement that he has slept with many boys is admissible as corroboration of the Doe brother’s allegation that he slept with them. Certainly the admission that he has slept with many boys clearly shows his willingness to sleep with boys, his acknowledgement that that type of conduct as permissible and even appropriate, and as evidence of his intent to continue to share his bed with children.
Did you guys notice the intellectual fallacy that Sneddon used in that excerpt? He intentionally quoted Jackson’s use of the words “sleep” and “share” out of context in order to confuse and prejudice the jury, and that falls under the fallacy of equivocation, which means to “deliberately use words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand”. (We discussed this fallacy in this post.)
Sneddon inferred that the words “sleep” and “share” had a sexual connotation, and he conveniently substituted the word “boys” for “children”. Here is the actual transcript of what MJ told Bashir in the documentary:
Bashir: Did you ever sleep in the bed with them?
Jackson: No. But I have slept in a bed with many children. I slept in the bed with all of them. When Macauley Culkin was little, Kieran Culkln would sleep on this side, Macauley Culkin was on this side, his sisters in there. We all would just jam in the bed. And we’d wake up like dawn and go in the hot air balloon. You know, we have the footage. I have all that footage!
Notice how he said he slept in the bed with many CHILDREN, NOT BOYS! And there was no sexual connotation whatsoever with his statement! If there was, would he be so willing to show Bashir (and the world) the footage that he offered?
Now, on beginning on page 59, Sneddon makes the case for Bashir to be forced to testify about what he knows about MJ’s so-called “relationships with young boys” in his REQUEST FOR ATTENDANCE OF OUT OF STATE WITNESS, MARTIN BASHIR:
Martin Bashir is a reporter who lived and traveled with Michael Jackson for about seven months for the purpose of producing a documentary about his life. The documentary titled “Living with Michael Jackson” aired in England and in the United States in February 2003.
Bashir narrated the documentary and frequently commented on Mr. Jackson’s relationship -with children. He found particularly worrisome Jackson’s practice of sleeping in the same room with children, often in the same bed.
Conversations with the Defendant concerning his sleeping arrangement with children, and particularly with the victim of the current case, are clearly material, relevant and necessary to the prosecution in Santa Barbara County.
It is believed that Mr. Bashir had numerous conversations with Mr. Jackson about his relationship with young boys, and with the victim in particular. The documentary ”Living with Michael Jackson” as presented is less than two hours in length, meaning seven months of interviews and film were substantially edited. Mr. Bashir is a necessary witness to establishing the foundation for the admissibility of the documentary. He will also clarify the extent to which the documentary was edited and whether or not the statements were presented out of context.
Of course those statements were taken out of context! And it’s ironic that Sneddon would ask that, considering that he’s the one who is presenting them out of context to the court and jury!
On pages 65-90, Bashir’s lawyer Theodore Boutrous makes the case for Bashir to not be called to testify. I’ll spare you all of the boring details, especially in light of the fact that Bashir’s request was denied and he testified, but I’ll give you an excerpt of his declaration:
9. In July 2004, I left Granada Television to become a correspondent for ABC News and its 20/20 program. As part of my responsibilities, I will be reporting on the upcoming criminal trial of Michael Jackson and related matters.
10. I believe that if I am called as witness in this case, it will significantly interfere with my ability to gather and disseminate information to the public about this case. I also believe that it would create the false impression that I have been and am an arm of the prosecution, casting doubt not only on my future journalistic activities, but raising questions about my past work as well. For a journalist to pursue his work, he cannot be perceived as an agent of either the prosecution or the defense.
Typical Bashir! Only showing concern for his own worthless career, and no concern whatsoever for Jackson’s career or life! He claims that he doesn’t want to create the “false impression” that he’s an arm of the prosecution, but had no problem airing his second hit piece “MJ’s Secret World” just before the start of the trial! (The link to my rebuttal to that piece of trash is at the end of this post.) If he really cared about MJ, and felt remorse for his actions, he would have jumped through hoops to testify that “he never saw any wrongdoing”, just as he claimed on the day that MJ died!
On page 179, the ruling of the Broadcasting Standards Commission that upheld a complaint of unjust and unfair treatment against Bashir. Here is a copy of their ruling:
Here is what Bashir had to say about it under oath:
1 Q. Do you consider yourself to be a
2 professional journalist because you’re educated in
3 the world of journalism.
4 A. My academic studies were not in journalism.
5 They were in the arts and humanities. So I don’t
6 have a formal qualification, if that’s what you’re
7 asking, sir, but I have the experience that comes
8 with working in the profession.
9 Q. Now, as a journalist in England, you are
10 regulated by a certain administrative agency,
11 correct.
12 A. Could you repeat the question.
13 Q. Sure. Is there an organization or an
14 administrative agency that goes by a title somewhat
15 like British Broadcasting Standards Board.
16 A. There is an organization called the
17 Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Would you be
18 referring to that.
19 Q. I think I am. Do you work with that
20 organization in any capacity.
21 A. That organization doesn’t employ
22 journalists.
23 Q. Have you been sanctioned by that
24 organization.
25 A. Could you repeat the question.
26 Q. Have you been sanctioned by that
27 organization.
28 A. By the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. 235
1 Q. Yes.
2 A. The answer to that question is, three
3 complaints were made against me. Two of the key
4 complaints were entirely rejected, and they were to
5 do with balance and fairness. One of the three was
6 upheld. This is — sir, just so I can explain so
7 people understand, because they —
8 Q. Certainly.
9 A. — because they may not understand.
10 The Broadcasting Standards Commission is not
11 a legal body, and it has no particular merit in a
12 legal setting.
13 Q. Nevertheless, a complaint against you as a
14 journalist was upheld, true.
15 A. As I said, sir, three complaints were made.
16 The two key complaints were entirely rejected. One
17 complaint was upheld of the three.
18 Q. Let’s talk about the one that was upheld,
19 sir. There was a complaint against you that was
20 upheld by that agency, correct.
21 A. There was, sir, yes.
22 Q. And what did they complain about, Mr.
23 Bashir.
24 A. The complaint related to — to what — to
25 what — to how I described what I was doing with the
26 story that I was working on.
27 Q. And what were you doing, Mr. Bashir.
28 A. I was doing journalism. 236
1 Q. Could you put a little teeth on that and
2 just tell the jury what we’re talking about.
3 A. In relation to?
4 Q. You don’t know what we’re talking about.
5 A. Do you mean the specific program. Sorry, I
6 don’t know whether — sorry, I apologize. Are you
7 asking me about the complaint, or are you asking me
8 about the story, the reporting that I was doing.
9 Q. Why don’t you tell the jury about both.
10 MR. BOUTROUS: Your Honor, I’m going to
11 object. Mr. Mesereau is now inquiring about
12 unpublished information or unbroadcast information
13 about another matter. Same objection.
14 THE COURT: Well, it’s a compound question.
15 Sustained.
16 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.
17 Q. Please describe for the jury the subject
18 matter of the complaint you just identified, Mr.
19 Bashir.
20 A. The story was about a teenaged prodigy, a
21 mathematics genius, who had run away from
22 university, had legally emancipated herself from her
23 family. And the story was to describe what had
24 happened from both sides.
25 Q. You were accused of misrepresentations,
26 true.
27 A. No, that’s incorrect.
28 Q. You were not accused of misrepresenting 237
1 anything in that complaint.
2 A. I was accused of unfairness, which was
3 entirely rejected. I was accused of breaching an
4 agreement, which was entirely rejected. I was
5 accused of not representing the entirety of what I
6 was doing with that broadcast to one of the
7 individuals.
8 Q. Kind of what you’ve been accused of here,
9 right?
10 MR. BOUTROUS: Objection.
11 MR. SNEDDON: Argumentative, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Sustained.
Here is the story of Bashir’s unethical tactics which got him sanctioned:
BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Bashir rapped over prodigy interview
TV journalist Martin Bashir, who made the controversial Living with Michael Jackson documentary, has been reprimanded over an interview he conducted with the father of a child genius.
Farooq Yusof complained to the Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC) over a programme fronted by Bashir about his daughter Sufiah and her relationship with her family.
Sufiah hit the headlines when, at the age of 15, she ran away from Oxford University where she was studying for a masters degree in maths.
She was found safe and well after two weeks and Bashir was the first journalist to gain an interview with the family, although they had not been reunited at that point.
The Media Guardian website reports that Mr Yusof told a BSC hearing that Bashir had promised to give him information about the whereabouts of his daughter in return for an interview.
The BSC upheld a complaint about the way the interview with Mr Yusof was obtained.
It ruled that Bashir and the Tonight with Trevor McDonald team misled Mr Yusof about the nature of the programme so that he would agree to be interviewed.
‘Travesty’
But the BSC dismissed two further complaints that he had been denied a promised opportunity to view the programme before transmission and that it was biased in favour of his daughter.
Bashir’s documentary about the life of Michael Jackson, in which he was given permission to follow the star over an eight month period, is also subject to a complaint.
The US singer complained to the BSC saying that he was misrepresented in the documentary after commentary from Bashir said his Neverland ranch was a “dangerous place” for children.
He has submitted his own footage to the commission in an attempt to prove his point.
Jackson said the Granada programme was a “travesty of truth” but the TV company is standing by Bashir.
