Argue About Michael Jackson - Here's Yer Thread

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then please check again. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal principle that pertains to the court system, it does not apply to public opinion. If we were discussing an impending or ongoing court case, it would apply.

I don't care about "public opinion" in matters of justice

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How talented a person was or was not is irrelevant to what kind of person they were or what things they may have done.

And vice versa. My point exactly.

Regardless of what he did or didn't do... his music is brilliant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since when are accusations evidence? It seems pretty obvious their parents put them up to it. It's not like as if the media and the public were on his side, either. They wanted him to be guilty as he was widely viewed as a freak and being made a fool out of in the press. I personally think the industry had something to do with this as MJ was rebelling against Sony, his label, during the '90s and '00s and saying all sorts of explosive things about what really goes on. He obviously wanted out of the industry and despised it. Then he ends up murdered by his doctor, and they get to continue to make bank off of his catalogue. There were multiple reasons for those people to lie about him and seek to destroy him.

Accusations are by definition evidence. You may be conflating criminal charges. If one is charged criminally that is not evidence. And the kid that was bought off that could describe his genitals was pretty strong evidence. Unlike many people I knew instantly why the police photographed his junk when he got back from one of his tours.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Accusations aren't evidence.
Accusations require evidence.

They are evidence, but by themselves they do not constitute legal "proof". Personal testimony is evidence. The only "evidence" against Cosby were accusations. Accusations that enough were willing to testify to in court. But they were still "accusations". Michaels case never went to court so they were not raised to the level of accusations under oath.

 

[Revoltingest]

Accusations are by definition evidence.

I looked up several legal definitions of "evidence".
None listed the accusation itself as evidence.
What is your basis for that claim?

 

[Callisto]

I don't care about "public opinion" in matters of justice

Then don't state your opinion since this is a public forum and not a court of justice.

 

[Callisto]

And vice versa. My point exactly.

Regardless of what he did or didn't do... his music is brilliant.

His talent wasn't being debated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I looked up several legal definitions of "evidence".
None listed the accusation itself as evidence.
What is your basis for that claim?

An accusation is someone stating that someone else did something. You were probably looking for specific types of evidence. It is definitely not scientific evidence. Nor does it qualify as legal evidence, since it was not taken under oath. But the same exact statement as a witness in a case under oath would be evidence.

As to the photographs of Michaels genitalia, that does qualify as evidence. Of course it depends upon how it is presented. In a case against Michael the prosecutor was saving that as "surprise" evidence near the end of a trial. That is not allowed in courts of law. You may have heard of "discovery". That is a requirement for the prosecution when it comes to trials. They have to tell the defense what evidence they have and will be using in a trail. The prosecution had this evidence for a while and tried to bring it in at the least moment. The judge of course nixed that. Stupid prosecutors lose cases when they do not follow the rules:

Judge rules that prosecution can't show pictures of Jackson's genitalia

SANTA MARIA, Calif. - The judge in the Michael Jackson molestation trial kept a graphic piece of evidence out of the sight of jurors when he barred prosecutors Thursday from showing photographs of th…

www.gainesville.com

At any rate, MJ had vitiligo. I was hit with that at about 23. For a white boy it is not big deal. Stay out of the sun and very few people will notice it. White patches on white skin are not very obvious. White patches on a black person's skin are very obvious. And white patches on genitals would be something that is obvious that a little boy should not be seeing. The witness that was bought off accurately described the vitiligo on MJ's junk. As I said, when I heard the news reports about MJ I instantly knew why.

 

[Revoltingest]

An accusation is someone stating that someone else did something.

That's when evidence should enter the picture.

You were probably looking for specific types of evidence.

I wasn't.

It is definitely not scientific evidence. Nor does it qualify as legal evidence, since it was not taken under oath. But the same exact statement as a witness in a case under oath would be evidence.

A witness elaborating on what they know is indeed evidence.
It's used to support the accusation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's when evidence should enter the picture.

I wasn't.

A witness elaborating on what they know is indeed evidence.
It's used to support the accusation.

But once again, the accusations themselves are evidence. They are just not particularly good evidence. Much like multiple claims of evidence of miracles. They are evidence, but they are not enough to convict someone.

 

[Revoltingest]

But once again, the accusations themselves are evidence.

I've nothing to add.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've nothing to add.

What do you think of the evidence provided by the witness that was bought off?

 

[Revoltingest]

What do you think of the evidence provided by the witness that was bought off?

I've not looked into the details of MJ's legal woes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've not looked into the details of MJ's legal woes.

The linked article is a good start. The person that was bought off at least appears to have seen MJ's genitals. The drawings and descriptions were obtained before he was photographed. I would not call that a "slam dunk" but it is rather strong support.

 

[Revoltingest]

The linked article is a good start. The person that was bought off at least appears to have seen MJ's genitals. The drawings and descriptions were obtained before he was photographed. I would not call that a "slam dunk" but it is rather strong support.

Meh...I'm not interested in his guilt vs innocence.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The courts continually side with Jackson (or at least his estate). It appears the evidence is weak. His eccentric behavior likely due to his troubled childhood seems to make him a target. Allegations of sexual abuse should be taken seriously, but I am not sure Jackson was guilty.

It is shaky. No criminal charges against him in the 1993 allegations. In the 2005 trial, he's acquitted by jury on all counts. When it comes to the Leaving Neverland film, Wade Robson has painted himself into a difficult legal position because he testified on behalf of Jackson in the 2005 trial that nothing untoward ever happened but then, after Jackson dies, wants to accuse him of molestation. His and Safechuck's lawsuits against Jackson's estates have been thrown out.

I generally agree with this take on the issue, if you have a half hour to spare (I did):

 

[Mock Turtle]

It is shaky. No criminal charges against him in the 1993 allegations. In the 2005 trial, he's acquitted by jury on all counts. When it comes to the Leaving Neverland film, Wade Robson has painted himself into a difficult legal position because he testified on behalf of Jackson in the 2005 trial that nothing untoward ever happened but then, after Jackson dies, wants to accuse him of molestation. His and Safechuck's lawsuits against Jackson's estates have been thrown out.

I generally agree with this take on the issue, if you have a half hour to spare (I did):

In return, perhaps you should watch the documentary that you skipped out of because you didn't like what you were hearing apparently.