Michael Jackson the Pederast? What Do We Actually know?

[Irishman]

ashman165 said:

At the end of the day, all people have is their unsupported belief that he one [a pedophile].

Unsupported is incorrect. Maybe thinly supported. It comes down to how you weigh the evidence.

There is no physical evidence. There is no video of MJ with his hand on a boy’s crotch, no “blue dress” equivalent. The evidence is all circumstantial and testimonial.
And nothing is crystal clear in the evidence that exists. The accusations have reliability issues, the accusers have credibility problems, the behavior of the accused is admittedly strange, but he is known to be bizarre, so his motivations are hard to guess. He exhibits behavior patterns that are similar to pedophiles, but he is known to be strange so typical motivations may not apply to him. The most damning thing against MJ is interpreting his payout of accusers with huge settlements. That is interpreted as guilt, though legally it is not considered an act of guilt any more than taking the 5th Amendment is an admission of a crime. His childhood history gives plausibility to his explanation and the assumed motivations that he takes on troubled boys as special friends because his own childhood was so unpleasant.

What we’re left with is each person making an individual assessment of the evidence on the merits of each item and the cumulative story. Trying to lay out each of those items for dissection is challenging, because people tend to coat them in their own interpretations as they present them, which does not aid clear understanding. Plus, the intertangled nature of the evidence means it isn’t easy to make a simple list of “facts”. Perhaps this is the place to start one?

Michael Jackson has been accused by three boys (ages around 13) of inappropriate acts, including fondling, masturbation of them by him, and perhaps fellatio by him on them.

There has been one criminal trial that ended in acquittal.

There has been one investigation that was left open for lack of evidence.

There have been two payouts of several million dollars each.

Jackson displayed a pattern of surrounding himself with children.

In particular, he would take on a boy between 10 and 13 to be a special friend, and would spend inordinate amounts of time and money with that boy and the boy’s family.

He would not only have boys over to stay at his house, but also sleep at their house, and would sleep in the same bed with them, sometimes just the two of them. They always were clothed when seen.

One of the boys gave a physical description of Jackson’s privates. Results are controversial. He gave seemingly accurate descriptions of details hard to just guess (particular spots in particular places), but then was incorrect on something that people think should be obvious (whether MJ was circumcised or not).

Eh, if anyone wants to take over, be my guest.

[ashman165]

@Irishman

ashman165 said:
Unsupported is incorrect. Maybe thinly supported. It comes down to how you weigh the evidence.

There is no physical evidence. There is no video of MJ with his hand on a boy’s crotch, no “blue dress” equivalent. The evidence is all circumstantial and testimonial.

No, the evidence is exclusively that someone says something happened. Like all these drawings this kid did. Where are these drawings? Merely asserting they exist doesn’t amount to evidence; the evidence is the evidence, not the discussion about it. If it exists, it should be of no moment at all to present it.
If we’re going to consider, in the alternative, that assertion is the same as evidence, then it fails under that rubric as well merely because the people upon whose authority to speak to the subject have serious credibility issues in the first instance.

And nothing is crystal clear in the evidence that exists. The accusations have reliability issues, the accusers have credibility problems, the behavior of the accused is admittedly strange, but he is known to be bizarre, so his motivations are hard to guess. He exhibits behavior patterns that are similar to pedophiles, but he is known to be strange so typical motivations may not apply to him. The most damning thing against MJ is interpreting his payout of accusers with huge settlements. That is interpreted as guilt, though legally it is not considered an act of guilt any more than taking the 5th Amendment is an admission of a crime. His childhood history gives plausibility to his explanation and the assumed motivations that he takes on troubled boys as special friends because his own childhood was so unpleasant.

This reminds me of the big buzz when Michael Jordan was caught wagering a million dollar bet on a, if I recall correctly, a golf game. People were all like “zomgamilliondollars?!”. For him, it wasn’t a huge sum of money any more than 20 million was a substantial sum for Michael Jackson. A person below the poverty line spends a greater percentage of his wealth on a dinner from Burger King than MJ spent on any single payout, if the $20 million price tag is accurate anyway.

What we’re left with is each person making an individual assessment of the evidence on the merits of each item and the cumulative story. Trying to lay out each of those items for dissection is challenging, because people tend to coat them in their own interpretations as they present them, which does not aid clear understanding. Plus, the intertangled nature of the evidence means it isn’t easy to make a simple list of “facts”. Perhaps this is the place to start one?