That complaint is currently “on hold” pending the outcome of legal action started by the singer against Bashir and Granada Television.
Later on during his cross-examination of Bashir, Mesereau got pretty angry, and wanted to have Bashir’s testimony and his documentary stricken from evidence! But unfortunately his request was denied:
21 Q. And how many hours of footage did you obtain
22 during the time you spent with Mr. Jackson.
23 MR. BOUTROUS: Objection, Your Honor.
24 Unpublished information, covered by the shield law
25 and the First Amendment.
26 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
27 Do you wish to answer.
28 THE WITNESS: No, I don’t. 238
1 THE COURT: Next question.
2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You don’t know at all.
3 Can’t even estimate.
4 THE COURT: He doesn’t —
5 THE WITNESS: That’s not what I wish to
6 answer.
7 THE COURT: He chose not to answer.
8 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I would move that
9 the entire testimony be stricken and the
10 prosecution’s evidence be stricken.
11 THE COURT: That’s denied.
12 MR. MESEREAU: I would ask for contempt,
13 Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: The procedure that I’m going to
15 follow I already outlined.
16 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Okay. For the record,
17 Your Honor, could I have a running objection if he
18 refuses to answer a question, or shall I make my
19 request each time.
20 THE COURT: No, you don’t need to do that.
21 Let me just understand what we’re having a running
22 record about.
23 MR. MESEREAU: Yes.
24 THE COURT: If he — if his attorney objects,
25 and he declines to answer based on his attorney’s
26 advice, I will review that question for contempt
27 proceedings without further necessity on your part
28 to request that. Your motion to strike his entire 239
1 testimony and evidence is denied.
On pages 181-185, a transcript of an online chat that Bashir had with viewers is included, and as you read it you’ll see the pure audacity, temerity, and all out gall that Bashir displayed as he utterly refused to show any remorse or contrition for what he had done to MJ!
ITV.co.uk.
Online Chat with Martin Bashir
2/12/03 12:08pm PST
Alastair Coyles, Finvoy: was it your most interesting interview ever?
Martin Bashir replies: What was special was that it wasn’t just an interview – il was an observational documentary and very challenging. I have an innate curiosity about people. Each story we approach in the same way with curiosity and interest and determination to get behind the image. It was a challenging experience and I’m looking forward to a break.
Damian Kuti, Bristol: Do you think Michael Jackson can recover from this interview?
Martin Bashir replies: It wasn’t a traumatic experience. Press coverage has been difficult for him. If concerns are expressed about the way he behaves with children and if it makes him careful in the future then that’s a good thing. I’m sure he’ll bounce back, he’s a talented musician, he continues to make songs and he wants to get into the movie industry, and I don’t think his life has been in any way disfigured by the film. The film did disclose some difficult facts.
Samantha Delancy: Did you get to see Michael’s children without their masks on?
Martin Bashir replies: Yes. On a number of occasions and I got on really well with them. They are lovely children. When we were in Berlin, Prince, his 5 year old son, challenged me to a water gun fight. We raced around this huge suite and had a fantastic water pistol fight and I beat him. They don’t wear their masks at home and in controlled surroundings. One of the things that we did, he was very concerned about his children potentially being kidnapped or attacked and that’s why they were covered up. When he went to Berlin zoo there were 200 photographers. We never showed their faces because he was so concerned about the matter.
Martijn Ubink, the Netherlands: Is there ever going to be a chance to see the parts of the documentary that were cut out because of the confidentiality agreement?
Martin Bashir replies: By way of explanation, I asked him very detailed questions. I read out to him part of the statement from the child and challenged him on the specific facts. It was not possible to broadcast any of that because of an agreement between Jackson and the family. Our legal advice was that we could not broadcast it. Circumstances may change, but at this point in time we will not be broadcasting it. This was almost 2 hours of factual documentary. In our audience ratings, barely no-one left the program. The whole of his life is so fascinating, and people kept watching for that reason.
Julie Atkinson, Brighouse: Why didn’t you push him further when he said he hadn’t changed his face?
Martin Bashir replies: If you watch the film the first time I ask him about it, have you had your cheekbones raised, have you had your nose changed – he denied it all; I went back to it later on. I was asking him to compare his face with what it looked like years ago. If somebody’s not prepared to answer the question, you can keep asking, but he gave us what he believes to be the truth. I believe if I asked him questions about his face for two hours there would be no change. He was going to hold firmly what he wanted to say, but what’s important is that when you compare the two interviews, by the second interview it had gone up to 2.
Leon Warren, Ipswich: Did he ever take strong offence at any of the questions you posed him and did you leave on good terms? There was no goodbye scene between Michael and yourself in the interview.
(Note: Bashir did not answer this question.)
Jennifer Chigwende, London: You had eight months’ worth of footage, how did you pick the parts that you decided to show?
Martin Bashir replies: We wanted to do 3 things. Be true to the narrative of the way things developed in the relationship. We wanted to make sure that the film covered the main issues of his life, musicianship, and appearance. Those were the 3 criteria we would use to decide what would be in. Didn’t believe we would end up with a 3 hour long film. We gave this the biggest possible canvas to convey the most accurate, fair representation of what it was like to live with MJ.
Seth Mason: Do you feel that his statement saying that you betrayed him or his children is true or reasonable in any way?
Martin Bashir replies: Not at all. I agreed that we would make an honest film about his life. It was almost 2 hours of television which is an unprecedented length of time for a single factual documentary and over that period, there were aspects of Michael which were wonderfully charming. At the end of the day, we stand firmly by the film. There was no betrayal at all. A number of articles have drawn on allegations in the past, what happened in 1993 when he was accused but never found guilty of abusing a child. A number of people said to me he came across in a liar way. The film was fair to his musical achievement and gave him every opportunity to explain himself. He was never prevented from explaining what he was doing.
Martin Bashir says: I never saw anything that would qualify as a criminal activity. As we got to know each other, I became concerned about the fact that he did appear to have relationships with children, and they were not related to him in any way, and as with the case with Gavin, he said he had been helped to be healed from cancer. Without prompting, he simply said I slept in his bed. By the end of making the program it was a deep concern. An individual who is 44 years old, sleeping in the bed of children who have no biological relationship with him. One childcare expert raised this issue. She said “If this was happening in an area where poverty might be high, and if an individual of no musical status was sleeping in the bed of 12 year old boys what would the authorities have done?” I did not set out to ensnare him with a child I was curious about the relationship and they volunteered this aspect of their relationship. I became more disturbed by that. I think that is reasonable. I am not – I repeat – not accusing anyone of being a child molester.
Pete Goodman, Cardiff: Do you think Michael Jackson’s outward childishness enables him to relate better to children than to adults?
Martin Bashir replies: You say he’s childish, but he’s incredibly astute. He reads contracts with clarity, he’s very professional about business transactions- He does have an affinity with kids. There has been this 16 second clip mentioned where I’m talking about his children. He is brilliant with, his children. They have water fights together. He is a marvelous father to his own children, but there is a concern about the way he relates to children who are not his own. I said earlier that he was sharing his bed with Gavin and I have to correct myself, he was sharing his bedroom.
Kelly Wallace: I sensed your fear about Michael Jackson’s obsession but why didn’t you stop the project and go to the authorities?
Martin Bashir replies: Obsession with what?
Barbara Bennett: Does he have any contact with his brothers and sisters or any member of his family?
Martin Bashir replies: He forgave his father for the violence in his childhood. I think he still speaks to some of his family – he certainly speaks to Janet Jackson and has a high regard for Jermaine and Tito. I never had the opportunity to meet any members of his family at the house. He would say that he still has a great deal of affection for his family.
Tessy, Nigeria: He mentioned women around his house, taking care of the children? Who are they?
Martin Bashir replies: The most hardworking child carers I have ever met, and they are brilliant with the children. When we drove down to his home, I was in the car with both the nannies and the children get on very well with the nannies. Michael Jackson has some contact with his mother. I never had the opportunity to speak to her, but I know she is involved with the children. There is a large number of people though from zoo-keepers, cleaners, through to cooks, and there is a large number of women, and he is referring to them when he says the children has contact with women.
Rhys Ingram, Bristol: Did Jackson’s entourage seem uncomfortable or unhappy with his behavior? Was there ever a time where you felt so uncomfortable with the situation that you felt you had to leave?
(Note: Bashir did not answer this question.)
Rachel Johnson: What did you think of him when he went into his favorite shop and spent $6 million?
Martin Bashir replies: He was simply interested in purchasing what took his fancy. The Thriller album is still the biggest album of all time. That is still returning huge royalty checks. It was a remarkable shopping trip – it was a revelation to me, as I would be bothered about paying for all those things but to him it wasn’t a concern.
As you can see, Bashir had no remorse for his betrayal of Jackson. In fact, he had the nerve to say that it was fair to MJ, and that the negative press coverage would make him more careful with other people’s children! Did you notice that he ignored the questions of whether or not he left on good terms with MJ, and if there was a goodbye scene between the two? The answer to those questions is HELL NO! MJ tried desperately to reach Bashir and get a chance to review the film before it aired, but Bashir avoided MJ as if he was a debt collector!
