at the start of the sexual details .. pre-flagged by the mother retroactively suggesting she had concerns about the sleeping together ... yes really, and she did nothing
Help me settle a Michael Jackson debate with a friend
- Thread starter terley
- Start date
Soldato
Do lie detectors work, like, to a degree of believability beyond reasonable doubt? If so, they should take the tests.
Other than that, I'm quite stunned. They both come across as authentic in the way they spoke of the events that happened.
But I want to know why only now they have opened up about it.
Other than that, I'm quite stunned. They both come across as authentic in the way they spoke of the events that happened.
But I want to know why only now they have opened up about it.
Soldato
Are you a big fan of Michael Jackson?
That's made very clear in part 2.
Innocent until proven guilty is a load of crap because the level of proof you need to prove somebody guilty is beyond a reasonable doubt, that would require DNA/Forensic or video evidence to prove... Even with that type of evidence we have seen celebrities equitted, take OJ simpson, his blood was found at the crime scene and the victim's blood was found in his car and at his home, he had priors for domestic violence and motive.
90% of the rest of your post is Michael fanboyism.
Soldato
Piers grilling Dan Reed.
I think Dan Reed gives a very good account of himself to be honest.
Does it?
Yes
Not guilty is non-synonymous with innocent... It means that not enough evidence had been provided to find you guilty.
There is no legal system to prove innocence in that sense.
For Michael Jackson to be found guilty, the case would have had to show beyond all reasonable doubt that he was guilty, without forensic, DNA or video evidence there is no smoking bullet, therefore the prosecution must rely on the strength of circumstantial evidence along with victim testimony.
Remember that Wade Robson and James Safechucks claims have never been tested in a court of law.
Innocent until proven guilty applies if he's being tired and possibly convicted.
As far as airing an opinion on whether he was a nonce or not it is perfectly reasonable to state that he probably was, given all the evidence. Of course we don't know for sure, he might have just had an unhealthy (seemingly sexual) interest in young boys and simply didn't act on it, it might be the case that the independent allegations from children were all complete set ups etc... and the kids were just in it for the money. It might well be that the kid who apparently gave an accurate description of MJ's penis, including a mark located on it etc.. to the police and which checked out was simply a lucky guess by the kid.
I guess, given that not all the allegations were heard in court and people were paid off etc.. we might never know for sure whether or not a court would have found him guilty or not.
It is still quite reasonable to state, given what we now know, that he's (very likely) a nonce regardless.
Soldato
The documentary is fabricated beyond belief, there is no hard evidence, hasnt Dan Reed also not allowed anyone else to take part in this documentary who may shine a different light on this matter? Also MJ's nephew is making a Counter Documentary apparently.
Soldato
Part 2 is up on youtube.
Apparently it was disproven. MJ talked about the humiliation of having his body examined and he was cleared of any guilt.
Soldato
Soldato
Louis Theroux believes there's no smoke without fire.
"Jimmy Savile was never found guilty of anything in a court of law, but I think it's widely accepted - I certainly accept - that he was a serial predator and a sex offender. I believe that Michael Jackson was a paedophile. He was never found guilty in a court of law, so someone would come back to me and say 'Well he's innocent until proven guilty' - to which I would say 'Well, look, do some research and I think you'll find that the evidence is compelling'. "
Also name-dropping the likes of R. Kelly, Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein, Theroux explained it's perhaps too simplistic to argue that we don't 'know' they've done anything, or to rely too heavily on the 'innocent until proven guilty' that the criminal system favours.
"If you take a criminal stand, until they're in court we may not know, but if you read enough stories - if you go deep enough into the research - I think you can form an educated opinion that they have done something."
