Thanks to you Bashir, nobody will ever see MJ perform again, because you killed him

by David Edwards

August 4, 2010

DAVID EDWARDS has sent us an exceptionally thorough study of the role of Martin Bashir in Michael Jackson’s life. The article is being reposted here from another page of the blog together with the readers’ comments.

Thanks to you Bashir, nobody will ever see MJ perform again, because you killed him…



1. The Connection Between Martin Bashir and NBC

Well, well, well, it seems that Martin Bashir is finally leaving ABC News after almost six years of “reporting” for their “20/20” and “Nightline” telecasts. Last week, it was revealed that Bashir will be joining NBC/MSNBC as a contributor to Dateline, and as a daily afternoon anchorman, respectively.

Bashir will likely replace David Shuster, who was suspended indefinitely in April 2010 for inappropriate behavior, and whose contract expires later this year.

While it may seem like Bashir voluntarily left ABC News, in all likelihood ABC News refused to renew his contract, but as a sign of professional courtesy they allowed Bashir to obtain another job first, and then let him spin the story to appear as if he left on his own terms. (Similarly, Evan Chandler fired Gloria Allred for wanting to prosecute MJ in 1993. He had Larry Feldman break the news to her, and then she announced to the press that she was leaving on her own terms.) In a statement, MSNBC President Phil Griffin called Bashir’s work “smart, original and thoughtful,” adding that he “couldn’t be happier to bring someone of his caliber to the network.”



Are you freakin’ kidding me? Well, I guess I would agree that Bashir’s work is pretty original. After all, can you name another journalist who has befriended not one, but two pop culture icons, lulled them into a sense of trust and security, only to take advantage of them and portray them in the worst possible light?

You would think that with that kind of resume, Bashir would be completely blacklisted within the news industry, right? Well, it seems that he’s being rewarded for his dirty deeds! But when you think about it, it’s only fitting that NBC would hire Bashir, because they have a horrible track record when it comes to bashing and trashing MJ! Here are a few examples:

After the Bashir crock-umentary aired in February 2003, MJ decided to air his rebuttal video “Take Two: The Footage You Weren’t Meant To See”, and since it was to be aired in time for February sweeps, all of the major networks were locked in a bidding war to get the footage. (Ratings sweeps occurs each February, May, July, and November, and this viewing information provides a basis the networks to set advertising rates. The higher the ratings, the higher the revenues!

NBC offered MJ $5 million dollars to air the show, and in addition, they blackmailed MJ by offering to cancel a one-hour episode of “Dateline NBC” that would “investigate” the 1993 allegations. MJ went with Fox instead, and not only did NBC air the Dateline special, but they expanded it to two hours by adding in stories about MJ’s plastic surgery, and his ties to gay porn producer Marc Schaffel!

To add insult to injury, they hired Victor Gutierrez as a consulting producer for this episode as well! This is the scumbag who teamed up with Evan Chandler to write the science fiction novel “Michael Jackson Was My Lover”. (And yes, it is science fiction because it came straight from Evan’s imagination! LOL!) How could an organization that prides itself as a credible journalistic outlet hire one of MJ’s sworn enemies, who was ordered to pay him $2.7 million dollars being successfully sued for slander, to be even remotely associated with this Dateline episode? More information on this can be found in this blog post mj-777.

Another example of NBC trying to sully MJ’s reputation is the fact that one of their top correspondents, Rita Cosby, was the first to “break” the story that jurors Ray Hultman and Eleanor Cook were writing their “tell-all” book about MJ being guilty. Her new primetime TV show premiered in August 2005, and those two jurors were her first guests. She was roundly criticized by her colleagues in the media for being so gullible to even believe their stories, especially in light of the fact that two months earlier, they both unanimously agreed that MJ was innocent! As a matter of fact, she practically mocked Sneddon when she interviewed him and sarcastically asked him does he still believe that MJ was guilty?

But can anyone blame her? After all, she was an up and coming reporter, and she needed a “big get” to lure in viewers and boost her ratings. And she has a history of trying to spread rumors about MJ in order to boost her career. (Gee, does that sound familiar?) For example, she erroneously reported that MJ converted to Islam after he hired members of the Nation of Islam as bodyguards. She has also used her show to give Jackson family “spokesmen” a platform to spew their worthless opinions about the case.

The Veritas Project, an explosive 95 page expose on the connection between the 1993 and 2005 allegations, includes an amazing flowchart that shows that many of the major players are involved in both cases, and how different media outlets –NBC included- are connected to those players. In addition to hiring Victor Guiterrez as a consultant to that Dateline episode, they also hired Diane Dimond for the Today Show, and Sherriff Jim Thomas as a consultant to the Jackson case. Maureen Orth was married to the late Tim Russert, who hosted “Meet The Press”, and was highly influential at NBC, so it wouldn’t surprise me if Orth used some of her clout to dictate how MJ would be portrayed. That outline is listed here: The Veritas project

2. The filming of “Living With Michael Jackson”

Now, I want to discuss the chain of events that led up to Martin Bashir conning MJ to do the documentary. I want to do a full “background check” on Bashir (something that MJ didn’t do, unfortunately!), and discuss all of the events that happened before, during, and after the filming of “LYING To…..”, ooops I’m sorry, I meant “Living With Michael Jackson”.

Before the filming of “Living With Michael Jackson”

In 2002, Michael Jackson was going through some hard times. His latest album “Invincible”, was a commercial flop (by his standards. It only sold 10 million copies worldwide, including 2 million in the USA.) Due to disagreements with Sony Records, promotion of the album was severely limited. There were only two videos released (and MJ only appeared in one of them), and due to the September 11th attacks, any chance of a world tour was out of the question for security reasons. (At that time, virtually all artists either cancelled or scaled back their tours.) MJ felt that his album was sabotaged by Sony in order to ruin him financially, and force him to have to sell them his remaining 50% ownership of the highly profitable Sony/ATV music catalogue. (That conspiracy is discussed in detail in this article BACK IN 2002….WHY INVINCIBLE BECAME INVISIBLE….

So he went on a rampage against Sony, publicly denouncing CEO Tommy Mottola as a “racist” and “devilish” for conspiring against and taking advantage of his artists, primarily black artists like James Brown and Sammy Davis Jr.

MJ’s public perception was at an all time low, and he needed a way to improve his image and make himself more appealable to the younger generation, to whom the name “Michael Jackson” was usually only heard as the punch line of a joke. Martin Bashir, who had been wanting to interview MJ for years (just like every other journalist on the face of the earth), decided that he would contact MJ’s close friend, Uri Gellar, and try to convince him (or pay him!!) to talk to MJ about the possibility of letting him do a “fair and positive” documentary. So Gellar recommended Bashir to MJ, and stressed the fact that Bashir was able to improve Princess Diana’s image after their 1995 interview. This was enough to convince MJ that Bashir could be trusted, so he agreed to the interview. In addition to improving MJ’s image, Bashir was also going to introduce MJ to Kofi Annan (the Secretary General of the United Nations at that time) in order to discuss ways to help disadvantaged children around the world, and all of the profits of the documentary would be given to charity. However, there is some controversy as to whether Gellar was truly objective when he recommended Bashir to MJ. According to Wiki , Gellar allegedly turned down another “bid” to do the documentary from Louis Theroux, another British Journalist. (Since when is MJ’s life up for auction? LOL!)

Last July, MJ’s longtime dermatologist and professional backstabber Dr. Arnold Klein was interviewed by Larry King, and he said that Bashir (or ITV, his employer) paid $200k to Gellar to convince MJ to let Bashir do the documentary. In January 2010, Gellar filed a slander lawsuit against CNN after they refused to “apologize” to him for letting Klein imply that he sold out MJ. That lawsuit is still pending.

So what really happened? Were there any other journalists who were even considered? And why didn’t MJ do a complete background check on Bashir before he agreed to do the interview? If he had, he would have known that Bashir had been officially reprimanded for “unfair journalistic practices”.

In 2000, there was a girl who went missing in England, and was later found. But before she was reunited with her family, Bashir managed to get the very first interview with her father (which was shot before the reunion). After it aired, the father filed a complaint that (guess what?) Bashir misled him by “promising to give him info about the whereabouts of his daughter in return for conducting the interview” and (as a prelude of things to come) “that he had been denied a chance to approve the program before it aired!!” The Broadcasting Standards Commission ruled that Bashir “misled the father about the nature of the program so that he would agree to be interviewed”. (Gee, does that sound familiar?) I’m sure MJ would have immediately rejected Bashir if he had known this!



There also seems to be some controversy as to how Bashir was able to get the Diana interview in the first place!! This article mentions how Bashir hired a graphic artist to falsify the bank statements of Diana’s brother’s head of security in order to blackmail her into doing the interview (Bashir acknowledged their existence but insisted that they had never been used, and the disk that they were saved on just “disappeared”), and he also questioned Diana about a rumored affair that she was having with her horse riding instructor James Hewitt. When she casually admitted that she “loved him”, it implied that she was indeed having an affair, and she also implied that Prince Charles could be cheating as well, and they subsequently divorced in December 1995. (I guess Bashir just has a habit of ruining people’s lives!)

Apparently, I’m not the only person who thinks Bashir ruins lives! Princess Fergie, the Duchess of York, claims that Bashir tricked Diana into doing that interview! He followed the same M.O. he did with MJ: he lured her into a comfort zone, and then got her to expose her deepest secrets about her marriage. She also blasted Bashir for his deceptive interview with MJ, and for not showing all of the footage. And most recently, Bashir tricked P. Diddy into doing an interview a last week as well, where he was extremely condescending to him. (I’ll include it at the end of this piece.)





