Model Lisa Dean was the ‘legs‘ in the video ‘Dirty Diana‘. She had the ‘best legs in Hollywood‘ and this is what got her the part, as evidenced in this letter of authenticity accompanying the 3-piece leather outfit she wore in the video. The outfit is up for auction at Nate Sanders Auction House where you can see it, and also find this letter:
Certificate of Authenticity for Lisa Dean's leather outfit worn in 'Dirty Diana'
Lisa’s comments about Michael, from the clipping below:
As for Jackson: “He’s quite magical, sweet and gentle person” who never flirted — but did spend a lot of time on the set with his favorite chimp, Bubbles.
As promised, here is Part II of David Edwards’ research and write-up on the connection between Martin Bashir and (MS)NBC: the background and history of that network’s and Martin Bashir’s backstabbing, mercenary-like media and “journalism” techniques. Given both of their modus operandi, it’s not surprising that they will now bed together at (MS)NBC. Part I of the piece was presented on MJJ-777 yesterday.
The Connection Between Martin Bashir and (MS)NBC (Part II) by David Edwards
After the filming of “Living With Michael Jackson”
When the documentary aired in February 2003, there was an immediate backlash against Michael. Judging by the press reaction, you would think that the only thing that Michael 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 Michael, and Sneddon giddily 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 Michael. They didn’t try to capitalize off Michael 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 Michael Jackson 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”. Notice how Janet Arvizo says 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 Michael did anything to try to stop the broadcast, and Bashir gleefully answers that Michael’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 Michael’s approval, so Michael’s only course of action was to sue Bashir for breach of contract. If he had any integrity he would have let Michael 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 Michael 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 for what he’d done. He had the audacity to say that he hopes the negative publicity “makes Michael more careful” with the way he interacts with children. He also lied and said that Michael and Gavin “volunteered” their bed sharing, when in reality Bashir forced them into that topic! Michael 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 meddle Michael’s record of musical talent and achievements, but the deftly edited hit piece wasn’t fair to Michael as a human being. He admits to shooting 10 hours of footage over the 8 months he was with Michael (but refused to answer this question under oath). Perhaps one day Bashir will change of heart, and present the remaining footage in an honest & fair documentary, but I’m not holding my breath for it!
And if you think that Bashir stopped bashing Michael after “Living With Michael Jackson”, 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 Michael. Here is an excerpt from an article which 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 Michael’s relationship with Corey Feldman. He brings up the time when Feldman was at Michael’s apartment, and Michael 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 Michael’s coffee table, and then ASKING Michael to tell him about the book. By leaving out that important piece of info, Bashir implies that Michael took the initiative to show Feldman these photos for his own devious reasons and of course that is far from the truth.
What Did Happen to Michael Jackson, Part 39
I found an article that proves that Corey Feldman is a two-faced hypocrite. He complained that Michael 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 Michael if he showed his son a health book.
In part 40 o JunaLo’s video series, Bashir lied and said Michael’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 Michael’s shoulder sent “chills up her spine” (which is exactly the reaction Bashir was hoping for when he told Gavin to place his head there prior to the start of the interview).
Fortunately LunaJo67 immediately shows the portion of the rebuttal tape where Gavin and Janet openly mock that scene!
What Did Happen to Michael Jackson, Part 40
Now, during the trial some of Michael’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 Michael’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 Michael’s kids. This leads me to believe that if Michael had not taken any legal action, Bashir was prepared to fully reneg on his promise to avoid showing their faces, and he would have exposed their identities to the world for the first time much against Michael’s wishes. Martin Bashir is obviously quite a backstabber, if you hadn’t noticed!
During the trial, Bashir was one of the very first witnesses called by Sneddon, and he truly acted like the coward that he is. He barely spoke above a whisper so that Michael 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. To say that Martin Bashir is a snake is too complimentary.
Below is a partial transcript of all of Bashir’s testimony. After skimming through it, I can clearly see how the slithering, cowardly Bashir hid behind the shield law in order to avoid answering even the most basic of questions. Here is Mesereau’s cross examination:
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.)
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 (233)
1 with this is that he — he does have some protection
2 under the shield law that his counsel has been
3 pointing out. That protection is against contempt
4 of court.
5 What I think I’ll do is let you ask him the
6 questions, let his attorney make the objections, let
7 him decide whether he’s going to answer. And then
8 I’ll make a record — we have a record of those
9 questions, and then I’ll review them later to
10 determine whether or not I feel a contempt charge
11 should be issued. It’s really a ticklish area of
12 the law.
13 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.
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. (235)
1 Q. Yes.
2 A. The answer to that question is, three
3 complaints were made against me. Two of the key
4 complaints were entirely rejected, and they were to
5 do with balance and fairness. One of the three was
6 upheld. This is — sir, just so I can explain so
7 people understand, because they –
8 Q. Certainly.
9 A. — because they may not understand.
10 The Broadcasting Standards Commission is not
11 a legal body, and it has no particular merit in a
12 legal setting.
13 Q. Nevertheless, a complaint against you as a
14 journalist was upheld, true.
15 A. As I said, sir, three complaints were made.
16 The two key complaints were entirely rejected. One
17 complaint was upheld of the three.
