Frequently asked questions about Michael Jackson

http://surftofind.com/jackson

If Michael was innocent, why did he "pay off" his accuser in 1993?
It appeared that the judicial system was not on his side. When civil and criminal proceedings arise over the same allegation, the defendant is entitled to a stay of discovery and trial in the civil action until the criminal matter is resolved. In Michael Jackson's case, the civil trial was scheduled to occur before the criminal trial, which would have been a violation of Jackson's constitutional right to not self-incriminate. Jackson's attorney, Johnnie Cochrane, tried to get the civil trial postponed until AFTER the criminal trial but was not granted his request. He also filed a motion blocking the District Attorney's office from obtaining evidence used in the civil proceedings; again, he was not granted his request. If the civil trial had occurred, the prosecution would have been privy to Michael's entire defense strategy. This would have given them time in between the civil and criminal trials to come up with a way to counter Michael's defense. By settling, Michael did not have to go to court in the civil case and reveal his defense strategy to the prosecution.

Other reasons include the fact that the civil trial could have taken 8-9 months, which would have cost Michael millions of dollars in legal fees. Add to that the possibility of losing in court and one can see that paying the Chandlers $20 million might have actually been the cheaper alternative. Keep in mind that civil trials are very different from criminal trials in that the jury's verdict does not have to be unanimous. Only 51% of the jury would have to rule against Michael and he would have lost the civil trial. This could have later been used against him in the criminal trial as well. When you look at the case from a legal standpoint, Michael's decision to settle makes a lot of sense. Once the civil trial was settled, the criminal trial continued and there was not enough evidence to charge Michael.

Does Michael Jackson fit the profile of a pedophile?
No. According to Michael Borak, a forensic psychiatrist who has evaluated many pedophiles, Michael's eccentric behavior is "not typical of most offenders. Most offenders are 'normal' people who could be your neighbors, not freaky or weird." In response to people who think Michael's image is typical of pedophiles, another psychiatrist, Dr. Ralph Underwager, who has treated pedophiles and victims of incest since 1953 says, "There's no such thing as a classic pedophile. They made a completely foolish and illogical error." He says Jackson is an easy target because "misconceptions like these have been allowed to parade as fact in an era of hysteria."

Should a 45-year-old man be allowed to have children sleep over at his house?
Michael Jackson has been widely criticized for his statements regarding children sharing his bedroom. It is not illegal for him to do this and it does not make him guilty of anything besides going against a societal norm.

Sexual abuse does not always occur at night or in a bed. If you argue that the sleepovers are wrong because they provide an opportunity for sexual abuse to occur, then I guess you could also argue that no adult should ever be alone with any child. Whether or not they're related is irrelevant because there's something called incest which people seem to have forgotten about.

So why are the sleepovers viewed as wrong? It's Michael's personal belief that there's nothing inappropriate about sharing his bed with a child and there's no logical reason that proves otherwise. If you disagree with his statements, that's your own opinion but ask yourself why you feel this way? Is it because you have logical reason to believe that it's morally wrong or it or is it because society says it's wrong? If you have reason to feel the way you do, please let me know because I'd be interested to hear it. If you don't, let me just remind you that society has been wrong about a lot of things.

Personally, if I had children, I wouldn't let them sleep with another adult. That's just my own belief. I don't have a reason to feel this way, I would just feel uncomfortable with it. If Michael feels differently, that's his business. It does not affect me personally. This is one of those issues that has to do with how you were raised and what you were brought up to believe. No amount of logical reasoning will change anyone's opinion on the matter so do not condemn Michael for having a different belief than you. Moreover, I believe it is the parents that allow their children to sleep at Michael Jackson's home, who deserve ALL the blame.

Moreover, I'd like to point out that if anything inappropriate was going on at those sleepovers, why would Michael draw attention to them by talking about them so openly on national television? That right there is a sign of innocence if you ask me. Also, if he really wanted to molest kids, why wouldn't he do it somewhere that wouldn't look suspicious? Why do it at sleepovers where people would be more likely to scrutinize his behavior? Ask yourself these questions before you try to use Michael's honesty against him.

Why did Jordan Chandler make allegations against Michael?
Jordan only made allegations after his father gave him a drug called sodium amytal. According to Dr. Resnick, a Cleveland psychiatrist, "It's a psychiatric medication that cannot be relied on to produce fact. People are very suggestible under it. People will say things under sodium amytal that are blatantly untrue." He goes on to say, "It is quite possible to implant an idea through the mere asking of a question. The idea can become their memory, and studies have shown that even when you tell them the truth, they will swear on a stack of Bibles that it happened."

Sodium amytal has been a factor in other child molestation cases, one of which occurred in Napa County, California. After undergoing many therapy sessions, and being administered the sodium amytal drug, a 20-year-old woman accused her father of molesting her as a child. Her father denied the charges and sued the therapist and the psychiatrist. The jury sided with the father, believing that the memory had been implanted in the woman's mind as a result of being given the drug. Sadly, it seems that Jordan Chandler was merely a pawn in his father's sick scam to extort money.

http://surftofind.com/jackson