CloudWalker wrote:
Michael Jackson is only accused of the former not the later. I think treating accusations as facts is bad enough, not to mention broadening that liberally without any proof.
well, yes, the issue is that people make their own assumptions out of what they listen and watch from the media and from other sources, and often most would tend to believe in rumors, I believe is very common for people to take things for granted without actual proof, and well, some would claim 'common sense' and perhaps even intuition as to support few claims but that doesn't do anything really.
I really can't say anything against him or for him related the case, because I really don't know the facts, I mean, I wasn't there and I was not involved in the events nor I was involved in the investigation, and given that, how can I have a say about that other than just pure speculation and nothing more than that, which would be meaningless by now.
Owendust wrote:
in '93, Jackson ended up paying $22 million to the family to settle the case out of court.
Sorry, but personally, if I knew that I was innocent, I sure as hell wouldn't pay $22 million to the family that accused me of molestation. Sure, he didn't have to deal with a trial, but he also gave up the chance prove his innocence before the world.
well, the setlement may raise some questions, that's true, the question is if that is enough to gain to a solid conclusion, and I wonder if that can be considered to be some sort of circumstancial evidence of guilt, and if that could be possibly valid, and if it is, I don't think that wouldn't be enough. Not to mention that what we know seem to be just a superficial knowledge of that fact, if I'm correct, I would think the knowledge of all the details of the settlement would be needed and examined.
Owendust wrote:
Yes, I am willing to "diss the verdict" of a group of people who were apparently not even bright enough to get out of jury duty. Sorry to have to break it to you, but juries aren't always made up of the best and brightest among us.
well, that may be very well true, but there is a problem, and the problem is puting oneself in a better position of judgement than the jury, I mean, if juries are to be questionable then why my or your own judgement should be of more reliability than theirs? and that is an interesting issue.
Owendust wrote:
Did either of you ever see the Martin Bashir documentary about Michael Jackson. I remember watching it when it first came out years ago. At least in my mind, it shed a lot of doubt on his innocence.
well, the question is how reliable is the information from documentaries anyway, and I mean any documentary? and mostly when their position is likely to be biased, wether it is in favor or against the issue, and well, I really don't trust the media anyway.
_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?