Official - Michael Jackson was scum

[Sideroxylon]

The problem is that both of them testified twice under oath in court that no abuse ever happened, and now are saying different for documentary where there is no consequences for not telling the truth.

So either they committed perjury, twice, or they are lying now. Either way it's not helpful for their credibility.

We also have to remember that a documentary crew can film and edit the testimony as much as they want to make sure it is convincing. Harder to do in a court of law with a lawyer questioning you.

Given the money making machine that grew around Michael a narrative of coercion is credible.

 

[Matthew Best]

???? I'm not sure which is worse -that you made that claim, or that every person here with 10 gigs of porn hasn't called you on it. Some people collect warehouses of adult materials without ever allowing a child to see any of it under any circumstances.

I'm baffled - what do you think is wrong with my claim? I mean, if he wasn't using it himself, or showing it to someone else, why did he have it?

 

[DragonLady]

I'm baffled - what do you think is wrong with my claim? I mean, if he wasn't using it himself, or showing it to someone else, why did he have it?

I'm sorry. I just re-read what you said and realize I misunderstood you the first time.

 

[DragonLady]

Given the money making machine that grew around Michael a narrative of coercion is credible.

Is there any evidence of that?

 

[Checkmite]

How can someone settle a criminal charge out of court?

Well you can't - technically. However, in this case, once Jackson gave the victim's family money, they stopped cooperating with the police's criminal investigation, forcing the authorities to end the investigation without charges.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Is there any evidence of that?

I don’t think I need any for a general claim in the context of the post I was answering. And what would evidence look like? Would you accept the accounts of alleged victims? That probably exists.

 

[DragonLady]

I don’t think I need any for a general claim in the context of the post I was answering. And what would evidence look like? Would you accept the accounts of alleged victims? That probably exists.

I believe it's best to accept the accounts of alleged victims as a reason to investigate.

However, if no evidence is found to corroborate the stories, then it's just stories.

It's no different than ghost stories or bigfoot sightings or any other anecdote. It doesn't mean the person is lying; it just means there's no evidence.

Here in the USA one is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and Jackson wasn't proven guilty of anything. He was investigated, prosecuted, and acquitted.

 

[cullennz]

I believe it's best to accept the accounts of alleged victims as a reason to investigate.

However, if no evidence is found to corroborate the stories, then it's just stories.

It's no different than ghost stories or bigfoot sightings or any other anecdote. It doesn't mean the person is lying; it just means there's no evidence.

Here in the USA one is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and Jackson wasn't proven guilty of anything. He was investigated, prosecuted, and acquitted.

All good

He is dead anyway so it ain't like it means much

It will end up being one of those times when 90% of people realise what a sick kiddy fiddler **** he was given the multiple allegations, testimony, from his victims and Jackson's own staff, and the other 10% arguing he wasn't found guilty.

And everyone will forget about it in a couple of years.

 

[a_unique_person]

The problem is that both of them testified twice under oath in court that no abuse ever happened, and now are saying different for documentary where there is no consequences for not telling the truth.

So either they committed perjury, twice, or they are lying now. Either way it's not helpful for their credibility.

We also have to remember that a documentary crew can film and edit the testimony as much as they want to make sure it is convincing. Harder to do in a court of law with a lawyer questioning you.

Victims of sexual assault often don't want the shame and humiliation that comes from making their story public.

 

[Darat]

Are you referring to me?



I never claimed he was pure in any form; only that the evidence he molested children was scant at best -and he was ACQUITTED in court.



So far as "He's dead, so let's forget about it" I'm saying that because He is NO LONGER ABLE TO DEFEND HIMSELF.

That seems rather a strange metric to use, we should only criticise living people and simply shut up about the dead? I really don't think that is going to happen.

 

[Information Analyst]

But if he really was asexual, he wouldn't have had any pornography in his house, would he? But he had loads - I know there was no child pornography, but there was enough adult pornography to a least conclude that he was either using it himself, or, as is alleged, showing it to the children he was sleeping with.

That's a bit like saying someone with steak knives in their house is either using them to eat steak, or stab people.

 

[Information Analyst]

It was a minor, It's a totp episode, check it out.

She - Sylvia Edwards - was not a minor, she was 18 at the time. Did he touch her up? It certainly looks like it, but it's a classic example of reporting bait-and-switch. The footage "emerged" before she was identified, and because the programme had a minimum age limit of 16 for audiences, the media were free to claim the victim "could" have been "underage." However, by the time she was identified and confirmed she was actually 18 at the time, the story that "Savile abused underage girl live on Top of the Pops in 1976" stuck.

"Underage" is, of course, not as simple as it seems now. In 1976 not only was the AoC in the UK was 16 (as it still is), but 16 and 17 years olds were appearing topless on page 3, or even fully nude in softcore magazines like Mayfair (editions which are now retrospectively illegal), well into the 1980s. Different times.

 

[Information Analyst]

Thanks. On a phone so can't get to link.

Probably for the best, given that it doesn't actually show what was claimed.

 

[Matthew Best]

That's a bit like saying someone with steak knives in their house is either using them to eat steak, or stab people.

It's a false dichotomy? I put two choices because one is the common use of the item in question, and the other is what is alleged by several victims. If there is a third or fourth possibility, please feel free to suggest what they might be.

 

[Sideroxylon]

If we take a Pascals Wager look at this, given that Jackson is dead, the cost of disbelieving a living victim and joining in the efforts to raise issues with their credibility seems higher than wrongly believing a possible opportunist. Not that that our opinions here amount to much of anything anyway.

 

[theprestige]

No, a minor is incapable of informed consent. It is an easy, well explored concept with no need to check out evidence.

You misunderstood my question. p0lka is claiming a video confession of a crime. I'm not asking if it's really a crime. I'm asking if it's really a confession. Do you have a link to the supposed video?

 

[a_unique_person]

She - Sylvia Edwards - was not a minor, she was 18 at the time. Did he touch her up? It certainly looks like it, but it's a classic example of reporting bait-and-switch. The footage "emerged" before she was identified, and because the programme had a minimum age limit of 16 for audiences, the media were free to claim the victim "could" have been "underage." However, by the time she was identified and confirmed she was actually 18 at the time, the story that "Savile abused underage girl live on Top of the Pops in 1976" stuck.



"Underage" is, of course, not as simple as it seems now. In 1976 not only was the AoC in the UK was 16 (as it still is), but 16 and 17 years olds were appearing topless on page 3, or even fully nude in softcore magazines like Mayfair (editions which are now retrospectively illegal), well into the 1980s. Different times.

Ok. I'm sorry. He only sexually assaulted an 18 year old girl. That's perfectly acceptable.

 

[Information Analyst]

It's a false dichotomy? I put two choices because one is the common use of the item in question, and the other is what is alleged by several victims. If there is a third or fourth possibility, please feel free to suggest what they might be.

Given the degree to which supposed evidence against Jackson has been misrepresented and even falsified, and testimony apparently manipulated, I would take such claims years after the fact with a pinch of salt.

 

[Information Analyst]

Ok. I'm sorry. He only sexually assaulted an 18 year old girl. That's perfectly acceptable.

Not sure how you jump to that appeal to incredulity. I already said that it looks like he's touching her up (specifically putting his hand on her arse). If the phrase and its implications are unfamiliar to you, that's your own problem.

It is the case, though, that sexually assaulting a minor is treated more seriously in law and in society, so people should be wary of making demonstrably false accusations of such (some sources actually say she was 19, rather than 18).

 

[p0lka]

You misunderstood my question. p0lka is claiming a video confession of a crime. I'm not asking if it's really a crime. I'm asking if it's really a confession. Do you have a link to the supposed video?

Oh, I wasn't claiming a video confession of a crime, I was claiming a video of an alleged crime.

I was incorrect about the girls age though, as Information Analyst said she was an adult.

I found a clip of it on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxSnQ6K4guA