"Jimmy Savile was never found guilty of anything in a court of law, but I think it's widely accepted - I certainly accept - that he was a serial predator and a sex offender. I believe that Michael Jackson was a paedophile. He was never found guilty in a court of law, so someone would come back to me and say 'Well he's innocent until proven guilty' - to which I would say 'Well, look, do some research and I think you'll find that the evidence is compelling'. "
Also name-dropping the likes of R. Kelly, Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein, Theroux explained it's perhaps too simplistic to argue that we don't 'know' they've done anything, or to rely too heavily on the 'innocent until proven guilty' that the criminal system favours.
"If you take a criminal stand, until they're in court we may not know, but if you read enough stories - if you go deep enough into the research - I think you can form an educated opinion that they have done something."
Soldato
Nope never was even a fan.
I am not, and never was an MJ fan.
What I see though is a straight run to fascism. Because today was MJ, last week the British girl in Syria, the week before, the support for a new unelected (wasnt even a candidate at last year elections), puppet president in Venezuela, next week someone else.
That is what I point out.
You claim that innocence until proven guilty is bad, however if I pay three women or men, to claim you raped them, then you won't like at all all the slack you will receive. You would be shouting your innocence yet it is again their word against yours. And you will end locked given the current legal system favouring to show high number of rapist convictions.
That is a very dangerous path my friend, supported by totalitarian states like China. And the media are twisting your views to easily swallow the slow grab of your freedoms.
What's next? Pre emptive arrests against discent like is happening in Greece these days, and publicly the Minister said so yesterday? All these are part of the grand plan and you need to wake up now.
Stop the divising rhetoric "if you do not believe this video then you are a blind fan", as is similar to last year "if you do not believe Russia poisoned skirpal you are a rossophile bot".
Thats absolutism my friend leading straight to fascism and nazism. Open history and learn, don't rely on the breadcrumbs taught at school.
Because people who do not know their history repeat the mistakes of others in the past
lol.
I have always liked MJ music and I won't stop listening to it due to what he has or hasn't done.
I watched this well part one and the details they described were disgusting.
James came across more genuine than wade, that being said it was James who defended him court, and if this is true lied on the stand when he would have had the chance to put him in prison which if all this is true is the least thing MJ would have deserved at the time
Now he may of done that due to fear if its all true but in these circumstances where you have people changing there story they must be made to do a lie detector imo.
After all MJ can't defend himself, in reality though we won't ever know the truth.
It was always clear as day MJ was strange and imo did have a child like mentality, that does not excuse any of this if true.
Parents failed here aswell by repeatedly imo by just letting there kids stay constantly
I watched this well part one and the details they described were disgusting.
James came across more genuine than wade, that being said it was James who defended him court, and if this is true lied on the stand when he would have had the chance to put him in prison which if all this is true is the least thing MJ would have deserved at the time
Now he may of done that due to fear if its all true but in these circumstances where you have people changing there story they must be made to do a lie detector imo.
After all MJ can't defend himself, in reality though we won't ever know the truth.
It was always clear as day MJ was strange and imo did have a child like mentality, that does not excuse any of this if true.
Parents failed here aswell by repeatedly imo by just letting there kids stay constantly
That's pretty much the foundation of our justice system.
You'd rather imprison based on accusations?
The documentary was different to how I imagined, was laid out in a sober manner and I was pleased to see other family members corroborating the lead up. OK they could all be in on it but it does make it less likely.
Once the sexual stuff started I just wasn't in the mood to hear it and ended up turning off with about 15 minutes left. Will watch the rest tonight but my initial response is that the sequence of events and "grooming" sounds like a plausible progression and credible. You have to ask if the abuse didn't happen and that everything had been fantastic why would you want to destroy the guys name now? You would have to be a cold blooded family to want to do that.
Once the sexual stuff started I just wasn't in the mood to hear it and ended up turning off with about 15 minutes left. Will watch the rest tonight but my initial response is that the sequence of events and "grooming" sounds like a plausible progression and credible. You have to ask if the abuse didn't happen and that everything had been fantastic why would you want to destroy the guys name now? You would have to be a cold blooded family to want to do that.
Last edited: