Skip to content


July 29, 2010


Guys, there was a continuation to the post about Charles Thomson attacked by Michael’s fans. It was at a different place (MJ’s forum) where our Beatriz explained to me that it was wrong to defend Charles Thomson.

The short of her message was that everything Deborah Ffrench said was not true and that she was a liar. It was her, not Charles, who wrote a couple of articles about Michael.  He had a blog, that conveniently dissapeared after this problem started, where he revealed some connections with Sony and spoke badly about Michael. Presently he is talking about Michael being a drug addict. The address of Bonnie Cox (the one who ‘exposed’ Charles Thomson) is

I know Beatriz as a true fan of Michael’s and that is why I am more than worried about her words. This is why I reposted the initial article in the home page again and suggest we have a serious look at the situation around Bonnie Cox and Charles Thomson.

1) Bonnie Cox claims that Newshound despicable blog and Charles Thomson’s blog are authored by the same person. However if you read both you’ll see that the language they use are absolutely different:

To a native speaker the difference may not look that evident but foreigners will definitely feel it – Newshound’s style is more ‘clipped’ and has a different grammar structure which makes it more difficult  to understand it –  while Charles Thomson’s texts are easy flowing, the eye doesn’t stumble there and nothing requires constant rereading (foreigners will understand).

By the way Charles speaks in the same easy manner as he writes (listen to his great interview about Michael’s character assassination we’ve never seen before, if you haven’t done it yet).

Please note that in part 5 of the interview he refers to some Michael’s detractors who consider him and Deborah Ffrench one and the same person (which they are not). Funny how it reminded me of Michael saying that “he and Janet were two different people”….

The look and color scheme of both blogs is practically identical. I wonder if it was done on purpose, so that every newcomer immediately thought that the author was one and the same person… If Charles Thomson was the author of the second blog and wanted to keep it a secret it was a terribly unwise thing to do to make it look the exact replica of his own blog – unless he WANTED to be exposed by vigilant Michael’s fans, of course.

The content of the blogs however is dramatically different – Newhound is gossipy and sounds like a tabloid to me while Charles is a no-nonsense author who never uses any tabloid tricks like referring to unnamed sources (“my sources tell me”) or discussing rumors (which is exactly what our Bonnie Cox is doing in her blog). If Thomson did have Newshound on his blogroll he could have used it for learning the latest gossip – in the same way in which I attend haters’ sites to get to know what new tricks they are up to.

2) All the havoc created around Charles Thomson centers on him saying that Michael Jackson was a drug addict. I have never heard Charles speaking about it and he himself says he mentioned it somewhere in his Twitter account which was exactly what suddenly triggered off all the avalanche.

It is top important to see WHAT EXACTLY he said in this connection. From the reserved way he generally speaks on ‘sensitive’ issues I can assume that his manner was no different in the question of Michael’s drugs either.

We all know that at a certain point of his life Michael did have a problem with drug addiction (he admitted it himself – see the Morphine song, his rehabilitation in London, complaints from LMP, deposition in Mexico). And though he did have such a problem, there is absolutely NO WAY we can blame him for it as the 15-year long crucifixion he was going through is incomparable to anything all of us have ever, EVER, EVER endured.

After a couple of years of such martyrdom few of us would have been able to survive at all,  while Michael managed to raise three wonderful children (in the midst of all the nightmare), keep writing fantastic music, give great performances and still remain a remarkable human being. What a wonder it is – though being gentle by nature he showed the endurance, fortitude and toughness no other person in the world would have ever been capable of….

But what makes his stoicism absolutely AWESOME is that despite the atmosphere of ridicule and harassment in which he lived on a permanent basis he did not go downhill as one would expect it, but managed to do the impossible – overcome his narcotics addiction as the autopsy report definitely showed it!

The report said that there were no traces of narcotics in his system and that he was clean as a baby except that propofol thing which he took for his awful sleeplessness – and those who are familiar with the problem know that you will take anything, just anything to get some sleep (even if you don’t have to give 50 shows starting tomorrow).

The fact that Michael DID beat his narcotics addiction means that he did something which is beyond human possibilities – especially given the circumstances in which he had to be living. This makes me admire him more than ever and absolutely marvel at the inner strength of this seemingly frail man, his toughness, endurance and never-changing purity…. And if you also remember that it were doctors who introduced him to drugs for relieving his pain after the hair burn, I hope this will close the subject of his ‘drug addiction’ once and for all – its nature was completely different from anything we know of and was far from any self-indulgence and inner corruption the addiction to narcotics is usually associated with.

Getting back to Charles Thomson I would say that the fact of him mentioning drugs in connection with MJ is a mere nothing – I have also mentioned it just now, so what?  It is actually what Charles said about this issue which is the only thing that matters here. And I will be truly grateful if someone gives me a link to the text where Charles Thomson speaks about drugs in Michael’s life to be able to form an opinion on this matter.

3) The last crime Charles Thomson is accused of by our Bonnie Cox is his friendship with Taraborrelli. I am not a particular fan of Taraborrelli though he does not seem as bad as Diane Dimond et al.

I don’t know whether Thomson and Taraborrelli are bosom friends or just acquaintances – however I do know that whatever degree their friendship is it is absolutely no reason for railroading Charles Thomson the way it is done by Bonnie Cox and her top emotional followers.

Below are some excerpts from her blog. Please note that she is using typically tabloid methods of argumentation  – no proof for the most outrageous lies, no mention of the sources, hints at some dark rumors circulating here and there, vague phrases like ‘it has been brought to my attention’, lies first dropped and then solidified by further logical conclusions made on their basis (as if these lies were considered already proven) and lots and lots of other things.

Actually it is quite a paradox that a ‘fan’ of Michael Jackson would use absolutely the same defamation technique as the one that was employed by the yellow press for trashing Michael Jackson. One would think that Michael’s fans should be above such methods…. However Bonnie Cox proves otherwise …. If she is a fan, of course… Well, whatever her motives are one thing is clear – she is definitely a product of tabloid journalism as she resorts to ABSOLUTELY the same methods and tricks which are used by tabloids in their defamation campaign against Michael Jackson.

See for yourself:

  • “…it has been brought to my attention that Charles Thompson and the Lowlynewshound are one and the same”
  • “Charles Thomson makes his living off of entertainers. I do not. If he did not want his involvement with “LowlyNewshound” exposed, all he had to do was write me and talk to me POLITELY. I don’t respond well to obscenity laden threats.
  • I do not condone, nor did I take part in any Twitter or FB attacks on Charles. I did have to block him from my FB page, email server, as well as several others he sent my way. I have not visited any groups that people have sent me in which he has bashed me. I have no interest in entertaining his temper tantrums.
  • The Lowlynewshound was started in March of 2008. The last post was September of 2009. It was a blog that had not been updated since then. I don’t know what Thomson’s motivations were with “Lowly”. I don’t know why he wrote the blog, and I don’t know why he could be so nasty to Michael Jackson in one blog and turn around and defend him in another. All I know is that he did.
  • When Thomson demanded that I prove it was him, he removed the blog and the twitter account. Then proceeded to carpet-bomb me with emails and facebook messages gloating over the fact that the proof was now gone”.
  • ”The Lowlynewshound has been taken down, both the blog and the associated Twitter account. Charles has since been on the attack on Twitter, I’ve had to block him from my Facebook page, report him to my ISP for spam because of the emails, and has spammed the Michael support sites with his vitriol. We won’t even talk about the language that was used…”
  • “I have not talked to, attacked or responded to Charles’s temper tantrums, cursing, threats or bullying”.

Who is the above written about? CHARLES THOMSON? Are you kidding? Charles Thomson busy spamming blogger Bonnie Cox with emails? And using bad language at that? Oh dear, he doesn’t NEED using bad language – with professional skills like his Charles can turn his pen into a razor sharp sword for exactly the same purpose (if he wants to, of course).

And what is this nonsene about him having to prove he is no ‘Lowlynewhound” all about? Demanding a thing like that is like me insisting that Aphrodite Jones proves to me anything I want of her (by the way, will Aphrodite be Bonnie Cox’s next victim, I wonder?)

Charles Thomson could have very well ignored the ridiculous demands of this Bonnie Cox woman – however in the circumstances he suddenly found himself in it was easier said than done. I can imagine what tantrum Bonnie Cox’s followers arranged for poor Charles if the comments following her post take some 50 pages – all of them written in the same furious style:

  • Since Mr. Thomson (or whatever his name is) might be reading this blog, this is my open message to him: Enough is enough. CT, go home. The whole world is against you. Writing ONE decent article about Michael (five years too late, by the way) isn’t enough to buy our respect when you shamelessly call him “a drug addict” and draw your sources from Sony and AEG.
  • It looks like upon criticism, you deactivated your FB account, your Twitter account AND your blog. Poor ‘Charlie’! Be ‘proud’ of your non-existent b****. My six-year-old sister is more courageous.
  • Thank you so much Bonnie for another great read! Your calm and mature responses set a good example, and one that I would hope people learn from. My frustration is NOT only with Charles Thomson, a two faced wanna be journalist who bashed Michael with a sercet blog until he got caught but also “FANS” who extend support to this two-faced journalist wannabe!!!! His 1 article on media bias is his cover! He writes on media bias then turn around to call Michael an ADDICT.
  • Pond scum Thomson and the rest of his bottom-feeding peers are ‘floating’ to the top as the bright Light of Truth exposes them. His need for 2 different opining blogs – is reflective of his duplicitous nature – the Judas and his 30 pieces of silver. He wants to ensure he always gets paid – so whatsoever it is – whether ‘fashionable’ to malign MJ – he’s the lowly newshound; and when the Light of Truth shines and reveals MJ’s purity – Thomson then quickly spins his “I knew it was the truth all along”
  • (Bonnie’s comment): CharlesThomson blog is not really MJ friendly either. He just had that one article in support of Michael against the press, which I liked. But anyone trivializing Michael’s musical and artistic talents, is he insane? Michael’s was performing for more years than Charles has been alive! And Charles is going to grade Michael Jackson? Where does Charles get the helium to inflate his ego! Michael could moonwalk his little booty into Neverneverland! Charles was getting his “Michael Jackson Expertise” from the fan websites and blogs of people who DID THE RESEARCH.
  • If everything Charles has done so far is true, and by looking at the evidence you’ve provided it sounds like it is, then that one article he wrote in favor of Michael has gone out the window. That one article no longer counts as something good because he probably didn’t write it and really mean it.
  • Mr Thomson, I might not have yours or Bonnie’s eloquence with words or but I am surgical with sniffing out phonies that lie. YOU, Sir are a lying phony…an amateur journalist-wannabe who bashed Michael via a secret blog admitting to have AEG & Sony sources. I was skeptic at first, then I fact-checked. I noticed you reported events BEFORE they happened. It’s plain to see you indeed were being feed by AEG & Sony “sources” that “leaked” info.
  • Your PATHETIC attempt to trivialize the expose is just that…PATHETIC, LAUGHABLE really, I am highly amused. I used to respect you, I even sent you an email thanking you after your article about media bias. I thought you were one of few journalists with integrity & objectivity. I am beginning to believe that concept is now out-of-fashion among journalists that simpleton fans took on the duty to report the facts, how sad! Turns out, your media bias aticle was your cover & meal ticket while your real feelings you ranted about from a secret blog. In your ruse, you gained undeserving praises of ignorant MJ fans who, like Michael, are terrible at recognizing wolves is sheep’s clothing.
  • Sir you are NOT a journalist, you PLAY journalist. YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN MARTIN BASHIR. You are so nervous that we might encounter new clues to your connection that you removed LowlyNewHound blog & twiiter, closed your SECOND blog to comments & limited your twitter to those you know won’t analyze your past tweets. Charles, WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF? WHY SUCH “DRASTIC COURSE OF ACTION”?
  • Don’t expect this topic to die down. We are just beginning, Charles. TO BE CONTINUED….

Did you have enough of it, dear reader? These people praise Bonnie for making ‘research’ and are ready to throw away ‘the only one’ article which was ‘probably not written’ by Charles Thomson at all while they don’t know the very BASIC thing about this journalist – he has written dozens of articles in support of Michael Jackson. My blog alone has several of them not to mention his great radio interview also posted there.

CHARLES THOMSON spent the enormous amount of time on doing really thorough research before writing his vindication articles about Michael Jackson.

CHARLES THOMSON was the first serious journalist who started telling the truth about Michael Jackson on a consistent basis, proving each and every point of his arguments in Michael’s defense by the irrefutable evidence of his innocence.

CHARLES THOMSON was the first to call upon the people of his trade to reconsider their attitude towards Jackson and raise the standard of reporting information about him.

CHARLES THOMSON has done more for Michael Jackson than any of the people who are so gleefully berating and harassing him now taken together.

CHARLES THOMSON is one of the first birds of a new type of journalist emerging at last – honest, responsible, thorough, unbiased and courageous.

Now, due to the efforts of our Bonnie Cox Charles Thomson is no longer writing about Michael Jackson – he is discredited, busy defending himself and no longer presents a danger to Michael’s haters as he has to keep silent about the man whom he has been defending so successfully for so many months…

Is this the only damage done? NO, FAR FROM IT.

Another British writer, Deborah Ffrench,  who has recently done a great research (see here please) into the 1993 case and the way the ‘molestation’ myth was created, has said a word in support of Charles Thomson. And we have suddenly learned from a true but brainwashed Michael’s fan that ‘she is also a liar’ and that ‘she was actually the one who wrote those Thomson’s articles’.

So let me see… if the two (or the three?) of them are one ….  this means…. this means that Deborah French, same as Charles Thomson, is also a traitor and backstabber and all the work she has done should be thrown away as a complete lie!

So now that both Charles Thomson and Deborah French are discredited, will that be all?  Big as it is, is it the only damage done? NO, FAR FROM IT.

Michael’s fans are divided – some are gleefully supporting our great Bonnie Cox, others are indignantly fighting her followers. One camp is turning on the other camp with poor Michael Jackson and his vindication (in the eyes of the general public) being completely forgotten or put aside until some better times (I also used to do vindication research – see what I am busy with now).

So Michael’s fanbase has been undermined and fans don’t know whom to believe any longer. Will that be all at last? NO, FAR FROM IT.

It is time to remember that the essence of Bonnie Cox’s blog is fighting Sony as the main villain in Michael’s harassment and his never-ending battle for retaining his dignity and good name. A villain it may be (especially that Tommy Mottola guy whom Michael Jackson called a devil and who no longer works for Sony as far as I understand) and there will SURELY be a time when the role of the Sony management in Michael’s fate will be investigated in minute detail. But is the time chosen for attacking Sony the right one NOW?

Not out of terrible love for Michael Jackson but for reasons of their own Sony is very much interested in promoting Michael’s music and his new records to get as much profit from him as it is possible. Paradoxically the more money they make the better royalties Michael Jackson’s estate gets too and the better is the chance they’ll repay Michael’s debt on time which is due this November (without the need to restructure it on evidently less profitable terms).

So undermining Sony NOW would be equivalent to committing suicide for Michael’s fans and cutting the branch on which Michael’s estate is sitting on – as the angrier the fans are with what Sony did to Michael the less they are likely to buy anything from Sony at all… Following this logic the next step would be boycotting Sony right at the time when Michael Jackson’s estate needs it most and I will be surprised if our great Bonnie does not call Michael’s fans to such a boycott soon (if she hasn’t done it yet).

Let us sum up the consequences of Bonnie Cox’s great escapade if it is successful:

1)       Charles Thomson, the first and only journalist who started writing the truth about Michael Jackson on a consistent basis is neutralized now. His blog is locked, his reputation almost ruined in the eyes of some Michael’s fans and he is stalled in his work as nobody will probably listen to him even if he provides the most brilliant arguments in favor of Michael’s innocence.

2)        Deborah Ffrench is discredited too as she was reckless enough to support Charles Thomson and ‘she is also the ghost-writer for Charles Thomson’s best articles’ which automatically makes her a liar and a rouge too.

3)        Michael’s fans are divided and are fighting each other over the above two points.

4)        Sony is being severely bashed and Michael’s fans are on the verge of boycotting it and its produce (which are Michael’s records).

5)       And all this is done because Charles Thomson mentioned Michael’s addiction, is friends with Taraborrelli and had one certain blog in his blogroll.

And also because Bonnie Cox didn’t like him….

As if there is nobody else but Charles Thomson there in the field full of thousands of Michael’s dedicated haters. As if there is no Diane Dimond, Tom Sneddon, Nancy Grace, Ray Chandler, Victor Gutierrez, Anderson and hundreds of others whose names I don’t know but who keep inventing dirty stories about Michael, ridicule him on a daily basis and scornfully refer to him as “Jacko” even after his death.

NO, out of all those candidates for practicing our blogger’s writing skills it is only Charles Thomson who is selected as the main culprit.

  • Is this Bonnie Cox woman mad or what? Could it be because of her continuous thinking about various conspiracies that something went wrong in her mind?
  • Or is she simply an emotional fan who can no longer remember herself and what she is doing?
  • Or is she a joker?
  • Or is she just stupid in her own inimitable way?
  • Or is she a special kind of a hater? You know, the type who is keen on covert provocation, who starts a fight and then suddenly disappears in the midst of all havoc?
  • Or is she a self-aggrandizing person who marvels at a chance of showing her power over great masses of people and turning them wherever she directs them to?

It is up to you to decide.

*   *   *


Since this post has received great comments let me include some of them (sorry for not being able to include all) as an update:

ABBY explains why Charles has such strong support from MJ fans such as herself:

  • Ya know Charles, at this point I really don’t care if you were the lowly Newshound. And if you were and felt the need to deny it for whatever reason, I would understand. It’s irrelevant to me, and here’s why. I read the blog when it was first speculated that it was you. I can’t say I found anything particularly offensive, nothing that jumped out at me, there was a lot of insider information that some might deem negative, but honestly I wouldn’t go so far as to call this person a hater. Perhaps this person wasn’t an MJ fan, but music critics and journalists of popular culture are not always fans of the people they cover.

But more importantly I respect that in 2008 you were one of the only journalists to interview Aphrodite Jones for her book “Michael Jackson Conspiracy” at a time when it was even more unpopular for journalists to even suggest that Michael was innocent. It was on your blog that I first found out about Aphrodite doing a documentary based on information from her book, it was on your blog that I confirmed what my own findings were about the Michaels FBI file. So many media outlets were twisting the facts and I could clearly see that from being able to read the file myself. It was refreshing to see that you would tackle analyzing the file as well. It was your interview with KFPA that gave me hope, that maybe other young journalists like yourself would follow suit and expose the media for their vicious and bias treatment of Michael during the trial. It was your blog that pointed out the blatant media bias after the Evan Chandler suicide and your blog that questioned the ethics of another journalist who called Michael a “common pedofile”. It was your blog, your interview for sawf, and I believe your first Huffington Post article where I saw Gene Simmons’ slanderous statements about Michael being refuted. It was your most recent piece to the Huffington Post about “The most Shameful Episode in Journalistic History” that warmed my heart on June 13th, to know that someone as brave as you existed in the world to call the media out on their blatant unprofessionalism and to actually name names. All of this information that still exists on your blog, can be easily corroborated. Fans such as myself have most likely combed through many of the same articles you have.

My point is, when it comes to Michael and the media treatment of him over the years particularly during the trial it is more than obvious that you are credible, unbiased, objective and courageous. Those of us who aren’t journalists can only imagine the risk one takes with their own careers by calling out the specific folks in the media they way you have. Honestly nothing you have done in the past year remotely resembles an MJ hater, I don’t know if you’re an “MJ Fan”, per se, nor do I care, that’s not what I come to your blog for quite frankly.
The idea that somehow you are looking to profit off of this venture of proving Michael’s innocense seems, well, misguided to put it mildly. If only it were profitable for someone to portray Michael as an innocent man amidst all the negativity towards him that still exists in the media.

So again, keep up the good work!”

And DIALDANCER adds a marvelous finishing touch:

  • It seems since the initial grieving has passed our natural personalities are asserting themselves. Temperament disparities and engorged egos are causing quite a bit of trouble.

Many of us were new to social networking until Michael’s death and   us finding our way to a Fan Site. These sites were in essence home, in that we were comfortable, talking of anything and everything. Once many turned to advocacy work we became aware there were those who lurked and spied upon us. The Media, Murray’s people, hate bloggers, law enforcement, perhaps the Estate, and for sure Sony.

In some cases we became more discrete with our plans and in others not. The one thing we forgot were the note takers and undercover haters. Those who pretend to love, respect and believe in Michael, but were there to listen in and report or subtly cause strife, cast doubts and hurt the more vulnerable, and shut us down. Some were there from the beginning and others arrived later. Once we started showing signs of organized and successful vindication activity the attacks started getting worse.

I do not have to like Charles’ friends. I do not expect Charles to be a Michael Jackson Fan, that’s my job. All I expect from him is objective and accurate reporting to the public, exposing who, how and why Michael Jackson’s name has become synonymous with child molestation. Hell for all we know he could be Diane Dimond’s second cousin. I will continue to support him, until I alone see reason not to.

  • Somewhere along the way we Fans seem to have left our common sense and common courtesy behind. Charles Thomson is not obligated to dedicate his life or talents to telling the truth about Michael. He is not supposed to be a Fan, Supporter or the official MJ Community Reporter. His public writings would not be as effective if he were. Other Medias would say his articles are biased. He’d lose credibility and his credibility in his writings is what we need. How long did it take Ms. Jones to get back in the door after she wrote Conspiracy? She is still portrayed by the Media as a Fan, not to be taken seriously.

Name one Journalist who has published more stories of a positive note on Michael in the past year? One whose information on MJ is verifiable and used by all of us?

We’ve become presumptuous. We publicly make arrangements, demand support for any number of things without addressing the person first. We assume they have no other plans, concerns or consider possible conflicts, then bash them if are unable or unwilling to fall in with our plans. Let Charles Thomson be what we need to inform the unaware. An objective Journalist.

109 Comments leave one →
  1. July 30, 2010 1:28 am

    Helena, I repeat some of what I told you in the forum.
    One is that this issue is not dividing the fans. You are making it bigger than the situation really is.
    Bonnie wrote just 2 blogs about Charles, the first one accusing him and the second apologizing but insisting about the Newshound being the same Charles, because the same day that this happened the blog dissapeared.
    Is this casual?

    Some of my own collection: when he wrote his last article Solonoy wrote to him thanking him and also asking to do something together and his response was very short and cold, like he doesn’t care.

    He is not a hero, common, he is just a good journalist, one of the few who wrote something good about Michael.


  2. July 30, 2010 1:30 am

    Asking to do somethng together meaned to do some kind of campaign, he was not interested.


  3. July 30, 2010 2:17 am

    Charles Thomson’s articles are not written for Michael Jackson’s fans they are targeted at the non fans. There is really nothing he has written that we do not know already, but he has done an excellent campaign of reaching the undecided, uninformed and disintested. These people do not go to fansites, but they will traffic sites like Huffington Post and happen upon something positive, well researched, and well written about MJ. These people normally just hear Diane Dimond and Maureen Orth. If Charles Thomson was not a fan, but he is now I don’t care.


  4. Abby permalink
    July 30, 2010 2:49 am

    I totally agree Teva. I also think there are alot of MJ fans that are more casual and don’t really know the truth about the how bias coverage was of the 2005 trial was. I’ve heard so many people say things like “well, I don’t know if MJ was guilty or not but he was a great entertainer” or “I don’t know much about MJ personally but I love his music” etc. In my opinion they say this because they don’t know what the facts are of either case (93 or 2005) and I think they are afraid to search for the truth because their afraid the haters might be right. I think it is this group in addition to the general public that is really the best audience for someone like Charles Thomson with the articles he was written about Michael.

    I’ve seen Charles admit on twitter before he locked it down that when it came to Michael Jackson his expertise when it came to Michael Jackson was allegations and media bias. I don’t think he’s ever said or acted like he was a hard core fan. I think that is an important thing for fans such as us to keep in mind.


  5. lynande51 permalink
    July 30, 2010 3:08 am

    In defence of Charles Thomson his were some of the only articles I would read to find fact about Michael. I first found Charles when he wrote a rebuttal piece on his blog about the inaccuracies of an article written in The Guardian UK by Tanya Gold who was writing her version of a critiques of the film This Is It. He clearly defended Michael and he wrote how he tried in vain to contact tha Guardian but was refused when he tried to have his rebuttal printed. It is my hope that in the near future some of Michaels fans that are determined to find fault with true defenders of Michael will stop. It is not in anyones best interest to say that Sony was responsible or that there was a body double. That does no one any good and is more on the line of them any tabloid stories we try every day to fight. I have never read anything Bonnie Cox has written and I never intend to. I hope Charles will continue in his work for he is truely honest and I will miss him.


  6. Dialdancer permalink
    July 30, 2010 10:12 am

    Somewhere along the way we Fans seem to have left our common sense and common courtesy behind. Charles Thomson is not obligated to dedicate his life or talents to telling the truth about Michael. He is not suppose to be a Fan, Supporter or the official MJ Community Reporter. His public writings would not be as effective if he were. Other Medias would say his articles are biased. He’d lose credibility and his credibility in his writings is what we need. How long did it take Ms. Jones to get back in the door after she wrote Conspiracy? She is still portrayed by the Media as a Fan, not to be taken seriously.

    Name one Journalist who has published more stories of a positive note on Michael in the past year? One whose information on MJ is verifiable and used by all of us?

    @Abby, you are right there are some who do not/will not read factual material. There’s a preference for quoting and passing on TMZ, Contact Music, urban legends and Fan site gossip. For them Michael is the Icon, not an innocent man who bled and wept.

    I had noticed some Fans seem to have a need to idolize someone. They will attach themselves to some supposed “insider” or super Fan who is now speaking for Michael, knew everything he thought, what his next thought was going to be.

    We’ve become presumptuous. We publicly make arrangements, demand support for any number of things without addressing the person first. We assume they have no other plans, concerns or consider possible conflicts, then bash them if are unable or unwilling to fall in with our plans. Let Charles Thomson be what we need to inform the unaware. An objective Journalist.


  7. July 30, 2010 3:22 pm

    I am glad you are speaking out on this. I’ve been very hurt and confused since a lot of this started circulating, and did not want to comment until I had more information. This is exactly why I try to avoid the trap of falling into this “camp” or that “camp” when it comes to Michael. There is too much diviseviness in the fanbase already. And it’s why we can’t present a united front and a united effort when it’s needed the most. For example, I know how Michael felt about Sony and some of the things Sony has done. But my approach is that I always tell people they have to make up their own minds what feels right to them. It would be very hypocritical for me to say “boycott Sony” when I know I would be the first in line to buy a new CD of Michael’s music. That doesn’t mean we have to turn a completely blind eye to what Sony has done, or that we can’t be critical. But in the long run, the money that goes into Michael’s music and merchandise is money that directly benefits his estate-and the future of his children. I guess in some ways that is the unpleasant Catch-22 of it, but it is what it is.

    As for Charles, I will continue to support the good work that he is doing NOW. Regradless of whether he was or was not the author of the Lowlynewshound, he has been instrumental in getting the facts and the truth about the allegations out there. I think Charles is a fan but not a “fanatic” and he shouldn’t be. His job as a journalist is to report the truth as he sees it. That may occasionally be some things some fans don’t want to hear, but what it all comes down to is being BALANCED, FAIR and SUPPORTIVE, and Charles-TO MY KNOWLEDGE- has been all of that. Can we say the same of Diane Dimond? Maureen Orth? Martin Bashir? Or about a million others I could name? No.

    Sometimes I think that in the name of having this “take no prisoners” approach to defending Michael, some of us forget that our war is a huge one, and sometimes we have to pick our battles. Even if a journalist did not always write fairly of Michael in the past, but is choosing to do so now, it doesn’t always mean that they are simply “jumping on the bandwagon.” Sometimes it is simply called HAVING A CHANGE OF HEART. Sometimes people may reassess things as they learn more facts and have more time for reflection. If we are honest with ourselves, a lot of us have probably said things about Michael in the past that we regret now, after having learned so much more about him. I have occasionally commented on Charles’s blog over some things I did not agree with him on (that Michael appeared drugged in some scenes of This Is It and was slurring his words, etc) but just because I may choose not to agree with him on every issue does not in any way nullify the wonderful work he has done in vindicating Michael in the press when it comes to the allegations, nor should it.

    I hope he will continue doing his good work and that we can all get past this bump in the road and back to focusing on what matters, and that is exonerating Michael in the court of public opinion.


  8. July 30, 2010 5:10 pm

    Guys, your comments are so great that I am simply afraid to interfere and break the magic spell. However I need to share with you just one thought before I leave for a few days again.

    Now I realize that the life of a Michael’s fan is awfully stressful and is far from being an easy ride. With so many pitfalls, traps and blocks in our way it seems that the best course of action would be to simply act in Michael’s best interests and do him no harm.

    This might help to solve such ‘Catch 22’ situations like the one with Sony now. Let them help the estate to pay out Michael’s debt first, and then – when Michael’s children are well taken care of and their financial situation is stable – there will come a time for a serious talk with Sony.

    It doesn’t prevent Michael’s fans from simultaneously doing their research in respect of Sony or other major players who affected Michael’s life as later some valuable information may simply not be available, but boycotting them now?

    I was awfully upset to hear that there is still a debt of $300 mln. to be paid this November and will be truly happy if Sony helps. If they release some new records we could buy one for ourselves and a dozen (if we can afford it) as presents for our friends. Well, at least my friends know that they will get nothing else but just another collection of Michael’s songs (I keep a record of what was presented to whom not to repeat myself). At first they laughed at this predictability but later came to accept it and even looked forward to the “This is it” present.

    What I mean is that placing Michael’s interests first makes our life much easier and goals clearer – instead of senseless boycotting someone now we could help Michael and his children by buying whatever Sony has to offer us at the moment. But when the right time comes it will be their turn to answer – so correct timing is everything in our case. At the moment we can have our hands full with many other things – like the Chandlers, Bashir, Dirty D., Gutierrez and the like.

    I hope to be back with some more information on the Chandlers next week.
    Love to you all.

    P.S. I think that Michael’s supporters should also try and be worthy of his name. This will probably help to overcome all the differences.

    P.P.S I’ve updated this post by adding some of your great comments and will also add David’s video to “The testimonies” post (with a guy molested in childhood speaking to Oprah. I did see it several days ago and the scene of him crying is still haunting me).


  9. David permalink
    July 30, 2010 8:12 pm

    Hey everybody, I don’t know if you guys have read through the daily court summaries posted on MJ-Upbeat (the link is posted under the blogroll), but I found some powerful testimony that completely corroborates MJ’s theory about Sony conspiring to get the catalogue from him, and his inability to trust his “advisors”.

    Here is the summary from March 3rd, 2005, from Anne Kite, who was hired for 6 days to do PR work for MJ:

    In a surprising twist, Ms. Kite mentioned that she had friends in high places at Sony that confirmed that someone in the Jackson camp was deliberately trying to set Michael Jackson up to steal his highly-coveted Sony Music Catalog. Ms. Kite explained that she learned that Ronald Konitzer, an adviser also named as an unindicted co-conspirator, might be working behind the scenes to allow Sony to take over his ownership of a music catalog that includes the works of the Beatles. The catalog is valued at hundreds of millions of dollars.

    “You said that Mr. Konitzer was hired to isolate Michael Jackson and let him create his downfall so that Sony could get the catalog back, isn’t that correct?” asked Mr. Mesereau.

    “Not in those words,” said the witness, but she added she was aware of the importance of the catalog and that she was informed “that Sony was waiting for the opportunity to get the Sony catalog back.”

    Ms. Kite also said Mr. Jackson’s advisers often seemed to work against each other and did not have his best interests at heart. She said she had difficulty talking with them about a strategy to improve his public image.

    “I couldn’t discuss anything with anyone because they all had different agendas,” Ms. Kite explained. When Mr. Mesereau asked if she told police that she thought Mr. Jackson was being “slammed by the team,” Ms. Kite said “yes.”

    During her testimony Ms. Kite repeatedly mentioned members of the Jackson team of whom she was suspicious. She acknowledged that she told sheriff’s investigators during a nine-hour interview that she felt the people around Mr. Jackson were not acting in his best interest, including Schaffel, Konitzer and Al Malnik, a Jackson financial adviser.

    After her termination, a former lawyer for Mr. Jackson, Mark Geragos, asked Ms. Kite to sign a confidentiality agreement but she refused, saying. “I believed it would negatively impact me. I believe it was designed to shut me up,” she said.

    In his cross-examination of Ms. Kite, Defense lawyer Thomas Mesereau made very clear to the court that Mr. Jackson was a victim of the people in his inner circle who were trying to damage his reputation.

    Additionally, Ms. Kite said she had gotten her information about Mr. Jackson’s associates from David LeGrand and from the Internet. With the judge’s permission to bring up information on their background, the prosecutor asked Ms. Kite tell about her Internet research.

    She noted that she had learned that Malnik was a “reputed mobster” and brought “negative publicity.” She also said she learned that Schaffel was a producer of gay pornography and thought his public association with Mr. Jackson would create more negative fallout. Under questioning by Mr. Mesereau, Ms. Kite said she had no information that Mr. Jackson was involved in gay pornography.

    Ms. Kite was portrayed by the defense as someone who was in the Mr. Jackson camp a very short time but seemed to have learned a great deal.

    “The ones you are most suspicious of are Schaffel and Konitzer?” Mr. Mesereau asked her.

    “The ones I was most suspicious of were those who were taking their eyes off the devastation that was happening to Michael Mr. Jackson,” she said.

    In cross-examination, Mr. Mesereau stressed that Ms. Kite never met the singer or most of his associates and dealt with them only by telephone. “In the six days that you represented Mr. Mr. Jackson did you feel you became an expert on Mr. Mr. Jackson’s life?” the attorney asked acerbically.

    “Oh no, sir,” she said.

    Asked about her expertise in representing celebrities, she said the only one she had ever represented was Marshall Sylver, a Las Vegas hypnotist who appeared in informercials.

    Prosecutors called Ms. Kite to support allegation that Mr. Jackson and associates held the family against their will at Neverland and other locations throughout February 2003 to force them to help in a public relations campaign to rehabilitate his image. Ironically, her testimony seemed to have more impact in giving the jurors insight into the plans that Mr. Jackson’s own team were plotting against him and the activities that were being conducted without his knowledge or instruction.

    Further usurping the testimony about Jackson’s accuser and his family being held against their will, Mesereau elicited from Ms. Kite that she never met the family, did not know anything about their relationship to Mr. Jackson and was alerted to their involvement third-hand.

    Defense attorneys reiterated the fact that the family was free to leave at any time.


