Skip to content

DEBORAH FFRENCH’S page

May 3, 2011 

Michael Jackson Legacy: The Lies That Bind

By Deborah Ffrench

Michael Jackson’s legacy demands nothing less than the truth.

Michael Jackson Legacy: The Lies That Bind

April 29, 2011. London. Westminster Abbey groans under its own weight in flowers and a nation prays for the sun to shine. A centuries old country hyperventilates as it waits for a young Prince and a young woman who would become a Princess – well, Duchess as it turned out – to kiss. The level of anticipation and interest in Prince William and Kate Middleton’s wedding, building in the weeks and days before the big day, powered not only by a media whipped frenzy, but out of the massive desire to see the eldest son of the late ex-Princess of Wales make his choice before an audience of billions. Lady Diana Spencer, self-confessed ‘Queen of Hearts,’ was for many both in England and overseas, the real heroine of the Royal Family. And it was the memory of the joyous potential a young Diana’s own wedding represented and the huge sorrow and anger her death precipitated – that gave her son’s wedding the pathos and historic power it did.

The reality that it was in fact Diana’s death that revitalized the mythology and popularity of the British Royals is a deeply ironic one. Subjected to hostile media headlines after Prince Charles and Lady Diana’s marriage collapsed – in the wake of Diana’s death, the Royal family achieved its lowest approval ratings since King Edward VIII abdicated in 1936. Miraculously, that same Royal Family now enjoys the new affection that has transferred from the people’s adoration and respect for Diana – a respect she earned, to her first-born, Prince William.

The political Establishment, Royal family and still prevalent ruling class in British society, shunned Diana for her seemingly unpredictable informality and distinctly modern way of relating to a people the British constitution stubbornly defines as subjects. But the reason why Diana herself manifestly rejected the destiny that had been carefully mapped out for her, and was then rejected by the Establishment for that snub, was this singularity: Her refusal to accept a loveless marriage. That generations of Royal wives and aristocrats before her had put up with unhappy, arranged marriages and done so silently, did not change Diana’s mind or subsequent acquiescence to divorce.

Diana; the shy girl who became a woman before the world’s lens, portrayed then (and still now in some quarters), as weak, stupid – and famously, by parliamentary member Nicholas Soames on the BBC’s flagship, political TV program, Newsnight, in November 1995, after Diana’s interview with Martin Bashir as – suffering from ‘mental illness’ and in the ‘advanced stages of paranoia’– simply said ‘No.’ Deciding the vows she made during her 1981 wedding – not to mention the intrusive media she undeniably became a victim of – could no longer be honored if the husband she made them to did not love her exclusively: Diana made a choice. Though that choice would expose her increasingly to the aggressive attentions of a rapacious press who would not be ignored, one question amongst many bears asking: Would Diana have done anything differently if she still had the chance to choose between a loveless commitment or personal freedom and self worth? One suspects the answer would be no.

And it is this truth, in addition to Diana’s extensive philanthropic work – that is her greatest legacy. It is why the moniker ‘Queen of Hearts’ still has real potency and longevity. The example she set for her children and to the world: that no amount of privilege or perceived social status could ever compensate for the misery and pain that a life of emotional deception entailed – remains a bold and powerful one. The sole reason why Prince William’s marriage to Kate Middleton caught the imagination and hearts of millions around the world is simple: He married for love. And that choice, that one decision, will now ripple glorious effect into the generations that will result from it.

In the BBC’s evening coverage of the event, British reporter Andrew Wilson commenting, stated this truly unprecedented fact: “For the first time in over three hundred years, a future monarch has looked outside the inner circle for his bride – and brought her home.” This was Diana’s true gift. Diana bequeathed to her children the necessity of living an authentic life no matter how difficult, and the value and need for authentic love to fill that life. The first of her sons has now opened that gift. That is the power of legacy.

Legacy. A curious word. It applies to bloodlines of inherited wealth and historic families, and equally it applies to every human being. Who we are, how we live, and what we give during the lifetimes we are assigned – are key parts of sum we leave behind. And across the pond Michael Jackson also leaves a legacy to his children, and to the world. Like Diana, Michael used his fame, time and energy – not to mention millions of dollars – to positively benefit the lives of others. And like Diana, Michael also lived his life under unimaginable scrutiny. In Diana’s latter years however, the albeit tenuous respect afforded her by the media in Britain after her divorce and new relationships, not to mention the still rapturous media she enjoyed in America and around the globe, were exponentially more humane than that extended to Michael Jackson. While both these public figures endured violating levels of media attention, Michael did so for far longer and on a much more malevolent scale.

Yet there remain striking connections between these two icons; similarities which apparently Michael and Diana were themselves well aware of. In a 1997 interview on the popular television program 20/20, American host Barbara Walters revealed that the last two concerts of the European leg of the ‘HIStory’ tour were dedicated to Diana after Michael learned of her death. Poignantly, in that interview Michael revealed that during one of those concerts he had this thought of the late princess. “I love you Diana. And shine on forever, because you are the true Princess of the people.” Interestingly, Michael’s choice of words here completely negates the media mischaracterization of him as being unaware of, or unable to understand the politick of the real world. Clearly Michael understood the deep insult and exclusion the British establishment intended Diana when, as a condition of her divorce settlement, it was insisted that the title of ‘Princess’ be removed from Diana’s official ranking as a Royal.

By referring to Diana as a ‘Princess of the People’ before an audience of millions, Michael stated the obvious: that after her death Diana was – in truth – this even more so. Symbolically too, since Jackson is known throughout the world as the ‘King of Pop,’ by declaring his sense of empathy with Diana and her struggles, Michael expressed in words the resonance and connection he felt with Diana that, in fact, exists on a number of levels. Many celebrities do good works, endorsing a charity is de rigueur for any modern PR savvy star. What made Michael and Diana so different was the way they gave to others, the overriding sense they did it from a place of compassionate service; not out of duty or because it would ‘look good.’ The similarities do not end there. Both Michael and Diana met not only untimely deaths – but violent ones. One, the result of a high speed chase through Parisian streets by paparazzi on motorcycles; the other, at the hands of a prima facie acutely negligent physician treating his patient with inappropriate drugs for relief from chronic insomnia. The grief that attended both these deaths was compounded by the certain knowledge that they were both overwhelmingly unnecessary.

Only the most imperceptive would deny that Jackson’s insomnia was undoubtedly the result of a life massively traumatized. Even for someone used to living in the glare of uber fame, the level of stress, abuse and cruelty Jackson had to deal with, went far beyond what any individual could healthily be expected to cope with. Indeed there is an argument – a strong one –for contending that Jackson would never even have arrived at a point in his life where he felt he needed doctors around him constantly, had the media persecution which came his way not been so unrelentingly vicious. Used to being bundled through the back doors of hotels and venues long before he hit his teens, Michael often said he had ‘rhinoceros skin.’ Clearly he did not. And now the toll of false allegations exacerbated and perpetuated in the public consciousness by the overtly malicious, commercially-driven marketing of Jackson as some sort of monstrous harmer of children by at least two generations of journalists, editors and TV pundits across the spectrum of media – now undeniably threatens the positive truth of his legacy. And it is that threat that has united many in one outstanding purpose: Restoration.

The reality that Michael Jackson remains the one of world’s least celebrated humanitarians, and despite fourteen emphatic ‘Not Guilty’ verdicts in the criminal trial of 2005, has not as yet been vindicated in the actual – is testament to the enduring power of perception. This perception of ‘guilt’ dominated Jackson news stories while he was alive and continues even after his death. Present day media comment in the run-up to the Conrad Murray trial that only hinted at the ‘demanding addict’ sub-text has now exploded into full blown accounts of ‘drugs found in the Neverland raid,’ and horrifically, graphic speculation about what the autopsy pictures may look like. It is evidence that the powerful and pervasive Fourth Estate shows no sign yet of any desire to recant the years of distortion they issued into the public domain. Many believe this state of affairs to be insurmountable. The question is, is it?

