Michael Jackson canceled (new documentary)

[St_Eddie]

This is little more than a tantrum mate.  This is exactly what needs to stop. Stick with the facts.

Please highlight the mental gymnastics/hoops that are being jumped through about the fingerprint evidence? 

It's late so i'll response tomorrow

I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to try and convince a willfully ignorant person of why a peadophile is a peadophile.  Besides, I'd only be wasting my time.

I didn't came into this thing wanting to believe that Michael Jackson was a peadophile.  I love his music.  I was curious about the accusations and rumours and so, I did my research.  Thoroughly.  Sadly, at the end of that research, the conclusion was clear.  I didn't want it to be true but it is what it is.  I can't stand the bias that some display.  If you want to be objective, then be objective.  Don't claim to be objective and then spout garbage such as "how do you know that Michael Jackson took that photo?" in reference to a photograph of one of Jackson's young male "friends", posing naked, that was found in Jackson's bedroom.

Dripping. With. Bias.

[Johnny Yesno]

I have to say, Eddie, that it looks to me that you're frothing so much you've missed Trenter's point entirely, which is that poor (and possibly fabricated) evidence doesn't serve justice, even if it's to get a surefire wrong'un.

[thraxx]

Don't claim to be objective and then spout garbage such as "how do you know that Michael Jackson took that photo?" in reference to a photograph of one of Jackson's young male "friends", posing naked, that was found in Jackson's bedroom.

Dripping. With. Bias.

That wasn't bias dripping of Michael Jackson's photo.

[St_Eddie]

I have to say, Eddie, that it looks to me that you're frothing so much you've missed Trenter's point entirely, which is that poor (and possibly fabricated) evidence doesn't serve justice, even if it's to get a surefire wrong'un.

No, I understand that.  I just can't be bothered to debate that particular topic in relation to Michael Jackson because he was quite clearly a peadophile.  There's no justice to be done.  The guy's dead. 

Trenter still didn't address my Savile point, you notice.  Why is that, do you think?  There's no proof that Savile ever sexually abused anyone.  Did Trenter die on that hill?  Did he/she use that case as a springboard to a discussion about credibility of evidence and justice in general?  If Trenter wants to have that discussion, then I will happily do so within its own thread.  I don't care to have that discussion within this thread, under the guise of objectivity, when it's blatantly being used as a means to serve one's own bias.

[gib]

No, I understand that.  I just can't be bothered to debate that particular topic in relation to Michael Jackson because he was quite clearly a peadophile.  There's no justice to be done.  The guy's dead.  I don't like people trying to discredit victims who have the bravery to come forward, with everything to lose and virtually nothing to gain.  It's not right.

Trenter still didn't address my Savile point, you notice.  Why is that, do you think?

list of people that like peedos

1. Trenter

[gib]

I have to say, Eddie, that it looks to me that you're frothing so much you've missed Trenter's point entirely, which is that poor (and possibly fabricated) evidence doesn't serve justice, even if it's to get a surefire wrong'un.

You want to go on the list mate?

[Noodle Lizard]

I know it's obvious, St_Eddie, but it is worth reiterating that "paedophile" isn't synonymous with "child abuser".  Jackson may have been one or both, but one doesn't necessarily prove the other.

As for the Saville point - Saville didn't survive multiple long-term FBI investigations, there is very little motive to fabricate accusations surrounding him after his death and none of his accusers publicly defended him as adults, nor does he appear to have any first-hand defenders at all unlike Jackson.  The cases are virtually incomparable.  That's not to say there isn't anything substantial against Jackson, mind you, and my gut tells me he is guilty of some, if not all, of the accusations.  But there is a debate to be had.

[St_Eddie]

I know it's obvious, St_Eddie, but it is worth reiterating that "paedophile" isn't synonymous with "child abuser".  Jackson may have been one or both, but one doesn't necessarily prove the other.

Could you elaborate please?

[Noodle Lizard]

Could you elaborate please?

Statistically, the majority of paedophiles don't go on to actively harm children, and a less substantial portion don't even view (illegal) child pornography.  While the articles found in Jackson's home may have indicated paedophilia, they didn't indicate possession of illegal child pornography - hence why no charges were brought against him.

The specific demographics of paedophilia are also vastly underreported, since the ones who don't abuse children are also unlikely to seek treatment due to the potential repercussions of even admitting their paedophilia to a psychologist.

