And also, you can always turn the fact of the settlement around against the Chandler family. What kind of unfeeling greed-hogs would take the filthy lucre of the inhuman beast that did that to their child? Wouldn't any real, loving parents beggar themselves, spend years doing the legal work themselves if they had to, lose their jobs, be branded crazy people, to see public judgment for what was done to their beloved child?
What I'm saying is this: He may have done horrible things, he may have done mildly improper things. He may have been just a scarred, scared little boy in a grown-up body, trying to spend time with other children or he may have been a sexual predator, taking out his rage over his own lost childhood by destroying the innocence of children. Nobody knows for sure, not even the children, now grown.
If we'd had a full finding of fact, or real, concrete, publicly available information against him, it would be a different story. As it is, I'm content not knowing.
In a civil suit, "filthy lucre" *is* the public judgment against the defendant, so getting it is most of the vindication that is possible.
That's not completely true, of course. One of the clear patterns of civil suits is the number of plaintiffs who really are just looking for an apology. A private settlement *might* include a private apology, but it's not the way to bet.
"He may have been just a scarred, scared little boy in a grown-up body, trying to spend time with other children or he may have been a sexual predator, taking out his rage over his own lost childhood by destroying the innocence of children. Nobody knows for sure, not even the children, now grown."
The children, now grown, almost certainly *do* know whether Jackson made inappropriate sexual contact with them. It's also certain that Jackson did not take the reasonable course after his first public accusation, which is to stop acting in ways that would make accusations of child molestation credible. It's unmistakably true that after the Chandler case he still spent large amounts of time with young boys un- or barely supervised, overnight. Basically, he didn't act like someone who took accusations of child molestations as if they were important; he acted like someone to whom they were a trifling legal inconvenience, nothing more.
(Somewhere I came across a write-up of Jackson as having a form of progressive schizophrenia. While of course any psychological profile of a celebrity based purely on the public record is suspect, it made sense of Jackson's life in a way very little else has--one of the most universl symptoms of true schizophrenia is "a divorce from common sense".)
Do you recall where you saw that? I'd like to read it, because I came to the same conclusion, and I'd love to see confirmation from a professional viewpoint.
As to whether the children know, that's not clear. Children also "knew" that they had been spirited down secret tunnels to be molested by clowns and watch newborns be fed to wolves. I'm not claiming that the children involved have constructed memories, but the memories of children are notoriously malleable.
His actions after the Chandler case could also be the action of someone who believed he was innocent, believed his actions were innocent, and who believed he was right to spend that time with children.
Unquestionably, he had some sort of connection with children that our current society regards as creepy. Whether it was sexual, neither of us know, and the now-grown children have the best idea.
"His actions after the Chandler case could also be the action of someone who believed he was innocent, believed his actions were innocent, and who believed he was right to spend that time with children."
I was initially thinking of that, but as I thought about it more, I remembered his incredibly cavalier behavior at the start of the criminal trial. Actions showing up hours late for a hearing and dancing on top of his car outside the courthouse demonstrated (though did not prove) that he failed to take the entire legal process seriously.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 03:34 pm (UTC)What I'm saying is this: He may have done horrible things, he may have done mildly improper things. He may have been just a scarred, scared little boy in a grown-up body, trying to spend time with other children or he may have been a sexual predator, taking out his rage over his own lost childhood by destroying the innocence of children. Nobody knows for sure, not even the children, now grown.
If we'd had a full finding of fact, or real, concrete, publicly available information against him, it would be a different story. As it is, I'm content not knowing.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 04:54 pm (UTC)That's not completely true, of course. One of the clear patterns of civil suits is the number of plaintiffs who really are just looking for an apology. A private settlement *might* include a private apology, but it's not the way to bet.
"He may have been just a scarred, scared little boy in a grown-up body, trying to spend time with other children or he may have been a sexual predator, taking out his rage over his own lost childhood by destroying the innocence of children. Nobody knows for sure, not even the children, now grown."
The children, now grown, almost certainly *do* know whether Jackson made inappropriate sexual contact with them. It's also certain that Jackson did not take the reasonable course after his first public accusation, which is to stop acting in ways that would make accusations of child molestation credible. It's unmistakably true that after the Chandler case he still spent large amounts of time with young boys un- or barely supervised, overnight. Basically, he didn't act like someone who took accusations of child molestations as if they were important; he acted like someone to whom they were a trifling legal inconvenience, nothing more.
(Somewhere I came across a write-up of Jackson as having a form of progressive schizophrenia. While of course any psychological profile of a celebrity based purely on the public record is suspect, it made sense of Jackson's life in a way very little else has--one of the most universl symptoms of true schizophrenia is "a divorce from common sense".)
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 06:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 06:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 08:11 pm (UTC)His actions after the Chandler case could also be the action of someone who believed he was innocent, believed his actions were innocent, and who believed he was right to spend that time with children.
Unquestionably, he had some sort of connection with children that our current society regards as creepy. Whether it was sexual, neither of us know, and the now-grown children have the best idea.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 08:37 pm (UTC)I was initially thinking of that, but as I thought about it more, I remembered his incredibly cavalier behavior at the start of the criminal trial. Actions showing up hours late for a hearing and dancing on top of his car outside the courthouse demonstrated (though did not prove) that he failed to take the entire legal process seriously.