[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Livia

You don't have to be proven innocent. You are presumed innocent until you are found guilty. it's the prosecution's job to prove guilt, it is not the defence's job to prove innocence.

Michael Jackson was damaged, I don't think there's any doubt about that. I wonder why the surgeons who worked on the face of such a damaged individual have not been struck off.

some people are proven innocent though. Legally the term Innocent is very different than Not Guilty, that's all i'm saying.

as far has his face, well he wanted to look that way. Should we also put tattoo artists who do face tattoos in jail? or those people who have 50 million piercings in their face? he wanted to look like Peter Pan from the Disney film.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by lostalex

some people are proven innocent though. Legally the term Innocent is very different than Not Guilty, that's all i'm saying.

as far has his face, well he wanted to look that way. Should we also put tattoo artists who do face tattoos in jail? or those people who have 50 million piercings in their face? he wanted to look like Peter Pan from the Disney film.

Juries cannot find defendents innocent. There is no such verdict they can return. 'Not guilty' can mean innocent, and it can mean it is not proven beyond resonable doubt... but the fact is, not guilty is not guilty.

He wanted his face to look that way, yes. But it's obvious isn't it, that he was a very damaged individual? I don't think surgeons acted professionally looking at the state his face was in by the time he died.

If someone wanted to get a tattoo, good for them. If they were clearly suffering a mental illness and wanted their whole face tattooed like a reptile, then I'd say someone has to say no.