Some guy named Peter King in NY speaks the truth about Michael Jackson

[sbrguy]

I can understand why someone would think what he thinks.  Many think that despite the facet he was never convicted, there is preponderance of evidence.  Pedophilia is a highly provocative subject and people are liable to have very strong opinions. 

yeah but you just can't go around accusing people when a jury aquits the person.

here is the reason why.. even if you are proven innocent you are still labeled for life.

case in point: a teacher of my old high school was brought up on charges of molesting a high schooler.

he was immediately suspended and fired, it went to trial.  During the trial it was PROVEN and the ACCUSER ADMITTED IN TESTIMONY LYING ABOUT THE WHOLE THING!!! NO MOLESTING OR INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR TOOK PLACE AT ALL!! THE KID DID IT BECAUSE HE GOT A BAD GRADE IN CLASS!!  That teacher has not worked since then and its been 10 years, no school will take him even though the KID LIED ABOUT THE WHOLE THING AND FABRICATED THE ENTIRE INCIDENT!!
THE ACCUSED WAS 100% INNOCENT NOTHING HAPPENED AT ALL but the teacher has been blackballed for life and career ruined forever. 

Now is that fair even in the slightest way?   Should you be allowed to ruin a person's life on no evidence but because "you just dont' like the person or because you 'think' they did something"?

Now you tell me do you still think that someone that makes such imflamatory remarks should be allowed to do so? 

[redxblack]

I bet the guy wasn't accused by another kid a few years later.

[il d00d]

yeah but you just can't go around accusing people when a jury acquits the person.

Absolutely you can, but you probably shouldn't - that was part of my point.  Someone who represents a district should show a little more decorum.

here is the reason why.. even if you are proven innocent you are still labeled for life.

That sounds like a deeply shitty situation.  If the part about the accuser lying was made clear to everyone involved, it seems to me I am missing some of the story though.  I think false accusation being revealed is even more compelling in the court of public opinion than a really nasty accusation.

As for Jackson, I mentioned in another thread that I think there is a better chance that Jackson was the victim of greedy parents than the kids were a victim of him- but I still wouldn't have left my kids at Neverland for a sleep over.  Not only because I have not completely ruled out the possibility that something happened, but also because he was weird and childlike.
There is a difference between being found not guilty, and never being accused at all.  If a conviction is a black mark on your name, an accusation is a stain that you can (or have to) work hard to scrub away - Jackson had an accumulation of stains. Some people think this added up to a mark and have no problem saying so.  All I am saying is that even though I don't share their fervor, and we didn't arrive at the same conclusions, we follow the same line of reasoning.
I didn't think Jackson deserved to be in jail based on the evidence, and he didn't deserve to be treated as though he was found guilty.  But, I think he earned some suspicion.

[mookieo2]

Johnnie Cochran

[cyrus buelton]

for once a random "troll" was not me..........




Thank you to everyone for all your PM's inquiring to if I am Devin, but sadly.........

I have gone legit.

[NAKID]

Hahahahaha

[ducatiz]

I bet the guy wasn't accused by another kid a few years later.

and then another one..

And then paid all of them off to the tune of over 20 million, plus additional payments to the parents.

Yes, the jury acquitted Jackson.  The accuser refused to testify.  I might consider refusing to testify too if I got paid 20 million +.  I am sure that would pay off the psychological treatment I'd need.

The difference in Jackson and John Wayne Gacy is that Gacy didn't have enough money to buy off his victims, so he had to silence them.,

[Statler]

sorry, sbrguy, either the person in question in your story has gotten truly bad legal advice for many many years and/or he didn't bother to pursue all avenues available to him, or you are missing large chunks of the story.   Remember, there are administrative findings and other Court proceedings besides the criminal case.  People cleared in administrative findings get their jobs back, with back pay, and expungement of anything that could even hint at a history people could find anywhere.  So being in the field, I don't buy it.   I'm by no means saying falsely accusing someone is ok, but that third party anecdotes are usually very very incomplete.

[sbrguy]

statler,

my only thing is this, you will have a certain percentage of people that no matter what won't trust anyone no matter how "not guilty" a person is.  simple as that.

would you as a school administrator hire someone that was brought up on charges or falsy accused to watch over your kid?  even if there was proof that it as false, would you 100% trust that person or would some part of you still say "maybe"?  i think when push comes to shove, people do the simple cya routine because afteall if something goes wrong then its you that messed up, and people dont' take risks like that when its their kid..

[Statler]

I would never know if someone was falsely accused if they either followed the right steps or didn't have other findings.  That was my point.   A background check would be clear.

[Statler]

I'm not disagreeing with you...really...just pointing out that from my background there's something fishy with your anecdote.


false accusations of this nature are some of the worst false accusations that can be made.

[superjohn]

"People who have made up their minds about a man do not like to have their opinions changed, to reverse their judgement on account of some new evidence or new arguments, and the man who tries to compel them to change their minds is at least wasting their time, and may be asking for trouble."

-John O'Hara

[ducpainter]

After you take an evidence class you come back and say that. 

Most cases are proven on so-called "circumstantial" evidence.  Most juries are plenty happy with "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, must be a duck" logic.

That's unfortunate.

[ducatiz]

That's unfortunate.

nahh, come sit in on a few criminal trials and see for yourself.  it is pretty rare that a jury does something bizarre on the face of the evidence presented.  and usually, so-called circumstantial evidence is not just a few things, it is dozens of elements, often culminating with a giant neon sign pointing at the defendant.