Michael Jackson “not a pedophile”? The most misleading statement made by Michael Jackson fans

(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.

Advertisements

About Retha

Attempting to question everything, reject the bad and hold fast to the good.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Michael Jackson “not a pedophile”? The most misleading statement made by Michael Jackson fans

  1. the truth says:

    Its ironic that you complain about misleading statements and then make misleading statements of your own. You claim “And that it is very unlikely that an innocent man will twice be criminally accused of child molestation (J. Chandler in 1993 and G. Arvizo in 2003) and twice pay boys millions not to talk about him molesting them (J. Chandler and Jason Francia)”.
    First of all, he was never charged with anything in 1993. That is a FACT, not speculation. The police aggressively interrogated 30 children and interviewed 400 adults, ransacked Neverland and could not find evidence to file charges. He was never “criminally accused” of anything. He was only accused of child molestation in CIVIL, NOT CRIMINAL court.

    The second part of your claim is even more misleading. According to you, “he paid boys not to talk about him molesting them.” This statement helps to propogate the idiotic claims that Jackson ‘bought the kids silence’. If that were the case then explain to me why Jason Francia was able to testify in court in 2005 that Jackson molested him. This contradicts your claim, that Jackson paid the boy not to talk about him molesting him. Jason Francia, DID eventually talk about it, in the place where it mattered most-CRIMINAL court.

    The settlement in the Jordan Chandler civil case is available online. Go read it and show me where it says that the money is contigent on the accuser’s refusal to testify in criminal court. It does NOT say that. Instead, it says that the accuser is not allowed to discuss the case with the media, ie. no book deals, or interviews with Nancy Grace. Tell me what victim of molestation is interested in writing a book about it, but is unwilling to tallk about it where it matters most, in CRIMINAL court.

    Lets get back to basic. What is a civil settlement? Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(litigation), and that will help clarify matters for matters for you. Hell, I’ll copy and past the wikipedia entry for you. “A settlement, as well as dealing with the dispute between the parties is a contract between those parties, and is one possible (and common) result when parties sue (or contemplate so doing) each other in civil proceedings. The plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) identified in the lawsuit can end the dispute between themselves without a trial[1]. Justice is not a central issue here, merely power: often one party has little option but to submit to the will of the other.

    The contract is based upon the bargain that a party foregoes its ability to sue (if it has not sued already), or to continue with the claim (if the plaintiff has sued), in return for the certainty written into the settlement. The courts will enforce the settlement: if it is breached, the party in default could be sued for breach of that contract. In some jurisdictions, the party in default could also face the original action being restored.

    The settlement of the lawsuit defines legal requirements of the parties, and is often put in force by an order of the court after a joint stipulation by the parties. In other situations (as where the claims have been satisfied by the payment of a certain sum of money) the plaintiff and defendant can simply file a notice that the case has been dismissed.

    The majority of cases are decided by a settlement. Both sides (or the side with fewer monetary resources) often have a strong incentive to settle to avoid the costs (such as legal fees, finding expert witnesses, etc.), associated with a trial, particularly where a trial by jury is available. Generally, one side or the other will make a settlement offer early in litigation. The parties may hold (and indeed, the court may require) a settlement conference, at which they attempt to reach such a settlement.

    In controversial cases, it may be written into a settlement that both sides keep its contents and all other information relevant to the case confidential.”

    Therefore, an intelligent person who knows what a civil settlement is knows that it is not ‘hush money’. Its purpose is to END A LAWSUIT. Jackson did not ‘twice pay boys not to talk about him molesting them’. He twice paid the boys parents to STOP FILING LAWSUITS against him. If he wanted to pay people off, he would have paid them without waiting for them to file lawsuits.

    • Retha says:

      Thank you for correcting me. You are improving my knowledge.
      “Criminally charged” was not the best wording, and I chanced it.

      I also accept your correction in the second case. I do not know the content of the Francia settlement, but, as you pointed out, he did talk. He was thus not prevented from talking.

      I changed both in my post.

      The settlement in the Jordan Chandler civil case is available online. Go read it and show me where it says that the money is contigent on the accuser’s refusal to testify in criminal court.

      From the Chandler/Jackson settlement, links to the settlement, page 8 and 9:
      http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko8.html
      http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko9.html

      It states: “The minor … hereby irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit and forever discharge … Jackson… from any and all charges, complaints, … actions, … of any nature or kind whatsoever… against Jackson.” I would believe that someone who signed to that cannot lay a criminal charge against Jackson, and should drop the charge if already laid.

      The police aggressively interrogated 30 children and interviewed 400 adults, ransacked Neverland and could not find evidence to file charges.

      Yes. In a child molestation case when you don’t have a testifying alleged victim, you usually do not have enough evidence to file charges. They had some evidence (accurate- according to the prosecution- description by Chandler of genital markings MJ had, alleged sexual misconduct with two other boys who apparently refused to testify -according to the District attorney press release, evidence of Jackson sleeping with boys, a book of lewd photos of little boys…). But almost no child molestation case goes ahead without a testifying (alleged) victim, whatever the other evidence.

  2. the truth says:

    Thank you for responding. However, you are still being misleading.
    You wrote,
    “From the Chandler/Jackson settlement, links to the settlement, page 8 and 9:
    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko8.html
    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko9.html

    It states: “The minor … hereby irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit and forever discharge … Jackson… from any and all charges, complaints, … actions, … of any nature or kind whatsoever… against Jackson.” I would believe that someone who signed to that cannot lay a criminal charge against Jackson, and should drop the charge if already laid. ”

    I notice that in the section of the settlement, you are quoting you leave out many important parts of the quote. You write only ‘the minor’ but right after that the documents list the parents, both Evan and June Chandler, their ancestors/relatives, anyone associated with them etc. Notice June Chandler testified in the 2005 case against Michael Jackson, even though she signed the document and according to the section you qouted is supposed to have prevented them from testifying in CRIMINAL court. (her name seems to be mysteriously blacked out, but come who else could have signed as Jordie’s gaurdian besides his father. It definitely is her name.)

    Also, the your quote is misleading because you wrote, “from any and all charges, complaints, … actions, … of any nature or kind whatsoever… against Jackson.” The sections that you left out are very important because they help frame for the reader what types of ‘charges’, ‘complaints’, etc. that the Chandlers are agreeing to drop. That part of the settlement lists things like, “claims, liabilities, obligations, promises, agreements, contreversies, injuries, damages, actions, causes, suits, rights, demands, costs, debts, losses, AND EXPENSES OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER, etc. (its so long, can’t write it all out, again, go read it and pay attention). My point is you are being very disingenous about what it actually says. The ‘any nature whatsoever’ part of your original quote refers to EXPENSES, ie. monetary claims. Meaning that by signing the agreement they are agreeing to end their lawsuit and all future lawsuits by anyone in the family against Michael Jackson. They can no longer try to collect money through the civil courts. You’re trying to make that section of the document appear as if its alluding to criminal court, when instead the document when taken in context and by reading the surrounding words is clearly refering to civil court. Again, you are very misleading. The devil’s in the details.

    Also, although I’m not a lawyer and am not entirely sure about this, I do not think it would be legally possible for a civil settlement to prevent anyone from cooperating with a police investigation. That sounds like obstruction of justice. You can’t legally pay someone not to testify against you. For example, if the Chandlers had taken the money and then testified in criminal court, what was Michael Jackson going to do about it. I don’t think he could actually sue them for testifying in criminal court. Anyway, I already hit the nail on the head because June Chandler testified in 2005 without consequences. Therefore, reassert my claim that the settlement DID NOT STOP JORDIE OR ANYONE ELSE FROM TESTIFYING IN CRIMINAL COURT. If their molestation claims are true, than they are trullly the lowest scum bags on the face of the planet. They basically prostituted their son. Most likely, they just pulled a successful con.

    So the biggest MEDIA perpetuated LIE about michael jackson and 1993 ‘pay off’ needs to be put to rest once and for all. If Michael Jackson wanted to pay boys off, why did he wait for them to sue him before settling? It should have been a match made in heaven. If Michael Jackson’s a pedophile and you have parents clearly willing to prostitute their kids for money, than why do we know anything about these cases? Its because Jackson refused to pay Jordan Chandler when he originally asked for a movie deal and 20 million dollars before contacting the authorities. Michael Jackson maintained his innocence. Thats why he refused to pay them before their allegations went public. Both the Chandlers and Francias were interested in only money back in 1993, that was proven by their failure to cooperate with the police.

  3. the truth says:

    “Yes. In a child molestation case when you don’t have a testifying alleged victim, you usually do not have enough evidence to file charges. They had some evidence (accurate- according to the prosecution- description by Chandler of genital markings MJ had, alleged sexual misconduct with two other boys who apparently refused to testify -according to the District attorney press release, evidence of Jackson sleeping with boys, a book of lewd photos of little boys…). But almost no child molestation case goes ahead without a testifying (alleged) victim, whatever the other evidence.”

