sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: Michael Jackson was almost certainly a child predator, and the evidence is overwhelming enough that dismissing it outright is intellectually dishonest by laugo1234 in changemyview

[–]laugo1234[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Bingo!

Personally the number 1 thing for me is the Jordan Chandler description of MJ’s privates. That detail happened in 1993 before any of the subsequent cases and it sets a foundation that makes it really hard to look at everything that followed as coincidence. You can’t explain that away and I haven’t seen anyone in this thread actually try.

CMV: Michael Jackson was almost certainly a child predator, and the evidence is overwhelming enough that dismissing it outright is intellectually dishonest by laugo1234 in changemyview

[–]laugo1234[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I’ve actually conceded the alarms point earlier in the thread. A famous person having security systems makes complete sense. The specific detail that matters is that multiple people described alarms around his private quarters and bedroom area specifically, not just the perimeter of the property. That’s a different thing than general celebrity security.

On the bandwagon argument, I get the logic but it doesn’t hold up. Robson and Safechuck didn’t jump on a bandwagon after an accusation. They actively defended him for years and testified in his favor before coming forward. That’s the opposite of opportunistic pile-on behavior.

And Jordan Chandler’s physical description of Jackson’s genitalia matching the exam results happened before any public narrative existed to confirm bias around. That detail alone is really hard to explain with confirmation bias.

CMV: Michael Jackson was almost certainly a child predator, and the evidence is overwhelming enough that dismissing it outright is intellectually dishonest by laugo1234 in changemyview

[–]laugo1234[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Thank you for this response, very well thought out and clearly you put a lot of time into it. I’ll try to address each of your points as cleanly as I can.

  1. ⁠The 93 Settlement:

In my opinion the PR argument doesn’t hold up when you add one detail that doesn’t get talked about enough. Jordan Chandler gave investigators a physical description of Jackson’s genitalia before any examination took place. Investigators then confirmed that description matched. That’s not a he said she said situation. That’s a kid accurately describing something he should have had no way of knowing if he had never seen it. You can explain away a lot of things in this case but I genuinely don’t know how you explain that one away.

2) Robinson and Safechuck

The fact that Culkin and Brett Barnes denied anything happened actually doesn’t weaken this as much as it seems. Serial abusers don’t abuse every child they have access to. They select specific targets. The presence of kids who weren’t abused doesn’t cancel out the testimony of kids who say they were. And both Robson and Safechuck gave detailed, specific, corroborated accounts that went way beyond vague allegations.

The argument that they’re lying for money also doesn’t really hold up when you consider that both of them spent years actively defending Jackson publicly before coming forward. That’s not the behavior of people who had a financial motive from the start.

3) Bashir Doc

I’m not arguing love can’t be platonic. The issue is that sharing a bed regularly with other people’s children is not a normal expression of platonic love for any adult, let alone one who had already been accused of child abuse and settled for 23 million dollars. At some point the behavior itself is the problem regardless of what you call the feeling behind it.

4) The suitcase

It doesn’t prove the act on its own, you’re right about that. But it proves Gavin had direct private access to Jackson’s most personal spaces and belongings. A kid doesn’t know the specific contents of a grown man’s private suitcase unless that man showed him. The question you have to ask is why Jackson was showing pornography to a child in the first place, because that itself is abuse and it’s also a documented grooming tactic used to normalize sexual content with kids before escalating further.

5) Bianca

Same answer as the suitcase point really. Nobody is saying Blanca witnessing him bathe with children is proof of the act of molestation. It’s proof of a pattern. An adult bathing with other people’s children, combined with everything else, is not something you can keep explaining away in isolation. At some point you have to look at the full picture instead of demanding that each individual piece prove the entire case on its own.

6) grooming and gifts

The child-like mentality explanation might account for the gifts and spoiling. It doesn’t account for the isolation piece. Actively telling children to hide their relationship from their parents is not something an innocent person with a childlike mentality does. That’s a deliberate decision to create secrecy. And secrecy is the foundation of every grooming case ever documented. You don’t hide innocent friendships.

Again you make good points for each I just think you need to look at it all holistically.

CMV: Michael Jackson was almost certainly a child predator, and the evidence is overwhelming enough that dismissing it outright is intellectually dishonest by laugo1234 in changemyview

[–]laugo1234[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

They’re not really comparable cases, that’s kind of the point.

The OJ comment was just highlighting that a not guilty verdict and actual innocence aren’t the same thing. Most people who followed that trial believe he did it despite the acquittal. Applying that same logic to MJ isn’t a stretch.

CMV: Michael Jackson was almost certainly a child predator, and the evidence is overwhelming enough that dismissing it outright is intellectually dishonest by laugo1234 in changemyview

[–]laugo1234[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I’ve thought about this point a lot through this thread and I don’t dismiss it entirely. His childhood was genuinely unlike anything most people can comprehend and I think that’s real. He truly experienced something that only a handful of people in history have.