Another interesting point is that Bashir spent 5 YEARS trying to interview MJ, which probably means he started courting MJ around 1996-97. And not only did he refuse to give MJ final approval of the documentary, he also reneged on a promise to not show his children at all! This is a very important revelation!! Remember, Bashir was with MJ during the “baby dangling” incident, and the second most disturbing part of the documentary (behind MJ & Gavin holding hands) is watching MJ nervously bottle feed Blanket after he dangled him. He was shaking and fidgeting, and MJ haters (like Gloria Allred and Carole Lieberman, who tried to use “phantom victim” Daniel Kapon to sue MJ for millions) have used that scene to paint MJ as an unfit father who can’t even properly feed his infant son, and should lose custody of his kids. Also, check out the complaints against Bashir made by George Best & Max Clifford in the article. With such a terrible reputation, it’s no wonder the article stated that when Bashir receives industry “awards”, there is barely a ripple of applause from his peers! Lastly, according the MJ attorney David LeGrand (whose testimony is included later on in this piece), MJ signed two, ONE PARAGRAPH contracts that were neither specific nor detailed, as such contracts usually are. If Bashir had any integrity, he would have at least drawn up a more professional contract. Those contracts should have been at least 10 pages long, and should have been thoroughly reviewed by MJ’s legal team!


Of course, the MJEOL fansite had a lot to say about Bashir after he was hired by ABC to host Nightline:

ABC Draws Fire After Naming Bashir as Co-Anchor of Nightline

During the filming of “Living With Michael Jackson”

Now, for Bashir’s actions DURING the filming of the documentary, Aphrodite Jones stated in a radio interview that it was Martin Bashir’s idea to have Gavin lay his head on Michael’s shoulder and hold Michael’s hand during the filming, while Michael talked about sharing his bedroom with children. Unbeknownst to Michael at the time, Bashir asked Gavin (prior to the interview) to do that to further give the impression of something untoward going on. Aphrodite Jones reveals this while giving an interview (link inserted in the word “interview”) promoting her MJ special on ID (Investigation Discovery). Her interview is around 35 minutes long, and at the 19 minute mark, Aphrodite talks about how Bashir told Gavin to lean his head on MJ’s shoulder, and at the 23:30 mark, she talks about how Bashir told Gavin to hold MJ’s hand, in order to insinuate that something improper was going on. She discusses this in more detail in this interview as well, starting at the 1 hour 07 minute mark: Aphrodite Jones ustream



Bashir also suggested that MJ invite a group of kids to Neverland in order to give viewers the impression that Neverland was a very fun and safe place for them to go and hang out at, but when the documentary aired, Bashir deceptively narrates that “Neverland is a dangerous place for vulnerable children” while showing the children who were invited.



And if that wasn’t bad enough, there was the scene in Germany where MJ tried to take his children to a local zoo to learn about nature, and give them a chance to get out of their hotel room. Prior to going to the zoo, MJ’s team notified the zoo that he would be visiting, and they requested that the zoo be closed to the public so that MJ and his kids could have privacy, and they agreed. When MJ finally made it to the zoo, they did NOT close it to the public, as had been requested, and he was absolutely mobbed by fans while his kids nervously held his hand. It was a misunderstanding between MJ and the zoo as to when the zoo would actually close. The press was tipped off about MJ’s appearance, and it wouldn’t surprise me if Bashir himself was responsible for the leak. When MJ aired his rebuttal video, you can see clearly that MJ did indeed request that the zoo be closed down, and Bashir was fully aware of this but conveniently chose to ignore it, and instead give his insidious commentary about MJ not being aware of the “danger” his children were in.

(Zoo visit @ 6:45)



(MJ’s zoo rebuttal begins @ 4:00)

After the filming of “Living With Michael Jackson”

When the documentary aired in February 2003, there was an immediate backlash against MJ. Judging by the press reaction, you would think that the only thing that MJ did was talk about sharing his bed with children. Shortly after it aired, Prevent Child Abuse America, the largest nationwide organization devoted to child abuse prevention, asked Santa Barbara authorities to investigate MJ, and Sneddon happily complied! In my opinion, this was a perfectly fair request. This is a legitimate organization that is passionate about their cause, and they erred on the side of caution with MJ . They didn’t try to capitalize off MJ by using him as a fundraising tool, or to gain attention for themselves, unlike some other child abuse prevention organizations like Road To Recovery and Stop It Now, which have received backlash from MJ fans for exploiting his name.

So after the investigation was completed by the Department of Family and Children’s Services on February 27th, 2003, they issued their report and noted that charges of molestation were “unfounded”. Janet Arvizo said that the media had “taken everything out of context.”