Also, did you notice how Bashir lied and said that Gavin wasn’t prompted to talk about where he slept, but in the video below you clearly hear Bashir lead him in that direction!
In this radio interview from April 2010, you’ll hear Aphrodite Jones disclose the fact that it was Bashir’s idea for Gavin to hold hands with MJ, and place his head on MJ’s shoulder! (You’ll hear this at 19:00 and 23:30 mark.) That fact contradicts Bashir’s claim that he “did not set out to ensnare MJ”!
But I’ll give Bashir credit; he used the equivocation fallacy earlier in the chat when he said that MJ was “sharing his bed”, and he later corrected himself by saying that MJ shared his BEDROOM, which puts everything into proper context.
Bashir didn’t answer Kelly Wallace’s question about why he didn’t go straight to authorities with his fears of MJ’s obsessions with children. He sarcastically replied to her question with “obsession with what?”, but in the video above, at 3:25, you’ll clearly hear him say that he wanted to confront MJ about his obsession with children!
After reading through this post, you can see that the depths of Bashir’s treachery is like a bottomless pit! And he still holds a lot of animosity towards Mesereau! Here is the cheapshot that he took at Mesereau on November 7th, 2011, the same day that Murray was convicted! While discussing the attorneys who defended Murray, Bashir said the following:
Bashir: Jamie, if I could start with you, Ed Chertoff, defense attorney or Conrad Murray, repeatedly said “This is not a reality show. This is reality. And you must not find his doctor guilt of actions perpetrated by Michael Jackson.” How effective was Ed Chertoff?
Jamie Floyd: I think he was extremely effective, not a celebrity attorney of the sort that we might have expected to see in this case.
Bashir: Like a Mark Geragos or Thomas Mesereau!
So Bashir just implied that Mesereau is an ambulance chaser! That couldn’t be further from the truth! Let’s look at what attorney and media hack Dan Abrams had to say about Mesereau’s community service at the 2005 Harvard Law seminar:
First, before I talk about the Jackson case, and before I talk about media coverage of trials, etc., in terms of the Jackson case, I don’t think that Tom Mesereau is giving enough credit to Tom Mesereau. He’s talking about the evidence, and something about trial tactics, etc. But Tom Mesereau is, and I’m going to attack him for something in a moment for some of the things he just said, he is one of the few lawyers in the country who puts his money where his mouth is. He is a guy who doesn’t just talk about pro bono work, he doesn’t just talk about the community, this is someone whose face should not be known for the Michael Jackson case, but should be known for all of the work that he does pro bono, and in the communities, and for underprivileged defendants, etc. That’s why Tom Mesereau should be the famous attorney that he is, and he deserves every bit of the attention and the compliments that he gets, and that’s not the case, I would not be saying that with many lawyers who would be sitting here. I don’t feel any obligation to compliment Tom.
And here’s another post on Mesereau’s community service and activism!
That pretty much summarizes Bashir’s testimony, and now you have a gist of what he said, as well has his feelings about his work after it aired, and in the years since. For more information on how Bashir was able to con MJ into filming the documentary, read this post, and for a rebuttal to his 2005 hit-piece “Michael Jackson’s Secret World”, read this post.
Now, here’s the bombshell information on Bashir that recently came to my attention, thanks to my good friend LunaJo67! Make sure you’re sitting down, breath slowly, and calmly soak in what you’re about to read:
MARTIN BASHIR RELEASED AN ALBUM ON SONY!
Yes, that’s right! Bashir released a reggae album in December 2010 titled “Bass Lion”. Here is an article that describes Bashir’s musical “talents”:
Mi2N.com – MarilynMusic Works On MSNBC Anchor Martin Bashir’s Upcoming Album
Few people realize that in addition to being a respected journalist and media personality, Martin Bashir also plays bass reggae. The ‘Dateline’ contributor and MSNBC afternoon anchor, has been working on his upcoming 14 song reggae album called “Bass Lion.” Produced Gary Haase and mixed by Marilyn Music’s Casey Conrad, the album is slated for Fall 2010 independent release. Mixed in August at Headman’s Studios, “Bass Lion” offers a combination of traditional and contemporary Jamaican music, with all 14 tracks having been recorded in Jamaica. Selected songs from the album will be used in his upcoming daily hourly investigative reporting show on MSNBC.
Bashir plays the bass, and (to my knowledge) does not sing or have any vocals on the album. I listened to a 90 second preview of each song on iTunes (none of his songs are on Youtube), and I didn’t hear his voice at all, and I wasn’t terribly impressed with the quality of the songs (but of course I’m biased!).
Another interesting piece of information that I discovered through my research is that Bashir produced the 2005 album “String Theory”, which was recorded by Gary Haase, the producer of Bashir’s album! What goes around comes around!
Bashir’s album was released on the IODA (Independent Online Distribution Alliance) label, a subsidiary of Sony Music! Sony partnered with them in July 2009 in order to “leverage combined worldwide online retail distribution networks. Who would have thought that Bashir would ever release an album on Sony? Well, we know he wasn’t the first enemy of MJ to try to do that! (Cough, cough, Evan Chandler, cough, cough…)
Perhaps we should add this tangled web of cronyism to the flowchart on the Veritas Project?
Update! January 29th, 2012
Here is Bashir disrespecting MJ’s fans by saying that we view him as “messianic”, meaning that we see him as a messiah that should not have been questioned about his lifestyle! This is how Bashir spins his documentary to the general public: “I didn’t do anything wrong, but I get criticized by those rabid MJ fans who view him as a God!”
Trackbacks
- Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 4 of 7: So-Called “Christians” Who Have LIED Against Michael! | Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0
- March 1st, 2005 Trial Analysis: Martin Bashir and Anne Kite (Direct Examination) « Vindicating Michael
- Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 4 of 6: So-Called “Christians” Who Have LIED Against Michael! « Vindicating Michael
Vindicating Michael 
I am struck by something Chris Mathews says after Martin Bashir says about the 3 words everyone on the planet recognizes..Okay, Amen and Michael Jackson…
He then asks Bashir..”Do you think he was bigger then Elvis, he certainly wanted to be..”
Why does Mathews mind completely disregard what Bashir just said about how completely incredibly popular MJ was and his albums being the most ever sold ……and seem to try and make Elvis of the same status.
MJ quite obviously had more world wide appeal..The world is bigger then the United States..
I dont know if it is because he is black , that some people feel he is trying to take something from Elvis or what..Elvis took his moves from black singers…….Nobody cared…It is very strange how subtle it is .
Same with the catalog..
Paul MacCartney was buying other people music, and nobody seemed to think anything of it..
Why is it when MJ does it ,he is out of line..Is it becasue he didnt know his limitations or his place?
But then he would get it from people like Oprah who is black too, so he really couldnt win..
I watch the incident in Berlin with Blanket and the balcony and that was a 2 to 3 second event.
MJ had a firm grip on Blanket.
Yet people were all over it.
You see celebrities like Hugh Jackman tossing their child in the air and not much press about that.. ..nobody called the authorities..
http://www.bestweekever.tv/2008-06-03/hugh-jackman-throwing-child-into-the-air-adorable-or-terrifying/
People with their kids hanging out of grocery carriages dangling over cement floors…
Lots of children get hurt like that because their parents are not paying attn..
Yet the authorities are called on MJ
Why him?
Michael and his love for children and babies ..
People are all over it..
But then I remember watching Oprah and she had a show about a movie called Babies
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1020938/
and the director was talking about the wonder of babies and she was falling all over him..Nothing creepy implied by her with that grown man…
They show 4 babies from different cultures.
Some of the shots that were taken, such as babies on motorcycles , held in people arms without helmets, or safety gear , or a baby, on the ground, right in the middle of a bunch of running cattle ….may be normal, in some countries, but not mine..
It wouldnt be okay in the country the director or camera crew was from to leave a baby in the middle of a bunch of animals running either.
Yet she never asked if they had a problem sitting by and watching that stuff..
because he is making a movie ? so as long as you are filming it , it is okay..??
Would it still have been okay to just film it and not pick the baby up, if he got trampled by animals?
But Oprah, the supposed child advocate , is all over MJ for nothing…
Just so many people resentful and jealous of his success..
Bashir documentary was very transparent, most anyone could see what he was up to.
To have that be a catalyst to start investigations that would actually bring someone to trial is just pure B.S.
To me , just like everything else , it was an excuse to tear MJ down..
And here is Mathews talking to Bashir as if he is a respected journalist ..
I just cant believe how all these educated people could not see what they were doing and why..
LikeLike
Bashir is an idiot. No we do not view MJ as a god. He was human and had flaws just like everyone else. The only thing we “criticize” Bashir about is his lack of integrity, dishonest tactics and false portrayal of MJ in his so called documentary. And if he did nothing wrong like he claims, then why is it that he wouldn’t answer for anything when T-Mez was cross-examining him?
LikeLike
I added video of Bashir disrespecting MJ fans on the day Murray was convicted! It’s at the end of the post!
LikeLike
“Please would someone inform me on T.M´s opinion on Frank as a witness.
Did he mean Frank Cascio?”