[St_Eddie]

Statistically, the majority of paedophiles don't go on to actively harm children, and a less substantial portion don't even view (illegal) child pornography.  While the articles found in Jackson's home may have indicated paedophilia, they didn't indicate possession of illegal child pornography - hence why no charges were brought against him.

Thank you for the explanation.  I've made my stance on the legal naturist magazines be known already and I stand by that.

As for the Saville point - Saville didn't survive multiple long-term FBI investigations, there is very little motive to fabricate accusations surrounding him after his death and none of his accusers publicly defended him as adults, nor does he appear to have any first-hand defenders at all unlike Jackson.  The cases are virtually incomparable.  That's not to say there isn't anything substantial against Jackson, mind you, and my gut tells me he is guilty of some, if not all, of the accusations.  But there is a debate to be had.

Fair enough.  I respect that.  I've put my case forward and provided you all with links to some of the more compelling evidence.  In the interests of allowing fair debate (and perhaps also in the interests of my own blood pressure), I shall respectfully step aside and observe the debate from the sidelines.  I won't comment any further within this thread unless I have something I really feel the need to say.

I hope that you understand and appreciate why I'm saying this.  There's no malice involved.  It's simply that I'm 99% sure that Jackson was guilty of sexually abusing children and because I don't trust myself not to become irate at people who argue for Jackson's innocence, I feel that my presence within this thread would only lead to arguments and derail interesting debate.

I respectfully withdraw and look forward to reading what others have to say on the matter.

[Johnny Yesno]

No, I understand that.  I just can't be bothered to debate that particular topic in relation to Michael Jackson because he was quite clearly a peadophile.

I think Trenter was trying to make a wider point about objectivity, of which there doesn't seem to be much regarding Jackson.

There's no justice to be done.  The guy's dead.

Being dead means he can't be punished, but getting the public to know what sort of a person Jackson was is still a form of justice, as is borne out by the fact that this documentary got made.

Trenter still didn't address my Savile point, you notice.  Why is that, do you think?

He wanted to stick to the topic, perhaps.

I don't care to have that discussion within this thread, under the guise of objectivity, when it's blatantly being used as a means to serve one's own bias.

Fine, but whether some of the evidence was compromised is relevant to the discussion. What makes you think Trenter is being biased?

[Nowhere Man]

Statistically, the majority of paedophiles don't go on to actively harm children

Psychological trauma doesn't count as harm?

I mean fair enough, you mean he didn't realise how much he was screwing up these kids, because to him it was quite normal, but he was obviously still aware enough to know his fetish for little boys was something he had to hide from public view.

[St_Eddie]

Johnny Yesno - Thanks for your thoughts.  Please forgive me for not responding directly to your points/questions.  Please read my previous post (which I suspect that you missed due to the timing of our posts) for the reason as to why.  Thank you.

[Noodle Lizard]

Psychological trauma doesn't count as harm?

I mean fair enough, you mean he didn't realise how much he was screwing up these kids, because to him it was quite normal, but he was obviously still aware enough to know his fetish for little boys something he had to hide from public view.

I'm not talking about Jackson specifically, there.

[Satchmo Distel]

The paedo/abuser distinction is a bit flimsy in his case. Most paedos have to overcome significant barriers to get to their potential victims but Jacko had them handed to him on a plate. If you believe Jacko was a paedo but not an abuser, you'd have to believe that a paedo could share a bed with numerous boys but never give in to the temptation to molest any of them.

One aspect of Savile that Jacko shares is "hiding in plain sight"; e.g. the shit disguise while looking for the wedding ring. Or it could be that he just wasn't very bright and thus failed to realize when he was creating incriminating evidence unnecessarily.

[popcorn]

In this deposition clip (1:39), Michael Jackson says that he makes most of his money from cows.

[TrenterPercenter]

I have to say, Eddie, that it looks to me that you're frothing so much you've missed Trenter's point entirely, which is that poor (and possibly fabricated) evidence doesn't serve justice, even if it's to get a surefire wrong'un.

Thanks for this Johnny.

[mrpupkin]

There's more actual physical evidence in this case than the ever was with Jimmy Savile and yet something tells me that you weren't so keen to discredit the accusers in that particular instance.  Now, why is that?  Is it because Jackson was likable and Savile wasn't?  Perhaps because Jackson was immensely talented and Savile wasn't?  I think that you need to ask yourself these questions because the evidence in the Jackson case is, quite frankly, overwhelming.