During the height of the controversy, Bashir was interviewed by ABC News’ Chris Wallace, and defended his hit piece. At the 5:15 mark, Wallace asked Bashir if MJ did anything to try to stop the broadcast, and Bashir GLEEFULLY answers that MJ’s legal team “didn’t have a leg to stand on”. This is because the contract was so poorly written that it didn’t specifically prevent the airing of the documentary without MJ’s approval, so MJ’s only course of action was to sue Bashir for breach of contract. If he had any integrity he would have let MJ vet the program with or without it being explicitly stated in the contract. It’s too bad that Wallace didn’t ask Bashir why he didn’t allow MJ to vet the program before it aired! I would have loved to hear his answer!

In this article, published shortly after the documentary aired, Bashir expressed NO REMORSE WHATSOEVER! He had the audacity to say that he hopes the negative publicity “makes MJ more careful” with the way he interacts with children. He also lied and said that MJ and Gavin “volunteered” their bed sharing, when in reality Bashir AMBUSHED THEM into that topic! MJ and Gavin thought they were being interviewed to discuss Gavin’s victory over cancer! He also said that his documentary was “fair to his musical achievement” and believe it or not that’s true. Bashir didn’t DARE take away from MJ’s talent, but of course it wasn’t fair to MJ as a human being! He admits to shooting 10 hours of footage over the 8 months he was with MJ (but refused to answer this question under oath), and maybe one day he may have a change of heart, and take the remaining footage and shoot an honest & fair documentary, but I’m not holding my breath for it! Bashir defends Jackson interview



And if you think that Bashir stopped bashing MJ after “Living With Michael Jackson”, then think again! In February 2005, just in time for the ratings sweeps, he produced “Michael Jackson’s Secret World”. The program focused on all of his “special friends” like Macaulay Culkin, Jimmy Safechuck, and Corey Feldman. Of course, Bashir called on his partners in crime Raymond Chandler, Diane Dimond, Wendy Murphy, and Maureen Orth for their worthless opinions. But to be fair and balanced, he also included LaToya Jackson and J. Randy Taraborrelli to defend MJ. Below is an excerpt from the article below, that sums up the intentions that Bashir and ABC News had for the documentary:

British television interviewer Martin Bashir, whose documentary “Living With Michael Jackson” led to the current molestation charges against the entertainer, is putting the finishing touches to another film which is reported to be equally damaging to Jackson.

The following videos from the excellent YouTube series “What Did Happen To Michael Jackson” by LunaJo67 contain some clips from the special. At the 7:00 minute mark in Part 39, Bashir talks about MJ’s relationship with Corey Feldman. He brings up the time when Feldman was at MJ’s apartment, and MJ showed him the book with nude photos of men & WOMEN with STD’s. But what Bashir doesn’t tell you is that it was Feldman who initiated the conversation by first noticing the book on MJ’s coffee table, and then ASKING MJ to tell him about the book. By leaving out that important piece of info, Bashir implies that MJ took the initiative to show him for his own devious reasons.

Part 39



(On a side note, I found an article that proves that Corey Feldman is a two-faced hypocrite. He complained that MJ acted inappropriately by showing him that book at such a young age, but in this interview he brags about hanging out at the Playboy Mansion as a teen! I wonder if he’d beat up Hugh Hefner if his own son was allowed in there, the same way he threatened to beat up MJ if he showed his son a health book.

In part 40, Bashir lied and said MJ’s settlement was $25 million, which is waaayyy overblown! And at the 6:00 mark, he brings up Gavin’s accusations. You’ll see quack psychologist Carole Lieberman talking about how seeing Gavin resting his head on MJ’s shoulder sent “chills up her spine” (which is exactly what Bashir wanted when he told Gavin to place his head there prior to the start of the interview, according to Aphrodite Jones). Fortunately LunaJo67 IMMEDITATELY shows the portion of the rebuttal tape where Gavin and Janet openly MOCK that scene!

Part 40


Now, during the trial some of MJ’s lawyers testified about the legal steps they tried to take to stop the documentary from airing, and how Bashir & Co. refused to abide by MJ’s request to not air it, but they nicely “conceded” that they wouldn’t sell it on DVD, and they would obscure the faces of MJ’s kids (which leads me to believe that if MJ had not taken any legal action, Bashir was prepared to FULLY RENEGE on his promise to not show their faces, and he would have exposed their identities to the world for the first time!) Bashir is a BASTARD!!! Filmmaker 'misrepresented' intentions to Jackson

During the trial, Bashir was one of the Sneddon’s very first witnesses called, and he truly acted like the coward that he is. He barely spoke above a whisper (in fact, MJ himself had to tell him to speak up!), he hid behind a California Journalist Shield Law that allows journalists to not reveal their sources or methods of investigating news stories under oath, and he was nearly held in contempt of court for not answering all of the questions that Mesereau threw at him!