18 Q. Let’s talk about the one that was upheld,
19 sir. There was a complaint against you that was
20 upheld by that agency, correct.
21 A. There was, sir, yes.
22 Q. And what did they complain about, Mr.
23 Bashir.
24 A. The complaint related to — to what — to
25 what — to how I described what I was doing with the
26 story that I was working on.
27 Q. And what were you doing, Mr. Bashir.
28 A. I was doing journalism.
Q. Please describe for the jury the subject
18 matter of the complaint you just identified, Mr.
19 Bashir.
20 A. The story was about a teenaged prodigy, a
21 mathematics genius, who had run away from
22 university, had legally emancipated herself from her
23 family. And the story was to describe what had
24 happened from both sides.
25 Q. You were accused of misrepresentations,
26 true.
27 A. No, that’s incorrect.
28 Q. You were not accused of misrepresenting (237)
1 anything in that complaint.
2 A. I was accused of unfairness, which was
3 entirely rejected. I was accused of breaching an
4 agreement, which was entirely rejected. I was
5 accused of not representing the entirety of what I
6 was doing with that broadcast to one of the
7 individuals.
8 Q. Kind of what you’ve been accused of here,
9 right.
10 MR. BOUTROUS: Objection.
11 MR. SNEDDON: Argumentative, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Sustained.
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 (240)
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 (242)
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. (243)
1 THE WITNESS: I apologize. It’s my fault.
2 Sorry. I’m sorry.
3 THE DEFENDANT: Speak up.
4 THE COURT: And, yes, you don’t need to. I’m
5 going to review all of the questions.
6 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.
7 Q. Mr. Bashir –
8 THE COURT: If you want to, you can.
9 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.
10 Q. Mr. Bashir, you have been accused in England
11 of forging signatures, correct.
12 A. Incorrect.
13 Q. No one has ever made that accusation, sir.
14 MR. BOUTROUS: I’m going to object, Your
15 Honor. Hearsay; lack of foundation; beyond the
16 scope of direct examination.
17 THE COURT: Sustained on beyond the scope of
18 direct.
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 (244)
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. (247)
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. (258)
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 (259)
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. (261)
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. Bashir’s absolute refusalto acknowledge his underhanded tactics is a tacit admission of his own guilt in them. If they weren’t true, then he would have denied them in the same manner in which he denied being accused of misrepresenting his British interview where and said he had been accused of unfairness. Also Bashir committed perjury in this case, because it was previously noted that Bashir in fact was accused of forging bank statements to trick Princess Diana to do the interview with him.
Another interesting piece of information learned from analyzing the above 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”. So that confirms to us that “journalists” don’t have to have any formal education in journalism whatsoever, and that major networks such as (MS)NBC don’t mind hiring entirely unqualified “journalists” with tawdry reputations, at best. There are no professional standards in the industry.
Remember, Diane Dimond doesn’t have a journalism degree either. As a matter of fact, she doesn’t have any degree.
Below are two articles that summarize Bashir’s testimony:
Now, just imagine if you were one of Michael’s closest confidantes, and it was you who introduced Michael to Bashir, and told Michael 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 Geller felt after being conned by Bashir, and then watching Bashir con Michael, then here’s your answer! Below an excerpt from an interview Geller gave in November 2003, shortly after Michael was arrested:
I told him, “You’ll end up in jail.” 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.
-Uri Geller
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.” Of course that was a boldfaced lie from Bashir.
“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 Michael, unless Dr. Klein is correct and Bashir outbid another journalist by $200k to get to Michael. Geller is an easy scapegoat, but he made a good point: someone in Michael’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 Michael’s complete approval.
And because it was Bashir who initiated contact with Michael, that should have set up a red flag within Michael’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 Michael. In fact, Black media in the USA such as Jet, Essence, and Ebony magazines have never used the “Wacko Jacko” moniker. Black Entertainment Television even banned Eminem’s “Just Lose It’ video in 2004 because it mocked Michael’s child abuse charges.
You may think that in the years following Michael’s acquittal that Bashir was up to his best behavior and was able to avoid further controversy, but unfortunately that is not the case, of course. In August 2008, Bashir made an inappropriate and unprofessional joke about “Asian babes” while at a conference celebrating diversity among journalists. How ironic is 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. Yes, believe it or not, Bashir actually did apologize – after he was forced to by his bosses.
In closing, let me point out that to the very end, Bashir never publicly apologized to Michael, or acknowledge the damage that his work did to him. It took the death of Michael to get something that even remotely resembled a defense of Michael, and it was so half-hearted that he would have been better off not even saying anything. He said that Michael “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 that under oath in 2005! And the icing on the cake is for him to say that he was “excited” about seeing Michael perform again. Well, thanks to you Martin Bashir, nobody will ever see Michael perform again, because you helped send him to an early grave!
As an extra idictment of Bashir’s continued mercenary “journalism” tactics, here is a summary of Bashir’s interview with Sean “Diddy” Combs, which aired a few weeks ago. He hasn’t changed a bit, as evidenced by his insulting, racist treatment of Diddy in this interview:
@ 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 Michael 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 Michael 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 Michael’s trust!
Although Diddy is a huge Michael fan, and respects Michael’s legacy, it’s very obivous that Diddy hadn’t done any research into Michael’s molestation allegations, because if he had, he would have known to avoid Martin Bashir!
