Michael Jackson

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Yeah, sorry about that... my wording in real life is infinitely worse... take my word for it.

Let me try and duct-tape together a more cogent statement:

People don't pay to hear good news anymore, and always assume the worst.

IMO the only logical way to go about proving something is to assume no existence, in this case innocence, and try to prove the opposite. Otherwise you're assuming something that has a lot of impact and will probably not be correct.

Yeah, I'm demanding proof like the others

Sorry again, I don't type or speak well after a four hour battle with GMod so I can keep thirty minutes of footage that will end up as about five seconds in a one-minute 'demo' of a video I'm trying to make... it's been a long week...

[BroomJockey]

it's a debating forum and both sides have to prove their argument

Err, no, the fact remains, it's still impossible to prove a negative. If I say something didn't happen, it's up to the people who say it did happen to find evidence to say it did. Then, I take that evidence and try to disprove it. It's not a matter of "which I support." To ask me to prove someone didn't do something shows a lack of logic, when the other side is only putting forward "despite the evidence not being sufficient, I still think he did it."

[Kalli]

Just saying, that could be turned round to you, too. You can't prove he's innocent, any more than Flynn can prove he's guilty.

Except there's a presumption of innocence in Western Society. The default IS innocent.

This. "Innocent until proven guilty" exists not only because it's more in line with personal rights than an assumption of guilt, but also because it is nigh impossible to prove something didn't happen. You have to prove it did. Having said that...

In France, it's the opposite. And in any case, this isn't a court of law, it's a debating forum and both sides have to prove their argument, not just the one you believe is correct.

I'll dismiss the France thing, because MJ wasn't subject to French law and it is therefore about as relevant to his case as this roll of sticky tape I have here. You may as well speculate how Ancient Sumeria would have dealt with his case. However, you raise a good point about this being a debating forum and not a court of law, and I have asked people to present an argument for his guilt, so I suppose it is only fair that I present an argument for his innocence.


Accusation the First.

I should mention first of all that there are 2 instances of sexual abuse allegations against Michael, the first in 1993 by a boy named Jordan Chandler, and his father, Evan Chandler.

Now, I'm not going to go into a twelve page epic about all the evidence and what it all denotes for the case, if you want an in-depth description of the case, here's an article. (Yes I know it's only a wikipedia article, but there are plenty of links and citations from within it, the whole thing is subjective so there's really no 'reliable source').

Anyway, that's the whole case, but here are some highlights:

- There is a taped phone conversation between Evan Chandler (the alleged victim's father) and Dave Schwartz (the alleged victim's stepfather) where Chandler says, "Everything's going according to a certain plan that isn't just mine... and if I go through with this, I win big time. There's no way I lose. I've checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son]... and Michael's career will be over."
Now, I know there's nothing in there that explicitly says "I'm going to LIE to get his MONEY even though he DIDN'T DO ANYTHING, MUAHAHAH". But, I think it's quite obvious that this man is not motivated by the pursuit of justice for his son. He's quite clearly motivated by trying to win money and a custody battle.

- The boy himself had not initially made any allegations. That all changed when his father gave him a drug called sodium amytal. Under the influence of this drug, people are said to be extremely impressionable. Chandler claimed he only used the drug for dental purposes and while under its influence, the boy came out with the allegations. Most medical experts agree that this is unlikely.

- The case fell apart after the boy refused to testify. The prosecution contacted hundreds of children who had stayed at Neverland and could not find another "victim."

All these points are taken from this website.


Accusation the Second.

Now, this is a much more complicated case, and If I cut out the bits that point to Michael's innocence it's sort of an incomplete explanation, so I urge you to read about it yourself. What I'm going to do now is put forward some facts and observations about Michael Jackson himself that might explain some of the behaviour that led people to believe these accusations.

Why the accusations make no sense.


Reliving his Childhood

Michael was an abused child. Physically and emotionally, not sexually. His father treated him like an employee from the age of 5, made him rehearse and rehearse and rehearse and if he got it wrong, he got yelled at, bashed, called ugly, and told to do it again.

"Yes Kalli, that's exactly the kind of childhood that would lead someone to become an abuser!! THE ABUSED BECOME ABUSERS!!" you say. No, that's not what happened with Michael. He had ALWAYS displayed a childish side, and it's got nothing to do with sexual arousal (which I will explain further in a sec), it has to do with the fact that he spent his spare time in adulthood having a childhood, because he never had one when he actually was a child. That's why he surrounded himself with children and trivial things and what seemed like silly childish activities; because he was living the childhood he never had.
His friends said this about him way before the mudslinging started. Someone decided this looked close enough to "creepy middle-aged kiddy fiddler" to figure people would believe it and they could get some money. I mean really, is it so hard to believe that someone would take advantage and SUE? This is America, after all.

He was Asexual.

Now, this argument is usually met with an outcry of "What? No fucking WAY, dude was a pimp and then a pedophile!" No, his closest friends and WIVES (Brooke Shields, Debbie Rowe, Lisa Marie Presley) Have all described Michael as asexual. Debbie claimed they were never intimate, while Brooke claimed she had never known him to be a sexual being at all, even though they knew each other for 30 years or more. This probably stems from his perpetual child-like state. Correct me if I'm wrong, if there are any asexual people out there, but I don't believe asexuals have any kind of fetish or drive at ALL, least of all to the point of pedophilia.

In short, these accusations do not match Michael's personality, which has been consistently described as the above since decades before the lawsuits.


I have a LOT more to say, but at this point I might take a breath and leave some room for rebuttal.


OK, Your turn, camp guilty.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Except there's a presumption of innocence in Western Society. The default IS innocent. So turning it around has absolutely no relevance. We can't prove he's innocent? So what? We don't need to.

In France, it's the opposite. And in any case, this isn't a court of law, it's a debating forum and both sides have to prove their argument, not just the one you believe is correct.

[Nyoibo]

Just saying, that could be turned round to you, too. You can't prove he's innocent, any more than Flynn can prove he's guilty. The only person who knows truly what happened is dead.

Well, kinda can, he was found innocent in a court of law due to a lack of credible evidence, that goes more to the "not guilty" than "guilty".

And no, there's another person who knows what happened, the kid it happened to, and strangely, he came forward and claimed nothing happened.

[BroomJockey]

Just saying, that could be turned round to you, too. You can't prove he's innocent, any more than Flynn can prove he's guilty.

Except there's a presumption of innocence in Western Society. The default IS innocent. So turning it around has absolutely no relevance. We can't prove he's innocent? So what? We don't need to.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Yet MORE exclamations by people that he "obviously did it" with no evidence or even any argument. It's absolutely pathetic.

Either admit defeat, or come up with SOMETHING.

Just saying, that could be turned round to you, too. You can't prove he's innocent, any more than Flynn can prove he's guilty. The only person who knows truly what happened is dead.

[BroomJockey]

Yet MORE exclamations by people

Actually, I haven't seen any since the last challenge. Closest is Wingate's confusingly worded post which is actually also asking for something to prove that it's "obvious he did something." Looks like they're all suddenly... busy.

[Kalli]

Yet MORE exclamations by people that he "obviously did it" with no evidence or even any argument. It's absolutely pathetic.

Either admit defeat, or come up with SOMETHING.

[Nyoibo]

Abusing kids doesn't require magic.

BJ was more pointing out, that even though there was no evidence to support the claims except a couple of peoples words for it, you still believe it, nothing to do with magic, that's faith right there.

I just say that MJ gave up the benefit of the doubt when he admitted to inapropriate behavior.

When did he admit to inapropriate behaviour?

[LeChatNoir]

Two people found not guilty that pretty obviously did it.

Last time I checked, one person accusing another person of a crime is not sufficient to prove that the accused "pretty obviously did it".

I honestly think that MJ was naive and gullible for his age. I truly think that he thought it was ok to share his bed with a child (and not in a sexual manner) and that backfired on him. Of course people are going to think the worst.

Where is the physical evidence that Michael Jackson abused any child? Not just the say-so of the childrens parents, which isn't enough to convict anyone.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I don't see anything that makes it anything like obvious that MJ did anything...

Got a link?

[Kalli]

Interesting how so many people were keen to jump on the "Yeah fuck the pedophile, he deserved to die anyway" bandwagon (seemingly without any regard to how disgusting this attitude is), but when asked to present some kind of argument, any kind at all, to back up those huge claims then everyone disappears.

[Flyndaran]

Further thought: You scorn belief in face of lack of or contradictory evidence when it relates to religion, but you're all over believing this.

I guess you CAN believe.

Abusing kids doesn't require magic.

Hmm. Equating MJ to OJ. Pretty sure that's a fallacy of some sort, if you're trying to appear rational.
....

Two people found not guilty that pretty obviously did it. Seems similar to me. In american justice systems, it matters far more who the jurors are than whether the accused is guilty.
I just say that MJ gave up the benefit of the doubt when he admitted to inapropriate behavior. Once that b.o.t.d disappeared his guilt seemed as likely as any sexual crime can be.
Would you let him sleep with your children?
Whatever. We aren't going to change our opinions of the facts.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

If anything the negative acts of the famous are exaggerated by the media because that's what sells.

No one's going to pay to hear about a CCL holder saving someone's life, a celebrity that's innocent of even one accusation or how logging companies aren't ruining the world. The facts state that all three are true statements, but most everyone is afflicted by confirmation bias, something I've made a personal rule to always avoid.

The best way to go about deciding the truth is to take the information from both sides with a grain of salt each and honestly comparing them. The one that has more facts on it's side is probably true. If there is something you don't understand, learn about it before passing judgment on it. But instead, most people pick the side they think is true and proceed to ignore any and all facts supporting the opposition.

It's like all the people who accuse opponent organizations of membership padding or studies as being biased when all organization seek to have as many members as possible (that's how you accomplish your goals, bring together those who agree with you) and everyone has pre-existing opinions.

In this case we have nothing but the word of the parents against the word of MJ. In this society, that isn't enough. If it were, I may well be in jail right now myself. If we didn't require proof of guilt before assigning it, anyone could be arrested for anything and they would go to jail automatically.

End of Song, for now.