Skip to: Site menu | Main content

I WAS TRYING TO HELP THIS BOY BUT NOW I FEEL GUILTY

2008-03-15

The Sun

November 25, 2003

I WAS TRYING TO HELP THIS BOY BUT NOW I FEEL GUILTY

BYLINE: Antonella Lazzeri in Los Angeles

LENGTH: 427 words

Charity boss sent lad to Jacko

 A CHARITY boss who introduced Michael Jackson to the 12-year-old lad he is accused of repeatedly molesting said last night he is tortured by guilt.

 Jamie Masada, who runs a charity for sick children, was told by Gavin Arvizo's relatives that the boy had just weeks to live -and it was his dying wish to meet Jacko.

 Jamie said: "I got on the phone to arrange it but now I think, 'Was it a mistake?'

 "I was trying to help this boy but now I feel so guilty. When I heard about the charges my first thoughts were, 'Oh my God!'

 "I have felt bad ever since. I keep thinking, 'Is it really true or is it not true?' I just don't know." Jamie told how Gavin's concerned mum contacted him before the sex abuse allegations were made to say Jacko had asked her to sign some kind of agreement.

 He added: "She was worried because she didn't know what she was signing. It was around the time of the Martin Bashir documentary."

 The notorious programme showed Jacko cuddling Gavin -and admitting he had shared a bed with him.

 Jamie also denied claims that Gavin's family want a cash settlement, adding: "They are not after money. His mother is very religious and she just wants justice."

 Jacko's legal team have hired the man who dug up dirt on the main witnesses in the OJ Simpson murder trial to investigate the Arvizo family.

 Private eye Zvonko "Bill" Pavelic is said to be investigating the backgrounds of family members in a bid for information that might discredit them as witnesses.

 Drugs

 The news came as sources close to Jacko claimed Gavin's mum has previously threatened to sell her story unless the star hands over cash.

 Other employees of the singer claim they saw her high on drugs and in angry rows with Jacko.

 The singer is due to make his first court appearance on January 9. But yesterday a legal expert said it might take a year for a proper trial to start.

 Professor Carol Chase said the star's legal experts could delay the trial for months by claiming they needed time to prepare a case.

 When Jacko was accused of molesting 13-year-old Jordy Chandler a decade ago, the case was eventually dropped after a multi-million dollar deal with the lad's family.

 But a change in the law means Gavin would be forced to give evidence at court even if he had accepted a pay off.

 Meanwhile, Jacko has cancelled plans to attend a tribute concert at London's Dominion Theatre on December 14.

 The conditions of his Pounds 1.75million bail ban him from leaving America.
LOAD-DATE: November 26, 2003
LANGUAGE: English
PUB-TYPE: Newspaper

0 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

FORMER LEAD SIMPSON INVESTIGATOR VISITS GMA

2008-03-14

ABC NEWS

January 30, 1997

SHOW: ABC GOOD MORNING AMERICA (7:00 am ET)

FORMER LEAD SIMPSON INVESTIGATOR VISITS GMA

GUESTS: BILL PAVELIC

BYLINE: ,ELIZABETH VARGAS

SECTION: News

LENGTH: 1901 words

HIGHLIGHT: RESPONSE TO LANGE AND VANNATTER


ELIZABETH VARGAS, Host: As we said earlier, former LAPD detectives Phil Vannatter and Tom Lange were guests on our show yesterday. Today -- and they were emphatically defending the integrity of their investigation, we must say. Today, we are going to speak with Bill Pavelic. He was the chief investigator of the OJ Simpson criminal trial, civil trial, and the custody case involving his two young children, Sydney and Justin. Bill Pavelic joins us this morning. Welcome, thank you for being here.

BILL PAVELIC, Former Simpson Lead Investigator: Thank you.


ELIZABETH VARGAS: Former detectives Lange and Vannatter took on the air -- were on the air -- concede they made mistakes, but they emphatically deny framing OJ Simpson. Why are you so sure that, in fact, they did?

BILL PAVELIC: In fact, their book even substantiates that premise even more. They basically falsified the affidavit, the search warrant affidavit. The information that they provided to the judge in order to get the search warrant was basically fabricated. They lied to the judge by informing her that OJ Simpson left on an unscheduled flight, thus leaving them with the impression -- leaving her with the impression that he was fleeing California. They did not tell her that they scaled the wall. They told her that they recovered the glove while securing the evidence. And as you know from the trial, that's absolutely incorrect. I could go on, but I don't think we have the time.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: But even if we grant, even if we were to accept everything you just said on face value, which clearly detectives Lange and Vannatter deny and do not, you were an LA police officer for 19 years yourself. What you are suggesting is a conspiracy of such an enormous scope. They would have had to have planted Mr Simpson's blood at Bundy. They would have planted Mr Goldman's blood in Mr Simpson's Bronco, planted Nicole's blood and Simpson's blood at the Rockingham estate. It goes on and on, and it seems fantastic to many people.