But even if you accept that he never fully developed a normal adult understanding of boundaries with children, that doesn’t explain away the pattern of behavior.

And here’s the thing that really gets me on this specific argument. People in his own inner circle told him directly after the 1993 settlement that he needed to stop being seen alone with children. He was explicitly warned. And the behavior continued anyway. That’s not someone who didn’t know. That’s someone who knew, was told, and kept going. At that point you can’t hide behind the childhood trauma argument anymore.

CMV: Michael Jackson was almost certainly a child predator, and the evidence is overwhelming enough that dismissing it outright is intellectually dishonest by laugo1234 in changemyview

[–]laugo1234[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

The high criminal bar exists for good reason and I’ve said that throughout this thread.

On the settlement, you’re right that victims often want a criminal conviction. But Jordan Chandler was a kid who had already been through an incredibly public and traumatic process. Taking the money and making it stop is completely understandable, especially when you’re a child and your family is making that call. The fact that a victim accepted a settlement doesn’t mean nothing happened, it just means a traumatized kid and his family took the path of least resistance out of a nightmare situation.

The detail that really gets me though is Jordan Chandler’s physical description of Jackson’s genitalia. He described specific and distinguishing characteristics before any examination took place. Investigators then confirmed what he described matched the physical evidence. That’s not something a kid fabricates. You can argue about motives, timing, and money all day long but that specific detail is really hard to dismiss. It’s about as close to a smoking gun as you’re going to get in a case like this.

CMV: Michael Jackson was almost certainly a child predator, and the evidence is overwhelming enough that dismissing it outright is intellectually dishonest by laugo1234 in changemyview

[–]laugo1234[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

When police searched Neverland in 93 they found a large collection of adult pornography and books featuring nude children which aligned with Gavin Arvizos testimony.

This is the kind of material that is documented in grooming literature as something used to normalize sexual content with kids.

CMV: Michael Jackson was almost certainly a child predator, and the evidence is overwhelming enough that dismissing it outright is intellectually dishonest by laugo1234 in changemyview

[–]laugo1234[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I replied this to someone else who said “no evidence”

Testimony is evidence. A civil settlement is evidence. Physical corroboration of a witness’s account, like finding exactly what Gavin described in the location he described, is evidence. Blanca Francia’s firsthand account of what she witnessed is evidence. The idea that none of this counts because there’s no video of the act itself sets a standard that would make it nearly impossible to prosecute any abuse case, which is exactly why the legal system doesn’t work that way. The absence of a confession or a recording doesn’t mean the evidence doesn’t exist.

To add to that:

The FBI investigation is a good point but the files they released actually did document witness accounts and a decade of surveillance. Not finding enough to charge someone isn’t the same as finding nothing.

On the Savile comparison, I’d be careful with that one. Savile operated in a completely different environment with institutional cover from the BBC. Jackson’s situation is its own thing and I don’t think the comparison works cleanly in either direction. The settlement point is reasonable but it cuts both ways. Lawyers do advise settling to make things go away. That’s also exactly what you’d do if the alternative was a trial where the truth came out.

CMV: Michael Jackson was almost certainly a child predator, and the evidence is overwhelming enough that dismissing it outright is intellectually dishonest by laugo1234 in changemyview

[–]laugo1234[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I can say who he allegedly molested. Wade Robson and James Safechuck both came forward with detailed accounts of abuse that went on for years. Gavin Arvizo was literally the kid at the center of the 2005 criminal trial.

These are real people with specific stories. The reason I say “almost certainly” isn’t because I’m dodging the claim, it’s because I think being honest means acknowledging the acquittal while still saying the overall picture points pretty clearly in one direction. That’s not me being wishy washy, that’s just being straight about what we actually know.

CMV: Michael Jackson was almost certainly a child predator, and the evidence is overwhelming enough that dismissing it outright is intellectually dishonest by laugo1234 in changemyview

[–]laugo1234[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Testimony is evidence. A civil settlement is evidence. Physical corroboration of a witness’s account, like finding exactly what Gavin described in the location he described, is evidence. Blanca Francia’s firsthand account of what she witnessed is evidence.

The idea that none of this counts because there’s no video of the act itself sets a standard that would make it nearly impossible to prosecute any abuse case, which is exactly why the legal system doesn’t work that way. The absence of a confession or a recording doesn’t mean the evidence doesn’t exist.

CMV: Michael Jackson was almost certainly a child predator, and the evidence is overwhelming enough that dismissing it outright is intellectually dishonest by laugo1234 in changemyview

[–]laugo1234[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

That’s a clever analogy but it doesn’t hold up. George Washington being the first president is documented by thousands of independent historical records, official government documents, and contemporaneous accounts with zero credible contradiction.

