Skip to content

March 2nd, 2005 Anne Kite (Direct & Cross Examination) and Albert Lafferty (Direct Examination), Part 2 of 2

May 17, 2012

Kite continues to go on and on about the incompetence and careless disregard for Jackson’s reputation by his team, and she outlines why she’s suspicious of the backgrounds of Konitzer and Weisner:

Q. And you told the police you thought Konitzer

brought Geragos in because Konitzer had power of

attorney, right?

MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.

And —

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. AUCHINCLOSS: — speculation. No

foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

You may answer.

THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question?

I’m sorry.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Yes. You told the police

that you believe Konitzer brought in Geragos because

Konitzer had a power of attorney, right?

A. I believed that because Mr. Konitzer had the

power of attorney that allowed him to make the

decision to bring Geragos into the team, yes.

Q. Now, did you discuss that with Mr. LeGrand

at any time?

A. Did I discuss Mr. Geragos being brought in?

Q. Yes.

A. And that Mr. Konitzer had brought him in?

Q. Yes.

A. I don’t remember. I mean, I’m sure that we 434

did, but I don’t remember in specifics. I just

remember that David was not happy with Mr. Geragos.

Q. Okay. Did you ever see this power of

attorney that Konitzer had —

A. No, sir, I never saw it.

Q. — over Mr. Jackson? You never saw it?

A. No.

Q. You learned everything about that from

Mr. LeGrand, right?

A. Yes, sir, that’s correct.

Q. Okay. And you were fired through an e-mail

by Konitzer, right?

A. Well, no. It was through an e-mail by

David. David sent me the e-mail.

Q. Well, you told the police that you were

fired on February 15th by an e-mail from Konitzer,

didn’t you?

A. David sent me the e-mail. I’m sure that I

said that David sent me the e-mail.

Q. Okay. Would it refresh your recollection if

I just show you the report?

A. You can show me the report, but the e-mail

didn’t come from Ronald. The e-mail came from

David. And I can tell you what it said, if you

would like me to.

Q. No, that’s okay. But you’re saying you

didn’t tell the sheriffs Konitzer sent it. You told

them David sent it, is that right? 435

A. I don’t remember if I said specifically

David sent it. But the e-mail said that Ronald made

the decision, so that may be why it reads that way.

Q. Okay. You told the police you had sent an

e-mail to Konitzer, right?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And you told the police you sent an e-mail

to Konitzer saying, “Schaffel, Backerman and Weizner

have no plan of action and that Michael Jackson is

going to get skewered on national T.V.,” right?

A. Again, I would have never said Weizner,

because I never heard Dieter’s name during that

time. And, yes, I probably did say that Michael was

going to get skewered. And that was — one of my

major concerns was that there was no plan of action

to protect his interests from scurrilous

accusations.

Q. Okay. Okay. Was there ever any discussion

between you and members of this team about getting

rid of Backerman and Schaffel?

A. In the e-mail that I sent to Ronald, I

detailed reasons why I thought that he needed to get

rid of Mr. Backerman and Mr. Schaffel, yes.

Q. Did you actually tell him he ought to do

that?

A. I put it in the e-mail to Mr. Konitzer, yes,

I did.

Q. And why did you think Mr. Backerman should 436

go?

A. Because he had done things that I felt were

detrimental to the positive public relations effort

we were trying to move forward.

Q. Okay. To make a long story short, you

thought you had a better plan to protect and

represent Mr. Jackson than this team, right?

A. I believed that I had Mr. Jackson’s public

relations interests at heart much more than Mr.

Backerman or Mr. Schaffel, yes, absolutely.

Q. What about the other members of the team?

Did you think you had more of an interest in doing a

good job for Mr. Jackson than the other members,

like Mr. Geragos?

A. I didn’t know what Mr. Geragos’s position

was. So I can’t speak to their intentions. I don’t

know. I can only speak to what I know.

Q. Okay. You told the sheriffs that when you

saw the Bashir interview, it disgusted you and made

you ill, right?

A. Yes, that’s correct.

Here is where Kite describes the lousy business records of Konitzer and Weizner that include fraudulent activities, and bad business deals, but the most important piece of information here is that she and Legrand found out that Konizter had embezzled $980,000 dollars from Jackson, and that Sony was paying Konitzer to isolate Jackson, create his downfall, and allow them to get the other 50% of the catalog! The Sony haters out there are going to love hearing about this!

Q. And you told them, the police — pardon me,

I keep saying “police” — the sheriffs that Konitzer

and Weizner have a record of making very bad

business deals, right?

A. Yes, that’s correct.

Q. You told the sheriffs that Konitzer and

Weizner have scammed people out of millions of 437

dollars, right?

A. Yes, that’s correct.

Q. You told the sheriffs that after you were

fired by Konitzer, Mr. LeGrand hired you to do

public relations work, right?

A. Yes, that’s correct.

Q. Now, was that for his law firm?

A. No, that was for him personally.

Q. Him personally?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. To your knowledge, was he a partner at a law

firm then?

A. Yes, that’s correct.

Q. You told the sheriffs LeGrand ran a

background check on Konitzer, right?

A. I didn’t hear your question, I’m sorry.

Q. You told the sheriffs that LeGrand was doing

a background check on Konitzer, right?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Did you encourage him to do that?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Because you were suspicious of what Konitzer

was up to, right?

A. I was suspicious of everything, yes.

Q. On that team?

A. On that team, yes.

Q. Did you tell that to Mr. LeGrand?

A. Yes, I did. Many, many times. 438

Q. Okay. You told the sheriffs that it was

your understanding that LeGrand and Konitzer had

been casual friends for about nine years, right?

A. That’s what David told me, yes.

Q. And you told the sheriffs you thought

Konitzer hired LeGrand because he thought LeGrand

would be quiet and just do his job, correct?

A. Yes, that’s correct, that’s what I said.

Q. But at some point you learned that LeGrand

started an investigation of Konitzer, right?

A. At some point I pushed David to go in that

direction, yes.

Q. And you pushed David to investigate a lot of

other people, didn’t you, besides Konitzer?

A. Who?

Q. Malnik.

A. No. I didn’t push David to investigate Al

Malnik.