Years of self-serving media narrative will take certainly take time to be righted. But the journey back has begun, and it has begun in earnest. One way this is being achieved can be seen in the new narratives now surfacing. Amidst the wealth of rush-to-copy, mostly picture books releases that hit the market soon after Michael’s death, others have sought to push back the years of media misrepresentation and actually honor an exceptional life. To date, three publications are notable. American journalist, Aphrodite Jones’s ‘Michael Jackson Conspiracy’ published pre-2009 in 2007, details the extent of a preconceived negative bias within the U.S media towards Jackson and how that was reflected both during, and after, their coverage of Jackson’s 2005 trial. Post 2009, Bruce Swedien, noted recording engineer, released ‘In the Studio with Michael Jackson.’ In it, Swedien takes it back to the music, tracing the beginnings of his working relationship with Jackson from as far back as The Wiz through to HIStory – and does Jackson great service throughout. More recently, Joe Vogel’s new work, ‘Man in the Music: The Creative life and work of Michael Jackson,’ set for international release in October 2011, also promises to positively contribute to Jackson’s legacy – simply by returning the conversation to Michael’s commitment and service to the creation of phenomenal music, dance and visual art.

In the arena of journalism, Jones’s work with Discovery Investigation via her True Crime television programs has so far made modest impact on the prevailing smirking content found in the majority of current media, but these are early days. Similarly, British journalist, Charles Thomson, in hugely important articles on Huffington Post and elsewhere, has consistently exposed the damaging inaccuracies about the legal challenges faced by Jackson – inaccuracies still recycled ad nauseam by the media. In addition, a multitude of positive articles and interviews from people who knew Jackson personally (and some who didn’t) – such as David Nordahl, Thomas Mesereau, Elizabeth Taylor, Susan Fast, Stephen King, Jeff Koopersmith, Forbes Everett Landis, Michael Bearden, Linda Deutsch, Armand White, Stuart Backerman, Matt Semino, Dr Patrick Treacy, Barbara Amiel, Jonathan Margolis, Dave ‘Dave,’ Ishmael Reed, Gerald L. Campbell, Wade Robson, Howard Bloom, testimonials from stars and those who worked with Michael professionally, and the many families who benefited from the outreach work Jackson did continually throughout his life; are all part of the new narrative that could potentially transform the destructive Jackson meme most of the media remains irrationally attached to.

Mention must also be given to a hugely ambitious project undertaken by Reverend Barbara Kaufmann. In 2010, Kaufmann, herself a minister, award winning writer, Huffington Post contributor and bright voice in the field of activism – gathered together a bank of exceptional  articles, poetry and case studies, inspired by and dedicated to the lives and incompletely acknowledged achievements of both Lady Diana Spencer and Michael Jackson – as part of the collaborative ‘Words and Violence Project.’ It stands as a body of work that, in time, could one day be widely referred to and used by educational centers to further our society’s understanding of how words and media culture occupies a dual ability to both benefit and damage the lives it touches.

Likewise, a range of websites diligently compiling their respective collections of memories, anecdotes, stories, facts, and extent of the phenomenal philanthropic gift Jackson gave, are also contributing – some better than others – to the archiving of Michael Jackson’s legacy. While many of these sites focus only on the musical accolades and aesthetic of Jackson’s many ‘eras’ in his musical career, some notable ones go further and actively keep alight a true record of Michael Jackson’s compassionate legacy to a world that so dramatically refused it.

Among these, Michael Jackson Tribute Portrait. Represented by members and visitors from over 180 countries, 250 million so far (and counting) have signed up to be part of the largest [dot] comprised portrait of Michael Jackson ever commissioned. Also worthy of note is The Silenced Truth website. One of the first sites to draw attention to the gap in the world’s understanding of who Michael Jackson was, The SilencedTruth also hosts one of the most comprehensive lists of Jackson’s humanitarian contributions. Another site worthy of highlight is MJJ-777. Hosted by Jackson archivist Seven Bowie, it’s an exquisite repository. Rich in facts and a cultural breadth reflective of Jackson’s impact on the world, this site is a must-visit destination for not only fans, but all those who seek to expand their knowledge of Jackson. Also of note are the informational grand central stations in the forms of MJTruthNow, Vindicatemj, Reflections of the Dance, and the outstanding blog spots of smokeandmirrorsmj, gatorgirl277 and mjandjustice4some. To dismiss – as some do – the value of the work produced on these sites and blog spots as merely ‘fan’ sites hosting partisan perspectives, is to fail to comprehend the extent of the staggering research amassed on these demonstrably, credible sources.

The rejuvenation proper of Jackson’s official charitable legacy has still to be re-ignited since the Estate is still in probate and thus has to seek specific legal dispensation to make payments even to approved creditors. But as the executors – John Branca and John McClain – of the Estate of Michael Jackson expressed as recently as April 21, 2011 as part of a larger statement, their intention to make decisions and “… direct contributions to recipient charities … with complete regard to Michael’s wishes and Michael’s legacy, which we intend to honor and perpetuate ” –  should assure those who need it that rejuvenation is indeed coming. The legal furore over the sensitive and complex settlement with Howard Mann and Melissa Johnson, who held the rights to various trademarks and control of the ‘Heal the World Foundation,’ itself an unauthorized impression of Michael Jackson’s original vision – has paradoxically within it the seeds of a new platform for the Estate, Michael Jackson’s family – and three children to go forward from an albeit clumsy beginning to a future that possibly reincarnates that vision.

On January 25, 2011, Zach O’Malley Greenburg of Forbes reported that the Estate of Michael Jackson earned $275 million more than Madonna, Beyonce, Lady Gaga and Jay-Z combined. An intimidating statistic considering the artist earning these gargantuan sums is in fact dead. But this also suggests that if speaking in purely monetary terms alone, the legacy of Michael Jackson is very much alive. Greenburg notes much of this boon was due to the commercial boost that nostalgia driven sales of ‘all things Michael’ received ‘following the King of Pop’s death,’ which of course indicates that the one thing the ‘Michael Jackson’ brand does not lack – is an audience.

In February of this year, the Estate of Michael Jackson declared it made over $310 million before debt clearance, and it is no doubt banking on that same audience to consume the array of Michael Jackson products now flooding the market. These include: the interactive dance game Michael Jackson the Experience, box-set Michael Jackson Vision, collector’s item Opus, the film This Is It, the Cirque du Soleil collaborative live extravaganza The Immortal World Tour, the Epic album releases – part of the Sony corporation, and a legion of Michael Jackson posters, T-shirts and merchandise etc, as well as the sales of Jackson’s peerless musical back-catalogue. None of this, of course, even takes into account the plans for a replica ‘Vegas Neverland,’ the revenue possibilities for the actual Neverland, and the over $1.5 billion estimated worth of the Sony/ATV catalogue jointly owned by the Estate and Sony. Yes, in purely monetary terms alone, legacy is big business.

But the success of a legacy turns on more than just balance sheets and portfolios. Clearly the Estate has already made more money than any of Michael’s three children could spend in a lifetime, and to those children it will not be their father’s money they remember – or long for. The lasting legacy of Michael Jackson will, in reality, rest on the de facto restoration of his rightful place as not only one of America’s greatest creative sons, but also one of her most unjustly judged. After death, a man (or woman’s) reputation is the unwritten text on which the memory of that individual falls or stands. The public’s insistence on an ambivalent collective relationship with Michael Jackson, and the American and British media’s engineering and perpetuation of that stance, however – is not fixed. Flux is inevitable, and the pendulum will swing. Perhaps to somewhere in the middle, or perhaps just beyond the catastrophic damage wrought by years of media malice and deception by characters that need no introduction here. That will not be good enough for many of course, but how far that pendulum swings will be down to the work of those actively involved in the work it will take to move it further.

The reshaping and restoring that Michael Jackson’s reputation deserves will need work to make that restoration a reality. But behind the scenes a body of people that combines fans, advocates and supporters, the Estate, the Jackson family, Jackson’s friends, the generations of fans yet to come – and perhaps Michael’s children; are all part of that groundswell. Just as Diana’s children now forge new destinies because of the gift their mother gave them, three voices bearing the name Jackson may one day join the force that now gathers pace but as yet lacks focus. Because the reality is this: it isn’t only love that survives. The lies that bind will remain as tightly fastened as they are allowed to – and Michael Jackson’s legacy demands nothing less than the truth.

