Chickens in Malibu 7,873 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 Just now, Ayria said: I just don’t know what will convince these stans though? I mean the evidence is pretty clear if you do your research like MJ stans claim they do. Is that why the jury acquitted him unanimously, including the ones who said publicly they went in thinking he's a pedophile? Damn... I wonder how the evidence couldn't be more clear to them sitting there and watching the trial for months. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayria 463 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said: 1. No, No and No. We have mistrial for a reason! Mistrials make sure that no one is let off the hook so easily and no one is convicted so easily either. Mistrials happening don't mean there's a flaw in our judicial system. If anything, it shows that our system is working as intended,and that, even if the first case wasn't strong, he wasn't let off the hook. He was tried again and found guilty. Please don't conflate mistrial with acquittal. They couldn't be more different. 2. MJ most likely settled the case, because civil lawsuits don't fall under the 6th amendment. You don't have the right to speedy trial. They can drag the lawsuit for years and years and keep giving him constant bad headlines. He didn't want the next 7 years to be all about this court case especially when he was planning a tour and such. He was making around 100-200M a year. So the amount of money he would've lost with the constant negative publicity from that court case would've been far more than the 20M he settled for. It wasn't a good decision anyway. It opened the door for people to exploit that vulnerability and accuse him for money. 3. The prosecution confirmed many things that ended up failing in court. That's why we have a court and we have a jury, to be a check on what the prosecution brings fourth. It is speculative and subjective to say "it matched the description" without providing such photographs to the jury. I think that's why it didn't convince the jury either. Also I was just curious how he could say it matched the erect state of MJ's penis. It's a bit odd, since you'd expect that during the search, the state would be unerect. But anyway, Sneddon was very sloppy in his handling of MJ case. So it doesn't surprise me. Once again you’re treating the court as some magical God ordained institution. There is the legal standard of guilty or not guilty and the common sense standard and the public perception of someone’s behavior and crimes. Why does a debate over the allegations on GGD have to fit the same standards as a court of law. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PunkTheFunk 121,511 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 1 minute ago, Ayria said: I just don’t know what will convince these stans though? I mean the evidence is pretty clear if you do your research like MJ stans claim they do. You can't rationalize with irrational people 1 minute ago, nicolasrumet said: You can try to run, but you can't escape the facts and the truth Act a fool girl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayria 463 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said: You can try to run, but you can't escape the facts and the truth That’s what me and other users have been trying to do and you still don’t seem to think MJ could’ve even possibly been a child molester. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickens in Malibu 7,873 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 4 minutes ago, Ayria said: Once again you’re treating the court as some magical God ordained institution. There is the legal standard of guilty or not guilty and the common sense standard and the public perception of someone’s behavior and crimes. Why does a debate over the allegations on GGD have to fit the same standards as a court of law. Perception =/= legal finding/facts... You can have your own subjective opinion that Michael Jackson is a pedophile. But admit that it's not based on factual evidence, but rather on personal belief and judgement. Also, in that case, don't get mad others for not sharing the same opinion with you, since when there is no factual evidence, it becomes subjective. You can't convince people with an opinion. You'll usually need evidence or facts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickens in Malibu 7,873 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, Ayria said: That’s what me and other users have been trying to do and you still don’t seem to think MJ could’ve even possibly been a child molester. Um no, if you take a look back, I've been debunking your claims one by one... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayria 463 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said: Is that why the jury acquitted him unanimously, including the ones who said publicly they went in thinking he's a pedophile? Damn... I wonder how the evidence couldn't be more clear to them sitting there and watching the trial for months. What about jurors who said they knew he was a pedophile but thought the defense did a good enough job instilling reasonable doubt? That’s the thing about juries, two different juries could come to two completely different conclusions about the same exact evidence and trial. It’s NOT relevant to the discussion at hand because we already know what happened in 2005. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickens in Malibu 7,873 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, Ayria said: What about jurors who said they knew he was a pedophile but thought the defense did a good enough job instilling reasonable doubt? That’s the thing about juries, two different juries could come to two completely different conclusions about the same exact evidence and trial. It’s NOT relevant to the discussion at hand because we already know what happened in 2005. 3 out of the 12 jurors admitted they went in thinking he was guilty, but found that there was no evidence that could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, so they voted not guilty. It goes to show, that even jurors who had a negative opinion of MJ, found the evidence presented against him weak and inconclusive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayria 463 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 1 minute ago, nicolasrumet said: Um no, if you take a look back, I've been debunking your claims one by one... Just like you “debunked” @Didymusand his claims? 2 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said: Perception =/= legal finding/facts... You can have your own subjective opinion that Michael Jackson is a pedophile. But admit that it's not based on factual evidence, but rather on personal belief and judgement. Also, in that case, don't get mad others for not sharing the same opinion with you, since when there is no factual evidence, it becomes subjective. You can't convince people with an opinion. You'll usually need evidence or facts It is based on factual evidence though. Behavioral patterns, inappropriate contact, pedophile experts and investigators, as well as eyewitness testimony and Jordan Chandle’s drawing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayria 463 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 1 minute ago, nicolasrumet said: 3 out of the 12 jurors admitted they went in thinking he was guilty, but found that there was no evidence that could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, so they voted not guilty. It goes to show, that even jurors who had a negative opinion of MJ, found the evidence presented against him weak and inconclusive. A case being weak or inconclusive doesn’t mean a person is innocent though. I doubt if Wade and James testified against him and produced some of the material in LN he would’ve been found not guilty. But we can never know so discussing the jury won’t get us anywhere now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickens in Malibu 7,873 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 Just now, Ayria said: Just like you “debunked” @Didymusand his claims? It is based on factual evidence though. Behavioral patterns, inappropriate contact, pedophile experts and investigators, as well as eyewitness testimony and Jordan Chandle’s drawing. Didymus actually agrees there's no evidence to prove MJ's guilt. We had an argument over two things: 1. I was wrong about publication date of one magazine (which was rather a trivial detail anyway) 2. He was wrong about prosecution seizing an S&M mannequin that was shown to children (he said he got it from a tabloid or something). But we both agreed there's no evidence to prove guilt. Also who are these pedophile experts who gave expert testimony in court against MJ? I wasn't aware of that. And what did investigators reveal? Nothing. That's why the case was lost. They indicted MJ solely based on Gavin's testimony in the Grand Jury hearings. And in case you don't know. All what's needed is "probable cause" in those hearings, which is really a LOW standard. It merely means that there's reason to believe that a crime might've been committed. So if you think that because investigators charged MJ with molestation based on probable cause (which is a very low standard), we must believe he is one, then all I can say is that your ideology is rather troubling, since that would mean that we simply get rid of courts/trials, and assume people's guilty solely based on probable cause (which is the mere probability of a crime occuring). Girl..... If there are too many people like you advocating for this in the world, i'd be scared. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayria 463 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 1 minute ago, nicolasrumet said: Didymus actually agrees there's no evidence to prove MJ's guilt. We had an argument over two things: 1. I was wrong about publication date of one magazine (which was rather a trivial detail anyway) 2. He was wrong about prosecution seizing an S&M mannequin that was shown to children (he said he got it from a tabloid or something). But we both agreed there's no evidence to prove guilt. Also who are these pedophile experts who gave expert testimony in court against MJ? I wasn't aware of that. And what did investigators reveal? Nothing. That's why the case was lost. They indicted MJ solely based on Gavin's testimony in the Grand Jury hearings. And in case you don't know. All what's needed is "probable cause" in those hearings, which is really a LOW standard. It merely means that there's reason to believe that a crime might've been committed. So if you think that because investigators charged MJ with molestation based on probable cause (which is a very low standard), we must believe he is one, then all I can say is that your ideology is rather troubling, since that would mean that we simply get rid of courts/trials, and assume people's guilty solely based on probable cause (which is the mere probability of a crime occuring). Girl..... If there are too many people like you advocating for this in the world, i'd be scared. Just out of curiosity, what would convince you personally of MJ’s guilt? What evidence do you think should be used to convict a pedophile if you were a juror in a case? I think we disagree over very basic ideas of what constitutes evidence and doubt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumours 45,521 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 25 minutes ago, PunkTheFunk said: Act a fool girl NNnNnNnnnN Now, I'm reading all of your comments in Alexis Mateo's voice and @nicolasrumet as Mimi Imfurst. OT: All I remember is seeing this video years ago... Maybe she was onto something back in 1993... Hmmm also this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickens in Malibu 7,873 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 9 minutes ago, Ayria said: Just out of curiosity, what would convince you personally of MJ’s guilt? What evidence do you think should be used to convict a pedophile if you were a juror in a case? I think we disagree over very basic ideas of what constitutes evidence and doubt. 1. Credible sworn statements that are successful in court. It all comes down to how it goes during cross examination. Defense will try to point out to inconsistencies and things that don't add up in your testimony. And it depends on how strong your testimony is. Gavin's issue was the lack of credibility of his mother, his brother, his family as a whole which seemed to be interested in money more than anything (even Tucker, another celebrity, testified that his mother was after him for money). And there were inconsistencies in his testimony as well, for instance claiming that one magazine was shown to him, only for the defense to point out to the fact that the specific magazine was published after Gavin left Neverland etc... 2. Evidence seized during the raid. Forensic evidence that for example could be like the presence of traces of semen from a boy and MJ in the same place, or medical records confirming someone was subject to an assault. If you are raiding someone that you call a pedophile and all you could find is some legal **** magazines, you gotta try harder. 3. Recording. People could've easily been interested in framing him or selling such material to magazines for millions of dollars. Anyone could take a phone with them and record even just audio, heck even an inappropriate conversation would do... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayria 463 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 1 minute ago, nicolasrumet said: 1. Credible sworn statements that are successful in court. Ok this first sentence already is ridiculous. The mj defenders don’t have a clear idea of a “credible witness” it’s a moving target that no one will ever meet. And MJ is dead so any pretense of a successful court case against him is out the window. You basically admit in your first sentence you won’t be convinced unless there is a guilty verdict. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trending Now
New Threads
Trending Now
New Threads
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.