Reading between the lines of Larry Feldman’s speech – WHO IS DR. KATZ? part 5
THE CASE OF ONE PSYCHOLOGIST
When I thought that nothing could surprise me any longer in this Feldman-Katz-Arvizo case their story suddenly made a new twist and revealed a stunning fact that Dr. Katz had access to BOTH sides of the case as he had two patients who were directly involved in it but represented the opposite parties!
The first one was Gavin Arvizo and his family with whom Dr. Katz had at least eight interviews, and the second one was the doctor’s long-time patient who was an investigator working for Michael’s first lead defense attorney Mark Geragos (the one who was later replaced by Thomas Mesereau). The name of the investigator is Bradley Miller and he is the one who was making a rebuttal video with the boy.
When Thomas Mesereau cross-examined Dr. Katz he mostly focused on his contacts with investigator Bradley Miller in the context of Tom Sneddon’s raid of the investigator’s office. It was through Dr. Katz that Tom Sneddon could have learned that Bradley Miller was part of the defense team and therefore had no right to raid his office.
The search of a private investigator’s office would have been illegal had Mr. Sneddon known, or had reason to know, that the investigator worked for Mr. Jackson’s attorney.
Mr. Sneddon’s concession capped his four hours of testimony, given under the watchful eye of Mr. Jackson. In an odd twist in this case, the veteran prosecutor was grilled while the accused sat back and watched.
“I’m asking whether your office knew, or had reason to know that Brad Miller worked for Geragos when you broke into his office,” Mr. Mesereau prodded.
“I wouldn’t characterize it as a break-in,” Mr. Sneddon snapped. (Jackson team goes on offense August 17, 2004)
The importance of this factor is explained by Mark Wittenberg & Willy Gijsman in their Neverland news bulletin who say that:
- “by raiding the Private Investigator’s office from the Michael Jackson attorneys, Sneddon was able to view Michael Jackson’s defence evidence. After doing so, Sneddon took his case to a secret grand jury where he added and got rid of several charges against Michael Jackson”.
So this was another of those numerous breaches of law by Tom Sneddon. However what interested me most in this Katz-Miller connection is that Dr. Katz turned out to be a sort of a guy who got information from both parties and while having therapy sessions with Bradley Miller never disclosed to him that he was the psychologist working with Gavin Arvizo – even when the investigator asked him about it point-blank. As to what information he extracted from Bradley, and what he discussed with the Arvizos, or to whom he could pass it over we can only guess…
The Santa Barbara News Archive tells us the big news:
One of the details [of Dr. Katz’ testimony] was the surprising news that the young accuser and private investigator Bradley Miller are both therapy patients of Dr. Stan Katz. He testified that when Mr. Miller asked him, he could not acknowledge that the young accuser was also his patient because of doctor-patient privilege.
(Strategy is supreme in Jackson hearing, August 25, 2004 )
CNN says the surprising news was disclosed at pretrial hearings:
Katz testified Tuesday on the second day of a pretrial hearing in the case that the first time he had heard of the investigator, Bradley Miller, was in a meeting with Feldman in June 2003.
“He just mentioned that an investigator named Brad Miller had made a videotape of the minor children,” Katz said in response to a question from Oxman.
He said the next time he had heard Miller’s name was in news stories about a break-in at the investigator’s office.
Oxman then dropped a bombshell.
“Bradley Miller is a very special patient of yours, isn’t he, Dr. Katz?” Oxman asked.
Katz claimed doctor-patient privilege and said he could not discuss his patients. Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville backed up Katz’s assertion.
Katz then admitted that he knew Miller because he had worked on family law cases with the investigator. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/17/jackson.case/index.html
The Santa Barbara News Archive says that Brian Oxman had to pay $1000 for the audacity to ask questions breaking the doctor-patient privilege:
During the often testy exchange between Dr. Katz and defense co-counsel Brian Oxman, the psychologist testified that the boy told him about a videotaped interview that involved Mr. Miller.
When asked by Mr. Oxman, the psychologist repeatedly denied ever hearing Mr. Miller’s name.
But Mr. Oxman said, “Bradley Miller is a very special client of yours, isn’t he, Dr. Katz?”
When Dr. Katz indicated he couldn’t talk about his clients, Mr. Oxman continued: “Bradley Miller is a patient of his and has been for several years.”
Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville repeatedly warned the defense lawyer not to step into areas protected by doctor-patient confidentiality. But Mr. Oxman persisted, and Judge Melville fined him $1,000.
Dr. Katz repeatedly refused to answer Mr. Oxman’s questions about whether he had seen Mr. Miller after he initially saw the boy and before the raid. Mr. Oxman asked him about when he ran into Mr. Miller on the street after the November raid. When Mr. Miller asked his psychologist if he was seeing the boy in the case, Dr. Katz testified that he said he couldn’t tell him.
(Jackson’s accuser, gumshoe may share psychologist, by DAWN HOBBS August 18, 2004)
What is disturbing about Dr. Katz is that Bradley Miller most probably confided in his doctor during the therapy sessions and we cannot be sure at all that he didn’t break their doctor-patient confidentiality when talking to the prosecution or Larry Feldman (for example).
Roger Friedman is summing up the story of Dr. Stanley Katz who turned out to be virtually everyone’s friend in the 2003/05 case and was in direct contact with all its key players – Larry Feldman, the prosecutors, Gavin Arvizo and his siblings on the one side and Bradley Miller, investigator for Michael Jackson on the other side.
Mind you that all those guys knew of Bradley Miller while Bradley Miller didn’t know of them – and all this due to the mysterious Dr. Katz. And if we recall that this expert was involved in the 1993 case too the mystery of Dr. Katz will become even more mysterious than ever….
Jacko’s Private Eye, Accuser Shared Shrink
Friday, August 20, 2004 By Roger Friedman
Sneddon has already been grilled over whether or not he understood before last November’s Neverland raid that private eye Bradley Miller worked not for Jackson, but for his then-attorney Mark Geragos.
My sources say he did know — and seized materials from Miller’s Los Angeles office anyway. Judge Rodney Melville may conclude that those materials are privileged and cannot be part of Sneddon’s case.
But now I am told that Miller has another twist for the prosecution.
For some eight or nine years, ending in 2003, Miller – like practically everyone else in L.A. – saw a psychologist on a regular basis to discuss his personal and business problems.
It turns out that the shrink in question is Stan J. Katz, the same psychologist who filed the report on Jackson’s 12-year-old accuser in May 2003 — and the same one who in 1993 also filed the report on Jacko’s first accuser (I think that Dr. Katz involvement was a different one).
Miller has told friends that Katz knew he worked for Geragos, and even asked if he could be introduced to Winona Ryder, another Geragos client. Miller declined. But Miller almost certainly discussed the Jackson case with Katz under the tenets of doctor-patient privilege.
When Katz was revealed as the current accuser’s therapist, Miller was said to have been shocked.
“He told Katz, ‘I can’t believe you’re the therapist involved,'” says a source.
This revelation could be construed as a conflict of interest for Katz and may open the door to questions about his involvement in the Jackson case.
So Roger Friedman is also amazed how terribly interwoven the main players in this never-ending 1993-2005 molestation story are – the same lawyer, the same expert doctor (working for both sides), the same prosecutor, the same everything…
The only mistake Roger Friedman made here is that it wasn’t Dr. Katz who reported the first case to the authorities – it was Dr. Abrams, who after initially contacting the DCFS in 1993 never had a chance to return to the case and find out whether Jordan Chandler had or hadn’t been coached. On December 12 2003, CBS News reports Dr. Abrams said:
“I think that this [children changing their stories] is a possibility in both cases, that there could be coaching, but, again, I wasn’t given the opportunity in the initial one to even try to find out”
He wasn’t given a chance to even try to find out? Wasn’t it the most natural thing to do for the investigation team to have the psychiatrist compare what Jordan Chandler said in his initial interview with what he said in the end – to analyze and check whether it was consistent with what he had said before? But no, someone thought it necessary to keep Dr. Abrams out of the case and replace him with the mysterious Dr. Katz who seemed to pop up every time some accusations against Michael Jackson emerged.
There is so much secrecy about the man that even the nosy Diane Dimond didn’t know about Dr. Katz’ involvement in the 1993 case (or pretended she didn’t know):
Diane Dimond said on Court TV’s Crier Live (March 22 2004):
- “This Dr. Katz who is the one who had several sessions with the boy [Gavin] and then went to the district attorney…I keep hearing reporters over and over say ‘oh well, you know, that’s the same psychologist or psychiatrist that did the first accuser [Jordan Chandler], and you know they got the same lawyer’. Not true. Not true”.
