Do you believe the Michael Jackson allegations?

[fartotheleftside]

For me it’s undeniable and the evidence is overwhelming, but I’m shocked by the amount of people who don’t.

Which has sod all to do with the point you’re trying and failing to make about him being proved innocent.

Of course that's not what not guilty means. Not guilty just means there was not enough evidence for a guilt verdict, which can be pretty common in these kind of cases. And it's completely irrelevant how carefully the jury was vetted.

Of course I’m not saying it’s not valid. That’s the verdict. It’s about as valid as it’s possible to get. But it’s only valid in so far as the state failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn’t mean that he’s innocent. It means that there wasn’t sufficient strong evidence to prove him guilty. There’s no obligation on the defence to prove his innocence and that wasn’t done during his trial.

I do believe them and also believe the kids parents who sent them to be with him should be locked up for the rest of their lives

Yes 100%, he was a paedophile

Michael Jackson was acquited by the court of all allegations after 30 hours of deliberations by the Jury over 7 days.

What is it that you don’t understand? The jury looked at the State’s case. They listened to all the witnesses. They looked at the Defence’s case. And they decided that there was not enough evidence to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In what universe does that prove him innocent?

Not really no, I think he genuinely wanted to give other child stars the childhood he didn't have. There's no evidence at all and if there was he'd have been found guilty, he was not. The identification of marks on his penis by his accuser turned out to be false. I don't know where all this stuff comes from. I am a victim of childhood sexual abuse and would never support a pedo, ever.

But it doesn't prove him guilty either. You can't assume someone guilty when a jury found them innocent.

Eh? What I understand is that a Jury were asked if he was guilty or not guilty and they found him not guilty after careful deliberation that went on for several days. Do you not understand what a not guilty verdict means in a court of law? It means that you walk free and are free to continue your life as normal and are innocent of all charges against you. I think you maybe don't understand the law.

The childhood he didn't have of having sleepovers in the bed of an adult man?
And when they get too old they get replaced by a new 'best friend' 🤔
Sounds great!

So he had child porn and yet he was found innocent? Just owning child porn is enough to send someone to jail, surely? I don't recall child porn ever being mentioned in court?

No its definitely you that doesn't understand how the law works. I'm struggling to believe you are for real though as I've never actually met anyone in real life this ignorant about the law.

If you were up in court and they decided you are not guilty, maybe you would say, yeah but maybe I really done it but they couldn't decide about it, so maybe I should really be in the nick. Is that how you see it?

Are you 12?

I agree "Not guilty" isnt the same as being proved innocent.
His Attorney was on tv and said they had loads of people working for his defence, looking for any evidence on the Arvizo family to make them come across as unreliable witnesses.
At no point did he say they were looking for evidence to prove he didnt do it, he didn't say he believed he didnt do it, he said he would do everything possible to get him off the charges.

What I understand is that if you are declared not guilty in a court of law you are free to walk. If I am wrong about this, please correct me. Has there been a case where someone who has been declared not guilty is still detained by the police or sent to prison?

That bit is correct, this bit you included last time is incorrect: 'and are innocent of all charges against you'. This is basic knowledge.

No I think you are as you don't understand that "I think he did it" is not the same as going through a trial and being proved not guilty of all charges, after a week of a jury deliberating all the evidence.

I have no idea of what you are talking about. Perhaps you do not understand how the Jury system works in this country or the US.

I really don’t understand what is so difficult to understand about this.

Again, the jury did NOT find him innocent. They don’t find any defendants innocent, ever. It can be proven by the defendant’s legal team that a person is innocent, for example in historical convictions where DNA evidence rules out a person having done it, but all juries do is assess whether the evidence is sufficient to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the answer is no, then it’s a Not Guilty verdict. That is not the same thing as being found innocent.

You’re right, it isn’t the same, it’s not remotely comparable to the due process that goes on during a trial. Some people here and on the other thread ignore the reasons why he was acquitted, because it doesn’t suit their narrative. Or perhaps just don’t have the capacity to understand the process.

I don’t have the patience to try and explain it to you anymore.

Being fair to victims they probably couldn't afford lawyers to match MJ.
If someone is offering silly money to shut you up, would you really want lawyers ripping you apart over things that happen when you were a child. And memories you'd rather forget.

What are you trying to explain? That someone who is proven NOT GUILTY in a court of law is free to walk away from the Court and go back to their normal life. If there is any other outcome, please explain it to me. I"m willing to learn.