Official - Michael Jackson was scum

[a_unique_person]

Opinion: The psychological reason some people can't believe the evidence against Pell and Jackson
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-13/george-pell-michael-jackson-cognitive-dissonance/10892948

 

[p0lka]

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.

Well, as long as they don't molest anyone they will be fine, don't worry about it.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Maybe you could deign to offer some miserable enlightenment.

Certainly. It's patently obvious that you and a number of others need some: As DragonLady noted in post 766, it's trivially easy to construct a false narrative by intentionally or unintentionally leaving out a few key facts or points of context. I wasn't even really trying previously. Here, I can do better:

Some things I've done: Rubbed the penis of a non-consenting old man; who was visibly uncomfortable with the experience. Watched several young, underage girls masturbate. Inserted foreign objects into the vaginas of several young, underage girls. Sent pictures of a naked little boy to a friend of mine. Sounds pretty terrible, right? It's all true...

The fact of the matter is that if you believe something along the lines of Arcade22's assertions in post 711:

It's perfectly nice and wholesome to sleep in the same bed as a young boy. Not out of necessity mind you, but simply because it's so nice to touch, smell and feel them. No one should hesitate to leave their kids completely alone with a person who admitted doing so. Just like i wouldn't suspect someones wife or husband of infidelity if they were to sleep together with someone other than their spouse. There's no reason to assume that it isn't perfectly innocent.

...then, given that 1) the accusations against Jackson were widely publicized and span more than a decade, 2) a fair few of Jackson's guests were wealthy and powerful themselves or had wealthy and powerful guardians and 3) the fact that no parent in their right mind would stand for behavior such as described in the above quote...

...the obviously and overwhelmingly likely conclusion is that you're missing important details. Not that Jackson must clearly have used his position and influence to extort compliance or thwart the cause of justice.

Contrast this to the number of fictions the public has commonly held regarding Jackson. Some examples: Jackson "bleaching" his face to look more white as opposed to having a skin disorder (despite photographic proof of the latter); exaggeration of Jackson's supposed facial surgery. Jackson being asexual; or whatever William Parcher seems to think in post 715 (presuming that's not intentional hyberbole) - as several of his former employees describe him has having had frequent relationships or at least liasons with adult, heterosexual women. IIRC someone linked to a bodyguard's account of this somewhere in this thread prior to it's most recent resurrection.

 

[DragonLady]

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?

No; but I would not expect the entire rest of the world to treat that person as if he had been convicted.

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.

Okay.

Do you believe both constructs should require at least some kind of real evidence?

 

[DragonLady]

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.

Jackson was tried for 12? counts? (Ugh. I guess I really have to go reread a lot of the details because I've forgotten so much), and a couple of them were misdemeanors. If the jury thought he was guilty of something they could've at least found him "guilty" of one of them. But they didn't. He was acquitted on all the counts.

 

[Cavemonster]

Do you believe both constructs should require at least some kind of real evidence?

I think that some crimes, like rape and molestation can easily leave no physical evidence available to the public and law enforcement, so testimony, credibility and patterns of behavior may be what we have to work with.

I believe that in some cases it is reasonable to believe testimony and that failing to meet the very high standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" should not mean we throw up our hands and ignore the testimony available.

 

[DragonLady]

Well, as long as they don't molest anyone they will be fine, don't worry about it.

Sorry, but for your post to work you have to accept Jackson is guilty as charged.

If he did not, in fact, do the things he's been accused of, then every person on the planet should be worried about it.

 

[Cavemonster]

Jackson was tried for 12? counts? (Ugh. I guess I really have to go reread a lot of the details because I've forgotten so much), and a couple of them were misdemeanors. If the jury thought he was guilty of something they could've at least found him "guilty" of one of them. But they didn't. He was acquitted on all the counts.

Their instructions are to find him guilty only if there is no reasonable room for doubt. The number of charges are irrelevant, the standard applies to all of them and it's a much higher standard than we use to feel pretty strongly that someone did something terrible.

 

[DragonLady]

I think that some crimes, like rape and molestation can easily leave no physical evidence available to the public and law enforcement, so testimony, credibility and patterns of behavior may be what we have to work with.

I believe that in some cases it is reasonable to believe testimony and that failing to meet the very high standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" should not mean we throw up our hands and ignore the testimony available.

Okay. I think we're on the same page.

So what happens when the testimony is found to lack credibility and the people testifying fall apart on cross examination?

I admit: I never read the trial transcripts. But I did pay enough attention when all this was happening to know that by the time it was over the jury believed the only people telling the truth were some guys from the phone company.

 

[DragonLady]

Opinion: The psychological reason some people can't believe the evidence against Pell and Jackson
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-13/george-pell-michael-jackson-cognitive-dissonance/10892948

I'll read your link later.

The trouble is: I do believe the evidence. I believe the evidence exonerates Jackson.

(I don't know about Pell, and really don't care much)

ETA:

I believe the evidence, as it has been presented, fails to prove Jackson did anything wrong. However, someone, somewhere could change my mind by presenting new or better (more credible) evidence to the contrary.

I don't think we can ever truly know what happens between other people behind closed doors, or the inner workings of the relationships between other people. We have to rely on the physical, tangible proofs that are put in front of us, and on the testimonies of those who have previously shown themselves to be honest -or at least have not said or done things to make them appear to be untruthful. In this case, as presented, I don't think Jackson was guilty.

 

[Cavemonster]

Okay. I think we're on the same page.

So what happens when the testimony is found to lack credibility and the people testifying fall apart on cross examination?

I admit: I never read the trial transcripts. But I did pay enough attention when all this was happening to know that by the time it was over the jury believed the only people telling the truth were some guys from the phone company.

I'll be honest, I'm not really commenting on the specifics of the case, I'm still reading up on it. Take my comments as pertaining to the tools we're using to evaluate the case.

 

[p0lka]

Sorry, but for your post to work you have to accept Jackson is guilty as charged.

If he did not, in fact, do the things he's been accused of, then every person on the planet should be worried about it.

Oh, ok well as long as they don't get themselves in a position where they are saying (as an adult) that it's ok to sleep with minors in a bed together, then they will probably be fine.

 

[DragonLady]

Oh, ok well as long as they don't get themselves in a position where they are saying (as an adult) that it's ok to sleep with minors in a bed together, then they will probably be fine.

I have long maintained Jackson had boundary issues. I think that interview really brought out all of his eccentricities, and left people feeling completely unable to relate to him.

If he did not, in fact, molest anyone talking to that reporter was probably the worst mistake of his life.

 

[Arcade22]

The fact of the matter is that if you believe something along the lines of Arcade22's assertions in post 711:
...then, given that 1) the accusations against Jackson were widely publicized and span more than a decade, 2) a fair few of Jackson's guests were wealthy and powerful themselves or had wealthy and powerful guardians and 3) the fact that no parent in their right mind would stand for behavior such as described in the above quote...

Go ahead and watch the documentary "Leaving Neverland".

Michael Jackson isn't accused of just a one time "inappropriate" and "easily misunderstood" act that can be excused by childhood trauma or lack of mental maturity, rather his behavior comes off as a perfect example of grooming.

I'd be shocked if there's an innocent explanation for his strong desire to have a young boy remain with him at the Neverland Ranch, while sleeping together in the same bedroom, when the rest of his family were about to go back home to Australia. He maintained close telephone contact with his "boyfriend" when they finally left and even faxed written letters where he said he loved him, wanted him to come visit again very soon and so forth.

 

[DragonLady]

even faxed written letters where he said he loved him,

Are those letters available somewhere?

 

[Arcade22]

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

You are talking about criminal justice where everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, even if they stabbed someone to death in-front of 20 witnesses.

I don't have to wait until they are legally found guilty before i conclude that they killed someone. If they died before a trial was held i wouldn't somehow convince myself to declare that they didn't kill someone because they weren't convicted of it. Hell even if they were formally declared innocent of murder because they are totally insane and can't be held legally accountable for their actions i still would say they killed someone.

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.

This isn't about justice for me. It's not about "righting wrongs" or holding people to account for their actions. Michael Jackson is dead and he's not going to be resurrected anytime soon and even if he was i could hardly care if he got punished. What i care about is the truth. People need to take some incredible leaps of faith to conclude that he likely didn't, or even that he certainly did not, sexually abuse children. Not unlike how people somehow convince themselves that Trump's "locker-room talk" was just innocent banter.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You are talking about criminal justice where everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, even if they stabbed someone to death in-front of 20 witnesses.

I don't have to wait until they are legally found guilty before i conclude that they killed someone. If they died before a trial was held i wouldn't somehow convince myself to declare that they didn't kill someone because they weren't convicted of it. Hell even if they were formally declared innocent of murder because they are totally insane and can't be held legally accountable for their actions i still would say they killed someone.



This isn't about justice for me. It's not about "righting wrongs" or holding people to account for their actions. Michael Jackson is dead and he's not going to be resurrected anytime soon and even if he was i could hardly care if he got punished. What i care about is the truth. People need to take some incredible leaps of faith to conclude that he likely, or even that he certainly did not, sexually abuse children. Not unlike how people somehow convince themselves that Trump's "locker-room talk" was just innocent banter.

On the other hand, it looks like people are taking some leaps of faith to declare he likely, or even certainly, did abuse children. Because what evidence there is points the other way. A msssive, well-funded, well-run prosecution couldn't prove it. Yet some random people who know only what they've read know better than the jury who actually received all the evidence?

People were pretty damn certain Alfred Dreyfus was guilty. It seemed so obvious at the time, based on what they heard, based on what they believed "likely".

 

[DragonLady]

I don't have to wait until they are legally found guilty before i conclude that they killed someone. If they died before a trial was held i wouldn't somehow convince myself to declare that they didn't kill someone because they weren't convicted of it.

As a matter of your individual opinion, I'm fine with that. But in MJ's case, it's every mainstream news outlet jumping on every chance to report whatever lurid details they find, without presenting much -or even any- of the rebuttal evidence.

What i care about is the truth.

Good. Something we can agree on. The truth is important.

 

[Sideroxylon]

All people involved in this discussion here are faced with a situation where certain knowledge is impossible and must make a “faith” judgment, being of a standard of evidence much less than we would hold scientific claims to. For me the cost of denying the testimony of an accuser is much greater.

 

[TragicMonkey]

As a matter of your individual opinion, I'm fine with that. But in MJ's case, it's every mainstream news outlet jumping on every chance to report whatever lurid details they find, without presenting much -or even any- of the rebuttal evidence.

Literally. The press left the court before the cross-examinations, because they wanted to report the lurid testimony asap. Then when the witnesses fell apart it wasn't reported. Those who actually stayed in court to hear the whole thing weren't surprised at the verdict.