AG5050;4257611 said:
I suppose I am doing that. In challenging what I feel before was a slightly one sided believe that Michael was innocent I am going for the things that challenge this the most as I feel like up until recently I have ignored facts that go against what I wanted to believe. Whereas all the stuff that supports MJ I am so familiar with that I haven’t brought it up in this particular discussion as in this topic I am voicing my doubts, not the stuff that makes me think he is innocent.
I understand about presumption of innocence which is why I would never think it fair or right to talk about it as an accepted fact that he was a paedohpile or abuser, and that from a legal point of view he was acquitted. But going back to the topic title part of “asking ourselves difficult questions” is asking myself whether what is legally proven or not proven sits right with me. For example OJ was found not guilty and it is widely accepted that he was.
The other user seemed to think it outrageous that I was trying to review this from a perspective outside of how it had played out by law. But for me, I think it’s important to do so as the legal justice system is not perfect.
Of course the legal justice system isn't perfect, no one ever said otherwise! But at least it has the institution and code to represent both parties in a court case and to grant their right for a fair process (in theory, of course, but at least there's the aim for that. You have to accept nonperfection and lack of guarantees in reality - unfortunately so, I won't argue that, but still that's the case). And you can't seriously claim that uninformed people would do a better job without understanding evidence and following due process!
I'm afraid the main point is not even MJ's case, but how you approach things in general here: you're thinking in extremes, have unreal expectations from the legal system, while at the same time ignoring and not appreciating enough its basic principles, and you form and value opinions based on unsufficient information and half truths above facts.
Even your reasoning now it's like going from one extreme (interpreting everything as MJ was innocent) to the other (reading his guilt into everything now). You say it's for the sake of argument, but it's not, it's just two opposite sides of bias. What you should do is research the facts without prejudice, and also accept that there's a limit for evidences/documents available - in ANY case, not just MJ's (it's only in shows like Columbo where the omniscient viewer witnesses the crime prior to the investigation, so he/she knows Columbo is always after the real criminal and unerrring), and then draw the most plausible conclusion from those facts.
You've brought up an awful lot of things here, many of them worth for a debate or clarification, but many were vague, misinformed, based on fabricated stories or details unknown to public (so it's basically unfounded guessing), or deliberately interpreted in some particular way - and many of them were actually brought up and answered several times already, so you could search a bit further to find out.
It's a good thing you read upon CSA and grooming, but now you act as an expert, claiming "text book" patterns (is there such thing at all?) indisputably - what makes you qualified to make these kind of claims? Or if you're citing someone why not give the source? Sorry, I really don't want to sound condescending or academic, haha, but you have to admit it's not really an established opinion, and too much generalisation instead of examining the particular cases and their circumstances.
By being too vague I mean e.g. when you say Safechuck is more credible - what can one say to that? That "No, he's not.", and then go: "But yes." "But no."... and so on - you see?
You should elaborate on what makes you think so, and then it can be discussed.
And some logical inconsistencies: first you say physical evidence is rare in historic SA allegations, therefore it boils down to the credibility of the witnesses - fair enough, no one will dispute that. But then you continue with contradicting yourself by stating that the inconsistencies in R&S's claim and their money motivation don't matter - you simply can't have it both ways. All the while expecting definitive evidence from MJ, when it's also a fact that you can't prove a negative. And why do you have different standards for the opposing parties to begin with - making excuses for R&S lying under oath, but MJ being tried in court isn't enough?
About the reactions you get: you have to understand that there are people who investigated these cases for DECADES now, read the original court transcripts, there are lawyers among them helping to interpret court proceedings. R&S are accusing MJ since 2013, those who were concerned about it had plenty of time and possibility to read the court documents, so why the outrage now? It becomes tiring at some point when people knowledgeable with facts are "confronted" with opinions, logical fallacies and a one-sided film.
And still many of your concerns was addressed here, but you didn't react to them at all - after being the one who brought them up to begin with, so it's a bit confusing if you really cared or just wanted to stir things up for the sake of it (I'm not saying it's the latter, only that it isn't clear because of your lack of reaction to the very topics you brought up). You've asked questions after questions, but it's a bit like you don't really care about possible answers which makes me hesitant about whether it's worth reacting to them at all TBH.
PS: Risking to sound like an annoying smart aleck snob (which I may very well be, haha): if your (perhaps unintentional) goal is to read sinister explanations into everything MJ (or anyone for the matter) does, you will certainly succeed.
In ancient China, there was a man who found that he had lost his axe. While searching for his lost tool, he began to suspect his neighbour's son.
Because of the suspicion, the more he observed the young man, the more the young man looked like a thief. The way he walked, the facial expression and the manner of the young man's speech, etc., basically everything of the young man's appearance and behavior suggested that he had stolen the axe.
Not long afterwards though, to this man's amazement, he found his axe when he was digging in his cellar. With the recovery of his axe, when he saw his neighbor's son again, nothing about the young man's appearance and behaviour seemed to suggest that he had stolen the axe.
https://www.uchinavisa.com/lost-axe.html
