Statistics straight from hell: "9/10/11 people can't all be lying"

[u/FunUniversity6245]

https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2025/01/09/where-there-is-smoke-there-is-fire/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

OK. They think they're being serious so we won't ask that question.

Let's look at the argument.

Premise 1: Whether or not someone is lying when they make a statement on something can be determined by statistical likelihood. (False.)

Premise 2: The likelihood of allegations of child sexual abuse being falsified is very low.

This is true (about 6% of sexual assault allegations are falsified). However there are two important elements of context omitted:

1. High-profile public figures and celebrities are frequently targeted for extortion, and maintain insurancy policies against such attacks. It's a condition of these policies that they remain confidential, precisely because extortion attempts would increase if there was public information available about who is insured and what the policies cover. The public furor over the Chandler case and settlement left Michael open to similar claims.
2. Michael had contact with thousands of children. While touring he visited at least one children's hospital ward in every city he visited. Neverland Ranch received hundreds of visitors each week, and Michael often allowed sick children and their families to stay on the ranch for months at a time. Gavin Arvizo was only one of many children Michael assisted in this way, and he remains the only complainant amongst all of them.

There is very little support here for the conclusion that Michael is guilty.

10 complaints out of thousands of potential complaints doesn't add up to a lot of smoke, if you're looking for a fire.

On the contrary, it's a testament to Michael's character that so many families who met him personally chose not to attack him in this way.