Official - Michael Jackson was scum

[Dr.Sid]

As for the balcony .. we have nice bridge in our town. There are fish in the river bellow. You can see some dad showing the fish to baby every day, MJ style. Stupid ? Sure. Rare ? Not at all.

 

[Matthew Best]

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.

I don't think I'm familiar with all this.

Anyway, you seem to be disagreeing for the sake of it, and I'm not sure why. My point was that it seems unlikely that Jackson was asexual. I think I'll stand by that.

 

[Dr.Sid]

As for the whole thing .. MJ certainly ticks all the boxes.
What bothers me is: why now, why using a movie ? And both has one simple answer: money. Now is great time for story like that. And a movie like this is imho guaranteed profit.
If they really were after justice, it would be earlier, at a court.

 

[Information Analyst]

I don't think I'm familiar with all this.

Then you should read the HP article I linked to yesterday.

 

[Matthew Best]

That's exactly what I was basing my position on!

I mean, that's where I found the huge list of porn he had in his house

https://lacienegasmiled.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/michael-jacksons-porn/

which rather gives the lie to him being "asexual" wouldn't you agree?

 

[GlennB]

As for the balcony .. we have nice bridge in our town. There are fish in the river bellow. You can see some dad showing the fish to baby every day, MJ style. Stupid ? Sure. Rare ? Not at all.

By dangling the baby over the parapet? Are you serious?

 

[Cavemonster]

As for the whole thing .. MJ certainly ticks all the boxes.
What bothers me is: why now, why using a movie ? And both has one simple answer: money. Now is great time for story like that. And a movie like this is imho guaranteed profit.
If they really were after justice, it would be earlier, at a court.

I have some possible answers to both questions.

Why now and not earlier? Why did victims of Catholic priests, Bill Cosby, Jimmy Saville etc etc etc all wait decades? It should not seem like an implausible thing to do.

There was a lot of money swirling around Jackson, a lot of people making money off of his bankability. I imagine one possibility is that speaking out more when he was alive might trigger some of those many people with a lot of money to spend to spend some of it on public campaigns attacking the character of these alleged victims. Such attack might likely lead to some scary harassment and threats, like just about every victim coming forward gets. I might imagine that the current me too era which began in earnest after Jackson's death helps too. And finally I think watching someone be canonized in death might trigger a desire for victims to correct the legacy.

Why a movie? Since you can't have a legal trial after death, the only thing that could be achieved would be bringing facts into public knowledge. So it could only be some piece of public facing media. I suppose it might have been some kind of media other than a movie, but we're splitting hairs at this point.

 

[JoeMorgue]

People get that if you're a victim and greedy you're still a victim, right?

Are there no dollar signs anywhere in any of the eyes of anyone accusing Jackson of something? Let's be realistic here of course there are.

What does that change though?

 

[DragonLady]

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.

I don't think it's right to just spread lies about anyone, living or dead.

But at least the living can defend themselves. Jackson did -successfully. He was acquitted because there was almost NO EVIDENCE he molested anyone.

There is NO NEW EVIDENCE now.

If someone brings forth some new evidence this happened, they can take it to civil court for a rightful judgment against the estate.

But that's not what's happening. It's just another tour down the same ol' road in a new vehicle.

 

[DragonLady]

People get that if you're a victim and greedy you're still a victim, right?

(snip)

Absolutely. Further, if you're genuinely a victim, with convincing evidence, you have a civil right to recompense, whether you're "greedy" or not.

 

[theprestige]

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

I made a mistake. Two, actually. It was AUP who made the claim, not you. I got confused somewhere along the way. That was the first mistake.

AUP made two claims in the same post. One about Savile, the other about Trump. You and Sideroxylon went after the Savile claim. I was actually asking about the Trump claim, but I wasn't very clear. That was the second mistake. I apologize for the confusion.

 

[Dr.Sid]

I have some possible answers to both questions.

Why now and not earlier? Why did victims of Catholic priests, Bill Cosby, Jimmy Saville etc etc etc all wait decades? It should not seem like an implausible thing to do.

There was a lot of money swirling around Jackson, a lot of people making money off of his bankability. I imagine one possibility is that speaking out more when he was alive might trigger some of those many people with a lot of money to spend to spend some of it on public campaigns attacking the character of these alleged victims. Such attack might likely lead to some scary harassment and threats, like just about every victim coming forward gets. I might imagine that the current me too era which began in earnest after Jackson's death helps too. And finally I think watching someone be canonized in death might trigger a desire for victims to correct the legacy.

Why a movie? Since you can't have a legal trial after death, the only thing that could be achieved would be bringing facts into public knowledge. So it could only be some piece of public facing media. I suppose it might have been some kind of media other than a movie, but we're splitting hairs at this point.

I don't think it's splitting hair. No other victim made a movie. They made public statement. Via newspaper, TV, or even just social media post.
Movie, even if movie like this can be done cheaply, is a project. Investment. Seems really weird to me.

 

[ponderingturtle]

They've been speaking out for years. Has there been any new EVIDENCE brought forth at all?

Well witnesses involved in your favorite case saying they perjured themselves on the stand that he did not sexually abuse them? If they had been truthful then the case might have been a bit different.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Yep the same kind of slander as the Pennsylvania's Roman Catholic Church report. Supposedly a thousand "victims" and only 3 indictments? Totally an effort to slander the reputation of the catholic church by those out to get money. Good people like priests and Michael Jackson don't sexually assault kids.

 

[DragonLady]

Well witnesses involved in your favorite case saying they perjured themselves on the stand that he did not sexually abuse them? If they had been truthful then the case might have been a bit different.

Maybe they WERE truthful.

That's the problem with telling lies. After, no one knows what to believe, so we're all forced to disregard all the words & examine the EVIDENCE instead.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Well witnesses involved in your favorite case saying they perjured themselves on the stand that he did not sexually abuse them? If they had been truthful then the case might have been a bit different.

And to be fair you should factor in past witnesses who testified that they were abused, but later recanted and admitted they had committed perjury.

Assuming fairness is actually desired, of course. If the point of this thread is still assume guilt and discount all evidence to the contrary, then by all means let's continue with the 'but everybody knows!' and 'but look how weird he was!' and 'if you don't think he's guilty it's because you're a brainwashed fan!'

 

[ponderingturtle]

Maybe they WERE truthful.

That's the problem with telling lies. After, no one knows what to believe, so we're all forced to disregard all the words & examine the EVIDENCE instead.

Yep just like with the catholic church. I mean no one would credibly believe that someone wouldn't have reported their sexual abuse for decades, that is how we know that the catholic abuse didn't happen.

 

[DragonLady]

Yep the same kind of slander as the Pennsylvania's Roman Catholic Church report. Supposedly a thousand "victims" and only 3 indictments? Totally an effort to slander the reputation of the catholic church by those out to get money. Good people like priests and Michael Jackson don't sexually assault kids.

Three indictments because there is enough evidence for three.
If the evidence supported 300, there would be 300.
If the evidence supported 3000, there would be 3000.

But how many of these thousands of "victims" have previously had a day in court and claimed nothing happened?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Three indictments because there is enough evidence for three.
If the evidence supported 300, there would be 300.
If the evidence supported 3000, there would be 3000.

Allow me to introduce you to a concept called Statute of Limitations. See in Pennsylvania once the victim turns 50 all the child rape in the world becomes totally legal. The priests could brag about how many kids they raped back in the day and it would not cause a single indictment. This is why the catholic church fights attempts to extend the statute of limitations on child rape, very successfully so far.

 

[DragonLady]

Allow me to introduce you to a concept called Statute of Limitations. See in Pennsylvania once the victim turns 50 all the child rape in the world becomes totally legal. The priests could brag about how many kids they raped back in the day and it would not cause a single indictment. This is why the catholic church fights attempts to extend the statute of limitations on child rape, very successfully so far.

Conceded.

But, my point stands: the victims of the Catholic priests did not sit in a courtroom and claim nothing happened under oath, only to repeatedly put themselves in the spotlight later by selling sordid tales to the contrary for thousands of dollars.