Official - Michael Jackson was scum

DragonLady said:
I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't know any of the people involved, don't receive a penny from any of the players, don't expect any of this to impact myself personally in any way.

I just believe that if a person is going to be hounded through history for his misdeeds, we should all be convinced he actually performed those deeds.

You seem convinced, so convince me.
Click to expand...

Who's hounding? And why do we "all" need to be convinced, in order for this hounding to happen? Nobody's asking you to go out there and vilify Michael Jackson. You volunteered to challenge the mainstream narrative.

Personally, I'm not convinced of anything. A case like this isn't likely to produce conclusive evidence either way. I do think it's reasonable to form a provisional conclusion from the evidence at hand, though. And my provisional conclusion is either:

- Michael Jackson was doing something bad, but not literally molesting anyone; or

- Michael Jackson was actually molesting little boys.

I think this conclusion is amply supported by the consilience of evidence, and I don't think there's any good evidence that contradicts it. The best you've done so far is a series of what-ifs and JAQs.*

I'm not in it to convince you of anything. You don't want to hound Michael Jackson? Don't hound him. You want to preserve your memory of him? Be my guest. Nobody owes you a convincing narrative. But here are two facts that everyone agrees to:

1. MJ spent hours in seclusion with underage boys.
2. MJ had an early-warning system installed outside the sanctum where he spent hours in seclusion with underage boys.

There's a lot not to like, just in those two facts taken together. So for me, there's a lot not to like about Michael Jackson, even though we may never know exactly what went on in that bedroom, and even if his accusers' don't agree on every detail.

"Maybe there's a reasonable explanation" and "maybe it's not what it looks like" only go so far. Especially when the consilience of evidence is carrying us in the other direction.


---

*I know it's not entirely rational, but to me, when the rebuttal to a claim falls so neatly into CT lines of argumentation, that's a red flag.
 
DragonLady said:
Yeah; it's weird to me, too. Most of us don't want such reminders of our lovers, let alone people who have hurt and abused us.

But it did make a very powerful piece of filmography; and either bolstered the claim or makes it even more suspicious, depending on your own interpretation.
Click to expand...

In the documentary the alleged victims show that it's not as simple as one might be led to believe. Michael Jackson did a very good job in having them fall for him. It's obvious that they were infatuated with him, even if they were too young to have any sexual or romantic desires.

Jacobshagen even said that he used to look forward to returning to the US from Australia and being with Michael, including the sexual acts they were going to do which he described as being excited about.

It's not hard to see why he'd keep a memento of his experiences and his relationship with MJ considering not only who he was but also because it was he first close intimate relationship.

That said he did mention that he did not like looking at the ring, likely because of his feelings of guilt and that he still blames himself. That's not very uncommon when it comes to people who have been sexually abused and/or exploited.
 
theprestige said:
Who's hounding? And why do we "all" need to be convinced, in order for this hounding to happen? Nobody's asking you to go out there and vilify Michael Jackson. You volunteered to challenge the mainstream narrative.

Personally, I'm not convinced of anything. A case like this isn't likely to produce conclusive evidence either way. I do think it's reasonable to form a provisional conclusion from the evidence at hand, though. And my provisional conclusion is either:

- Michael Jackson was doing something bad, but not literally molesting anyone; or

- Michael Jackson was actually molesting little boys.

I think this conclusion is amply supported by the consilience of evidence, and I don't think there's any good evidence that contradicts it. The best you've done so far is a series of what-ifs and JAQs.*

I'm not in it to convince you of anything. You don't want to hound Michael Jackson? Don't hound him. You want to preserve your memory of him? Be my guest. Nobody owes you a convincing narrative. But here are two facts that everyone agrees to:

1. MJ spent hours in seclusion with underage boys.
2. MJ had an early-warning system installed outside the sanctum where he spent hours in seclusion with underage boys.