 *  *  *  *  *

September 2, 2010

Macaulay Culkin at the Governor's Ball after t...

Macaulay Culkin at the Governor's Ball in 1991

While Deborah French is busy working on PART 2 of her “The Making Of A Myth” article I decided to temporarily occupy her page and remind our readers of PART 1.

I honestly tried to select the choicest part of it to present her paper here, but apparently I’ve forgotten how great the article is. It is impossible to single out anything in particular as every part of it is a precious gem – it brings together a wealth of information presented in such a condensed and compact way that it should be literally learned by heart by every true Michael’s supporter. And I mean it, guys!

Since the paper is long and cannot be presented here in full, I will select only one bit of information from it.

It is about Macaulay Culkin.

It immediately showed me the mistakes I’ve made earlier and sorted out some mess in my head in respect of who said what about Culkin and when:

“…the first of the ‘witnesses’ would be Stella and Phillipe Lemarque, former chefs at Neverland. Using Hollywood investigator and well known tabloid broker, Paul Barresi (known to occasionally use firearms during fee negotiations), the Lemarques attempted to sell their story that they had seen Jackson ‘abusing’ the child actor Macaulay Culkin to anyone waving a checkbook. Their story was eventually sold first to The Mirror for an unspecified amount, headlining their exclusive as ‘Jacko’s New Home Slur,’ and subsequently to The Globe for $15,000 who ran with ‘Peter Pan or Pervert: We caught Jackson Abusing Child Star.’

…when cross-examined in 2005 by Jackson’s lead lawyer, Thomas Mesereau, Lemarque would admit that Barresi had advised him that saying Jackson’s hand was inside Culkin’s shorts instead of outside, would significantly raise the asking price they could sell their story for. Indeed, writer Maureen Orth in her 1994 article ‘Nightmare in Neverland,’ wrote that Barresi actually showed her two written versions of the Lemarques ‘story,’ that clearly revealed how the fee affected the content.

In ’93, after the Lemarque story broke, Culkin publicly denied he had been molested by Jackson. But the press barely covered it, some even suggesting Culking’s denial was an attempt to ‘save face’.

In Jackson’s 2005 trial, Culkin, who was strangely not called by the prosecution as a witness even though under the prosecution’s own ‘prior acts’ criteria he qualified as one of the ‘victims’, insisted on testifying after Mr. Lemarque’s testimony. Under oath, Culkin adamantly denied any such incident occurred and also described the accusations of molestation against Jackson as “absolutely ridiculous”.

Adrian McManus… in her original statement in 1994, stated that she had not seen Jackson touch Macaulay Culkin inappropriately. Under oath in 2005, when questioned directly by Mesereau as to why she now sought to change her 1994 statement, McManus somewhat disingenuously replied, “I didn’t tell the truth”.

Read more about lies around Macaulay Culkin and Michael Jackson as well as all other deplorable events of the 90s in Deborah Ffrench’s article: http://www.stereoboard.com/pdfs/Michael-Jackson-The-Making-Of-A-Myth-Part-I.pdf

*   *   *

August 4, 2010

I very much welcome Deborah French in this blog and am very appreciative of her being here. This is why I’ve set up this individual page specially for her posts about Michael Jackson. Here is another of her articles about who is really responsible for Michael’s death – Dr. Condrad MURREY or the MEDIA.

Who is really responsible for Michael Jackson’s death – Dr Conrad Murray or the media?

By Deborah Ffrench

The 2009 December released FBI files debunk the myth of Michael Jackson as child molester. Is it time to ask who is really responsible for his death – Dr Conrad Murray or the media?

The one question I hear no-one asking in the press or blogland in general is:- ‘why’ was Michael Jackson taking an extreme drug? What made a relatively fit man known for abstention from the early part of his career until the mid-1990’s, end his days in a made-to-measure trauma room?

A star by the age of 10, catapulted into superstardom after the success of his first two solo albums, his dominance in the music industry coincided with the multimedia explosion of the late 1980’s. One of the first of the new breed of artists to fully explore the potential of synergistic promotion of product as a vehicle to reach new audiences, by 1991 Michael Jackson – the brand, had penetrated the consciousness of the entire developed and most of the undeveloped world.

With such unprecedented accessibility came also unprecedented pressure. Pressure to maintain and exceed his own standards, constant deconstruction by the press, and emotional isolation as the gilded chains of a life lived under the microscope bound ever tighter. There is no room here to list the enormous contribution he made to the lives of children all over the globe. His efforts are a matter of public record and the information regarding them is easily obtainable on the web.

Suffice it to say, Michael saw children not as ‘people-in-waiting’, but as bonafide, sentient personalities whose process and concerns were worthy of respect and protection. Using his fame and wealth to radically benefit the lives of such young people was something Michael believed to be his ultimate purpose here, and it is in this light that we can perhaps understand the catastrophic, internal damage the public cauterization that came from 1993 onwards must have done to him.

Something rotten has been decaying at the the heart of our media for some time now, but it took the death of one of its favorite page-fillers to expose the reality of what the cumulative effect of deliberate mental and emotional attack on a person actually looks like.

It must surely now be apparent that the existing regulatory checks and balances within the media are totally inadequate –and further, that those monitoring capabilities are unable to prevent the now standard ‘take aim’ and ‘destroy’ default position the media now typically seems to operate from in relation to the subjects it ‘goes after.’

Michael’s early death was not a given. Only the most imperceptive would deny that the anesthetic that killed him was, in reality, just a formality.

What killed Michael Jackson was the sustained agony of being put through a baseless, protracted trial in full view of the world’s lens – knowing if found guilty, he would be removed from his children’s lives. And even after his acquittal, facing relentless vilification by a media that chose to simply disregard a verdict they found economically inconvenient.

British journalist Charles Thomson’s clear analysis of the recently released FBI files which can be viewed via Thomson’s blog at:

http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/01/fbi-files-support-jacksons-innocence.html

Thomson’s point by point breakdown of the files reveals not only the inability of both the FBI and the LAPD to provide any evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Jackson in an investigation that spanned over a decade, but also the continuing inference by the media of exactly the opposite of this.

It is important to note that there is a profound difference between the FBI stating that X and Y were alleged, and the FBI saying they investigated X and Y – and found X and Y to be proven. Thomson’s review of the files is thus required reading for any who wish to separate the facts from the soundbites which have largely dominated the media reporting on them.

Because the truth is, after the most thorough investigation the American taxpayer’s money could buy, one of the world’s foremost intelligence gathering agencies and the LAPD came up with precisely – nothing. Instead we were served a collage of cut-out articles from a UK tabloid, the dubious recollections of an unverifiable woman on a train, and two ex-employees who only came forward after the 1993 allegations broke and who, coincidentally, were also hawking a tell-all book to anyone who would listen.

Long before Dr Murray ever wrote his first ‘feel-good’ prescription, a lie of epic proportions would set in motion a cataclysmic series of events that would bring Michael to the state of profound depletion we saw in 2005. Evan Chandler – a known brutalist, and Janet Arviso, a proven welfare cheat and compensation chaser, manipulated the American criminal system and a willing media to bury Michael under the worst label society has determined exists. No proof was required, the suggestion was enough. And the world watched on the edge of their seats, as the obvious perjury of the witnesses was overlooked in the stampede to crucify a man previously so celebrated.

The inevitably, frenzied media coverage of Dr Murray’s impending trial which will replay the details of Michael’s dying moments for months to come, has now already begun its crescendo. It is more than a little disturbing to observe how quickly those same people who actively colluded in the degradation and erosion of Michael’s spirit and dignity for over 15 years, have regrouped to focus on Dr Murray as the ‘fall guy’ for the part he may have played in Jackson’s death. Murray’s culpability cannot be denied, but he was far from alone in his opportunism.