  10. lynande51 permalink
    July 30, 2010 8:39 pm

    You have all said it so eloquently. I agree that when the news was first announced regarding the estate and Sony I felt it was a double edged sword. Here was a chance to here new never released Michael Jackson music but it was a deal with Sony. The first things I considered were Katherine, Prince, Paris and Blanket. It is my belief that Michael would have done whatever he needed to do to secure his family’s future because that was what meant the most to him. It was evident in his attempt to return to the stage to do the shows and earn some money for solvency to start on his new endevor in film. So the decision was easy and I was excited and I still am as the release date comes nearer to buy the new unreleased music.Selfishly I thought, I get to have what I believed last June 25th what was never going to be possible. I see it as just another deal Michael would have made if he had to make this decision himself.
    As for who wrote what in a blog I’m leaving that alone.
    What I am starting to notice is the number of new readers there are here on this page and others. It means that people are reading and I couldn’t agree more that the people that we want to read them are the undecided, the ones that weren’t paying attention 5 years ago and the ones that weren’t paying attention 17 years ago. They have been fed a constant and ongoing free flow of the sewage of DD, Maureen Orth, Martin Bashir and others. It is not over with these people they are still at it. So we do need continue our reasearch and I hope that Charles thomson will continue writing hi snon biased , fact based reporting on Michael Jackson.


  11. lynande51 permalink
    July 30, 2010 9:09 pm

    Hi David, That is very interesting testimony about Ron and Marc Shaffel. Deiter Weizner was also found to be have embezzled ove 900,000 dollars from Michael by David LeGrand. What is even more amazing is that he tried to have Michael sign a financial POA for him to be in charge of Michaels money. Yeah those guys were crooked, but what was funny is that I think they somhow managaed to intimidate Frank Cascio and Vinnie Ahmen too. They were named as unindicted co-conspirators as well and could not even testify on Michaels behalf at the trial. They had to hire their own attorney because theywould not be granted immunity from prosecution and yet Tom Sneddon gave immunity on the welfare fraud to Janet Arvizo. Now what is amazing is that they first hand knowledge that Michael had not slept in the bed with Gavin because they were on the floor with Michae. Did you ever read the article that Roger Freidman wrote in the Hollywood reporter about what was never found in the FBI files? I know the you have been watching the You Tube What Did Happen To Michael Jackson. Roger was a reporter for FOX at the time and he was the one talking to Drudge and writing good artcles that contained fact during the trial. I first read Rogers article when the FBI files were released so when I saw all of his articles in that You Tube series and heard him talk to Drudge I kind of that I bet it was Frank and Vinnie giving him information during the trial taht made him come to the conclusion that it was a setup.


  12. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    July 31, 2010 10:46 pm

    Hi Helena,

    I wanted firstly to thank you for publishing the link to Part I of Michael Jackson: The Making of a Myth on your site. It’s great that you have helped to get it out to people, and also to be included amongst the serious research you have compiled and collated here.

    I would also like to add that, while it may be true for Ms Cox that she is “just beginning,” (quite what that means remains unclear,) – I myself, by the end of this message, intend to draw a line under this issue..

    Apart from saying that what now follows should be obvious to anyone who has taken the time to read even some of Thomson’s outstanding work, I would like to once again state that:

    1: Charles Thomson is categorically not a ‘Sony’ agent!

    2: The photograph of Taraborelli and Thomson together is simply that. A photograph, of two people who share an interest in the same subject.

    Taraborrelli, recently updated his book ‘Michael Jackson: The Magic and the Madness’ with a new section on the FBI files and this – from what I understand, is why Taraborrelli contacted Thomson. It was simply a case of Taraborrelli asking for permission to include some of Thomson’s work.

    3: Charles Thomson’s blogspot site and website are in no way related to The Lowly Newshound, whatever Ms Cox’s musings on syntax.

    4: I write my own work, and mine alone.

    Personally, I find it odd that so much gossip and ‘fact-building’ has been read into a photograph. Charles Thomson, is not only a journalist who has taken the time and effort to meticulously research the facts behind the media’s biased coverage on Michael Jackson, the FBI files and Evan Chandler; but he also pretty much single-handedly managed to ‘kill’ the false Gene Simmons accusations a few months back, by quoting on record the rebutting statements of an unimpeachable eye-witness on all of Michael’s tours – namely, lead guitarist, Jennifer Batten.

    Of course, Bonnie Cox, or anyone else out there , is entitled to their own opinions about Taraborrelli, Thomson, The Lowly Newshound or – even me, but if I may speak bluntly; she is not entitled to spread damaging and hurtful fiction about people she doesn’t know – or encourage others to do so.

    There is still so much ‘restoration’ work to be done – by all of us, regarding getting factual, truthful information about Michael Jackson understood and acknowledged in the public arena, and it’s concerning that ‘fans’ and supporters of this effort may possibly believe something that isn’t true on the basis of what amounts to baseless, inaccurate nonsense.

    All of us who have done any research into how an entire country was encouraged to believe in the ‘guilt’ of Michael Jackson, have seen how easily this kind of ‘misinforming’ can be done. An inference here, a subtraction of logic there, a leap of speculation everywhere, and voila! – you’ve got a rumour with legs.

    Perhaps now is as good a time as any, to all ask ourseleves this: in the wake of Ms Cox’s accusations, was anything truly positive for Michael achieved? This unfriendly fire, has pointed unfounded suspicion at Charles Thomson’s door, and left a nasty aftertaste in the mouths of many. Ms Cox, may well be a ‘fan,’ but the truth is , regarding Charles Thomson – she is simply mistaken.

    On a different note: I found out today that MJFC is currently posting information stating that a law seminar covering the legal ramifications of 1993 and 2005, that includes ( some) of the attorneys involved – notably Thomas Mesereau, but not Tom Sneddon – will be taking place in Los Angeles on September15 – between 5:30 and 9: 30 pm. I don’t know for certain if this seminar will actually happen, but perhaps you, Helena, or some of the others who visit this site, could find out more?

    There is most likely a long road ahead, before any of us sees the kind of change in the media’s narrative on Michael Jackson we would all like to see. We all have a part to play in ensuring this change happens, but it needs our focused contribution. Which is why I hope people will see Ms Cox’s accusations about Thomson for what they truly are.

    A distraction, from what’s truly important.


  13. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    July 31, 2010 10:48 pm

    Hi Helena,

    Not quite sure why the spacing in my message is not working out! Anything you can do to rectify that would be appreciated.



  14. Beatriz permalink
    August 1, 2010 3:54 am

    Perfect sentence:

    To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing ~
    Elbert Hubbard


  15. Dialdancer permalink
    August 1, 2010 4:02 am

    In answer to Deborah’s query:

    FROZEN IN TIME: A Riveting Behind-the-Scenes View of the Michael Jackson Cases


    Presented by: Senior Lawyers Division

    Co-Sponsored by: Criminal Justice Section

    Program Information:
    A fascinating historical and legal analysis of the Michael Jackson civil and criminal cases will be provided by the participants.

    Source and entire article found on: MJJCOMMUNITY


  16. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    August 1, 2010 4:54 am

    Thank you Dialdancer for the information,.


  17. Dialdancer permalink
    August 1, 2010 5:09 am

    Let me recommend to those who are unfamiliar with the MJJCOMMUNITY to join.

    Thus far I have been introduced to their:
    (1) MJJC Legacy Project – Media Advocacy E-Mail Alert System – Excellent Program

    (2) In their Michael Jackson News And Happenings,,,, there is this announcement:
    “TV special called Michael Jackson – FBI Documents that will be on Inside Edition tonight (Wed) at 7pm. Aug 4, 2010

    I think it is a good idea to check out other sites to see what else is happening in our Community. See what can be shared. Keep one another informed. Find like minds.


  18. Tim Kellet permalink
    August 1, 2010 9:01 am


    I have been reading Charles Thomson’s work for a while, and find that it is based on fact. I have also read some of Bonnie Cox’s blog, and found it to be mostly emotional rants and hearsay.

    Charles Thomson is totally within his rights to defend his names, and so is Deborah Ffrench. If, as you say Beatrizkajt, we should all “do nothing,” then why is anyone fighting and working so hard for vindication and justice for Michael? Shall we just let the slanderers and persecutors have their way?

    Michael fought to defend himself, Mesereau fought defending him, and I fight for Michael daily. “Doing nothing ” is what the German people did in 1939 against the Nazi’s, what millions of Americans did in 2005 when Michael was railroaded.

    No-one said Charles Thomson was a hero, but he is no liar either.


  19. Louise permalink
    August 1, 2010 10:01 am

    Hi Helena,

    Would you check your messages please? Thanks.


  20. Louise permalink
    August 1, 2010 1:20 pm

    I saw this. Here is the link

    FROZEN IN TIME: A Riveting Behind-the-Scenes View of the Michael Jackson Cases


    Presented by: Senior Lawyers Division

    Co-Sponsored by: Criminal Justice Section

    Program Information:
    A fascinating historical and legal analysis of the Michael Jackson civil and criminal cases will be provided by the participants.

    The judge, Honorable Rodney Melville (Retired); the prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Ronald Zonen; defense attorney Thomas A. Mesereau, Jr. who represented Jackson in the Santa Barbara criminal trial; attorney Larry Feldman who represented the alleged victim in the civil case; attorney Carl E. Douglas who represented Jackson in the criminal investigation of the civil case; and moderator Seth Hufstedler will offer insights into these highly publicized and very unique examples of California celebrity cases.

    Carl E. Douglas, The Douglas Law Group
    Larry R. Feldman, Kaye Scholer LLP
    Seth M. Hufstedler, Morrison & Foerster LLP
    Hon. Rodney Melville (Retired)
    Thomas A. Mesereau Jr., Mesereau & Yu LLP
    Ronald J. Zonen, Santa Barbara Deputy District Attorney

    Los Angeles County Bar Association
    1055 West 7th Street, 27th Floor
    Los Angeles, CA 90017

    Room: La Fig: La Brea/La Cienega/Figueroa Conference Room

    1055 W. 7th Street: $5 with validation (entering after 5:00 p.m.);
    $10 with valication (entering before 5:00 p.m.)


  21. ares permalink
    August 1, 2010 4:32 pm

    Why open the 93 and 05 case again and only two months before the MJ’s new cd hit the stores?? I am sure that the oposite side will say a lot of lies and the media will pick them (as always) in order to damage MJ’s image once again.This thing is an never ending story…


  22. lynande51 permalink
    August 1, 2010 4:51 pm

    @ares Which CD are you talking about?


  23. Abby permalink
    August 1, 2010 9:16 pm

    Ares, it is interesting timing to say the least. I do fear as you do on how the media will choose to cover this.


  24. MUZIKfactory2 permalink
    August 1, 2010 9:30 pm



  25. Abby permalink
    August 1, 2010 9:49 pm


    You say this at the end of your blog entry

    “Journalists cite freedom of speech for their intrusion. Let’s see if Thomson will respect my freedom of speech and handle a second of what Michael endured with half of the grace he displayed. ”

    Is that what you call what the media did to Michael Jackson? FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Well, you have a right to your opinon. I guess what you’re asking Charles is if he will edure what Michael endured, rumors and innuendo being spread without solid proof. I can’t speak for Charles but I would definately say you are atleast honest in that you are doing the same thing to Charles as the media did to Michael Jackson. Yes, calling a spade a spade is right, as you so eloquently put it.


  26. Sumi permalink
    August 2, 2010 9:06 am

    Helena, thank you very much for this important and inlightening article. It’s hard to believe that so-called fans like this Bonnie could cause so much confusion among MJ fans and tried to discredit accurately working journalists like Charles Thomson. Her actions might even give tabloids stories to write about divided MJ fans. It’s a shame!
    Thank you also, Deborah Ffrench, for your entry here. You are absolutely right: It’s a destraction from what’s truly important.
    I really hope this won’t get you and Charles Thomson to stop from doing all this research work on behalf of Michael.


  27. Louise permalink
    August 2, 2010 8:29 pm

    Guys, this meeting in LA on September 15 is important. But there will be NO videotaping nor webinar of the event. We need to send email to the person in charge and request that the event be preserved on a DVD and/or broadcast as a webinar. Her name is Gail Coleman and her email is


  28. Kelly permalink
    August 2, 2010 8:45 pm

    Good idea.


  29. August 3, 2010 4:23 pm

    Guys, I’m back and see that there are a lot of comments – thank you so much. I am only starting to read them, please give me some time to see what’s what. I’ll try to answer some in the process of reading.


  30. Kelly permalink
    August 3, 2010 6:22 pm


    Do you have the link to the Roger Friedman article about Weizner and Le Grand?



  31. August 3, 2010 7:06 pm

    Deborah, thanks a lot for your message and more details about the situation with Charles Thomson. It’s good you explained that he wasn’t a Sony agent and that he met with Taraborrelli to discuss those FBI files, and that you and Charles are really different people – but look here… it is actually funny we have to explain things like that!

    They have caught us again into their trap and have forced us again to defend ourselves. They want us to be on the defensive in the same way they forced Michael Jackson into constant explaining himself and putting us in the same situation is exactly their purpose.

    I know that it may sound strange to you (given my article about Charles Thomson) but I categorically against being on the defensive.

    The best way to deal with situations like that is to look into what they say, laugh at it and move on to do really important work. You are absolutely right – they are distracting us from what’s truly important. They want us to be entangled in doubt and suspicions. They want us to grow disappointed in people whom we have come to trust and appreciate. They want us not to know whom to believe. They want us to be lost and never be found.

    To be able to resist this danger we need to see through their lies immediately – and it is actually very easy to do so if we remember the universal rule given to us 2 thousand years ago: “You will tell the tree by its fruit”.

    What do we have here? A thousand journalists who trash Michael Jackson in their papers and TV shows and only ONE journalist who is defending the truth about Michael Jackson on a consistent basis and who writes article after article answering every new twist of hatred about MJ. And out of all those journalists it is exactly Charles Thomson who is accidentally chosen for a harassment campaign and over such ‘important’ issue as a photo with Taraborrelli? Come on, guys – please don’t allow yourselves to be led astray so easily!

    With so much restoration work on our hands every person doing this job for Michael Jackson is priceless and we simply cannot afford these few precious people being alienated from us and for no reason at all.

    I don’t know how you reacted to the ridiculous accusations Charles Thomson is facing now but I (remembering that ancient rule about the fruit of the tree) immediately pricked up my ears when I heard about it …

    Why he of all the people? Why now? Hey, and what else do these people say? At what forums? Aha, if they don’t like Charles Thomson whom do they suggest instead? And what course of action do they favor? Oh, I see – boycotting Sony for us not to buy Michael’s records? And the estate not being able to pay his debt and Michael losing the catalogue? Interesting… Are they doing it on purpose or out of delusion I wonder?

    The person who is responsible for the harassment campaign against Charles Thomson may not necessarily be a hater (it may be someone who is simply incapable to cope with her emotions, or too carried away by her investigation zeal, or someone a little too mindless of the consequences), but the end result of what she is doing is TREMENDOUS HARM to Michael Jackson as these are only some of the consequences we have now:

    – we are busy discussing this ridiculous situation (instead of doing really important work),
    – Charles is no longer writing about Michael (as he is busy defending himself)
    – and the same Charles Thomson is now wary of Michael’s fans (what if they start spamming and vilifying him again if he touches his pen again?).


    Beatriz, thanks for mentioning that Charles Thomson refused to take part in the campaigns arranged by Michael Jackson’s fans. His decision was absolutely correct. It is only now that I realize how important it is for a journalist not to be associated with any fan groups – he risks losing his credibility with the general public and the people of his trade.

    I hope Charles Thomson doesn’t pay any more attention to all the nonsense he had to face lately and will keep up doing his great work for Michael Jackson. Actually he has seen the devilish traps Michael’s fans constantly get into and will probably know what to write about next.


  32. Louise permalink
    August 3, 2010 7:58 pm

    HERE IS Mrs. COLEMAN’s email. There is a mistake in the first one I gave. I am sorry


  33. August 3, 2010 9:08 pm

    Raven: “Even if a journalist did not always write fairly of Michael in the past, but is choosing to do so now, it doesn’t always mean that they are simply “jumping on the bandwagon.” Sometimes it is simply called HAVING A CHANGE OF HEART. Sometimes people may reassess things as they learn more facts and have more time for reflection.”

    Raven, I fully agree with every word you said and I singled out this piece just to stress it – we are actually working for the people to reconsider their attitude towards Michael Jackson, so instead of accusing them of “jumping on the bandwagon” we should be happy they are having a change of heart. Each new person who finally recognizes the truth about Michael Jackson is reducing the number of his doubters and is joining the mighty chorus of his friends. “He who is not against us is for us”!


  34. August 3, 2010 9:22 pm

    David: “Here is the summary from March 3rd, 2005, from Anne Kite, who was hired for 6 days to do PR work for MJ”

    David, this information about the people who worked against Michael though they were part of his team is simply staggering – it is a really precious find. Now I see why Anne Kite was fired within several days from being employed. Could you give a link directly to her testimony, please? We should do some more research on this matter and make a good, solid and damning post about some of Michael’s ‘aides’, okay?


  35. lynande51 permalink
    August 4, 2010 12:30 am

    I thought of that very thing. It was her testimony that lead me to David LeGrand and what he found out about Dieter Wiesner. I have all of the testimonies I will have to look them up by date. Also did you know that Rijo and Simone Jackson, Michael cousins, were both called to testify against the Arvizos? Rijos testimony involved catching the Arvizo boys in the guest house watching porn on a computer and masturbating to it and inviting him to join them. Rijo was 10 at the time and Gavin was 13 one more year in difference of age and the story would have been about the Arvizo boys molesting Rijo. I think we should do a piece on the Neverland Five and Bob Jones. I found his obituary online and in it says that he was the one that though of all the stories to put out in the tabloids about Bubbles, the Elephant Mans Bones, and the Hyperbaric chamber and he dubbed him the King of Pop Rock and Soul but Michael changed it to just the King of pop. In his testimony he had to admit that he seldom had personal contact with Michael. When he was let go he and Stacy Brown wrote a tell all book about Michael. He was the one with the head licking story.
    Part of his testimony.
    Q. During your years of working with Michael
    8 Jackson, did you have occasion to spend time with
    9 him personally?
    10 A. Seldom.
    11 Q. Who was it that hired you?
    12 A. Michael Jackson.
    13 Q. Personally?
    14 A. Yes.
    15 Q. And did you ever travel with him?
    16 A. Yes.
    17 Q. On how many occasions?
    18 A. I think on three tours, and perhaps on
    19 special occasions for events that I had arranged,
    20 such as the World Music Awards.
    Yes this was the one where he couldn’t remember if he saw Michael lick Jordan’s head or not. Here is a link to him plugging his book after the acquittal.