Here is a partial transcript of all of Bashir’s testimony, and after skimming through it, I can clearly see how much of a worthless, lowlife, degenerate, piece of scum that Bashir really is! He hid behind the shield law in order to avoid answering even the most basic of questions!! Here is Mesereau’s cross examination!

(Hey guys, this is a good website because it has the transcripts of virtually everyone who testified. There are also links to a Jordan Chandler & Conrad Murray website as well.): Dear Gavin Arvizo

Q. At some point in time, you made an effort to 13 contact Mr. Jackson about doing this show, correct.

14 A. That is correct.

15 Q. And approximately when was that.

16 A. I think it was around April 2002.

17 Q. And you contacted someone named Uri Geller,

18 correct.

MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I would move for

24 sanctions against the witness. Or I would move to

25 strike all of his testimony, including the

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

27 be cross-examined.

28 THE COURT: The way I would like to proceed

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

2 under the shield law that his counsel has been

3 pointing out. That protection is against contempt

4 of court.

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

6 questions, let his attorney make the objections, let

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

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

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

10 determine whether or not I feel a contempt charge

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

12 the law.

13 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

14 Q. Mr. Bashir, you outlined some qualifications

15 you have in the world of journalism, correct.

16 A. I didn’t outline any qualifications, sir. I

17 just referred to the chronology of my career.

18 Q. Did you mean, when you did that, to explain

19 that you’re a qualified professional journalist.

20 A. I meant simply to explain my career

21 chronologically, sir.

22 Q. Do you consider yourself as a professional

23 journalist.

24 A. I do, sir.

25 Q. Do you consider yourself a professional

26 journalist because you’ve had certain experience in

27 journalism.

28 A. I do, sir. (234)

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.

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.

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

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.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, you wrote to

18 Mr. Jackson’s assistant and said you would very much

19 like to feature Michael with a large group of

20 children, around 50, welcoming them and sharing with

21 them his extraordinary home so that, for one day,

22 their lives can be enriched, correct.

23 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objection, Your Honor.

24 THE COURT: Do you wish to –

25 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor — excuse me.

26 Could I add an objection to that also.

27 Beyond the scope of direct examination.

28 THE COURT: Sustained as to beyond the scope

1 of the direct examination.

2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, you

3 interviewed Mr. Jackson and repeatedly asked him

4 questions about his desire for an international

5 children’s holiday, correct.

6 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objection, Your Honor,

7 in that would seem to be beyond the scope of the

8 direct examination as well.

9 THE COURT: Sustained as to beyond the scope.

10 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, will the Court

11 permit me to ask questions about what’s actually on

12 the tape.

13 THE COURT: No, because the tape’s being

14 introduced not for the truth of the matter asserted,

15 but for a different purpose. There are some areas,

16 however, that I didn’t instruct the jury on about

17 the assertions that they wish to have considered for

18 the truth of the matter. And those would not be out

19 of bounds, because — well, let me ask the District

20 Attorney.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, you had

22 Michael Jackson sign an agreement without a lawyer

23 present, true.

24 MR. BOUTROUS: Again, Your Honor, beyond the

25 scope of the direct and covered by the shield law.

26 THE COURT: I’d overrule that objection.

27 Will you answer that question.

28 THE WITNESS: Mr. Jackson signed two

1 agreements in which he asked for no conditions

2 whatsoever and agreed that I was free to make the

3 film with him. And the first of those agreements

4 was signed in November 2002, and the second

5 agreement was signed in January 2003, just about two

6 weeks prior to broadcast of the British version of

7 the film that you’ve just seen.

8 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I would move to

9 strike the answer and request that the Court order

10 the witness to answer the question.

11 THE COURT: All right. It’s stricken. And

12 I’ll ask the court reporter to read back the

13 question so that you understand the question.

14 (Record read.)

15 MR. BOUTROUS: I renew my objection, Your

16 Honor. That goes to news gathering and relates to

17 information prepared in connection with news

18 gathering.

19 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.

20 Do you wish to answer that.

21 THE WITNESS: I think I agree with my

22 attorney that I have protections under the shield

23 law, Your Honor.

24 THE COURT: All right.

25 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection would be

26 noted, Your Honor.

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

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

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

2 Sorry. I’m sorry.

3 THE DEFENDANT: Speak up.

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

5 going to review all of the questions.

6 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

7 Q. Mr. Bashir –

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

9 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

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

11 of forging signatures, correct.

12 A. Incorrect.

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

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

15 Honor. Hearsay; lack of foundation; beyond the

16 scope of direct examination.

17 THE COURT: Sustained on beyond the scope of

18 direct.

19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, to qualify as

20 a professional journalist, do you have to fulfill

21 any particular educational program.

22 A. In the United States or in the United

23 Kingdom, sir.

24 Q. Anywhere.

25 A. I’m frankly unsure about how that applies in

26 the United States. And in the United Kingdom, there

27 would be different ways of progressing your career.