Yes, Kaarin, and the transcript of Thomas Mesereau’s opinion is in the comments to this post. Here is the original link:
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/103861-Frank-Cascio-quot-My-Friend-Michael-quot-book-release-date-Nov-15-2011-Excerpt-posted-at-pg151/page231
LikeLike
Please would someone inform me on T.M´s opinion on Frank as a witness.
Did he mean Frank Cascio?
LikeLike
I also think some of his advisors stole from him. For example from the Schaffel vs. MJ case we got to know that Schaffel channeled money to his own bank accounts that he should have shared with MJ. I think probably a lot of that happened over the years. I mean when shady people like Schaffel have control over your bank accounts it’s inevitable.
We know it happened with Tohme too.
The video store owner in the 90s who used to rent out MJ’s videos said someone also tried to get a cut out of the money there too, it was just everywhere, every part of his life had someone trying to make their own side deal out of.
LikeLike
I also think some of his advisors stole from him. For example from the Schaffel vs. MJ case we got to know that Schaffel channeled money to his own bank accounts that he should have shared with MJ. I think probably a lot of that happened over the years. I mean when shady people like Schaffel have control over your bank accounts it’s inevitable.
LikeLike
@aldebaran
Much of MJ’s debt were business related, which makes sense when you consider that MJ was a walking, talking corporation. Here is a comment that a friend of mine wrote on an article to refute that MJ was just a wild spender:
LikeLike
Many thanks for your replies to my queries. It is hard to get into debt for $400 million–I feel instinctively that there is more to the story than has emerged–it would be good to know the details–if we ever can– many non mj fans see this as a sign of mj’s extravagance and I feel sure there is more to it–either huge lawyer bills or dishonesty by advisors, employees, etc., as well as reduced record sales, or maybe something else we don’t know yet. I do realize his sales numbers dropped after the 1993 allegations, but I thought Invincible sold pretty well under those circumstances. Dangerous (91) sold 40 million, then there is the dropoff–HIStory (95) 22 million, Blood on the Dance Floor Remix (97) 6 million, Invincible (2001) 11 million. So post-Dangerous, that is sales of 30 plus million albums –with his ATV Catalogue and other royalties and the income from the HIStory Tour–there still was not enough cash so this is why I asked about it. Thanks for all your excellent info. Good to know T. M’s opinion re Frank as a witness.
LikeLike
I think Murray knew that MJ was dead when he found him and the rest was just a show. I think he was just trying to save himself. In the Q&A Shaffer said there is a 10 to 20 minutes window to revive someone when they stop breathing. I think he knew it was tool late. I don’t know if it was murder or not but the documentary made me think it was.
LikeLike
“re Murray, my thoughts have been on the same line. Was it so involuntary, really??”
Kaarin, Murray’s behavior was extremely strange which makes us suspect it could be a murder, but at the moment we cannot say it definitely. All we can do is keep our eyes and ears open for more information which might surface later.
LikeLike
Michael arrived home about 1-1.30 am. It was only Murray who felt that thready (Imaginary?) pulse.They were also unduly accomodating to his irrational requests for further life support at the hospital.He just kept insisting, so I think they got fed up with him and just went along. Also they were in total darkness as to the real cause of death,thanks to Murrays lies.So maybe they felt a bit sorry for him having a patient drop dead on him just out of the blue.
LikeLike
VMJ re Murray,my thoughts have been on the same line.Was it so involuntary, really?? And what did other people think,the ones from AEG?
An accident would have suited them well. There is much that points to Michael having died prior to the “officicial Murray time”.He was cold to touch when the paramedics finally arrived, the fireplace was in full use in L.A. 25.th of June.Time of death is usually determined from the internal body temperature .And all those calls that morning could well be alibies for not noticing the death.Once Murray officially noticed the death he did just about everything to delay the only true help,ie calling 911.-When Michael came home around 2.30 am on 6/25 he(acc. to police interview )told Murray that he had trained hard and also had very many exhausting business meetings that afternoon.Those could have been upsetting him greatly and further impaired any possibility of sleep.
LikeLike
“That was another disastrous contract, Michael was to pay production costs and various insurances. The insurances have not been clarified, Lloyds of London and AEG are suing.”
Kaarin, I’ve suddenly thought of Conrad Murray in this context. Many people are wondering why Murray would be so negligent in respect of Michael – presumably he was to benefit from Michael and wasn’t interested in his death, right?
But if you look at it from the point of insurance, the situation becomes somewhat different. Murray personally guaranteed in his letters to the insurers’ brokers and AEG (if we are to believe Randy Phillips’ words) that Michael was in excellent health and the only thing Michael couldn’t provide to the insurers were his medical records for the past several years.
However there was another medical check-up looming in London on which Lloyds insisted. Over there they would have surely seen some injection marks Conrad Murray left on Michael’s body for the past two months – and which were not there in March or April when Michael was undergoing the first check up in the US.
So when in London there could have been a scandal and Murray’s lies, recorded in all those letters, could have been uncovered, his contract with AEG could have been annulled without ever coming into effect and that could have been the end for Murray in any case.
Could he be afraid of the events developing according to this scenario? I think he could.
This is probably why Murray said in his documentary that he thought himself trapped.
Wasn’t it better in these circumstances for his patient to die before that? From propofol or lorazepam which Michael, according to Murray, “took orally” or “injected himself”? A sort of a suicide for which Murray is not responsible and he is free as a bird to return to his practice after that? No patient – no problem?
You understand that this is only a speculation but it does explain Murray’s outrageous and totally incomprehensible negligence, doesn’t it?
Of course that medical check-up wasn’t in Michael’s interests either, but he – in contrast to Murray and AEG – never wanted that insurance from the start of it. It was extremely costly and he had already obtained it as he passed the test once, so he could very well refuse to take the test again.
By the way there was nothing in Michael’s body which would speak of his “ill health” except those few injection marks – as the autopsy showed it he was a healthy man and he could have very well passed the tests again.
LikeLike
“About his finances once he got involved with Tohme Tohme-yes, I agree-but I am asking about why he was said to be in so much debt in 02? And was that the reason he did not get a good lawyer to protect him before going ahead with the Bashir interview? I thought Michael was a sharp businessman? So his not getting legal protection, even if Bashir knew Diana, etc, seems weird to me and uncharacteristic. What do you think?”
I personally think that being a sharp businessman is not the same as being distrustful of people. Even if Bashir’s so-called letter from Diana was fake Michael still knew that he had made a documentary with her, so his level of trust for Bashir was very high. He regarded him as a friend, and it was evidently not customary for Michael to check up on friends.
“About Frank Cascio and his book-I have not read it and I am worried about reading it for some reason. I do not understand his not being willing to testify from the start and take the risk to himself-which was much less than the risk to Michael.”
I am sorry, but I do understand it very much indeed. None of us can imagine what kind of pressure Michael’s friends were under at the time. Even Macaulay Culkin openly said to Larry King he wasn’t eager to testify – but nevertheless did and did a marvelous job of it. In Frank’s case it was most probably Thomas Mesereau who played the decisive role and didn’t summon him – he saw that Frank was shy, not very eloquent and didn’t express his thoughts as clearly and expressly as Macaulay did. If Thomas Mesereau had asked Frank to give his testimony, there is NO DOUBT he would have done it.
“The question of how he got so broke in 02 is not answered to my satisfaction. Invincible came out in 2001-didn’t it do pretty well? Does anyone know the names of the advisors who cheated him around or prior to 02?”
I know these names. Firstly it is all the media who trashed Michael without any reason – which immediately had an effect on the sales of his songs.
Second, it is Tom Sneddon, Larry Feldman and a great many people who investigated or sued Michael incessantly which made him spend everything he earned on a huge staff of lawyers. I think there was not a day in Michael’s when someone wasn’t suing him and often for most ridiculous reasons. As Thomas Mesereau said Michael had more than 1500 suits in his life and had to testify 1000 times (this is almost three years non-stop). In fact even Daniel Kapon’s crazy case ended only a year before Michael Jackson’s death – in 2008!
Third, since Michael physically could not do everything to support Neverland, arrange his business, etc. himself – he had to rely on his assistants, who as it turns out were cheating on him grossly. There is a testimony from one Israeli guard who said he could hire a helicopter for $10,000 but Michael’s people said it would be $100,000 even if he insisted it should be only $10,000.
Fourth, Michael spent almost half a billion on charity. If he hadn’t he would have been much better off, but then he wouldn’t have been Michael Jackson.
“His bodyguards talked about how they did not get paid and how MJ and the kids had to leave hotels unexpectedly when the credit cards got maxed out or declined-this is so sad it breaks my heart that a genius who had given so much in all possible ways ended up being asked to leave hotels.”
This is indeed sad, only the genius himself is in no way responsible for it. The media and society are, but not him.
By the way, Michael still had his catalog and could have sold it – at least to get rid of the debts, but retaining it was a matter of principle for him. Hence his problems with cash while simultaneously having huge assets.
On the other hand I do not understand the obsession of most people with huge money. Do only the super rich deserve respect? If Michael was in need of money in his later years in life, this would be sad of course, but it would not in the bit make me respect him less.
In fact, whatever problems he had he always faced them with much dignity. His talent, genius and his heart of gold were still there – and this is all that matters.
LikeLike
Thome-Thome was paid by AEG, and Michael was to pay AEG back from the money he would get from the 50 concerts. That was another disastrous contract, Michael was to pay production costs and various insurances.