There's a lot not to like, just in those two facts taken together. So for me, there's a lot not to like about Michael Jackson, even though we may never know exactly what went on in that bedroom, and even if his accusers' don't agree on every detail.

"Maybe there's a reasonable explanation" and "maybe it's not what it looks like" only go so far. Especially when the consilience of evidence is carrying us in the other direction.


---

*I know it's not entirely rational, but to me, when the rebuttal to a claim falls so neatly into CT lines of argumentation, that's a red flag.
Click to expand...

This seems sensible. It is unfortunate for justice that a perfect case could not be made, with excellent quality undeniable evidence. The accusers' veracity is legitimately murky, and I think it's probable that (just as in OJs case) there are some lies in the body of evidence. Yet we realistically couldn't expect a perfect case with unimpeachable witnesses: reality doesn't work that way, and had these boys normal backgrounds with normal parents they wouldn't have been in a situation where Jackson would have contact with them, innocent or not. The same messiness of circumstance that makes me doubt the accusers is also the messiness that would have made it possible for them to be victims.

While I might conclude differently if I were on a jury, I have to say it really does look (barring better evidence, of course) that Jackson was molesting at least some of those kids. Chamber's purported recantation was a large factor in my previous doubt.
 
I've now seen the documentary and one thing that stood out to me was how Jackson had a "type" beyond just it being a male child.
 
TragicMonkey said:
This seems sensible. It is unfortunate for justice that a perfect case could not be made, with excellent quality undeniable evidence. The accusers' veracity is legitimately murky, and I think it's probable that (just as in OJs case) there are some lies in the body of evidence. Yet we realistically couldn't expect a perfect case with unimpeachable witnesses: reality doesn't work that way, and had these boys normal backgrounds with normal parents they wouldn't have been in a situation where Jackson would have contact with them, innocent or not. The same messiness of circumstance that makes me doubt the accusers is also the messiness that would have made it possible for them to be victims.

While I might conclude differently if I were on a jury, I have to say it really does look (barring better evidence, of course) that Jackson was molesting at least some of those kids. Chamber's purported recantation was a large factor in my previous doubt.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. On a jury, I'd have to think very carefully about my verdict. I very strongly feel that it's not sufficient to simply believe that the accused is guilty. We set the plaintiff's bar pretty high for a reason. Upholding that principle is to me much more important than satisfying my personal sense of justice or outrage.

But I don't have to uphold that principle as a parent. I can look at MJ's domestic arrangements and say, "nope! Not letting my kid anywhere near that mess! And someone should probably look into that, now that I think about it. Whatever, me and my kid are out!"

And if MJ comes back all like, "but it's innocent! And nothing was ever proven! And I can explain! And it's not what it looks like!" I still don't owe anyone a convincing explanation. I still get to say, "dude, it looks like creepy child molesting shenanigans, and I'm not having it."

ETA: And that's basically where I am with Dragon Lady's apologetics. It still looks like creepy child molesting shenanigans. If it doesn't look like that to her, fine. If it does look like that to her, but she thinks we shouldn't be saying it out loud because reasons, that's fine too. I'm going to say it out loud anyway, though. Because reasons.
 
Last edited:
La Toya Jackson discusses the sleep overs and payments to parents of children. Quick research says this is from 1993
 
A child-size diamond-encrusted wedding ring probably counts as evidence of an inappropriate relationship at best, even if it doesn't necessarily prove the sexual details.
Click to expand...

If that ring did come from Jackson under circumstances like he claims, then yes.

Even better: diamond rings can be traced.
 
Elagabalus said:
We were kind of hoping for RazörFist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pnoQqlygQs

He's been been making the rounds lately ...

Anyway, a 'fist' rebuttal:

https://www.mjfacts.com/strange-bedfellows/
Click to expand...

Besides his great vocabulary and use of Iron Maiden font for his captions, Razorfist makes a pretty compelling case for MJ's innocence. This coming from someone who wasn't a big fan of Jackson's music and wouldn't attend one of his shows if I was paid.

