(I accidently made my previous post on this topic on my Afrikaans blog.)
Some Michael Jackson fans are absolutely adamnant: “Michael. Would. Never. Have. Harmed. Any. Kid.” Some people are completelely convinced of the opposite.
If I meet one of the former, I want to tell them some kinds of behavior of MJ’s (like having a children’s playland where you often invite children, as a home, and inviting kids into his bed) can be understood as grooming a kid for abuse. And that it is very unlikely that an innocent man will twice be criminally investigated for child molestation (J. Chandler in 1993 and G. Arvizo in 2003); and twice pay boys millions not to make (molestation) lawsuits against him(J. Chandler and Jason Francia). But some Jackson fans can, at least, give alternative explanations for this behavior.
If I meet someone who is sure of his guilt, I want to tell them how the parents of both accusers were obviously money-grabbers (as explained in the post linked to above), and Evan Chandler either allowed Jacko to spend time with his kid while already strongly suspecting molestation (someting good parents won’t do) or convinced Jordan to tell a lie. And it is very unlikely that any child molester will regularly share a bed with a kid for years, without ever trying anything wrong with that child. . Macauley Culkin and others claimed just that, about themselves. Assuming Michael did molest boys, I never heard any satisfactory explanation for why several young men claimed how, as boys, they often shared a bed with him – innocuously.
And the most misleading statement I ever heard about his guilt or innocence in the molestation cases? It is the oft-repeated “Even Dr. Stanley Katz, the psycologist for the Arvizo brothers, claimed Michael Jackson was “not a pedophile, but a regressed 10-year old.”
What Dr. Katz actually said, after making it clear that he believed the Arvizo brothers story (A story of being shown pornography and made drunk by MJ, of Michael once touching the clothed younger brother, and more seriously and more often molesting the older boy, with his younger brother being an eyewitness once) , was:
Michael … “is a guy that’s like a 10-year-old child. And, you know, he’s doing what a 10-year-old would do with his little buddies. You know, they’re gonna jack off, watch movies, drink wine, you know. And, you know, he doesn’t even really qualify as a pedophile. He’s really just this regressed 10-year-old.”
In other words, Dr. Stanley Katz believed the boys about the pornography, the alcohol and the sexual acts. His statement “not a pedophile … a regressed 10-year-old” only meant that Jackson’s motivation and modus operandi was, in his opinion, not that of a typical pedophile. (But then, most men who live with an adult woman and secretly molest her 11 or 14-year old daughter do not “really qualify as a pedophile” either. Many people molest children without being pedophiles.) But Dr. Katz reported to the authorities what the brothers told him- because he suspected sexual molestation.