The insurances have not been clarified, Lloyds of London and AEG are suing. Who is suing whom I don´t know at this point. One insurance was for Michael, illness or death. Accident would be covered, but it said nothing about homicide. For some reason Thome-Thome was tagged on to Michaels insurance. And Michael was to pay for all staff travel, lodging and food and what not, +Murray´s pay 150.000 per month. It is presumed that some were after his assets, the AEG/ATV music catalogue. Who knows.
LikeLike
The will was written ,dated and signed in L.A. while Michael physically was in London.
LikeLike
Aldebaran, you will find the best answers to your questions by going back in time on this blog to the time when these events were discussed.
Michaels finances were poor because the Invinsible album did not do well. He thought it was Sony that did not give it enough playtime.
That is when he went around London claiming that Mottola of Sony is a racist. All that, can be found on this blog, back in time.Actually,or practically he had very bad legal asistance when the contract ,if there even waS one,was made with Bashir.I think it should have been Frank Dileo, but he was new to the situation.Michael pinned his hopes on the very project with Bashir that then fully demolished him.
Now there was something else fishy at that time,if I am right, his Last Will was made and signed on a Sunday when he happened to be in London 02.
BTW Thome-Thome was paid 100.000 per month on top of the 2.3 mln I mentioned before.
There has been some question whether the will was really his last.
His childrenn names were wrong on it.No other will has surfaced after his death.All this has been written about on this blog,and if you search you will find the info.
LikeLike
Hello, and many thanks for replies to my questions. I thought from what I read here and from the court transcripts cited, that the 2 pages with a one paragraph on each was the only contract between Basir and Michael. Mesereau discussed this worthless ‘contract’ in the 05 trial–my question is why did Michael sign it (or is there proof his signature was forged? Did Mesereau ever say it was forged? Did Michael?). If he did sign it, which it seems he did, why didn’t the person, Evelyn T., whom he asked to contact his law firm, see that he had a better contract before the interview, which had just started in June 02, continued? Not having a better contract created the disaster we all know about.
About his finances once he got involved with Tohme Tohme–yes, I agree–but I am asking about why he was said to be in so much debt in 02? And was that the reason he did not get a good lawyer to protect him before going ahead with the Bashir interview? I thought Michael was a sharp businessman? So his not getting legal protection, even if Bashir knew Diana, etc, seems weird to me and uncharacteristic. What do you think?
About Frank Cascio and his book–I have not read it and I am worried about reading it for some reason. I was amazed to read Mesereau’s comments and to find out that Cascio was in the bedroom when Gavin A. slept there and could have been a critical witness for MJ’s defense! Mesereau gives Cascio a pass on this but I find it hard to believe a friend who loves Michael would not be eager testify and clear him of the charges. Mesereau says Frank was ‘in the end’ willing to testify–why did he wait til ‘the end’ instead of being ready at the beginning? Mesereau said Frank was following his lawyer’s advice, who was concerned his client could end up being indicted and threatened with jail himself and maybe even go to jail. I understand the concern, but given that MJ was falsely accused and Frank knew this beyond any doubt, knowing that MJ faced 22 years in jail, which Mesereau considered a ‘death sentence’ if he had been convicted, given Frank and Michael’s long friendship, I do not understand his not being willing to testify from the start and take the risk to himself–which was much less than the risk to Michael. I just can’t understand this and it prevents me from wanting to read the book–at least at this point in time. Also, once the trial was over and Michael was found not guilty–Frank could have then come out and revealed that he was there in the bedroom the whole time–there was no risk to himself at that point. It would have helped to reclaim Michael in the eyes of those who doubted, who thought he got off b/c he was a superstar celebrity.
I did look at the link cited in one response to my questions, but did not find any reference to the contract between Bashir and Michael. The question of how he got so broke in 02 is not answered to my satisfaction. Invincible came out in 2001–didn’t it do pretty well? Does anyone know the names of the advisors who cheated him around or prior to 02? The info about Peter Lopez is very interesting. What I gather from my own reading about his finances is that banks forced him into loans with high interest rates–up to 9% or even higher. Did this happen back in 02? He was clearly pretty broke in 08 and that seems to be why he got into the AEG situation. His bodyguards talked about how they did not get paid and how MJ and the kids had to leave hotels unexpectedly when the credit cards got maxed out or declined–this is so sad it breaks my heart that a genius who had given so much in all possible ways ended up being asked to leave hotels.
Any insight into this is much appreciated. But maybe we will never know the full picture regarding his finances. I also wonder if he had investments that suffered when the markets crashed in 07/08.
Thanks.
LikeLike
“He had had another rep. before him who committed suicide unexpectedly. Michael did not trust thome thome and was afraid of him”
Kaarin, you are evidently talking of Michael’s lawyer Peter Lopez who was fired sometime before Michael moved into a new house in January 2009, just before the letter of intent (their so-called contract) was signed with AEG.
After Michael’s death Peter Lopez was devastated but was sure that the truth would be uncovered very quickly as he said in his interview.
In spring last year (April 30th, 2010) he suddenly shot himself in what the police called “an apparent suicide” which doesn’t look apparent to me at all. Firstly, he left a strange note where he said he loved his wife and family but did not leave any explanations, and secondly, there were no weapons around him, at least initially, as his wife reported it to the 911:
“Speaking to the dispatcher, Bach says in the call that she did not want to go outside where her husband was in fear that someone might shoot her (“No, I can’t. I’m afraid that the person might shoot me and I have two little girls,” Bach responded when asked if she was physically with the victim). She also references a robbery in the neighborhood a couple of days before.
Bach then says a housekeeper went out into the backyard to try and figure out what happened, reporting back that no weapons were laying around Lopez.”
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2010/05/exclusive-911-call-reveals-catherine-bach-thought-someone-shot-her-husband
* * *
A very Happy New Year to all of you again and much progress to all Michael’s advocates in what we are doing!
LikeLike
Aldebaran, just noticed that you asked about the Bashir contract.
It is generally believed Bashir was a trustwordy reporter as he had interviewed Princess Diana.There was practically nothing in writing, just a crumpled letter allegedly fron Princess Diana.He promised all good things to Michael,like Michael reviewing the final tape, having a say
about it. He also flattered Michael to gain his confidence and led Michael to believe this interview would show him in a good light.
He did not even do a background check on Bashir.Only too late did he find out that he had been tricked in the most viscious way
This horrible liar Bashir has done Michael incredible damage.
So there was no contract in writing.
LikeLike
Aldebaran,good questions.This crook of crooks Thome thome had been his
representative .I think from 2008,recommended by Jeremy.
He had had another rep. before him who committed suicide unexpectedly.
Michael did not trust thome thome and was afraid of him.He totally
kept Michael in the dark and was in frequent contact with Randy Phillips by phone, faxes with copied and falsified signatures of Michael. Michael tried to fire him ,but he just hang on. He was in the hospital in no time when the dead Michael was taken there.He kept telling Michael not to worry about arraignments and money, as he T,-T would do that and Michael should just concentrate on the artistic side.
T-T fired Most of Michaels staff including the nanny. Frank Dileo did become an adviser to Michael maybe around 15.th of June, but T-T was there none the less. Frank Dileo´s health was poor and he died soon.
Neither was T-T donating his services as he alleged, but presented Michael with a 2.7 mlj dollar bill.
You can find more info on T-T in the sites about the vfraudulent,devilish congracts.
LikeLike
Here is a passage from Frank Cascio’s book regarding Bashir’s betrayal on p. 260:
“For months, Michael had been saying that he had final approval over the content of the documentary. The plan, therefore, was that Martin Bashir would come to Miami to prescreen “Living with Michael Jackson.” But Bashir didn’t show up at the designated time, and then kept delaying his trip. By the time it was clear that he was giving us the runaround, it was too late. We tried to halt the interview from airing in the United States, but it was past the point of no return.”
@ aldebaran
The question of Michael’s finances is addressed in the book. Basically his finances were managed by other people and there was a lot of corruption and mismagement in Michael’s “organization”. Eventually a better management team was put in place but even then there were problems. I highly recommend you read the book–you will find many of the missing pieces you are looking for.
LikeLike
Michael never signed a contract. Bashir basically stole the tape and said that he would not pay any attention to the documents. The story of that mockumentary is in this document.
Click to access 042605lodgeddocsevvy.pdf
LikeLike
My questions:
1) why did MJ sign that contract–the vague contract with Bashir? Then why when he wanted a better, tighter contract in June 02, didn’t he get one? Why was he not represented by a good lawyer who knew what protections he needed and who would tell MJ do not give any more interviews until we get a better contract signed?
2) What happened such that his finances in 02 are described as being big debts and bills of 10 million? Why were his finances in that bad shape in 02? Why didn’t he have better control of his finances? This is in fact the big issue for me–what happened to MJ’s finances? How did he get in a 400 million debt (according to what was said at his death)? To me–I would LOVE it if you would focus on this and do an analysis–follow the money, please.
3) Are #1 and #2 connected–did he not have good legal representation b/c he was broke in 02?
Thanks for this. Bashir is scum.
LikeLike
To me nothing is far fetched regarding people who wanted to destroy Michael.