Hindsight is 20/20 as they say, and Sean “Diddy” Combs recently gave an interview, wherein he relents: “I should have never let Martin Bashir Interview Me!“.
Here is a partial transcript:
Q. What happened during the Martin Bashir interview on Nightline?
P. Diddy: 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 have 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.
_ _ _
{ While I have done some editing, this piece (Parts I and II) were written and researched by David Edwards. -Seven }
Since tabloid assassin and media mercenary Martin Bashir is in the news again, it seems timely to go into a little more background on this criminal and his cozy ties and allegiances with (MS)NBC, not to mention the similarities in the way these two entities (MSNBC and Bashir) operate.
Why spend so much time on this jerk? Well, this jerk was one of the big boots in Michael’s backside that helped send him careening into an early grave, that’s why. That Martin Bashir is a major part of the destruction and subsequent premature death of an innocent man is indisputable. The truth needs to be thoroughly and repeatedly exposed. Because truth is justice. Like Elvis once said: ”Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain’t goin’ away.”
Martin Bashir being his pretentious, backstabbing, pushy self as he lynches an unsuspecting Michael Jackson
I’ve mentioned before that after Bashir’s crock-umentary ‘Living With Michael Jackson‘ aired, NBC jerked Michael around about airing his rebuttal video: ‘Take Two: The Footage You Weren’t Meant to See‘, offering Michael $5 million to air the show and offering to cancel a scathing Dateline segment if Michael agreed. Michael refused and went with Fox to air his rebuttal footage. In retaliation, NBC not only aired the ‘Dateline‘ footage but also extended the program to 2 hours, and included segments about his plastic surgery and ties to gay porn producer Marc Shaffel (whom Michael fired the moment he found out what kind of films Shaffel produced).
To twist the knife further, NBC employed Victor Gutierrez as a consulting producer for the ‘Dateline‘ show. Why was this a nasty thing to do? Well, Victor was sued by Michael Jackson for $2.7 million for writing a slanderous book along with Evan Chandler called “Michael Jackson was My Lover“. Now, Michael is not a litigious person at all. He got sued more than he sued anyone and God knows Michael had lots of reasons to sue lots of people but he rarely did. So this book was obviously seen by Michael and obviously Michael deemed it enough of a threat to his image (serious defamation of character) that he felt he needed to sue. And, for once, the damn justice system worked and a judge agreed, awarding Michael the damages. However, Gutierrez never paid one red cent of it. Instead, he skipped the country and went to live in Brazil, where US authorities can’t make him pay it. Not that Michael needed the money, but it was about justice and vindication, not the money.
Think about this: Victor Gutierrez is the guy (MS)NBC got to produce their ‘Dateline‘ retaliatory hit piece on Michael. What does that tell you about the (non-existent) ethics of (MS)NBC? It tells me that they are very similar to Martin Bashir’s “ethics“. No surprise then, that the two will now share a bed in the media landscape, is it?
To help you learn more about MSNBC and Martin Bashir, here is Part I of researcher David Edwards’ own write-up on this subject:
The Connection Between Martin Bashir and (MS)NBC (Part I) by David Edwards
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.
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.”
I guess we could 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 instead! 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! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings#Sweeps). 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. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/21/arts/television/21NBC.html
To add insult to injury, they hired Victor Gutierrez as a consulting producer for this episode as well. (http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/part2-more-lies-from-dateline-mjeol-bullet-192-b.html) This is the scumbag who teamed up with Evan Chandler to write the science fiction novel “Michael Jackson Was My Lover”. We call it science fiction because it came straight from Evan’s imagination. 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 associated with this Dateline episode? More information on this can be found in this blog post http://www.mj-777.com/?p=4290.
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 if he still believed MJ was guilty.
But can anyone blame her? After all, she was an up and coming reporter, and she needed a “big story” 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: http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/rita-cosby-out-after-jackson-coated-start-at-msnbc-%C2%96-minibullet-32.html
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 detailed here: http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/veritas-project/
The filming of “Living With Michael Jackson”
Now, let’s discuss the chain of events that led up to Martin Bashir conning MJ to do the documentary. We’ll 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…..”, errrr, I mean, “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% of the highly profitable Sony/ATV music catalogue. That conspiracy is discussed in detail in this article: http://mjthekingofpop.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/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 appealing 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 Geller, 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, while all of the profits of the documentary would be given to charity.
However, there is some controversy as to whether Geller was truly objective when he recommended Bashir to MJ. According to Wikipedia, Geller allegedly turned down another bid to do the documentary from Louis Theroux, another British Journalist. It seems that Michael’s life was up for auction. 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 Geller to convince Michael to let Bashir do the documentary. In January 2010, Geller filed a slander lawsuit against CNN after they refused to apologize to him for letting Klein imply that he sold Michael out. That lawsuit is still pending.
So what really happened? Were there any other journalists who were even considered? And why didn’t Michael 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. Not surprisingly, the same M.O. of manipulations that Bashir pulled with Michael Jackson. The Broadcasting Standards Commission ruled that Bashir “misled the father about the nature of the program so that he would agree to be interviewed”. Again, sound familiar? I’m sure Michael would have immediately rejected Bashir if he had researched this.