Where were the voices now wailing about ‘wasted resources’ and the ‘rights’ of taxpayers when Tom Sneddon authorized the use of millions of dollars of federal money to pursue Michael in his deeply personal and blinkered ‘takedown’ of the, then – biggest pop star on the planet?

Michael Jackson didn’t bankrupt the City of Angels; they fell all by themselves. For a country that can shine so bright when it chooses to – what America did to this man stands as one of the most shameful examples of engineered cruelty and unmitigated persecution to be witnessed in modern times.

(Originally posted on January 13, 2010 at:http://www.sawfnews.com/Gossip/62205.aspX *   *   *   *   *

August 3, 2010

It was actually Deborah’s letter which alerted me last week to the situation around Charles Thomson. This letter is posted here again as the points she is making still require our full attention:

Hi,

British journalist, Charles Thomson, who you are all no doubt aware, has been working tirelessly for some time now to bring the truth about the gross injustice meted out to Michael Jackson while he lived, into greater public awareness – has been under cyber attack now for the last two days.

A misguided and exceptionally misinformed blogger – Bonnie Cox, author of the ‘Michael’s Guardian’ blog – has maliciously sent out emails and tweets to everyone she knows, claiming that Charles and J Randy Taraborrelli are ‘paid hitmen,’ hired as part of a Sony conspiracy to destroy Michael Jackson by writing nasty articles about Michael.

Yes, really.

This blogger has also been encouraging people to harass Mr Thomson on twitter, Facebook and at his own website. This blogger – Michael’s guardian – has also asked people to ‘spy’ on Mr Thomson’s twitter account and send her so-called ‘evidence’ of his Sony affiliations.

This is utter nonsense. The basis for this non-existent evidence of Mr. Thomson’s alter-ego as a ‘Sony assassin’ is apparently a picture that appeared on Mr Thomson’s Facebook page of him and Randy Taraborrelli meeting in LA in June!

This lie has already led to Mr Thomson taking the drastic measure of removing hundreds of people from his Facebook account and locking his tweets. More action may be necessary. This speculative and false ‘evidence’ is as unfounded as the ‘fact-building’ engaged in by Sneddon and his ilk when MJ was alive – and is just as dangerous.

Instead of supporting one of the few credible journalists who supports the reality of Michael’s innocence, this journalist is now unfortunately being attacked by ‘MUZIKFactory2’ on tweet and by ‘Michael’s guardian’ on her blog and elsewhere.

This is outrageous behaviour and I am seriously concerned about the apparent capacity of some MJ fans to be believe any ridiculous conspiracy that someone who is old enough – but clearly not wise enough – to know better, irresponsibly puts out on the web.

There are consequences for this hurtful and untrue libel, and one of those consequences may unfortunately be that Mr Thomson, someone who has dedicated enormous amounts of time trying to uncover the misinformation and years-old slandering of Michael’s name – may simply stop doing his invaluable work.

If you come across any of this unsubstantiated and completely false information about Mr Thomson being a ‘hired sony assassin’ on the web, please strongly refute it in no uncertain terms, and direct people to this link where all the information about these attacks is fully explained.

http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/07/clearing-up-more...

Be under no illusions, these attacks are not being done in ‘Michael’s’ name.

They are a totally malicious and outrageous attack on an objective, honest journalist who must be wondering what the hell he’s done to deserve all this.

Lets us hope common sense prevails.

Thank you for your help in this.

Deborah Ffrench

54 Comments leave one →
  1. August 4, 2012 4:42 am

    This is a very, very beautiful, powerful, and well-written set of articles. Thank you all for providing an educated viewpoint to the life and times of MJ. This is by far the most educational blog one can possibly read. Looking forwards to much more!

    Like

  2. November 27, 2011 7:11 pm

    Deborah,

    Congratulations, you, Charles & Rev. Kaufman have articles which are now available on Jetzi. Because Jetzi post books & magazines from a variety of writers this means your work is now available to a wider global audience and the links provided are attached to another credible site for document referral.

    Thank you for all the work you do.

    Like

  3. May 3, 2011 9:11 am

    “I receive emails on the below article from you. Could you please publish the whole of it here?”

    Dial, Deborah’s article is excellent. I’ve repeated her article in her own page too.

    Like

  4. January 2, 2011 4:39 am

    We believe in the worth and dignity of every human being. Nobody deserves to be treated in a way that dehumanizes them– not in life, and certainly not in death.

    Like

  5. November 13, 2010 3:00 pm

    Hi Deborah,

    I have some contact info regrading ITV. Could you maybe get in touch with Taj Jackson by DM and send it to him? I had sent him a tweet myself, asking to send it thru a DM. I didn’t want it to show on the public timeline. I think its best if Taj approached first. Can I send it to you by DM? My twttr is gigimoore81 and I’ll send you a tweet so you’ll see my name. Thanks!

    Like

  6. Olga permalink
    November 6, 2010 2:07 am

    @Shelly probably you are right. I have posted the entire statement sometime ago under a post about JD. To who are they referring to? Those you mentioned said nothing happened without changing their stories. All these mentioned in the statement and questioned by police were approached only because Jordan gave their names. And Jordan supported MJ’s innocence before the psychiatrists’ “session” and he did it again when he was interviewed by Pellicano.

    Like

  7. shelly permalink
    November 6, 2010 12:44 am

    This is a part of the statement

    “STATEMENT OF DECLINATION ISSUED JOINTLY BY

    THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICES

    OF LOS ANGELES AND SANTA BARABARA COUNTIES

    September 21, 1994

    During the last several months, investigatory efforts uncovered additional allegations of sexual molestation occurring between Mr. Jackson and a second boy. The particular events described occurred solely in Santa Barbara County. Therefore, any filing decision on those allegations would involve Santa Barbara.

    As to those particular allegations, Santa Barbara County declines to file at this time, because of the inability of law enforcement to interview the alleged victim, because that child is beyond the reach of the court process, and because of the child’s prior general denial of any wrongdoing.

    The investigation also revealed the existence of a third alleged victim who has been in psychological therapy since his disclosure to police in early November of 1993. He has alleged that Michael Jackson molested him on three occasions. Two of those occasions allegedly occurred in Los Angeles County beyond the statute of limitations, and the third occasion, within the statute, allegedly occurred in Santa Barbara County. In light of the primary alleged victim’s decision not to testify, and because of the third alleged victim’s reluctance to testify and in consideration of his psychological well-being, no charges relating to the third alleged victim will be pursued at this time.

    Another aspect of the investigation involved accounts from several witnesses who allegedly viewed Mr. Jackson inappropriately touching children other than the alleged victims mentioned above. At no time did any of the children named confirm that such conduct occurred, and the credibility of those third party accounts is compromised by the fact that some of the sources of these accounts profited monetarily by selling their stories to the media.

    In conclusion, we decline to file charges relating to any of the alleged victims at this time because of the legal unavailability of the primary alleged victim. We emphasize that our decision is not based on any issue of credibility of victims. Should circumstances change or should new evidence develop within the statute of limitations, this decision will be reevaluated in light of the evidence available at such time

    Like

  8. shelly permalink
    November 6, 2010 12:38 am

    @Olga

    They were talking about another kid, probably Barnes or Robson. In the declination statements, they talked about 3 kids Chandler, Francia and another kid. In this paragraph, they are talking about the third kid, not Chandler.

    Like

  9. Olga permalink
    November 6, 2010 12:12 am

    This is the part in which I was referring to:

    “As to those particular allegations, Santa Barbara County declines to file at this time, because of the inability of law enforcement to interview the alleged victim, because that child is beyond the reach of the court process, and because of the child’s prior general denial of any wrongdoing. ”

    They list the changed story as one of the reasons. But as we already know by the defense’s filed motion concerning the settlement document, Jordan was interviewed by the police prior and after the settlement and as a result of these interviews no charges were filed. So the first reason they list has a problem.

    Like

  10. shelly permalink
    November 5, 2010 9:46 pm

    I think Deborah is talking about the statement made by Sneddon and Garcetti in September 1994. They said they would not pursue criminal charges because they had no witness and not because the original witness was not credible.