LikeLike
Frank Cascio also writes in his book that Michael had no contact with the Arvizos throughout 2001 and 2002, that not even their name was mentioned, until end of 2002 when Gavin came back to Neverland to do the Bashir interview, but that Gavin almost stalked Michael in 2001 to get in touch with him:
“When we were working on the album in New York, Gavin went to considerable length to reach Michael, calling me, calling security, and persisting until Michael finally took the call. We put the phone on speaker as Michael and Gavin talked, we could hear the mother whispering in the background. ‘Tell him we want to see him,’ she hissed. ‘Say ‘you’re family. We miss our daddy.’ Gavin parroted back the lines his mother fed him.” (page 245)
LikeLike
Thank you for all this info …All this proves again to me is that Sneddon, Zonen, and Auchincloss have no conscience what so ever.
They couldnt have possibly believed this kid or anyone in his family..
It was just the vehicle to get Jordan Chandler statement into court and they are so stupid, and full of themselves, that the figured the jurors would convict him over the 93 trash with a wink and a nod..
I really hope that the amount of money MJ name generates these days will get some one out there to realize there is a market for telling the truth about these horrible people…..
LikeLike
“Lynette is already working on a post that will describe the entire timeline, and I’m sure it’ll be done soon.”
Great. David, may I ask you about one thing, please? If you sum up the Arvizos’ testimonies during the huge work you are planning, could you focus not so much on what they were saying (not to get anyone hooked on their lies again) but on the incredible talent these people have in telling stories, please?
If J.K.Rowling could invent all those things about Harry Porter, why couldn’t the Arvizo budding talents do the same? Some people are very inventive, enjoy fantasizing and derive enormous pleasure from making people believe their lies. It is even a matter of pride for some pervert minds.
The Arvizos are typical leeches who live off other people. As soon as they realized they could not get anything else from Michael Jackson they got terribly offended and turned against him as if he were their worst enemy.
But I am still sure that they wouldn’t have thought of this revenge on their own if it hadn’t been for Sneddon and Larry Feldman. Most probably both convinced them that they would do a great service to the society by “exposing the predator” and that “this should be stopped”.
The boys probably felt that they were on an important public mission. In a way you can even understand their hurt feelings – they sacrificed themselves for the common good, lied about Gavin’s molestation to the best of their ability and all they got was the ridicule of their classmates?
This is probably why the prosecutors are still taking care of them. They know that they got them into this trouble but didn’t stand up to their huge expectations. Hence the need to support them and simultaneously keep an eye on them so that they do not blurt out the truth one day.
All of them are bound by the same chains and are unlikely to confess their lies, I am afraid.
LikeLike
“There is a timeline that is available that will show everyone that Michael was actually never alone with the Arvizo family in February or March of 2003.”
Lynette, please make a post of it! We cannot afford this valuable information to be lost in the comments. Comments are a good thing but they are difficult to find.
If Suzy makes a post about the general crazy idea of the Arvizo liars being “molested” after Bashir’s documentary was made, you can focus on the fact that even in February and March (after the film) Michael was never alone with these lunatics.
As I’ve said before I cannot speak about the Arvizo case because the absurdity of it makes me terribly angry with the people who still believe this nonsense.
For three years nothing happens, then on the only one day they spend together with Michael in 2002 (when the documentary is filmed) nothing happens either and then – when the documentary is aired and the media frenzy starts – the family comes to Neverland and this is when the “molestation” begins?
As if Michael wanted to prove to each and everybody that their suspicions were correct? And went about this business in order to incriminate himself? And provide the police with the evidence they were missing? Obliging them this way?
The absurdity of it makes me furious. And the fact that Thomas Mesereau had to spend 5 full months in order to scientifically disprove this absurdity makes me furious too. And also the fact that Michael had to listen to all that dirt for 5 months and that his health was totally ruined for nothing during that trial.
That trial was never to take place at all. Every normal person could have come to the right conclusions on his own – by a simple comparison of a couple of dates which simply do not fit in.
I am asking you to make those posts about the Arvizos because I won’t be able to restrain myself and will say everything I think about the people who could believe – or still believe – that nonsense.
They think themselves to be intelligent people?
LikeLike
@ Helena
Lynette is already working on a post that will describe the entire timeline, and I’m sure it’ll be done soon.
LikeLike
“You don’t even have to go any further than the timeline and the whole case falls apart. What an utterly, incredibly ridiculous claim it is that Michael didn’t molest Gavin for three years, since he knew him, but he started to molest him right when he was in the middle of being investigated by Sneddon and the DCFS and under heavy media scrutineering because of the Bashir documentary?! People really need to be educated about the case.”
Suzy, I like the way you make the right emphasis. I have a suggestion to you, Lynette and David. Since all of you know a lot about the timeline in the Arvizo case why don’t you make a post about it to explain the absurdity of the whole thing?
The timeline alone will sweep away the majority of questions. It will be the best reference source for those who still have to struggle with common ignorance over the Arvizo case. There will be no more need to answer nonsense questions like “why does Gavin still say that he was molested?” He will always say that because once you start lying you have to go on with it.
Why are people surprised to see the whole group gathering to celebrate Zonen’s wedding? Now all those involved in the case have to keep together because they are bound by their lies like criminals are bound to silence by the blood they shed together.
It is them who are conspirators in the Michael Jackson case because they conspired in a plot against him and none of them can leave the criminal circle now.
Please think of making a post about the nonsense Arvizo timeline. If the three of you make three posts about one and the same thing it will be even better (you can be just an author).
LikeLike
If Aldo and Marie Cascio ever write a book we may have even more holes filled because they were always with Michael. I think Frank got some of his information for his book from them like what happened the day Michael was asked to turn himself in.
LikeLike
Thomas Mesereau explaining Frank Cascio testifying at 2005 trial issue for Positively Michael Podcast December 4 , 2011 podcast
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/103861-Frank-Cascio-quot-My-Friend-Michael-quot-book-release-date-Nov-15-2011-Excerpt-posted-at-pg151/page231
LikeLike
@lynande5 Thank you for this very detailed timeline. In the article you provided it was stated again that it was Jamie Masada who somehow introduced Gavin and his family to Michael Jackson. This is NOT true. It was created by the Make-a-Wish foundation.
And according to a column written Roger Friedman (I know, it’s Friedman again (!), this is how the Miami trip went:
According to my sources, the trip to Miami was not Jackson’s idea at all. It was Tucker’s. Here’s what went down, from what we can piece together: Tucker — who’d met the Arvizos through Jamie Masada’s comedy camp — will testify that the Arvizos called him on or around Feb. 5, 2003, frantic to find Jackson.
According to the testimony of Janet Arvizo’s husband, Jay Jackson, two British tabloid reporters turned up in their apartment building on Feb. 4, the morning after “Living with Michael Jackson” aired in Britain. Jay Jackson testified to negotiating with the reporters for a fee.
In the end, however, the reporters will say that when they returned with a contract for Jackson and the Arvizos, the family was gone. What happened?
We can surmise at this point that Jay Jackson or Janet Arvizo placed a call to Tucker, thinking he could connect them with Michael. This was perhaps to have their silence bought. Arvizo told Tucker that she was desperate to get in touch with Jackson.
The family had had no contact with him since the one day documentary shoot in September 2002. Jackson had even changed his phone numbers. In short order, Tucker called Jackson in Miami. “You’ll never guess who’s here,” he said.
Tucker will testify that he had already booked a private plane to Orlando, where he has a home. He was on his way to the NBA All-Star game in Atlanta, where he has yet another residence. His brother was set to meet him there.
But all of a sudden things changed. Tucker, stuck now with the Arvizos, suggested to Jackson that he could bring the family to Miami and leave them there. And that’s what he did.
On the stand, Janet Arvizo complained that Tucker was put in a different part of the Turnberry Isle Hotel when they all arrived the next day. That may have been because Tucker hadn’t planned on spending the night in Miami at all.
After Tucker hung up the phone, Jackson’s people scrambled to get the family and Tucker rooms in the hotel. It was all, I am told, incredibly unplanned, unscripted, and off the cuff.
Much of this can be underscored, I am told, by notes kept by Jackson’s top aide Evvy Tavasci. Contrary to Janet Arvizo’s statements, Tavasci never made travel arrangements for the family to go to Miami or even to be picked up by Hearne.
So much for the theory that Jackson and his managers masterminded a plot to bring the family to Florida. And the press conference? No one — not Tucker, his friend Brett Ratner, Jackson’s staff — has ever had any idea where that came from.
There was no press conference ever scheduled,” says my source. “It may have just been something in Janet Arvizo’s mind.”
That is less strange than it sounds, since no preparation was ever made for a press conference. And it would have been easier, my source argues, for Jackson simply to return home and have a press conference with the Arvizos in Los Angeles, rather than fly them all to Miami and then back again in less than 48 hours. And there’s proof that Jackson was already set to return from Miami on Feb. 7. He had an appointment with Ed Bradley of “60 Minutes.”
I am told that not only can Tucker attest to the general validity of this scenario, but so too can his ex-fiancee, Azja Pryor, and “Rush Hour” director Ratner. There may be others as well.