28 Some people would do it through the route of

1 experience. And others would do it through some

2 kind of academic qualification. I think others will

3 have a mix of the two.

Q. How did you do it.

5 A. A mix of the two.

6 Q. Could you please explain that.

7 A. I was given training during my employment at

8 the BBC. And I also took opportunities to work in

9 print and radio journalism, so I combined the

10 experience part with the training.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, if you look at

7 the two documents you referred to that you say Mr.

8 Jackson signed, his signature appears to be

9 different from document to document, correct.

10 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objection, Your Honor.

11 And — same objection on the shield law, Your Honor;

12 and beyond the scope of direct.

13 THE COURT: Sustained; beyond the scope.

14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, did you

15 request that Michael Jackson bring Macauley Culkin

16 so you could film him at Neverland.

17 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objection under the

18 shield law and the First Amendment, Your Honor. And

19 beyond the scope of direct.

20 THE COURT: Sustained on beyond the scope.

21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In the process of putting

22 this film together, Mr. Bashir, did you write to

23 Michael Jackson’s assistant and say you wanted to

24 film the beautiful landscape encouraging all of us

25 to become as little children again.

26 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object as beyond

27 the scope.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, did you, in

25 the process of getting — making contact with Mr.

26 Jackson so you could make this film, misrepresent

27 that you were putting together a trip to Africa for

28 Mr. Jackson to visit sick children.

1 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objection, Your Honor.

2 Beyond the scope of direct; shield law; First

3 Amendment.

4 THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection;

5 beyond the scope of direct.

6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, did you allow

7 Mr. Jackson any editorial control over this film.

8 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: The objection beyond the scope is

10 sustained.

Q. I’ll repeat the question, Mr. Bashir.

25 To obtain statements from Mr. Jackson, you

26 told him he was underappreciated, correct.

27 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor.

28 Plus, leading question.

1 THE COURT: The Court will sustain the

2 objection for ambiguity.

3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, to obtain an

4 interview with Mr. Jackson, you told him you were a

5 friend of Princess Diana, correct.

6 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: The objection being, when you say

8 “same objection” –

9 MR. BOUTROUS: First, impermissible leading

10 question; beyond the scope of the direct elicited by

11 the District Attorney. In addition, it seeks

12 unpublished information connected to news gathering

13 prepared and gained during news gathering.

14 Conversations with the source is news gathering. So

15 I would invoke the California shield law and the

16 First Amendment.

17 THE COURT: Here’s the problem, Mr. Mesereau:

18 You’re back to the general question on the whole

19 tape, the whole thing. And my prior statement that

20 the question was ambiguous is that he doesn’t know

21 what statements you’re talking about. So –

22 MR. MESEREAU: I will –

23 THE COURT: — if you would –

24 MR. MESEREAU: I could refer to some

25 statements, Your Honor.

26 THE COURT: All right.

27 MR. MESEREAU: Sure.

28 Q. Mr. Bashir, in the show you prepared, which
1 we’ve just seen, Mr. Jackson made statements to the

2 effect that nothing sexual was going on in his bed,

3 correct.

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. To obtain the interview you had with Mr.

6 Jackson when he made that statement, you told him

7 that he was underappreciated, true.

8 MR. BOUTROUS: Objection, Your Honor, on the

9 shield law grounds and First Amendment grounds,

10 unpublished information, and the tape that the jury

11 has seen speaks for itself.

12 THE COURT: All right. The objection is

13 overruled.

14 Do you wish to answer that question.

15 THE WITNESS: I’m standing on the broadest

16 privilege and the shield law, Your Honor.

17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection noted, Your Honor.

18 THE COURT: Yes.

19 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.

20 Q. Mr. Bashir, in the show about Michael

21 Jackson, Mr. Jackson says that nothing sexual went

22 on in his bedroom. To obtain that statement, you

23 told Mr. Jackson that your romantic development was

24 partially shaped by his records, true.

25 MR. BOUTROUS: Objection, Your Honor. Same

26 grounds. First Amendment; shield law.

27 THE COURT: Do you wish to answer that

28 question. (260)

1 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor.

2 THE COURT: All right. The objection is

3 noted.

4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, on the show we

5 just saw in this courtroom, Mr. Jackson says that

6 nothing sexual goes on in his bedroom.

7 To obtain that statement from Mr. Jackson,

8 you told him that when you looked at his

9 relationship with children, it almost made you weep,

10 correct.

11 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor.

12 California shield law and the First Amendment. And

13 I object to that question as being ambiguous as

14 well, the first phrase, “to obtain that statement.”

15 Object to that.

16 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.

17 Do you wish to answer that.

18 THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.

19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection noted, Your Honor.

20 THE COURT: Yes.

21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, on your show,

22 Mr. Jackson says that nothing sexual ever went on in

23 his bedroom.

