[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Tbf you're plucking opinions out from the early reports of Saville. Actual evidence came to light which changed it all.

Yes but the consistency of the opinions is relevant; the same people were saying the same things in the Saville case as they are in the Jackson case with just as much conviction, with the same arguments ("it's just because he's weird", "it's just because they want money") and they were of course completely wrong in those assumptions, as it turns out. I'd say that's fairly relevant, at least in showing that people should be a bit more hesitant in dismissing claims in that manner?

I'm not saying that people should think "Well Saville was guilty so Jackson must be guilty too!", that would be a false logic, too... I just find it odd that people aren't open to the thought though "Oh hmmmm I said all of this about Saville and I was wrong, so maybe I should keep a more open mind about this one".

I find it strange that people can be "so sure", wrong, and then "so sure" again.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yes but the consistency of the opinions is relevant; the same people were saying the same things in the Saville case as they are in the Jackson case with just as much conviction, with the same arguments ("it's just because he's weird", "it's just because they want money") and they were of course completely wrong in those assumptions, as it turns out. I'd say that's fairly relevant, at least in showing that people should be a bit more hesitant in dismissing claims in that manner?

I'm not saying that people should think "Well Saville was guilty so Jackson must be guilty too!", that would be a false logic, too... I just find it odd that people aren't open to the thought though "Oh hmmmm I said all of this about Saville and I was wrong, so maybe I should keep a more open mind about this one".

I find it strange that people can be "so sure", wrong, and then "so sure" again.

I agree in principle but you could say the same about people "so sure" he's guilty.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I agree in principle but you could say the same about people "so sure" he's guilty.

True but all I can really say is that in my opinion, I think it's highly likely that MJ's contact with children was not "totally innocent" based on a LOT of factors. And I guess the pertinent point is, IF some evidence arises that shows that's incorrect - let's say they suddenly admit to lying or something like that - I would be far less sure if something similar was to come up in future. I find it strange that people can know that they were wrong once but still be AS SURE in another very similar situation.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

True but all I can really say is that in my opinion, I think it's highly likely that MJ's contact with children was not "totally innocent" based on a LOT of factors. And I guess the pertinent point is, IF some evidence arises that shows that's incorrect - let's say they suddenly admit to lying or something like that - I would be far less sure if something similar was to come up in future. I find it strange that people can know that they were wrong once but still be AS SURE in another very similar situation.

Everybody's only giving their opinions and perspective on what the public gets to see. None of us know.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yes but the consistency of the opinions is relevant; the same people were saying the same things in the Saville case as they are in the Jackson case with just as much conviction, with the same arguments ("it's just because he's weird", "it's just because they want money") and they were of course completely wrong in those assumptions, as it turns out. I'd say that's fairly relevant, at least in showing that people should be a bit more hesitant in dismissing claims in that manner?

I'm not saying that people should think "Well Saville was guilty so Jackson must be guilty too!", that would be a false logic, too... I just find it odd that people aren't open to the thought though "Oh hmmmm I said all of this about Saville and I was wrong, so maybe I should keep a more open mind about this one".

I find it strange that people can be "so sure", wrong, and then "so sure" again.

That is very much what you're saying.
Bad TS

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

That is very much what you're saying.
Bad TS

I'm sure I know what I'm saying better than you do, 2S

I'm saying that people were definitely wrong when they insisted that Saville's accusers were lying for money, so they surely should consider that they may be wrong again in saying the same about Jackson's accusers.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm sure I know what I'm saying better than you do, 2S

I'm saying that people were definitely wrong when they insisted that Saville's accusers were lying for money, so they surely should consider that they may be wrong again in saying the same about Jackson's accusers.

No, we saw two men who had previously lied ,going into very graphic detail of what he was supposed to have done and some very dodgy parenting, there ate too many conflicting stories in the MJ case totally different from the Saville one,I don't know why people keep harping on abut the similarities there are none,we had a court of law aquit MJ,not so with Saville ,so can we separate the two as they are not connected.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm sure I know what I'm saying better than you do, 2S

I'm saying that people were definitely wrong when they insisted that Saville's accusers were lying for money, so they surely should consider that they may be wrong again in saying the same about Jackson's accusers.

And I could say that people were definitely right when they insisted that Richards's accusers were lying for money, so they surely should consider that they may be right again in saying the same about Jackson's accusers.

You see we can play that game both ways.
So it doesn't help you going to a different thread and jumping at people. These are different cases, full stop, and should be treated separately and independently.