And when this story unravels on the stand, my sources insist, it will fill in the blanks about why the Arvizos went to Miami. If it’s true — and I have reason to believe it is — the underpinnings of the conspiracy case will be kicked out for good.
LikeLike
Gavin said himself during his direct examination that Aldo Cascio slept with him, during several nights, in MJ’s bedroom in March 2003.
LikeLike
@ Helena
That’s exactly the thing. You don’t even have to go any further than the timeline and the whole case falls apart. What an utterly, incredibly ridiculous claim it is that Michael didn’t molest Gavin for three years, since he knew him, but he started to molest him right when he was in the middle of being investigated by Sneddon and the DCFS and under heavy media scrutineering because of the Bashir documentary?!
People really need to be educated about the case, because many don’t even know what exactly Michael was accused of. The media don’t tell them about the timeline and how it changed and how the dates of these events relate to each other, for example.
LikeLike
There is a timeline that is available that will show everyone that Michael was actually never alone with the Arvizo family in February or March of 2003. They first went to Neverland in August of 2000. They were there with David Arvizo, their father, whose statement to the Defense says that they never slept in Michael’s room when he was with them and he was with them everytime. If they stayed in that room he knew that someone else was with them besides Michael because Gavin was so sick. They did not go to Neverland in 2001. Gavin says that the reason for that was his chemo. He even says in the Grand Jury transcripts that nothing happens until after the “positive PR interview” that “Michael’s Germans” made them take part in.
In reality it is because Michael does not invite them back because the divorce is in the works and he doesn’t trust Janet after what David told him about her wrecking the Bronco that Michael had loaned them. He is also very busy finishing his Invincible Album and getting ready for the promotional tours. Michael tells Bashir that love can heal and he uses Gavin as an example. That is when Bashir tells him he would like to meet Gavin (I think he actually planned that). They went to Neverland for the filming of the Bashir Documentary September 26th 2002. They shoot the film of Gavin and Michael together. When they are finished filming Michael and his family leave that night and go to Las Vegas where he stays at the Four Seasons Hotel (I wonder if Bashir left with him or stayed at Neverland?). The Arvizo kids stay at Neverland and in the next 5 days wreak havoc and are sent home. They do not see Michael again until Florida after the British airing of LWMJ on February 3rd 2003. They call someone and get in touch with Michael and they tell him that the tabloids want to talk to them that was on February 4th, 2003. Janet did actually sell a story to David Gardener of the Daily Mirror for $4000. That interview is what Roger Friedman called “The Lost Interview” because he said it would save Michael’s life. Here is that interview:
I bolded the part where she makes a point of saying she knew nothing of the prior allegations and settlement. Does anyone really believe that when she had to make a point that she knew nothing of them?
It is after this on February 5th 2003 that they call Evvy Tavasci, Michael’s assistant, and get Chris Tucker to fly them to Miami because someone has told them that they were going to do a press conference. It is unknown who it was because when a press conference was suggested by Dieter and Marc Schaffel Michael said “aw I hate those things” it was never suggested by Michael because he did not want to do it. They spend 2 nights there and fly back to Santa Barbara on February 7th 2003. The list of people on the plane is Grace and another Nanny named Patty, the Arvizo kids, Janet, Dr. Alex Farshchian, Chris Carter, Mike LaPerruque, Danny Crawford, Aldo and Marie Nichole Cascio as well as Michael and his children. February 6th is when Jordan Chandler’s statement is released on Court TV.
The next night February 8th is when Ed Bradley of 60 Minutes is there. He meets the Arvizos and they say that Michael has been nothing but wonderful to them. He sees nothing wrong between the Arvizos and Michael. Michael’s lawyer Mark Geragos is there to get a statement from Janet and the kids saying that nothing inappropriate happened. Because Marlon Brando calls Michael and tells him about Chandler’s statement Michael cancels the interview with 60 minutes. February 9th Gavin, Star, Davelin, Aldo , Marie Nichole, Ann and Silvana Ruiz all go shopping together close to Neverland.
Then on February 11th Mark Lester, Robert Evans and Miko Brando with his children Shane and Prudence come to support Michael after the documentary. It is around this time that Miko wants the Arvizos out of there because they are raising hell and actually run into Prudence with one of the golf carts .It is also the day that Janet gets her courtesy kidnapping and extortion body wax. It might be a good idea to notice that she hasn’t been kidnapped or extorted yet because her belongings are still at her apartment until they are moved on March 1st. On February 12th is when Janet leaves in the middle of the night because she gets mad at Dieter and Ron. It is important to know that Marie Nichole and Aldo Cascio and many other kids are there at that time too they were all on the witness list. Then Frank comes back on February 13th and calls Janet to get her to come back to avoid the media frenzy. The thing is he records the conversation, so when they find the tape at Brad Millers office, the cops hear her telling him that she loves Michael, he is like family, the children love him and tug so at his heart and call him Daddy Michael.
February 13th Michael has a birthday party for Prince. Who was there? The Cascio kids and others that’s who. February 14th the Los Angeles County DCFS start their investigation because of a phone call from Gavin’s school so they go to Jay Jackson’s apartment. Brad Miller contacts Janet at Jay’s house on the 15th and sets up a time to interview her. They agree on February 16th and he goes to interview them and tapes the conversation where they again sing Michael’s praises and say he is family. Brad Miller has the tape at his office when it is raided. He also has the tape that Frank gave him from the phone conversation. So far Janet and the kids are on the record 4 times and I am not even finished.
On the 17th DCFS from LA call Janet and set up the 20th of February for an interview and on the 18th the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department launches an investigation based on a letter from our friend Gloria Allred and her sidekick Carol Lieberman. On the 19th Hamid Michael’s videographer goes and picks the kids up at Neverland and takes them to marc Shaffel’s house to tape the “positive PR video”. Debbie is there, her lawyer Iris Finsilver, Christian Robinson and Vinnie Amen were all there. When they are finished taping it Vinnie takes them back to Jay Jacksons. ON the 20th they give their interview to the DCFS at Jay Jacksons. They all say Michael is wonderful, the boys say that if they stay in Michael’s room they are never alone and if they fall asleep there he sleeps on the floor. Azja Prior is there and she takes the kids back to Neverland when it is over while Vinnie takes Janet to the courthouse to get birth certificates so they can get Visa for the trip to Brazil. She does not mention being held captive to anyone at the Federal Building and there is police all over a place like that. On the 20th Michael leaves Neverland and goes to Miami. He does not come back until March 2nd.
In the meantime on February 21st Rita Crosby from Fox News goes to Neverland, meets Janet and the kids, where they again defend Michael and Gavin even tells Rita Crosby that Michael is going to give them a lot of money to buy a them a big new house. It is also the first day that Janet meets Attorney William Dickerman at the Laugh Factory following Jamie Masada’s advice. Michael is in Miami at Al Malnik’s celebrating Blankets first birthday.
On the 25th when the staff at Neverland can no longer tolerate the Arvizo’s, Frank and Vinnie get them rooms at the Calabasas Country Inn and Suites. They stay there for 5 days of shopping for clothes, meals at Black Angus and of course new designer luggage for Janet, a red leather ensemble. She also goes to get Visa’s for the family where she becomes impatient with the process and says “don’t you know who I am? I am Michael Jackson’s assistant! I am important!” In other words she causes a scene. She also meets Bill Dickerman again.
On March 2nd they go back to Neverland and Michael is back from Miami. The next day Is when his cousins Rijo and Simone come to stay and Rijo testifies that Gavin and Star were doing “nasty stuff” while they were watching porn in the guest unit. He stays in Michael’s room that night and his sister does too. It is interesting that the mannequin that Gavin and Star defaced at Neverland (by drawing pubic hair on it among other things), is of a 7 year old girl. That 7 year old girl was Simone Jackson. It is also the one that they say Michael simulated having sex with. They harassed Simone when she was there, telling her to take her top off and other such pure and innocent behavior. They stay until the 5th and Michael leaves with them and goes to stay at the Beverly Hilton Hotel where he stays until March 9th.
When he goes back to Neverland he stops and picks up fans that he knows well (Joanna Thomae, Jen Winings or Ahmad Elatab) and they all go shopping at Toys R Us. Gavin is with them. This is the part of the testimony where Aphrodite Jones says that Gavin sounded like he was jealous that Michael invited other people. He knew that Michael was distancing himself from their family. On the 10th Vinnie takes Gavin for a urine test that he supposedly spill on purpose. Janet was in the car when they went. On the 11th Janet goes to court and gets an increase in her child support. He drops Janet at Jay’s house on the way back. On the 12th she calls Neverland and asks for the kids to be brought to their Grandparents house, moves into Jay’s house and cuts off all contact with Michael.
Now exactly how many nights was Michael even in their company alone? None! Aldo and Marie Nichole were always there. Someone else was always there. How many times was this family on the record singing Michael’s praises after that rebuttal video? How many times was she in close company to police officers and in court and said nothing? How many times did she send her kids back to Neverland alone while she stayed at Jay’s? How many nights did she stay at a hotel after she met with Dickerman not once but twice? When it comes right down to it there was never an opportunity commit the alleged acts. What did Michael do, go to Florida and then to the Beverly Hilton and tell the boys “here’s some porn get busy and groom yourself with it”?
LikeLike
@ Helena
Actually, Bashir’s album came out in December 2010; he produced Gary Hease’s album in 2005. Personally, I don’t think Bashir was “rewarded” by Sony; I think the fact that Sony bought the record label that released his album was purely coincidental.
LikeLike
– “I don’t want to play the devil’s advocate here but Michael’s haters are evidently implying that the alleged “molestation” took place BEFORE February but the Arvizos cannot say it because then they will have to admit that they lied in the rebuttal film, made soon after Bashir’s documentary.”
– “He wasn’t with them before February.”
Shelly, then it was simply CRAZY to believe the whole thing! The only explanation I see is that people were so filled with hatred for poor Michael, that it made them totally blind, deaf and stupid.
It seems that hatred is the first thing the public should try and get rid themselves of – only then they will be able to understand something about Michael Jackson and see whom they killed by their hate.
And it isn’t Michael who needs these people – it is them who need him to start the process of healing themselves from hate.
LikeLike
“P.S. I don’t want to play the devil’s advocate here but Michael’s haters are evidently implying that the alleged “molestation” took place BEFORE February but the Arvizos cannot say it because then they will have to admit that they lied in the rebuttal film, made soon after Bashir’s documentary.”
He wasn’t with them before February.
LikeLike
“As to all of the nights in February and March of 2003, where the defendant and the two brothers were all present at Neverland at the same time, they shared the same bed”
David, please don’t leave this terrible lie without a commentary in your post. All this thing was totally ridiculous from beginning to end, so please add the necessary information immediately after it. We cannot leave it the way it is – some people may have overlooked that the dates for the alleged “molestation” are pure science fiction.
LikeLike
“Defendant’s admissions include his acknowledgement that the Doe brothers shared his room with him for night. The Doe brothers agree this statement is true as to the first night they stayed at Neverland back in 2000. At that time the brothers slept in the bed and Defendant slept on the floor. As to all of the nights in February and March of 2003, where the defendant and the two brothers were all present at Neverland at the same time, they shared the same bed until James Doe witnessed the first act of molestation and then sought residence elsewhere. Thereafter Defendant slept with John Doe only. Defendant’s admission that he shared the room with the boys is admissible in that it establishes that the John and James Doe were in an intimate setting with the defendant when they said they were.”
I have a very big problem with this statement from Tom Sneddon. Isn’t it based on his outrageous LIE that the “molestation” started AFTER the documentary was made?
The documentary was shown on February 3, 2003 in the UK and a few days later in the US.
So what Sneddon is essentially saying here is that before the scandal broke out Michael shared the room with Gavin and on one occasion only, but after the scandal broke out he all of a sudden started sharing “the bed” with Gavin. This terrible thing lasted for two months until March when the “molestation” took place and they “sought the residence elsewhere”.
And all this nonsense was happening exactly at the time when the police were already looking into the case and the DCFS people were interviewing the family, and the media was in a frenzy and the public was appalled by the documentary?
Who are they taking us for? Complete idiots?
P.S. I don’t want to play the devil’s advocate but Michael’s haters are evidently implying that the alleged “molestation” took place BEFORE February but the Arvizos cannot say it because then they will have to admit that they lied in the rebuttal film, made soon after Bashir’s documentary.
But if they lied in the rebuttal film it means that the Arvizos are LIARS, aren’t they?
And if they are LIARS, then they could lie about the “molestation” too, right?
So this makes Michael’s haters pretend that they believe the “molestation” took place AFTER the documentary was made. This is the nature of lies – once you start telling them you have to go on with them, otherwise the whole story will collapse as a house of cards.
LikeLike
“A partner for TAU Entertainment is Neil Ratner. This Neil Ratner is described as being the manager/ assistant manager fro Edgar Winter in the 70-ties. TAU is the one who released the Martin Bashir album….in the 70-ties Ratner has a music career, he becomes an anethesiologist in the early 80-ties, and in the 21st century he starts his African project due to losing his licence for 3 years.”
Luna, this is extremely interesting. Your research shows that the chances of the anesthesiologist and the music manager being one and the same Neil Ratner are very high. And it also looks like Bashir was probing doctors around Michael to find out what medication he was taking – evidently in order to make another “damning” documentary about MJ. This is how they could get acquainted with each other and their friendship blossomed to the point of making a joint project in 2005.
It is good you and David have told us about it. Now we will be on our guard with Dr. Neil Ratner.
LikeLike
“My dear God, my heart almost stopped when i read that Sony released Bashir’s album, wth…. Maybe that is Thanks for helping to destroy Michael”.
Jovana, as far as I understand David’s post, Bashir made the album in 2005 and Sony partnered with the company which released the album in 2009 (or 4 years later). So based on the dates your conclusion would be too far-fetched.
LikeLike
bashir is a disgusting person making false proposals to michael he knew what kind of documentary he was gonna do from the get go! but what he forgot was that Mike wasnt born yesterday and he also had a 2nd camera in motion. by the look of things bashir screws all the people he interviews by first suing shady tactics to get a meeting with the person!
LikeLike
My dear God, my heart almost stopped when i read that Sony released Bashir’s album, wth…. Maybe that is Thanks for helping to destroy Michael. :(((((
LikeLike
The real reason Bashir did not want to testify is because he knew he had a lot to hide and didn’t want to face MJ and his defense team. He was the one who escalated the whole thing with his constant insinuations and selective editing, so it was only fair that he be called as a witness. He spoke in a mere whisper and wouldn’t even face the defendant, so much so that even MJ got pissed and told him to speak up.
LikeLike
First Bashir concocts a poisonous and shrewd documemtary about Michael in Feb.2003,then he is a witness in court re contents of this documentary,but refuses to answer a single question,really being in contempt of court.As a reason he claims, witnessing will significantly interfere with his ability to gather and disseminate information to the public as an ABC 20/20 correspondent in July 2004 in the upcoming criminal trial ignited by his very self!.His integrity is highly questionable. He was one who paved the way for murray and Michaels death.
LikeLike
A partner for TAU Entertainment is Neil Ratner. At LinkedIn Neil Ratner is also mentioned as founder of Circus Talent LTD. in NY. This Neil Ratner is described as being the manager/ assistant manager fro Edgar Winter in the 70-ties. TAU is the one who released the Martin Bashir album. TAU Entertainment used a female artist to design their logo called Durga Yael Bernhard.
Is this the same Neil Ratner as in DOCTOR Neil Ratner who traveled with Michael on the HIStory tour? Well, DOCTOR Neil Ratner started his medical career in 1981. During a trial where he was a witness he admitted touring with Michael Jackson AND was described as having a former music career as a drummer and manager for…Edgar Winter. Later on Dr. Ratner was also found guilty of fraud and wasn’t allowed to practise for about 3 years. This was in 2002, so after the HIStory tour. Dr. Ratner also had to pay a large fine. He and his wife decided to start a project in Africa called South African Whole Grain Bread Project. One of the other founders is the owner of Bread Alone Bakery. Ratner toured with Michael during the South-African leg, so maybe this is how he got the connection. Both Ratners are the same age.
The Bread Alone Bakery is also a client with designer/artist Durga Yael Bernhard! So the two facts that both Ratners are mentioned as manager for Edgar Winter, they both are clients with designer Bernhard and they are the same age…makes me convinced they are the same! And the timeline fits: in the 70-ties Ratner has a music career, he becomes an anethesiologist in the early 80-ties, and in the 21st century he starts his African project due to losing his licence for 3 years.
His connections in the music industry like being the assistant for Dee Anthony obviously gets him in contact with Michael Jackson. What’s more, Dee Anthony’s daughter, Michelle was head of SONY in the 90-ties and she was Tommy Motolla’s right hand!
(Michele Anthony was named Chief Operating Officer, Sony Music Label Group U.S.in 2004. In this capacity, she had broad-based responsibility for the management and operation of the Sony Music Label Group.
Prior to that, she served as Executive Vice President, Sony Music Entertainment since 1994.)
Which makes this already very tangled web even more confusing.
LikeLike
“Defendant’s admissions include his acknowledgement that the Doe brothers shared his room with him for night. The Doe brothers agree this statement is true as to the first night they stayed at Neverland back in 2000. At that time the brothers slept in the bed and Defendant slept on the floor. As to all of the nights in February and March of 2003, where the defendant and the two brothers were all present at Neverland at the same time, they shared the same bed until James Doe witnessed the first act of molestation and then sought residence elsewhere. Thereafter Defendant slept with John Doe only. Defendant’s admission that he shared the room with the boys is admissible in that it establishes that the John and James Doe were in an intimate setting with the defendant when they said they were.”
Did Sneddon ever spoke about Frank Cascio being in the room at the same time.
LikeLike
@Shelly
The album was released on a subsidiary of Sony Music. I don’t know all of the technical details about the label or album release, other than what is included in the post. There isn’t a lot of info available online about the album, so I had to use what little I was able to find.
LikeLike
“Neverland at the same time, they shared the same bed until James Doe witnessed the first act of molestation and then sought residence elsewhere.”
I like that statement, the brother witness the molestation and the only thing which matters to him was to save himself. At 14, he could have tell his mom, but no, he chose to do nothing.
LikeLike
I’d really like to know for which catalog Bashir did his album, Sony ATV?
LikeLike