The rebuttal piece is pretty bad, textbook poison the well idiocy along with making vacuous claims with no evidence.

The fact this blog supposedly debunking Fist's claims completely dodges several of his point is very telling, so is the laughable title "MJ FACTS- An objective view of Micheal Jackson"
 
ProBonoShill said:
...The rebuttal piece is pretty bad, textbook poison the well idiocy along with making vacuous claims with no evidence.

The fact this blog supposedly debunking Fist's claims completely dodges several of his point is very telling, so is the laughable title "MJ FACTS- An objective view of Micheal Jackson"
Click to expand...

Eh. It was done two years ago and holds up pretty well, YMMV.

ProBonoShill said:
Besides his great vocabulary and use of Iron Maiden font for his captions, Razorfist makes a pretty compelling case for MJ's innocence. This coming from someone who wasn't a big fan of Jackson's music and wouldn't attend one of his shows if I was paid...
Click to expand...

I know how you feel. I wouldn't go to Michael Jackson concert (DOA) either. Of course, the same applies to Iron Maiden w/wo their font.*




*Not after they got rid of Paul!
 
Elagabalus said:
Anyway, a 'fist' rebuttal:

https://www.mjfacts.com/strange-bedfellows/
Click to expand...

I've never seen this quote before:

During deliberations, jury foreman Paul Rodriguez said, he and other jurors frequently discussed the testimony they had heard about past allegations that Jackson had molested or behaved inappropriately with five other boys, including two youngsters who reached multimillion-dollar settlements with the singer in the 1990s.

But, Rodriguez said, the jurors knew they could not convict solely on the basis of past allegations.

“We couldn’t weigh that with this case in particular,” he said. “We all felt that he was guilty of something. But we feel that if he didn’t learn from this experience, then it’s up to another jury to convict him.”
Click to expand...

...but if it's accurate, then pro-Jackson arguers need to stop evoking the 2005 acquittal as an acquittal of all molestation allegations against Jackson, like they continually insist on doing. This quote by the jury foreman seems to suggest they were convinced that some of the allegations against Jackson were true.
 
Checkmite said:
I've never seen this quote before:



...but if it's accurate, then pro-Jackson arguers need to stop evoking the 2005 acquittal as an acquittal of all molestation allegations against Jackson, like they continually insist on doing. This quote by the jury foreman seems to suggest they were convinced that some of the allegations against Jackson were true.
Click to expand...

Yeah in "Leaving Neverland" they show another clip from another another juror (Raymond Hultman if you want to look it up) who says,

"I feel that, uh, Michael Jackson probably has molested boys. After some of the testimony was offered, I can't believe that, that this man could sleep in the same bedroom for 365 straight days, uh, and not do something more than just watch television and eat popcorn."
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that's all they show. Presumably, he continues with something like "but we have to make our decision on the evidence presented to us in court."
 
DragonLady said:
I just watched one of his videos. I think I'll take time to watch the others, and read the rebuttal page before I post anything more.
Click to expand...

You really should watch "Leaving Neverland" and then watch all the Youtube frou·frou. Again, YMMV.
 
Elagabalus said:
You really should watch "Leaving Neverland" and then watch all the Youtube frou·frou. Again, YMMV.
Click to expand...

Yes; I will as soon as I have a chance. I'm interested in seeing it.

Although, to be honest, I've dealt with this subject here and there for so many years I'm really pretty tired of the whole thing.

After I see the show and what everyone has to say about it, I might just drop the topic altogether. As I've said before: I was never a particular fan of Jackson, have no dog in the fight, and am just finding it harder and harder to dig through the mountains of unsourced or unverifiable claims.

If he was guilty, he's gone now, so no one else is going to be hurt.
If he wasn't guilty, shame on those who continue to try to use whatever association they had with him to further their own ends.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom