Well, as I recall, the kid had cancer and supposedly wanted to meet MJ before he died. MJ found out about that and that’s when this friendship started. I don’t think it’s so hard to believe that a guy with his money/power could look into finding people who look sleazy and who won’t be believed in court. I’m not sure he planned it to the letter, but if you’re going to molest young boys, why not choose ones who have no credibility? Whom the defense can paint as money grubbing low lifes?
Bones = dollars.
Ah, OK, thanks Hippy. - But is Dio suggesting that Katz was paid…?
I was going to reply to a thread earlier today about “MJ=pedo” being the new annoying meme on the SDMB.
Anyway. It’s certainly understandable that some people would look at the “evidence” and surmise he was a pedophile. It’s also understandable that some would think he was not. And there are people with stars in their eyes and haters, as well.
The bottom line is, he was accused, went to trial, and was acquitted. Which would be appropriate for those elected to public office to remember. (Yes, you, Peter King. WTF are you commenting on MJ for, anyway?)
Personally I think he exercised poor judgment and maybe even behaved inappropriately around young kids (showing Playboy, giving them wine, etc.). I don’t think he was a pederast. Then again, I don’t know for sure, and nor does anyone else on this board.
But that doesn’t stop us making very reasonable assumptions.
Jackson was a shrewd and very competitive business man. Sort of goes against the notion that he was an emotionally retarded 10 year old manchild.
I believe Dio is referring to a sum of money paid to one of the accusing boys, and settled out of court.
Dio has said in the past that MJ would not have done this if there was no basis for the accusations.
I heard his comments after I started this thread and I was wondering if a) what he said could be considered libel; and 2) whether you can libel someone who is dead? Not that anybody attached with MJs estate at this time would want to try and hash out these issues in court again.
For some reason I was reminded of the time Agnelina Jolie gave what was considered an inapporpriate kiss to her brother at the Academy Awards (or something like that) While it certainly wasn’t incest, it certainly tipped the “oogy” scale way over. Were Micheal’s actions akin to that, in a serial manner, or were that pedophelia? We’ll never know for sure.
It is routine for defendants in criminal cases to hire “Expert witnesses” to testify on their behalf during trial. That can and does include mental health experts. It would be SOP for the prosecution and the defense to both present expert witnesses who will support their respective sides.
I don’t know if Katz was specifically hired by the defense, that’s why I was asking. If he was paid by the defense, then his testimony doesn’t mean much.
This is correct. The $22 million was paid to an accuser not to testify.
The question about Katz was unrelated to the $22 million, but was an inquiry about which side – the prosecution or the defense – had hired him.
I think this is worth pointing out. MJ was a messed up guy and he may have related well to kids. But it’s not like he was actually mentally a child. You don’t get to be where he was just with raw talent–he was smart and savvy enough to get this far ahead. And I can’t really see a ten year old child thinking that sacrificing a friendship by purchasing the Beatles’ catalog was all that great an idea.
And that’s why he was spending hand over fist and ended up being $400 million in debt?
Hippy Hollow just bear in mind that being found “not guilty” does NOT mean he was found “innocent”. It just means that the prosecution didn’t meet their burden of proof and that could be for a variety of reasons from true innocence, to the prosecution’s incompetence, to defense that is really good at muddying the waters.
:: shrug ::
Personally, I’m one of the many who thinks he was so utterly clueless about what is socially acceptable and normal that he probably did behave inappropriately, but not necessarily with any intent or deliberate sexual designs. I also think he was an idiot who, when told by a sane reasonable person “Dude, you can’t behave like that. It’s inappropriate and people will get the wrong idea!” continued to behave inappropriately and for that someone should have smacked some sense into him.
I don’t think these two personas are mutually exclusive. It’s like the person you knew in college who was a genius when it came to academics, but a complete nitwit when it comes to choosing suitable people to date. Hell, I’ve just described about 50% of my female friends. Smart as hell, but extremely poor judges of character and too trusting/naïve in other aspects.
I’ve known 10 year olds who can program computers, draw up plays worthy of a college football quarterback, and so forth (I guess it helps having been a 4th grade teacher). But they’ll burst into tears if you talk about their mama. 
“Acquitted” does not mean “innocent.” It means they couldn’t prove it beyond a “reasonable doubt.”
What on earth are you basing that view of him on? The Beatles’ catalog sale? Paul McCartney had ample opportunity to buy it, but was just too cheap to outbid MJ.
On the other hand, MJ pissed money away like it was water. He would have been MC Hammer if he hadn’t started from so much higher up.
If your 10 year old boy was supposedly molested by him, would you actually accept just money? In fact, would you first contact the potential molester and ask him for money instead of calling the police first?
The Beetles catalog was a good move and I thought he did quite well when dealing with concert promoters and merchandisers?
I’m doubting the 10 year did much of anything. I would imagine that it was his parents.
Jackson also paid off a third child.
He did piss away money, but he definitely earned it to begin with. You don’t just luck into album sales and music videos the way he did.
I think hiring Anthony Pellicano who really put the screws to the Chandler family was also a fairly cutthroat move. I mean, yes, he was messed up, but he did seem to know what he was doing. Yes, he was disturbed, but he’s not some poor little man-child who’s just been taken for a ride.
zweisamkeit, I think that is very creepy. But I think that sadly, there are enough parents who will sell their kids’ innocence for money.
If your lawyer told you that you didn’t have much of a case, if you were being threatened by a bunch of big time lawyers and people like Anthony Pellicano, and perhaps your child was refusing to testify (as in Jordy Chandler’s case), perhaps some people might decide it was better to cut their losses, and think of their child first.
Remember, a lot of these people weren’t all that well-to-do, they had someone rich and powerful throwing a hell of a lot of money and clout at them, and they might have wanted to get their son in therapy, rather than try and put him through the trauma of having to testify in court and the like.
Let’s also keep in mind – say Michael Jackson WAS simply ten years old mentally. Does that mean he wasn’t capable of molestation? A “you show me your’s, I’ll show you mine?” Please.
:rolleyes:
I know, that’s why I said he was acquitted rather than “found innocent.”
People are free to think what they want, and I’ve acknowledged that there is plenty of circumstantial “evidence” to support both perspectives. I just get annoyed when people speak as if they have some knowledge that he definitely committed a crime. (I have empathy, but still disdain for those who argue just as vociferously that he did not.)
Bottom line though, when it comes to these types of accusations that truly can destroy people’s lives, I prefer to proceed with caution. If he was found not guilty I think that should be the final word - but that’s my opinion.