    Like

  11. visitor permalink
    November 5, 2010 9:35 pm

    @Ms Ffrennch
    would it be possible to explain to me what do you mean when you are saying : “Btw, in the declination statements, the two District Attorney’s specifically did not deny Jordan’s credibility.”

    Like

  12. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    November 5, 2010 8:50 pm

    Good points Olga.

    The problem is also, I think, that if one accepts the Gardner/ Chandler interview as authentic, one has to accept all of it. Obviously, this would be unacceptable, which is why we have to try and find out as much as possible about how Jordan first disclosed the accusations.

    Btw, in the declination statements, the two District Attorney’s specifically did not deny Jordan’s credibility.

    Like

  13. Olga permalink
    November 5, 2010 6:12 pm

    @Deborah, I was elaborating on your last comment. There is a way to use any kind of Amytal like drug or any anesthetic for that matter of fact, to make someone repeat whatever you want. Police is still doing this but I can’t go any further on that issue. The only thing I can say here is that a psychologist or a psychiatrist must be there to make it happen. Either Katz or Abrams were in on it. Someone gave Evan the instructions, if it’s true that Amytal was used. One important thing here is that no statement is accepted under influence. Evan Chandler made sure that his son would never be able to stand trial-he was an unreliable witness. As we see in the joined LAPD and SBPD statement he was not a credible witness anyway because he had denied the allegations so he changed his story with or without the drug. But mentioning a drug influence gives you the chance to be rejected as a witness

    Like

  14. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    November 5, 2010 5:34 pm

    We are making the same point Olga, if you refer to my last comment.

    To many many people , however, the argument about ‘false memory’ implantation does not wash. Which is why more corroborative proof of the Sodium Amytal event or an plausible alternative as to why Jordan gave detailed ( not correct but still detailed ) accounts across several interviews — is needed.

    Like

  15. visitor permalink
    November 5, 2010 12:36 pm

    But Mesereau said that he had witnesses that Jordan have told them over the years that nothing happened between him and Michael. That means that this kid ,oops sorry, i meant man, now he is a 30 something years old “man”, is no longer undert the drug influence, his memories are not represed or whatever. If he is aware of the truth, that Michael didn’t touch him, and he is not coming forward in order to tell that , he is not better that his father, the Arvizos and all the other scumbugs.He is a coward of the worst kind. He is living a lavish life with MJ’s money but i wonder how he manage to get peace with his consience, if he has one that is. Oh i know. He is using sodium amital for his consience. Right Jordie???

    Like

  16. Olga permalink
    November 5, 2010 9:55 am

    @Deborah it’s very easy to plant memories to people and we do it in memory experiments all the time (in an experimental and ethical way). The younger the individual is, the easier to create false memory. Children are very easy to be manipulated and depending on their age, they may never recover their real memory about an event. Memory is a big chapter to analyze it here. But at the age Jordan was at the time-he was not a child- he could recover his memory, that is if we accept he “lost” it in the first place due to the drug.

    Like

  17. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    November 5, 2010 1:20 am

    The question of whether Sodium Amytal was used is perplexing. How did this story even come to be circulated? Harvey Levin will neither confirm or deny he spoke to Evan, but Fischer, an award winning investigative journalist, would surely not have included it in her article if there were not sound grounds for doing so.

    What is needed is definitive proof. I suggest we keep searching. I am not convinced Jordan lied. Many pyschological case studies point to children – which is what Jordan was — being convinced of the truth of a story once implanted or convinced of its veracity.

    Once he became trapped in that delusion, it would taken a strong personality indeed to take on the likes of a man like Evan Chandler — and say ‘hold on this isn’t what happened.’

    I cannot wait to read David’s transcribing of Mesereau’s ‘Frozen in Time’ contribution.

    Like

  18. lcpledwards permalink
    November 4, 2010 11:17 pm

    I think that Jordie willingly lied as well, but I guess I referenced those videos to show real examples of “false memory syndrome”, and how SA really works, since thats what you guys were talking about.

    Like

  19. Suzy permalink
    November 4, 2010 10:45 pm

    @ David

    I know those videos and we have been talking about the SA stuff a lot. But I’m still with Geraldine Hughes about this. I have high doubts about whether it was given to Jordan and the story is not just made up by the Chandlers. I suspect it is.

    Like

  20. lcpledwards permalink
    November 4, 2010 10:03 pm

    @ Suzy and Visitor
    Read this post for more info on Sodium amytal, and pay attention to the 3 videos at the bottom!

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/sodium-amytal-for-jordan-chandler/

    Like

  21. November 4, 2010 9:27 pm

    I personally think Jordan knowingly lied and he knew what he was doing. I don’t think he was a poor little kid tricked into thinking he was molested. One of the reasons I think this is his interview with Dr. Gardner in which he sounds totally emotionless and detached as he describes the alleged molestation. That’s not the language and the reaction of a molested child – not even of one who believes he was molested. That’s someone who has been trained and is a liar and he knows that.

    And while we are at that. I have just seen this link on a fan board. Someone apparently found Star Arvizo on Facebook (now he uses the name “David Arvizo”) and the fan wrote a “nice” message to him, to which he answered (it happened last year). As you can see they still don’t show any remorse and stick to their lies. You can also see some recent pictures about Star. He’s a grown man now.

    http://danasdirt.com/2009/07/11/mj-accusers-brother-sends-me-a-fb-message/

    Notice, how they still try to harp on people’s emotions (rather than arguments), by saying how MJ only got off because he was a celebrity bla-bla-bla-bla. That is their main mantra (as it is of many haters’s).

    ~Suzy~

    Like

  22. Suzy permalink
    November 4, 2010 9:08 pm

    @ Visitor

    We used to discuss this a lot here on this blog. The Sodium Amytal stuff is debated even among us.

    The information about the use of Sodium Amytal on Jordan is in Mary Fischer’s article. It’s an excellent article, however she may be mistaken about this detail. Her reference to this information is a Los Angeles TV station KCBS TV. This TV station made the claim first. They said that Chandler used it on his son, but he claimed only to pull his tooth. From the way it’s worded it seems to me their source of information was probably Evan Chandler himself….

    Mary Fischer asked the doctor, Dr. Torbiner about it and he didn’t confirm but also didn’t deny it. Like Chandler to KCBS TV, he said: “if I used it, only for dental reasons”….

    What would this mean?

    It means that it were the Chandlers themselves who initially planted this information. Which in itself makes it suspect! What did they want to achieve with it? Probably to make Jordan’s “confession” look spontaneous (vs. having been trained). Sodium Amytal was also known (wrongly – as Mary Fischer has shown it so well) as the “truth serum” at the time. Someone also made a good point earlier on this blog that if Jordan confessed under the influence of SA that could have made his testimony inadmissable in court in a criminal trial (because in reality it’s not a truth serum, but a highly controversial hypnotic drug). Why would the Chandlers want his testimony inadmissable in a criminal trial? Because they NEVER wanted to go to a criminal trial, they just wanted money! And this way they would have an excuse why Jordan wouldn’t testify in a criminal trial. If I’m wrong about this, somebody please correct me, I’m a bit tired now.

    Geraldine Hughes is one who doesn’t believe the SA story. She says she doesn’t believe it and she thinks it’s a lie planted by the Chandlers, because she saw Jordan making visits to Barry Rothman, spending long hours alone with the lawyer in his office BEFORE this alleged SA thing happened. In other words Geraldine Hughes believes Jordan was trained by Rothman what to say long before he was allegedly administered SA. Here is her opinion on that from an interview conducted by Deborah Kunesh:

    DK: You don’t agree that Evan Chandler gave his son a truth serum and then Jordy Chandler admitted molestation?

