Michael Jackson

I’m not the one who doesn’t understand how the justice system works.

I was simply explaining difference between hearsay and direct evidence.
Testimony from Gavin Arviso for example is direct evidence.

What you consider to be proof is neither here not there. There is rarely concrete proof in sexual offence cases, particularly historic cases - which often come down to one person’s word against another.

I didn’t say the testimony wouldn’t be admissible, I said quite a lot of media stuff wouldn’t be. I think it’s strange that so many people don’t understand the difference between someone who has been tried and found not guilty and someone who died before their transgressions ever came to light, and so never stood trial. Which was the original post I answered. I think people here know full well what’s being said and are going to ridiculous lengths to say otherwise. How are the not guilty verdicts not relevant ? He’s dead. He can’t be tried as a dead man so the original not guilty verdicts still stand - they don’t say he’s innocent, they say that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict. And as we abide by the rule of law and not mob rule, what people think privately, or even publicly won’t change that.

Circumstantial evidence might be used but it doesn’t secure convictions. Hence why he was still acquitted in spite of all that circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is not the same as evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

Circumstantial evidence is used all
the time, youve got multiple children giving consistent statements put together with the fact an adult has admitted sleeping with children, a stash of naked pictures of children and hidden booby trapped bedrooms.. that's evidence!!
Far more likely that this behaviour was because MJ was a pedophile than MJ has some strange made up mental health condition that means he has to have the occasional little boy slumber parties.

It's not actually proof though. You really don't understand how the court system works do you?

MJ has himself admitted sleeping in bed with boys and 5 boys have admitted it too. That’s not hearsay it’s direct evidence.

I don't believe he is innocent. I don't know what to make of it one way or another. I just don't think hearsay and speculation would be permissible in a court of law as evidence. There's a reason they ask people not to speculate. It is because it can lead to the collapse of trials and victims not getting justice.

No, but you did use the BBC to justify your argument. Which frankly was laughable.

Of course it is, just as the motives of the parents of children abused by Savile are irrelevant.

Excuse me, I didn't say I thought the BBC was unbiased. I asked you what "links" you were referring to.

Do you know the stats on how many of the many thousands of rape cases that occur annually actually go to court? And what percentage actually get a conviction? And how many are never reported?

Well, imagine you are a 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12 year old boy, who has been groomed, seduced, hoodwinked, and sexually used and abused by a famous man - back in the nineties, well before the "me, too" movement...

I really do look forward to the latest court case going ahead. But I guess no amount of evidence would be enough for those willing to turn a blind eye to these sorts of crimes against children, because it's too uncomfortable for them.

Those who believe he is innocent, what reason do you think he liked sleeping in a bedroom with multiple little boys?

Read the post again. The second paragraph of it.

Of course it isn’t irrelevant. Its crass to absolve the parents who were happy to give access to their children in return for money.

@DotAndCarryOne2

Testimony from the 5 boys he abused would always be admissible in a court. Indeed if all 5 had testified together, it’s unlikely that MJ would have avoided jail.

The contents found at his ranch - is also admissible as evidence, including circumstantial evidence indicating a strong interest in pictures of naked boys.

It’s strange that you can’t understand that the not guilty verdicts are not relevant to the issue of whether he was in fact a paedophile.

Several posters have tried to point this out and have been insulted and accused of supporting a paedophile, which is clearly not the case. Most of the things posters have used as ‘evidence’ to support what they’re saying wouldn’t be admissible in court - it would be scrutinised and deemed hearsay or prejudicial, but the attitude seems to be ‘ well what the hell, it’s MJ and we all know he’s guilty anyway’.

As a poster above said, some people simply can’t accept that Jackson was found not guilty because the evidence at the time didn’t prove the case against him. Maybe there is sufficient evidence which has come to light since, that would result in a conviction but you can’t put a dead man on trial, so like it or not, the verdict stands. All the argument in the world about what should have happened won’t change that. Neither will the accusations that he bought justice with expensive lawyers. Plenty of other high profile and wealthy celebrities have been jailed on the evidence against them, so that argument simply doesn’t fly.

