even in a court of law it just has to be beyone reasonable doubt, pan, not 100%. i really think that if you read those pieces, see what was done to those families, the bullying, harassment, attempts on their lives etc, plus the fact that a number of staff members have been paid off handsomely when they've threatened to speak PLUS the fact that MJ's camp has never taken such a high-profile magazine to court to dispute any of the assertions contained therein, that does take things beyond reasonable doubt for me at least.
they're a litigious lot, the MJ camp, they take action where they can. a south american journalist wrote a book about the jordy chandler case containing near-pornographic detail about mj using tampons on the kids, lots of detail from the staff about what they'd seen etc. they never sued.
they did sue, however, when he went on a tv programme and said he'd seen a video of MJ and a child naked together but because he couldn't produce the video to prove it, they got him for over $2mill and backrupted him. in that time his house and office i think were burgled, his life was threatened etc.
but why not sue about the magazine articles and the book, if they were untrue? big readership there...
like i say, i think if anyone reads those never-challenged since '94 pieces, it will cast some new light on the way MJ lived.