24 To obtain that statement from him, you told

25 him that you believe in his vision of an

26 international children’s holiday, correct.

27 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor.

28 The shield law and the First Amendment.

1 THE COURT: Overruled.

2 Do you wish to answer that question.

3 THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.

4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection noted, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: Noted.

6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, in this

7 interview you did of Michael Jackson, he says that

8 nothing sexual went on in his bedroom.

9 To obtain that statement, you told him,

10 “Neverland is an extraordinary, a breathtaking, a

11 stupendous, an exhilarating and amazing place. I

12 can’t put together words to describe Neverland.”

13 True.

14 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor.

15 First Amendment and the California shield law.

16 THE COURT: Do you wish to answer that

17 question.

18 THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.

19 THE COURT: Noted; objection noted.

20 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

21 Q. Mr. Bashir, to prepare the show you’ve just

22 shown the jury where Michael Jackson says nothing

23 sexual went on in his bedroom, you told him that you

24 had an abiding sense that he is selfless and a most

25 generous person, correct.

26 MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor.

27 THE COURT: Do you wish to answer that

28 question. (262)

As you can see from Mesereau’s line of questioning, Bashir was a professional con artist on the same level as used car salesmen (probably even lower!). Bashir’s absolute REFUSAL to acknowledge his tactics is a tacit admission of their truth, because if they weren’t true, then he would have denied them. (The same way he denied being accused of misrepresenting his British interview, and said he had been accused of unfairness.) Actually, I did catch him in a lie; he said that he wasn’t accused of forging signatures in Britain, but earlier I discussed that he was accused of forging the bank statements to trick Princess Diana to do the interview, so Bashir just proved that he was perfectly capable of perjury.

Another interesting piece of information that I learned from analyzing the testimony is something that shouldn’t surprise anyone: Bashir is NOT an accredited journalist! He does NOT have a college degree in journalism! His degree is in the “arts and humanities”, or whatever that is! So that confirms that sleazy tabloid journalists don’t have to have any formal education in journalism whatsoever! There are no standards! (Remember, Diane Dimond doesn’t have a journalism degree either. As a matter of fact, she doesn’t have ANY degree!)



Out of all of the tactics that Bashir used to lull MJ into a sense of trust and security, I think that for him to tell MJ that his ‘romantic development” was shaped by MJ’s music is by far the lowest of the low! After looking at his tactics, I’d have to give him an A+ for his excellent lying abilities, and if I was a dirt bag reporter looking to boost my career, I would have asked those same questions too! (Below are two articles that summarize Bashir’s testimony):

Bashir testimony angers Jackson

Bashir faces contempt charge over Jackson silence

Now, just imagine if you were one of MJ’s closest confidantes, and it was YOU who introduced MJ to Bashir, and told MJ that Bashir could be trusted. How would you feel about yourself, knowing that you set the chain of events in motion for the ruining of a music legend? Well, if you’ve ever wondered how Uri Gellar felt after being conned by Bashir, and then watching Bashir con MJ, then here’s your answer! Here’s an excerpt from an interview he gave in November 2003, shortly after MJ was arrested:

“I told him, ‘You’ll end up in jail,’ ” Geller said. “Not because he’s guilty … but because this behavior of inviting children into the bedroom, the behavior is unacceptable to the outside world, to the community, to society, and society gets very, very suspicious.”

Unfortunately, Geller said, his counsel wasn’t enough because he wasn’t being backed up by people in Jackson’s camp, who should have taken a harder line with the singer and not just automatically agreed to whatever Jackson wanted.

“It’s just, ‘Yes, Michael,’ and he might not like to hear this, but in my opinion, Michael needs help, and I don’t mean for what he’s been accused of doing. … He needs more people who aren’t afraid to speak the truth. I have my own chutzpah, I am an Israeli and I don’t bullsh–. I couldn’t care less what people think about me. I speak the truth.”



If Jackson had such a brutally honest sounding board, Geller said, perhaps someone would’ve stepped in and convinced Jackson not to do the Bashir interview after Geller had recommended it. Geller said he felt duped by Bashir, who told him he wanted to do a “very positive documentary, a really wonderful documentary … to bring justice into the man’s life.”

“In short, I fell for it,” Geller said. “But I was convinced … that Michael would call his lawyers or agents or managers or whoever is advising him, his PR company, and at least let them see the agreement the TV station made him sign, or at least have some sort of power or veto in this agreement. And apparently Michael didn’t do such a thing.”



