The thing that gets me about Michael Jackson.

[coloradodem2005]

When I was about three years old, my family had just moved to Colorado and within a year of that, my mother picked up a cassette. Michael Jackson's "Thriller". To this day, it is the music of that album that has sewn the seeds of my love for music. Everything about the beat and the dancibility of that album, to that kick ass Eddie Van Halen guitar solo in the middle of "Beat It". I remember not much later hearing a song called "Eat It" by some wierd guy. :P

Thriller is one of the best selling albums of all time. The best selling proper album of all time to this date. But when you consider where my love of music started, it does bother me that he turned out to be a sick pedophile who with all the surgery, is not really white, not really black but is really whack.

[hfojvt]

1. are you sure he is a pedophile?

Perhaps I naively believe he is not, that he is a playful adult who likes to hang out with kids. I have serious doubts about this trial and this accuser, but I am not really following it at all.

[Lone Pawn]

2. These aren't the first accusations.

This kind of sh*t has been following him for a decade.

[hfojvt]

3. sure and the other one was settled with cash

How do I know that was not a lying gold-digger? Not all accusations are true.

[Lone Pawn]

5. If he was innocent why did he settle?

If it looks like a duck...

[Seabiscuit]

8. Yeah, didn't he buy his way out of that one with something like $25 Mil?

If it looks like a Jacko, walks like a Jacko, quacks like a Jacko, and pays like a Jacko, well, then....

[hfojvt]

9. please, it costs hundreds of thousands to fight an accusation

and your name is dragged through the press the whole time. You are losing the money either way, and a settlement is easier and quicker and safer (you could always get a racist idiot jury or judge).

[Seabiscuit]

10. So why didn't he just pay hundreds of thousands?

[hfojvt]

13. okay the settlement was bigger than I remembered

but legal costs are more than I estimated as well. This article puts them in the millions:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2004-04-27-jackson-finances_x.htm

[Seabiscuit]

23. The article doesn't address the costs of the earlier case which settled

What it does note is that his bail this time around was $3 million (less than 1% of his net worth, and he actually only pays 10% of the bail amount, or $300K), which the court imposed in part due to his wealth (the article estimates it at $350M, with income from royalties alone at about $80M/year) but mainly because he poses a flight risk due to his leaving the country the last time around just before he settled.

The article doesn't address "court costs" per se. It merely quotes some outside attorney as estimating that Jackson might hire as many as three different attorneys, each charging a retainer of $2-$3 million each. As an attorney I personally find that little snippet preposterous. Any retainer an attorney proposes to any client has several parts - an upfront fee to begin work (usually in the thousands) and an hourly rate OR in the alternative a strict contingency fee - a percentage of the recovery, with no upfront deposit and no hourly rate(this type doesn't apply in criminal defense cases).

I would imagine that an attorney that Jackson might retain would want to make sure he gets as much as possible upfront due to Jackson's flight risk and general irresponsibility. So I could see such an attorney demanding X amount up front if the case settles prior to trial, and Y amount to be paid 60 days prior to trial (to avoid a claim of client abandonment) in the event the case doesn't settle by then and actually goes to trial. Even so, such retainer agreements are subject to scrutiny by the judiciary and the final bill must reflect actual work done at a specified hourly amount. So I think anyone claiming Jackson's legal fees would be $2-$3 million per attorney is just having fun talking out of his ass to a reporter.

Let's say some jackoff attorney wants $500/hour (and I know some attorneys who defend high-profile defendants charge that much, though I find no rational justification for it) from Jackson to go all the way through trial, and begins representing him 6 months prior to trial, and the trial lasts 6 months. That's 52 weeks. At $2 million, that's $38,461.54/week. At $3 million, that's $57,692.31/week. At $500/hour, an attorney would have to work exclusively on Jackson's case (1) at $2 million: about 77 hours/week or over 15 hours/day; (2)at $3 million: 114.38 hours/week or over 23 hours/day (!!) for a five day week. If, as the article suggest, Jackson hired 3 attorneys at a $3 million retainer each, that's $9 million, and you'd have 3 attorneys working exclusively on Jackson's case for over 23 hours a day (or a cumulative 69 hours a day between the 3 of them) for 365 days straight.

It just doesn't add up.

Actual court costs (filing fees, discovery costs, etc.) are really quite minimal in criminal defense cases and should exceed a few thousand dollars, unless there are "expert" witnesses involved, who generally charge at least $600/hour for their courtroom testimony, which usually only lasts at most a few hours.

So the question remains: why did Jackson pay off the first accuser $25 million, when fighting it through trial would probably cost him well under $1 million total? If he were innocent, and the prosecution's evidence was therefore necessarily thin, it might take up more time, but he'd sure save a ton. As for his image, I think he looks a lot worse paying that $25 million tham if he'd paid between $100K and $1 million at most to fight it and win.

[lenidog]

4. To top it off he totally blew it the first time around

when he was accused. He fled the country and then paid the kid's family off that did not help his story of innocence.

[chookie]

16. I wonder

I am not a fan of the man, although I recognize that he is a remarkable talent.

I am pretty openminded as to eccentricities, but this boy child seems a bit of a freak. And, like Elvis, rich enough to indulge extravagantly, his every freakish whim. He had no friend decent enough to tell him the truth about how bizarre he had become.... I also pity the fact that, like Elvis (not to mention many other burnout stars), he is now creatively bankrupt, and in artistic crisis, but unlike artists unable to find a way out of it, or the guts to fade away.

What spooks me about this current trial for his alleged crimes against children is that, as it is being reported in the media, that "interest" in "saving children" he is supposedly victimizing was piqued by that damned documentary by Bashir (sp?) by the DA who has been out to "get him" since, because of his claim to innocently share his bed. They seem to be leaping to horrid conclusions about him holding hands with the "victim", and speculate that he MUST be doing foul things with children. So -- based on "logical speculation" and analogies with true pedophiles which might not hold in this strange case of this strange man, rather than real factual evidence.

My gut sense is that Mr Jackson is so out of touch with societal norms that he truly did behave innocently with children, almost as another child would, and believing he was simply offering warmth and innocent, naive "intimacy". I find it hard to fathom that he would be so bold to state this, when he was actually guilty of obscene crimes -- whatever else I think of Jackson, I do not think he is capable of being devious while committing clearly awful crimes. Mr Jackson is clearly a wealth enabled wacko, but that does not make him a sociopath or a criminal pedophile.

Add onto that a PERHAPS opportunistic Hollywood leech trying to exploit or even fleece a multimillionaire, perhaps egged on by an enthusiastic DA -- and we may have here, in fact, a "Fatty Arbuckle" situation, a witch hunt.

In my view -- this trial is horrid no matter what the truth is -- whether it be a crazy man sexually exploiting children, or opportunistic vampires willing to say or do anything to accuse an absurdly misfit millionaire falsely -- either scenario is tragic.

One can only pray for the ever elusive miracle that actual justice will be served in this case; sadly, given the embrace of emotionally heated bullshit and overall exploitation of such situations, not to mention the ability to purchase legal outcomes or otherwise decide them "politically," it seems unlikely.

[BlackVelvetElvis]

6. I'm glad he is having his day in court.

The payola 10 years ago wasn't good for stopping the current accusations.
Regardless of whether he's innocent or guilty, the man has psychological problems and a serious disconnect with reality. If he is truly innocent, I sure feel sorry for him.

[Floogeldy]

7. I always hated Thriller

Stupid goddamn pop album performed by a dancer.

It had nothing to do with a group of musicians writing songs and playing instruments and singing together.

It was all about a freak. That's not what music is supposed to be about.

[hfojvt]

11. It is not about love and dancing

and learning to accept people who are different?
WTF are you listening to - Panterra?

[realisticphish]

15. whoa whoa whoa

lets not bring dimebag into this... no random pantera dissing!

[hfojvt]

18. that was dissing?

I used them as an example of a band that takes no prisoners.
I was gonna go with Metallica, but I figured I would use something stronger.
I loved that line from the movie "Josie and the Pussycats" ... "ünfortunately we landed in the parking lot of a Metallica concert and their fans beat the sh*t out of us ('us' being the boy band 'du Jour')"

[realisticphish]

19. ah

i misinterpreted. its all good :smoke:

[donheld]

20. Is that the only music you like?

"group of musicians writing songs and playing instruments and singing together." I find that quite short sited.

[Seabiscuit]

12. I suggest everyone read the prosecution's opening statement.

They've got a whole lot more evidence against Jacko than the press has ever even hinted at.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

14. Do you have a link handy, by chance?

Thanks.

[Seabiscuit]

22. My wife found the link and I read it - I didn't save it, so I'll ask her

and get back to you. Sorry.

[Seabiscuit]

27. Here's the link:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/0228051jacksonopenings1.html

Please note:

1. The page is not well formatted. At the top is the March 1 portion of the opening statement (note it says in the first paragraph that it "resumes"). First scroll down the page to "February 28", where the opening statement begins. Read to the bottom of the page, then go back to the top and read the March 1 portion which "resumes" what began on February 28.

2. Check out other links to the right of the article - e.g. the transcript of the grand jury proceedings which resulted in Jackson's indictment.

[donheld]

17. My fellow Coloradodem

What so awful about "innocent till proven guilty"

[CanuckAmok]

21. I still say...that guilty or not...

...a certain share of the blame for anything that may have happened, particularly the second time around, lays with the parents of these kids.

I mean, whether he's a pedophile or not, he's certainly an eccentric weirdo, and if I were a parent, I think I'd have to have rocks in my head to even consider leaving my children with him.

Especially with a history of alleged pedophelia.

"Alleged" would be enough for me...why risk your child's safety unnecessarily?

I can't imagine what these parents' motivations were...were they star-struck? Naive? Looking to score a settlement from the get-go?

[Seabiscuit]

24. Amen. The mother of the current complainant is no peach.

[ComerPerro]

25. I had "Bad" when I was a kid. Listened to it alot, still like it

But, I don't necessicarily agree with your assertion that he turned out to be a sick pedophile...

[Robeson]

26. Wish I could help you....

...but I'm so old, I can remember when Michael Jackson was younger than me. Back in those days, he and the Jackson 5, were what we called Bubblegum Pop.