There also seems to be some controversy as to how Bashir was able to get the Diana interview. 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”. Bashir 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 Michael: 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 Michael, and for not showing all of the footage. And most recently, Bashir tricked P. Diddy into doing an interview last week as well, where he was extremely condescending to Diddy.
Another interesting point is that Bashir spent 5 years trying to interview Michael, which probably means he started courting him 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 Michael during the “baby dangling” incident, and the second most disturbing part of the documentary (besides MJ & Gavin holding hands – which was suggested by Bashir and not Michal’s idea) is watching Michael nervously bottle feed Blanket after he dangled him. He was shaking and fidgeting, and MJ haters such as Gloria Allred and Carole Lieberman (who tried to use “phantom victim” Daniel Kapon to sue Michael for millions) have used that scene to paint MJ as an unfit father who can’t even properly feed his infant son. These women insisted that Michael should therefore lose custody of his kids.
Notice the complaints against Bashir made by George Best & Max Clifford in this 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), Michael 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 Michael’s legal team! Of course, the MJEOL fansite had a lot to say about Bashir after he was hired by ABC to host Nightline
During the filming of “Living With Michael Jackson”
Now, for Bashir’s actions during he 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 promoting her Michael Jackson special on ID (Investigation Discovery). This 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. 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.
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 had not closed it to the public as had been agreed, 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)
Keep an eye on this space. Part II to follow this weekend!
_ _ _
{ Thanks to David Edwards for this great piece of research. -Seven }
In the past few days, a few things have come to my attention. All of them put together made me realize once again just how much Michael Jackson gave for his art, for his fans, and to the world. The more I read about his commitment to his work, I realized that like most of us, Michael’s self-worth was measured by his success at his job. Except that Michael was probably much more committed to his job than most. He must have felt he had to earn love by being the best entertainer we’d ever seen and absent that, he was unlovable. He learned this from his father at a very early age. The fear of being unlovable is one of the worst fears a person can have. He also seemed to be that way because he loved the world and wanted to save it, he loved children and saw them as the key to saving the world, and he loved his fans. But just as much, he desperately needed love in return and to know he was loveable. He received that by making others happy.
These things made me also realize that no matter what Michael did, no matter how much he gave of himself, his heart, his soul, his energy, his talent, his money, his care and his time, he’d be crucified for it by certain factions, namely the media(loids). Why? Because it’s profitable for them. I also think there is a good bit of jealousy, projection and self-loathing involved on their part.
The first thing that popped up was an article from Sawf News revealing how twisted, out-of-context, and inaccurate a particular story was which appeared on both Trash Media Zone’s (aka ‘TMZ’) website and the New York Post website. Dripping with ominous innuendo, both sites chose to twist a rare film shop owner’s story of Michael’s interest in purchasing and studying films on the Nazis and Hitler, into a definition of Michael (as if they hadn’t already called him every name in the book) as a Nazi, or Nazi sympathizer.
Trash Media Zone even went so far as to post a photo of Michael right next to Adolph Hitler, in order to further embed in the reader’s mind how evil Michael Jackson surely must be if he bought and studied these films. Oh my! I will not provide the links here because I simply cannot and will not give these cretins the website traffic they must so badly want by smearing Michael’s name with this putrid, fly-attracting horse-puckey.
Now, anyone who knows anything about Michael Jackson, especially during the HIStory tour, knows that Michael loved military-style clothing, and the lockstep marches of military armies, and he incorporated these things into many of his performances and videos – such as ‘The Drill‘ in ‘This Is It‘, most recently. Norman Sherer, the former shop owner, was miffed with the way in which his words were twisted by these tabloids. The Sawf News article says:
While telling the NY Post about the MJ’s purchases, Scherer also told them that he thought the pop star had purchased the documentaries because he just loved the military garb and lockstep marching. The NY Post carried Scherer’s explanation, but smothered it under its MJ-was-into-Nazis spin. TMZ completely ignored what Scherer told the NY Post, and to make their sinister spin stick they put a photo of Hitler in full Nazi regalia next to a photo of MJ. Scherer, who has since moved on from his rare tape business and is now into educating kids about NYC history, is pained at how the tabloid press has slanted his statements.
A dear friend of Michael’s, having worked with him ~30 years had this to say about this ridiculousness:
You may want to look @ the HIStory trailer and all MJ’s marches with police forces all over the world.Michael loved the graphics of the military, marching, uniforms, the symmetry and grandeur. No one had command over their forces and designed more extensive and impressive graphics than the third Reich. He studied Leni Refeinstahl’s filmography. Maybe we should be in awe of Michael’s extensive research. He even studied medical journals. Just amazing he would pay $45,000.00 to research, just to entertain the world. This just shows you the cruelty of the media and the people who CHOOSE to believe the worst about others and how people prefer to spin a lie and spread it like a virus. I am so sick of ignorance.
