Michael Jackson
Yes, I know this isn't a weighty issue what affects all of our lives but here it goes.
I don't really know if MJ was really guilty or not. I didn't follow the trial very closely, but here's what I have to say about it...
A guilty verdict is supposed to mean that the defendent is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Not beyond any possible doubt, but beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that if there is a reasonable explanation that explains the evidence where the defendent is not guilty, this is the explanation the jury is supposed to accept.
Now a 40-something man who has preteen boys over for sleepovers is certainly unusual, but that doesn't prove that Jackson had sex with them. Our dog sleeps in our bed sometimes, but that doesn't mean we practice beastiality.
So it all comes down to he said/he said. And of course there may be a fanancial/blackmail incentive. Without DNA or other proof, then is there really evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
I don't really know if MJ was really guilty or not. I didn't follow the trial very closely, but here's what I have to say about it...
A guilty verdict is supposed to mean that the defendent is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Not beyond any possible doubt, but beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that if there is a reasonable explanation that explains the evidence where the defendent is not guilty, this is the explanation the jury is supposed to accept.
Now a 40-something man who has preteen boys over for sleepovers is certainly unusual, but that doesn't prove that Jackson had sex with them. Our dog sleeps in our bed sometimes, but that doesn't mean we practice beastiality.
So it all comes down to he said/he said. And of course there may be a fanancial/blackmail incentive. Without DNA or other proof, then is there really evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
posted by Dancar | 4:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home