Talking with Charles Thomson on the Molestation Charges

Lorette C. Luzajic interviews Charles Thomson, part two

The Molestation Charges

Charles Thomson is an authority on soul and funk music. He as written for The Sun, The Guardian, MOJO, Wax Poetics and the Huffington Post. In November 2009 he won a Guardian Award for his article ‘James Brown: The Lost Album’.

In 2008 Charles interviewed Aphrodite Jones about her book Michael Jackson Conspiracy, in which she claimed that the media had intentionally skewed its reporting on the Michael Jackson trial. Jones praised Charles for what she considered the best article ever written about  her.

Charles is also used as a Michael Jackson expert by Britain’s biggest newspaper, The Sun. More, he is one of the journalists who requested that Michael Jackson’s FBI files be made public, under the Freedom of Information Act.

I wanted to know more about the facts surrounding Jackson’s innocence. Charles generously took the time to share some with me.

Please visit him at www.charles-thomson.net.

When you are reporting about documents and letters and so on in regards to the ugly molestation investigations and trials, how do you know you’re getting accurate information in the vast sea of media? Can we be as certain as you are that Jackson is innocent?

Nobody can ever state with absolute certainty what happened behind closed doors between Michael Jackson and Jordan Chandler or Gavin Arvizo. Only the people who were in the room will ever know that for sure. On the whole, my articles are more about the media than Michael Jackson.

My point is, and has always been, that we live in a society which supposedly values the principle that a man is considered innocent until he is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The doubt in the Michael Jackson cases was beyond reasonable. It was astronomical.

Michael Jackson was targeted by the SBPD and the FBI in investigations which spanned more than a decade. During that time neither organization was ever able to produce a single piece of evidence connecting Jackson to any of the allegations made against him. Not only was there no evidence, but the witnesses were completely unreliable; they frequently contradicted their own and each other’s stories and were often caught out in lies. Both sets of accusers enquired about suing Jackson before they ever considered going to the police. One family chose money over justice and the other approached a lawyer about suing Jackson before they’d even met him.

Michael Jackson was unanimously found not guilty on every single charge in his 2005 trial. Critics say that ‘not guilty isn’t the same as innocent’. Total poppycock. Our society deems that a man is innocent until he is proven guilty. Jackson was not proven guilty, ergo he is innocent.

But the overriding theme of my work on Michael Jackson is less about his innocence and more about the media’s guilt. The point I am constantly driving home is that it is not the media’s place to decide whether or not a man is guilty of a crime.

The judicial system deemed that Michael Jackson was an innocent man and that finding was supported by a whole stack of evidence – something that can’t be said for the prosecution’s case. So what right has the media to continue insinuating that Jackson was a child molester? It is irresponsible and unethical, and it is so widespread that it has become the norm. Journalists who actually report ethically on Michael Jackson are seen as traitors or morons simply for doing their jobs properly.

I’ve seen various people on the web describe me as a ‘floon’ for writing the stories that I do about Michael Jackson – palming me off as an obsessive fan. I don’t even like all of his albums or tours! They try to debunk my research as biased, even though much of it is sourced directly from legal documents and audio-visual evidence. Then they use unsupported testimony from Evan Chandler as their ‘proof’ that I am incorrect. It’s laughable.

What’s truly hilarious about those people, though, is their hypocrisy. On the one hand they try to discredit me by claiming my research is poor. Meanwhile, they are pedaling all sorts of lies about me. Some of them claim that I don’t actually exist, branding me a ‘fake writer’. Others claim that I am actually a woman called Deborah French, which is a total fabrication.

So you have this hilarious paradox whereby these people are on the one hand calling me a liar and on the other hand actively concocting their own lies about me.

Regarding the issue of Jackson’s innocence or guilt, I simply go by the evidence at hand. The available evidence strongly suggests that Jackson was innocent in 1993 and 2005.

Why Michael Jackson, and why molestation? Thousands of cases go unacknowledged, tossed aside, never touched. Then there are the other “child molesters.” Jerry Lee Lewis, Roman Polanski, Elvis, Woody Allen, R. Kelly, etc. Even when Roman recently made news again, it was brief and disinterested. Woody Allen is an unlikely sex symbol and artistic hero. I’ve never heard the press or anyone refer to this set in a negative light, even if their proclivities were mentioned. It was, instead, kind of heroic, or a ‘tick’ of some kind.

You make an extremely valid point. Other celebrities have been accused of behaving inappropriately with children and, unlike Jackson, some have been found guilty. But they aren’t subjected to anything like the bile reserved for Jackson.

Part of it, of course, is down to the fact that Jackson was such an enormous star. Roman Polanski and Jerry Lee Lewis don’t come anywhere close to Jackson’s level of fame. But what about Elvis? He is constantly touted by the media as Jackson’s only opponent in the global fame stakes.

Putting R Kelly to one side because he was acquitted, what do you notice about everybody else on the above list?

They’re all white. There is a clear racial double standard on this issue and it has always existed.

Back in 1959 Elvis Presley was overtly dating Priscilla Beaulieu (who later became Priscilla Presley). Priscilla was 14 years old. Furthermore, Presley’s musician Scotty Moore says in his autobiography that before Elvis began dating Priscilla, he was dating an even younger girl (making her a maximum of 13 years old). Not only did the media apparently not see anything wrong with this at the time – but they still don’t mention it even today. Priscilla openly admits that she and Elvis were sexually involved with one another while she was underage, but documentaries and articles relay this information casually and collectedly. There is no hysteria or condemnation for Elvis Presley.

So Elvis is known to have dated and been sexually involved with minors, but the media couldn’t be less interested. Meanwhile, Jackson was merely accused and subsequently acquitted, but the media delights in telling us as often as possible that he was a pedophile.

In the same year that Elvis Presley began overtly dating a 14 year old girl, Chuck Berry gave a 14 year old girl a lift across the state line and hired her to work as a hat check girl in his nightclub. He was arrested under the Mann Act for ‘transporting a minor across the state line for immoral purposes’ and given three years in jail.

As recently as 2008, Chuck Berry came to the UK – aged 83 – to play a handful of gigs. The regional media kicked up a stink about one his shows and it ended up cancelled. There’s that racial double standard again. Elvis routinely dated underage girls – nobody cares. Chuck Berry gave somebody a job and ended up tarred as a sexual deviant for the rest of his life.

Chuck Berry was seen as a threat to the status quo in 1950s America. His music was seen as immoral. Rock & Roll was exciting to teenage girls and the establishment didn’t approve of them going gooey-eyed over a negro singer. He was slung in jail on a ludicrous charge and by the time he got out, America had crowned Elvis as its ‘King’.

Michael Jackson was, like Berry, a threat to the status quo. Jackson was an Afro-American who outsold Elvis and owned the Beatles. When Paul McCartney wanted to play his own song, he had to pay Michael Jackson royalties. There had never been a situation like that before.

In 2004 Eminem trashed Jackson in a music video. In 2007, Jackson bought Eminem’s catalogue. How’s that for black power?

Jackson refused to accept limitations and, like Jack Johnson before him, it’s arguable that it made him a target.

You’ll notice that the other common strand among those listed above is that they were all involved with girls rather than boys. The media’s reaction to the allegations against Jackson was not only perhaps fuelled by racism but also laced with homophobia. It’s OK for Elvis to openly date 13 year old girls, but it’s not OK for Michael Jackson to merely hang out with 13 year old boys.

What if we’re wrong? If tomorrow, a video shows Jackson as a guilty man, how should Team Innocent react? What will happen to all the “I love you, Michael!” and to the vast outpouring of loyalty and affection the world over?

I think logic dictates that no such evidence exists. The FBI and the SBPD both investigated Jackson for prolonged periods and neither organization was ever able to produce any evidence connecting Jackson to any crime. Meanwhile, other boys came forward and said they’d slept in Jackson’s room and he’d never touched them. The accusers themselves couldn’t get their stories straight. Jordy botched the description of Jackson’s genitals. Witnesses came forward to disprove the accusers’ stories in both cases.

In brief, if Jackson is guilty, how can there be so much evidence to suggest his innocence?

And given that there is so much information discrediting the 1993 allegations, what are the chances that the subsequent allegations are genuine? It would be a bit of a coincidence if the first allegations were bogus but the subsequent ones were true.

If ever evidence does come to light that shows Jackson was guilty, then I will accept that evidence. As I said earlier, my focus is more on the media than it is on Jackson. I’m not necessarily working to vindicate Michael Jackson. I’m working to challenge media outlets which skew evidence and print blatant fabrications.

If evidence comes to light in future which proves Jackson is guilty, it won’t excuse the fact that the media has spent almost two decades actively skewing the evidence which is currently available.

Whether it is Michael Jackson or an anonymous street cleaner from Wisconsin – it is simply unacceptable for the media to fabricate evidence and misrepresent testimony, or to call somebody a child molester when they have not been convicted of any crime. It is unethical and unprofessional for any media outlet to intentionally misrepresent any information, no matter what subject they’re writing about.

For instance, the media constantly misstates key information pertaining to the 1994 settlement. Whether Jackson is innocent or guilty is entirely irrelevant to the fact that it is unacceptable for any news outlet to consistently lie to the public.

The sum of the settlement is constantly exaggerated. The media frequently alludes to a $20million settlement, sometimes even a $30million settlement, whereas the documents clearly show that it was $15million. Furthermore, the media always claims that Michael Jackson paid the settlement, whereas documents show that it was actually an insurance carrier.

The media constantly makes statements like, ‘Jackson was investigated in 1993 over alleged child molestation but he settled out of court’, which is extremely misleading. The settlement dealt only with the impending civil suit and had nothing to do with the official police investigation. The settlement documents include a specific clause which makes it clear that settling the civil suit did not affect the family’s right to testify in a criminal trial. But the media has spent the best part of two decades heavily implying – if not overtly stating – that Jackson bought his way out of a criminal trial.

As I said above, all of this information is relevant and applicable regardless of innocence or guilt. It is the media’s job to report facts but these facts have been ignored or misstated by almost every single large-scale news outlet in the world – on purpose – since 1994.

It is this bias that I target in my work.

Visit Charles at http://charles-thomson.net.

NB from Lorette:

I’m sure the people at Hee Hee Shamone are very nice, but I don’t know them so I remain neutral in regards to their site content. However, the page below contains a download PDF of a 13 page court document attesting to the fact that Jackson neither agreed to the “payoff” nor paid it.

http://www.heeheeshamone.com/hee/category/conspiracy/

Advertisement