Q. But you learned that he was investigating

him, didn’t you?

A. I don’t remember David ever telling me that

he was investigating Al Malnik.

Q. How about Schaffel?

A. I don’t remember David ever telling me he

was investigating Marc Schaffel either.

Q. Okay. So you don’t know anything about that

investigation, if it existed, right?

A. No, sir, I don’t. 439

Q. Never seen any documents that LeGrand showed

you about those people being investigated?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. Okay. You told the sheriffs that LeGrand

would not have investigated if you had not put these

questions in his head, right?

A. I believe that to be true, yes, because he

told me in the beginning that I was overreacting.

Q. Okay. And you told the sheriffs that once

LeGrand started doing his investigation and

background checks on Konitzer, he spoke with

accounting people and found out Konitzer had

embezzled $980,000 from Mr. Jackson, right?

A. That was the total figure that he told me,

yes.

Q. You told the sheriffs that one thing of

value that Michael Jackson has is a Sony catalog,

correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. How did you learn about the Sony catalog?

A. Through several sources.

Q. Can I ask you who they are?

A. Well, first of all, public knowledge. And

of course David told me.

Q. And what is your understanding of what the

Sony catalog is?

A. It’s a collection of music, copyrights on

music. 440

Q. And what kinds of music are you talking

about?

A. Popular music. But basically music from The

Beatles and other artists.

Q. You told the sheriffs your understanding was

that Sony had an interest in that catalog, along

with Mr. Jackson, right?

A. Yes, that’s correct.

Q. And you told the sheriffs that you thought

Konitzer was being paid to isolate Michael Jackson,

create Michael Jackson’s downfall so Sony can get

the catalog back, didn’t you?

A. No, that’s not what I said.

Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show

you the report?

A. You can show me the report, but that’s not

what I said.

Q. Did you ever say the following, Ms. Kite:

“Gabriel said it makes sense to her that Konitzer

and Weizner were being paid to isolate Michael

Jackson and let him do his own thing and let him

create his downfall so that Sony can get the catalog

back”?

A. No, sir.

Q. Never made that statement?

A. Not in that way, never, sir.

Q. Okay. Did you ever tell the sheriffs you

thought the recording industry was just as bad as Al 441

Malnik?

A. I probably did, yes.

Q. Okay. Now, you read this report before you

came in to testify, right?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Did you ever point out to anyone that you

thought some of the statements were not accurate?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Who was that?

A. To Gordon.

Q. When was this?

A. I don’t remember.

Q. You don’t remember? You talked to him for a

couple of hours two nights ago, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you talk to him about the report then?

A. No, I don’t believe I did talk to him about

the report then.

Q. Okay. You told the sheriffs you’re not

saying that Sony is paying Konitzer and Weizner, but

if you could prove it, you’d love to?

A. Yes, I said that as a facetious remark.

Absolutely. I did say that.

Q. You told the sheriffs you have a lot of

sources inside of Sony, correct?

A. That’s correct, yes.

Q. And you told the sheriffs that those sources

inside of Sony have told you that they’ve been 442

waiting for years to get the Sony catalog back from

Michael Jackson, correct?

A. Yes, sir, that’s correct.

Q. And you told the sheriffs that if you look

at Konitzer and Weizner’s track record, they’re not

the type of people that should be managing anything

for Michael Jackson, right?

A. Yes, sir, that’s what I believed, yes.

Q. Told the sheriffs, “If you look at their

track record, they’re not good business people,”

right?

A. Yes, sir, that’s correct.

Q. You told the sheriffs that they caused

Michael Jackson to lose his logo in the United

Kingdom?

A. Yes, sir, that’s correct, I did say that.

Q. How did you know that?

A. I read that through news reports and I

believe David confirmed that for me.

Q. And you thought — you told the Santa

Barbara sheriffs you thought Konitzer and Weizner

were tight with Schaffel, right?

A. Yes, sir, that’s correct, I did.

Q. And you thought they all were hurting

Michael Jackson, right?

A. Yes, sir, I do, absolutely.

Q. And you still believe that, right?

A. Yes, absolutely. 443

Q. You told the Santa Barbara sheriffs that you

think somewhere down the line Konitzer and Weizner

were going to get a payoff, right?

A. I don’t remember — you know, I don’t

remember using those exact words, and I don’t know

what context I would use it in.

Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show

you the report?

A. Sure you can.

MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to

look at the report?

A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what

you said?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. And regardless of where you got your

knowledge, I’m just asking if you said this to the

sheriffs.

A. Yes, I believe I did say that, yes.

Q. So you told them it made sense to you that

down the line Konitzer and Weizner were going to get

some kind of payoff?

A. Yes, sir, that’s correct. But that payoff

could have been from a business interest; it could

have been from any number of things.

Here’s an interesting statement from Kite: she told sheriffs that she believed that Konitzer and Schaffel had concocted a plan with Janet Arvizo to harm Jackson!

Q. You told the Santa Barbara sheriffs you 444

believed that Konitzer, Weizner and Schaffel

concocted the business with Janet Arvizo, right?

A. Again, I wouldn’t have used Dieter’s name,

because I had no knowledge of Dieter at the time.

That I believe they concocted the business with her?

Meaning —

Q. That they were doing something with

Arvizo —

A. Yes.

Q. — that was harmful to Michael Jackson,

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were concerned that Schaffel and

Konitzer had done something to Janet Arvizo as well,

right?

A. Yes, sir, that’s correct.

Q. So, basically what you were telling the

sheriffs was, you think Michael Jackson’s a victim

and Janet Arvizo is a victim of these guys, right?

MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; that’s

argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, again, you have no

personal knowledge of what happened at the ranch

with Miss Arvizo, right?

A. You’re absolutely correct, sir, I have no

personal knowledge of that.

Q. And you have no personal knowledge of really 445

anything Michael Jackson’s done in his lifetime,

because you’ve never been there to watch him, right?