  36. David permalink
    August 4, 2010 1:06 am


    1. The link to the trial coverage is listed under your blogroll. It’s the website ( It’s Day 3, located near the bottom of the page. I am going to start going through them and seeing what additional info I can come up with.

    2. I also resent the email about the phantom victim from Germany, and I highlighted the major discrepancies between Ray Chandler’s story, and Diane Dimond’s story.

    3. Here is another website with some analysis of the 2005 trial. It’s just a brief overview, but it’s good to have for your records. The table of contents is listed on the side for easy navigation. On the external links page, there have Mesereau’s opening statement, and it is stupendous!

    4. This is a youtube series about MJ’s last days. It was released a few weeks after his death. It’s pretty good, and Mesereau is in it, so that adds to it’s credibility. However, the person who made it also did a documentary a few years ago on the 1993 case, and Diane Dimond, Victor Guiterrez, and Bob Jones were in it. Only one part of it is on youtube.

    Last days of MJ

    1993 case

    5. Here is some more useful info that I found on the 1993 case. This is from a MJ forum, and was written in 2005. It talks about the conspiracy to frame MJ for molestation by “planting” some kid at Neverland who would falsely accuse him. Here are some observations:

    a.) Diane Dimond told Blanca Francia to sue MJ after he settled with Evan Chandler. She reports about Jason Francia on Hard Copy in Dec. 1994, and the negative publicity forces MJ to quietly settle instead of deal with another media circus.

    b.) Dimond and Guiterrez target MJ’s nephew by claiming they have a tape of MJ molesting him. This was no accident: they exploited the kid because of Jermaine and Margaret Maldonado’s divorce. Margaret wrote a tell all book, and vehemently denied that MJ did it. Sneddon had his detectives interview the kid as well.

    c.) This should come as no surprise at all: Dimond teamed up with Rodney Allen to use the Canadian kid to frame MJ, but when the kid admitted to police that he was lying, Dimond spun it to make herself look like she was concerned for MJ.

    d.) The 288a law was the brainchild of Sneddon and Gil Garcetti, and it allowed them to convict a child molester WITHOUT EVIDENCE, just merely with an accusatioin. This was ratified after the 1993 scandal, along with the 1108 Prior Bad Acts law, and the prohibiting of civil lawsuits going to court before criminal trials. These 3 laws were set up to trap MJ!!

    We’ve got a lot more work to do!!!


  37. August 4, 2010 1:44 am

    Hello Helena,

    I came across your site a few days ago. The research done by you and everyone that posts here is invaluable. I really appreciate the time and your efforts of researching the facts and the truth behind both 93 and 2005 and all the years in between. This information is exactly what is needed for anyone to ever truly understand what happened to Michael.


    Helena I also noticed you mentioned in a few posts about how some of the information is disappearing from the internet and how you’ve been archiving it here. If I may, I would also like to suggest that you can do back ups of your blog as well. This will create a file that backs up all your posts, pages and comments. You may already be doing this, but if you don’t know how. You can drop me an email and I’ll provide some information on how to further archive your website.

    @ David I agree Anne Kite’s testimony is definitely eye opening as well. I’ve read the court summaries on MJ-Up beat. And I also been reading the full transcripts of the 2005 trial provided on this website:

    I think the website to the full transcripts was actually posted here, but I can’t recall which post it was in. It just amazes me how all of Tom Mesereau’s cross-examination of the prosecutions witnesses was so deliberately not reported or twisted during the media coverage. I’m reading these transcripts and every one of those prosecution witnesses were all “I – I – I don’t know, I – I can’t remember, um I – I” under cross-examination. Just tripping all over themselves in their lies. Seriously, if that trial wasn’t so tragic I would really bust out laughing. A few times I couldn’t help but laugh and shake my head, cause all of these prosecution witnesses are so crazy its ridiculous. Every one of them from the employees from 93 to the “victims” to Sneddon & Co.


    Sigh…So thank you again everyone for taking your time to pull all this vital information together.


  38. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    August 4, 2010 6:50 am

    Hi Helena,

    Welcome back!

    There are some very insightful people visiting your site, and as David says, there is a lot of information out there if one looks for it.

    Thank you for amending the spacing as it was compromising the sense of it.

    As I said in my message, I hope to draw a line under the hoopla now.

    And like you, I also hope Mr Thomson continues with his invaluable work.


  39. August 4, 2010 10:21 am

    Deborah and David and all my dear readers here,

    When two individual pages were created I realized it hadn’t been the best of my decisions as others were put at a disadvantage – so I hope Deborah and David will not terribly mind it if I shift their posts back into the HOME page.

    However I will leave Deborah’s personal page for a different purpose now – to post her really big article “The making of the myth” there, so that it is close at hand for easier references (which I hope will be many).

    David, I did want to separate the 1993 and 2005 cases but now see the absolute folly of it. Hatred towards Michael cannot be divided into stages – it is a sort of a continuum with all the major players being interconnected with each other and operating not only in the year 1993 or 2005 but at present too. This is why I’ll take you back into the mainstream of the discussion (hope you are not too angry with me).

    Don’t shoot the pianist please, she is playing the best she can.


  40. David permalink
    August 4, 2010 12:00 pm


    That’s ok, I really didn’t want my own page anyway. This is YOUR site, and you deserve the credit for giving me and others a platform to share our ideas!

    By the way: I just completed another bombshell article! I talk about the fact that the media uses the Chandler and Francia settlements as a sign of guilt, yet they have given other celebrities with settlements a pass. I also discuss the difference between civil and criminal law, and explain that it is both illegal and illogical for MJ to pay “hush money” to stop a criminal case.

    This report is 50 pages long, with over 15k words! Yes, it’s that detailed! You guys won’t be disappointed! I didn’t mean for it to be that long, but the farther along I went, the more information I found, and I wanted to be as thorough as possible.

    It’s about 95% finished, but I’m just putting the finishing touches on it. It’ll be ready in the next week or two! Stay tuned!


  41. kelly permalink
    August 4, 2010 6:10 pm

    Can’t wait to read it David.
    btw, I found this on another site.


  42. August 4, 2010 7:13 pm

    David, I’ve repeated your post in the Home page but I cannot delete your individual page now as it is among the Top Posts at the moment. Let us leave it the way it is for a time being.

    Of course I’ve made a mess of it but probably it is only for the better as more people will get familiar with your research.


  43. August 4, 2010 8:07 pm

    Kelly, thanks a lot. This article by Deborah Ffrench is very much in unison with what I think about the real reason for Michael Jackson’s death. I’ve just updated Deborah’s page and posted the article there.

    I recommend everyone to read it.


  44. lynande51 permalink
    August 4, 2010 9:32 pm

    Off topic. I have a lovely book that arrived the other day titled: Michael Jackson Teasures by Jason King. It is a beautiful coffee table book and is filled with copies of MJ memorablia like tickets and posters of his concerts.If any of you need quotes by Michael I have Dancing the Dream and Moonwalk as well just ask and I will gladly share them. I am also going to post a link to a rare video of the Jackson Family home in Encino. It is a picnic from th elate 70’s. It may be useful to show that at 16 the family already knew that Michael loved babies.
    It is not the video that comes up so you have to find it in the playlist.


  45. MUZIKfactory2 permalink
    August 5, 2010 10:31 pm

    Hypocrisy Thy name is Charles Thomson, PART 2

    Some comments by Charles Thomson about MJ


  46. Dialdancer permalink
    August 6, 2010 10:49 am

    Testing 1,2,3


  47. August 6, 2010 11:14 am

    Dialdancer, sorry for the delay in publishing your great message about Michael and Sneddon (will surely look into that) – I’ve just entered and immediately released it. It had been sustained by a spam filter because of the links.


  48. August 6, 2010 12:24 pm

    Guys, I did look up the Muzikfactory2 blog and read some of the entries (I am at my workplace now and can have a perfunctory look only). I also studied every square centimeter of the relatively small MJStar site in search for its forum (where the words attributed to Thomson could be found) and saw a kind of a forum in the bottom right-hand corner with the headlines of posts being in microscopic gray letters.

    With Muzikfactory2’s activity in this blog it is clear that we are facing a new problem here and though I was planning to go on with the Chandler subpoena it will have to be postponed again (as usual).

    I am really curious about what’s going on here especially since some unnatural stillness has suddenly befallen this blog. So let me share some preliminary conclusions about the situation:

    – Muzikfactory2’s blog was started in August this year and has 2 posts only – both of them about Charles Thomson. So it seems the sole purpose of the blog (at least at the moment) is to discuss Charles Thomson.

    – The quotations are very well compiled and date back to the year 2007. When I looked up the forum in the MJStar site I saw only the latest entries (frankly, didn’t really look at their content much). So the quotations provided by Muzikfactory2 should be coming from MJStar’s archive – which I didn’t see anywhere around.

    – If Muzikfactory2 is reading this I would really appreciate it if she gives a link to the MJStar archive for all of us to see those quotations in their ‘natural environment’.

    – If the quotations come from another source (let’s say they were stored on Muzikfactory2 computer) this will mean that we are looking into the history of some long and complex relationship between Muzikfactory2 and MJStar where Muzikfactory 2 took special care to store everything MJStar said at least some 3 years ago.

    – Muzikfactory’s claim that Charles Thomson is equal to MJStar is not sufficient reason for me to believe that this is really so. In the Michael Jackson forum (which I also sometimes attend) a Michael’s fan claimed that “Muzikfactory2” was the same as “BoycottSony” who from the conversation quoted by that fan turned out to be the worst of the racists I’d ever, ever seen. Since I didn’t fall for that information that easily I am not going to fall for Muzikfactory2’s information about Thomson now either.

    – All this requires a further closer look, however the enormous attention which is being paid to Charles Thomson (out of all journalists) is making me believe that there is some kind of a set-up around him.

    – If Charles Thomson is actually a Lowly-somebody plus MJStar plus Deborah Ffrench plus himself in his own blog it means that he is a pretty busy guy who does nothing else but writes about Michael Jackson under various names and from different points of view too. Doesn’t he have to work for a living or is he a millionare who can afford spending all his time writing as several different people?

    – If he was a hater or a doubter or I don’t know who some three years ago, his present hard work for vindicating Michael Jackson proves that at least he has made some progress in his views – while all the others do not show the slightest trace of change in this respect. This way he has a decided advantage over the rest of the journalists.

    – Even if something of what Muzikfactory2 says is true we still remember the example of Apostle Paul who before hearing Christ’s words was known as the worst Christ’s hater called Saul and who later got reformed due to Christ’s interference. Despite his shady past Apostle Paul is very much respected by Christians and his letters form at least a quarter of the Gospel now.

    – But again all of my preliminary observations are true if Muzikfactory’s observations are true too.


  49. Dialdancer permalink
    August 6, 2010 1:26 pm

    Not taking sides….yes I am, Michael’s. MUZIKfactory2 is more known for his YouTube videos.


  50. MUZIKfactory2 permalink
    August 6, 2010 6:16 pm

    Hello. I can not believe the amount of time I invested on this topic, instead of focusing on AEG, Sony, Murray etc.

    – I have been a vocal member for MJ Justice cause for over a year. Below is my youtube which I had lots of MJ justice videos which I recently deleted because of my frustration for MJ “fans” with re: to Charles Thomson topic. Bonnie Cox has been a vocal member as well. ANYONE who is deeply involved in MJ Justice knows of my and Bonnie’s work, go ask them. BTW, I will upload the videos again to youtube and continue with double force.

    – Only members can see the MJStar forums. You must do keyword searches then google will say “more results from Mjstar”, click on that and browse each and every forum. It took me days.

    OR go to below links. At the bottom, there are “next newest” “next oldest”. Click on those to see other forums.

    Comment about Michael bringing a pre-pubescent boy into his hotel room

    Michael’s feminine look and “gay porn”

    OR google words like “TwistedVision” “hair” or “TwistedVision” “lazy” etc and you will be able to see forums. UNLESS they delete it because I wrote a bad review, tell me which link of comment I posted you want and I will.

    – I have no vendetta against Charles. I sent him a thank you note after his article about media bias came out, ask him. My problem started when he lied about LowlyNewsHound. I did NOT judge him and I reached out to him via email. After I told him I called his Local Councils in London that he wrote about in LowlyNewsHound and requested O2 media guest list, he wrote back “I will give you all info I know, just don’t post anything” but the info he gave was info I could google. He wasn’t being sincere. Also, fans portrayed Bonnie and me as some type of villains which we are NOT. We have spent longs hours steadily for over 1 year to fight for Justice. ONLY agenda we have is JUstice for Michael.

    – Why is it important whether Charles admits to be the blogger of LowlyNewshound. Well, you just have to read the blog posts. He deleted the blog but I copied all blog entries and I am restoring it. You can find this blog link on MY blog.

    He said Sony & AEG were leaking him info. I WANNA KNOW WHY SONY WAS INVOLVED IN AEG DEAL. He said Michael locked himself into Hotel room refusing to do O2 Press Conference. He was forced to do that conference. I want Charles to tell us or authorities what he knows.

    – You are right, I just started blogging. I don’t even know how to blog, I am still learning. There were so many things about Charles to share that it couldn’t fit a youtube video so I started to blog.

    – There is NOT “set up” around Charles and you guys are blowing this out of proportion. I DO SUPPORT CHARLES WITH HIS MEDIA BIAS ARTICLE. But that article is merely a mirror of Aphrodite Jones work so I don’t know why you treat a 22 year old like he parted the Red Sea. The man wrote me YESTERDAY that he ONLY speaks against media accusing MJ with child abuse, other than that he doesn’t have to like Michael, his music, his decisions or his fans.

    He berated Michael for years on MjStar. Just like I would dislike ANYONE who disrespect MJ, I don’t like it when Charles Thomson does it. He claims Michael died as an addict which is NOT true. I am NOT saying Thomson is an enemy. I am saying he is lying about LowlyNewsHound and he is part of silenced truth and he disrespects Michael.

    – Don’t take my word for it, JUST ASK CHARLES IF HE WAS TWISTEDVISION AND HE WROTE THOSE COMMENTS I POSTED. I doubt he will deny.

    – I know you people mean well but really we are focusing on issues that takes away from fighting for Michael. What I was trying to do was simply requsting some more info that Charles posted on LowlyNewshound blog, like why is Sony involved in AEG deal. My inquiry is for searching for truth about what happened to Michael. This whole thing is lingering beyond my control.

    – In my 2 tweets to Charles and my emails to him, I have NEVER “attacked” Charles which I am sure he can verify.

    – In Part 3 of my blog post, I will cover why Charles IS LowlyNewsHound. If you would read the LNH blog, you will know why its important.

    Best Regards,


  51. MUZIKfactory2 permalink
    August 6, 2010 7:36 pm

    @VindicateMJ, here’s an example of google keyword search I mentioned.

    Now replace “pedophile” with other words like nose, feminine, lazy, Prince Abdullah, media etc


  52. Kelly permalink
    August 6, 2010 10:20 pm

    I took your advice MUZIKfactory2 and googled.

    TwistedVision, who we have no way of knowing is Charles
    Thomson or not, seems only to want to try and remain

    In all the posts I found, TwistedVision seems to just want MJ
    to straighten himself out and take control of his life.

    Maybe if people close to MJ had shown the same concern then, we wouldn’t all be writing here about a dead man now?

    Excerpt from MJSTAR.COM

    by ruue » Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:46 pm

    TwistedVision wrote:

    Interesting.. Bruce Swedien said in recent years that MJ owed him money and that he thought MJ could be a paedophile.

    Quite a U-turn. Perhaps MJ should think twice before trusting this backstabber.


  53. MUZIKfactory2 permalink
    August 6, 2010 10:56 pm

    @Kelly Like I sid “I am sure you will be creative with excuses you will make for him”.

    If you look at the comments I posted, you can deduct that TwistedVision is Charles. There is a email from Racheal Flowers, MJ former manager, it says “MR THOMSON”. You will also see his profile from “Queer attitude”, he says he is Charles from Essex London, 19 gay. He talks about his interview with James Brown. TwistedVision posted the same scuba pics Charles posted on his Twitter..blah blah blah.


    The comments speak for itself. The man yesterday told me he doesn’t have to like Michael. Do I need to draw you a picture?????

    Please people don’t waste my time with this. I wanna get back to AEG, Sony, Murray etc. After Part 3 showing the link between Charles & Lowlynewshound, I am done with this. Support him, don’t support him, I don’t care, I only care about revealing facts which I am doing. BYE


  54. Anna permalink
    August 6, 2010 10:59 pm

    Okay, at the risk of sounding hypocritical I am going to respond. I some way I understand for MuzikFactory2 is coming from. However, I worry that all this work to discredit him is going to backfire. We know his positive MJ articles are true and fact based do want the fans to starting doubting what they already know to be true. I suppose it’s frustrating MuzikFactory2 to see Charles get so much praise when he apparently some not very nice and judgemental things about Michael in the past. However, lets keep in mind how young Charles was at the time. I agree with Kelly in that it seems as though Charles is frustrated with Michael and he desperately wants Michael to turn his life around. I think what we’re missing here is what Charles is basically like so many other casual MJ fans who loved Michael when he was on top of the world and became bitter when they got nothing from Michael. Now some of the negative publicity Michael did help to perpertuate, however, the media blew everything out of portion and made any small so-called weird eccentric thing into some egregious crime or something. Yes, sometimes Michael excersised poor judgement, yes he had the same human frailties and flaws that everyone else has, but because it was Michael Jackson it was made out to be 100 times worse than if it was anybody else. And when it came to poor judgement, no one with a wider audience than a fan forum wanted to do a comprehensive analysis into what events and situation in life maybe have caused him to act in poor judgement. Obviously many including myself and studied much about the isolation and loneliness he suffered. He lacked everyday exposure to social convention and was surround by people who weren’t always looking his best interests.