    GH: No, I think that’s their story on how they found out. I really believe that the whole thing was plotted and planned and the words were given to him to say because I actually witnessed the 13 year old in my attorney’s office without any supervision of his parents and he was kind of snuck in there, it was like no one in the office knew he was in there. He was behind closed doors with my attorney for several hours, and I kind of believe that is where he was being told what to say. I can’t say that I actually witnessed him being told, but I did witness that there was a meeting between my attorney and the 13 year old accuser for several hours. Actually it was a meeting that nobody in the office was supposed to know even existed and the only reason that I found out (was because) I was on my way out of the office and we were under threats of death about just walking in his office without even knocking or without announcing, and I was just rushing so I opened up the door and when I opened up the door I saw the boy in his office and I was kind of shocked. We didn’t even know he was in there and he had a startled look on his face and the attorney blasted me for coming in there unannounced.

    DK: Soul Patrol.com chat. You dispute the sodium amytal theory….you said that you were the only one because you saw something entirely different take place and by that you are meaning what you witnessed as far as this plan coming into place?

    GH: It’s just that their whole technique, their whole thing was planned. Even the plan was planned. All the issues were planned. Then when the father in the conversation, he said, “We’re moving according to a plan.” He said it wasn’t his plan, but he said “We’re moving according to a plan. It’s not mine, but I’ve hired someone that’s mean, devious, nasty to move against Michael and he’s just waiting on my phone call.” So, he put it like that. So, you know their whole MO was to make it look like something that it wasn’t. They made it look like they just happened to take the boy to the psychiatrist and that’s where he got the information, the psychiatrist got the information. Then I’m hearing the sodium thing, so I said, first you said the psychiatrist is the one that got the information and then now you’re saying, the father put him under a truth serum and I’m like, which one is it?

    http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/Interview-with-Geraldine-Hughes.html

    In later years Ray Chandler denied the SA story himself, but it doesn’t mean it didn’t originally came from them. I think he did admit that Jordan was drugged and put under some kind of anesthesia, only he disputes it was SA. That’s probably because since then they realized they could get into trouble for it, because it’s a hypnotic drug, you don’t give it to a child just to pull his tooth. So in the hindsight now they deny it was SA that was given. But they admit something was given to Jordan to put him to sleep. Jordan himself mentioned in his police interview that he was put to sleep by his dad so that he could pull his tooth and that’s when he “confessed”. So it’s a part of their story.

    Interestingly there’s also a part in Ray Chandler’s book where he writes that when Michael was staying in Evan’s house, he had a terrible headache and Torbiner was called over by Evan to give him something and they gave him – so they claim – Taradol, which made him “acting weird, babbling incoherently and slurring is speech” and having “drunk-like symptoms”. And then Evan thought it was his chance to ask him questions he wouldn’t otherwise ask of him: “Evan decided to take advantage of Michael’s still uninhibited but somewhat coherent condition.” So he asked him, for example, if he was gay, to which Michael answered no, he wasn’t.

    This story is very odd, because, so I’ve heard, Taradol doesn’t cause symptoms like described above. It must have been something else. Could it have been Sodium Amytal? And as it was considered a “truth serum”, did Evan try to extract information out of Michael by deliberately tricking him and using this on him?

    I don’t know. I think it’s possible they abused SA, only not on Jordan, but on Michael….

    Like

  23. lcpledwards permalink
    November 4, 2010 8:19 pm

    @ visitor
    I am currently transcribing the 2005 Harvard Law seminar where Meseareu made those comments, and many others, and when I post it next week you’ll see word for word what was said!

    Personally, I think that Jordan was tricked into lying when Evan told him that he bugged his room and knew all about everything that “happened”. Evan tried to use Jordie to extort MJ until June regained custody, and only then did Evan bring Jordie to the shrink, who then reported it to the cops. I think Dr. Torbiner lied to Mary Fishcer in that GQ article, and it was Evan who originated that lie in order to prevent Jordie from having to testify in court.

    Oh, by the way, Mesereau repeated those same sentiments at the Frozen in Time seminar, which I will finish posting by early next week.

    Like

  24. visitor permalink
    November 4, 2010 7:50 pm

    I was reading the Making of the Myths by Deborah Ffrench and here what it striked me. During his speech at the Harvard University, Mesereau sais this “had Jordan Chandler come forward to testify in the 2005 trial, that he [Mesrereau] had witnesses prepared to testify that Jordan had told them that the reasons behind his decision to file for legal emancipation from his parents, were due to Jordan‟s anger and resentment at being forced to lie about Jackson. Mesereau further stated that he had been ready to call witnesses who could corroborate that Jordan had told them many times over the years that Jackson had never molested him, and that the accusations had simply been about Evan‟s desire for money.” What does this mean.Jordan knowingly lied against Michael? That sodium amintal was never used? This means that Jordan knows that Michael is innocent but to this day he refuses to say the truth? Can somebody explain that to me because i thought that Jordie told that he was molested because of that sodium amintal.If that is not the case, then MY GOD, Jordan is no better than the Arvizos and all the other leeches in MJ’s life

    Like

  25. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    October 17, 2010 1:24 pm

    Hi Chris,

    Thank you for asking about the MOAM series. As soon as it is completed I will put a note up here. I appreciate your interest Chris.

    Hi VindicateMJ,

    Thanks for sharing your considered feedback about Charles’s interview. There are many opinions about the extent of Jackson’s use of narcotics or prescribed medication. I have my own view, which I will expand upon in Part II, and others have theirs.

    Notwithstanding that the mainstream media clearly relishes reporting on this subject, my personal stance is that the predominant questions that should be asked are not, was he or wasn’t he, but what got this man to that point — and why?

    Like

  26. lcpledwards permalink
    October 8, 2010 11:52 pm

    @ Chris
    Yes, MJ’s insurance carrier forced him to settle the Chandler lawsuit. Read the article “Analyzing the Media’s Hypocrisy……..” parts 1 & 2 for more info on MJ’s settlements. The links are located in the upper right hand corner.

    Like

  27. Chris permalink
    October 8, 2010 8:46 pm

    Deborah, I was wondering if part 2 of the myth article will be uploaded before Xmas or early new year? Reading the first part putting yourself in MJ shoes when all that is going on leading upto the examination and after I mean Jesus!
    Also Charles when he got the FBI files spoke about the racist Act. I think it shows that not only in 2003/5 was Sneddon trying to get anything on MJ e.g. alcohol to a minor but also in 1993 with the Mann Act when he realised he had no incrminating evidence.
    Also didn’t Mesereau claim that the insurance carrier settled against MJs wishes in the 2003 grand jury? Just too clarify.

    Like

  28. October 8, 2010 8:06 pm

    Deborah, as regards part 5 of Charles Thomson’s interview (http://extrememichaeljackson.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/interview-with-charles-thomson-part-5/#comment-376) I think Charles is probably a little too critical of Michael’s dependence on drugs – after all there were no morphine drugs found in his system at his death, so did beat the habit which only very strong people manage to do – but I fully side with Thomson’s main idea:

    “To airbrush his dependencies out of the narrative is to understate the impact of the allegations, the trial and the media’s shameful reporting. It is, essentially, to relieve Sneddon, Zonen, the Chandlers, the Arvizos and the media of some of the responsibility they must shoulder for what happened to Michael Jackson.”

    Like

  29. September 28, 2010 4:47 pm

    I’m thankful I found a link to this blog on twitter. Great job everyone!

    Deborah, it’s a blessing that our paths cross again in different ramparts. I am glad there are online spaces where rationale is sustained, sanity is preserved, professionalism is appraised.
    If nothing else, Michael Jackson needs level-headed, strong, factual support, and a very effective public relations network. Probably he needs this now more than ever.

    All my best,
    Maria MJ

    Like

  30. Chris permalink
    September 27, 2010 11:47 pm

    Oh by the way thank you to Lynande51 for book info.

    Like

  31. Chris permalink
    September 24, 2010 1:40 pm

    When I say stood up I meant the big things like after the trial. I can completely understand why he didin’t. It’s not a critisim of him. He just wanted to get out of this nightmare and who can blame him. They took away the one thing he had to escape from the world, it must of been soul destroying.