    Sorry, I cant resist. You are being honest by admitting your source is Tom Sneddon. However, Tom Sneddon isn’t the most honest of sources. The shenanigans of the 2005 trial demonstrates that the man had no credibility. He isn’t an honest prosecutor who seeks to uphold the law, instead he was just chasing a 12 year vendetta, against Michael Jackson. His willingness to support obvious perjury during the 2005 trial removes all his credibilty. He called a bunch of ex- maids, and security, gaurds, who had unsuccessfully tried to sue Michael Jackson, to the stand to tell ‘lurid’ stories of witnesses Michael Jackson having oral sex, groping, and taking showers with Macauley Culkin, Wade Robson, Jordie Chandler, and Bert Lewis. The stories they told about Jordie Chandler conflicted with the boy’s 1993 affadavit. Wade Robson, Macauley Culkin, and Bert Lewis showed up themselves to deny the prosecution’s claims. What kind of prosecutor would agree to call those witnesses to the stand to tell dirty stories without first consulting with the boys who the story are about? If Sneddon really believed those people, then why didn’t he charge them with failure to report molestation? If their stories were true they deserve to go to jail for letting that happen children. Bottom line is that Sneddon knew the stories were lies. Yet, he chose to go with them anyway because the 2005 case was weak on evidence. He has no credibilty.

    The book that Sneddon was trying to pass off as child porn, were not pornographic, illegal, or lewd. It was an illustrated art book. Obviously if it was porn, he would have charged Jackson with possession of child porn. http://www.amazon.com/Boys-Will-Be-Celebrating-Adventurous/dp/0736913122 The inscription inside read, “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys faces, this is the spirit of Boyhood, A life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children.- MJ” (page 9150 of trial transcripts, lines 25-28) How is that pornographic? Sneddon has no sense decency. He brought conspiracy and kidnapping charges even though there was obvious evidence that Janet and her children left Neverland many times to go spend Michael Jackson’s money. He wasted more than 2 million dollars of tax payers money on that ridiculous case.

    Where was that mysterious boy in 2005? (1 was Francia who according to court transcipts might have been pushed into making accusations during his 1993) How can we be sure he didn’t just make him up, considering all the other things that Sneddon has done. Then there are the photographs, which numerous sources, including Mary Fischer an award winning journalist who investigated the 1993 and Randy Tarraborelli, Michael Jackson’s biographer claim did not match completely. (yes spots, messed up circumcision) I think they are credible because if Sneddon had a boy who was able to give an EXACT description of MJ’s privates there is no way he would have let Michael Jackson get away. He should have arrested Michael Jackson on the spot and charged him with a crime. Instead, he continued to wait until after the settlement was reached and the boy refused to testify. If it really did match, how come he wasn’t begging the judge at the beginning of the 2005 trial when he asked to allow ‘prior bad acts’ to be used in the case? For a case low on evidence, that would have been the holy grail. Instead, he waited until the jury were about to go into deliberations before asking to show off ‘a blemish’ on MJ’s penis that supposedly matched Chandler’s drawing. Judge refused. I just think Sneddon wanted to get the chance to show off Jackson’s spotted privates, so the jury could have something nice to remember about him while they deliberate.

  4. Retha says:

    Sorry, I cant resist. You are being honest by admitting your source is Tom Sneddon.

    No, my source is Reader’s Digest, February 1996. (At this time, Readers Digest made many, many phone calls each day to confirm the accuracy of everything they wrote) Readers Digest said:

    “… when the district attorneys of Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties announced that they were not bringing charges because no victims would testify, their press release said they had uncovered allegations of sexual misconduct by Jackson with two other boys.”

    This press release was a joint release from more than one person, at least one of which (the other district attorney) had equal status to Sneddon (the other DA) and could have disagreed with the statement if he wanted to.

    The book that Sneddon was trying to pass off as child porn, were not pornographic, illegal, or lewd. It was an illustrated art book.

    An addition to what you said, not a correction: Searching his home in the 2003 case, there were many books with photos of naked children found in his home, not just one. Yes, in his country’s legal definition of child pornography these books were not illegal.

    You make a good case about the timing of when they tried introducing the penis drawing and photo’s. Just a technical correction, an error I made elsewhere as well: It was not dishonest Sneddon who argued that the photos should be used. It was Zonen who wanted to introduce them.

  5. Retha says:

    “The truth”, I am not arguing with you about Jackson’s innocence.

    My last comment was largely to show that I look wider than Sneddon for sources.

  6. the truth says:

    Ok, you may be right about the press release..

    I just wan’t to add that there were a total of 2 books, that they were trying hard to make it look like porn.

    1. Boys will be Boys. http://www.amazon.com/Boys-Will-Be-Celebrating-Adventurous/dp/0736913122
    That don’t look like child pornography. It was an ILLUSTRATED art book. LOL. The inscription by Jackson read, “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys faces, this is the spirit of Boyhood, A life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children.- MJ” (page 9150 of trial transcripts, lines 25-28) How is that porn? Seriously?

    2. Then there’s The Boy a Photographic: Essay. This book was found in 1993 and had the inscription “from your fan XXX”. There’s not even any evidence that he even opened that book. Even if he did, the book aint illegal and is not PORNOGRAPHIC.

What is your opinion? (Your first comment ever on this blog will need approval before it appears to the public, do not be surprised if that happens.)

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