Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 210
  1. #61
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RIP Michael Jackson 1958-2009

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me View Post
    Let me ask this... How many of you would settle out of court and pay KK of dollars IF you were innocent? I sure as hell would not pay jack **** if I was innocent of something IF I was being accused of something I did not do...

    And you may say, that MJ did that to stay out of the press... But guess what? That did not work... Press was all over this ****...

    Now why would an innocent man pay for something he did not do? If he did not do it, then why not go to court and let the world see you did not do it?
    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    On January 1, 1994, Jackson settled with the Chandler family and their legal team out of court, in a civil lawsuit for $22 million. After the settlement Jordan Chandler refused to continue with police regarding criminal proceedings.
    Quite simply, by settling out of court, Jackson ensures that there are no criminal charges. Guilty or not, a person charged with a crime stands a risk of being convicted. This would almost definitely end with lengthy jail term. His legal team would have told him that it's his word against Chandler's (as is always the case with these types of allegations) and the jury is entitled to believe Chandler and find the case proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on just his evidence.

    It makes perfect sense to settle out of court in these circumstances.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  2. #62
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    I'm lost
    Posts
    3,026
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RIP Michael Jackson 1958-2009

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Quite simply, by settling out of court, Jackson ensures that there are no criminal charges. Guilty or not, a person charged with a crime stands a risk of being convicted. This would almost definitely end with lengthy jail term. His legal team would have told him that it's his word against Chandler's (as is always the case with these types of allegations) and the jury is entitled to believe Chandler and find the case proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on just his evidence.

    It makes perfect sense to settle out of court in these circumstances.
    But didn't Jamie's post say there was NOT enough evidence against him? And the boy REFUSED to testify?

    Also, you did not answer my question.. Would YOU settle out of court and pay KK of dollars for something you knew for a fact you did not do?
    Show me the government that does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and I will no longer call myself an anarchist.~Jacob Halbrooks
    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.~Benjamin Franklin
    "Go big or Go home"~ LoLo Bean

  3. #63
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RIP Michael Jackson 1958-2009

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me View Post
    But didn't Jamie's post say there was NOT enough evidence against him? And the boy REFUSED to testify?

    Also, you did not answer my question.. Would YOU settle out of court and pay KK of dollars for something you knew for a fact you did not do?
    The boy refused to testified AFTER the settlement.

    And to answer your question: of course I would! Why risk going to trial, losing millions on my defence team (I have no doubt Jacko's lawyers would charge him an absolute mint; possibly more than the 22 mil he settled for) and then possibly going to jail for 20 or 30 years or even more AND then being found liable in civil law and having to fork out even more millions to the complainant AND being formally and legally declared a rock-spider? Insane.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  4. #64
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    I'm lost
    Posts
    3,026
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RIP Michael Jackson 1958-2009

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    The boy refused to testified AFTER the settlement.

    And to answer your question: of course I would! Why risk going to trial, losing millions on my defence team (I have no doubt Jacko's lawyers would charge him an absolute mint; possibly more than the 22 mil he settled for) and then possibly going to jail for 20 or 30 years or even more AND then being found liable in civil law and having to fork out even more millions to the complainant AND being formally and legally declared a rock-spider? Insane.
    I guess that's one of the differences between us.. I am sorry, but I will NOT pay someone for something I did NOT do and knew without a doubt I did NOT do it.. Paying for something you did not do that you were accused of doing just makes you look guilty..

    Let me ask thins, mainly because I am unsure of this part.. Out of the accusations against MJ, were they at the same time? I mean were he to sleep with those boys at the same time? Or was there a time between each case?
    Show me the government that does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and I will no longer call myself an anarchist.~Jacob Halbrooks
    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.~Benjamin Franklin
    "Go big or Go home"~ LoLo Bean

  5. #65
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RIP Michael Jackson 1958-2009

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me View Post
    I guess that's one of the differences between us.. I am sorry, but I will NOT pay someone for something I did NOT do and knew without a doubt I did NOT do it.. Paying for something you did not do that you were accused of doing just makes you look guilty..
    That's hardly a reason not to pay. Consider this:

    1. If he didnt pay and went to trial and got acquitted, billions of people would still think he was guilty (as the second case shows!) and he'd lose huge money anyway (just on running the trial).

    2. What would also happen is he would be sued in civil law. The standard of proof is lower (balance of probabilities) and he'd have a higher risk of losing. This would result in having to pay the boy anyway, irrespective of the fact that he was acquitted of criminal charges. And then even more people would think he's guilty.

    3. If he didn't pay and went to trial and got convicted, even more people would think he was guilty and he'd lose even more money and still have to pay the boy and go to jail for a very long time. His life as he knew it would be over.

    4. In any event, the only reason why people think that paying makes him look guilty is because they haven't done a reasoning similar to mine in points 1-3 above.

    Let me ask thins, mainly because I am unsure of this part.. Out of the accusations against MJ, were they at the same time? I mean were he to sleep with those boys at the same time? Or was there a time between each case?
    Jordan Chandler was friends with M.J. in 1992 and that's when the alleged offences were committed. His dad didn't want him to be friends with M.J. His dad was the first one that he told about the offences. He (Jordan Chandler) was also recorded saying "I can do this and it will make me a load of money and ruin Jackson" or words to that effect. The allegations came forward after the friendship between him and Jacko had broken down. His mother claimed that he's lying and Jacko is innocent.

    Arvizo alleged that he was victimised by M.J. in 2003. Arvizo is the one whose mum was a proven blackmailer. He and his mum reported the incidents to their lawyers first, rather than to go straight to the police.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  6. #66
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    I'm lost
    Posts
    3,026
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RIP Michael Jackson 1958-2009

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    That's hardly a reason not to pay. Consider this:

    1. If he didnt pay and went to trial and got acquitted, billions of people would still think he was guilty (as the second case shows!) and he'd lose huge money anyway (just on running the trial).

    2. What would also happen is he would be sued in civil law. The standard of proof is lower (balance of probabilities) and he'd have a higher risk of losing. This would result in having to pay the boy anyway, irrespective of the fact that he was acquitted of criminal charges. And then even more people would think he's guilty.

    3. If he didn't pay and went to trial and got convicted, even more people would think he was guilty and he'd lose even more money and still have to pay the boy and go to jail for a very long time. His life as he knew it would be over.

    4. In any event, the only reason why people think that paying makes him look guilty is because they haven't done a reasoning similar to mine in points 1-3 above.
    If there was no evidence then there would be nothing for him to worry about, now would it?



    Jordan Chandler was friends with M.J. in 1992 and that's when the alleged offences were committed. His dad didn't want him to be friends with M.J. His dad was the first one that he told about the offences. He (Jordan Chandler) was also recorded saying "I can do this and it will make me a load of money and ruin Jackson" or words to that effect. The allegations came forward after the friendship between him and Jacko had broken down. His mother claimed that he's lying and Jacko is innocent.

    Arvizo alleged that he was victimised by M.J. in 2003. Arvizo is the one whose mum was a proven blackmailer.
    So how years was between the two? Now why would MJ not be wise enough to stay away from those possible situations after the first accusation? He put himself in that position ONCE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!

    IF he is innocent, then he was incredibly STUPID for putting himself in the same position as before...

    But I will say, I would pay x amount of money to PROVE my innocence.. Not just pay someone to keep their mouth shut which is basically what he done to stay out of court. He paid them NOT to sue him...
    Show me the government that does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and I will no longer call myself an anarchist.~Jacob Halbrooks
    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.~Benjamin Franklin
    "Go big or Go home"~ LoLo Bean

  7. #67
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RIP Michael Jackson 1958-2009

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me View Post
    If there was no evidence then there would be nothing for him to worry about, now would it?
    Once someone makes an accusation and it's put on paper and signed, it becomes evidence. It's that easy

    I work in law and I can tell you that there are loads of examples of people (bitter ex's for example) making all sorts of untrue accusations just to get at someone. It's also not unheard of for people to make them for financial gain. It happens. And each time, as soon as a statement is made to the police, there's evidence against the person. It's that simple.

    So the fact is that there was evidence. Of course ther was. And that's why Jacko had a lot to worry about. That doesn't mean the evidence is true; not by any stretch of imagination.



    So how years was between the two? Now why would MJ not be wise enough to stay away from those possible situations after the first accusation? He put himself in that position ONCE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!

    IF he is innocent, then he was incredibly STUPID for putting himself in the same position as before...
    Sure. But stupidity is not a crime (although I think sometimes it should be!)


