Read my post again. I clearly referred to the first three paragraphs by the website author. Why do I have to point this out? Anyway, show me a reference that supports anything the author says there. If you can’t, I stick by my statement. The point being, take actual evidence at face value, but unsupported conjecture with a healthy dose of skepticism, and don’t be wowed by the authoritative tone of a statement that is not supported.
Here’s another “authoritative” quote:
I ask again, how does the author know what these people did or did not think about Catholic priests and sexual molestation their whole lives? And who, specifically are these people anyway? Anyone who reads this statement and does not immediately consider the possibility that the author is full of it, well, I’m not even going to characterize them, other than to say they aren’t bring that skepticism I mentioned above.
You don’t want evidence. You just want to argue.
Why are you so invested in this? You’re starting to remind me of some of his fans during the trial, refusing to even consider the possibility that their idol could be guilty.
The testimony is not proof, it’s evidence, and should be the start of the investigation, not the end of it.
I’m not certain we have actual proof Jackson was a molester, but we certainly have a lot of evidence, including the known fact that he spend time alone in bed with young boys, and that he then paid them off to stop them talking about it. But unsupported testimony should never be considered proof.
In court cases there is seldom 100% proof of anything. The usual standard is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. People are convicted on the basis of testimony alone every day in courts everywhere.
A good recent example of someone convicted of child abuse on the basis of testimony alone, by a unanimous jury verdict, is Cardinal George Pell.
Anither mind reader. 
That is, how do you get I want to argue out of the quote of mine? I made a simple request.
This is the second time I’ve been accused of being “invested” in this, whatever that means. What does it mean? I don’t recall this ever being asked of me. Why aren’t you asking this of others? How is this different than any other debate here?
Anyway, me, post #62: “So again, what is the best evidence you have seen? Maybe I’ve missed some vital evidence.”
This was an honest question and I have, and will continue to, consider evidence that I see. In fact, I’m going to watch the doc tonight. So sorry, Guin, but your suggestion is inaccurate.
People HAVE given you numerous amounts of evidence, and you haven’t said WHY you find it so unconvincing, other than, “meh, circumstancial”.
How about the fact that he owned two books that were extremely common among pedophiles? (As well as more material)
Also, why did none of his sleepovers ever feature young girls? Why did he all of a sudden freak out when a child’s mother wouldn’t allow her son to sleep with him?
Above all, let me ask you this: would YOU let a child of your’s sleep with Michael Jackson. Why or why not?
Where do you get this? I haven’t said, “meh, circumstantial” anywhere. As for evidence in this thread being given to me, barely. I’ve asked for evidence here. No one in this thread has given any, other than the MJ Facts site.
I am aware of the books. They are are not evidence of child molestation. This is a perfect example of so-called “evidence” I’ve seen trotted out. Is everyone who ever owned a Sally Mann book of photography a pedophile? As for the photos mentioned at that link, I haven’t seen them. Do you have a link. I’m always interested in possible evidence of Jackson’s alleged crimes.
I have no idea.
A fool’s errand. If I say yes, maybe you’ll accuse me of being a horrible father. If I say no, maybe you’ll say, “a-ha”, so you do think he may be a pedophile. Sorry, this thread is not about me.
As for the book, “The Boy, A Photographic Essay”, a quote from the MJ “Facts” site:
A quote from the Amazon entry for the book, by an unnamed person, where you can also see some images from the book.
Yeah, that guy has no bias. :rolleyes:
The man freely admitted to inviting children over to sleep with him and then paid them to keep their mouth shut.
Yah…
I refuse to listen to MJ songs and have for years, changing the radio whenever he comes on. I have no doubt as to his guilt, and am not worried about the slight… very slight… vanishingly slight… possibility that this was all just a big misunderstanding.
I’m unsure about the timelines here. Maybe someone can fill me in. There were two legal cases, one civil and one criminal. The civil one was settled out of court, supposedly not because of guilt but because it was cheaper or less of a hassle and he could afford it. The criminal trial ended with a not guilty verdict.
After these cases, did he continue the behavior that people considered suspect? Did he continue the odd friendships with little boys? Did he continue to spend time alone with them? Did he continue sleeping with them? If so, why?
Unless you were driven by passion, why continue behavior that had caused you so much trouble?
Combining these recent, more direct, accusations with the closeness and explicitness of the books removes most of the doubt in my mind. I now feel free to not doubt his guilt.
When the man dangled a baby over a hotel balcony, really, I didn’t need much more evidence that MJ was fucked in the head regarding children.
I watched Part 1 last night and I need to take all the showers. What hasn’t been mentioned yet is that there must have been a network of employees and enablers around MJ to facilitate his predation. He had built this elaborate system for delivering young boys to him and that required people to maintain that system. I was never a MJ fan so I guess I was immune to his fans, but watching it, I was reminded of what a freak MJ was and how he made my skin crawl whenever I saw him as an adul; his speaking voice was just creepy.
I read that towards the end of his life, Marlon Brando would go and hang out at Neverland Ranch. Him an MJ would cruise around in a golf cart with an oxygen tank.
Truth is stranger than fiction.
When a man with the wealth to buy The Beatles decides to flee the country to wait out a statute of limitations, instead of spending x% of his assets to fight the charges, this tells me two things:
- The man expected to go broke, or to jail, if he fought this shit.
- Likely because there was so. much. more. to be revealed.