A. That’s absolutely correct, sir.

Here are more criticisms of Konitzer, Weizner, and Schaffel, including the criticism that they were only thinking about their profits when they put together the rebuttal video:

Q. Okay. Thank you.

Now, you made some statements about what you

think a proactive public relations effort is. But

you knew that a rebuttal film was being prepared

that was supposed to be a public relations response

to the Bashir tape, correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And you told the Santa Barbara sheriffs that

somebody was getting $3 million for that rebuttal

video; right? 449

A. That’s correct.

Q. Was it your understanding that Schaffel was

getting that money?

A. No, it was my understanding that it was

going into a corporation.

Q. Okay. Do you know what corporation?

A. Fire Mountain, I believe.

Q. Okay. So realistically, you knew that

something was being done to respond to the Bashir

video, right? Or, excuse me, the Bashir show?

A. Realistically, I knew that something was

being done. Whether or not it was something that I

agreed with or thought was the level that Mr.

Jackson deserved is a totally different question.

Q. Did Schaffel or Konitzer really include you

in the production of that rebuttal video?

A. What do you mean by “include”?

Q. Well, during the six days you worked with

this team, did they ask you for any advice on how to

do a rebuttal video?

A. Not on how to do the video. But Mr.

Schaffel did call me to discuss with me who would

appear on the video. And I told him that I felt

very strongly that Mr. Jackson needed to appear on

it to refute, himself, the claims that were being

made against him.

Q. Okay. And were you asked anything else

about what your thoughts were on that rebuttal 450

video?

A. I don’t remember.

Q. Is that the only suggestion you gave, that

you can recall?

A. That I can recall sitting right here right

now, yes.

Q. Okay. Did you feel in some way that they

were cutting you out of the development of that

rebuttal video?

A. No, I didn’t, because there were so many

other fires going on and so many other things that

needed to be done. And the way that that video was

being structured wasn’t really anything that I felt

that I could give input to anyway.

Q. Did you think that video was being prepared

with Mr. Jackson’s interests in mind?

A. I believed that Mr. Konitzer and Mr.

Schaffel were preparing — were preparing it with

Mr. Jackson’s interests in mind, yes.

Q. But you thought they could do a better job,

is that it?

A. Absolutely, yes, sir.

Q. Did you think they had a profit motive in

trying to put that video together?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object and move to

strike just as to foundation. And speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Here’s is another interesting tidbit of information: according to Kite, David LeGrand was “physically afraid” of John Branca, who worked with Jackson on and off for over twenty years as his entertainment attorney:

Q. Okay. And you told them that Mr. LeGrand is

scared of an attorney named John Branca, right?

A. That’s what he told me, yes, sir.

Q. And you told them that he was scared of

Branca because he had fired Mr. Branca, correct?

A. Yes, sir, that’s correct.

Q. “He” being LeGrand?

A. Yes, sir, that’s correct.

Q. And you told the sheriffs that Mr. Branca

had worked for Mr. Jackson off and on for

approximately 20 years, right?

A. Yes, sir, that’s correct. 457

Q. And you told them Mr. Branca gets a

percentage of music deals that Michael Jackson

signs; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir, that’s correct.

Q. How did you know that?

A. Mr. LeGrand told me that.

Q. And you told them that Branca has an account

that this money goes to, right?

A. Yes, that’s correct.

Q. And Mr. LeGrand told you he was scared of

Branca because he knew a lot about what Branca was

doing with Michael Jackson’s money, correct?

A. I don’t remember that I phrased it that way.

Q. How did you phrase it, if you know?

A. I just remember saying that Mr. LeGrand was

afraid of Mr. Branca.

Q. Did Mr. LeGrand tell you he was suspicious

of what Mr. Branca was doing with Mr. Jackson’s

money?

A. I don’t remember him using the word

“suspicious.” I don’t remember specifically what he

said about it.

Q. Okay. But based upon your conversations

with LeGrand, you formed the conclusion that LeGrand

was suspicious of what Branca was doing with Mr.

Jackson’s affairs, true?

A. I can’t answer that, because I can’t speak

to what was in David’s mind. I don’t have – you 458

know, I don’t know how I could form an opinion at

that point.

Q. But you told the sheriffs that LeGrand told

you that he was physically afraid of Branca, right?

A. Yes, he did.

In this excerpt, Kite describes a meeting that she had with Jermaine Jackson at his home in Encino, CA, in April 2003. She said she tried to warn him about the people around Jackson who she felt were defrauding him, but he wouldn’t listen because he was in a “complete state of denial”:

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know someone named

Jermaine Jackson?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Who is Jermaine Jackson?

A. Jermaine is Michael’s brother.

Q. Do you know him personally?

A. Yes, I do. 471

Q. How do you know him personally?

A. I met with him.

Q. Approximately when was that?

A. I believe in April of 2003.

Q. And did you arrange that meeting?

A. Mr. Jackson and I, Jermaine Jackson and I,

spoke on the phone and arranged it together, yes.

Q. Did you call him?

A. He called me initially.

Q. Okay. Do you know how he got your number?

A. Yes, from Rita Cosby at FOX.

Q. Did you meet with Jermaine?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Where did you meet with him?

A. At his home in Encino, California.

Q. You told Jermaine Jackson that Al Malnik and

other people pretended to be Michael’s friends, but

were not, true?

MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

You may answer.

THE WITNESS: I don’t remember saying that to

Mr. Jackson.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You met with Jermaine

Jackson for approximately six or seven hours, right?

A. For several hours, yes.

Q. And you told the Santa Barbara sheriffs

about that meeting, true? 472

A. Yes, that’s correct. I did.

Q. And you mentioned Al Malnik, correct?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. You mentioned Konitzer, correct?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. You mentioned Geragos, correct?

A. I don’t remember if I mentioned Geragos. I

don’t remember.

Q. You mentioned Schaffel, didn’t you?

A. Yes, absolutely I did.

Q. You told Jermaine Jackson, “These people are

not your brother Michael’s friends,” right?

A. I don’t remember that those were my exact

words.

Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just

show you the report?

A. Sure you can.

MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: That’s not what it says. It

says I told you about him and other people that were

not Michael Jackson’s friends, but it doesn’t say —

it doesn’t quote me as saying that —

THE COURT: Wait. When he shows you to

refresh your memory, just look at it, and then you

can tell him whether or not it does refresh your

memory.

THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay. 473

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to

look at that police report?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. And did you tell Jermaine about Al Malnik

and other people that were Michael Jackson’s friends

but were really not?

A. I did not say it in those terms. I told Mr.

Jermaine Jackson about people that were associated

with Mr. Jackson, but I don’t — and I did not say

and it does not quote me in there as saying that

these people were Mr. Jackson’s friends but were

really not. That’s not what it quotes me as saying.

Q. Well, I want to ask you if this is a correct

quote: “Gabriel said she told Jermaine Jackson

about Al Malnik and other people that were Michael

Jackson’s friends but were really not.” Did you say

anything to that effect?

A. That is not a direct quote from me. That’s

not how it reads.

Q. Did you say words to that effect?

A. I told Mr. Jermaine Jackson about people

that were associated with Mr. — with Mr. Michael

Jackson that I felt were detrimental to him. But I

don’t believe I ever said they were pretending to be

his friend, but they’re really not.

Q. So these words are wrong that I just read

you?

A. The exact word using them as a quote is 474

wrong, yes.

Q. Yes. Yes. Now, Mr. Jackson’s mother was at

the meeting, correct?

A. Mr. Jackson’s mother was at the house.

Q. Was she at the meeting?

A. No, she wasn’t.

Q. Did you ever speak to her that day?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And how long did you speak to her?

A. Just for a minute or two.

Q. Did Mr. Jermaine Jackson introduce you to

Michael’s mother?

A. Yes, he did. And to his wife also.

Q. Okay. Is it true the meeting went six or

seven hours?

A. I was there for about six hours, yes.

Q. Okay. And you told the Santa Barbara

sheriffs Jermaine was in a complete state of denial

about the people around Michael Jackson, right?

A. That’s what I felt, yes.

Q. And you told Jermaine words to the effect,

“These people are taking advantage of Michael

Jackson,” true?

A. I told Jermaine Jackson that I believed,

especially Marc Schaffel and his continued

association with Mr. Michael Jackson, was going to

be very detrimental to him, yes. And Mr. Jackson

told me that his brother didn’t associate with those 475

type of people.

Q. Okay. You told Jermaine Jackson you thought

Michael needed to be around his family and away from

these people, right?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you felt frustrated that you weren’t

getting through to Jermaine about your concerns,

right?

A. I don’t believe “frustrated” would — I felt

sad.

Kite then goes on to describe the investigation into Jackson’s missing finances that was initiated by LeGrand:

Q. How long after this meeting with Jermaine

Jackson did you learn that Mr. LeGrand had started a

private investigation of whether or not these people

were defrauding Michael Jackson?

A. The investigation was started before the 476

meeting with Mr. Jackson.

Q. Okay. And did you discuss that

investigation with David LeGrand.

A. The investigation that he started?

Q. Yes.

A. As it was ongoing?

Q. Yes.

A. Not to my knowledge, no.

Q. Did he tell you that he had suspicions that

these people were stealing from Michael Jackson at

some point?

A. He told me that he had called the

accountants and got them to give him some

information without Mr. Konitzer’s knowledge, and

that’s how he figured out that there was an amount

of money missing.

Q. Okay. But at some point did he say to you

words to the effect, “I’m hiring a top-flight

investigative firm to investigate all of these

people, because I think they’re stealing from

Michael Jackson”?

A. No.

MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: No, he did not. We were on

the phone. And he told me to call his managing

partner and ask him to begin an investigation into

these people. 477

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

A. And I sent an e-mail to the managing partner

and said, “David asked me to e-mail — to contact

you and,” you know, “begin an investigation.”

In this excerpt, Kite describes how Geragos hired another PR firm to represent Jackson, and it was led by Eric Dezenhall, and her total disappointment in his lack of enthusiasm for his new client:

Q. Okay. Now, at some point you told the

sheriffs that Geragos brought in another PR firm; is

that right?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Who was that?

A. Eric Dezenhall.

Q. From Washington D.C.?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you ever speak to him?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. When did you last speak to him?

A. Probably in April of that same year, 2003.

Q. And did you speak to him about the work he

was going to do?

A. I spoke to him — David had asked me to

speak to him about several different things.

Q. Okay. And you complained that Mr. Dezenhall

told you that Mr. Jackson is not socially relevant?

A. Yes, he did say that.

Q. And you were upset that a public relations

spokesperson would ever say that about a client,

right? 491

A. Yes, I was.

Q. You were particularly upset that he would

say that about his new client, Michael Jackson,

right?

A. I was upset because I didn’t believe, no

matter what, that there would ever come a time that

Mr. Jackson wasn’t socially relevant.

Q. And you don’t know if Mr. Dezenhall ever met

or spoke to Mr. Jackson, do you?

A. No, sir, I don’t.

Q. Your understanding is simply that Mr.

Geragos hired him?

A. Yes, sir, that’s correct.

Q. You complained that Mr. Dezenhall shouldn’t

make a statement like that about Mr. Jackson, true?

A. I don’t know that I complained, but I — I

would never make a statement about that about a

client of mine, no matter what.

Q. You accused him of doing nothing and saying

nothing, right?

A. I didn’t accuse him. I believed that he

would be a very good fit for the team because he had

the same hunker-down philosophy, the same philosophy

of “Don’t say anything. Don’t put anything out. It

doesn’t matter what bad press is out there, we can’t

refute it. We’re already behind the eightball.”

Q. Did you complain that you thought Mr.

Dezenhall was throwing his client to the wolves? 492

A. I don’t remember saying that about Mr.

Dezenhall.

Q. Did you use words to that effect?

A. I believe I said “the team,” or I felt that

basically that’s what the team was doing to Mr.

Jackson by not being proactive and responding for

him in the press.

Q. Okay. You complained that Mr. Konitzer

wanted to build a website called “MJJ Invincible,”

right?

A. I didn’t complain. I stated that when I was

hired, Mr. Konitzer asked to put up a website, and

the URL that he wanted to use was “MJJ Invincible.”

And I told him I thought that was highly

inappropriate, given the backlash that was out there

with all of the — with the Bashir documentary and

everything else going on. I didn’t believe that Mr.

Jackson should put himself in that position to be

subject to more ridicule from the press by having a

website domain of that name.