    As someone who has studied developmental psychology I can also say that I think it’s evident Michael missed many stages in typical psychological development. So not only did he have an arrested development emotionally but also I think lacked the understanding of boundaries that should exist between people of different ages.

    I guess what I’m trying to say is alot of fans like myself have taken the time to understand the man behind the music, maybe Charles was not that kind of fan.

    I think it’s possible that Charles has had somewhat of a change of heart since Michael died, I think it’s evidenced in his current blog.

    in any case this is what Charles has proven to me.

    Charles has had and maybe still has strong opinions about Michael’s life and actions. What he has done for Michael though is reveal certain truths about the allegations, the 2005 trial and the media treatment. His work on that subject has meaning and will make an impact regardless of what his personal opinions of the Michael the man or artist are. And that’s the whole point in the allegations debate. The whole points is it shouldn’t matter what the personal opinions are of Michael, whether they are good, bad or somewhere in between. It’s shouldn’t matter whether or not a person is a fan, or whether they like his music. The point is what the media did in 2005 was wrong, they let their personal opinions about the man effect their objectivity when reporting on the case. They made a determination based on their personal opinion from past negative publicity and found ways to report the facts of the 2005 case in a negative way. What Charles, have proven to me and hopefully many other fans and non-fan members of the public is that he is different. He doesn’t have to see Michael in a positive light the way many of us fans do, he can acknowledge what he believes were negative aspects of Michael’s life. None of us really know what the truth is regarding Michael’s death and I have never seen Charles write about it for anything with a wide audience. He may have a personal opinions but I’ve personally seen him say on twitter before he locked it that he would never publish an article for Huffington Post or any other news source based on his personal opinion. I do not believe he would report facts that are purposely untrue or omit or distort true facts to make a more sensational story or what not.

    So until Charles does something blatantly bias or unproffessional in his MJ pieces that are meant for a wider audience than just a fan forum he still has my support. That doesn’t mean I agree with his opinions on Michael it means I support his efforts at getting the truth out about the allegations and the 2005 trial.


  55. Anna permalink
    August 6, 2010 11:39 pm

    Kelly I agree, I just read that thread about twisted vision nervous about Michael being seen with the boy after seeing the play Oliver. It sounds like he was nervous about the how the media was going to spin it. After all how did the 2005 allegations come about, they basically came about because of negative publicity from the Bashir documentary and the false allegations from 1993. If this is Charles then he is showing genuine concern for Michael in this thread. In my opinion anyway.


  56. David permalink
    August 7, 2010 1:44 am

    @ Anna

    I agree with you 100%. Personally, I don’t have a dog in this fight between Bonnie Cox and Charles Thomson. In my opinion, whatever he may have said about MJ in the past, he has certainly made up for it in defending him against the allegations. I personally don’t care if someone has negative views on MJ for any reason, just as long they proclaim his innocence.

    I read Bonnie Cox’s blog daily, and she’s very knowledgable about the relationship between Sony, AEG, Colony Capital, etc. I believe that there was a conspiracy by Sony to bring down MJ (and that was confirmed by the testimony of Anne Kite in the trial), and there was probably collusion to force him to tour again so they could get money. In fact, she found an amazing interview with Dick Gregory, and he has some amazing insight into Sony’s role in the 1993 allegations. Here is the video:

    Beginning @ 6:50, Gregory describes the clauses in the Sony/ATV contract that allowed for MJ’s share to revert back to Sony in the event he is convicted of a crime, implying that Sony played a part in the scandal?


  57. Tim Kellet permalink
    August 7, 2010 8:55 am

    MUZIKfactory2 said:

    ” … I can not believe the amount of time I invested on this topic, instead of
    focusing on AEG, Sony, Murray etc. ”

    Perhaps now it’s time to move on then.

    I am sure in your mind you and Bonnie created this havoc with good intentions.
    But I have looked through all the posts by TwistedVision and seen strong,
    reasoned opinions, so what? Many fans have those and still do. You do yourself.

    TwistedVision seems practically concerned for MJ or he wouldn’t have been posting
    at a fan site in the first place. In the effort to find conspiracies somewhere, some
    people, I think, are in danger of seeing them everywhere.

    Deborah French said Tarborrelli wanted Thomson’s permission to use his
    findings on the FBI files kept on MJ. This helps MJ, not harms him, as it shows no
    evidence of criminality could be attributed even after a lengthy investigation.
    Has anyone thought of checking to see if this is correct? Because if it is, I think
    we should all move on.

    I also think it’s important to give Thomson his due based on what he is
    contributing now. If I judged myself on things I said when I was 19, I’d never have
    got through my 20’s!


  58. August 7, 2010 10:57 am

    Muzikfactory, you don’t seem to be a hater that is why I apologize to you and Bonnie Cox for suspecting you of ill will in connection with Charles Thomson.

    I hope that the deeply insightful comments other Michael’s supporters are making on this issue will help you reconsider your attitude towards the journalist.

    Charles’ words that “he doesn’t have to like Michael” were surely said to you in the heat of the discussion but even if it isn’t the case I would risk saying that for a true journalist this formula may be correct.

    As long as he writes the truth about Michael, which is Michael’s complete innocence, he is doing what his profession requires him to do – report things objectively and without bias. He really doesn’t need to be a fan and doesn’t have to like him. Let him be just a good journalist and keep up doing his share of work in helping Michael regain his innocence in the eyes of the general public.

    To be able to do that it might even be harmful for him (and Michael’s vindication) to be associated with Michael’s fans, and this is probably why he made those clumsy efforts to present himself as someone different from what he really is.

    The more people come to Michael Jackson the better it is. If Charles Thomson started growing into a full-time Michael’s fan only once he began doing really serious research into all the allegations against Michael, so be it. This is the process I and many other people have gone through too and the guilt of what I have thought about Michael before is still my biggest driving force here – so it would be terribly unfair to throw stones at him now, at least for people like me.

    You may be a long-time fan, who was supportive of Michael – which I respect very much – during his darkest years, but I hope you’ll also manage to check your indignation over Charles’ past misconduct, if there was any, and refrain from stoning him now.

    He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone…


  59. Tim Kellet permalink
    August 7, 2010 11:41 am

    @Kelly. I agree, and have used your TwistedVision quote again.

    Excerpt from MJSTAR.COM

    by ruue » Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:46 pm

    TwistedVision wrote:

    Interesting.. Bruce Swedien said in recent years that MJ owed him money and that he thought MJ could be a paedophile.

    Quite a U-turn. Perhaps MJ should think twice before trusting this backstabber.

    So what exactly is Charles Thomson supposed to apologize for again?

    And why does journalist who writes honestly about MJ need to be a fan?

    Lets all grow up shall we.


  60. MUZIKfactory2 permalink
    August 7, 2010 5:53 pm

    Tim Kellet

    Oh wow so you found 1 Pro-MJ comment. Have you read the ones I posted? I am a MJ fan, I have problem with ANYONE dishonoring Michael REGARDLESS of who they are. “Journalist”? LOL! Research CT’s work before you call him that! He is a 22 yr old recent college graduate who wrote 1 article about APRODITE JONE’s WORK! It was HER time, HER determination, HER hard work! Sure Charles BLOGGED about couple of local articles about restaurant cleanliness, swimming pool accident and a work Protest!

    This is NOT about the comments he wrote. Please bother to read PART 1 of the story to better understand.

    Charles had a blog: LowlyNewsHound. He posted that SONY…..I repeat….SONY and AEG was leaking him info about O2 Tours. He explained that its because Michael was trying to back out of concerts and promoters thought if info about O2 leaked to public and published MJ wouldn’t back out. He also posted that MJ LOCKED HIMSELF INTO HIS HOTEL ROOM ON MARCH 5, 2009 REFUSING TO DO THE O2 PRESS CONFERENCE. MJ was “persuaded”, that’s why his press conference was short and bizarre.

    Charles is part of silenced truth. That’s why he is NOT writing about MJ death. He knows a lot. Why was SONY involved in AEG deal? How was Michael being “persuaded” to do the Tour? etc

    I have NOTHING againt Charles. I SENT HIM A THANK YOU EMAIL AFTER HIS MEDIA BIAS ARTICLE. This all started after he lied about writing LowlyNewsHound. Charles knows A LOT and he is part of silenced truth about MJ death.

    Please read Part 1 on my blog.


  61. MUZIKfactory2 permalink
    August 7, 2010 6:01 pm


    Will you support Charles when he writes “the truth” about how Michael died as an addict and that he brought his demise onto himself?

    I am here to present an alternative point of view, final decision is for each individual and I do NOT argue with their decisions.

    I have NOTHING to reconsider about Charles. PERIOD.


  62. Kelly permalink
    August 7, 2010 7:35 pm


    The reason why I posted that correctly quoted comment by Charles is because it is the most important. He directly calls someone who alleged MJ was a pedophile,” a backstabber.”

    This means Charles does not believe MJ was guilty. It means he believes MJ was innocent. Is this not most important part of Michael’s legacy to correct in the public consciousness?

    What Thomson thought in 2007 about Michael’s hair or surgery is not important. And if you can’t be honest on a fan forum why bother to even be part of one?

    I have heard countless fans discuss what ‘era’ of Michael’s image they preferred, some more kindly than others. It’s opinion, nothing more.

    On the issue of Michael’s innocence, Thomson is consistent and
    unswerving. And this is why I support his work. I also do not believe that Thomson is the Lowly Newshound.

    Thomson has two sites and he is frank and honest on both.
    I feel, and many others do also, that you are reading more into things than actually exists.

    Charles has freely said in the KPFA interview that he received a
    tip-off about MJ’s press conference. This happens all the time with journalists. Why should this mean he is suddenly in cahoots with the big players at Sony?

    As for riding on the back of Aphrodite. Aphrodite herself actually believed Michael was a paedophile until she heard the evidence,or lack of, in court. Thomson never did. His research in the time he has been writing has covered a lot more of the civil/criminal issues in 1993, and his work on Evan Chandler and the FBI files was fantastic.

    Ultimately, why are you even comparing Aphrodite and Charles?
    Surely the aim is to have more people writing the truth, not less?

    As for Michael’s death and how he died. I have not seen one comment where Thomson blames MJ for his own death. Have you?

    I am asking you humbly as someone who supports the movement to vindicate Michael to please cease this disruption. This division plays directly into the hands of those who hurt MJ. Put your considerable passion and love of Michael into positive outlets.

    Finally, I ask you this: Do you have any idea how many people Charles reached with his Huffington Post articles? Neither do I.

    But if he changed even one mind, then I can handle some of his comments uttered at 19 on a forum. At this point you need to start seeing the bigger picture.

    Thomson has nothing to apologise for.

    And you are damaging the considerable good he has done for Michael.

    Please stop this friction.

    For our community’s sake, and for Michael.


  63. Anna permalink
    August 7, 2010 7:38 pm


    Okay, I have already addressed the fact that it doesn’t bother me what Charles’ personal opinions are of Michael as long as he sticks to the facts when he does a report for a wider audience than just twitter or a fan forum. As far as him being part of the silenced truth I see your point there so I will address that as well.

    You made a very good point about the fact that Charles has not written about Michael’s death, which is interesting, but lets all keep in mind that the whole truth is not known yet, things have been leaked to the press but the Murray trial and the wrongful death suit from Joe Jackson against Murray and AEG still have to come in fruition.

    With all due respect to you Muzikfactory2 is it possible that Charles has gone to the authorities with what he knows, perhaps that is why he hasn’t talked about it in public. The reason I say this is, it would explain why the LNH blog dissappeared, information being leaked to the public could hinder an ongoing investigation. It also explains that why he wouldn’t want to be tied to it as it could make him a target and in need of protection if there was something shady going on. I know the state has wrapped up their case, however Bonnie herself posted a blog indicating that their might be a federal investigation going on still. (which would be more secretive to the public) There is most likely a private investigation going on for the wrongful death suit by Joe Jackson. If this is the case, it would make sense that Charles would not want to reveal what he knows to the public as it could like I said put him at risk and compromise the investigation.

    I remember hearing about a video tape that was pulled from YT of Michael saying he only agree to 10 shows, where is that video tape now, the owner must have it, it’s possible that it is somewhere being kept as official evidence? Also Randy pointed out early on that information that extended beyond Murray was being ignored by the LAPD, later he stated for everyone to be patient that he could not reveal too much because the evildoers could read his tweets as well. (I’m paraphrasing what he wrote)

    Recently I saw Karen Faye tweet this to you on twitter

    @MUZIKfactoryTWO Justice is not achieved overnight. You must be patient. Revealing to your opponents what you hold in your hand is not wise.

    @MUZIKfactoryTWO the trial has not begun, and no one knows the entire truth. We may hold pieces of the puzzle, but we speculate on the rest

    Wise words they are, I think she is trying to clue us in to be patient, revealing too much to the enemy could give them time to cover their tracks.

    In any case, many of us will know doubt keep an open mind about everything and I understand your concern about the possibility of Charles writting that Michael died a drug addict and causing his own demise. The things is I believe he will only be able to write this if the facts show that, so far he has admitted his expertise about Michael is the allegations and media treatment. His personal opinions about Michael’s drug addiction have been formed from information given by from Michael’s friends, Doctors and own family members. Also from Michael himself when he admitted in 1993 that he checked himself into rehab after having addiction to pain killers. I’ve seen Charles say to people that what he says on twitter is different than what he would say in print for a large audience (such as Huffington Post) so he didn’t feel the need to censor his opinions about Michael on twitter in fear of tainting a jury pool or the public. Now his twitter is locked. I don’t think he would be irresponsilbe enough as a journalist to write about these things for a large audience before the trial. During and after the trial many journalists will be writting about the trial and I bet they won’t be as objective as Charles. (Charles will be the least of our worries during the trial if you get what I’m saying)

    I would also like to say that while the article gives alot of the same information that Aphrodite book does the one thing Charles does that she doesn’t is name names. He pointed this out on twitter as well, he called out specific people’s name in the media that helped to tarnish Michael’s good name during that trial, while Aphrodite does not. He also pointed his article is also free to the public where as Aphrodite’s book has to be looked for a bought. His hope was that his article would extend to non-MJ fans as he felt Michael’s name still needs to be cleared on a larger scale than just the MJ fan base. (I’m pharaphrasing what he said on twitter of course)

    Look I’m not defending Charles’ past actions, or saying he’s a nice guy when it comes to Michael. I’m just saying lets keep an open mind about what his intentions are and whether or not he can be trusted before we completely discredit him.


  64. Jensen Bergmark permalink
    August 7, 2010 10:08 pm


    So, by your own logic, if other journalists reach new conclusions
    about MJ and start changing their minds, will you levy the same charges of ‘betrayal’ against them?

    Don’t you get it? The journey to Michael’s vindication is not about
    reaching those who already know the truth, but those who don’t.

    On Topix I have seen haters laughing at this and they are already seeing this as a victory against Charles.

    Thomson’s work is important and frankly I don’t give a damn how old he is. In fact, his age only underlines how clear his mind is.

    Yes, you’re a fan, so what? We all are. And we couldn’t do a damn thing to help MJ when they came for him. The same thing is going to happen to his legacy if this is the treatment you give to those who try to expose what was done to MJ.

    If journalists are attacked for writing the good and bad about Michael, they will stop. Of course, their writing will be less
    complimentary than fans. What matters is that they write the truth about the most heinous thing Michael is accused of.

    We need Thomson and all the others who may come after him. He chose to use his platform at Huffington Post to talk about MJ. That was huge.

    Ranting endlessly about some blog and who wrote it does nothing to help Mike’s children or the outrages perpetrated against their father’s name.

    So get real. This is serious.


  65. DanitykaneMJ permalink
    August 9, 2010 3:44 pm

    Come again?


  66. CCC permalink
    August 9, 2010 9:20 pm

    I think it’s a shame that we are so desperate for positive Michael reporting that we will accept it from someone who clearly, up until a year ago, held Michael in low esteem and had much disdain for his music, for him as a person and for his behavior.

    I don’t understand the desperation to champion Mr. Thomson as an advocate of Michael Jackson when one can clearly see from his postings as TwistedVision that he did not like the man at all.

    Not only that, Mr. Thomson never told anyone of his sordid history as moderator of MJ Star — he told everyone he became a Michael Jackson expert a year ago, when he underwent his metamorphosis from HATER to SUPPORTER.

    The claim that “I don’t have to like Michael” is a famous abusive excuse. It means I have license to talk to and treat someone with disrespect and negatively –that it’s okay.

    I don’t have to like you, Michael, to write about you. I can say what I want.

    Well, please ask yourself how would MICHAEL feel if he read the comments made by TwistedVision?

    Thomson IS TwistedVision, he has finally admitted it on his blog — he would have love to keep that information under wraps though.

    VindicateMJ, with all due respect “The more people come to Michael Jackson the better it is. If Charles Thomson started growing into a full-time Michael’s fan only once he began doing really serious research into all the allegations against Michael, so be it. ”

    This would be an accurate statement that I would support if Charlie was forthright and forthcoming about his past feelings, like Aphrodite Jones — if he was HONEST.