Mate. Read my posts, I'm not even arguing for his innocence. The point was about the transparent cherry picking of internet search history, the exact kind of overreaching that cost the prosecution that case. Also I wouldn't rely so heavily on 'mjfacts.com', it seems to have led you to some dead ends.

[TrenterPercenter]

Ok i've got 20 mins before I'm off to a meeting so ill try and get through this but i might get cut short so i'll come back later (no need to assume anything else).

Trenter still didn't address my Savile point, you notice.  Why is that, do you think?/

Is it because Trenter went to bed perhaps? (I think I did mention I was about to)*.

Ok i'll try address what you said (though I think popcorn has already said some of this).  I'll just expand slightly then answer directly your questions.  The important thing is Jimmy Savile is irrelevant, there is no calculation or logic that says Savile was peado therefore Michael Jackson was a paedo, or rather Trenter thought Savile was paedo and not Michael Jackson therefore Michael Jackson is a peado.

It's a non-sequitor, however what it actually is, is a cross examination of me who you perceive to be a defendant of MJ, you are asserting his guilt through accusations of my character.  It's nonsense (and hypocritical considered the general railing against cross-examination of Wade and Safechuck actual witnesses).

Right your questions anyway.

Did you or did you not sit on the fence when the accusations against Savile came into light?

Good court banter m'lud : ).  I didn't know much about, i wouldn't say I sat on the fence, the evidence I heard was quite convincing, which was that there were a considerable account of corroborating witnesses testifying information that would be very difficult to corroborate.  Savile was never caught, he never stood trial and never had information about his crimes published on national scale.......that means when people that have never met each other describe aspects that corroborate it strengths that evidence.

I didn't and I wouldn't think he was paedo because I didn't like his TV (i didn't like him though he was shit but I didn't think he was a paedo back when he was boring me to death on kids TV).

There's no proof that Savile ever sexually abused anyone.

Yes there is, i'm sure you could look it up if you liked, a lot of it is corroborated stories from people that never met.  I'm not sure what you understand what you are saying here "there is no evidence for JS but he is still paedo therefore even if there is no evidence for MJ being a peado then he is still a paedo" - remind me never to ask you to represent me in court, courts care about evidence not whether you think you can build a case around whether or not you think someone liking someones music or not means evidence becomes irrelevant.

It is just not true to say the cases and the evidence are the same, which seems only required to make this arguments about treatment of evidence - which as mentioned is irrelevant - we don't convict people on public opinions of others.

Did Trenter die on that hill?  Did he/she use that case as a springboard to a discussion about credibility of evidence and justice in general?

No I didn't, or Gary Glitter but I don't see what the problem is - how many paedos hills do I have to die on before i am allowed to have opinions on one? Do we want to start another thread on Savile and i'll have a go for you.  Stop prejudging peoples intentions and start dealing with the arguments they are making.

Just to be clear again testimonies are evidence, but all evidence should be cross-examined and scrutinised.  I haven't just invented the law St Eddie?

If Trenter wants to have that discussion, then I will happily do so within its own thread.  I don't care to have that discussion within this thread, under the guise of objectivity, when it's blatantly being used as a means to serve one's own bias.

This i'm not sure on.  Eh? have it here if you want seems the most suitable place.  What does this even mean "under the guise of objectivity" do you mean you don't want to have it in a thread in which you already posted some evidence you thought was strong but was shown to be quite likely fabricated.  I don't know weird statement maybe expand on it.

"M'lord I fear this case has fallen 'under the guise of objectivity', that is it seems objective but in my opinion it isn't, also my team is losing 1-0 so lets sort a replay out as well please"

anyway calm down and bit its good to discuss things - back a bit later

*St Eddie this is how it is going to work, i'm going to give you my honest, considered answer, and if you don't think it is good enough or you think I am avoiding the question or whatever and need me to put more then answer again, and again.  I neither run away from arguments or fall silent when something doesn't fit in my argument, I will and have apologised when I am wrong here because I think it respectful to do so.

[Endicott]

The idea that Trenter is defending Jackson coz he loves the music is laughable, really. Trenter made no claims either way, what he did was question how evidence should be evaluated.

Great posts all, by the way, Trenter.

(fake edit - oh I see T's replied now - fuck it post anyway)

[Shit Good Nose]

I think the list of stuff found at Neverland that Eddie linked to is enough to sway me onto the guilty side.  Equally, Trenter's and pupkin's points are all valid and well thought out.


Long story short - excellent posts all three of you, and they further go to show just how complicated this whole case is, even with completely disregarding the "innocent or guilty?" bit.  It's an absolute fucking minefield, whichever angle you approach it from.