Q. But you don’t know if Mr. Jackson even knew

about this idea, right?

A. No, sir, I don’t.

Q. You said Konitzer was “out of his mind,”

right?

A. Yes, I did. I did.

Q. You said, “That’s the last thing they should

do,” correct? 493

A. That’s absolutely what I said.

At one point, Judge Melville became irritated with Mesereau over his repeated questioning of whether or not Kite witnessed Jackson doing anything inappropriate with children:

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You told the Santa Barbara

sheriffs that Michael Jackson has a lot of talent

but never matured past the age of 12, right?

A. I didn’t say it that way, no, sir.

Q. You said something to that effect, didn’t

you?

A. No, what I said to him — to the sheriffs, 494

when they spoke to me, was that I felt that Mr.

Jackson was very talented, extremely talented, but

the way that he was portrayed was that he hadn’t

matured past the age of 12.

Q. Okay. And clearly, you didn’t think this

team was helping him deal with any of this, did you?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. You thought they were actually hurting him,

didn’t you?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Now, clearly you have never personally

observed Mr. Jackson do anything wrong —

THE COURT: Counsel, you’ve asked that

question ten times today. I want you to look at the

jury and realize that they’re tired of listening to

this.

MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

THE COURT: You know, the — you need to

grasp the evidence and present it, not keep

repeating it.

MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Yes, Your Honor.

Just a few more questions.

Mesereau finishes up his cross-examination with a few questions about Bashir:

Q. Did you ever send an e-mail that basically

said — showed letters where people were saying they

thought Mr. Jackson was being exploited in Bashir?

A. I don’t remember.

Q. Okay. Do you remember ever discussing that?

A. We may have discussed it as a way to attack

Mr. Bashir. But I don’t remember. I mean, part of

the plan was to try to get Mr. Jackson’s image

rehabilitated. So obviously anything that could

show Mr. Bashir had ill intent towards Mr. Jackson

would be very helpful to us.

Q. Did you investigate Mr. Bashir’s background

yourself?                      

A. No, sir, I didn’t have the time.

Q. Did you plan to do that? 496

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Did you take any measures to do that at all?

A. No. Not at the time, no.

Q. Did you hire anybody to do that?

A. No, sir, I didn’t.

Q. Do you know Mr. Bashir?

A. No, sir, I do not.

MR. MESEREAU: Okay. No further questions.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Assistant District Attorney Auchincloss begins his redirect examination by asking Kite about the unusual “hunker down” philosophy of Eric Dezenhall’s PR firm:

Q. Ms. Kite, you mentioned when you were

referring to Mr. Dezenhall you had that hunker down

approach?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What did you mean by that?

A. Don’t say anything to the press. Don’t

talk. If negative publicity comes out, you just

brush it off and move on.

Q. Is that an uncommon philosophy in PR?

A. I think it’s more uncommon, yes.

Q. Is it a nonexistent philosophy? I mean, is

it very rare, I should say?

A. I would think that it would be more rare

than common.

Q. Okay. Do some PR firms implement that

philosophy? 497

A. Yes, they do.

Q. Was it evident to you that that was the

philosophy of the team?

A. Yes, it is. Yes, it was.

Q. Including Bell Yard?

A. No, not Bell Yard.

Q. Okay. Everybody with the exception of Bell

Yard?

A. Yes, that’s correct.

Q. And did you have an impression as to whether

or not the team thought that was the best way to go

about these things, whether or not —

A. Whether to hunker down or not?

Q. Yes.

A. My impression was that they didn’t want to

do anything. They wanted to hunker down, because

anything I asked to be able to do on behalf of Mr.

Jackson I was told not to.

Q. Did you ever develop an impression as to why

they wanted to hunker down?

A. My impression was that there was obviously

something more important than Mr. Jackson’s public

relations going on.

Here’s an interesting exchange: Kite tells Auchincloss that she was upset that Jackson had to “sell the proof of his innocence” with his rebuttal to Bashir’s documentary, and felt that was strictly a PR move:

Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You said that the FOX

rebuttal program produced — or there was a contract

for that program to produce $3 million, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you also said you believed some

of that money went to Mr. Jackson?

A. Yes, I believe that.

Q. What did you base that on?

A. I just — I guess based on what David said

and — I mean, I never saw money actually

transferred into Mr. Jackson’s hands, so —

Q. Did this transaction take place while you

were working as a PR person?

A. Yes, it did.

Q. Were you upset about it?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Why? 503

A. Because I said that I didn’t believe that

Mr. Jackson should have to sell the proof of his

innocence.

Q. Was that a PR move on your behalf?

A. Yes, absolutely.

Kite is once again asked about her meeting with Jermaine:

Q. When you went and spoke with Jermaine

Jackson, can you tell me how that meeting came

together?

A. I had been speaking with Rita Cosby from

FOX. She suggested that I might want to call

Jermaine Jackson because he was very concerned about

his brother. She gave Mr. Jackson my telephone

number.

He called me. We spoke. He asked if I’d be

willing to come and meet with him. And I told him 508

yes, I would. And I went.

Q. And you expressed concern about some of the

team members to Mr. Jermaine Jackson?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you express any other concerns about Mr.

Jackson to Jermaine at that time?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What did you tell him?

A. I expressed concern about his —

MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; 352;

foundation.

MR. AUCHINCLOSS: The full conversation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I expressed concern about Mr.

Jackson’s financial situation.

Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: In what respect?

A. Um —

MR. MESEREAU: Objection, Your Honor. The

Court’s ruling.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did Mr. Jermaine

Jackson indicate whether or not he was close to his

brother during this conversation?

A. I don’t think he ever said he was close to

his brother, but he didn’t say he was distant

either. He indicated great concern about his

brother.

Q. Did he indicate whether or not he had 509

communications with his brother?

A. Yes, he did.

Auchincloss finishes up his redirect examination by asking Kite to describe specific problems resulting from some of Jackson’s associations:

Q. Based on that, what specific problem did you

identify involving Mr. Jackson’s association with

Marc Schaffel?

MR. MESEREAU: Vague as to time, Your Honor.

MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll be specific.