Well, during an interview with Santa Barbara County police Dr. Katz admitted it himself that he was involved in both cases (and Larry Feldman confirmed it in his 2005 testimony too). According to the Santa Barbara investigation documents, Katz said about the 1993 case:
- “I actually do know about that case… I worked on that one too”.
Noticing strange coincidences in the 1993 and 2003 cases and the fact that Larry Feldman and Dr. Katz seem to be inseparable when it comes to accusing Michael Jackson of horrendous crimes, the MJEOL site says:
“…the first accuser saw Dr. Katz once the first accusing family switched lawyers: going from Rothman to Feldman. In comes civil attorney Feldman and he brings in Dr. Katz. Similar to the first case, in comes Feldman, who brings in Dr. Katz, and magically we have molestation allegations. Remember, there were never any allegations of molestation until Feldman and Katz enter the picture. Feldman has also since admitted to paying the doctor bills for the sessions of therapy given by Katz for this current [Arvizo] accuser. Like in the 93 case, as Katz admits, this second case also involved him and was a result of a civil suit Feldman was going to file.”
The MJEOL site also makes an excellent point about the root for the ‘similarities’ in the accusers’ allegations in 1993 and 2003 – it could be the result of Larry Feldman’s convenient leak of Jordan Chandler’s declaration just in time for Gavin Arvizo to pick up a few ideas from it:
“Dimond also says, at the very end of the Jackson segment on Crier Live, that the two accusers’ stories are “very, very similar. If the “stories” were similar, it would not be a shock considering that thesmokinggun.com posted the first accusers entire unproven declaration online for the entire world to read, download, and draw from. All of the 93 accusations are in black and white, for anyone to see.
So it wouldn’t be shocking at all if the accuser or his mother pulled ideas from that declaration. Dimond, to no surprise, does not even mention the availability of the first accuser’s declaration as a possible reason why there would be similarities between this case and the previous one”. Source: http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/dimond-misleading-the-public-katz-not-first-to-hear-allgations-–bullet-113.html
We cannot be one hundred per cent sure that Gavin Arvizo studied Jordan Chandler’s declaration in order to make similar allegations (though I think he did), but what we can be sure of is that in May 2003 he was already well aware of Jordan Chandler’s case. Considering that he was a baby at the time of the 1993 events he couldn’t remember the information himself, so someone must have enlightened him about it.
The Smoking Gun says:
“It was during these sessions that the older boy surprisingly revealed that he was aware that Jackson had faced prior child abuse allegations.
Katz told Det. Paul Zelis [Santa Barbara sheriff’s investigator], that it took a lot of time to get the older boy to trust him, noting that he was aided by the child’s mother, who “had to really spell out” that the psychologist was “helping us, working for us.”
Katz told Zelis that he assured the child he was doing the right thing by relating his experiences at Neverland Ranch. “We talked all about how courageous this was,” Katz told Zelis, “and I said to him, ‘You know, you don’t want Jackson to do these things to kids again, do you?'”
Katz recalled that the boy responded, “Well, Jordy Chandler did not stop him.”
A Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department report of Zelis’s June 2003 interview with Katz, which The Smoking Gun has reviewed, does not address how the boy knew of the Chandler case or whether he had discussed the 1993 matter with his mother, whom Mesereau has branded the grifting mastermind of her children’s abuse tales.
The woman has claimed that she first learned that her son was molested by Jackson on September 30, 2003, when several investigators, including District Attorney Tom Sneddon, broke the news to her during a meeting at an L.A. hotel. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/jackson-case-psychologist
It doesn’t surprise me to hear that Janet Arvizo said she learnt of ‘molestation’ in September 2003 only though she had already said it to Larry Feldman and Dr. Katz in May the same year – Janet is surely a serious mental case. But all this Arvizo business is so confusing even without her that we need to sum up a few things before they turn into a complete mess:
- On February 6, 2003 (which was the same day Bashir’s film aired in the US!) Jordan Chandler’s declaration containing all the graphic details of ‘abuse’ was leaked to the media.
- Please note at that time there were no accusers yet, no case, no nothing – so Jordan’s declaration published in the press was just ‘hanging in the air’ as a kind of a suggestion to any volunteers who would be willing to come up with their ‘abuse’ stories.
- In April the Santa Barbara police closed their probe into the Arvizo situation after finding nothing. In February-April Gavin Arvizo never mentioned any abuse.
- However in May 2003 the Arvizos approached Larry Feldman. The boy made his allegations and the mother raised the matter of a civil suit. Naturally the boy was supposed to tell his own story only and be unaware of Jordan Chandler’s case (and its details) as in 1993 he was still a baby.
- But now we learn from Dr. Katz that during his May-June interviews Gavin Arvizo revealed that he knew of Jordan Chandler’s case. By that time he must have already studied Jordan’s declaration and could easily incorporate Jordan’s story into his, creating an impression that there was a “pattern”.
- This is how the seeds sown by someone in February produced a ripe harvest for the Arvizos, Larry Feldman and their expert Dr. Katz in May-June 2003.
Okay, now that we more or less know what happened in 2003, another question arises – in what capacity did Dr. Katz act in 1993?
Up till now we’ve heard only of Dr. Abrams who reported Jordan Chandler’s case to the authorities (to never hear about it later) and Dr. Richard Gardner to whom Jordan was sent by Larry Feldman for an interview on October 6, 1993. And though the transcript of that conversation is readily available to us thanks to Ray Chandler, it is actually the conclusion of the psychiatrist which is noticeably missing there.
One would expect that after hearing all those horrendous details no doctor would doubt the word of the boy, however we shouldn’t underestimate Dr. Gardner – he was one of the leading experts on FALSE abuse accusations and could have seen through the calculated and totally unemotional manner in which Jordan Chandler was telling his story.
Jordan’s confidence, calm, lack of emotion and surprise at the question whether he felt any fear (he said the only thing he was fearful was a cross-examination) should have immediately raised a red flag for Dr. Gardner same as it did for us ordinary people. And the fact that the doctor’s determination is missing – while the transcript of this highly confidential interview is freely available to all, is enough reason for us to believe that Dr. Gardner saw the boy’s story as false.
Why do I think that Dr. Richard Gardner’s verdict was negative? Because Dr. Gardner’s report evidently didn’t suit Larry Feldman and he approached another expert – Dr. Stanley Katz for his opinion of the boy’s interview.
Would you go from one doctor to another one if the best expert on false allegations confirmed your suspicions and made a positive statement to the effect? You certainly wouldn’t?
We know that Dr. Katz was approached by Larry Feldman in the 1993 with a task to review the tapes from the Santa Barbara News Archive:
On Thursday, jurors learned that Mr. Katz was also involved in the 1993 civil suit with Mr. Feldman. Mr. Katz said he reviewed tapes of an interview between the 1993 accuser and a doctor and reported back to Mr. Feldman.
(THE JACKSON TRIAL: Psychologist testifies of link to lawyer in ’93 case. March 31, 2005)
We also know it from the transcript of Dr. Katz’ testimony where he said the following about the evaluation job he did in 1993 (it turns out that the interview was video recorded):
13 My work was to review the videotapes that
14 were made between the victim —
15 Q. No, I’m — go ahead.
16 A. — and Dr. Richard Gardner.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. And to review those tapes, those videotapes,
19 and to view them and analyze them to give my
20 feedback to Mr. Feldman.
I’m sure that if Dr. Gardner’s conclusion had suited Larry Feldman we would have seen Dr. Gardner’s written determination and it would have been made public in the same shameless way they did it with Jordan’s declaration, transcript of his conversation with a doctor and the graphic text of the original lawsuit.
And you know what? After looking into the background of both experts I think I know why Dr. Gardner’s conclusion didn’t suit Feldman and why he had to bring Dr. Katz into the picture.
Though the name of Dr. Richard Gardner was heavily slandered in the press he was a highly qualified psychiatrist working for the Institute of Psychological Therapies and professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University.
In a preface to Jordan’s interview Ray Chandler even calls him “the nation’s leading authority on false claims of child abuse”. This doctor was wary of jumping to conclusions in child abuse cases and cautioned against “a great wave of hysteria” which gripped the country in the 90s.
In his comments on the Wall Street Journal editorial dated February 22, 1993, Dr. Gardner, speaking of a great number of victims falsely accused of child molestation, called this hysteria “by far the worst” in history, the most devastating “with regard to the number of lives that have been destroyed and families that have been disintegrated.”
So this doctor was surely unbiased and free from a prosecutorial approach to such cases and his objectivity coupled with our own grave skepticism over Jordan’s behavior during that interview gives us enough ground to think that Dr. Richard Gardner’s opinion of Jordan Chandler was unfavorable.
And what about Dr. Stanley Katz? Why did Larry Feldman take the videotape to this particular psychologist? Who is he and what is his professional experience?
Well, Dr. Katz is the former Director of Training and Professional Education at Children’s Institute International in Los Angeles.
I see that the name of the Institute does not ring a bell with you.
And what if I remind you of the McMartin case? And a certain CII Institute whose experts interviewed four hundred children in McMartin preschool and came to the conclusion that 369 of them had been sexually abused? And later none of those scientific findings were supported at the trial and all of them turned out to be completely false?
Are you getting my point now?
Yes, guys, Dr. Katz held a key position in this notorious Institute as he was responsible for professional training of experts whose job was to conduct interviews with the alleged abuse victims!
You can argue that the McMartin case took place in the 80s and Dr. Katz worked there most probably in the 90s, and by then their methods must have changed… Well, they might have, but not very much, as the interview technique employed by this Institute was found inappropriate only at the beginning of the 21st century – or at least ten years after the 1993 Michael Jackson case – when James M. Wood, a research psychologist at the University of Texas at El Paso, studied the McMartin interviews done by Children’s Institute International and found them absolutely horrible:
“A few years ago, Wood did an experiment in which children were questioned using McMartin interviewing techniques. After two or three minutes, most of the kids started to make up bizarre stories.
When an interviewer refuses to take “no” for an answer, this implies that another response is required—even if it’s not true. Saying that a defendant such as Ray Buckey is being followed by undercover police implies that the accused is dangerous and that the children should help lock him up. And, says Wood, telling children that “everyone’s talking” about the crime “creates conformity pressures that are highly improper.”
According to Maggie Bruck, a psychiatry professor at Johns Hopkins University and a researcher of children’s memory and suggestibility, Wood’s experiment and others have led to a consensus among psychologists. They agree now that CII’s methods in the McMartin case were inappropriate” .
For details on the McMartin case click here : http://www.rickross.com/reference/false_memories/fsm110.html
If you haven’t clicked on it here is blogger Chantal telling the short of the story:
“Dr Katz’s organization, Children’s Institute International, believed at the time it had uncovered sex crimes and satanic rituals at the McMartin pre-school in Manhattan Beach. After interviewing 400 current and former students, it concluded that 369 of them had been sexually abused – lured into underground tunnels, forced to perform bizarre forms of devil-worship including the disinterment of coffins, raped at a car wash and filmed with their adult abusers for pornographic purposes.
The problem with CII’s ‘discoveries’ was not only that they failed to meet the basic test of plausibility. They were also based on highly coercive interviews, in which the children systematically denied anything was amiss until the interviewers started putting ideas into their heads. Over and over, the children were asked if they had participated in a certain ‘game’ or if a teacher had touched them. If they said no, they were called ‘dumb’. If they said yes, they were called ’smart’.
When the case reached trial, jurors were able to see the coercive techniques for themselves because the interviews had all been videotaped. Not a shred of corroborating evidence ever surfaced and the defendants, all members of the same family, were exonerated. Among family psychology professionals, the case is now a byword for how not to conduct a sex abuse investigation.”
Even from the scarce fragments of Dr. Katz testimony reported in the press we do feel that specific McMartin touch in Dr. Katz’s interview with Gavin Arvizo, don’t we?
- “It took a lot of time to get the older boy to trust him, noting that he was aided by the child’s mother, who “had to really spell out” that the psychologist was “helping us, working for us.”
- Katz told Zelis that he assured the child he was doing the right thing by relating his experiences at Neverland Ranch.
- “We talked all about how courageous this was,” Katz told Zelis,
- “and I said to him, ‘You know, you don’t want Jackson to do these things to kids again, do you?'”
Reread this question again and you will see that instead of getting information from Gavin Arvizo Dr. Katz is actually passing over to him the idea that “Jackson did something to kids” and suggests that Gavin joins him in this understanding!
Very few people know that Thomas Mesereau was aware of Dr. Katz’ previous experience and though he was limited in his cross-examination only to the subjects raised by the prosecution (who made their questioning uncharacteristically short), he still asked him a couple of questions about the McMartin case:
It is over here that we learn that the expert who interviewed the children then worked directly under Dr. Katz:
3 Q. Were you involved in that case in any
4 professional way?
5 A. Yes, I was.
6 Q. How were you involved?
7 A. I was the director of training and
8 professional education at the Children’s Institute
9 International, and that’s the agency that initially
10 interviewed all the McMartin children.
11 Q. And were you involved in that case for a
12 number of years?
13 A. Well, my involvement was that I was director
14 of the program. And Kee McFarland, who was the
15 woman who interviewed the children, actually worked
16 under me. But I was not — I did not directly
17 interview the children’s parents.
18 I did interview — my involvement with the
19 McMartin case was, I did do assessments. I was
20 asked by the Department of Children & Family
21 Services to assess the children of the alleged
22 perpetrators to see if they had been molested.
23 Other than that, I had very little involvement
24 directly with the case.
25 Q. Is it your understanding that that was
26 perhaps the longest and largest criminal case in the
27 history of Los Angeles County?
28 A. I think it was.
Oh my God, so it was actually Dr. Katz who assessed the testimonies of those children and diagnosed them as abused?! And then the court hearings showed that all their stories were sheer fantasies! The trial lasted for more than two years and ended without a single conviction!
If Thomas Mesereau weren’t such a gentleman he should have probably called Dr. Katz the names he deserved for turning the lives of the poor teachers of McMartin school into a living hell.
Now that we know Dr. Katz’s background it is clear why Larry Feldman sent Jordan Chandler’s videotape to this particular psychologist and what kind of a determination he expected from Dr. Katz.
And it is also clear why the prosecution reduced their examination of Dr. Katz in 2005 to an absolute minimum – a lot of inconvenient questions would have arisen if the scope of their direct examination had allowed Thomas Mesereau to cross-examine him over the McMartin disaster.
Now if you think that our surprises over Dr. Katz end at this point, here comes one more impressive piece of news about this doctor.
The fact is that in a secretely taped telephone conversation with the Santa Barbara police investigator Paul Zelis, this doctor – an expert witness for the prosecution side – shared his private opinion about Michael Jackson and it turned out that he didn’t think him to be a pedophile – he said that MJ didn’t fit the necessary profile! And the police investigator also agreed with the doctor!
So Dr. Katz, who judging by his severe treatment of the McMartin teachers could be considered the most terrifying expert for child abuse cases, actually said that he didn’t believe Michael to be one!
The Smoking Gun says what Dr. Katz said it ‘off the record’ to the police officer:
In a taped June 2003 telephone interview, Katz, 55, gave a Santa Barbara sheriff’s investigator his “off the record” opinion of the 46-year-old entertainer.
Jackson, Katz told Det. Paul Zelis, “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.”
“Yeah, yeah, I agree,” replied Zelis.
Even if Dr. Katz did believe all those liars’ stories about “jacking off” and “drinking wine” his overall conclusion was that MJ still didn’t qualify for what he was accused of.
Dr. Katz had thousands of cases to analyze and with the interview techniques he employed he could have extracted not only “wine” or “jacking off” from those boys but “tunnels for raping children” too – the way they did it in the McMartin case. And it doesn’t really matter whether he believed in that part of allegations or not – none of them were proven at the trial anyway.
But let us not underestimate his overall conclusion that Michael did NOT qualify for an abuser.
Such conclusions made by the pro-prosecution side are twice as valuable as those made by the other side.
And mind you, Dr. Katz was speaking not only of the Arvizo case – ten years prior to that he had also assessed Jordan Chandler’s interview. And if in 2005 he made this overall conclusion about Michael, it means that 10 years prior to that he also had the same impression of him and the Arvizo case only confirmed his earlier point of view.
So both cases brought Dr. Katz to the same opinion about Michael – he didn’t qualify for a p. – and let us remember that this opinion is coming from a highly conservative expert and not someone as ‘liberal’ as Dr. Richard Gardner was.
The only thing I cannot agree with Dr. Katz is that Michael Jackson was “a regressed 10-year old”. Michael was always a big kid who took his childlike qualities well into his forties and who lost them only when his last hopes in humankind finally crashed.