Obviously, Geller isn’t at fault, as he was duped Bashir as well, and would never have intentionally set up MJ (unless Dr. Klein is correct and Bashir “outbid” another journalist by $200k to get to MJ). Geller is an easy scapegoat, but he made a good point: someone in MJ’s camp should have thoroughly scrutinized this transaction before agreeing to it. A complete background check should have been performed, and the contract should have had an iron-clad, no-holds barred, unambiguous clause that the documentary could NOT be aired without MJ’s complete approval. And because it was Bashir who initiated contact with MJ, that should have set up a red flag within MJ’s camp to investigate his motives. They should have looked into other journalists, just to make the approval process more fair and objective. Personally, I would have recommended Tavis Smiley, an excellent journalist who has always been fair to MJ. (In fact, Black media in the USA such as Jet, Essence, and Ebony magazines have NEVER used the “Wacko Jacko” moniker, and Black Entertainment Television banned Eminem’s “Just Lose It’ video in 2004 because it mocked MJ’s child abuse charges.

Here is Gellar’s complete interview:

Uri Geller says singer is innocent, but movie made him look bad

You may think that in the years following MJ’s righteous acquittal that Bashir was up to his best behavior and was able to avoid further controversy. But I beg to disagree! In August 2008, Bashir made an inappropriate and unprofessional joke about “Asian babes” while at a conference celebrating diversity among journalists. It’s so disgusting that I won’t type it here; instead I’ll let you read it for yourself when you open the link. Bashir was reprimanded by his bosses, and he issued a short but sweet apology to all of those he offended. (I know, I know, it sounds weird, but he really did apologize! Seriously!)

Maybe the brain tumor that he was diagnosed with two months earlier in June 2008 had an effect on his ability to use good judgment. Ironically, the tumor was found by doctors who were treating Bashir for injuries suffered while banging his head on the set of his studio.

In closing, let me point out that to the very end, Bashir never publicly apologized to MJ, or acknowledge the damage that his work did to him. It took the death of MJ to get something that even remotely resembled a defense of MJ, and it was so half-hearted that he would have been better off not even saying anything. He said that MJ “was never convicted in a court of law”, which is tantamount to saying that he may have been guilty but was too rich and famous to get convicted. He also says that he “never saw any wrongdoing”. It’s too bad he didn’t say it under oath! And the icing on the cake is for him to say that he was “excited” about seeing MJ perform again:

As an extra bonus, here is a summary of Bashir’s interview with Sean “Diddy” Combs, which aired a few weeks ago. He hasn’t changed a bit! Look at how insulting he is to him! @ 1:00 Diddy greets Bashir for the interview. They hi-five and hug let they’re bests friends. This is part of Bashir’s plan to “earn” Diddy’s trust and make him feel comfortable. Sound familiar?

@ 2:00 After Diddy explains the different parts of his business empire, Bashir accuses him of being a “megalomaniac”, and condescendingly asks him if he would promote “Diddy Dog Food”. Would he say the same thing to Donald Trump? I don’t think so!

@ 4:00 Bashir asks Diddy about the murders of Biggie Smalls and 2pac, and after Diddy says he no longer speaks about the murders, Bashir continues to badger him into answering. (Similar to the way he badgered MJ about the plastic surgery).

@ 5:45 Bashir calls Diddy a “gangsta rapper”, which is a complete insult to Diddy’s image as a mogul & entrepreneur.

@ 6:50 Bashir asks Diddy if he feels he setting a bad example by having “multiple children by multiple mothers”, thus insinuating that he’s an irresponsible father. He then asks if it was sensible to buy his son a Maybach, and Diddy answers by saying he “doesn’t owe anyone an explanation”! If only MJ had stood up to Bashir in a similar manner!

@ 9:15 Bashir & Diddy discuss how to “mindf*^k” someone, which perfectly describes what Bashir did to gain both Diddy’s and MJ’s trust!

Although Diddy is a huge MJ fan, and respects MJ’s legacy, it’s CLEARLY OBVIOUS that he hasn’t done any research on MJ’s molestation allegations, because if he had, he would have known to avoid Bashir at all costs!

UPDATE!

Sean “Diddy” Combs recently gave an interview, and he regrets to speaking with Martin Bashir! Diddy CONFIRMS what I said about Bashir being condescending to him by asking him about his parenting skills, and buying his son a Maybach! He says that Apple CEO Steve Jobs wouldn’t have been the same question! (Although in my commentary I used Donald Trump as an example.)

Here is a partial transcript. The entire interview isn’t available yet.

What happened during the Martin Bashir interview on Nightline?

There were times in the interview when I had to give him an ultimatum. The questions weren’t being handled the right way. In hindsight, when I saw him I shouldn’t had done the interview because I know the style of interview that he does . . . The whole thing about giving a Maybach to my son, that’s really like a racist question. You don’t ask White people what they buy their kids. And they buy ‘em Porsches and convertible Bentleys and it ain’t no question. It’s really a racist question and put things back in perspective with money and the way that people still look at you. And I’m not saying that consciously he’s a racist. But he probably don’t even realize that he would not ask Steve Jobs that. He would be like Steve Jobs has that money and that’s the gift his kid is supposed to get.






Back to Vindicating Michael Jackson