The second thing I saw was a YouTube video of Geraldo interviewing of all people, Tommy Mottola, about Michael Jackson. I don’t have to explain to any reader the significance of Tommy Mottola and $ony in Michael’s tortured life and career. Both of them contributed mightily to his misery once he had the audacity to buy the $ony catalog. Though we’ve blissfully heard nothing from him in years, Mottola has been much bolder about coming out from under his rock in Hell to talk since Michael died. What caught my ear was this little bit in particular, uttered by Beelzebub himself (Mottola):
Its amazing to me that he was able to withstand even this long. -Tommy Mottola
Well yes I suppose it is Mr. Mottola….much to the chagrin of some people, like perhaps – you? Here’s that video:
The third thing I saw was a blog entry by Karen Faye, Michael’s make-up artist and hairstylist for many years. She was there during the June 27,1999 show at the Munich Olympic Stadium where the bridge Michael was standing on while singing ‘Earth Song‘ collapsed and went smashing to the floor, horrifying her and others working the show. This is a testament to how much Michael was committed (even to own detriment) to giving his fans the best show he could – no matter what.
Though it was drilled into Michael not to disappoint his fans no matter what, and though he seemed to base his self-worth so much on his work, I hope he learned as the years went by that many fans loved him not only when he entertained them or did a great show – but that they also loved Michael Jackson the human being. I feel very unsettled thinking he may have died not knowing that.
The children and adults slowly entered and filled the stage. The song builds…. Michael flies up the bridge and gyrates and pounds his feet, twirls as the bridge lifts away from its braces. Smoke, explosions, bombard our eyes and ears…the bridge continues higher and higher, but unlike rehearsals, and the last show…. it didn’t pause at its pinnacle… INSTEAD it came careening down gaining speed with Michael tightly grasping the railings… still singing. I started screaming, but I could not even hear my own voice over the pyro, music, and the audience. I started running out from behind the stage in horror as the bridge quickly disappeared below the front of the stage, slamming down on the concrete floor. Security grabbed and stopped me, thinking I was going to ruin the performance. Backstage, there was crying and screaming, only the crew and performers knew there was something desperately wrong. From our vantage point we had lost sight of Michael, as the bridge had fallen below the front of the stage. My heart stopped beating, while in the strong arms of a perplexed security guard. Even though the show continued for everyone else, time stood still for me, as I could not imagine how Michael could have survived such a fall. But slowly, and after what seemed like an eternity, as the music and applause continued, I saw one arm reach for the floor of the stage…then a long lean leg, another arm, another leg…he was up, center stage… finishing the end of Earth Song! My mouth dropped open in relieved amazement. Looking dazed, he made his way to our side of the stage. “Michael, sit down….” ”NO!” He demanded. ”Security… please get him to the hospital!” I was begging. “NO!” He grabbed the microphone and ran out to finish performing “You Are Not Alone”. I could not believe what I was witnessing. He finished the song, took his final bow, and returned once again to his stage dressing room and then… collapsed. Security whisked him off to a hospital in Munich. Band members, dancers, Slash and crewmembers all shocked and amazed at what we had witnessed wrapped up the show with prayers in our hearts. Once back in the hotel… I started making the phone calls to find out how he was. I got the reports that nothing was broken, but he was badly bruised, and his back was very badly strained. It had been a miracle. Being the performer he was, he knew how to land. The next day we were to leave for Paris for a photo shoot. This had been postponed until he was better. I asked him…why did you continue? I cannot believe you were able to do that. ”You know Turkle, the only thing that I heard in my head, was my father’s voice saying to me, MICHEAL, DON’T DISAPPOINT THE AUDIENCE!
Here’s the video of the accident. If you haven’t seen it, I have to warn, it can be painful to watch:
"Sometimes I feel just like a fugitive, I'm running for my life and deep inside I ask the question why. But I'm not running at all, I'm just healing a lonely wounded heart. The truth becomes the lie. I wish I could fly away." -Michael
Also, On this day in 1992 – the Daily Mirror ran a full, front page picture, allegedly of Michael’s face, which they described as “hideously disfigured” by plastic surgery. Michael sued the tabloid and they agreed to an out-of-court settlement. (At the High Court, the Mirror’s former editor acknowledged that after meeting the singer in person, he believed that Michael was neither hideously disfigured nor scarred at all.)
Michael was neither hideously disfigured nor scarred at all…..
Of course not. The ugly caricature of Michael Jackson created by the media(loids) doesn’t exist! Michael gave his fans, his art and the world everything he possibly could, and then some – until he could give no more because of his prematurely ended life. And this treatment of him is what some in our world evidently believe he deserves in return: ridicule, defamation, destruction, lies, and being defined as some evil, ugly caricature that never existed, in order to attract money to those entities peddling the lies. Meanwhile, they’ve destroyed and prematurely ended the life of a beautiful, generous, innocent human being in the process. And now that they’ve succeeded in destroying his life, they’re furiously hellbent on destroying his legacy, too.
We’ve had enough. Enough is enough of this garbage, and I encourage Michael’s fan-mily to (continue to) call out these ridiculous lies wherever they see them. Seek the truth. Speak the truth. Don’t let them twist it into lies.
It’s been thirteen months since Michael left here. You’d think that after that much time, I’d stop feeling like something’s missing.
It’s like leaving the house to go on a trip, with the nagging feeling that you’ve somehow forgotten something. Except the feeling never goes away and the trip never ends. I’m still in a daze, wondering how my world manages to go on spinning without the piece that is missing – without having Michael in the world, somewhere, anywhere. I know it’ll never feel right again. And I know at some point, I’ll learn to just live with that. But it won’t be today.
And I know he’s an angel and I could call him by laughing, but right now, the ache and the sadness still remains.
I’m sorry Michael, for not supporting you enough when you were here, and for hurting too much and for too long, now that you’re gone.
Now, the media were all busily either stating outright or thinly insinuating that Michael “lured” little boys to Neverland and up to some dark, dank, “room” to molest them. And in 2004-2005 and beyond they’ve done this with the help of Michael’s disgruntled ex-PR man-turned-tabloid-journalist Bob Jones, who created stories and published a salacious book to get back at Michael for firing him in June 2004. Jones was Michael’s PR man for 30-some years. (I am deliberately NOT linking to Jones’ trashy book here).
It is unclear why Jones was fired, but if you remember, it was Bob Jones, along with Frank Dileo, who were feeding garbage stories to the press and/or at the very least, doing nothing to rebut them back when Michael wrote that heartwrenching note to the press in 1987. He may well have been fired because it was finally discovered that he was a backstabbing leech – one of many around Michael during his life. True to his form, within 2 months of his firing, Jones was shopping his book of salacious boy stories around. Jones also testified against Michael in the 2005 trial. You can read about him in Aphrodite Jones’ ‘Conspiracy‘ book. Jones had a vendettta against Michael for firing him and this was his way of retaliating and he was therefore thoroughly discredited in the courtroom. The media, of course was glad to join him on his bandwagon and they likely made a lot of money scratching each other’s backs in this regard.
As for the media, they never bothered (and still haven’t to my knowledge) to tell the truth about “Michael’s room” or what it really consisted of, or the fact that not only boys, but also girls and their parents stayed there. And, not only did Michael show an interest in befriending and mentoring boys and young men, but he also befriended and mentored girls and young women too – with their parents full knowledge, participation, and approval – which obviously no parent would give if they even remotely suspected anything untoward was going on.
As a matter of fact, you might have noticed that Jordie Chandler and Gavin Arvizo’s parents were fully involved and in approval of Michael’s relationship with their boys – until they discovered they could get a lot more (money) from Michael by falsely claiming he’d molested them. In the case of Evan Chandler, I suspect (and Chandler’s own words show without any doubt) a good bit of jealousy and bitterness contributed to a vendetta to destroy Michael because Michael was being the father to Jordie Chandler that Evan Chandler never could or would be. And, Evan Chandler wanted $20 million from Michael for a film – and then some. Once he figured out his extortion scheme to get back at Michael and to get the money he wanted, Michael was suddenly labelled a ‘child molester‘ by him.
And we don’t even need to mention the subsequent hit piece on Michael by character assassin Martin Bashir, do we? Bashir, the notorious media mercenary built his own career by destroying Michael Jackson with a mockumentary that is as false, out-of-context, dishonest, and twisted as the recent framing of Ms. Shirley Sherrod – except that Bashir’s video was 2 hours long. In fact, there’s no doubt where the likes of Breitbart (the racist who created the chopped-up video to frame Shirley Sherrod as a racist) learned their “skills“: from the likes of Martin Bashir, of course. Destroying people’s lives based on lies and innuendo has become an industry unto itself, thanks to Bashir and the bottom-crawling likes of him.
Revenge. Greed. Jealousy. Money. Status. All of these were the daggars that others stabbed Michael Jackson in the back for, or because of.
Anyway, back to the girls who stayed with Michael and whom he was mentoring. The webmaster of AllForLoveBlog shared this with me: “Lottie Rose, one of Michael’s hairstylists who worked with him in the early 90s, said she often stayed over at Neverland with her daughter, and that sometimes her daughter, like many of the kids, fell asleep in Michael’s room. Nothing happened, and I’m sure Lottie Rose would have been singing a different tune if she even suspected anything improper had gone on”. You can learn more about Lottie Rose in this article from Ebony Magazine, printed in September, 2009. So, that’s one example of girls staying in Michael’s room at Neverland. There were not just boys staying there, contrary to the popular meme shouted by the media and Michael’s vengeful ex-employees. As Tom Mesereau stated, there were girls and boys and parents staying in the condo that was “Michael’s bedroom“. It was hardly a place where anything unsavory could or would happen.
I want to introduce you to another young woman Michael befriended and mentored. Her name is Nisha Kataria. She and her family moved into Neverland in 2003. She was his protégé, and he was grooming her for a musical career because he was so impressed with her vocals. They were going to travel together in 2003, and the plan was apparently that she would be his opening act for some of the shows in the “This Is It” tour, as well as having a cameo appearance in the “One More Chance” video, which never happened because Michael was hit with the trumped-up allegations against him before it could be completed. Just as she was hoping to be an opening act for TII, Michael was gone.
You can hear her amazing vocals here, as she gives a small idea of how her first audition with Michael went. Nisha had a different song in mind to sing to Michael, but Michael wanted to challenge her so he asked her to sing Whitney Houston’s “I Will Always Love You“. Nisha did so and you can here it here:
Nisha also appeared on Larry King. Here is part one of her appearance:
And here, Nisha sings ‘Earth Song‘ at Energy Globe 2007:
And Nisha sang ‘We Are The World‘ at “Tribute to Bambi” 2009 in Berlin and presented Michael Jackson’s Scream Guitar for Charity.:
Michael was my teacher, my idol, my inspiration. I will never forget the precious time that we shared together. I hope that a part of Michael Jackson will continue to live and to shine within my work that is so heavily influenced and rooted by him.
