[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

FIVE people Joey. Five, not two. There were two in this documentary; the total number of accusers has been 5 and a couple more who say there were minor inappropriate incidents but no physical stuff. It's fine if you disbelieve all five but you need to stop saying that I believe "these two" because - like yours - my opinion isn't based solely on this documentary and to keep emphasising two is just misleading.

As for the rest of it, I get it. You're approaching this from a 100% "letter of the law" standpoint and that's fine, but it's also not the be all and end all of this (or any) debate for everyone.

Minor inappropriate incidents but no, you say no, physical stuff.

What on earth is that then and where is the crime there.
Plus where's the proof other than words.

I'll take the letter of the law, yes any day on this one.
It seems far more reliable than any of these claims now.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Minor inappropriate incidents but no, you say no, physical stuff.



What on earth is that then and where is the crime there.

Plus where's the proof other than words.



I'll take the letter of the law, yes any day on this one.

It seems far more reliable than any of these claims now.

"What on earth" includes verbal sexual comments and viewing pornography together.

Regardless; there are Five who have mentioned physical incidents, I was clear that there were a "couple more" who said inappropriate by not physical. If you include those the number I believe is 7 or 8 individuals.

And no there's no proof other than words, but that is true of the vast majority of sexual assault and sexual abuse cases, which is why there is a very low conviction rate and it is a well known fact that many guilty people are not convicted of sexual crimes. Estimates less than a 1% conviction rate. That's another figure you've repeatedly ignored in the "reliable letter of the law" debate.

It is KNOWN that its hard to secure a guilty verdict in sex crimes. Its an undeniable fact.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"What on earth" includes verbal sexual comments and viewing pornography together.

Regardless; there are Five who have mentioned physical incidents, I was clear that there were a "couple more" who said inappropriate by not physical. If you include those the number I believe is 7 or 8 individuals.

And no there's no proof other than words, but that is true of the vast majority of sexual assault and sexual abuse cases, which is why there is a very low conviction rate and it is a well known fact that many guilty people are not convicted of sexual crimes. Estimates less than a 1% conviction rate. That's another figure you've repeatedly ignored in the "reliable letter of the law" debate.

It is KNOWN that its hard to secure a guilty verdict in sex crimes. Its an undeniable fact.

Keep going TS.
You've gone from these 2 to 5 then to 7 or 8.
You may yet get to the near 350 allegations made years ago that were thoroughly investigated by police and other authorities, mentioned in the video Kazanne posted.
Which were thrown out.

I accept the court verdict.
I am no strong fan of Michael Jackson.
I believe Jacksons account.
I don't believe these 2.

I won't likely believe any unless hard evidence is produced now.

I'm not out to brand someone already declared not guilty as now guilty. In the absence of hard, substantiated evidence.
Certainly not just on the word of those making these claims now, seeming to have 'other' agendas, than truth.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Keep going TS.
You've gone from these 2 to 5 then to 7 or 8.
You may yet get to the near 350 allegations made years ago that were thoroughly investigated by police and other authorities, mentioned in the video Kazanne posted.
Which were thrown out.

I accept the court verdict.
I am no strong fan of Michael Jackson.
I believe Jacksons account.
I don't believe these 2.

I won't likely believe any unless hard evidence is produced now.

I'm not out to brand someone already declared not guilty as now guilty. In the absence of hard, substantiated evidence.
Certainly not just on the word of those making these claims now, seeming to have 'other' agendas, than truth.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

You've gone from these 2 to 5 then to 7 or 8.

False

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There were two in this documentary; the total number of accusers has been 5 and a couple more who say there were minor inappropriate incidents

Like I said earlier; we're barely even debating the same topic, you just keep reiterating that "there isn't enough evidence to convict him in a trial" which I have never disputed and apparently you aren't interested in anything beyond the legal basics of the debate. With that in mind - and the fact that you've now taken to deliberately misquoting me - I'm not going to go back-and-forth with it any more.