Official - Michael Jackson was scum

[DragonLady]

I suppose it's natural to find the sensational story more interesting, but that doesn't mean it's more likely to be true.

This. But also anyone who can make a claim that even sounds like it might be plausible can make huge amounts of money selling the story. Even if he's later proven to be full of ...Twinkies... the damage will be done and his name will always be on the "possible victim" list and the extra smoke will never completely clear.

 

[DragonLady]

Maybe you are. NTTAWWT.

Well...…….

A weird artist often makes more money than a normal one...so if I ever want to sell any of my "work" maybe I'll photo it in front of my bookshelves.

 

[Cavemonster]

It relates to your point because it removes the certainty that comes with being a victim with the doubt that comes with being a detached observer. A juror, for instance.[

As I clarified to Dragonlady, I am not arguing that we have any certainty in this case. I was using an example to clarify her conflating of legal guilt and the question of whether someone has actually committed an act. I was using an example with first person experience to make that distinction clear.

But how do you know more than the people who have seen all the evidence presented? That's the point.

Are you suggesting that jurors are the final word in matters of fact, or that a not guilty verdict means that the juries believed no crime has been committed? I disagree with both.

 

[DragonLady]

As I clarified to Dragonlady, I am not arguing that we have any certainty in this case. (snip).

Right. Well, we really can't. We can only examine the evidence we have, apply our personal biases and beliefs, wring it out and decide for ourselves what we have.

That's the point of discussion, IMO. We can refine and redefine what we believe and how we decide what aligns with our view of the world.

It's only really important when we apply to those situations that occur in our real lives, but it's the public dramas we can all relate to that allow the conversations to flow.

 

[TragicMonkey]

This. But also anyone who can make a claim that even sounds like it might be plausible can make huge amounts of money selling the story. Even if he's later proven to be full of ...Twinkies... the damage will be done and his name will always be on the "possible victim" list and the extra smoke will never completely clear.

Indeed. One of Jackson's past accusers emancipated himself from his parents and admitted he had been coached to falsely accuse Jackson for a payout. Which he got. He had something to gain by the accusation at the time, gained it, then years later with nothing to gain by retracting the accusation, he did. And yet his original testimony has been cited in this thread as 'evidence' of Jackson's guilt.

It's not that people are giving accusers themselves the benefit of doubt, they are only giving accusations the benefit of the doubt: when the same individuals have made both accusations and denials of abuse, only the accusations are being believed. In one case the earlier accusation and not the later retraction, and in these new cases the later accusations and not the earlier statements. It's not a case of different people contradicting each other, it's the same people contradicting themselves. And that inspires confidence in truthfulness how? Actual evidence would be pretty handy in this situation.

 

[Cavemonster]

It reminds me very much of the McDonalds hot coffee case. The first story was sensational, low on facts, and spun to elicit a powerful reaction. The second story was less exciting, contained more facts, and was found to be quite convincing to those who heard both versions. Unfortunately, the more sensational first version propagated faster and to this day remains the dominant narrative, despite being the weaker factually. Those who have only been exposed to the first version are committed to its complete truthfulness. The narrative of human stupidity, greed, and nanny statism is more exciting than a dryer one involving prior court findings, the math behind the payout determination, and corporate inertia. I suppose it's natural to find the sensational story more interesting, but that doesn't mean it's more likely to be true.

I think in the McDonald's case the second story filled in gaps with indisputable facts that were highly evidenced and made a fairly complete and logical picture.

In this case, the less salacious story just adds reasons to doubt the accusations. But while "everybody's a scammer" may be a possible explanation for at least five staff members and a similar number of boys all made very similar allegations, it doesn't create a full picture and doesn't explain the pattern of behavior very well.

Personally, I'm on the fence. But the lack of the second story taking root isn't just because it's less interesting, its also pretty speculative compared to the sort of clarification you're bringing up.

 

[DragonLady]

In this case, the less salacious story just adds reasons to doubt the accusations. But while "everybody's a scammer" may be a possible explanation for at least five staff members and a similar number of boys all made very similar allegations, it doesn't create a full picture and doesn't explain the pattern of behavior very well.

They all had a financial motive. Not one of them -as far as I know- went to the police first with their accusations because the police don't pay. They either went to the civil courts looking for a settlement, or the press looking to sell their stories.

The first boy, Jordan Chandler, received his civil judgment -and where one person makes a dollar others WILL follow- then immediately fled so the criminal proceedings were dropped. He didn't wait around to be subjected to cross examination.

September 21, 1994 – Santa Barbara District Attorney Thomas Sneddon and Los Angeles District Attorney Gil Garcetti make an official statement regarding the status of the Michael Jackson investigation. They inform the public that Jordan Chandler is unwilling to testify therefore they are unable to file charges. Gil Garcetti admits that the 18-month investigation did not lead to anything incriminating against Jackson. He also states: “Michael Jackson is presumed to be innocent as any citizen in this room is if they are not convicted with a crime. We are not charging Michael Jackson with a crime”.

January 31, 1994 – About one week after the settlement was announced Los Angeles District Attorney, Gil Garcetti announces that he would sponsor legislation to force sexual assault victims to testify in criminal cases even if they sue their alleged abusers for money. The California law that allowed the Chandlers to push the civil trial ahead of the criminal trial was changed eventually. Santa Barbara District Attorney, Thomas Sneddon said in a 2003 interview that this was a direct result of what happened in the Chandler case.

https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/the-1993-allegations/


Edited to add relevant quote.

 

[Belz...]

As I clarified to Dragonlady, I am not arguing that we have any certainty in this case. I was using an example to clarify her conflating of legal guilt and the question of whether someone has actually committed an act. I was using an example with first person experience to make that distinction clear.

Yes, but no one here is in that position. We're all detached observers.

Are you suggesting that jurors are the final word in matters of fact, or that a not guilty verdict means that the juries believed no crime has been committed?

Those are strange questions in that they are completely unrelated to what you quoted above it.

I'm saying, quite clearly, that the jury had access to more evidence than you and they considered it unsufficient to convict.

 

[Arcade22]

???

You said the truth was important, not that it was the most important thing in this case. What could be more important than establishing, to a reasonable degree of certainty, what the truth is?

We can't know with absolute certainty whether MJ sexually abused young boys, in the absence of unequivocal and undeniable evidence, but there's no reason to apply that kind of standard of proof unless one is going to do so on a consistent basis. Nobody does that, not even in criminal trials is that done because hardly anyone would ever be convicted.

Michael Jackson may be exceptional in terms of his public prominence and the publicity surrounding him, but he's not exceptional in terms of having being found innocent in spite of all the damning circumstantial evidence.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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".

Why not OJ or Robert Blake?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I can't agree with that. What evidence there is heavily suggests that Jackson was a pedophile who knowingly crossed many boundaries and engaged in textbook grooming behavior with his alleged victims. It is a fact that molestation couldn't be proven to a court standard, but it's a stretch to go from that to "the evidence points the other way". It doesn't - it points right at Jackson being an abuser, it was just too circumstantial to support a conviction.

A little grooming never hurt anyone, next you will be questioning R Kelly or Drake or Kanye, grooming children into sex partners is just what great musicians do. If they were girls and say young teens this would all have blown over years ago.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Why not OJ or Robert Blake?

I'm not familiar enough with Blake's case to have an opinion either way. As for OJ, I think he probably did it but the prosecution couldn't put together a sufficient case to prove it. The cops falsifying evidence sank the case. And as is proper, if the prosecution can't prove its case the defendant merits acquittal.

 

[ponderingturtle]

They all had a financial motive. Not one of them -as far as I know- went to the police first with their accusations because the police don't pay. They either went to the civil courts looking for a settlement, or the press looking to sell their stories.

The first boy, Jordan Chandler, received his civil judgment -and where one person makes a dollar others WILL follow- then immediately fled so the criminal proceedings were dropped. He didn't wait around to be subjected to cross examination.

And if they did it right you can even get the victim to kill themselves over the cros examination.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-34455558

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43808098

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/aug/02/gender.uk

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not familiar enough with Blake's case to have an opinion either way. As for OJ, I think he probably did it but the prosecution couldn't put together a sufficient case to prove it. The cops falsifying evidence sank the case. And as is proper, if the prosecution can't prove its case the defendant merits acquittal.

And yet here you are slandering his good name.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And yet here you are slandering his good name.

Hardly. The civil case found him responsible for the deaths, didn't it? It's not slander to publicly agree with a court finding.

But the cases aren't very similar. There weren't attempts at extortion over accusing OJ of murder, were there? The victims weren't making conflicting and sometimes perjurous statements. And there was plenty of physical evidence, both genuine and faked, that murders had occurred. It wasn't entirely based on witness claims.

 

[theprestige]

And yet here you are slandering his good name.

What good name? A person's reputation neither begins nor ends with the state bringing criminal charges.

 

[Elagabalus]

Indeed. One of Jackson's past accusers emancipated himself from his parents and admitted he had been coached to falsely accuse Jackson for a payout. Which he got...

Snopes says otherwise.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jordan-chandler-jackson/

 

[Darat]

Any faxes/letters/notes from Jackson to any of these boys that say anything actually incriminating?



Any photos of these boys naked? Did any of these boys take any pictures of Jackson naked? I mean they "loved him" and that's a pretty typical thing to do.



I'm curious about the ring the one boy was given. Where did it come from? Did they choose it at a jewelry store? Is it inscribed? How was it sized? Does he have the box? Has any jeweler come forward and said "Hey...I made a ring like that...." Why is he the only one with a handful of trinkets?



I hear lots of strange tales -which get louder and more lurid and more graphic with every passing year, but I'm not seeing anything that can be called "proof" and neither did the jury.

Out of genuine curiosity, is that the usual level of evidence that is used to convict a peadophile?

 

[DragonLady]

And if they did it right you can even get the victim to kill themselves over the cros examination.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-34455558

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43808098

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/aug/02/gender.uk

Those are horrific stories.

 

[DragonLady]

Out of genuine curiosity, is that the usual level of evidence that is used to convict a peadophile?

I don't know. You were asking what kinds of evidence might change MY mind, not what else might be used to convict someone.