    Like

  32. shelly permalink
    September 24, 2010 8:50 am

    @suzy

    Why would he spend time in court, look at the result of this lawsuit. They were still laughing for his plastci surgeries after that.
    He lost against Dimond and after that, it was worst for him because she was on TV claiming she won a lawsuit against him.
    As for Gutierrez, he had to file for bankruptcy.

    Like

  33. Suzy permalink
    September 24, 2010 6:43 am

    Michael might have stood up to the tabloids once in a while, but most of the time he didn’t and he let them write whatever they wanted. IMO that was a mistake.

    At least he should have sued Dimond and Gutierrez and Jones for their books. (He did sue Gutierrez but not for his book.)

    Once there was this interview with Michael back in 1988 with Ebony where he was asked why he doesn’t stand up to the hurtful rumours and he said: “Why to give more attention to them?” So that was his policy, but I think it was the wrong policy.

    But on the other hand, it seems almost impossible to get journalists significantly punished, as shown by Chris’s Keira Knightley example. Also when Michael sued Gutierrez and Dimond, OK, Gutierrez was duely punished by Dimond got away with it, blaming everything on her “source”.

    It’s a good trick. A journalist can claim anything citing “sources”, then hide behind the Shield Law and say he/she acted in good faith when believing his/her source so he/she is not responsible.

    Like

  34. lcpledwards permalink
    September 24, 2010 3:21 am

    @ Lynette
    Believe it or not, Janet was offered a $100k book deal before the trial, according to her ex-husband David. Of course, she lost it once MJ was acquitted! Any chance of Janet recanting her story before the trial was LOST once she was offered this book deal, because that $100k gave her an extra incentive to continue with her lies and hope for a conviction!! This is why legal analyst Jonna Spilbor wrote that article about why book deals should NOT be offered in high profile cases. I referenced it in the “Refuting the Legal Analysts” post, and here it is: http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/commentary/20050117_spilbor.html

    David Arvizo mentioned this in his interview with Mesereau’s P.I., among MANY OTHER THINGS about Janet. Her background is completely disgusting, and when you read that document (which I use as a source in Part 2, coming soon!), you’ll see exactly what I mean! There is no doubt in my mind that Sneddon and his goons malicously enabled and encouraged her lies. No police department can be that INCOMPETENT to actually believe her story at face value! They completely OVERLOOKED her background and REFUSED to scrutinize and fact check her story.

    I think that William Wagener was talking about other books that we don’t know about that were shelved after MJ was acquitted. Remember, Aphrodite Jones said there would be a “cottage industry” of MJ related books, movies, documentaries, etc. if MJ was convicted, and after all of these projects were shelved, the media lost MILLIONS in revenues. Sneddon said he was offered a book deal in 1994 but refused it, so he certainly had a book deal lined up if MJ was convicted, and I’m sure that motivated him to “throw the kitchen sink” at MJ and prosecute him using the 1108 evidence to prejudice the jury into convicting him. That was his ONLY hope of getting a conviction, but luckily on Ray Hultman fell for it. Notice how he was the juror who got the most interviews because he was saying how MJ was guilty in 1993, yet the foreman Paul Rodriguez was “hounded” by Nancy Grace to say MJ molested kids in 1993 (per Charles Thomson’s article). He was going to write a book called “Michael Jackson: Innocent”, but of course when he refuse to dirty it up with lies, he couldn’t get a book deal.

    Like

  35. lynande51 permalink
    September 24, 2010 2:54 am

    We know that Diane Dimond was writing a book and it was published, there was the book by Stacy Brown and Bob Jones, 2 jurors had signed book deals prior to the verdict, Ray Hultman and Elenor Cook, That makes four and it wouldn’t surprise me that Janet Arvizo had a book delan and perhaps one of the prosecutors. I’m actually surprised it was so few to tell the truth

    Like

  36. shelly permalink
    September 24, 2010 2:12 am

    He did stood up to the tabloid

    “MICHAEL JACKSON’S COMPANY FILES LIBEL SUIT
    AGAINST THE LONDON DAILY MIRROR
    LOS ANGELES, July 27 /PRNewswire/ — Michael Jackson began a libel action today against the London Daily Mirror. Jackson’s proceedings allege that in a series of articles the Mirror labeled Jackson “Scarface” and falsely stated that his appearance was just a mask covering what was, in fact, a hideously disfigured face. The articles claim, wrongly, that Jackson is a scarred phantom whose face is covered with scar tissue, with a hole in his nose, one cheek higher than the other and an oddly sagging chin.
    The Mirror’s statements about Jackson are completely untrue: he does not have a hole in his nose; his face is not covered with scar tissue; one cheek is not higher than the other; his chin is not sagging and he is not grotesque, distorted or, in any sense, disfigured. He does not look anything like the Mirror’s description of him.
    In a separate action, also filed today, Jackson’s company has sued the Mirror and its photographer, Ken Lennox, for breach of contract, alleging that they had entered into a written agreement not to sell any photograph that they took during Jackson’s performance and not to publish any such photographs more than once, and that they deliberately violated that agreement by selling a photo of Jackson to other publications throughout the world. Injunction proceedings have also been commenced to restrain further use and sale of the photograph.
    According to a spokesman for Jackson, the superstar performer found it hard to understand why a newspaper would want to publish such demonstrably false and cruel accusations about another human being when there is so much really important news in the world.
    Jackson’s American lawyer, Bertram Fields, added, “I’ve been with Michael dozens of times in the past year, close up in brightly lit rooms without makeup. I can tell you flatly that he is not scarred, that there is no hole in his nose and that he is not disfigured in any way. That’s all rubbish. Michael will stand in the witness box and let the jury see for itself. We are seeking an unreserved and total apology from the Daily Mirror and very substantial damages.”
    Jackson is in Europe not only for his new tour, but also to promote “Heal The World,” the international charity he founded for the benefit of children. Jackson has contributed $1 million to “Heal The World” from his personal foundation and will add more from the proceeds of his concerts and other sources. Pepsi Cola has already pledged another $1 million. The goal of “Heal The World” is to aid children throughout the world in various ways, dealing with such matters as children’s medical and health problems, educational needs, nutrition and housing. According to Jackson, “There is nothing more important that I can do with my life than to make the lot of the world’s children a better one. if children can be saved and their lives improved, we can truly ‘heal the world.'”
    -0- 7/27/92

    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/MICHAEL+JACKSON'S+COMPANY+FILES+LIBEL+SUIT+AGAINST+THE+LONDON+DAILY…-a012389898

    He won the lawsuit in 1998

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/210759.stm

    Look what they did when he died

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2009/07/25/mirror-lawyer-s-bizarre-date-with-michael-jackson-over-his-nose-115875-21545766/

    Like

  37. Chris permalink
    September 24, 2010 2:01 am

    Thank You
    If you speak to Charles soon I hope he’s recovered from that character assasination he recieved. Most logical fans no the story. What amazes me is that I pointed out to him ppl were saying stuff about the MJstar on youtube and he never once denied anything other than saying it was exaggerated which it was!

    Anyway, I noticed after i posted last comment that I failed to mention that these obviously never saw the light of day, so it will be hard to find out but I would be glad of any info you could find.
    To say I don’t have a high opinion of the media would be an understatement. It does get me down sometimes cos I look how they treat people and theres no justice at all.
    Keira Knightley sued The Daily Mail for accusing her of being anorexic and being responsible for a teenage girls death according to the mother.
    Keira “won” her court case and what was the punishment? £3000 fine and a disclaimer which knowone probally saw. Yes £3000 fine to a muti-billion £ company…that will teach them.
    Except 8 months down the line THE SAME tabloid put a headline saying SHE LOOKS THINNER THAN EVER!
    I mean Jesus Christ. And you wonder why MJ never stood up to them. What justice would he of gotten anyway? It would just be a waste of money on legal fees.

    Like

  38. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    September 24, 2010 12:09 am

    Hi Chris.

    I am not personally aware of specific books with specific authors being planned during the trial proceedings. But it seems likely with the tone and nature of the coverage and the inevitably of what follows such an event, that plans would have been in the pipeline for ways to caplitalize on a guilty verdict. As we all know, there is no question that the media were hoping for such a result.

    If I come across more information on this though, I will post it here.

    Like

  39. Chris permalink
    September 23, 2010 11:31 pm

    Can I ask you a question Miss/Mrs French. I consider Charles a reliable source and I know the 2 of you cover similar ground from time to time. I heard some1 say that there were 5 or 6 books already written before the jury verdict came in based on a guilty verdict.

    I was wondering if you had the names of those people? I know bloody Dimond was writing one but the others i’m unaware of.

    Thank you

    Like

  40. Suzy permalink
    September 8, 2010 6:33 pm

    Helena, that’s true about Macaulay. He was one of Michael’s few true friends.

    Like

  41. September 8, 2010 5:34 pm

    While you guys are doing such a splendid job in our Home page and Deborah French is busy writing PART II of her “The Making Of a Myth” article I decided to temporarily occupy her page and remind our readers of PART I.

    I honestly tried to select the choicest part of it to present her paper here, but apparently I’ve forgotten how GREAT the article is… It is impossible to single out anything in particular as every part of it is a precious gem – it brings together a wealth of information presented in such a condensed and compact form that it should be learned by heart by every true Michael’s supporter and as a complete must too. I mean it, guys!

    Reading Deborah’s paper once again I realized how big a mistake I made as regards lies told about MJ and Macaulay Culkin. The paper immediately sorted out some mess in my head in respect of who said what and when about Culkin.

    The Lemarques did make their first allegations back in the 90s selling their story to everyone who wished to pay for it and their asking price fully depended on the amount and severity of the lies told. Deborah Ffrench writes:

    “…when cross-examined in 2005 by Jackson’s lead lawyer, Thomas Mesereau, Lemarque would admit that Barresi had advised him that saying Jackson’s hand was inside Culkin’s shorts instead of outside, would significantly raise the asking price they could sell their story for.

    Indeed, writer Maureen Orth in her 1994 article ‘Nightmare in Neverland,’ wrote that Barresi actually showed her TWO written versions of the Lemarques ‘story,’ that clearly revealed how the fee affected the content.

    In ’93, after the Lemarque story broke, Culkin publicly denied he had been molested by Jackson. But the press barely covered it, some even suggesting Culking’s denial was an attempt to ‘save face’.

    In Jackson’s 2005 trial, Culkin, who was strangely not called by the prosecution as a witness even though under the prosecution’s own ‘prior acts’ criteria he qualified as one of the ‘victims’, insisted on testifying after Mr. Lemarque’s testimony. Under oath, Culkin adamantly denied any such incident occurred and also described the accusations of molestation against Jackson as “absolutely ridiculous”.

    It turned out that maid Adrian McManus also lied about poor Macaulay:

    “Adrian McManus… in her original statement in 1994, stated that she had not seen Jackson touch Macaulay Culkin inappropriately. Under oath in 2005, when questioned directly by Mesereau as to why she now sought to change her 1994 statement, McManus somewhat disingenuously replied, “I didn’t tell the truth”.

    It seems to me that the media ruined not only Michael Jackson’s life, but that of his friends too and Macaulay Culkin was definitely one of the media’s victims. Supporting Michael Jackson cost the boy his career – it is absolutely no coincidence that immediately after the ’93 allegations his success somewhat stalled. This alone could have easily embittered Culkin and turned him against Michael… but it didn’t and I truly respect Macaulay Culkin for being what he is – a decent and honorable guy and a true friend of Michael Jackson.

    Read more about lies around Culkin and Michael as well as all other events of the 90s in Deborah’s article:

    http://www.stereoboard.com/pdfs/Michael-Jackson-The-Making-Of-A-Myth-Part-I.pdf

    Like

  42. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    August 30, 2010 11:28 am

    Thank you Teva et al.

    Part II will be uploaded on Stereoboard later than stated previously – due to unforseen work commitments.

    Part II will also be available in partial form here and linked to the full article.

    In answer to Mimi’s question: Charles Thomson has consistently supported the reality of Michael Jackson’s innocence in regard to the ’93 allegations and the charges of 2005 in all his work, both as a moderator at mjstar.com and as a qualified journalist.

    Comments that he made while not a journalist about things such as Michael’s vocals on
    HIStory etc etc, were made as a private person on a forum over three years ago. My personal feeling is, those comments, which were only opinions, are not related to the sterling defense of Michael Jackson that Thomson has committed himself to in his public work.

    For more information on this, if people still require it, please head to Mr Thomson’s blog where he talks about this now hopefully defunct issue.

    Like

  43. August 17, 2010 1:27 pm

    Sorry for spamming your thread! Forgot to add that I just sent a message to Fatiyn Muhammad supporting the Sharpton interview with Thomson. This is a wonderful idea, thank you.

    Like

  44. August 17, 2010 1:23 pm

    We hope to finish migrating the current location, mjjtheman.wetpaint.com
    over to its new domain at MJtheMan.net within about two weeks.

    Topics are:

    * Michael Jackson, The Man
    * Father
    * Soldier of Love
    * Innocent
    * Black Man
    * Sex God vs. Media
    * Lover
    * Weird? Or Just a Guy
    * This Was It (a celebration of the film)
    * MJ’s Final Campaign (on global warming)
    * Michael Jackson Conspiracy Insanity
    * Man Behind the Lyrics

    The hope is that it is an entertaining but educational biography for the unacquainted, and can help summarize and disseminate to a broader public the amazing research sites like vindicatemj have done.

    Like

  45. August 17, 2010 2:08 am

    Hi, just click my name for my website’s home page. Then click on the page Michael Jackson Conspiracy Insanity.

    Like

  46. August 16, 2010 3:00 pm

    Bo Green, I am sure that all of us are also very much interested in this problem and I am planning a post about it soon – as the uncertainty of the situation with Charles Thomson is worrying me a lot and does not allow to move further. Deborah’s diagnosis was correct – a distraction it is…

    Could you provide a link to the article “Now we are eating..” for us too?

    Like

  47. August 16, 2010 2:52 pm

    Deborah, this post is dead on.

    Much appreciation for your efforts on behalf of MJ, and recently for Charles Thomson. This lunatic fringe to MJ fandom is such an embarrassment.

    I’ve added excerpts from your MJJC rebuttal to Thomson’s detractors at my new website “Michael Jackson, The Man,” which focuses on critiquing a media that stripped him of his humanity.

    I’ve tried to summarize Thomson’s situation on the page “Michael Jackson Conspiracy Insanity,” which unfortunately continues to grow. Scroll down for the entry:

    Now We’re Eating Our Young:
    Sony Conspiracy’ Theorists Getting Uglier and Uglier, Exposed as Racist Homophobes

    Your page here and at HuffPo are on my blogroll.
    Let me know if you think of anything else I can do.

    Like

  48. Mimi permalink
    August 12, 2010 5:17 am

    Deborah – I typed a wrong email address on “Leave a Reply” section by error. In case you want to reply to me here the correct one. mayele08@gmail.com

    Thanks,

    Like

  49. Mimi permalink
    August 12, 2010 5:13 am

    Deborah – this is my first time visiting your page. I have a question to ask you. Have you done any research on Mr. Thomson how he treated Michael Jackson prior to his now famous article he wrote, which is what the media did to Michael during the trial? If you have done research on Mr. Thomson and what he did to Michael over the many years, can you please direct me where I can find it. I really appreciate your help.

    Like

  50. August 11, 2010 10:54 pm

    Hi Deborah,

    I look forward to reading part 2 of your Michael Jackson the Myth segment in September. All the best.

    Like

  51. August 5, 2010 4:57 am

    Ms. Cox, you’d be better off simply removing each and every one of your misguided posts about Charles Thomson and Deborah Ffrench from your site. You look like a fool.

    Like

  52. August 3, 2010 8:40 pm

    I very much welcome Deborah French in this blog and am very appreciative of her being here. This is why I’ve set up an individual page specially for her posts about Michael Jackson.

    It was actually Deborah’s letter which alerted me last week to the situation around Charles Thomson. Her letter is posted there again as the points she is making still require our full attention.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: