Again, what evidence of a 7yo child being raped by his famous, wealthly and powerful idol would satisfy you?
No, I got your point. I said all kind of evidence matters, but some is more important that others. Though direct evidence isn't exactly uncommon, especially for people who are guilty. Also I wont just disregard how ineffective out legal system is because you don't think that's the point. I know how the legal system works and I think it's heavily flawed. You're entitled to think it's great, but don't tell me that TV shows are what makes me hesitant when it comes to circumstantial evidence.
So Harvey Weinstein is innocent in your eyes? And Bill Cosby? And OJ?
To me, one type of evidence is cleaner than another. I also believe there should be more evidence to prove one guilty than there should be to prove someone is innocent. I believe people are innocent until proven guilty (by my own metric of proof). So yeah, I strongly prefer direct evidence. If you look at the amount of cases overturned it's a case of direct or scientific evidence disproving circumstantial evidence. To me, one is far more important that the other because it's much harder to disprove or cast doubt on direct evidence. Not saying it's impossible, but certainly much more difficult in my mind.
Someone fucking defend. Do it, come in and say this isn't damming and you need more evidence.
You're missing:
No, you see, they're art books and were solely used for that intent and purpose by the man well known for his proclivity for fondling, kissing and cuddling young boys in bed, in private.
So you blame the abused kids instead of Jackson? That's pretty shitty.
Honestly not a fan of going through the books to find the pictures of nude child boys to see just how morally offensive I find them.
You're the one that established "I need proof to believe anything". There was no direct proof in those other cases.
This joke of a man was pathetic. How can a lunatic like this become so powerful.
Some were decent to be fair, how much did he do with nobody knowing who he was?
A man viewing pornographic images with 7 year olds...what the fuck is wrong with you to be suggesting that some of those books arent 100% explicit in nature when the rest of that list is. Get help
You can like his music and still consider him a monster. It doesn't have to be one or the other. That's a personal problem if you don't like that people can seperate the two.
How many of them would you be cool with a stranger showing your kid...alone...in bed.
Look through this thread and the previous locked ones. The defense force is strong
think they meant rkelly and I dont think anyone denied rkelly is a pedo