No, we’re left with pure conjecture. It isn’t an assessment of evidence as there has been no evidence presented to anyone in this conversation on which to base any view. Evidence is the same for all; it’s tangible and objective. A person’s assertion isn’t evidence. If there’s evidence, let’s see it.

Michael Jackson has been accused by three boys (ages around 13) of inappropriate acts, including fondling, masturbation of them by him, and perhaps fellatio by him on them.

Indeed. Your point? The number of people who say a thing doesn’t raise its truth value.

There has been one criminal trial that ended in acquittal.

There has been one investigation that was left open for lack of evidence.

In both cases the evidence we’re led to believe exists doesn’t do what this evidence is purported to do.

There have been two payouts of several million dollars each.

Jackson displayed a pattern of surrounding himself with children.

Again, this isn’t evidence in any fashion.

In particular, he would take on a boy between 10 and 13 to be a special friend, and would spend inordinate amounts of time and money with that boy and the boy’s family.

That still isn’t evidence. Look at all of the kids of the same age he did befriend who all claim they saw nothing inappropriate.

He would not only have boys over to stay at his house, but also sleep at their house, and would sleep in the same bed with them, sometimes just the two of them. They always were clothed when seen.

So, this implies that given a random checking in if people are at some point fucking, you should stand a chance of catching them based upon the proportion of either the number of encounters of that type as compared against the total number of all unsupervised contact. Or from the duration of time spent molesting said child versus the proportion of all unsupervised time. This isn’t evidence of anything untoward. Indeed, looking at this “evidence”, the conclusion that must be drawn is that nothing was then happening. That nothing was then happening isn’t proof that at some other time something did happen. It doesn’t even hint at that.

One of the boys gave a physical description of Jackson’s privates. Results are controversial. He gave seemingly accurate descriptions of details hard to just guess (particular spots in particular places), but then was incorrect on something that people think should be obvious (whether MJ was circumcised or not).

Yes, and he supposedly drew a detailed diagram. Where’s this diagram? MJ’s dead and can’t sue the government for releasing the police records. They are public information. You say it is seemingly accurate. Based on what? You’ve seen the diagram? You’ve seen MJ naked? There is no seeming to it: it’s an asserted case which thus lacks any evidence to support the claim.

If we have all these assertions based upon these documents, photographs, drawings and such, then surely seeing the evidence is preferable to taking someone’s word for it. But that’s all we have: people’s word.

[Freudian_Slit]

The pictures and the photographs are sealed. Presumably the police have them. Do you seriously want us to try to produce them?

[ashman165]

@Freudian_Slit

The pictures and the photographs are sealed. Presumably the police have them. Do you seriously want us to try to produce them?

Yes. MJ is dead. His reputation no longer matters; anything which is harmful to any of his “victims” can be redacted. I see no reason why the evidence needs to be sealed any longer. Besides which, if it’s released, then all of our conjecture will be resolved.

Until then, we have to rely on the outcome of the one jury trial he did have, which is when 12 people who saw all of the evidence said resoundingly that the evidence is far too weak to say “he did it”. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But in this case, I’d take just ordinary proof. Hell, right now, I’d take even one piece of evidence because that be one piece of evidence closer to us actually having one piece of evidence.

[Brandus]

I agree that it’s impossible to say whether the drawings were accurate enough to be considered evidence. I have heard a range of descriptions of the drawing going from “perfectly accurate” to “vaguely alike but not close enough to be used in court”

[ashman165]

@Brandus

I agree that it’s impossible to say whether the drawings were accurate enough to be considered evidence. I have heard a range of descriptions of the drawing going from “perfectly accurate” to “vaguely alike but not close enough to be used in court”

Therein lies the source of the problem: we haven’t the evidence to look at and see. We just have to trust that what someone is telling us about them is accurate; this, despite the fact they haven’t seen it either.

[Larry_Mudd]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

We know that he admitted his guilt by paying at least two of them off.

J.C. Penney paid the Arvisos off. Do we likewise know that one of their security guards really beat and sexually abused them in full view of closed circuit video? Or is it possible that this was a mercenary lie, and the payout was the simply the least difficult option for J.C. Penney? (Rhetorical question; Ms. Arvizo admitted that she lied under oath about the case.)

Gonzomax, it’s certain that there has been a lot of evidence presented to suggest something untoward was going on - but the quantity of this material becomes insignificant when you look closely at the quality.

There are two scenarios presented: The defense sounds weak on the face of it. “It’s all innocent!” “Yeah, sure.”

Except that the defense position is consistent, and it was consistent before it was even a defense.

It’s normal the gut reaction to this is that something creepy must be going on. But it’s been thoroughly investigated, and none of the allegations of wrongdoing have stood up to scrutiny.

As counter-intuitive as the innocent sleep-over scenario seems, the jury unanimously endorsed it - because the testimony of every witness to the contrary was very plainly of a dubious nature, and the testimony in support of it didn’t have this problem. Not just talking about the actual 2005 charges, but also the parade of “prior bad acts” witnesses, not one of which was able to convince a jury that they were telling the truth.

Everything that has been presented as evidence of his guilt has been pretty readily discredited.

When you look closely, it seems that he really was (as asserted) a sort of puer aeterna, and so poorly-socialized that his unusual relationships with children seemed to him not only acceptable, but right.

This is still uncomfortable, but not definitely not criminal, and arguably not harmful.

@Freudian Slit

The pictures and the photographs are sealed. Presumably the police have them. Do you seriously want us to try to produce them?

I think that the point is that you appear to be attributing significance to them that is not warranted. Yes, Tom Sneddon asserted that they are substantially similar. We can’t make this judgement for ourselves, but we can consider this in the context of what else he has shown us.

Tom Sneddon stood up in front of the jury and told them that he had evidence that Michael Jackson was a kiddy-diddler. None of that evidence held up to scrutiny. It is a considerable act of faith to assume that this unseen evidence is of a better quality. On the other hand, if one assumes that this evidence is of a similar quality as the rest, then they’re easy to dismiss.

Besides, the judge allowed “prior bad acts” testimony to be entered into evidence, but determined that these photos did not have much to offer in the way of probative value.

[filmore]

Does anyone remember that Chapelle Show bit about going to jury duty for the R. Kelly trial? Some of the deniers in here sound like him. The bit went something like this:

Attorney: Mr. Chapelle, what would it take to make you believe that R. Kelly urinated on that girl.

Chapelle: I’d have to see him doing it on video, with a policeman there, showing two forms of ID, and his grandmother watching him.

Attorney: What about Robert Blake shoting his wife?

Chappelle: Oh, yeah, Baretta did that s*it.

If you had a neighbor that did the same things (sleep with kids in the same bed, multiple molestation trials, snuggle with kids, etc.), what would you think about him? And furthermore, would you even dream of leaving your kids with him?

[ashman165]

@filmore

Does anyone remember that Chapelle Show bit about going to jury duty for the R. Kelly trial? Some of the deniers in here sound like him. The bit went something like this:

If you had a neighbor that did the same things (sleep with kids in the same bed, multiple molestation trials, snuggle with kids, etc.), what would you think about him? And furthermore, would you even dream of leaving your kids with him?

I see that one among runs his life based on fear instead, ya know, reality. I wouldn’t let me kids stay the night with him for the same reason I wouldn’t let them stay the night with you, or someone who lives 3 streets over from me: I don’t know him, you or that guy 3 streets over. It’s a non-starter to burden him with guilt by asking if I’d let my children stay over at a stranger’s house.

If I knew someone who on each occasion the government failed to show had ever broken any law, I’d be like, damn, they have a hard on for this guy. Too bad they don’t have evidence to back it up. I, like most rational people, base my decisions on a continuum of sufficient, or necessary depending on the topic, evidence to make a proper conclusion. As with many things in life, if there isn’t a sufficient impetus to do something, I will do nothing. If there’s a sufficient impetus to do something, then I turn to the next level of evaluation, which is what is the benefit of the activity after which I determine what the potential risks are. This is hardly a novel concept.

I can stop the analysis, in most cases, about letting my children stay the night somewhere at step one: there is rarely a sufficient impetus to allow them to do so.

Occasionally, the impetus is there, so I determine the benefits of it: gets one of them out of my hair for the night, rewards them for something, let’s them build a stronger social network, blah blah blah.

Then I determine the potential risks: how long have I know my child’s friend(s) and said child’s parents? How far away is it? What is the duration of the stay? Will they be exclusively at the said person’s home, or will they go out to a movie?

With Michael Jackson, I can stop at step one: there is no particular reason to entertain the idea since I never knew him. Even if I did, he apparently had no affinity for small girls, so my kids would be safe nevertheless. =P Well, other than I wouldn’t really care to have them milling around with a person whose view of himself is such that he needs to completely outwardly change himself to match his inside. I’d rather teach my children that intellect, stability, maturity and a healthy sense of self are important. That’s just me.