    But Charlie was not honest.

    The truth is HE LIED and continued to LIE until MUZIK put him in the spotlight and he could not LIE anymore.

    Then he did what liars do, he tried to justify his behavior.

    As a journalist, INTEGRITY is of utmost importance. Here on the internet, all we have is words.

    Read the words of TwistedVision — those are the words of a HATER. I cannot believe that anyone would try to justify and/or dismiss the hateful way this man spoke about Michael when it was UNNECESSARY, UNCALLED FOR and just down right mean-spirited.

    This championing of Thomson reminds me of the old adage: Hungry shoppers make poor buyers.

    We are so hungry for positive Michael reporting that we will take it from ANYONE and anywhere.

    Well, let’s all start supporting Schmuley and Bashir, too. I mean, they had some good things to say about Michael. What difference does it make it they didn’t really like him. As long as they told the truth about some things, the lies that told don’t matter?


    I really don’t think so.


  67. ares permalink
    August 10, 2010 1:43 am

    @ CCC reading your comment reminds me of the phrase “Divide and conquer”. So you are either a very emotional fan who needs to calm down or a person who simply doesn’t give a f…. about MJ and people that actually making effords in order to present some truth about those terrible accusation that destroyed his life. CCC can easily be a new name for MUZIKfactory2 . We are not desperate for supporters ( i would never support Bashir or Dimond etc) even if they had a 180-degree shift in perception about MJ, simply because i know that they are also to be blame for his death. But we are desperate for the truth and mad because no one is bothered to report it.And in the rare chance that someone do reporte it he or she gets bullied. In other words, even if you are a fan you’re doing a perfect job in helping the “haters”


  68. Anna permalink
    August 10, 2010 1:45 am


    I would hardly call him advocate for Michael Jackson. What he advocates for is the truth about the unfair treatment of a human being by an over zealous prosecution and media hungry for that human beings’ blood. That human being happened to be Michael Jackson. Charles for whatever reason feels very passionate about this particular injustice that was done to Michael. I would hope millions of people who know the truth about the bias coverage are. Heck if haters and non-fans finnally learned the truth and accepted it I would be happy for that, as that is the ultimate goal of vindication for Michael. Unfortunately millions of people are still brainwashed into believing that Michael is guilty. Charles has done extensive research in addition to others such as Aphrodite Jones to prove the DA had a weak case and that media covered the trial unfairly.

    I am not desperate for positive news about Michael. I do at times though feel desperate to see in shift in the way people think of Michael regarding the allegations. Charles is one of few in the media willing to call out the actions of the media for their behaviour and for influencing the people’s opinions about Michael’s innocense. I despise the things Charles said in the past about Michael, however, he said them in a very outspoken Members only fan forum with others who were saying similar things and they all claimed to be fans.

    I can dislike, diagree with or even despise what Charles’ personal opinions are of Michael the man and Michael the artist and yet appreciate his efforts at telling the truth about the injustices committed by the DA and the media during the trial.

    At this point I guess everyone has to decide for themselves about how they feel about Charles Thomson. We will all have to agree to disagree about whether or not we should support him. In any case I don’t think our support or non-support is going to stop him from doing his job whether he writes about MJ or not.


  69. Anna permalink
    August 10, 2010 1:47 am

    @ares Wow, you and I must be on the same wavelength, we said similar things!


  70. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    August 10, 2010 11:58 am

    For years, the fans have wanted and hoped the media or someone in the media would tell the truth about Michael’s life.

    What they got was someone who themselves has a complicated relationship with Michael. Someone who knows how the media works and how it can, as an entity, manipulate even the most innocuos of contexts. The frustration heard in Thomson-as-TwistedVision’s comments, is the sound of someone who could see how the media would spin the circumstances Michael found or placed himself in.

    It was also the voice of a 19 year old.

    How sad that someone who’s done such incredible work for Michael in the public arena in the years since then, is now being treated like this by someone who is clearly unbalanced. For Thomson to be essentially threatened with disclosure of his sexuality (as if there’s something wrong with being gay) by Yazmeen, is nothing short of a disgrace and a total affront to Michael’s message.

    Thomson’s articles about Michael, written years later as a qualified journalist, have been dedicated to trying to highlight the tremendous injustice Michael suffered.

    But Thomson’s defence of MJ didn’t just begin at the Huffington Post, despite the accusations of Yazmeen and Cox, and those who blindly repeat them.

    Badly researched claims that Charles Thomson only started writing positively about Michael Jackson after his death are in fact, provably wrong. In 2008 Thomson wrote an article about Aphrodite Jones’s book, which at the time Jones said was the best article ever written about her work. That article is here:

    As far back as 2007, Thomson working as a reporter at MJStar, led a campaign against Jacques Peretti’s awful documentary ‘What Really Happened’. Nearly 50 minutes long, Thomson, when researching the piece, counted approximately 43 inaccuracies – i.e just under one a minute.

    As well as encouraging fans to complain to OFCOM and the PCC, respectively UK television and press complaints bodies, Thomson personally organized MJStar’s chasing of OFCOM, ITN and Channel 4 for answers over the countless inaccuracies the documentary included. At this link you can see him updating fans on his progress step-by-step as he does battle with Channel 4′s press officer:

    I suggest readers read back from here and actually read the article Thomson wrote about Jacques Peretti’s so-called documentary, which BTW aired in the UK in 2007.

    Doesn’t quite talley with the heavily skewed picture of TwistedVision that Yazmeen paints with her highly selective quotes does it?

    Excerpt from MJSTAR.COM

    by ruue » Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:46 pm

    TwistedVision wrote:

    “Interesting.. Bruce Swedien said in recent years that MJ owed him money and that he thought MJ could be a paedophile.

    Quite a U-turn. Perhaps MJ should think twice before trusting this backstabber.”

    The desperate rush to now throw away everything Thomson has been trying to accomplish for Michael is borne out of a lie. Charles Thomson, has in fact been supportive of Michael in a real and practical way for many years – and comments written by a 19 year old that were never intended for public consumption should not be confused with the undeniably powerful journalism Thomson writes now.

    Does it benefit Michael to not support the public work of Charles Thomson? Then perhaps look again at why you are being asked to do so, and who is doing the asking.


  71. CCC permalink
    August 10, 2010 12:34 pm

    @ Ares — I clearly see a pattern in the way discussions are had around here, and believe me, I will not be one to get down in the mud and sling with you.

    The proposal you’ve made, that I am either “a very emotional fan who needs to calm down” or a person who simply doesn’t give a f…. about MJ and people that actually making effords in order to present some truth about those terrible accusation that destroyed his life” is what one would call a false dilemma — it’s a falicy. It is actually the truth that I could most likely be neither of these two labels that you would like to slap on me, and instead something else.

    In fact, I am something else. I am a critical thinker who does not believe peace at any cost is actually real peace. I actually require the journalists whom I follow and regard as legitimate to have integrety and to tell the truth.

    Also, telling someone else who has a problem that they are “too emotional” and “need to calm down” is abusive. You don’t have the right to tell other people how to feel.

    No, I am not MUZIKfactory2 .

    Ares: “We are not desperate for supporters ( i would never support Bashir or Dimond etc) even if they had a 180-degree shift in perception about MJ, simply because i know that they are also to be blame for his death”

    I do not think you can speak for everyone here, but only yourself.

    Ares: ” But we are desperate for the truth and mad because no one is bothered to report it. And in the rare chance that someone do reporte it he or she gets bullied. In other words, even if you are a fan you’re doing a perfect job in helping the “haters””

    What I stand against are the same things Michael stood against, liars and hypocrites, and Mr. Thomson very clearly lied about his past and behaved in a hypocritical manner. Those who want to white wash it, are simply doing that, white washing his behavior, behavior that he has not apologized for — that he has said he will NOT apologize for — so behavior that he believes was okay.

    I do not associate nor would I ever associate myself with a person who maligns, disrespects and talks down about ANYONE.

    Mr. Thomson very clearly is seeking to ride the coat tails of Michael’s death onto success and if you or anyone else wants to help him use Michael, as Michael was used in life, that is certainly sad.


  72. CCC permalink
    August 10, 2010 12:39 pm

    Anna, all I will say is this, just as I do not rush and pick up a tabloid magazine on the off chance that it prints a true story (and they certainly sometimes do) I will not look for the “truth” from a person who constantly and systematically disrespected Michael not less than a years ago and curiously had an about face after his death, a switch that coincides, amazingly, with his rise in popularity as a journalist.

    I certainly believe that Thomson’s article spoke very accurately about the state of the media and the justice system in America — it was an article that needed to be written and needed to be said, and THAT article is very much appreciated. The rest of what he has said and done is not.

    I cannot and will dismiss the one over the other, since all came from the same man, and he has said he is standing by it all (even after he first denied it, which cannot be ignored).


  73. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    August 10, 2010 2:25 pm

    If one supports the racist, homophobic, bullying tactics of Yazmeen, then unethical, tabloid-like behaviour is exactly what you do support

    It is also a nonsense to say that Charles has only started writing before 2009, or that he is ‘riding the coat tails’ of anyone. The
    evidence to that shows otherwise has been clearly detailed in my last post – if you read it.

    How does this vain attempt to besmirch Thomson help Michael’s legacy?


  74. nenabunena permalink
    August 10, 2010 2:37 pm

    I agree with you on your entry, both on Charles Thomson & Sony. I think many of us in the wake of MJ’s death have been awakened to the conspiracy & negativity targeted at him. We are both shocked, repulsed, hurt, & angry by what he had to endure for 25 years of media lynching. & in that realization, many of us have come away with this conspiracy theory (which I still believe in tbh) that it was all purposely done & he was murdered. So, what did we do next? We go around looking for these murderers, on every corner, on every person, on anything that moves. Somewhere along the way amidst all our fighting against the haters or trolls, the continued media lynching, the new organizations making allegations (TINI & KF supporters), we have become that which we hate, we have become HATERS.

    I started to become very wary of the path we fans have been taking since last year, I feel like we are all attacking the wrong people, the people within our camp, the people who are by MJ’s side in the end, the people whom MJ trusted, & the few people taking a stand to do serious work in MJ’s defense, instead of fighting the fight, which is defending MJ’s legacy & vindicating him. Attacking Thomson is detrimental to MJ & to all of us, can’t some people see that? Attacking Sony now is detrimental to MJ’s legacy, attacking MJ’s friends & coworkers (Ortega, cast & crew, DiLeo, the 3 executors, the Cascios) is detrimental to MJ’s legacy, attacking his dear 80 year old mother, who is let to raise his 3 kids within a divided household is detrimental to MJ’s legacy. We have forgotten the object of the game or fight & have instead turned against each other. How does attacking Thomson or Aphrodite Jones encourage other journalists to step up & do their work with dedication, integrity & research? I don’t always agree with Thomson, in fact, I disagree with his review of TII, & if he did in fact say that MJ’s a drug addict, I oppose that as well. But that’s the thing, attack the argument, not the one making it. What is the basis for all these allegations against him? Are they as weak as the basis for the allegations against MJ?

    You know, I’m a conspiracy theorist, but I’m not a TINI nor am I a DH or Illuminatti believer. This is what I believe: I believe that MJ’s conspirators never stopped at June 25th. I believe that the conspiracy to hurt MJ’s legacy has been shifted from MJ to those who defend & support him (MJ’s fans, these few stalwart journalists, the friends/professionals involved in MJ’s estate). I believe that someone is INTENTIONALLY sabotaging the fanbase & MJ’s estate. In fact I believe they are getting worse & getting more heads way now that MJ’s not around. MJ’s legacy is 2-fold: his estate & his fans – & I see both being systematically attacked. MJ’s gone & there’s nothing we can do about that, but what he has left is bigger & immortal if we preserve it, his LEGACY. I’m very afraid for the future of his legacy because we ourselves are destroying it. Will we even realize it before it’s too late or will we ever realize it at all? Of course, this is but a theory, a conspiracy theory at that.


  75. nenabunena permalink
    August 10, 2010 3:03 pm

    Muzikfactory, weren’t you the one on YT condemning & making allegations against MJ’s mother as well, Katherine Jackson?

    I think a lot of us are getting ahead of ourselves, we want answers & we want it NOW. & if we can’t find the real answers, will put a made-up one in it’s place. We have transitioned into a mob, screaming with fists up on high for answers, any answers, a sacrificial lamb, anyone. & so instead of being in the mist of ‘we don’t know’ we make allegations on anyone who blinks the wrong way, anyone who makes the wrong move, or just moves, or anyone who remains a mystery to us. Because a mystery is dangerous, who knows what lies underneath such privacy? Right? Just like with Michael & the allegations made upon him. Has anyone seen Malena, we have become into that town whispering, backstabbing, concocting evil malicious rumors because of our fear of the unknown.

    As for me, I prefer the real answers than the made up ones, I prefer real justice rather than a fake one at the expense of others.

    This conversational discussion will go on & on & on. No one will vindicate Michael now, we fans are making sure of that aren’t we?


  76. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    August 10, 2010 3:17 pm

    CCC said:

    In fact, I am something else. I am a critical thinker who does not believe peace at any cost is actually real peace. I actually require the journalists whom I follow and regard as legitimate to have integrety and to tell the truth. ”

    Thomson told the truth, he’s been saying it since 2006.

    You just don’t like what he said.

    To even compare comments on some forum, carefully selected by his harassers I might add, with the significance of Thomson’s articles is laughable.

    And it exposes you CCC.

    Michael stood against liars sure, but he also stood for truth. Thomson, from his latest statement, clearly stands by his words. He’s knows the difference between an opinion and a fact.

    If you actually think shutting down Thomson or supporting the insanity of Cox and Yazmeen in any way helps Michael or his children, because of some critical opinions years ago, then your motivation is suspect.

    Instead: You purposefully overlook the activism Thomson inititated at MJSTAR in protesting Peretti’s program, and you ignore the comments Thomson wrote that support his contempt for Sneddon’s case and the media lynching Michael endured.


  77. Philip Roth permalink
    August 10, 2010 4:06 pm

    I just don’t get it.

    Why would anyone try to destroy a person, especially a journalist, who has recently published 2 articles on the Huffington Post that are extremely supportive of Michael? Especially a journalist who actually had the guts to confront those in his own profession who brought Michael down? No other journalist, other than Aphrodite Jones has had the guts to do that.

    Charles Thomson is an advocate of Michael’s and he should be supported, not vilified.

    I have to ask the obvious question- Why are these people going after THomson with such a vengeance and trying their best to villify him? What is their motivation when there are so many true villians who deliberately sought to destroy Michael more deserving of their vitriol? Why not save their righteous indignation for Diane Dimond who is the true villian here, someone who still to this day tries to sully Michael’s reputation?

    I just don’t get it. Charles Thomson is not the enemy here. No one else spoke up in the media to defend Michael when Gene Simmons attacked Michael with outright and outrageous lies. Mr. Thomson did.

    Mr. Thomson is one of the Good Guys. He is on Michael’s side and though you may not agree with everything he says, he is not worthy of such animosity. Spend your energy going after the real Bad Guys- like Diane Dimond. She is the real enemy, NOT Charles Thomson. In fact I surmise she would be quite pleased that these people are attacking Mr. Thomson.

    I just wonder what wonder these people are hoping to achieve in attacking Thomson at this time in his life when he is making inroads in clearing Michael’s name and bringing the people who destroyed Michael’s life to justice. Mr. Thomson deserves the support from the community of Michael’s fans and advocates for what he is doing on his behalf now.


  78. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    August 10, 2010 4:18 pm

    Insightful points Philip.

    Seems like an lot of energy is being expended to run down a powerful voice for Michael.

    CCC tells us this is about “integrity,” but provides no real examples of where Thomson breaches that.

    Thomson stated strong opinions on a forum three years ago that weren’t complimentary about some of Michael’s life-choices, image or tours.

    So what?

    On the big issue – the only issue that counts – Thomson has consistently supported the reality of Michael’s innocence and profound media bias he faced.

    Big picture anyone?


  79. Anna permalink
    August 10, 2010 5:07 pm


    You know very well that everything Charles has printed in his articles regarding Michael and the allegations this past year is true. Most of us fans knew this already ofcourse and knew most of his sources or went and looked for corroborating sources after we read his articles. I do not go looking for “truth” regarding Michael and the allegations in articles written by Charles. However, I have been able to verify that what he has said in his articles is the truth. This is not new for us MJ fans, however, people in the general public still do not know the truth. Charles is in a unique position to bring about that vindication for Michael that all of us want. These efforts to discredit him as though his negative opinions will somehow influence how he reports the facts seem a bit over-board. I think he’s proven that his work is objective and fact-based and not based on his personal opinions.

    In any case, I think it’s very possible that Charles had a change of heart after Michael died. If he was even just a casual fan of Michael’s music it is possible that Michael death caused him to look in the mirror and make a change. I do not know the answer to this ofcourse but I don’t understand the mentality to assume the worst about someone who has done so much good clearing Michael’s good name, that is all.

    I am more than happy to agree to disagree with you at this point.


  80. Anna permalink
    August 10, 2010 5:19 pm

    @CCC Just want to clarify that I meant to say that you know very all all his articles regarding the Michael and the allegations are true. Everyone mentions the ‘one article’ of the Huffington Post but he has written several articles and blog posts about Michael’s innocense, you only the mentioned the one article. Sorry if that was confusing as I know you were not questioning the validity of the most recent MJ article.


  81. Susan permalink
    August 10, 2010 5:40 pm

    Hi folks:

    This site is called Vindicating Michael. Aphrodite Jones, Charles Thomson, Deborah Ffrench. These are the people who have written and are writing the truth about Michael. David Edwards is now doing amazing research by providing facts of both the 1993 allegations and the 2005 trial and posting them on various sites. After Michael passed, there was the odd commentary written that was positive, in particular one by New York lawyer, Matt Semino. Now compare that to the hateful rantings of Diane Dimond, Maureen Orth, Andrea Peyser and the talking heads like Nancy Grace, Jane Velez-Mitchell, Joy Behar, and Bill O’Reilly, the last four who have TV programs from which to spread their lies and biased opinions on a nightly basis and let’s not forget TMZ who seem to enjoy baiting Michael’s fans.

    There are so few of us and so many of them.

    Please, can we get back to the job at hand? Just last night, Anderson Cooper was again apologizing on behalf of the media for not doing a thorough enough investigation regarding the death of Pat Tillman, the young football star whose “friendly fire” death was deliberately covered up by the US military and the media. A few weeks ago, Mr. Cooper was taking the media to task for misrepresenting the Shirley Sherrod case. All I could thing of was, why couldn’t Michael’s case be given the same investigation? Get the truth out about his inhumane body search, the trampling of his rights, the underhandedness and distortion of the truth by Sneddon. This story must be told. So can we please stay the course, use our heads and get Michael the true justice he deserves?


  82. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    August 10, 2010 6:41 pm

    Yes, lets.

    A lot of energy is being expended to run down a powerful voice for Michael. CCC tells us this about ‘ integrity’ and ‘truth’ but provides no credible examples of where Thomson breaches that.

    Thomson stated strong opinions on a forum three years ago that weren’t complimentary about some of Michael’s life-choices, image or tours.

    So what?

    In fact, if Thomson’s main concern was courting fan love and making a name for himself, Thomson would simply tell everyone what they wanted to hear wouldn’t he?

    On the big issue, the only issue that counts, Thomson has remained consistent in supporting the reality of Michael’s innocence, and profound collusion of the media that ignored this.

    Big picture anyone?


  83. gigi permalink
    August 10, 2010 7:48 pm


    Well said, I completely agree.


    When I started reading the information here a few weeks ago. I was amazed at all the research done here. I personally thank God for all the work done by Helena and all the fellow researchers who post what they have found. I find it so baffling the way the media has a whole continues to brush aside the truth and the facts of what was done to Michael.

    Now there’s Aprhordite Jones, Deborah Ffrench, Charles Thomson the only journalists I’ve seen investigate and present the truth of 93 and 05. Through this site and other sites where information has been posted, I’ve learned that there where quite a few other journalists who reported the truth during the 05 trial. I had no idea because those few were essentially drowned out by all the biased journalists with their sound-bites. Journalists who that sat in that courtroom for all those months and deliberately refused to report what actually happened. Talking heads and so called panel experts who never set a toe in that courtroom proclaiming Michael was guilty, when all the while every last one of the prosecution’s witnesses and “victims” were completely discredited under cross examination.

    So please everyone don’t get distracted by this individual. I have seen them post on other sites and on twitter.They and another individual I’ve seen are like a moving virus. Drawing attention away from the real purpose of getting the truth out there to help vindicate Michael’s name for Michael and equally important for Michael’s children. It would be a shame for that to happen here on this site. I’m not very good at researching the information about 93, 05 and in between, but I can and do tweet out links to this site with the valuable information that has be researched by all the contributors.


    Thank so much for the work you are doing. Your article Michael Jackson: Making of a Myth Part 1 is a very informative read. As soon as I had finished reading it I was tweeting the link to everyone I knew. As I read it, I could physically feel the disappointment of what these people did to Michael in my face. When I read the part about the body search…sigh Its just wrong on so many levels. When can we expect the Part 2?


  84. CCC permalink
    August 10, 2010 9:15 pm

    As I said earlier, I’m not going to get down in the mud with you guys. It seems that anyone who doesn’t agree with you gets the same treatment that you are accusing others of inflicting on your champion of the moment, Thomson; that is: Name calling.

    Deborah Finch: Thomson stated strong opinions on a forum three years ago that weren’t complimentary about some of Michael’s life-choices, image or tours.
    So what?

    Some of his comments were from as late as last year. It is inaccurate to say it was three years ago. In addition, as I read it, it was more than just on his life choices — it was about the man himself. Now that doesn’t bother you, I hear you. But as I said earlier, I would not associate with anyone who is pompous enough to trash another person for their choices and their behavior.

    What I personally do is try to understand the behavior and understand the choices. People with big egos and who are judgmental love to trash others and pretend that they are better than them — that’s what I saw in Thomson’s comments as TwistedVision, something that was curiously missing from his comments as Charles Thomson.

    You don’t’ see it, that’s fine. We don’t agree.

    Deborah French: ” You just don’t like what he said.To even compare comments on some forum, carefully selected by his harassers I might add, with the significance of Thomson’s articles is laughable.

    And it exposes you CCC.’

    You see what I mean. Exposes me as what? Of course I don’t like what he said. I’ve already said that!!!I’m not sure why you feel the need to announce it as if I had not.

    See there is an us vs them mentality being purported and it’s not only being purported by the media and the haterz — the people you have banned against as the “enemy”; that you accuse of wanting to divide and conquer — it is being cultivated and fanned right here.

    Anyone who doesn’t agree with you is all of a sudden a member of THEM — the haterz or whatever other label you want to give them.

    It’s not a healthy way to think at all.

    Isn’t it just possible that I could support and believe in everything that you guys are doing, everything that has been said against the media and the justice system, everything that Charles has written about what was done to Michael and also not like that fact that Charles as TwistedVision was hateful in his speech against Michael for a long period of time?

    DeborahFrench: If you actually think shutting down Thomson or supporting the insanity of Cox and Yazmeen in any way helps Michael or his children, because of some critical opinions years ago, then your motivation is suspect. Instead: You purposefully overlook the activism Thomson inititated at MJSTAR in protesting Peretti’s program, and you ignore the comments Thomson wrote that support his contempt for Sneddon’s case and the media lynching Michael endured.

    You’ve got better vocabularly than most of them, but we’ve met before haven’t we? You were no friend of Michael’s then.

    And you’re no friend now.”

    I mean, seriously, can you ASK me what I think instead of assuming? Do you see what I’m talking about? Why do you do that? Lump people into camps as if they can’t have independent thoughts that differ from yours and still believe in your cause. You and I have not met before, you don’t “know” me. Stop pretending that you do.

    How is that behavior different than what the media does, really?

    I am not purposefully overlooking anything, that includes the words of Thomson as TwistedVision. You say it doesn’t matter. I say it calls to question his intentions. I do not believe that a person can separate their thoughts as Thomson is proposing he can — that is holding negative thoughts personally and being able to incubate those thoughts professional. We have had countless of examples in history where one starts to bleed into the other, this is natural.

    Since TwistedVision gave himself permission to speak in a hateful way about Michael publicly, calling him selfish and ruthless amongst other things, and he has stood by his words and defended them, then he will give himself permission to do so again. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

    Anna: “In any case, I think it’s very possible that Charles had a change of heart after Michael died. If he was even just a casual fan of Michael’s music it is possible that Michael death caused him to look in the mirror and make a change. I do not know the answer to this ofcourse but I don’t understand the mentality to assume the worst about someone who has done so much good clearing Michael’s good name, that is all.”

    As I read from Thomson’s last statement on this: “Look over the comments . . . . all comments that I still stand by to this day, many of which I even reiterated in my fairly recent interview with Lorette Luzajic; an interview I plugged on this very blog without any shame or apprehension.

    So, no, I think it’s safe to say this is not a case of someone who has had a change of heart.

    If he had I would have no problem with everything that he said in the past, because the past is the past if someone has changed. But he’s defending it.

    Personally, when I hear people say that his “good” reporting outweighs anything negative he’s said in the past, I think it’s the case of the uncle who molests you but pays for your college tuition.

    And I just don’t believe we should ignore bad behavior. It’s possible (and I think GOOD) to say, yes, Thomson, thank you for your articles and research on what was done to Michael and the media bias against him AND ALSO SAY but I don’t like what you said about Michael and how you spoke about him on your blog, and I don’t like the fact that you lied about it and tried to deny it and are now defending it.


  85. Anna permalink
    August 10, 2010 9:27 pm


    That’s fine, point taken. Neither side is going to win this debate, MJ fans are pretty divided over alot of people and alot of issues, this is just one more. I think at this point both sides should just respectully agree to disagree about this, don’t you?


  86. CCC permalink
    August 10, 2010 11:02 pm

    Hi Anna — I’m not a “right” fighter. I just wanted to say my piece, which I have. It’s perfectly okay for lots of people to disagree with me. Disagreements and having people challenge our thoughts is how we grow and learn, as long as it’s done respectfully w/o name calling I think it’s all good. What would the world be like if we all agreed : )


  87. August 10, 2010 11:35 pm

    For the love of Michael give it a ****ing rest and press pause. Believe it or not they are some of us fans that don’t care about this. Some of us are interested in the big ticket items, not petty high school, twitter text, cyber bulling drama. Are Elvis Presley fans so divided? Michael Jackson’s legacy is left in the hands of his fans.

    It is the fans that will buy the video games, go to the movies, purchase the albums or whatever, but we can’t get it together long enough to be united. Some want to boycott Sony (gee brilliant), the estate, the bodyguards, or any other entity so damned. Fans could not even pull it together in a mass download of “We’ve Had Enough” by June 25 to make it number one on the charts. Helena, your site has not seen this much traffic until you started talking about Charles Thomson that says alot.

    I like what the poster had to say about Pat Tillman. Do you know that the Pat Tilman cover up has been made into a major movie set for release in theatres? That’s family dedication.

    * * *
    I would like to stay on point. Hats off to you and the researchers here Helena. I couldn’ t do what you do, there is only so much my stomach can ingest reading about porn and molestation before I regurgitate. When Michael died I was heavily into the research because I could not trust the traditional media, but I am starting to get weary of the forums.

    On 9 September 2010 something major is happening. The Frozen in Time panel discussion, or whatever it is will be held. Why aren’t more fans discussing this? We know the media will do there worst, history always repeats itself. This should be given more scrutiny, research and discussion. Alot of information will come out of this meeting of the minds. What do we really know about this?


  88. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    August 11, 2010 7:32 pm

    If people want to withdraw their support for a journalist who is in a position to talk seriously about Michael’s innocence, on the basis of old opinions on a chat site about tours, image, albums and all the rest of it – feel free.

    I will continue to see the bigger picture and hope others will also.

    To CCC:

    I retract the last part of one of my comments to you re ‘ have we met before etc.’

    I thought I recognized you as a poster I had enountered in the past. I was wrong, so I apologize for that. That is, however, all I retract.

    Thanks Gigi for your thoughtful feedback. Part II will be online in the first week of September, which isn’t actually that far away at all, so I’m going to sign off and get back to it!


  89. Dialdancer permalink
    August 11, 2010 10:33 pm

    @ Helena,

    Ref: My 8/6/10 post. Please disregard, it was part of a continued sentence I thought I had deleted. I had not intended to return to this topic. For me this was a distraction and an unprofitable at that.

    Thank you for providing the database, there is a greater energy on many MJ Fan & Support sites because of it. There are those who have begun to take note and utilizing the specific court documents in conjunction with trial transcripts to debate their point and debunk outright lies. There is also a renewal of commentary on our investigations where phrase like “fan gossip”, “unsubstantiated rumor” and “armchair legal nonsense” are being applied to our discoveries and writings.

    These articles include commentaries from legal persons, whose knowledge of the law and interpretations is meant to take precedence over our information, even when coming directly from court documents. These are subtle attempts to discredit our information.

    As one who came into Advocacy work late and who was not here to experience the coverage of 1993, any knowledge gleaned comes from what little factual and documented evidence which is currently available. It is my belief that one day the database will disappear. I am highly impressed and thankful for the Case of Michael Jackson/Veritas Project site, but 99% of the source articles are no longer available and therefore cannot be directly referenced in discussion.

    I have so many questions. Did anyone on Michael’s team other than Michael, someone who was embarrassed with the situation and most likely did not really look at it, and was not familiar with search warrants see it? Why is there NO information found on which judge(s) agreed to it, order it and signed it? Why did it not get published on the net or displayed on TV if not in 1993, then surely during 2004-2005? Why is there no recorded information on Michael’s arrest and booking,……. and hasn’t occurred to anyone there is something off about his “official” mug shot? (ie,. official govt document)

    This is no hobby for me. This is why I am here at “Vindicating Michael”, to show just how low the Media will stoop for profit and how our judicial system did not uphold the law. The tit for tat, rallying of troops to defend sides will not get that done.


  90. August 12, 2010 12:35 pm

    Dialdancer, since you accidentally published some rough copies here I deleted them as well as my questions in their connection (this can be undone in case I did the wrong thing).

    You say, “There is also a renewal of commentary on our investigations where phrase like “fan gossip”, “unsubstantiated rumor” and “armchair legal nonsense” are being applied to our discoveries and writings. These articles include commentaries from legal persons.. “

    You have greatly surprised me by the news that some legal people have noticed the work being done here. I would very much like to have a look at their comments because every critical remark points at the flaws in our logic – which we simply cannot afford as you understand it – so can I ask you to provide some links to those legal and detractors’ comments, please?

    I am not in the least discouraged by this news (quite on the contrary), but think we should learn a certain lesson from it – now it is more important than ever for us to prove each point of what we are saying either by documents and direct quotations and by haters’ own statements (this is one of my favorites). So dear editors, authors and all great, honest and true Michael’s friends who are contributing here – let us be more thorough than ever in what we are doing and let us be sure that our facts and arguments are 100, 150 or even 200 per cent true!

    Dialdancer, thank you for alerting us to the problem of crucial documents disappearing from the internet – this is a very dangerous tendency. It means that now it is not enough to make references to some sources – we should always be ready that they may disappear any minute, so it is a complete must for all of us to store them in our computers and have at least their “catched” copies kept somewhere in a safe place.

    We should probably create a sort of an archive for the basic documents we need for the vindication job – and paradoxically this includes the worst of haters’ sites (like Ray Chandler’s “yola”) or all those great interviews with Nancy Grace or Diane Dimond which are so full of lies that I regard them as most valuable sources for the job of vindicating Michael. It is such a marvel to see the girls lying in such an outrageous way – what is our “fan gossip” and “unsubstantiated rumor” we are accused of in comparison with their bare, glaring and shameless lies?

    Remember those “love letters from MJ” or the “graphic molestation video” which Diane Dimond was so “absolutely sure of” and which turned out to be just NON-EXISTENT? The documents containing all these lies are simply precious to us and need to be stored by Michael’s fans as most valuable artifacts! There will come a time when future generations will look at them in complete disbelief at the easiness with which so many people of the past were led astray as just some flock of sheep…

    As to Dialdancer’s questions concerning all those official documents about Michael’s arrest, search warrant, etc. not available to the public I have no answer to them except one only – the fact that true and basic documents are missing and are replaced by lies which are so abundant, speaks to the fact that the information presented to us is being carefully manipulated by someone and that it is being done on purpose too.

    We shouldn’t be discouraged by the absence of some documents (if we don’t find them) – their absence can often say to us even more than their presence.


  91. Suzy permalink
    August 12, 2010 7:19 pm

    Wow, so documents that would support Michael’s innocence are suddenly starting to disappear from the Internet? One would think that after Michael’s death the haters got what they wanted and they can move on now and waste their time with something else than fighting against the truth about a dead man. It seems nothing could be further from the truth and there is still a big effort made in portraying Michael in a bad light. Wow, just wow!

    And you know, there might be legal experts who know about legal technicalities more than we laypeople do. However that doesn’t mean we cannot read and understand what’s important! For example facts like Ray Chandler refused to testify and show his alleged exclusive documents to the court when asked by Michael’s defense. Things like this speak for themselves, regardless of how certain legal terms are used correctly or whatever problems those haters might have.


  92. August 12, 2010 9:44 pm

    Suzy: “Wow, so documents that would support Michael’s innocence are suddenly starting to disappear from the Internet?”

    Yes, Suzy, I’ve also noticed it – first with the Veritas project and then with a couple of other things here and there. For example, when looking for information about Ray Chandler I came across an article by Mankiewitcz which I had seen before and was outraged by it so much then that I even left some comments there. To my great amazement the same article looked much shorter this time and though the comments were still there many of the parts to which they referred were missing now so I myself couldn’t understand how they were connected with the original text…

    The kindest explanation of it would be that they are erasing some of their most blatant lies and hateful comments about Michael as they feel a little ashamed of what they did to him in the past. Such a thing would be completely unacceptable though – what is there should remain there, as it is part of the history now.

    But the most obvious reason is that they are hurriedly removing their dirtiest traces so that no one should ever be able to get to the bottom of the truth. If all the evidence is removed from the internet not only will the general public never know what really happened to Michael but there might come a day when no one will understand why Michael Jackson felt so terribly harassed and humiliated by the media at all.

    If there is nothing left there Michael’s indignation at the media lies will look a mere whim on his part and will create the impression of him being just a capricious star always displeased with what the media says about him.

    This is probably why it is us who should store the most offensive and slanderous articles about Michael in our own databases – for Michael’s supporters to be able to prove one day that he did have to live for almost two decades in an impossible atmosphere of merciless crucifixion and character assassination which no one had never seen before (as Charles Thomson put it).

    “… there might be legal experts who know about legal technicalities more than we laypeople do. However that doesn’t mean we cannot read and understand what’s important! For example facts like Ray Chandler refused to testify and show his alleged exclusive documents to the court when asked by Michael’s defense. Things like this speak for themselves, regardless of how certain legal terms are used correctly or whatever problems those haters might have”.