Michael Jackson was the greatest artist of our time. His musical and cinematic legacy will live on forever.
AllForLoveBlog will have a more in-depth piece soon about the other girls whom Michael befriended and/or stayed at Neverland, so keep an eye out for that. It’s bound to be very informative!
_ _ _
{ Thanks to David Edwards for the information about Nisha in this piece, and to AllForLoveBlog for the info on Lottie Rose. -Seven }
As everyone on the planet knows, Martin Bashir is the backstabbing “journalist” who created the mockumentary “Living with Michael Jackson” – that piece of two-faced, psychopathic, deft and dirty cut-up technique and falsified innuendo that was do doubt the model for similar subsequent attacks such as the one on Ms. Shirley Sherrod recently and attacks on many others which we see from the media almost daily ever since.
And, Bashir’s seedy hit-piece was absolutely one of the larger knives in Michael’s back which accelerated the end of Michael’s livelihood and career, his health, and his finally, his life.
To say that Martin Bashir had a hand in helping shove Michael Jackson to an early end to his career and an early end to his life is no understatement. And, the media have thusly all become such parasitic and psychopathic barbarian tabloids. Where does it end?
MSNBC’s president insists “this is the direction MSNBC wants to go.”
Their memo on Bashir indicates that they are proud that this media assassin snipped, cut, manipulated, and twisted his film on Michael Jackson to make a perfectly innocent Michael look guilty, and yes, resulting in additional allegations, investigations and a trial that destroyed Michael Jackson’s career and life:
Bashir is best known for making landmark documentaries including “Living With Michael Jackson,” which 27 million American viewers tuned in to watch in 2003 and prompted an extensive police investigation of the singer.
-MSNBC memo on Martin Bashir
Now, if that’s the direction they want to go I’m sure they’ll be happy to know that millions of Michael Jackson fans will not be going there with them due to this revolting development. MSNBC is the second-highest rated network in the U.S. right now. They can be assured that with this cockamamy decision, that rating will fall.
MJ fans can and should write to MSNBC concerning their further foray into the tabloidization of the network with unethical tabloid journalists like Bashir. Here’s where and how to contact them:
PLEASE do be calm, stick to facts, and to not use profanity in your communications with MSNBC about this. Expressing concern about Bashir’s modus operandi particularly with the “Living With Michael Jackson” hit piece, expressing concern about Bashir’s tabloid-media tactics and further tabloidization of the media in general, and their network in particular, is acceptable dialogue. Hysteria, profanity, and ranting are not.
If you are a viewer of any of their programs, you might reconsider your viewing habits while reminding them that they will be losing viewers due to this ill-advised “choice” of theirs.
In 1993, before Oprah did her ‘big interview‘ with Michael, she interviewed many of his friends and people who had worked with him. Someone has finally posted these interview segments youtube. I present them here for your perusal.
They are divided into 6 parts. The first part discusses how the interview came to fruition, the making of a promo commercial for the interview, and Oprah speaks with Liz Taylor, Michael’s lifelong and very close friend.
In Part 2, Oprah interviews Brooke Shields. She gives a great explanation as to why people criticize and judge Michael so much. It’s amazing how Brooke and Liz both mention all of the garbage that was written about Michael. And consider that this was BEFORE the allegations! It was likely worse than many of us thought even before the worst of it started!
In Part 3, supermodel Iman is interviewed about her role in MJ’s “Remember The Time” video. She highlights Michael’s wonderful sense of humor and really emphasizes Michael’s humanitarian work. I wish MORE media and celebrities had spoken out about this when Michael was alive, since his humanitarian endeavors were SO incredible.
In Part 4, Dick Clark, Smokey Robinson, Gladys Knight, and Susanne DePasse are interveiwed. Unsurprisingly, they all unanimously agreed that MJ didn’t have a childhood.
In Part 5, Oprah interviews a young girl, probably around 10 years old, and her parents. She met Michael while shooting a commercial, and became close friends with him. Ryan White’s mom is interviewed in this segment, as well. During the clip, Oprah showed the beds that are installed in the walls of MJ’s movie theater, and she said this is a sure sign that he cares about children.
This is a very important segment because it shows a young female friend who spent time at Neverland, and her parents fully approved of the relationship! Remember the media was all about Michael only spending his time with young BOYS. That was not true, of course. Tom Mesereau addressed the media’s lies about this in his June 17, 2007 interview on the Jay Leno show.
In Part 6, Oprah shows how MJ has been a “sex symbol” to many of his female fans around the world. The funniest part is the white woman who said that when she was a young girl, she wished that she was black so that she could marry Michael. Keep in mind, in the early 1970’s interracial marriage wasn’t as accepted as it is now, so that’s probably why she felt that way. Today, this would not be quite such an issue.