But this is MN and when logic and fact flies in the face of opinion, people turn to insults and baseless accusation of supporting a paedophile when it’s nothing of the sort. One poster even suggested that another poster who disagreed with them would be happy to hand over their children to a paedophile !! Kind of blows any argument they had out of the water and portrays them as a bit desperate. I don’t know whether he’s guilty any more than the next person. What’s important is the rule of law, because without it, we have mob rule. And from some of the opinions on display here, that’s clearly what some people would prefer.

For a start the whole point is that MJ groomed the families just as much he did his global fans into believing he was above suspicion; and he targeted families who were not well off, or in GA’s case he had just had cancer, as they were more likely to be grateful for financial assistance.

The motives of the parents in getting involved with MJ is irrelevant to the issue of whether he abused their children.

I think what it comes down to in the end is whether something would be accepted as admissible in a court of law. And a lot of media stuff quoted as ‘evidence’ on this thread simply wouldn’t be. We’re going round in circles here with things that have been done to death throughout the thread.

Still not proof though, is it? You do know what proof is? None of that would be permissible as evidence of court. None of it. I'm asking you to show me proof. Not link after link that wouldn't be permissible in a court of law as proof. The fact you think the BBC is unbiased says it all really.

Unverified links... Do you mean the Vanity Fair article, whose author spent more than a decade investigating the allegations? Do you mean the BBC? Do you mean the televised footage of MJ telling his interviewer he slept in the same bed as these little boys?

Or his interesting/odd reaction to being asked if he is a pedophile, here:

There is nothing wrong with my understanding - l’m neither obtuse, nor stupid, as you seem to be implying. I haven’t defended Jackson in any way, l don’t know any more than the next person whether he’s guilty or not. On the weight of the evidence at the time of the trial clearly the jury felt that couldn’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and it seems unlikely that will change in the face of evidence that’s come to light since, because you can’t put a dead man on trial .

I’ve simply pointed out the facts as they stand. But like many others on this thread when you have no credible argument against fact, you resort to insult and make unfounded accusations based on assumption and bias.

Who would you consider a reliable source then? The cops investigating him, and the mountains of rather damning evidence found at his ranch? MJ himself, who is on camera saying he slept in the same bed as these little boys?

Denial is thick on here. It's mystifying.

I'm not in denial. I've said repeatedly I don't know one way or another what to think. I just don't think unverified links are proof of anything. If you can find some actual proof please post it.

Because nothing was ever proven in a court of law, so he remains an innocent man however you feel about the veracity of the claims against him.

It also hasnt been proven in other ways like others who didnt face court i.e. Savile. At least one of Jackson's accusers admitted lying.

If we get to a place where we cancel people on what is essentially the unproven word of another (so hearsay) - its a very dangerous place to be societally speaking.

Can't believe I'm having to explain this, and it doesn't paint you in a good light.

There were a few inconsistencies in the witness statements, casting doubt on their reliability and two were found to be dishonest. One witness described him as circumcised. The post-mortem report confirmed he wasn’t. You don’t need a top lawyer to make mincemeat of that. Documentaries and the newspaper and magazine articles, which some people are taking as ‘fact’ wouldn’t have been admissible in a court of law.

l hate it when MN makes outlandish assumptions that those with money must have ‘bought’ justice. Money didn’t do Epstein any good, he died in jail awaiting trial. Ghislaine Maxwell will probably die in jail. Others include Rolf Harris, Gary Glitter, R Kelly, Max Clifford, Mike Tyson, lan Watkins (lost prophets). All able to afford top legal representation, all brought to justice on the weight of the evidence against them. Why is Jackson any different ? Because the jury of his peers found there wasn’t enough evidence to convict, at the time of his trial.

I have no idea whether Jackson was guilty or not - and neither does anyone else here, beyond their own personal opinion. It would certainly seem so on the evidence found since his original trial. But given that he’s dead and not here to defend himself it seems the verdict will stand, and the problem l have is that some people on this thread are so incensed by that, they are attacking anyone who disagrees, citing ‘evidence’ that wouldn’t see the light of day in a courtroom and generally going to ridiculous lengths to deny that, legally, the original verdict remains unchanged because the charges were not proven in a court of law.

This thread is going round in batshit circles. l’m out.