    I fully agree that laypeople can understand the essence of even the most difficult of cases. If they weren’t the jury would not be allowed by the same legal people to decide the fate of those charged with a crime as it is done in the courts of law now.

    If the jury of laypeople are considered qualified enough to pass a verdict on the destiny of human beings after they look into all the evidence and legal documents, we as ordinary citizens have the full right to pass judgment on the significance of the documents we find too – even though legal pundits will try to confuse us with their legal technicalities.

    It is their job to confuse us and pull us to the other side and it is our job to listen to the sides, look into the documents and take a decision.

    In the past these talking heads did their best for the court of public opinion to accuse Michael, but now it is the court of public opinion again which can fully acquit him of all charges. The only thing which is needed for the jury is full access to all ‘admissible evidence’ as they call it – but this is exactly what seems to be our biggest problem now as some crucial documents are just being removed from the internet by Michael’s detractors!

    They don’t want a fair play and are cheating on us…


  93. Paulie permalink
    August 13, 2010 12:35 am

    Wait! I have a question, you mention Deborah Ffrench …I came across an article ( she wrote and it seemed very credible. However, she mentioned a grand juror but never gave a name nor did the article cite her sources. So while her article seemed to vindicate Michael, I went looking.

    For example, she states that agreement with Chandler stipulated that they could pursue Michael criminally. So I went looking for a copy of the agreement and found a heavily redacted version of it on The Smoking Gun website, but never saw any such stipulation. A Google of her name, brings up references to her being a “floon” (Toppix), which Michael fans by now know is a combination of either fan or fanatic + loon.

    So who is she? Is she merely a fan? How would she know these things she reports in her article? Is she just pulling this stuff out of her butt? As much as we want Michael vindicated, I don’t want to get all excited about stuff that someone made up, no matter how well intentioned. I was especially excited to hear such a clause existed (if indeed it does) but have no problem facing the truth. As I want to be clear and pure in my belief Michael was innocent. It doesn’t matter much if such a stipulation doesn’t exist, but it matters a great deal if it does. She does make a very cogent argument as to why he settled (a civil suit would reveal the defense strategy to Sneddon).

    So do you know who this person is? Is she a journalist? Or is she just a fan and manufacturing things? She cites no sources. Hope you can help.

    Hi Dial!


  94. Susan permalink
    August 13, 2010 2:45 am

    Hi Paulie:

    Regarding the Chandlers being able to pursue Michael criminally per the settlement Agreement; – on this website, go to the “archives”, choose April, 2010, choose “Talking to Haters About Michael Jackson’s Confidential Settlement (text) – it is the third topic in the list, dated
    April 28, 2010. The whole article is great but item #4 provides the text wherein the Chandlers were not prohibited from appearing in Court against Michael. Hope that helps.


  95. lynande51 permalink
    August 13, 2010 2:55 am

    I am working on a piece to post here as my own page on the subject of the settlement document. It is taking some time because I have had to go looking for an article that I lost a few months ago when my computer crashed and I had to buy a new one. I have found an article on the Smoking Gun website and another from CNN that will verify something that no one has addressed yet: They did not leak the entire settlement. They held back 8-9 pages of it.The pages that were redacted are all we are ever going to see but I will get into that more when I finalize my little project. As for th elegal pundits calling this armchair legal nonsense and unsubstantiated rumor I have one word or should I say name for them talk to Diane Dimond about it. She was the one that only gave us part of the picture. I think, given we are handicapped that way in our analysis, we are doing a damn fine job.


  96. lcpledwards permalink
    August 13, 2010 3:15 am

    @ Paulie
    I don’t know much about Deborah Ffrench’s educational background, but maybe she’ll tell us once she reads your comment. As far as her work, it is thorughly researched, factual, and well written. The confidentiality agreement stated that the Chandlers could still cooperate with authorities if they so desired (or if they were subpoenaed), but they had to notify MJ’s legal team first. (That is typical of such agreements, not just MJ’s.) For MJ to “buy their silence” would be an obstruction of justice, and Sneddon would have arrested him on the spot for that!

    But think about this: why would MJ “buy someone’s silence”, when they have NO INCENTIVE WHATSOEVER to remain silent? If he paid someone, and the person had a change of heart and still went to the cops, he couldn’t get the money back, and the money that he paid would be used against him as a sign of guilt. Could anyone pay you to not work with the police if you or your child were molested? NO!!! The confidentiality agreement was legally enforceable, so if they violated it by doing interviews or writing books, they could be forced to return the money. But if MJ had paid them “hush money”, it would be illegal, and no lawyer would throw away their career by writing up something that is unenforceable. In fact, the lawyer who represented Blanca and Jason Francia testified and CONFIRMED that their settlement DID NOT prevent them from testifying in court. In fact, they both DID testify, and were thoroughly discredited!

    As far as Deborah Ffrench being a floon, those haters on that site think that EVERYONE who supports MJ is a floon! One thing about that site is that they NEVER criticize the Chandlers, despite the fact that they think MJ is guilty. And they NEVER mention “All That Glitters” as a source to defend their arguments, mostly because they haven’t even read the damn book! How could you believe the Chandler’s story if you don’t even know what it is? I have yet to hear a defender even mention that book (or MJ Was My Lover), let alone actually defend it!

    By the way, in a few weeks I’m going to upload a 50+ page report to this blog and other MJ blogs explaining the settlement, and comparing it to other athletes and celebrities who have either settled civil lawsuits, or fought them in court and paid the price with bad publicity (despite being innocent of what they were accused of.) This article will put to rest all of the nonsense regarding the settlement being “hush money”. I’m also going to do another article called “How to talk to an MJ hater”, so stay tuned!

    In the meantime, I want you to read this passage from “ATG”. As we all know, none of the Chandlers (except June) ever testified in court, so they were never cross-examined. So it’s our job to cross-examine their book and use it against them! And the best part of doing this is that they can’t plead the fifth, because everything is written down in black and white! This excerpt from page 167 proves that the Chandlers never wanted to step foot in either criminal or civil court! Their goal was to get the civil trial to go before the criminal trial, and force MJ to settle, and that’s EXACTLY what they did! Here is where they decide to dump Gloria Allred in favor of Larry Feldman because she actually wanted to pursue justice. The nerve of her!

    “By the conclusion of the meeting, June and Dave, like Evan before them, had no doubts about switching from Gloria Allred to Larry Feldman. The choice came down to either waging an all-out media campaign to pressure the DA to seek a Grand Jury indictment, or conducting subtle, behind-the-scenes negotiations toward a quick, quiet and highly profitable settlement. Avoiding the trauma that a lengthy criminal or civil lawsuit would bring to the entire family, especially Jordie, was a no-brainer.”

    That passage should put to rest any notion that the settlement was “hush money”, because they never had any intention of seeking justice, SO THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THEM TO BE “HUSHED”!

    Lastly, Teva, please open the link and scroll to the bottom to watch the video of actor Todd Bridges, a REAL molestation victim. Hear what he says he’ll do to someone who ever molested his son. Listen to him, and then think of Evan Chandler, who wanted to record a rebuttal album!


  97. Paulie permalink
    August 13, 2010 3:54 am

    Thanks for your response…I know about the haters on Toppix. I thought her article was very well written, but citations are important and I wish she had done that, perhaps she will consider citing her sources.

    The passage may have been removed from the document I read or when I scanned it I missed it. Yes, I get it, but the haters always cite the settlement as proof and of course it is not. They keep claiming he bought his way out of it and apparently don’t know anything about the criminal justice system. (You can’t murder someone and then pay the family off or rape someone and pay your way out of it.) Needless to say, the Chandlers were paid and then apparently never lifted a finger to save any children from the fate their child supposedly suffered when there was no fear of losing their money. If you argue they wanted the money for those years of therapy the kid was going to need, wouldn’t they have provided the DA with every piece of evidence they could have to help build a case to put a child molester to jail?…wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t any parent? But of course they didn’t, because it never happened.

    The bottom-line, too, is it was obvious that Sneddon wasn’t swayed by Michael’s celebrity. He want him in any worse way possible. Michael wasn’t given an inch and yet he still couldn’t build a case against him. Everyone with a tale to tell for money suddenly didn’t have one in a court of law. So Sneddon of course knew they were lying but continued anyway. In a way I’m glad he did, because a lot of fans may have always had that doubt.

    By pursuing him relentlessly and still never finding one darn thing or given all that evidence Diane Dimond still claims she saw, proves to me there was just nothing. I don’ know of any criminal that slick. And his little porn stash was nothing but what you can buy in any legitimate forum and to me showed how much he care about kids and liked looking at naked women like any heterosexual male with a sexual appetite.


  98. Paulie permalink
    August 13, 2010 3:58 am

    Thanks Susan, I’ll check it out….thanks everyone for your response…


  99. Dialdancer permalink
    August 13, 2010 5:05 am


    I am somewhat like you. So many places, so much to remember. Here is one I particularly remember. I will check back there is one other which was well addressed. Had to be an advocate. When you use the right combination of words often a link to here, Seven’s, Raven’s and several others discussing that topic comes up.

    Helena you are correct about the absence certain documents and what it may mean and how is may be perceived, but proof of absence (lack of)….. say a search warrant would put a very large spotlight on the parties involved. There are those to the North of us and across the waters who still call that particular event reprehensible.

    I have taken to turning articles into PDF documents. I will back track and see if I can find the other article mentioned.

    Thank you for your support on the lost articles issue.


  100. August 13, 2010 8:37 am

    Lynette: “I am working on a piece to post here as my own page on the subject of the settlement document. They held back 8-9 pages of it. ”

    @Lynette, it would be GREAT if you could provide the full text of the settlement agreement – this way everything will be in the open and there will be no more blank spaces left for haters to hide there, and we can scrutinize the agreement once again in minute detail.
    And you are right about your own page. I’ve changed your “role” into an editor too, so that there are three of you now (easier to take decisions this way) and could be three individual pages – please create one yourself when you need it.

    “… given we are handicapped that way in our analysis, we are doing a damn fine job.”
    YEEESS! Given we are no professional investigators and have to work for a living and are terribly pressed for time too. It’s a miracle. I am keeping my fingers crossed though…


  101. August 15, 2010 3:54 pm

    Dialdancer: “There is also a renewal of commentary on our investigations where phrase like “fan gossip”, “unsubstantiated rumor” and “armchair legal nonsense” are being applied to our discoveries and writings.These articles include commentaries from legal persons, whose knowledge of the law and interpretations is meant to take precedence over our information, even when coming directly from court documents.”

    the sample article you provided in another of your comments ( has only proven to me how sick and tired I am with the media lies about Michael. This forced me to take an impromptu decision and open a new page on training how to see through media lies about Jackson (the article is placed there with some of my commentary).

    For those who are as deep as we are in the vindication job, seeing through the media lies is as easy as a piece of cake. So I would very much like to help newcomers to be able to develop such an ability too (if they haven’t it yet).

    A note for the other editors and contributors here – in case you want to handle some media lies for training purposes too please dissect their articles in our sanitation page (tentatively named “A see-through-lies MANUAL), though sanitation page would probably be a better word. In case you write there your post will have to be placed on top of the earlier one (shifting the old one to the bottom of the page).

    Lynande, since individual pages do not allow opportunities different from those described above, why don’t you make your posts in the Home page (as was supposed to from the very beginning)? Individual pages could be used for something very specific – like posting huge amounts of information (for example, those 50 pages David promises us or Deborah’s “Myth” article, which should always be close at hand).

    David, you seem to be our only computer wizard here. Can I ask you to look into the possibility of creating multiple posts in individual pages too (you’ll have to look up the wordpress support for it). We DO need it as I’d like to set up a sort of a database to store the most important documents and a library for the best articles vindicating Michael, like the one by Koopersmith, provided by Ares.

    Thanks a lot to ALL of you, guys, for all the work you are doing here.


  102. lcpledwards permalink
    August 15, 2010 8:32 pm

    @ Helena
    I’ll try to find out for you how to add multiple, separate posts for personal pages, instead of having them stacked on top of each other. I’ll look through the WordPress FAQs or contact customer support.

    Also, before I post my next article, I’m going to send it to you for you to read and offer any suggestions for it. I know you already said that I don’t necessarily need your approval, but I would like you to give me your thoughts on it. I’m also going to need your help as far as adding photos to it, because I reference a lot of other people in it (such as Kobe Bryant, Bill O’Reilly, Rick Pitino, etc.) I want their photos added so people will know who I’m talking about.

    As far as “All That Glitters”, it’s not available to read online, you have to order it. It’s pretty cheap though. You can buy it from Amazon for less than $10 dollars (USA currency; I don’t know how much it would cost in Russian currency.) I saved several pages of it in my own notes, and that’s why I’m able to cut and paste them into these comments. I use their own words against them!

    Lastly, I see that you added the “see through lies manual” section, and I have the perfect update for it. A few months ago I wrote an article called “MJ vs Legal Analysts”, where I refuted Nancy Grace and Sunny Hostin. They both made absolutely horrible arguments that MJ was guilty; in fact, Hostin felt that Jordie’s declaration was in and of itself all the proof she needed, because “boys don’t lie about molestation”. I sent it to you a few months ago, but you didn’t post it. 😦 But Raven posted it at her All For Love blog (which is currently down), and I’ll resend it to you so that you can post it here under the “see through lies manual”.


  103. August 16, 2010 4:26 am

    Hi Helena and David,

    You might want to you can create sub pages for the personal pages, which will be a menu with a drop down menu of sub pages.

    This is an example that I had set up on how it works on my old blog that I don’t really use.

    Okay on the main menu you will see a link “mooresg page.” When you mouse over the “sub page mooresg” shows in the drop down.

    For example, David your Bashir article can be one sub page and then your 50 page report can be on another sub page. Your 50 page report can even be broken do into sub sub pages.

    To create this drop down menu. Go to “Pages” in the admin section. The click “add new” You will then put in all the content as normal. But this time before you publish, on the right hand side you will see “Page Atrributes”. Under “Parent” click on that drop down and set the “Parent” page to David Edward’s page. Leave the Template on Default. In the “Order” box you can assign a number 1, 2, 3, etc. to arrange how the sub page links are listed in the drop down menu. After that you can preview or just publish the page.

    You would do this each time you want to publish a separate article on the Editor’s (personal) pages.

    So when you view the Pages in the admin section again it will be a hierarchy like this:

    David Edward’s Page
    -Bashir Article
    – 50 page Report
    – -50 page report pt 1.
    – -50………………pt 2.
    – -50………………pt 3.
    – Article 3

    Lynette’s Page
    -Article 1
    -Article 2
    -Article 3

    I hope that helps, I wasn’t sure if this was what you are looking for.


  104. August 16, 2010 2:51 pm

    Gigi, thank you SO much! Your help is invaluable to us – I will make a trial page to try and post some articles there as I planned (while our editors will work on their own pages, I hope). Thanks again! If the experiment does not work out for us please understand us – we are only learning to be the admins and are still undecided about the structure of the blog…

    David, I remember your very good article about Nancy, but think it more belongs in the Portrait category of the Home page (where you are very much welcome to post) which lists only Sneddon at the moment.

    The anti-lie Manual you suggest for your article was made on the spur of the moment as a technical page referring not to concrete people but to the technique of lies they are using. In some respect we can replace the name of Brian Palmer with journalist ‘X’ there, as the name is not important (no, sorry, it is – that is why I left it there – the country should know its “heroes” – but I hope you understand what I mean?).

    And one other thing about the Manual – if we look into the way information is being twisted and people brainwashed we’ll need to post there the original text of the journalist too, otherwise all our words will be just ‘hearsay’. The original text will also be needed for the practical purpose of training and checking one’s progress in obtaining the immunity to lies.

    However it is up to you to find the best place for your really good article about Nancy – you are an editor and it is you who decides!

    Now that Gigi explained to us that sub-page method I suggest we thoroughly consider the new opportunities it is opening for us. That is why I don’t want to touch any of the existing pages at the moment and would like to experiment with a new one.


  105. lcpledwards permalink
    August 16, 2010 7:31 pm

    1. I deleted those two spam emails from that lawyer website. I think because your Ray Chandler posts mentioned quashing a subpoena, and that website is discusses how to quash a subpoena, that somehow that blogger decided to use your post as an example of how to quash a subpoena.

    2. I will have the article on Nancy Grace ready later tonight. It’s the same one that I posted a few months ago on the All For Love blog, but I found some additional dirt on Nancy Grace that I want to add. She has a long history of prosecutorial misconduct that I want to bring to everyone’s attention. I’ll post it on the “home page”. Thanks for the advice on posting photos, and if I have any additional questions on adding photos, I’ll let you know.

    3. In the future I’ll try and follow Gigi’s advice on creating sub-pages. Personally, I’d rather just post any articles I have on the “home page”, but if you absolutely insist that I have my own page, I’ll just create sub-pages.


  106. August 16, 2010 8:49 pm

    NO, David, dear, I do not insist on you having a personal page! I thought you needed you as your own corner to ocassionally go to for a separate chat or whatever. Do the way you like it – however it won’t hurt to have a page of your own while all the other editors have it, otherwise it is not clear why they have it and you don’t.


  107. C.Cozi permalink
    August 30, 2010 1:26 pm

    MUZIKfactory2 is a girl called Yazmeen. She is not a male.

    And she’s as crazy as a bag of angry snakes. Anyone who takes that troll seriously is out of their minds.

    Honestly, I don’t know what all the fuss is about. Who cares what CT said three years ago on a forum. It has nothing to do with his research on Michael’s innocence and the media’s treatment of him. For what it’s worth, I just thought I’d add my view here.



  1. Thank you to all of the readers of Vindicate MJ! « Vindicating Michael

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: