[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

TS you seem very desperate to get the people who do not go with this story to believe it, when MJ was found innocent were the FBI , the police and anyone else who investigated it , were they all lying? he was found NOT guilty,just curious how some are happy to disbelieve the powers that be , but believe these men who are known liars, none of us will fully know ,but it seems some think they do ,like they were actually were there. I think it's a money making scheme, but we will never know but pretty strange they didn't come out while he was alive , too many discrepancies for me to believe 100 % that he was a paedophile ,I will watch the documentary but I have no doubt it's all made them tons of cash, plus no one has mentioned what about MJ children in all this , if he has never touched a kid inappropriately how horrible for them all this is.

Honestly I'm not desperate for people to believe it, though I personally do believe it. I'm just keen for people to look at the whole picture objectively and not with blinkers on, and not to automatically assume it must not have happened because he was never convicted. Several boys / men have now said it happened (read my above post) - more have said it happened than have defended him - and the FBI and police did find evidence - pictures for one, and a staff member who stated that she saw Jackson getting out of his shower with a boy is another - just not enough evidence to secure a conviction. I know many people put a lot of stock in that, but the legal system (for a good reason) is set up so that things must be proven beyond reasonable dount, which means that even if courts and juries think someone is "probably guilty" that's not enough for a guilty verdict, the proof has to be concrete and in this case he was very careful. It means nothing regarding whether or not his conduct was questionable.

There is in fact a brief snippet in the documentary of one of the jury members who makes it pretty clear that they found it all highly suspect - but had to return a not guilty verdict due to the lack of physical evidence.

Anyway... like I said, I'd just prefer if people could make up their own mind with full reasoning after actually watching it and reading up on the trials and other statements that are available, rather than just assuming. "He wasn't convicted so that's that!" is never going to be enough for me. I guess it's OK if it is for other people but there's no real point continuing to argue that one.