[DiosaBellissima]

@filmore

Does anyone remember that Chapelle Show bit about going to jury duty for the R. Kelly trial? Some of the deniers in here sound like him. The bit went something like this:

He also said:

DA:What if I told you that the accusers correctly identified the defendant’s penis?

Chapelle: Sir, I have never seen Michael’s alleged penis, but I bet you that I could describe it. Alright, let me guess: there’s a head, a shaft, some balls, hair- maybe press permed hair, with glitter sprinkled on it.

DA: That is correct. . .

Ok, that serves no purpose- I just always thought it was funny.

[Freudian_Slit]

@ashman165

I see that one among runs his life based on fear instead, ya know, reality. I wouldn’t let me kids stay the night with him for the same reason I wouldn’t let them stay the night with you, or someone who lives 3 streets over from me: I don’t know him, you or that guy 3 streets over. It’s a non-starter to burden him with guilt by asking if I’d let my children stay over at a stranger’s house.

If it’s not Michael Jackson doing this stuff, but let’s say, friendly neighborhood guy Martin Jefferson who also has a kid who is friends with your child, would you let your kid go over for a sleepover at the Jefferson household? I’d be pretty vocal in saying that not only would my kid be allowed anywhere near said guy but that no child should.

[filmore]

Simulpost.

[Batboy]

@filmore

If you had a neighbor that did the same things (sleep with kids in the same bed, multiple molestation trials, snuggle with kids, etc.), what would you think about him? him?

That depends on whether my neighbour was Michael Jackson or not. That a 20th century icon led an unusual life is no surprise to me. Most kids wouldn’t fancy sleeping with my neighbour anyway, and he hasn’t got bazillions of dollars to pay out if anyone accuses him of anything horrible.

That isn’t any less reasonable than your explanation, I don’t think, even in light of what we know, which is the whole point.

[DiosaBellissima]

@Freudian_Slit

If it’s not Michael Jackson doing this stuff, but let’s say, friendly neighborhood guy Martin Jefferson who also has a kid who is friends with your child, would you let your kid go over for a sleepover at the Jefferson household?

That’s ignorance.

[Larry_Mudd]

@filmore

If you had a neighbor that did the same things (sleep with kids in the same bed, multiple molestation trials, snuggle with kids, etc.), what would you think about him? And furthermore, would you even dream of leaving your kids with him?

Personality doesn’t enter into it, for me. Intellectually I know that Michael Jackson was a pop superstar, but I have never been interested in his work. (I did like some of the Weird Al parodies, though.)

As for your hypothetical, if the evidence were the same, of course I would reach the same conclusion. Who cares who we’re talking about? The evidence as presented does not add up to “That guy’s a paedophile.”

If you asked me to make a guess as to whether or not the guy was a paedophile when the Bashir documentary came out, I would have said I thought he was, without hesitation. (I’m sure this was discussed at the time here, this shouldn’t be too hard to verify.)

But then we had this huge trial, and two positions were presented. Surprisingly, the defense was rock solid and the prosecution’s case turned out to be a house of cards. (Knaves, mostly.)

Still, I would not have felt comfortable leaving my kids to sleep over with Michael Jackson. This is not because I think he was a paedophile, though - I am persuaded that he had no sexual interest in children.

My inference is that Mr. Jackson (however he may have convinced himself that he was “healing” these kids) was actually using them for his own therapeutic purposes. I don’t think that his relationship with children in general was normal or healthy.

Most importantly, I don’t think that he was anyone that I would want any child of mine looking up to as a role model or authority figure. He was as much Norma Desmond as Peter Pan. I have no idea what parents who left their children with him were thinking.

[ashman165]

@Freudian_Slit

If it’s not Michael Jackson doing this stuff, but let’s say, friendly neighborhood guy Martin Jefferson who also has a kid who is friends with your child, would you let your kid go over for a sleepover at the Jefferson household? I’d be pretty vocal in saying that not only would my kid be allowed anywhere near said guy but that no child should.

Yeah, I agree. Why bother with such a petty concern that 100% of the time the government has tried to punish said person, they’ve failed. It’s almost like after a while of failed attempts you start to think: gee, they really hate this guy, or he’s the best criminal ever to live.

