Quote:
Originally Posted by Toy Soldier
In legal terms, I agree with you but I don't think legal proceedings and personal opinion are ultimately, or necessarily, interchangeable and I think it's a mistake to view the world in those terms. Doing so requires believing in an infallible legal system and unfortunately, such a thing simply does not exist. Each to their own on that though, I suppose.
Taking the legal judgement out of it; you're not even doing what you suggest you support? You say that everyone should be viewed as possibly innocent until proven guilty, yet you go on to say that you feel that Jackson is definitely innocent. And in doing so, you demonstrate that you do NOT believe that everyone should be viewed as innocent until proven guilty, as you will happily assert that Robson and Safechuck are guilty of lying about this abuse when there is - likewise - no concrete evidence on which to base that assumption that guilt? It's bias, Joey. The most you can say if you truly believe in hardline proof, is that there's not enough evidence to condemn Jackson OR his accusers - and yet, you freely condemn his accusers on "personal feeling".
Historically I've actually been inclined to believe that MJ was "weird but not necessarily an abuser" - indeed to give him the benefit of the doubt due to lack of evidence - but having watched this and having read around it and watched other footage - as I agree that the documentary is biased - I honestly feel that the weight of circumstantial evidence at this point is heavily suggestive of there being inappropriate behaviour. Would it be enough for me to put him behind bars, if I was Judge Dredd and had absolute power to do so? No, probably not. But to circle back around; personal views and absolute legal certainty are not (and don't need to be) the same thing at all.
|
It's inevitable that someone trained in law, who works in the law, will have that information colour all their opinions TS, whether you like it or not.