Michael Jackson

[C4tintherug]

Why has Michael Jackson not been cancelled?

I don’t understand why a musical has been made out of his music, and why his music is played at school discos and is still everywhere.

After I watched the documentary where the men described how he raped them, I won’t listen to his music at all, in fact, I feel a sense of disgust when it is played publicly.

I don’t understand why we seem to have cancelled everyone else except him. Is it because he died before he was officially found guilty?

Those who believe he is innocent, what reason do you think he liked sleeping in a bedroom with multiple little boys?

Excuse me, I didn't say I thought the BBC was unbiased. I asked you what "links" you were referring to.

Do you know the stats on how many of the many thousands of rape cases that occur annually actually go to court? And what percentage actually get a conviction? And how many are never reported?

Well, imagine you are a 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12 year old boy, who has been groomed, seduced, hoodwinked, and sexually used and abused by a famous man - back in the nineties, well before the "me, too" movement...

I really do look forward to the latest court case going ahead. But I guess no amount of evidence would be enough for those willing to turn a blind eye to these sorts of crimes against children, because it's too uncomfortable for them.

Of course it is, just as the motives of the parents of children abused by Savile are irrelevant.

No, but you did use the BBC to justify your argument. Which frankly was laughable.

I don't believe he is innocent. I don't know what to make of it one way or another. I just don't think hearsay and speculation would be permissible in a court of law as evidence. There's a reason they ask people not to speculate. It is because it can lead to the collapse of trials and victims not getting justice.

MJ has himself admitted sleeping in bed with boys and 5 boys have admitted it too. That’s not hearsay it’s direct evidence.

It's not actually proof though. You really don't understand how the court system works do you?

Circumstantial evidence is used all
the time, youve got multiple children giving consistent statements put together with the fact an adult has admitted sleeping with children, a stash of naked pictures of children and hidden booby trapped bedrooms.. that's evidence!!
Far more likely that this behaviour was because MJ was a pedophile than MJ has some strange made up mental health condition that means he has to have the occasional little boy slumber parties.

Circumstantial evidence might be used but it doesn’t secure convictions. Hence why he was still acquitted in spite of all that circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is not the same as evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

I didn’t say the testimony wouldn’t be admissible, I said quite a lot of media stuff wouldn’t be. I think it’s strange that so many people don’t understand the difference between someone who has been tried and found not guilty and someone who died before their transgressions ever came to light, and so never stood trial. Which was the original post I answered. I think people here know full well what’s being said and are going to ridiculous lengths to say otherwise. How are the not guilty verdicts not relevant ? He’s dead. He can’t be tried as a dead man so the original not guilty verdicts still stand - they don’t say he’s innocent, they say that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict. And as we abide by the rule of law and not mob rule, what people think privately, or even publicly won’t change that.

I’m not the one who doesn’t understand how the justice system works.

I was simply explaining difference between hearsay and direct evidence.
Testimony from Gavin Arviso for example is direct evidence.

What you consider to be proof is neither here not there. There is rarely concrete proof in sexual offence cases, particularly historic cases - which often come down to one person’s word against another.

Which is also why the ‘top notch lawyers got him off’ theory doesn’t fly. Many wealthy celebs have been convicted of sex and other criminal offences based on the weight of evidence. The fact that Jackson wasn’t isn’t indicative of anything (including actual guilt or innocence) other than there wasn’t enough evidence for a safe conviction at the time. Doesn’t make him innocent, but legally it doesn’t make him guilty either - and that, despite gut feeling, or other evidence coming to light since the trial, is a fact.

No. I did not use the BBC to justify my so-called argument. I linked a report from the BBC - a factual report - stating that the latest court case is able to procede.

You really are clutching at straws.

Michael Jackson lawsuits alleging sex abuse can be revived, US appeals court says (bbc.com)

I don’t know why you keep saying this. Of course people know the difference.

The real problem here is that you can’t understand why people wouldn’t take a court verdict as the last word on guilt. But there’s a difference between the legal outcome of a case and the truth, as any miscarriage of justice signifies.

Bottom line - either MJ a was a paedophile or he wasn’t. If he was and he did indeed abuse multiple boys over a period of time, the court findings are neither here nor there.

You got a giggle out of me with this one

Personally, I'm still going to play music that I like. All these debates about guilt are pointless when he's been dead for so long and we'll never know exactly what happened.

Well that’s not true, Lucy Letby was convicted entirely on circumstantial evidence.

Courts don’t find people “innocent”. The prosecution did not adequately prove their case.

Almost every case is won or lost on circumstantial evidence! It is very rare to have direct or video evidence of a crime being committed. Even DNA and fingerprints are circumstantial evidence.

Fingerprints would depend - fingerprints on the weapon would be direct evidence. Eye witness testimony is also direct.

Got it in one

Yes, I meant direct eyewitness testimony. And as a general rule, almost all cases are built on circumstantial evidence.

You're not going to get fingerprints on a penis, though.

@HungryLittleCrocodile

I think he was stupid to have made young teen boys his friends, and have them stop over, but he was not convicted of any wrongdoing

Stupid is one possibility. But that implies that the only reason he had boys for sleepovers was because of stupidity. Do stupid people generally behave like this with kids? If there was an adult man in your neighbourhood inviting kids for sleepovers, would you tell your kids ‘Oh don’t worry about Barry, he’s just stupid’. You wouldn’t question why Barry wanted the kids to come over?

You seem naïve.

Nope. But the police did find fingerprints of Gavin Arviso and a thumbprint of on MJ’s on Mj’s “Barely Legal Hardcore” porn mag.

His musical legacy will die if enough evidence comes out that he was actually a paedophile. Which I think it probably will in the long run.