BILL PAVELIC: Yes, it does. But if you look at the facts, even Judge Ito supported our premise, and that is that Vannatter, for all intents and purposes, was dishonest. If Vannatter was dishonest, his partner obviously is just as culpable as Vannatter. What we found in this book, in fact, is, that Vannatter was shopping for a favorable prosecutor, in this case, Marcia Clark. Vannatter contacted Marcia Clark before he obtained the search warrant or the affidavit, completed the affidavit for the search warrant, before he went to Judge Lefkovitz (ph). So now we learn from his book that the prosecutor had a much bigger role in this conspiracy than we initially thought.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: Well, let's get to the specifics of what they said yesterday ...

BILL PAVELIC: Sure.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: ... on our air, for example. For -- the first thing they said was that Mr Simpson was not acting like an innocent man. As one of the proofs, pieces of proof of that, they played the following tape. It's an audiotape from the Bronco chase. Let's listen to it very quickly.

Det TOM LANGE: (on phone) And nobody's going to get hurt.

OJ SIMPSON: (on phone) I'm the only one that deserves ...

Det TOM LANGE: No, you don't deserve that.

OJ SIMPSON: I'm going to get hurt.

Det TOM LANGE: You do not deserve to get hurt.

OJ SIMPSON: Ahhh ...

Det TOM LANGE: You do not deserve to get hurt. Don't do this.: OJ SIMPSON: All I did was love Nicole. That's all I did was love her.

Det TOM LANGE: I understand.

OJ SIMPSON: I love everybody. I tried to show everybody my whole life that I love every body.

Det TOM LANGE: We know that, and everybody loves you.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: Mr Simpson says on this tape, "I'm the only one who deserves to get hurt. I loved Nicole too much." To detectives Lange and Vannatter, they say that sounds like a grieving guilty man.

BILL PAVELIC: Well, he is a grieving not-guilty man. What he is referring to is obviously not the crime itself, but the fact that he eluded authorities, and went to the grave, and was suicidal. The interpretation that the -- Lange and Vannatter are putting out is that somehow this has to do with the crime itself, and that is totally incorrect.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: Any question why Mr Simpson didn't say, "I'm innocent of these crimes"? Why he didn't say -- talk more about Nicole's death?

BILL PAVELIC: In fact, he did say that. Not only did he maintain his innocence, but he also said, in various discussions that same day, that he was being framed by the police. I would like to submit to you, why didn't Vannatter and Lange put the contents of all -- the entire tape in a follow-up report or a supplemental report? You're not going to find that. And the reason you're not going to find it is because there's a problem with this tape. First of all, what probable cause did they have to tape record this conversation? Second of all, they're totally contradicting their initial premise, which was that he was

fleeing again, trying to leave the public with the impression that he was somehow -- with the goatee and the mustache, that he was going to run away.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: But it does bring up an interesting issue. Why, in fact, if he was just going to his wife's grave, or why, in fact, he was only going to commit suicide or contemplating that horrible thought, would he have a disguise and $8,000 cash with him?

BILL PAVELIC: Well, first of all, he had a disguise. Why would he take his passport with no disguise? I mean, it's ludicrous to assume that he was trying to disguise himself in order to flee, but yet he took the passport that doesn't have the disguise. I mean, it just doesn't make sense.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: All right. They also introduced, detectives Lange and Vannatter, they say there was new evidence that was never introduced at the criminal or civil trial, and they talked about it yesterday on our show. I've got another clip I'd like you to listen to.

Det TOM LANGE: We had a witness at the airport that initially, interestingly enough, came to the defense and said, "Listen, I was at the airport a little after 11:00. I saw OJ Simpson there with his arm buried in a trash container, and then it went to a small flight bag on top. He zipped it closed, and he walked inside." The day after -- the day of the murders, this fellow reported this to the defense, and they never shared it with us. It was nine months later when this man followed up on this revelation with us.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: Did you investigate this man who says he saw OJ Simpson disposing contents of the -- of a bag?

BILL PAVELIC: First of all, first of all, let me just say something about Detective Lange here. We don't have an obligation to turn over discovery material to him. Discovery material would be turned over to the prosecution. If the prosecution did not let him see it, that's their business. We did turn over that information. As far as his interpretation, what happened is, their interpretation is completely different from ours.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: And the other evidence about supposedly OJ Simpson got a gift of knives just days before the murders?

