Michael Jackson

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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."

[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...

[Kalli]

I have to disagree with you on that one.
There was not a single shred of evidence

Hang on a sec....

So if there's no evidence of guilt in Lizzie Borden's case, she's obviously innocent.

BUT, if there's no evidence of guilt in MJ's case, he's obviously guilty?

Please explain this inconsistency.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Right, so if this was an abortion thread, and you believed passionately in abortion for everyone, you wouldn't allow anyone to post that it was wrong, cuz that's proving a negative? I'm confused.

I'm not really interested in proving either way; the guy's dead now, so I'm sick and tired of hearing the constant stories. Just that you can't say "I believe he's innocent, so all you others can stfu" cuz that is not presenting your side, that's just basically faith. Like saying "I believe in god, therefore there is one, so you atheists can stfu". Prove your side; if you're so sure you're right, then what have you got to lose?

[BroomJockey]

Right, so if this was an abortion thread, and you believed passionately in abortion for everyone, you wouldn't allow anyone to post that it was wrong, cuz that's proving a negative? I'm confused.

Er, no. I'm quite sure you don't understand the concept of proving a negative. Prove that a person is incapable of jumping to the moon.

Prove that God doesn't exist.

Prove that a person cannot survive a 10,000 ft free fall.

You cannot do those, because while it might be true in one individual case, you cannot prove that it's always true. A person with mechanical assistance could very well jump to the moon in the future. God might exist, but cloak his existence from the human mind. People HAVE survived falls from that height.

Your example is fallacious because the positions aren't that something cannot happen or doesn't exist. One side says "abortion is an acceptable procedure. The reasons are *insert reasons for believing so." The other side says "abortion is unacceptable because of *insert reasons for believing so."

No one actually says "abortion does not, and cannot exist," which is what the negative would be. It would only take one person with video evidence of an abortion to show their position incorrect.

Thus, you're asking me to prove that someone did *not* do something. How can I do that? Provide video evidence of all the times where MJ didn't molest a boy? The burden of proof rests on those asserting something did happen, France's legal system not-withstanding, since in that case, they're making an assertion, then you disprove it, and is thus a different systematic approach, which still starts with the assertion of something happening.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I'm just saying that in a debate topic, merely saying "No he's innocent" doesn't really give anyone anything to debate with. You could, for example, give out examples of good character, or of personal experiences; I know people have met Michael Jackson. Sort of like a character reference; in court you would not get away with just saying, "I know he's innocent of this crime cuz I say so".

No need to drop the dummy over this; I just like to read good arguments in a debate, as in both sides; rather than just a "I said so, so stfu" which is what Kelli is saying, pretty much. Not trying to be rude, just saying.

[BroomJockey]

No need to drop the dummy over this; I just like to read good arguments in a debate, as in both sides; rather than just a "I said so, so stfu" which is what Kelli is saying,

Not how I read it at all. Instead, I read it as other people saying "MJ's a child abusing bastard because I say so." Kalli then asked for something to back that up. No one has actually bothered to do so. THEN the comment of "if you can't back it up, stfu" came along. While not the most diplomatic of debating techniques, I feel it still goes to the heart of "If you can't defend your position, why do you have it?" I defend my position by saying that if there is no evidence that it happened, then it probably didn't, and saying that people, by-and-large read the worst in to actions that are likely innocent, and MJ, as a child-performer, didn't have a proper childhood, thus likely more easily identified with children than adults to the point of taking on childish mannerisms as demonstrated by his naming of his estate "Neverland" and his massive video game collection, then doing anything untoward is unlikely. My position is alterable by the simple production either of a confession or incriminating transcript, a medical report detailing signs of abuse, or other such similar materials. Since none of that has been provided, and a court of law found insufficient evidence to substantiate a claim, then my position is so-far well defended.

On a separate note... "drop the dummy?" I've never heard that before. What's it mean?

[Lace Neil Singer]

Sowwy; that's slang round where I am for getting all het up, usually over an innocent or innocuous question. ^^;; Like yelling at a child asking why you're wearing that hat. XD

I don't see that Flynn has been on since he was asked to defend his position so he hasn't really had that chance to. However, I tend to stay out of this kind of thing, especially when the person in question is the only person who knows what happened and if there are fans involved, it tends to end up as a free fight. O.o I've seen way too many internet flame wars in the Kiss fandom to want to get involved elsewhere.

In any case, I should have clarified; as in, I mean for both sides to present an argument, rather than just saying "He's guilty, everyone knows it" and "No he's not, stfu".

I defend my position by saying that if there is no evidence that it happened, then it probably didn't, and saying that people, by-and-large read the worst in to actions that are likely innocent, and MJ, as a child-performer, didn't have a proper childhood, thus likely more easily identified with children than adults to the point of taking on childish mannerisms as demonstrated by his naming of his estate "Neverland" and his massive video game collection, then doing anything untoward is unlikely. My position is alterable by the simple production either of a confession or incriminating transcript, a medical report detailing signs of abuse, or other such similar materials.

That is what I meant when I refered to defending your position, thank you.