Here is another interview with Oprah from September 2009. She explains that the reason she didn’t go to MJ’s memorial was that she was not friends with him. In light of what Mesereau said in Aphrodite Jones’ documentary about celebrities praising MJ after his death, but who refused to support him during his trial, Oprah’s admission seems noble. Although I personally feel that she still should have issued a public statement, since her show garnered the highest ratings ever due to his appearance on her show.
Oprah also says that she always had “compassion” for MJ throughout the years, but I rather disagree. Watch her 2005 interview with Lisa Marie Presley, and see how much “compassion” she shows.
Also, she condescendingly said after Michael died that “we’ll never know the truth” in regards to the allegations, which is tantamount to saying that he’s guilty. But then again, what do we expect from Oprah? This is the same woman who thought it was OK to ask Michael if he was a virgin. In fact, she asked Lisa Marie if their marriage was consummated.
I wonder how Oprah would feel if she were asked on a nationally televised interview if and she Stedman Graham have had sex? Hmmm?
… I must admit, I suffer from the myopic view, like most historians — amateur or otherwise — that history must always be equated with old. That’s why Graceland was “history” to me, but Neverland never would be — at least not until it was gone. Hours passed, and the desire to see the inside of Neverland grew stronger. I had essentially exhausted all other photographic possibilities down the 101, and I knew this opportunity wouldn’t last long. Then, a day before I began the drive back up to San Francisco, I exited a theater to find what seemed like snow falling on me. I immediately realized they were large flakes of ash from a fire nearby. The sky was dark and orange. It was an eerie, foreboding signal, or at least that’s what I made it out to be. I needed to photograph Neverland, or else — and I had a strong feeling — it would all go to ashes without proper documentation.
Once it was decided, there was no convincing me otherwise. Still, I thought more than once of giving it up altogether and to continue driving North. I tried to convince myself that I had trespassed many times before at other locations — but the implications had never really bothered me until I considered walking into Michael’s private park. As I write this, I still try to justify my actions by thinking how much Michael truly wanted to share his world. It was a genuine wish of his for everyone to understand things the way he did. And the world largely didn’t understand what he was trying to communicate with Neverland, so he abandoned it.
People have asked me over the past year what it felt like to be in Neverland at night, alone. I didn’t want to say anything except that it was the most surreal and incredible experience of my life. Others asked me how I felt about Michael, after seeing Neverland, but I couldn’t completely answer that. I was withholding judgement. Maybe, like all battle-bruised humans, I had the sneaking suspicion that all of my best feelings about the man would be shattered when another allegation would arise. But it never happened, just as I suspected, because everything I saw at the Ranch indicated to me that he was an innocent man.
Bronze Children at Neverland
Strangely enough, the moment I entered, a howling wind spread across the valley. Trees cracked their massive arms and fell; I could hear the Ferris Wheel creaking; the rope drawbridge waved wild and unpredictable. When I walked up to the deserted bumper car tent, the wind had become so strong, that it was tearing the red, canvas roof. It’s fortunate that the wind also allowed me to roam freely around the park without a single bark from the nearby dogs.
In the midst of all of this wind, the only static elements of Neverland were the frozen, bronze faces of the myriad statues that dotted the grounds. The children’s smiles almost seemed sad, in the context; and other than the occasional jolt of fear that hit me when I encountered a new frozen figure (thinking it was a real person), these statues were the subjects that I found my camera most drawn to. The rides themselves could have been found on any county fair in any state in the country. But it was the psyche of Michael Jackson that drew my curiosity. The statues were a conduit; they were my artifacts to catalog before the time of their eventual liquidation arrived.
. . .
Despite how kitschy it all seemed; despite the controversy; and the fact that I could only see Neverland from one perspective (that of night), the times I spent at Neverland are among the most memorable moments of my life. Neverland allowed me to escape the cynical, xenophobic world of a country mired in war, terrorism, and daily reports of suicide bombers. They may have been only a few nights of escapism, at best, but they allowed me to put myself in the shoes of Michael — moon walking my own way among the soon-to-end dreamscape of a truly magnanimous soul. May you rest in peace, Michael; your dream will live on.
Article removed at the request of Barbara Kaufmann/InnerMichael/Voices Education Project
On July 7th, I wrote to ‘info@voiceseducation.org‘ requesting to post/re-post the “Caricatures” piece on my website. Here is the response I received from “Otts” (Otts Bolisay) at voiceseducation.org. Otts said:
Hi Seven,
We have a Creative Commons license on our site that allows anyone to use our content as long as they attribute it to us (and the author Jan Carlson), don’t make money off of it and apply the same license if they remix it in any way. So, do whatever you like with it if you meet all of the above conditions!
I’ll contact the author and ask if it’s OK to share their contact info. Thanks for checking in!
Best,
otts
Thus, I posted the article here and credited/attributed it accordingly and linked to the original article, as requested above in Otts’ email.
But … on July 20th, I subsequently received an email from Barbara Kaufmann asking that I remove the article as it is under copyright with InnerMichael/Voices Education Project and due out in a publication in August. Thus, it has been removed.
I have to admit not understanding the two entirely different responses I’ve gotten from this same organization about posting the article, or the fact that the Creative Commons license cited both in Otts’ email above, and below the article itself on the site allows re-distribution … but nonetheless, I have been told I can no longer share it here, so it has been removed.
