Category: MJEOL BULLET

Outrage over Decision Not to Cite Bashir for Contempt – MiniBullet #6 FEB 24 2005 – The judge in the Michael Jackson “case” has allowed accused blackmailer Martin Bashir to both report on the case AND be a witness in it at the same time. This ridiculous decision has drawn blistering criticism from a number of both pro-defense and pro-prosecution “case” watchers. The judge refused to cite Bashir, whose two programs for ABC were rife with everything from speculative nonsense to defamatory, malicious remarks. The two programs failed to pull in the ratings ABC was hoping for, and caused a number of people to criticize ABC/Bashir even on their own public message boards (see Tempest in a Thimble | and | Jackson Bash-fest a Ratings Loser). Some say Judge Rodney Melville has allowed the “glorified tabloid reporter” get away with breaking the gag order in a way that he certainly wouldn’t have allowed any pro-defense witness to do. Long time Jackson friend and former manager Frank Dileo talked to Carol Davis of thejusticesystem.net about Bashir’s total lack of being held accountable for his role in this “case”. Needless to say, Dileo was outraged. He says inane commentary about Jackson’s wardrobe draws media attention when what they should really be investigating are the decisions being made – or the things being allowed to happen – by the current judge. From a transcript of the Feb 22 2005 show:

FRANK DILEO: This offends every person’s rights. If the press doesn’t pick up on this, or if somebody doesn’t stand up like Al Sharpton or Alan Dershowitz or somebody like that, who knows where this country could be heading. I mean, those reporters out there — there’s gangs of them — standing around reporting on every move: ‘he showed up in an SUV’, ‘he had on a black jacket’, ‘he had on white pants.’ Who cares what Michael’s wearing! You wanna report on that stuff? Go to Joan Rivers on the red carpet. What they should be saying is ‘hey this jury pool might be tainted.’ How did the judge allow Martin Bashir — let that program air? How come he didn’t stop that? How come he didn’t stop Corey Feldman? (see Frank Dileo blasts decision not to cite Bashir for contempt thejusticesystem.net)

Jackson Jury Selected without African-Americans – MJEOL Bullet #247 FEB 23 2005 – The jury currently selected to hear the prosecution’s alleged “case” against Michael Jackson has been seated in less than 3 full days. There is not a single African American on the panel of reportedly 8 women and 4 men. The prosecution removed both of the remaining blacks in the pool through their peremptory challenges. Conflicting reports set the jury makeup as 8 whites, 3 Hispanics, and 1 Asian. However, some reports set the number at 7 whites, 4 Hispanics and 1 Asian. According to news reports, the jurors range in age from 20 years old to 79 years old. They have various occupations. But as “varied” as the panel is, it’s probably going to be known as the “all white jury” as opposed to the attitudes of the people on it. Some of those who made the cut are very interesting indeed. One of the women allowed to sit on this panel has an extensive history of sexual abuse in her family. Mesereau wanted to question the woman further in the Judge’s chambers as agreed upon previously by this same judge. Inexplicably, he refused to allow further questioning of her by the defense. Prosecution supporter Ann Bremner said on Court TV (Feb 23 2005) that she was surprised the judge didn’t allow defense attorney Mesereau to follow up in the judge’s chambers. As good as she may look to the prosecution, this could come back to bite the prosecution in their proverbial asses, however. She may not take too kindly to the behavior of the accuser’s mother in this “case”: the mother not calling the police when she claims she saw Jackson abusing her son on a plane ride and the mother going to a civil attorney after she claims she “escaped” from Neverland, instead of going to the police and pressing charges. These are simply a few examples.

When Did Jackson Ask for Your Sympathy for Having the Flu? – MiniBullet #5 FEB 20 2005 — Once again I find myself disgusted with media coverage of Michael Jackson’s hospitalization for a severe, viral flu with the last straw being another inane article from local Santa Maria “reporter” Steve Corbett. The media has been rife with speculative nonsense, collectively claiming that Jackson ‘just wants sympathy’ or is ‘being dramatic’. And they lace their pundit’s view with tales of their own illnesses and how they just….took Tylenol and stayed in bed. Probably one of the most ridiculous articles on Jackson’s illness came from Santa Maria Times’s Corbett, completely with whiny, complaining comments from people who probably didn’t like Jackson to begin with. Then they complain about a “ruckus” in the hospital. What they may not realize is that this “ruckus” was not caused by a “queasy” Jackson, but by the media and by city employees who are duty-bound to protect him. But Corbett’s crowd of quoted locals aren’t the only one’s taking leave of their senses. What some of these jaded lunatics don’t seem to understand is that 1) Jackson has never asked them for their sympathy, 2) He probably couldn’t give two craps about whether the media ‘feels sorry’ for him, 3) Not even Michael Jackson can fake a viral-based flu, and 4) Just because your flu didn’t land you in the emergency room, it doesn’t mean Jackson’s faking. To be more blunt: You ain’t Michael Jackson. Given the media’s history of treating him like garbage, I highly doubt Jackson is wishing, hoping or praying that the media – who all act like tabloids when it comes to stories about him – would suddenly ‘feel sorry’ for him. He hasn’t asked for the public’s sympathy on this issue.

Family ‘Kidnapped’ for Interview Public Never Saw? – MiniBullet #4 FEB 20 2005 – One of the accusations made by the prosecution in the Michael Jackson “case” is that the accusing family was allegedly “kidnapped” so that they could be kept away from the public and appear in a rebuttal video exonerating Jackson. They want the public to believe that Jackson was so “panicked” about his image that he would conspire to kidnap a family of four. However, the rebuttal footage to the Martin Bashir hatchet-job of a “documentary”, in which the family was allegedly supposed to appear, was aired just days after Bashir’s, but without any new footage of this family at all. “Take Two: The Footage You Were Never Meant to See” aired on the Fox network Feb 20 2003. The explosive rebuttal showed subpoenaed witness and accused blackmailer Martin Bashir telling a completely different story than the one that made it on air. He said, both to Jackson and Jackson’s staff, such glowing things as “The problem is you see, that nobody, nobody actually comes here and sees it. But I was here yesterday and I saw it, and it’s nothing short of a spiritual kind [of] thing…”. Then he gets on TV during promos, apparently to sell the advertising for the show and to increase the ratings, and says, “One of the most disturbing things is the fact that a lot of disadvantaged children go to Neverland…” This was only one of numerous contradictions that Bashir was caught in; sure to be brought up under cross-examination at trial. But one thing which was not in the Take Two special was an interview with the family defending Jackson. Why not? How is the public supposed to believe this family was “kidnapped” by a “panicked” Jackson, and essentially forced to say nice things about him, when the public wasn’t shown any video or audio of them defending Jackson? Wasn’t that the point, according to the prosecution?

Ridiculous Propaganda Continues from Prosecution Supporters? – MiniBullet #3 FEB 18 2005 — Amazingly, certain people are pumping media propaganda that the defense would be “desperate” enough to leak grand jury transcripts. And they’re banking on the media to be stupid enough not to ask questions about the logic of their allegation. It would seem that to even take this seriously, one has to be either on drugs or so incredibly desperate that they want to point the finger at someone else to get the attention off of them. Most feel it’s safe to say that the defense did not leak this information. According to reports, Jackson spokeswoman Raymone Bain said its “ridiculous” for anyone to claim that the defense leaked this one-sided garbage. “One-sided garbage” is my term, by the way. Apparently, this accusation is coming from pro-prosecution sympathizers who may want to get prosecutors off the hook for this illegal leak or who are trying to inject themselves into this “case”. What prosecutors or pro-prosecution sympathizers may be trying to do is have their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to taint the jury pool, smear Jackson AND blame the smear job on his lawyers. This is disgusting. The first question most family with the defense’s arguments, via released court docs, ask is why would the defense have to leak anything at all at this point? Once one starts to realize the massive amounts of ammunition the defense already has against the family – at least the info that can be gleaned from the court documents (docs) – it does become “ridiculous” to even suggest that they would have to break the law to leak anything for any reason at this point.

Jackson Bash-fest a Ratings Loser – MiniBullet #2 Update #2 FEB 18 2005 — According to a website that keeps data on ratings, zap2it.com, the 2-hour ABC Michael Jackson bash-fest was a ratings loser last night (Feb 17 2005). The defamatory report brought to the public by what is apparently the new face of ABC, accused blackmailer Martin Bashir, didn’t pull in anywhere near the numbers ABC was hoping for. The program came in third behind CBS’s “CSI” and NBC’s “The Apprentice” (for the first hour), and came in third again behind CBS’s “Without a Trace” and NBC’s “ER” (for the second hour). From the report:

At 9 p.m., “CSI” built on its strong lead-in and delivered an 18.7/28, its highest rating in at least a month. “The Apprentice” posted a 9.6/15 for NBC. The ABC special “Michael Jackson’s Secret World” averaged 6.1/9 for the hour, better than the network usually does but a far cry from the 2003 ratings monster “Living with Michael Jackson,” which had ratings nearly twice as big. …”Without a Trace,” 13.5/22, completed the CBS sweep of the night at 10 p.m. “ER” averaged 11.8/19 for NBC, and the second hour of ABC’s Jackson special came in at 6.6/11. (see ‘Survivor’ Hot, [Jackson] Not on Thursday )

One thing some observers hate more than pile-on jobs, is being told what to think by the media. What ABC should learn, and quickly, is that a number of people are just tired of being force-fed a diet of baseless speculation and innuendo; especially when they may already have reservations about the validity of the allegations against him. Allegations partially sparked by the subpoenaed Bashir himself.

Contradictory, Disgusting, & One-sided Leaks May Be from Prosecutors?– MJEOL Bullet #246 These newest leaks come after prosecutor Gordon Auchincloss supposedly threatened the defense that Sneddon would release all he knows about Jackson if they try to impeach Sneddon on the witness stand Some pro-prosecution nut has once again decided to spit in Judge Rodney Melville’s face by giving the media another go-round with the 1900 page grand jury transcripts. The judge in the case had said he would release this information AFTER a final jury panel has been selected and sworn in. But apparently the wait was too long for the prosecution or prosecution-sympathizer who handed over the info to a Court TV backed website. Through all of this unsubstantiated, one-sided garbage, there are some key things missing that one would expect to be there if an actual crime had occurred. Not to mention all of the blaring brick walls the prosecutors will undoubtedly run into once this thing – can’t even call it a “case” anymore – gets rolling. Maybe someone should send them a memo: the bridge is out. MJEOL won’t dare attempt to clean up the prosecution’s story by pointing out the numerous, ridiculous, Pacific Ocean-sized holes in these contradictory stories. But there are a few incredibly obvious things that a number of observers are pretty much aware of right now. The first missing thing, which was quickly picked up on by a number of people, is the fact that no witness other than the accuser’s brother – hardly an objective party – has ever seen Jackson behave inappropriately with any kid. Not this kid, not his brother, and not anyone else. One would think that would be the tip-off number one. Another odd story is the fact prosecutors are claiming this alleged “conspiracy” started BEFORE the prosecution-alleged “molestation”, and that the alleged “molestation” didn’t start until AFTER the family acquired passports to go to Brazil. Huh? It makes no sense at all that one would allegedly obtain passports for Brazil – reportedly the mother has family members there, by the way – and THEN Jackson would START molesting him.

Defense Witness List Full of Scammed Celebs & Key Witnesses? – MJEOL Bullet #245 Witnesses may be able to testify as to what the family was really doing during the prosecution’s timeline while others may have been the victims of fraud by this family The defense witness list became known during a Feb 14 2005 session of court where jury selection continued in the Michael Jackson “case”. The reported 370 people on the list are mostly not celebrities, but the media on;y seemed to picked up on the recognizable names. Their list It does include the likes of Kobe Bryant, CBS’s Ed Bradley and Fox news’s Rita Cosby. The defense has recently amended the list to include another 13 witnesses. There were previous reports that George Lopez, Chris Tucker, Brett Ratner and Bryan Michael Stoller were also on the defense’s list. Other new names include Jay Leno, whose disgustingly ridiculous, juvenile and defamatory comments and failed jokes about Jackson may not be enough to get the moron out of being dragged into this “case”. The importance of these people in relation to this “case” is very obvious to those who have been following it. But apparently most of the mainstream media is stuck on stupid. Here’s a newsflash to the media: Just because you aren’t aware of certain facts in the “case”, it doesn’t mean that there’s no adequate reason for some of these peoples’ names to be on the defense’s list. The media just doesn’t seem to want to ever ask one question of import about why so many well-known people are on the defense’s witness list. They prefer to mock, ridicule and question the defense’s motives. Thus, making them appear more out of touch with what’s going on in this “case” than some ever would have realized. Certain pundits, tv lawyers and talk show hosts don’t seem to have a clue as to why some of these people’s names are on the defense’s witness list. Yes, it appears there will be some who can testify to Jackson’s character. There may have even been some famous friends who were at Jackson’s Neverland ranch at times when the accusing family was also there. Others may be people Jackson spent time with at the time prosecutors are claiming he was with the family. While others are independent witnesses who have a history with helping the accusing family, and whose testimony could be crucial irrespective of how they personally feel about Jackson.

MJEOL Bullet #245 Preview: Feb 15 2005 — The defense witness list became known during yesterday’s (Feb 14 2005) session