Goddess4Real
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2016
- Messages
- 1,129
- Points
- 0
terrell;4227733 said:In law, they are correct to a point. That is why I say THE EVIDENCE PROVED Michael to be innocent and then I lay it out. and if anyone say MJ was guilty, tell them to back it up with FACTS which they can not. And they can NOT use the 1993 case either because that was allowed to come into the 2005 and finally put on trial as well and prove the be BS (and when someone bring up the settlement, I explain settlements to them. Settlements are done for varies of reason even when people are innocent. One example that get people when they think it does is when I say "do you know someone who has been in a wreck"? You know that person was not hurt but that person is going to play it up in order to try to get a settlement even if they are not hurt. I am sure you know someone who did this. And often, those posters disappear and say no more because they know most people know someone who received a settlement and LIED about it but they still got a settlement.
ShipOfFools;4228933 said:I believe Michael was innocent of the charges, and the evidence didn't prove anything, so he was never proven to be guilty. What really got to me was that the media and society charged MJ as guilty, in the court of public opinion, before there was any real trial to present the actual facts.
Even R. Kelly, who had plenty of evidence to prove that he was guilty, was treated more fairly by the public.
I think the public just believed anyone who was "different" in some way had to be doing something wrong. It's just like when a crime occurs, and people say, "He was quiet" or "He was a loner with no friends." Plenty of people are loners, and they aren't harming anyone. But society would like everyone to believe that if someone is a loner, who is quiet, then they must be ready to commit some sort of crime. It's the same with Michael Jackson, and the perceived "where there's smoke, there's fire" argument.
ShipOfFools;4228933 said:I believe Michael was innocent of the charges, and the evidence didn't prove anything, so he was never proven to be guilty. What really got to me was that the media and society charged MJ as guilty, in the court of public opinion, before there was any real trial to present the actual facts.
Even R. Kelly, who had plenty of evidence to prove that he was guilty, was treated more fairly by the public.
I think the public just believed anyone who was "different" in some way had to be doing something wrong. It's just like when a crime occurs, and people say, "He was quiet" or "He was a loner with no friends." Plenty of people are loners, and they aren't harming anyone. But society would like everyone to believe that if someone is a loner, who is quiet, then they must be ready to commit some sort of crime. It's the same with Michael Jackson, and the perceived "where there's smoke, there's fire" argument.
Krshna28;4228991 said:The real problem is too many people just believe what other people say as the absolute truth. And so they believe the media as absolute truth.
The real truth is the media hated Michael. And they wanted the public to hate Michael. Gullible/brainwashed will believe anything they are told. And wrongly accused people are always left with their life ruined.
Krshna28;4228991 said:The real problem is too many people just believe what other people say as the absolute truth. And so they believe the media as absolute truth.
The real truth is the media hated Michael. And they wanted the public to hate Michael. Gullible/brainwashed will believe anything they are told. And wrongly accused people are always left with their life ruined.
No, when I say "evidence", evidence is everything from the testimony, cross examine, witnesses no DNA, and everything used to try to prove the person is innocent or guilty. People at Mike's trial were PROVEN liars, caught in lies, etc. That is evidence as well.ShipOfFools;4228933 said:I believe Michael was innocent of the charges, and the evidence didn't prove anything, so he was never proven to be guilty. What really got to me was that the media and society charged MJ as guilty, in the court of public opinion, before there was any real trial to present the actual facts.
Even R. Kelly, who had plenty of evidence to prove that he was guilty, was treated more fairly by the public.
I think the public just believed anyone who was "different" in some way had to be doing something wrong. It's just like when a crime occurs, and people say, "He was quiet" or "He was a loner with no friends." Plenty of people are loners, and they aren't harming anyone. But society would like everyone to believe that if someone is a loner, who is quiet, then they must be ready to commit some sort of crime. It's the same with Michael Jackson, and the perceived "where there's smoke, there's fire" argument.