BILL PAVELIC: Again, you have to ask yourself, why didn't they introduce this man? Why didn't they call him to testify? His contention is that it was the prosecution that didn't want to do it. This is a question that should be posed to the prosecution. As far as we're concerned, the gentleman that he is referring to was contacting tabloids, was trying to sell his story, has changed the version of his story, and he is -- he was not reliable.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: To many people in this civil trial in particular, the most damning evidence against OJ Simpson is this series of photographs showing him wearing Bruno Magli shoes, the kind of shoes that left a footprint at the murder scene. Do you still believe that first photograph printed in "The Enquirer" was indeed doctored, was a fake?

BILL PAVELIC: Unlike the plaintiffs' witnesses, I will not comment on an issue that the jury in the civil case is adjudicating. I think it would be improper. I'm still subject to the rules and regulations and the gag order that was issued by Judge Fujisaki.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: All right. Then without commenting in specific on this evidence, do you think that overall, this civil trial has been a fair trial for Mr Simpson?

BILL PAVELIC: I would prefer to answer that question after the adjudication. And I think you may find it rather surprising.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: There have been many have been -- who have felt that Mr Simpson has been subjected to double jeopardy. Those who support him feel that he's already been through this once, that in the civil trial, he is -- has been -- all this has been brought out against him again, we're getting this new evidence. Do you feel the same way? Do you feel sympathetic that way?

BILL PAVELIC: Let me just make a comment that I don't see the rage in America with regards to Mark Fuhrman making a living, who is a convicted perjurer. I don't see groups demonstrating against him. He is given an opportunity to make a living. So if we're talking about a double standards here, I think there are double standards with regards to the way they look at OJ versus Mark Fuhrman. And in this case, only one person was convicted, and that was Mark Fuhrman.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: You still have a good relationship with OJ Simpson. You still speak with him regularly.

BILL PAVELIC: Yes, I do.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: How is he holding up through this trial?

BILL PAVELIC: I'm sure it's very difficult for him, but I think the fact that he has his children, he's content with that, and he knows this is an uphill battle. This is only round two in a 15-round fight. I'm sure that there will be some additional rulings.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: Round two, that means it sounds like if he loses, he'll appeal.

BILL PAVELIC: I expect the appeal to go. I don't expect him to lose in this case.: ELIZABETH VARGAS: You expect him to win in the civil trial.

BILL PAVELIC: I think we're going to have to wait for the jury, and we may be just as surprised here as we were in all the others.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: In the criminal trial, OJ Simpson repeatedly professed his innocence, repeatedly pledged to find the real killers of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. You were the man put in charge of that. What have you found about who might have killed these two people?

BILL PAVELIC: It's interesting that you ask that question. I don't recall anybody asking Mr Jewell, "If you didn't plant the bomb in the -- in Atlanta, who did?" In this particular case, Mr Simpson did authorize me to conduct an investigation. I will not comment on the investigation. I want to maintain the integrity of the investigation. And unlike the prosecution in the criminal case, I'm not about to rush to judgment.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: Bill Pavelic, thank you for coming in, interesting speaking with you this morning.

BILL PAVELIC: Thank you, have a good day.

ELIZABETH VARGAS: Thanks, same to you.

(Commercial Break)

(Local News)

(Commercial Break)

LOAD-DATE: February 27, 1997

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

Transcript # 97013004-J01

TYPE: INTERVIEW

0 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

Investigators offer Simpson free help to find killer, exonerate San Francisco

2008-03-13

THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS

May 27, 1996, Monday, HOME FINAL EDITION

Investigators offer Simpson free help to find killer, exonerate San Francisco

BYLINE: San Francisco Examiner

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 12A
LENGTH: 204 words
DATELINE: SAN FRANCISCO
SAN FRANCISCO - OK, O.J. here's your chance.

So, you think whoever killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman is on the loose and may have ties to San Francisco.

Legendary San Francisco private eye Hal Lipset and five fellow gumshoes have an offer that may fit snug as a glove.  They'll prove you right or wrong - for free.

"I want to clear San Francisco's name," Mr. Lipset said, so the world will not think a brutal killer or killers lurk in the city.

Mr. Simpson's private investigator, Bill Pavelic, welcomed the offer Friday and said he will discuss it with Mr. Simpson, who was acquitted Oct. 3 of the crimes.

Mr. Simpson told Oxford University students May 14 that he has strong leads tying the suspect or suspects to his hometown.

Mr. Lipset called The Examiner to say that he and fellow sleuths want to crack the case a la Sam Spade, their literary hero.

"If you say somebody is following you, I'm going to find if they are," said Mr. Lipset.  "If I find you're not being followed, I'm going to refer you to a psychiatrist."

"If there are leads in San Francisco that somebody is not looking into, then I think they should be," Mr. Lipset said.

Distributed by Scripps-McClatchy Western Service.

LOAD-DATE: May 28, 1996
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

0 Comments | Link to This | Back to top

Created with ShoutPost