[user104658]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I can answer easily for myself,NO, I would not.

I've always hated these kangaroo media court style of trial and judgement.

Which is again all this is, despite years of thorough investigation, charges and trial, then full unreserved acquittal..

That's the one full, true known fact on Michael Jackson and this serious issue.

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.