[Freudian_Slit]

@ashman165

Yeah, I agree. Why bother with such a petty concern that 100% of the time the government has tried to punish said person, they’ve failed. It’s almost like after a while of failed attempts you start to think: gee, they really hate this guy, or he’s the best criminal ever to live.

The government only failed the first time because Jordie Chandler pulled out as a witness and he and his family took the settlement. They failed in the actual trial. So, either the government’s involved in some conspiracy theory to frame this guy or there is the possibility that he is a pedophile. You really think your average guy from the neighborhood who has “art books” of little boys and loves spending the night with them is the kind of person your kids should be around?

[ashman165]

@Freudian_Slit

The government only failed the first time because Jordie Chandler pulled out as a witness and he and his family took the settlement. They failed in the actual trial. So, either the government’s involved in some conspiracy theory to frame this guy or there is the possibility that he is a pedophile. You really think your average guy from the neighborhood who has “art books” of little boys and loves spending the night with them is the kind of person your kids should be around?

So, your argument is that the government only failed to convict him because they didn’t try him, but had they tried him, they’d have convicted him? It must be nice to be psychic. As with all else in this thread, this is pure conjecture on your part.

You overlook a quaint, barely known part of criminal law: civil contracts aren’t binding in it. Moreover, if MJ really did pay this kid off specifically not to testify, you, alas, have another violation of the law which, again, the government failed to secure a conviction on. Indeed, they didn’t even attempt to prosecute him for that; presumably, because there isn’t evidence that he did anything illegal in that respect either.

It’s difficult for you to claim that he would have necessarily been convicted, largely because it never happened. The probably of his being convicted became zero once the state declined to press charges. It simply won’t do to claim that the only reason he wasn’t convicted is because he wasn’t tried, in which case he’d have been convicted despite the fact that he wasn’t.

[Freudian_Slit]

@ashman165

So, your argument is that the government only failed to convict him because they didn’t try him, but had they tried him, they’d have convicted him? It must be nice to be psychic. As with all else in this thread, this is pure conjecture on your part.

No, I’m saying that you can’t say that the government keeps failing to convict him. They failed once. It doesn’t mean that the government has it in for him because they keep bringing cases against him and failing because of lack of evidence. If you knew someone who was accused by three different people of molesting children, but was acquitted after a trial (for a case involving only one of those children), that they admitted to sleeping with children, was seen cuddling a boy, and had pictures of naked boys in his possession, would you really be cool with sending your eleven year old over to hang out in his house? I’m not a parent but if I said, “No way you are ever to be alone with Neighbor X” to my own hypothetical kids, would that make me an overprotective wingnut?

[ashman165]

@Freudian_Slit

No, I’m saying that you can’t say that the government keeps failing to convict him. They failed once. It doesn’t mean that the government has it in for him because they keep bringing cases against him and failing because of lack of evidence. If you knew someone who was accused by three different people of molesting children, but was acquitted after a trial (for a case involving only one of those children), that they admitted to sleeping with children, was seen cuddling a boy, and had pictures of naked boys in his possession, would you really be cool with sending your eleven year old over to hang out in his house? I’m not a parent but if I said, “No way you are ever to be alone with Neighbor X” to my own hypothetical kids, would that make me an overprotective wingnut?

Your argument is that I can’t say exactly what has happened? In all of the trials against him, he’s won. In all of the charges brought against him, he’s remained conspicuously not convicted. At least my claim has some evidence. Indeed, it has only one for non-conviction, but that puts me precisely one piece of evidence further along than you.

For whatever reason they government chose not to prosecute, it wasn’t that the child refused to testify unless the only indication they had against MJ was said child’s testimony. That isn’t evidence; that’s assertion.

You see, you too narrowly constrain the issue. It’s unsurprising you don’t have children. You seem prudent parents don’t wait until a stranger shows up who might have a thing for kids before we start with the “don’t talk to__” series. Nor is it relevant if neighbor x has any charges pending, any acquittals, or no accusations. I see no reason to let my children alone with any adult who isn’t intimately known by me for any length of time. And even then I’m rarely far away.

However, that’s not relevant what I would do; what is relevant is that 100% of the times MJ has been accused of a crime, he’s not been convicted. Presumably because there’s no evidence. And I’ve yet to see any, and you haven’t either, but you want to keep arguing that it exists and is incontrovertible evidence he’s a pedophile. It isn’t. And until some evidence shows up with proof positive that he is, I’m going to assert that he isn’t because it’s the default position in my country that we’re all innocent until otherwise proved.