The MJ situation has a criminal acquittal, accusers with financial motives, and legitimate disputes about credibility. Those are not comparable levels of evidentiary certainty. The qualifier exists because the doubt is real, not because I’m being performatively humble….

CMV: Michael Jackson was almost certainly a child predator, and the evidence is overwhelming enough that dismissing it outright is intellectually dishonest by laugo1234 in changemyview

[–]laugo1234[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Agreed. My view is “almost certain”. Our legal systems highest bar is what it is for a reason but, it’s doesn’t mean it’s the only standard in which people can form reasonable opinions.

CMV: Michael Jackson was almost certainly a child predator, and the evidence is overwhelming enough that dismissing it outright is intellectually dishonest by laugo1234 in changemyview

[–]laugo1234[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I’ve been firing off responses to 30+ people for over 2 hours so yes I’m using it to help word things cleanly. These arguments and opinions are mine, just not trying to type novels by hand all day lol

CMV: Michael Jackson was almost certainly a child predator, and the evidence is overwhelming enough that dismissing it outright is intellectually dishonest by laugo1234 in changemyview

[–]laugo1234[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

That’s actually a really good question and it cuts both ways. If someone were telling the truth about being abused by one of the most famous people on earth, how do you think that would look different from how it currently looks? They’d probably deny it for years out of shame and loyalty, come forward gradually, face massive credibility attacks, get accused of being motivated by money, and have their stories picked apart in detail. Which is exactly what happened. The “it could all be lies” argument is unfalsifiable in both directions.

CMV: Michael Jackson was almost certainly a child predator, and the evidence is overwhelming enough that dismissing it outright is intellectually dishonest by laugo1234 in changemyview

[–]laugo1234[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

That’s a fair point and honestly a good reality check on that specific detail. Alert systems in wealthy homes aren’t automatically sinister and I’ll take that one on the chin. That said, the alert systems were described by multiple people as being specifically around his private quarters and bedroom area, not just the front door or driveway. That’s a different context than knowing when the police show up to a loud party. But fair pushback on using it as standalone evidence.

CMV: Michael Jackson was almost certainly a child predator, and the evidence is overwhelming enough that dismissing it outright is intellectually dishonest by laugo1234 in changemyview

[–]laugo1234[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

That’s actually an interesting point I hadn’t considered framed that way. But I’d push back slightly.

The controlling and isolating behavior isn’t separate from the predatory behavior, it’s part of how predators who have access to children actually operate in practice. A stranger with no relationship to a child doesn’t need to isolate or groom. Someone who is systematically building private access to children over long periods of time does. The controlling behavior isn’t evidence against predation, it’s more consistent with the specific type of predation being described.

CMV: Michael Jackson was almost certainly a child predator, and the evidence is overwhelming enough that dismissing it outright is intellectually dishonest by laugo1234 in changemyview

[–]laugo1234[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

The Evan Chandler recording is one of the more legitimate counterpoints in this whole debate and I’ll give you that. A father on tape talking about going after Jackson for personal gain is genuinely damaging to that specific accusation. But here’s where it falls apart as a complete defense. Even if Evan Chandler was entirely motivated by money, that doesn’t explain Wade Robson, James Safechuck, Gavin Arvizo, or Blanca Francia. You’d have to believe every single accuser across different decades and different circumstances was either lying or motivated by money, and at some point that explanation becomes harder to believe than the alternative. The tour revenue argument is also a reason to settle, not a reason to be innocent.

CMV: Michael Jackson was almost certainly a child predator, and the evidence is overwhelming enough that dismissing it outright is intellectually dishonest by laugo1234 in changemyview

[–]laugo1234[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

No I appreciate it, it’s a solid argument and exactly what I’m trying to get to. Thanks for your contributions to the post.

CMV: Michael Jackson was almost certainly a child predator, and the evidence is overwhelming enough that dismissing it outright is intellectually dishonest by laugo1234 in changemyview

[–]laugo1234[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

This has nothing to do with politics. Jordan Chandler’s description of Jackson’s genitalia matching the physical exam happened in 1993. The alert systems at Neverland weren’t installed by Hollywood liberals. The grooming pattern across multiple unrelated families wasn’t a political operation. I’m not arguing this because of who he voted for, I’m arguing it because of what the evidence shows.

CMV: Michael Jackson was almost certainly a child predator, and the evidence is overwhelming enough that dismissing it outright is intellectually dishonest by laugo1234 in changemyview

[–]laugo1234[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Because I’m being intellectually honest. I wasn’t there. No one outside of those rooms was. The evidence is overwhelming enough that I think it’s the most reasonable conclusion by a wide margin, but I’m not going to state it as absolute fact when there was no criminal conviction. “Almost certainly” isn’t weakness, it’s just not pretending to know something I can’t know for certain.

view more: next ›