    But I will say, I would pay x amount of money to PROVE my innocence.. Not just pay someone to keep their mouth shut which is basically what he done to stay out of court. He paid them NOT to sue him...
    You can never prove your innocence. That's not how the criminal justice system works. You are innocent until proven guilty. If you're found not guilty, it doesn't mean you're proven innocent. It just means that the jury wasn't satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty. You're just as innocent as you were before the trial and during the trial. And it still has very little impact on the Court of Public Opinion (which is where we are right now LOL).

    Settling out of court is a standard thing that gets done. There's nothing wrong with it and there's nothing wrong with doing it without admitting any allegations. It gets done all the time.

    In Jacko's case, as I have demonstrated above, it was the only thing to do. No matter how the trial went, his image was toast as it is. The public is unforgiving, whether the claims are true or not. But at least he still had his life and his freedom. Risking 20+ years of your freedom and millions upon millions of dollars isn't a smart thing if you can just make it all go away for a "mere" $22,000,000.

    I fully agree with Jacko's decision to settle and if I were his lawyer I would have advised him to do exactly that.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  8. #68
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RIP Michael Jackson 1958-2009

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    That depends on the circumstances of the case. You can't just blanketly say that none of the claims were true, particularly given that many priests have pleaded guilty to the offences.
    Aren't you making the same blanket declaration about MJ?

    Of course he could. Except we know that he didn't. Chandler, who made a complaint was not said to be a fraud and there was no evidence that him or his relatives had ever extorted anything from anyone. We thus know that MJ didn't have the modus operandi you are suggesting.
    So you're saying Chandler had no financial motive to make false allegations? And this is somehow exculpatory?

    MJ wasn't Chandler's parent and his mother had no motive in protecting Jacko to "preserve a relationship". She wasn't having a relationship with Jacko in the first place.

    Each case has to be judged on its own merits. In Jacko's case we have a mother who's saying "don't listen to my kid, he's lying" and has no motive in protecting Jackson (in fact, if he went down and was sued, she'd stand to profit through her kid!). If your own mother doesn't believe you, it does affect your credibility. Few people know their kids as well as their mothers do.
    Now who's making blanket assumptions?

    What was Chandler's relationship with his mother? How would she be able to know if he was lying?

    People who are known liars and extortionists have real credibility problems. I can't see why you find this so surprising. It's so bloody obvious it shouldn't have to be even said.
    Did I say I found it surprising, asshat?

    Yeah, sure Jackson could have exploited that. But it's the prosecution that has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecution witnesses who are known liars and extortionists don't really assist in this task. If there was evidence, for example, that Jackson had done searches of criminal cases to identify known extortionists and that this is how he tracked Arvizo then obviously the situation would be different and your theory would have some legs. As it stands, you're working in reverse. You assume the man is guilty and then you try to explain away inconsistencies in the prosecution case.

    The man was found not guilty by a jury of 12. The jury selection process in the USA is more detailed than proably anywhere else*. I hazard a guess that the jury selection process in People v Jackson took a considerable amount of time in order to select as fair and impartial jury as possible. What's more, it takes a unanymous verdict to convict OR to acquit someone. Jackson's jury wasn't a hung jury. It was an acquittal. This means that all 12 jurors must have agreed that the case wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    So what do we have?

    On one hand we have TWELVE MINDS (never understimate this phrase!) who sat in court and HEARD THE EVIDENCE and decided that the prosecution failed in its proof.

    On the other hand we have....you.
    Yes, because God knows a jury can never reach a wrong conclusion. Just ask OJ!

    Me having a reasonable approach to assessing evidence isn't necessarily related to me being an atheist. Or is it?

    The question is not which explanation is simpler. The question is which explanation is more probable given all the facts.

    What's more likely then? That a known blackmailer has done it again or that the man really abused her kid? The answer is we don't know. She's a liar. You never give a liar the benefit of the doubt. You need corroborating evidence.

    I'd love to see you argue about the merits (if any) of Occam's Razor by the way!
    Occam's razor was developed by a Christian, by the way. But remember, you atheists are all way smarter than us!

    Occam's Razor states that the simplest explanation is most often the best.

    We aren't talking about whether MJ would be found guilty in a court of law; we're asking which explanation is the simplest.

    Which is more likely, then: A single pattern of behavior (false allegations of sexual abuse) exhibited by multiple individuals , or a single pattern of behavior from one individual?

    And even if the person is a blackmailer, that doesn't mean he isn't blackmailing a pedophile.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  9. #69
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RIP Michael Jackson 1958-2009

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    Yes, and only one of them said that Jackson acted inappropriately.



    Yes, and they specifically said Jackson didn't act inappropriately.
    Eh, I really shouldn't have asked, since I don't really trust you to accurately present the case against Jackson.

    Numerous studies have shown that memory can be extremely inaccurate, especially over long periods of time:

    "The Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget reported a striking case from his own past. He had a firm memory from early childhood of his nurse fending off an attempted kidnapping, with himself as the potential victim. He remembered his nanny pushing him in his carriage when a man came up and tried to kidnap him. He had a detailed memory of the man, of the location of the event, of scratches that his nanny received when she fended off the villain, and finally, of a police officer coming to the rescue. However, when Piaget was 15 years old, his nanny decided to confess her past sins. One of these was that she had made up the entire kidnapping story to attract sympathy and scratched herself to make it seem real. The events Piaget so vividly remembered from his childhood had never actually occurred! Piaget concluded that the false memory was probably implanted by the nannyís frequent retelling of the original story over the years. Eventually, the scene became rooted in Piagetís memory as an actual event."

    http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...ychology).html
    So if you were sexually abused 15 years ago, I guess we shouldn't believe you either!

    How does that work? One week after the crime, we should believe you. But if you wait a sufficiently long time before deciding to make public accusations against a beloved pop icon, then you're just making it up. Is that about right?

    That kind of comes off as negative evidence. It would seem to me (and I'm not a lawyer), that in virtually any case, the burden of proof would be on the defence to prove that something was accidental, and not the prosecution to prove that it wasn't.
    The defense can make what is called an affirmative defense, where they do not dispute that a particular act occurred, but argue that it does not fit the statutory requirement for a criminal act.

    Say you're accused of manslaughter. If you just plead not guilty, you're basically saying that you didn't actually kill anyone. If you say "Yeah, I killed him, but there were justifications (or mitigating factors) x, y, and z, then you're making an affirmative defense.

    The burden of proof lies on the defense if it makes an affirmative argument.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  10. #70
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    I'm lost
    Posts
    3,026
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RIP Michael Jackson 1958-2009

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Once someone makes an accusation and it's put on paper and signed, it becomes evidence. It's that easy

    I work in law and I can tell you that there are loads of examples of people (bitter ex's for example) making all sorts of untrue accusations just to get at someone. It's also not unheard of for people to make them for financial gain. It happens. And each time, as soon as a statement is made to the police, there's evidence against the person. It's that simple.

    So the fact is that there was evidence. Of course ther was. And that's why Jacko had a lot to worry about. That doesn't mean the evidence is true; not by any stretch of imagination.
    So was Jaimie wrong in her post where she stated there was NO evidence?




    Sure. But stupidity is not a crime (although I think sometimes it should be!)
    And I never once claimed that stupidity was a crime..



    I fully agree with Jacko's decision to settle and if I were his lawyer I would have advised him to do exactly that.
    This is a yes or no question. Nothing further needs to be added, just a simple YES or NO!
    Was MJ innocent?

    Now to add to that, if you answer is yes, then please explain how he is innocent without a doubt...
    Show me the government that does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and I will no longer call myself an anarchist.~Jacob Halbrooks
    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.~Benjamin Franklin
    "Go big or Go home"~ LoLo Bean

  11. #71
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    1,961
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RIP Michael Jackson 1958-2009

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    So if you were sexually abused 15 years ago, I guess we shouldn't believe you either!
    This line smacks a bit of circular reasoning. Isn't the assumption that these kids were, in fact, sexually molested the very thing you're trying prove?

    How does that work? One week after the crime, we should believe you. But if you wait a sufficiently long time before deciding to make public accusations against a beloved pop icon, then you're just making it up. Is that about right?
    I never, nor did anyone else, ever accuse anyone of consciously making anything up, if that's what you're trying to imply. And yes. Time does distort memories. If you're going to assume that memory is one hundred percent reliable even over the course of a decade then I think the burden of proof is on you to supply such evidence. I cited a source for my evidence. Now it's your turn.

    The defense can make what is called an affirmative defense, where they do not dispute that a particular act occurred, but argue that it does not fit the statutory requirement for a criminal act.

    Say you're accused of manslaughter. If you just plead not guilty, you're basically saying that you didn't actually kill anyone. If you say "Yeah, I killed him, but there were justifications (or mitigating factors) x, y, and z, then you're making an affirmative defense.

    The burden of proof lies on the defense if it makes an affirmative argument.
    As Allo specifically stated in his post, there were good reasons for MJ's legal strategy of trying to settle out of court:

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Quite simply, by settling out of court, Jackson ensures that there are no criminal charges. Guilty or not, a person charged with a crime stands a risk of being convicted. This would almost definitely end with lengthy jail term. His legal team would have told him that it's his word against Chandler's (as is always the case with these types of allegations) and the jury is entitled to believe Chandler and find the case proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on just his evidence.

  12. #72
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RIP Michael Jackson 1958-2009

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    This line smacks a bit of circular reasoning. Isn't the assumption that these kids were, in fact, sexually molested the very thing you're trying prove?
    Right, and I'm saying that the fact that the alleged crime took place 15 years ago doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the recollection of the alleged victim, since it's the sort of thing you'd tend to remember.

    I never, nor did anyone else, ever accuse anyone of consciously making anything up, if that's what you're trying to imply. And yes. Time does distort memories. If you're going to assume that memory is one hundred percent reliable even over the course of a decade then I think the burden of proof is on you to supply such evidence. I cited a source for my evidence. Now it's your turn.
    I never made such an assumption. My argument was that we shouldn't assume the converse.

    As Allo specifically stated in his post, there were good reasons for MJ's legal strategy of trying to settle out of court:
    I don't think his strategy of "paying out" to the alleged victims is inculpatory or exculpatory; I think it's a fact of life for rich defendants.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  13. #73
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RIP Michael Jackson 1958-2009

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Aren't you making the same blanket declaration about MJ?
    No. I'm not assuming that he wasn't guilty. I'm simply saying that I can't say that he was. You made the claim that he was in it's upon you to prove that claim.

    Furthemore, Jacko didn't plead guilty to anything whereas many catholic priests did.

    So you're saying Chandler had no financial motive to make false allegations? And this is somehow exculpatory?
    I never said that Chanlder had no financial motive to make false allegations.


    Now who's making blanket assumptions?
    I'm not making any assumptions. Chandler's mother said that her kid is lying and Jacko is innocent. It's not an assumption. It's a fact.


    What was Chandler's relationship with his mother? How would she be able to know if he was lying?
    I've already answered this. Mothers generally tend to know their kids very very well. Of course the mother's opinion PER SE is not admissible evidence in court. But it's very much admissible in the Court of Public Opinion.

    Of course there's always the possibility that the mother had the following thought process:

    "My child says he was sexually abused by Jacko. Therefore he probably was. But hey, my relationship with my son isn't that great so I'm going to lie to the public and say that he's lying".

    The above thought process, while not impossible, would be evidence of a very very dysfunctional mother.

    Here's the process of this debate:

    1. You said Jacko is guilty and the burden is on you.
    2. I pointed out to credibility problems.
    3. You now question, without any evidence, whether those credibility problems are valid.

    It's not my job to do your research. If you want to raise some unusual and dysfunctional relationship between Chandler and his mum then it's upon you to do so.



    Did I say I found it surprising, asshat?
    Did I say you SAID you found it surprising?


    Yes, because God knows a jury can never reach a wrong conclusion. Just ask OJ!
    Juries can reach wrong decisions. And I'm not going to ask OJ.

    The point is that the jury had access to all the evidence in the case, including the witness's behaviour in court, his tone of voice, his reaction to questioning. Based on all this, it found that it had a reasonable doubt about Jacko's guilt.

    You, on the other hand, claim that he was guilty simply because somebody has made an accusation against him. If you believe that the mere fact that a claim is made is evidence of the truth of that claim then you must be advocating a reversal of the burden of proof: guilty until proven innocent. And of course this reversal wouldn't only apply to court cases. It would equally apply to debate and to science and to everyday life.


    Occam's razor was developed by a Christian, by the way. But remember, you atheists are all way smarter than us!

    Occam's Razor states that the simplest explanation is most often the best.
    I know what Occam's Razor states. I asked you to support its validity. Re-stating its meaning is not support of its validity.

    It's also neither here or there whether the Razor was developed by a Christian or an atheist.

    We aren't talking about whether MJ would be found guilty in a court of law; we're asking which explanation is the simplest.
    Only if we magically accept that Occam's Razor is valid. And even then, if you think that the simplest answer is always that anyone making an accusation is telling the truth then we have some issues here.

    What's more, I find it disturbing that you are now attempting to rely on Occam's Razor. Let's consider two of the propositions in this debate:

    1. My proposition: Since the mother is a proven extortionist, we must consider that she may have just done it again.

    2. Your proposition: Jacko could be actively seeking out people who are proven extortionists so that he can track their children down and select them for abuse so that his risks of being found guilty are minimised.

    Which one of the above is more simple? That a known liar is lying? Or that a man is lurking around looking for liars to victimise so that his story would be believed in the end?


    Which is more likely, then: A single pattern of behavior (false allegations of sexual abuse) exhibited by multiple individuals , or a single pattern of behavior from one individual?
    If the second complainant had no knowledge of the first complaint and the $22,000,000 payout that it resulted in then you could try to run some argument of "similar fact evidence". However, the fact that the second complainant most likely did know about the first allegations (it was all over the news and surely his mum would be aware of just who the man is that her son is befriending!) and his mother was a proven extortionist and went to a lawyer before going to the police, makes it by far more likely that the second complainant concocted the story in order to make a similar payout to the one that Chandler did.


    And even if the person is a blackmailer, that doesn't mean he isn't blackmailing a pedophile.
    Of course it doesn't. But the burden is on you.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  14. #74
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RIP Michael Jackson 1958-2009

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me View Post
    So was Jaimie wrong in her post where she stated there was NO evidence?
    As soon as the settlement was reached, Chandler refused to cooperate with the authorities. That means he won't give evidence in court. No evidence from the victim in court (in this type of case) = NO EVIDENCE. This is why the matter never went further.


    And I never once claimed that stupidity was a crime..
    Sure. And I never said you did claim it. I simply said that you're right that he may have been really really stupid but that doesn't make him guilty of anything.


    This is a yes or no question. Nothing further needs to be added, just a simple YES or NO!
    Was MJ innocent?
    Of course. We all are. Until we're proven guilty.

    Now to add to that, if you answer is yes, then please explain how he is innocent without a doubt...
    There's no such thing as "innocent without a doubt". If you're suggesting that once an accusation is made against a person, the person must prove their innocence ("without a doubt" at that) then you are incorrect. And this doesn't only apply to criminal proceedings. Any claim against someone's character carries with it a burden of proof. There are even laws against attacking someone's character. If you ever make a claim that someone is guilty of something, the burden is on YOU to provide evidence of that claim. No one ever has to prove their innocence. In any context.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  15. #75
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RIP Michael Jackson 1958-2009

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    No. I'm not assuming that he wasn't guilty. I'm simply saying that I can't say that he was. You made the claim that he was in it's upon you to prove that claim.
    I made the claim that he was? Really?

    Furthemore, Jacko didn't plead guilty to anything whereas many catholic priests did.
    Right, but we're talking about the presumption against other Catholic priests.

    I never said that Chanlder had no financial motive to make false allegations.
    Okay.

    I'm not making any assumptions. Chandler's mother said that her kid is lying and Jacko is innocent. It's not an assumption. It's a fact.
    That she said it is a fact. But why should we believe her testimony about what happened? Was she there?

    I've already answered this. Mothers generally tend to know their kids very very well. Of course the mother's opinion PER SE is not admissible evidence in court. But it's very much admissible in the Court of Public Opinion.

    Of course there's always the possibility that the mother had the following thought process:

    "My child says he was sexually abused by Jacko. Therefore he probably was. But hey, my relationship with my son isn't that great so I'm going to lie to the public and say that he's lying".

    The above thought process, while not impossible, would be evidence of a very very dysfunctional mother.
    Right, but even presuming that she knows her son, why should we believe that he's lying? Does he tend to lie about having been sexually abused? Does he tend to lie in general? What does he tend to lie about, if he does tend to lie?

    Here's the process of this debate:

    1. You said Jacko is guilty and the burden is on you.
    2. I pointed out to credibility problems.
    3. You now question, without any evidence, whether those credibility problems are valid.

    It's not my job to do your research. If you want to raise some unusual and dysfunctional relationship between Chandler and his mum then it's upon you to do so.
    I said Jacko is guilty?

    Did I say you SAID you found it surprising?
    No, you said that I did find it surprising. Apparently, you're better acquainted with my state of mind, since I wasn't aware that I found it surprising.

    Juries can reach wrong decisions. And I'm not going to ask OJ.

    The point is that the jury had access to all the evidence in the case, including the witness's behaviour in court, his tone of voice, his reaction to questioning. Based on all this, it found that it had a reasonable doubt about Jacko's guilt.

    You, on the other hand, claim that he was guilty simply because somebody has made an accusation against him. If you believe that the mere fact that a claim is made is evidence of the truth of that claim then you must be advocating a reversal of the burden of proof: guilty until proven innocent. And of course this reversal wouldn't only apply to court cases. It would equally apply to debate and to science and to everyday life.
    I don't claim that he was guilty. I question the assumption of his innocence.

    I know what Occam's Razor states. I asked you to support its validity. Re-stating its meaning is not support of its validity.
    What do you mean by "support its validity"? You want me to show that the simplest explanation is most often true?

    It's also neither here or there whether the Razor was developed by a Christian or an atheist.
    Hence, "by the way". Look up 'aside'.

    Only if we magically accept that Occam's Razor is valid.
    Are you rejecting the validity of Occam's Razor? Just for future reference.

    And even then, if you think that the simplest answer is always that anyone making an accusation is telling the truth then we have some issues here.
    That's not what I said, was it, Allocutus?

    I said that the conjunction of many people lying is more complex than a single line of conduct by one individual.

    And I never said that this actually means that it's more likely that MJ did it; I was merely noting the sudden rejection of Occam's Razor by some members.

    What's more, I find it disturbing that you are now attempting to rely on Occam's Razor. Let's consider two of the propositions in this debate:

    1. My proposition: Since the mother is a proven extortionist, we must consider that she may have just done it again.

    2. Your proposition: Jacko could be actively seeking out people who are proven extortionists so that he can track their children down and select them for abuse so that his risks of being found guilty are minimised.

    Which one of the above is more simple? That a known liar is lying? Or that a man is lurking around looking for liars to victimise so that his story would be believed in the end?
    I don't reject (1). My statement is not confined to the particular case of this particular allegation, but to the aggregate cases brought against MJ. I'm not saying he abused every kid; I'm just questioning the logic of assuming that he didn't abuse any kid.

    If the second complainant had no knowledge of the first complaint and the $22,000,000 payout that it resulted in then you could try to run some argument of "similar fact evidence". However, the fact that the second complainant most likely did know about the first allegations (it was all over the news and surely his mum would be aware of just who the man is that her son is befriending!) and his mother was a proven extortionist and went to a lawyer before going to the police, makes it by far more likely that the second complainant concocted the story in order to make a similar payout to the one that Chandler did.
    This is true.

    Of course it doesn't. But the burden is on you.
    Anyone advancing a claim has a burden of proof for that claim. If you're claiming he's innocent, the burden lies on you to prove it. If I'm claiming he's guilty, the burden lies on me to prove it.

    But I'm not claiming that he is guilty. I'm claiming that there's a possibility he is.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  16. #76
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RIP Michael Jackson 1958-2009

    Quote Originally Posted by Clive
    But I'm not claiming that he is guilty. I'm claiming that there's a possibility he is
    Then we're in furious agreement.

    There's also a possibility that my grandmother is guilty of murder. We never know LOL. Yes yes, it's more likely that MJ is guilty. Again, no dispute.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  17. #77
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    1,961
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RIP Michael Jackson 1958-2009

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Right, and I'm saying that the fact that the alleged crime took place 15 years ago doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the recollection of the alleged victim, since it's the sort of thing you'd tend to remember.
    And I showed you that it does.

    I never made such an assumption. My argument was that we shouldn't assume the converse.
    So what exactly are you assuming? That memory is sometimes correct? That memory can be right about somethings?

  18. #78
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RIP Michael Jackson 1958-2009

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Really people??? The news coverage is sickening me. The guy is a child molester. I don't care if he got convicted or not. Everyone is saying how sad they were. Just a year ago, people were glad he left the country. Thanks to a star struck jury (how surprising in Los Angeles) the dude walked free. He's dead. Not a day too soon. Everyone is rushing to say something nice about this guy. He made music. He didn't cure cancer. He was great dancer, songwriter, musician, and entertainer. That excuses his behavior, how? WTF???? Get a grip people. Here is what I am thinking. There are a group of teens and young adults sitting in front of their televisions right now watching the man who raped them risen to near saint-hood. Round of applause people. I am imagining the looks of terror on these young people as they surf channel to channel to see the same face over and over again. Haunting them. Laughing at them from the grave as luminaries and news anchors sing his praises. He will rest in peace tonight, no doubt. These young people will assuredly have nightmares. But to hell with them, right? They probably just made it all up. We can't blame him, right. He was a lost soul who had missed out on his own childhood, right. Well, **** him and **** you all too. That's my opinion. And if you disagree with me, then you sirs and ma'ams are worse than Hitler.
    While I agree that the news coverage over his death is ridiculous, I do also believe that your entire post is insensitive, rude, and downright cruel. You should be ashamed of yourself, Ibel.

    I was never a fan of Jackson, but I am saddened that he has died, given that he was an inspiration to millions.

    He was NOT a child molester, there is a little thing called 'innocent until proven guilty'. Its called the law, so get used to it.
    I admit that I used to think Jackson was guilty of all he was charged of, but I have since changed my mind. I do not believe he intentionally harmed any children. Sure, his statement about sharing a bed with children was a little off putting, and maybe even wrong, but it proves nothing.

    You need to check your facts. Did you know that when Jordy Chandler accused Jackson of molesting him, Jackson had to be stripped searched because the boy gave a description of his genitals, and police wanted to be sure they had their man?
    Guess what? There was never a trial. Have you figured why? The description the boy gave was false. His parents sued and Jackson paid them $22 million. I guess this made everyone wonder if he was indeed innocent at all, considering that he paid out such a large sum of money.

    It wouldn't take a genius for Gavin Arvizo's mother to smell the cash and have her boy accuse Jackson of the same thing, now, would it? After all, one bad rap tends to stick, and people are going to chase the money. Jackson was an easy target. I am sure you can agree with that.

    IMO, those kids may well have either made up what happened, or were coached by their greedy parents. If Jackson were indeed guilty, he would have been found guilty, especially as his 2005 trial was the second time he had been accused.
    Yes, the jury were star struck, and I was not happy with the jury selection at all. I had big problems with that jury, but I trust that they made the right decision.

    I wonder if there is someone out there whom you are a huge fan of, Ibel? What if they were accused of child molestation? My guess is you'd be leaping to their defence, but with Jackson you write so insensitively. The man is dead, and even in death he is being labeled a predator, despite the fact there was NO evidence to support that.
    So live with it.

    My thoughts, naturally, go out to Michael's family, especially his children, who have lost their father.
    Michael will continue to inspire millions of people after his death, just as he did in life. He will be sorely missed.
    Frozen In Time Yearning Forbidden Wishes Damned And Divine
    Scars Of My Broken Kisses What Will Follow If Tomorrow's Blind? My Eternal Night.

  19. #79
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RIP Michael Jackson 1958-2009

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    My feelings exactly. I simply cannot find it in me to feel sorry or saddened by the passing of a man who abused and molested children.
    Now prove that he did indeed molest children. I'll gladly wait until the day I die for you to drag up some 'evidence'. There isn't any, because he was INNOCENT. But since you claim he is guilty, I demand proof. Get to work.

    I also find this entire thread disgusting. The thread title is 'RIP Michael Jackson 1958-2009' NOT 'Was Michael Jackson A Child Molester'.

    This is meant to be a thread to honour the guy, not vilify him. You should all be ashamed of yourselves, you (most of you) claim he is guilty yet ignore the fact that he was never found guilty of any crime whatsoever. You ignore your own legal system when it suits you, then hold it up in support when you agree with it.

    Bloody sick, if you ask me.
    Frozen In Time Yearning Forbidden Wishes Damned And Divine
    Scars Of My Broken Kisses What Will Follow If Tomorrow's Blind? My Eternal Night.

  20. #80
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RIP Michael Jackson 1958-2009

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    And I showed you that it does.
    No, you showed that it can. With a different set of circumstances and a different alleged crime.

    So what exactly are you assuming? That memory is sometimes correct? That memory can be right about somethings?
    That people tend to remember whether they were sexually molested 15 years ago.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

 

 
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Michael Jackson goes to the Middle East
    By Montalban in forum Current Events
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: February 14th, 2007, 11:17 AM
  2. Black Jackson. The Man. The Myth. The Demigod Popstar.
    By Mr. Hyde in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 6th, 2006, 03:22 PM
  3. Michael Jackson found Not Guilty
    By Fyshhed in forum Current Events
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: April 16th, 2006, 08:21 AM
  4. Michael Jackson
    By Eva in forum Current Events
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: February 1st, 2005, 11:25 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •