Michael Jackson's child molestation charges

Post Reply New Topic

Was he innocent or guilty?

Just to clarify: I am talking about ALL of his charges, both 1993 and 2003. So even if he is innocent on everything in 2003 but is guilty on something in 1993, your answer should be "innocent on some of them and guilty on others".

I am confused -

how is this a means of getting at the truth?

To quote Dr. McCoy He's dead, Jim!

What difference does it make?

ruveyn

Also, what does this has to do with religion, philosophy or politics?...

Michael Jackson is a religion.

Paedophlia is politics.

Posts in PPR - you gotta be philosophical.

Guilty or not, Michael Jackson is DEAD. There's no use in trying him again on a public website.

this.

Dead subject == dead topic

The reason I brought it up is that, in some other post, TheygoMew said that the Michael Jackson's fate is parallel to the one of people with Asperger. And that, basically, in both cases, the NT-ran society accuses an outcast in question of something they didn't do in order to keep them an outcast.

Now, I never heard of Michael Jackson until today (I neither heard of him as a rock star, nor as a pedophile), so I don't have my own opinion. My natural bias, as an aspie, would be to agree with TheygoMew. But then when I read some of the articles about him I saw that it seems evident that he is guilty. But then again, if he was, then probably TheygoMew wouldn't have used him as an example (after all, an example is typically something "we all agree on" which seems to suggest that she expects the vast majority of people to agree that he is innocent). So again this boils down to the fact that I literally never heard of him until today. So I guess I want to see what you guys think regarding his case.

Anyway, the link in question is http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf169664-0-90.html and the quote in question (with Mikael Jackson part in bold) is

Are there not enough controversial people that are still alive without having to beat up on someone who can no longer speak for him/herself?

Michael Jackson is dead. None of his alleged victims seem to be coming forward with valid evidence, so why bother beating him up for it? Here's why...

First, he's dead, and can no longer defend himself. This makes him an easy target for those self-righteous bullies that couldn't confront themselves in a mirror without backing down.

Second, as long as people can point at the allegedly sordid lifestyle of another person, they draw attention away from their own pitiable lifestyles.

Third, on-line anonymity prevents any retribution. So what if a person gets banned from one website? As long as the mods don't go to the person's house to confiscate the person's laptop, a bully can slam anyone that he or she wants with impunity.

I liked MJ's music. I don't know if I'd have liked him as a person. In the end, he was just one more middle-aged man trying to stop the pain long enough to get a good night's sleep - and I can identify with that.

Was he guilty? Probably, but he was never convicted of anything, and now that he's dead, I think the rush to prove his guilt has been forgotten.
Let him rest in peace.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Have you ever heard of a phrase related to the term "dead horse" ?

How am I supposed to know if he is innocent or not? Do I have cameras pointing at his place so I can make sure to see whatever happened?

He was found innocent. I have no reason to believe he molested any children.

No, he was found Not Guilty - meaning that the prosecution's case was not convincing enough for the jury.

"Innocent" means that the accused didn't do it; it is not an option given to juries.

I know you're from India, but it still amazing to me that youve never heard of the seventies child star, and member of the Jackson Five, who would later grow into even bigger stardom as an adult singer/dancer in the Eighties, nineties and 2000's.

Its like you're a martian asking earthlings thier opinon about the sky being blue and plants being green- MJ has been so big for so long.

TheyGoMew is the first and only voice I have heard to make him into a martyr for odd people.Though I did sense that he idenified with fringe people, and they often identified with him.

Some Black Americans ( including atleast one I worked with) felt Micheal Jackson was being unfairly picked on because he was Black.
Then other Americans compained about the near opposite issue: that becaue he was rich and famous he could buy justice (like OJ- If you know anything about that trial) and could beat any rap. And still others sensed that he was being blackmailed, and that his alledged victims were ripping him off.

Though rich vs poor, and black vs white, has come up, never have I run across normal vs strange as an issue.

No American disputes that Micheal Jackson was a strange individual, but the post you mention by TheyGoMew is the first time Ive heard the authorities accused of targeting him because he was an oddball for the sake of oppressing oddballs.

Im an agnostic about whethre or not he was guilty.
Its very possible that he was just innocently wierd and like to have slumber parties with children. That just it. He was so odd that both guilt and innocense are believable from outward appearances.

I think he was strange in specific ways that looked suspicious and he set himself up to be a target of the authorities (and maybe of blackmailers).

But I dont see any evidence that he was targeted just because he was eccentric. Thats absurd.

Actually I am not from India. I am only in India for work (I had 2 year postdoc appointment there and now I have one more year visiting position). Otherwise, my background is a combination of Russia and USA (I was born in Russia and I lived there first 14 years of my life, and then moved to USA at 14 because my mom found a job there). So I know this makes it even more surprising that I don't know Michael Jackson.



I was always assuming that it is part of Asperger that I never heard of things like that. Do you think my assumption is right? After all you also have Asperger but you are surprised I didn't hear of it. Do you think my Asperger is a lot more severe than yours or do you think it is unrelated to Asperger?



When I read the malestation case it sounds this way, though. When I was reading this link (http://www.statementanalysis.com/jackson/) they were pointing out how he kept saying he would never HURT a child but at the same time was avoiding saying anything about MOLESTING a child. This means that perhaps, due to his Asperger, he is unaware that "molesting" children would "hurt" them. Perhaps he is an aspie and, as a result, lacks theory of mind. This lack of theory of mind makes him assume that whatever "feels good" for him would also "feel good" for the child and, therefore, won't "hurt" him. This is also evident from the fact that he openly invited the parents to come over to the place where child molestation took place. If he was aware that what he did was wrong he would try to hide it. But due to his Asperger he was completely oblivious about it.

Now, what I just said is different from what TheyGoMew have said since she said he never molested children and it was all made up, while I am saying "yes he molested them but he was ignorant about ill effects of child molestation". But still, I agree with her in many ways. After all, if you ask why society looks down on an aspie, part of the answer is that socially inappropriate things an aspie does hurt other people but the aspie is unaware of why they hurt them so he keeps doing it. For example, in my case, when I ask the same question 5 times in a row, people get really angry. But I just don't get why is it wrong to ask same thing 5 times in a row? So I keep asking, and keep making people angry. In the same way, Michael Jackson simply doesn't understand why is it wrong to molest children, so he keeps doing it.