[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It wasn't full and unreserved though, jury members have openly expressed doubts but that there wasn't sufficient evidence, so they had little choice but to aquit as the US legal system is very clear about "beyond reasonable doubt".

The legal outcome is not being overlooked Joey and hasn't been at any point it's been discussed at length, and repeatedly stating that its "overlooked" isn't going to make it true.

It's just that a legal "not guilty" outcome of a trial is not proof of innocence or even close to it and never has been, it is proof that the crime was not PROVEN and nothing more, which is correct legally because of the risk of innocent people going to prison but it in no way dictates what personal opinion should be. With conviction rates for all varieties of sexual assault being ABYSMALLY low - you surely understand that?

A TINY proportion of sexual abuse and sexual assault cases even make it to court, and then a tiny proportion of those that do result in conviction. It's well known that the vast majority of rapists walk free through lack of evidence. It doesn't mean anything.

I can't possibly believe that you're naive enough to think that the legal system usually or even particularly often "gets it right" when it comes to sex crimes.

I work in law.
The law doesn't always come up with the right result.

However, you can dismiss all you want the court verdict.
Adding any footnotes you like, that neither the jury or judge did.


The fact, fact being the word is after years of investigation, charges and trial.
On every single charge he was found not guilty.

Now in the absence of all the investigators and what the court had, you can add conditions to all those not guilty verdicts.
I never could or would.

Had his case only rested on these 2 individuals, then that would present an issue
He wasn't acquitted just on this pairs connection and statements.
He was because the court believed from all the evidence, he was not guilty.

You can keep saying he is all you like but in law you are wrong. Sorry.

I've seen many examples of false accusations, a lot of cases fail because the one alleging cries off appearing in court.
Sex crimes are a difficult area and a lot of the problems round them are people making false accusations and claims.

You say the legal facts of MJs trial aren't being overlooked and are being discussed.
They are mentioned and at tines as you are doing, adding conditions not in place by jury or judge.
So not overlooked but being clouded or dismissed.

While accepting in full the now new and changed claims of these 2 men.

I'll stick with the court verdicts, even not taking into consideration what these were saying at the time of the trial.
Accepting what all other witnesses said under oath.

Unlike the now conveniently changed things this pair are saying now.
Waiting until the man is dead to do so.
Some may possibly be being naive here but it ain't me.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

You can keep saying he is all you like but in law you are wrong. Sorry.

Joey I keep repeating that the legal verdict means little to nothing to me in forming my opinion in this case. I am skeptical of the legal system, I am skeptical of authority in general in all situations. I try to take an open and more philosophical view of topics and not be constrained by the rigid constructs of "the letter of law" when it's just a discussion; though I appreciate why it exists in practical terms.

I understand that you work in law and so you likely have a greater respect for the line of law and authority than I do but you need to accept that "in terms of the law you are wrong" simply means very little to me - with no judgement intended - but pointing out that there's no need to clarify the technicalities repeatedly.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Joey I keep repeating that the legal verdict means little to nothing to me in forming my opinion in this case. I am skeptical of the legal system, I am skeptical of authority in general in all situations. I try to take an open and more philosophical view of topics and not be constrained by the rigid constructs of "the letter of law" when it's just a discussion; though I appreciate why it exists in practical terms.

I understand that you work in law and so you likely have a greater respect for the line of law and authority than I do but you need to accept that "in terms of the law you are wrong" simply means very little to me - with no judgement intended - but pointing out that there's no need to clarify the technicalities repeatedly.

Well since you admit the law means little to nothing to you and you can simply dismiss all that case while believing 2 others, who must have lied then or now.
That's your affair.

I cannot, and even think the trial shouldn't be dismissed at all.

Anyone accused of anything has the right to be heard too.
These have now made their turnaround after MJs death.
So the only way MJ can answer back, is what he defended himself with in thst trial.

That's not just law, its also fair play.