[St_Eddie]

Thank you for the comprehensive response, TrenterPercenter.  I agree with the vast majority of what you said but feel that you missed my point on a couple of things.  No matter.  I'm now going to return to observing this thread and not engaging in debate, because I don't wish to derail this thread any further.  I've done that plenty enough as is.

[Rolf Lundgren]

As for the Saville point - Saville didn't survive multiple long-term FBI investigations, there is very little motive to fabricate accusations surrounding him after his death and none of his accusers publicly defended him as adults, nor does he appear to have any first-hand defenders at all unlike Jackson.  The cases are virtually incomparable.

As two very well known male celebrities who used their fame to gain access to children in order to abuse them there is some comparison to be made. Also add in allegations coming to light after their deaths (although yes Jackson faced them in his lifetime too) with the accused lacking the right to defend themselves. The details of the cases are very different but the overarching themes have similarities.

The important thing is Jimmy Savile is irrelevant, there is no calculation or logic that says Savile was peado therefore Michael Jackson was a paedo, or rather Trenter thought Savile was paedo and not Michael Jackson therefore Michael Jackson is a peado.

I don't think anyone really believes that (and to be fair I don't think you're really asserting that either) but what Savile's case does show is how a incredibly famous, wealthy individual known for his eccentricities could get away with sex abuse crimes over a number of years by using his power and influence to silence his victims. Whether that has anything to do with Jackson is down to what you think about the allegations against him.

[chveik]

maybe the Jeffrey Epstein case would have made a better example. you can't really trust the american legal system when it comes to sexual abuse cases involving rich and powerful people after that one.

[thraxx]

I love Michael Jackson and his music there's no way he abused those kids hang on I just listened to HIStory terrible record I fucking hate the dirty paedo cunt can't believed he fucked those kids.

[popcorn]

Trenter I think your posts are good.

Here is a very thorough and seemingly good-faith attempt at summarising the arguments for and against MJ's innocence.

[The Boston Crab]

I feel really sick after this and reading some articles linked in here. I genuinely didn't know a lot of this stuff and yeah, I feel sick. I have always loved his early stuff but that's me done with Michael Jackson and his music. It's a weird feeling. It's a horrible feeling. Terribly sad.

[Ambient Sheep]

I seem to remember that back in the 90s, when all these allegations first surfaced with Jordan Chandler, one of his sisters (LaToya, I think) basically dropped him in the shit by saying something like "I've been telling him for years 'Lay off the boys, the boys are really gonna get you into trouble'."

Mind you I suppose she could mean "because although he's innocent it won't look that way and sooner or later they'll stitch him up" but that's not how it came across at the time.

OK, I just googled LaToya Jackson lay off the boys and there seem to be plenty of results there including videos of her original 1993 press conference that she called to do it!

Mind you back then we weren't entirely convinced that she wasn't Michael in drag.  Although quite why Michael-in-drag would say:

In a statement quickly branded as full of lies by the rest of the Jackson family, Michael Jackson's sister La Toya today said the pop superstar has molested children for years and threatened to kill her if she told anyone.

At a news conference called on short notice at a Tel Aviv hotel, Jackson said she could no longer "be a silent collaborator of his crimes against small innocent children.

"If I remain silent, then that means that I feel the guilt and humiliation that these children are feeling and I think it's very wrong."

Her voice breaking, La Toya Jackson said: "I love Michael very dearly, but I feel even more sorry for these children because they don't have a life anymore."

"It's always been little boys," La Toya Jackson said today. "I hope he gets help."

The rest of the family naturally disowned her, but it turns out she later recanted what she said, blaming her manager for putting her up to it... which is what her brothers had said all along.

Interestingly, two years earlier, in 1991, she gave an interview in which she said she'd married her manager in a sexless marriage purely to give her legal protection from her brothers who had been trying to kidnap her...

It seems that a few days ago lots of the media remembered her claims too, as now I'm looking there's been a sudden spate of recent articles, many of them seeming startled that they hadn't heard of this before... mind you it was 25 years ago!

[Shit Good Nose]

Am I right in thinking Janet Jackson has never said anything either way about it, or is that just something I dreamt/got confused with summat else?

[NoSleep]

I remember La Toya going public with this stuff and suspected the family managed to get her onside and silent. Maybe her manager put her up to it (hardly good publicity for her, though), but that's more likely a good excuse to recant.