Q. As to during this month of February in 2003.

A. David told me, and I discovered, that Mr.

Schaffel — am I allowed to say?

THE COURT: Yes.

Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Let’s focus

specifically on what came out in the media during

that month.

A. What came out in the media during that month

was that Mr. Schaffel was a gay pornography 513

producer.

Q. All right. And let’s move on to the — and

did you perceive that as a negative public relations

association?

A. With respect to Mr. Jackson, yes,

absolutely.

Q. Let’s move on to Mr. Malnik. Was there any

negative — same question. Based upon all your

review of the different news services, was there

ever any negative public relations issues presented

in the media by virtue of Mr. Jackson’s association

with Al Malnik?

A. Yes, there was.

Q. And what was that?

A. There were —

Q. Speaking about the month of February 2003

again.    

A. There was articles about Mr. Jackson’s

association with Mr. Malnik as he was reputed to be

a known mobster.

MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Thank you. I

have no further questions.

MR. MESEREAU: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Any cross?

Mesereau begins his recross-examination by asking Kite if Jackson was involved in gay pornography and mobster activities, and she thoroughly denied it, and even reiterated that she felt those people should stay away from Jackson because they were exploiting him:

Q. Ms. Kite, you have no knowledge whatsoever 514

that Mr. Jackson has ever been involved in anything

related to gay pornography production?

A. No, sir, I don’t.

Q. And you have no information of Mr. Jackson

himself ever being involved in mobster-type

activities?

A. No, sir, I don’t.

Q. In fact, you were repeatedly complaining,

“You’ve got to get these people away from Mr.

Jackson”?

A. Absolutely, I was.

Q. And you complained they were exploiting him,

correct?

MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Vauge as to

who “they” are. Argumentative as to the word

“exploiting.”

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

THE WITNESS: Can you read it back? I’m

sorry.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Record read.)

THE COURT: I think the answer came in

before the objection, but I overruled the objection.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And you went to Mr.

Jackson’s mother’s home, and you met with Jermaine

and his mother to tell them that these people were

taking advantage of Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Jackson

appears to be nowhere to be seen, right? 515

A. I went to tell them that I was concerned

about the association between these people and Mr.

Jackson, yes, I did.

Q. And you never saw these people with Mr.

Jackson, did you?

A. No, sir, I did not.

MR. MESEREAU: Thank you. No further

questions.

MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down.

Is this witness excused?

MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You’re excused.

Call your next witness.

Summary of Anne Kite’s Testimony:

1. Anne Kite was the ex-girlfriend of Jackson’s former attorney David LeGrand, and in January 2003 she was hired by LaGrand to perform public relations work for Jackson due to her 20 years of experience as a public relations manager. Her goal was to help alleviate the public relations nightmare that was imminent due to the upcoming airing of the Bashir documentary.

2. Kite worked for Jackson for only 6 days (beginning on February 9th ), but never met him or communicated with him. She reported directly to Mark Geragos, Stuart Backerman, Marc Schaffel, and Ronald Konitzer at different times. (Konitzer and Schaffel were two of the five unindicted co-conspirators of Jackson.)

3. Kite signed a one month contract for $20,000 dollars, but was abruptly fired after 6 days on February 15th, 2003 via an email message from LeGrand, with no explanation given for her termination. After seeing the negative press from the documentary, Kite wanted to take the focus of the press away from Jackson the artist, and put it back unto Jackson’s art.

4. In addition to the negative coverage that resulted from Jackson’s admissions of sharing his bed with children, the press pounced on the leaking of Jordan Chandler’s 1993 declaration of abuse, Jackson’s associations with former gay pornographer Marc Schaffel and accused mobster Al Malnik.

5. Kite disagreed with the lackadaisical attitude that Jackson’s inner circle had in the aftermath of the Bashir documentary, and was shocked that a scheduled interview with Access Hollywood was cancelled at the last minute by Mark Geragos.   After her dismissal, she was asked by Geragos to sign a confidentiality agreement, but refused to do so out of fear of how it would impact her. She also spoke with David LeGrand and he said that Jackson’s camp was no longer worried about Janet Arvizo because they had her on tape and were going to make her look like a “crack whore”.

6. Kite testified under cross-examination that she wasn’t any expert on any capacity of Jackson’s life; she only knew what she heard about him from the media, and that is why she wanted to be so proactive in rebutting negative stories in the media after the Bashir documentary aired by focusing the public’s attention on Jackson’s music.

7. Kite and LeGrand were very concerned about the Power of Attorney privilege that Rondal Konitzer obtained from Jackson, and he used it to embezzle $980,000 dollars from him. LeGrand commenced an investigation into the activities of Schaffel, Konitzer, Wiesner, Geragos, and Milnik based on a request from Kite, who was suspicious of them because they allowed Jackson’s reputation to be sullied in the press and were not proactive about restoring it.

8. During Kite’s employment, she was concerned because nobody in Jackson’s inner circle would tell her their plans to deal with the Bashir crisis, and she was worried that Janet Arvizo would sell stories to the tabloids. Kite also told police that Jackson’s inner circle had “no plan of action” to protect Jackson and prevent him from getting skewered on national TV in the aftermath of the Bashir documentary. For example, Konitzer wanted to start a new website about Jackson called “MJJ Invincible”, and Kite thought that he was “out of his mind” for attempting to set up a website that was inappropriately named, and would lead to even more ridicule of Jackson. She emailed Konitzer and suggested that he fire Marc Schaffel and Stuart Backerman.

9. Kite testified that Ronald Konitzer had the power of attorney from Jackson that allowed him to hire Geragos as Jackson’s attorney in early 2003, and David LeGrand wasn’t happy with the hiring of Geragos.

10. During her police interview, Kite told detectives that  Konitzer and Weisner had lousy and shady business records that included fraudulent dealings that scammed people out of millions of dollars. Due to her suspcions, Kite asked LeGrand to run a background check on Konitzer, who she belived only hired LeGrand because he thought LeGrand would be quiet and just do his job without challenging Konitzer on his actions.

11. After being told by Kite about her various suspicions, LeGrand began an investigation into the actions of Konitzer and Weisner, and as a result of this investigation, LeGrand determined that Konitzer had embezzled $980,000 dollars from Jackson! LeGrand was ultimately fired by Konitzer before the completion of his investigation.

12. Kite also told the police investigators that she had sources inside of Sony that told her that Sony had been waiting for years to get the Beatles catalog back from Jackson, and although she didn’t have any proof that they were paying Konitzer and Weisner to sabotage Jackson, if she could prove it she’d love to. (She said this as a facetious remark, but it was based on her belief that, hypothetically, it wouldn’t be beyond the realm of suspicioun that Sony would pay Wiesner and Konitzer to bring down Jackson to help them get his portion of the catalog.)

13. Kite told sheriffs that she believed that Konitzer and Schaffel had concocted a plan with Janet Arvizo to harm Jackson, although she had never met or spoken to Janet Arvizo, nor did she have any knowledge of what went on at Neverland ranch during their stay there in February and March 2003.

14. Kite told sheriff’s investigators that LeGrand was “physically afraid” of John Branca, Jackson’s attorney of over twenty years at that point. LeGrand had fired Branca in the past, and was worried about Branca was doing with Jackson’s money.

15. In April 2003, almost 2 months after her dismissal, Kite had a meeting with Jermaine Jackson at the Jackson family’s Hayvenhurst home, in order to warn him about the people around Jackson who she felt were defrauding him, but he wouldn’t listen because he was in “a complete state of denial”. It was Jermaine who initiated the meeting by calling Kite after obtaining her phone number from Fox News reporter Rita Cosby.

16. After the Bashir documentary aired, Geragos hired another PR firm that was led by Eric Dezenhall, and he made Kite very upset by saying that Jackson “wasn’t socially relevant”.

17. Kite was upset about the way the rebuttal to Bashir’s documentary, “The Footage You Were Never Meant To See”, was produced, and she felt that Jackson “shouldn’t have to sell his innocence” to the public. She also stated that the documentary was strictly a PR move.

The next witness to be called was Albert Lafferty, a then 18 year veteran of the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office. During the investiagion of Jackson in 2003, Lafferty worked in the forensics investigation unit, and his duties included responding to crime scenes, searching for, collecting, preserving, and processing evidence. During the November 2003 raid of Neverland, he was assigned the job of shooting video and taking photographs of the main residence before the actual search began. He also took aerial photographs of the property in March 2004.  Throughout his direct testimony, Lafferty was asked by Sneddon to narrate the footage that he filmed during the raid of Neverland.

I will summarize his cross examination in the next post in this series, as well as the direct testimony of Davellin Arvizo. Open this link to continue to the next post in this series: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/05/19/march-3rd-2005-trial-analysis-albert-lafferty-cross-examination-and-davellin-arvizo-direct-examination-part-1-of-2/

13 Comments leave one →
  1. May 26, 2012 3:51 pm

    @ Juney07 Haven’t found anything to connect Dieter Weisner with Ron Weisner/DeMann.

    Like

  2. May 26, 2012 1:01 pm

    @juney07 It was Ron Weisner and Freddie DeMann in the early days.

    @nannorris You’re right, Mr Mesereau wasn’t rubbing elbows with Feldman. On the other hand, Johnnie Cochran was a friend of Howard Weitzman and Cochran was also in awe of Feldman. Cochran and Feldman sat down together and worked out a settlement between them. From Cochran’s book: “Both Larry and I agreed that it would be in our clients’ best interests to put this matter behind them and let them get on with their lives.” Wasn’t that nice of Johnnie and Larry. Not a fan of either I’m afraid.

    @sanemjfan Very much appreciated this in-depth look at Anne Kite’s testimony. It seems she set out to do the job she was to be paid for and had her client’s (Michael’s) interest at heart and the right instincts regarding what should and should not be done. Whether or not any of the others around Michael had only his best interest at heart or not is debatable because it’s easy to see that self-interest could also have been a motivation for some, if not all. It’s also possible one or more of them reacted in panic. At least there is the rebuttal video. Anne Kite’s idea of PR certainly runs rings around Backerman’s and Dezenhall’s.

    When Kite was brought in, she only knew LeGrand, she didn’t know the others. Because of what she saw of the situation and also because of the information she was able gather through reading articles, she was suspicious about all of them. LeGrand did follow up on her suspicions and came up with some interesting information.

    During her testimony Kite was determined no one should misquote her or put words in her mouth. She admitted to making a facetious remark about Sony paying Konitzer and Weisner and that was because of her suspicions, not because she knew it was true. She qualified all her responses so we know what was fact and what were only her suspicions. One thing she was very definite about was LeGrand being scared of John Branca (or “physically afraid” were the words Mr Mesereau used, which she agreed with), because LeGrand had fired Branca. LeGrand being scared of Branca is something very interesting to think about. Why would a lawyer be scared of another lawyer? Perhaps it might be because Branca is a partner in a powerful firm with a lot of connections. Who knows what it means. But the fact is LeGrand WAS scared. That is interesting, especially in light of LeGrand’s testimony and what he was at pains to point out regarding the Interfor report on Branca.

    It’s also interesting how and why Schaffel and Malnik (associates of Michael) were the focus of media attention in February 2003. This was also around the time the Goldman Sachs proposed deal was being considered (which Michael abandoned). In my opinion, the timing of the media articles about Schaffel and Malnik, the Bashir documentary and the attempted extortion coming hot on the heels of the Goldman Sachs proposal is highly, if not extremely suspicious. Conspiracy theory? Maybe. Suspicious nonetheless.

    Like

  3. juney07 permalink
    May 22, 2012 3:51 pm

    @nan, I believe you are correct in that MJ was paying a lot of the bills for the family and no one wanted to rock that boat. I read that before MJ left for Bahrain he left $1M with his mother (through his accountant). And four short years later the Encino home was near foreclosure, rescued only by the estate after Michael’s death. IMO, there are just still too many players from dark periods in Michael’s life still clutching onto the Jacksons with the family being sucked into the same schemes used on Michael. This trial testimony is very clear to understand although it underscores the ravenous tactics to which Sneddon went to get Michael. Perhaps I haven’t read deeply enough but I would sure like to know exactly how Konitzer, Schaffel (who I know Michael fired when learning of his porn background) and Weisner got into Michael’s life. Is THIS Weisner any connection to the “Weisner Demann”, who I think was connected with J5 years back, whose claim against the estate was just dismissed?

    Like

  4. nannorris permalink
    May 22, 2012 1:19 am

    The thing with Jermaine, from what I had read, in A Jones book is that Jermaine did intervene and get MJ power of atty back..At least that is what I thought.

    I think he was naturally concerned for his brother , but I dont think he was in the position , to go and tell MJ what he thought, because I think Mj was paying a lot of the bills and people didnt want to rock the boat..
    How terrible that this woman walked in and noticed all this going on right away, seeing just how few really loyal people he had in his circle
    I know there was a lot of discussion among his family about MJ will not being real,, but .
    I bet, if they asked Janet who is in charge of her estate , it wouldnt be Joe Jackson, or any of the Jacksons either..
    These people are like corporations, you have to know what you are doing ..
    I am still waiting to hear more about Dieter because I have always lumped him in with Konitzer, but , Ms Kite was not mentioning Dieter..
    I know Schaffel is a slimeball..Debbie Rowe had nothing good to say about him on the stand and he was trying ot hold Mj feet to the fire , as he was threatening to roll over on him , if Mj didnt pay up….
    I was really surprised to see her with him at FL and of course fans were there , but not everyone is familiar with some of these people..
    If I saw Schaffel , I would have asked him some very direct questions..

    Like

  5. juney07 permalink
    May 21, 2012 4:03 pm

    @sanemjfan, I raise the issue of Jermaine not taking Kite’s comments seriously mainly b/c I am so frustrated when, to this day, I see Joe Jackson cavorting in Europe with Dieter Weisner, currently at Cannes, and when I see the same Dieter Weisner photographed right next to Prince Jackson when Prince was in Germany presenting some lyrics for auction (more than a year go) and when I see Marc Schaffel photo’d with Debbie Rowe 2X, once at the airport going to Tokyo (?), and of all places, both of them at Michael’s mausoleum, not sure of the date but within a year of his death. Do the Jacksons not know what Weisner and Schaffel did to their son in the early 2000’s? Why do they promote Weisner’s involvement with Prince after Michael’s death? Do they not know that Schaffel sued their son while at his most vulnerable? And if they do not know these things (very publicly promoted by the way), then WHY doesn’t Jermaine INFORM his parents that he, Jermaine, was warned about these individuals a decade ago by Kite? Is anyone out there named Jackson listening and watching out for Michael’s children?

    Like

  6. sanemjfan permalink
    May 21, 2012 6:45 am

    @juney07
    You raise some excellent points! Unfortunately I guess we’ll never know why Jermaine called Kite for a meeting, yet dismissed all of her concerns!

    Like

  7. juney07 permalink
    May 21, 2012 6:39 am

    Really great information here! Just wondering why (but can’t get into another’s head of course) Jermaine would not have believed Kite when he, Jermaine, called her for a meeting, and she went to the Hayvenhurst house in April 2003 to meet with him, spent 6 hours there, basically trying to warn him that none of Michael’s handlers had his best interests at heart, and Jermaine didn’t believe her, being in “complete denial”. Jermaine must have believed SOMETHING wasn’t right (as he initiated the call to Kite and agreed to the meeting), then when she spends 6 hours telling him what’s wrong, he discounts everything and doesn’t follow up on her warnings. So why did Jermaine even call her and agree to a meeting in the first place if he was so worried about Michael?

    Like

  8. aldebaran permalink
    May 17, 2012 11:43 am

    Any chance that Mez’s focus here is to explode the conspiracy theory that MJ was charged with–in other words, to show that instead of a team of 5 conspirators working together, including MJ as the one member of the team actually charged, to kidnap, imprison, etc. the Arvizos, there was in reality a team working against MJ (not for him or with him). This protects MJ from the conspiracy charges.

    Like

  9. nannorris permalink
    May 17, 2012 8:56 am

    you know initially I had thought that Geragos probably wanted to get rid of her because of her lack of experience …but preventing her from defending him on tv, thought she might say something stupid because of her inexperience, BUT that confidentiality agreement he wanted her to sign..look how many people around MJ she discovered were ripping MJ around him..
    She said she thought Konitzer put Legrand in place because he wouldn’t notice anything and he didnt , she made him look into these things…Then she gets booted and Geragos choses a PR firm that doesnt think theor client is socially relevant …WHAT???.
    It really makes you wonder ………..Geragos also was giving Nation of Islam a headquater in his office to hang out in and Mesereau thought a prevalent show of Nation Of Islam in that predominantly white town would be a disaster.
    I am really troubled that this woman thought, that his own people were working with Janet , like they are the people who might have put this idea in her head??poor MJ
    Good thing Randy stepped in and got Mesereau..
    I remember reading that Johnnie Cochrane said Merereau was the guy they needed to get.
    And I always thought it was because he is an outsider.
    He isnt rubbing elbows with Larry Feldman , like Sneddon was …
    It just seems to me that so many people were going to benefit off his downfall in so many ways …it was like a done deal…
    But i think about how this woman says that the people around MJ wanted to isolate him so he could create his own downfall and it reminds me of thomme and MJ death.How Kenny Ortega wrote that email asking ” where are the people taking care of him..No one even there to get him a cup of tea…”…:((((( ,

    Like

  10. Hilary permalink
    May 17, 2012 8:34 am

    @nannoris With all these disgusting people around, it’s amazing that Michael managed to get Mesereau involved. God really WAS on their side.

    Like

  11. nannorris permalink
    May 17, 2012 8:30 am

    Great Job !!..This stuff is fascinating ….The fact that Konitzer hired Geragos who has a history of losing high profile cases and a P.R team that said MJ is no longer socially relevant seems extremely suspicious to me..Like he is being led to the gallows by his own people..
    Thank Heaven for Mesereau and Yu

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. The Gallery of Michael Jackson’s Business Advisors. INVESTIGATIVE REPORT | Vindicating Michael
  2. March 2nd, 2005 Anne Kite (Direct & Cross Examination) and Albert Lafferty (Direct Examination), Part 1 of 2 « Vindicating Michael

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: