Official - Michael Jackson was scum

[Belz...]

People that testified in court that they had never been sexually abused by Michael Jackson have admitted in the documentary "Leaving Neverland" that they lied and that in fact he did abuse them.

Sure but which of the two is a lie? It becomes more than "he says, she says" and more "he says, contradicts himself.", muddling the issue even more.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I disagree with your interpretation. The church abuse wasn't brought up for a counterargument, it was brought up to paint Jackson with the same brush.

Only if you for some reason have markedly different standards of evidence for convicting say Cardinal Pell vs Michael Jackson.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Only if you for some reason have markedly different standards of evidence for convicting say Cardinal Pell vs Michael Jackson.

Do you happen to have access to the evidence presented in both cases? I admit that I do not. Two different juries did, and reached conclusions based on it. Do you for some reason believe you are better qualified to reach a correct conclusion, without evidence, than juries who did have evidence?

 

[Elagabalus]

...The title comes from cullenz, who hasn't commented in the latest revival here, so not for about three years. Tarring everyone who disagrees with you because of someone who is not part of the current discussion doesn't make a lot of sense.

Actually, cullennz has opined recently. And I'm on page one stating that I didn't feel at the time (and still don't) that there was enough evidence for a conviction.

And after reading through the entire thread I think Checkmite's first couple of posts seem especially cromulent to the current situation (starting on page one).

As for the film itself, is there any new evidence from the two men interviewed? Not really. Let's just say that the devil is in the excruciating details.

 

[Information Analyst]

And after reading through the entire thread I think Checkmite's first couple of posts seem especially cromulent to the current situation (starting on page one).

Checkmite's join-the-dots (admitted to be an "IIRC") appears to be contradicted by the Huffingdon Post article. Jackson had a huge collection of books on photography. There doesn't seem to be any credible evidence that the couple of those books that contained some (not "comprised entirely" of) nude studies of children were literally mixed in with his apparently equally large porn collection.

 

[Cavemonster]

Actually, cullennz has opined recently. And I'm on page one stating that I didn't feel at the time (and still don't) that there was enough evidence for a conviction.

And after reading through the entire thread I think Checkmite's first couple of posts seem especially cromulent to the current situation (starting on page one).

As for the film itself, is there any new evidence from the two men interviewed? Not really. Let's just say that the devil is in the excruciating details.

My mistake, I misspelled cullenz name when I searched and missed his recent posts.

I haven't seen the movie yet, so I'm not sure what's in it. I was just replying to a few arguments that I didn't think were well made.

 

[Elagabalus]

My mistake, I misspelled cullenz name when I searched and missed his recent posts.

I haven't seen the movie yet, so I'm not sure what's in it. I was just replying to a few arguments that I didn't think were well made.

No worries. My post was more for the general readership. I should have been more clear, sorry.

 

[cullennz]

Can you link to who you believe was bringing up Church abuse that wasn't a counterargument? It looks like I was the first to mention it this year, and I assure you, it was a counterargument.



The title comes from cullenz, who hasn't commented in the latest revival here, so not for about three years. Tarring everyone who disagrees with you because of someone who is not part of the current discussion doesn't make a lot of sense.

I'd actually forgotten I was the one that started this thread!

 

[Arcade22]

Why are the same people who are upset that people are making allegations about MJ even though he's dead demanding that one prove that he's guilty of child sexual abuse beyond reasonable doubt or even beyond any doubt?

He's dead and even if he was alive you don't need to have a court case to conclude that someone is very likely guilty of a crime. Why do some people put the burden of proof so high in this case?

What if the Middle School Gym teacher down the street, who was demonstrably very far too intimate with his students and who would invite them into his home to play together, was accused of touching them sexually or otherwise sexually abusing them? They probably wouldn't let their kids play with him or hang out at his place even if he wasn't charged with a crime, or if he was acquitted, because of a lack of evidence.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Why are the same people who are upset that people are making allegations about MJ even though he's dead demanding that one prove that he's guilty of child sexual abuse beyond reasonable doubt or even beyond any doubt?

He's dead and even if he was alive you don't need to have a court case to conclude that someone is very likely guilty of a crime. Why do some people put the burden of proof so high in this case?

What if the Middle School Gym teacher down the street, who was demonstrably very far too intimate with his students and who would invite them into his home to play together, was accused of touching them sexually or otherwise sexually abusing them? They probably wouldn't let their kids play with him or hang out at his place even if he wasn't charged with a crime, or if he was acquitted, because of a lack of evidence.

Would it make a difference if he was a pop icon of his age that a generation watched grow up and had a coterie of protectors backed by great wealth? Could they and their parents be persuaded to say it never happened?

 

[p0lka]

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.

cool.
I made a mistake with the age of the girl anyway, so yeah mistakes are easy.

 

[a_unique_person]

Let's all agree that the Catholic Church sex abuse cases are strong evidence of Michael Jackson's guilt. Because... not sure. I hope someone can explain how.

Not just the Catholic church, actually. A recent royal Commission into institutional sex advise if minors found most churches knew about and protected abusers. The fact is our society has tolerated abuse of minors by the powerful, be they institutions or individuals.

 

[DragonLady]

Why are the same people who are upset that people are making allegations about MJ even though he's dead demanding that one prove that he's guilty of child sexual abuse beyond reasonable doubt or even beyond any doubt?

The USA version of justice demands that if someone isn't guilty beyond reasonable doubt, they're not guilty. Period.

I think I'm most upset because it seems so very, very unjust. I know the man was wealthy beyond words, and I know there are many who think he deserved an equal amount of pain and heartbreak as counter balance.

But I just never did, and if I'm really honest, I guess I don't want to think that if one of my children or grandchildren ever see his kind of success the world will pull them down the same way -just because it can.

 

[DragonLady]

I haven't read it yet, but this site has been touted as a fairly detailed rebuttal to many of the claims made in the new documentary, for those who are interested:

https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2019/02/25/a-critical-analysis-of-leaving-neverland/

 

[theprestige]

The USA version of justice demands that if someone isn't guilty beyond reasonable doubt, they're not guilty. Period.

The USA version of justice doesn't demand anything of the sort.

The USA version of justice:

- demands that the state make its case to a jury, to justify the state taking away someone's freedom

- demands that if the state cannot convince a jury "beyond reasonable doubt" (whatever the jurors decide that means), then the state cannot take away someone's freedom.

That's all.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Not just the Catholic church, actually. A recent royal Commission into institutional sex advise if minors found most churches knew about and protected abusers. The fact is our society has tolerated abuse of minors by the powerful, be they institutions or individuals.

And? Does that prove anything about Jackson's guilt?

 

[Cavemonster]

The USA version of justice demands that if someone isn't guilty beyond reasonable doubt, they're not guilty. Period.

Imagine that you were raped, the case went to trial, and because it couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt, your rapist was acquitted.

Would you believe that he was not, in any meaningful sense of the term, guilty of raping you?

There is a legal construct of guilt, which allows governments to levy punishment, and there is the social, everyday notion of guilt, which asks the question of what we have good reason to believe has happened.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Imagine that you were raped, the case went to trial, and because it couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt, your rapist was acquitted.

Would you believe that he was not, in any meaningful sense of the term, guilty of raping you?

There is a legal construct of guilt, which allows governments to levy punishment, and there is the social, everyday notion of guilt, which asks the question of what we have good reason to believe has happened.

Imagine that someone else, who you don't know, says that they were raped. The accused was brought to trial and acquitted. Do you insist that you know the accused is guilty? Because although you have no evidence, and the people who did see the evidence disagreed, you feel that they were guilty?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The USA version of justice demands that if someone isn't guilty beyond reasonable doubt, they're not guilty. Period.

I think I'm most upset because it seems so very, very unjust. I know the man was wealthy beyond words, and I know there are many who think he deserved an equal amount of pain and heartbreak as counter balance.

But I just never did, and if I'm really honest, I guess I don't want to think that if one of my children or grandchildren ever see his kind of success the world will pull them down the same way -just because it can.

They shouldn't have a problem being pulled down unless they give cause..

If they are unjustly accused, they should have the same benefits as everyone else under the law.

 

[Cavemonster]

Imagine that someone else, who you don't know, says that they were raped. The accused was brought to trial and acquitted. Do you insist that you know the accused is guilty? Because although you have no evidence, and the people who did see the evidence disagreed, you feel that they were guilty?

First, I'm not sure how this relates to my point. I was simply addressing that Dragonlady was equivocating between layperson's use of "guilty" and the legal status.

But to answer your question, while "know" may be an overly strong word, I can find it highly likely that someone committed a crime they were acquitted for. In fact, the people who acquitted any particular accused person may well agree that it is highly likely the accused committed the crime, but that it didn't rise to "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Acquittal does not mean they disagree on that point.

Do some folks hyperbolize a situation they find highly likely into something they "know"? Yes, it happens and I find it annoying.