The Thing Is, Michael Jackson Is Innocent

That Michael Jackson may have been more than just a little bit dodgy is a fair enough comment. So too is the idea that he didn’t have an easy childhood, it’s the environment that makes us what we are and so on. And yet to insist that Michael Jackson is not – or was not to use grammar – innocent is to deny the very basis of civil rights and justice.

For we are all innocent until proven guilty. For those still alive, for we cannot libel the dead, it is actually libellous to insist otherwise.

Adverts declaring Michael Jackson innocent taken off London buses
Transport for London orders removal based on ‘public sensitivity and concern’; Simpsons producer meanwhile suggests Jackson appearance may have helped groom boys

That those funding the ads are weirdos is possibly true. That they’re wasting their money on their obsession could also be correct. But they are just stating an actual fact about our universe. Michael Jackson is indeed innocent. He’s not been convicted in a trial, with evidence, jury, the ability to confront his accusers and all that. He’s innocent.

We did in fact go through this:

People v. Jackson (full title: 1133603: The People of the State of California v. Michael Joe Jackson) was a 2004–2005 criminal trial held in Santa Barbara County Superior Court in which American singer Michael Jackson was charged with molesting Gavin Arvizo, a 13-year-old boy. Jackson was indicted for four counts of molesting a minor, four counts of intoxicating a minor to molest him, one count of attempted child molestation, one count of conspiring to hold the boy and his family captive, and conspiring to commit extortion and child abduction. He pleaded not guilty to all counts. The trial spanned approximately 18 months, from Jackson’s arraignment on January 16, 2004 to June 13, 2005. The jury delivered a verdict of not guilty on all charges, including four lesser misdemeanour counts.

Michael Jackson was tried and found not guilty. Michael Jackson is innocent. That’s that, all there is to it.

24
Leave a Reply

avatar
4 Comment threads
20 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
Joshua WisetimworstallSteven WreyfordLeyneRhoda Klapp Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
The Mole
Guest
The Mole

I think you are twisting linguistics here. In a legal sense you are absolutely correct, he is to be presumed innocent because he hasn’t been found guilty. In general usage however innocent just means ‘he didn’t actually do it’. If MJ did what he is accused of then he did it and isn’t actually innocent, if he didn’t do it then he didn’t do it and would actually be innocent. Of course declaring him guilty without proof would be libellous if he were alive as we don’t really want people going around doing that. Although if I recall correctly you… Read more »

Joshua Wise
Guest
Joshua Wise

That’s what happened to OJ. The criminal case found him not guilty, the civil case found him liable and he had to pay the families. Jackson in 1993, the reverse almost happened. California allows civil suits to be tried before criminal suits. Jackson settled the former out of court (he had good reasons to do so not owning to guilt), and two grand juries failed to even indict him in 1994 for a criminal trial with the same information they had for the civil. The glaring problem with civil suits before criminal suits if you give away your defense before… Read more »

Arven Major
Guest
Arven Major

Amazing how many people do not understand this basic fact.

MJ wanted the criminal case go first which no guilty person would.
He was photographed and not arrested which itself is proof Chandler lied he did not and could not describe MJ’s genitals accurately.

Steven Wreyford
Guest
Steven Wreyford

You can’t make that statement. It is debatable as to whether his description was COMPLETELY correct or not – it was partially accurate. FHS – asking a 7 year old to accurately identify someone by describing someones genitalia to prove the voracity his claim? You do get the problem with this surely? Most 7 year old’s would not be able to accurately describe either their own genitalia or someone else’s. You really can’t continue arguing this point.

Leyne
Guest
Leyne

Chandler wasn’t seven years old when he had to descibe his genitalia. He was 13 or 14 years old! By then you certainly know the difference between a circumcised and an uncircumcised penis. Jordan said MJ was circumcised but according to his autopsy report he was not!

Steven Wreyford
Guest
Steven Wreyford

You are absolutely certain a 14 year old can distinguish between a hard circumcised penis and a hard non circumcised penis?

timworstall
Guest
timworstall

A 14 year old girl perhaps not – perhaps thankfully not. A 14 year old boy, sure. Men being rather obsessed with penii and none more so that the junior versions of men.

Joshua Wise
Guest
Joshua Wise

Whether he did or did not is irrelevant because the prosectution omitted the pictures and drawings from evidence. Odd thing to do if you have a match.

Rhoda Klapp
Guest
Rhoda Klapp

It’s a sad world where you can pay millions to buy off witnesses and they won’t stay bought.

In other news, MJ, guilty or innocent, is certainly dead. Wouldn’t it be more useful to chase the ones who are doing it now, famous or not?

Arven Major
Guest
Arven Major

Rhoda Klapp MJ never paid off any witnesses! The civil settlement only ended the civil case not the criminal case. June Chandler who signed that settlement testified in 2005. Jordan Chandler had every right to do the same he never wanted to he actually threatened the DA with legal action in 2004 if he had tried ot make him testify againts Mj. It’s a sad world that people do not understand the difference between civil and criminal case. Chandlers were NOT silenced. They talked. loudly. It was MJ who tried to get the criminal case go first but the judge… Read more »

Rhoda Klapp
Guest
Rhoda Klapp

I stand corrected.

Steven Wreyford
Guest
Steven Wreyford

“For we are all innocent until proven guilty. For those still alive, for we cannot libel the dead, it is actually libellous to insist otherwise.” – Apart from the fact that this sentence makes no sense at all i.e. it’s libellous to suggest that we can libel the dead? Coming forward as a victim of sexual abuse is not libellous regardless of whether the person is dead or alive. They claims have to be proved libellous from the time they claim is made. They can not be proved libellous by retrospectively applying previous judgements to new claims. You’re argument has… Read more »

Arven Major
Guest
Arven Major

It is libellous when you are not a victim but a serial liar who concocted allegations to extort millions from a dead mans’ Estate which is exactly what Robson and Safechuck have been doing for 6 years except the mass media ignores the court documents which prove beyond any doubt that they are serial liars. Their stories have more holes in it than my underwear. When the media calls MJ a child molester based on the claims those those proven liars that is libellous And the only reason why they can get away with it because the US and UK… Read more »

Steven Wreyford
Guest
Steven Wreyford

There is no statute preventing this – this is progressive, certainly not primitive, considering people do steal, and kill, and sexually abuse and rape… Death does not absolve one of all their crimes, and it shouldn’t since victims could still well be alive, especially where paedophilia and incest are involved, and it is most certainly not up to you to judge who is a victim and who isn’t. Neither you nor I can proclaim his innocence or guilt with respect to the new claims – we can cast our suspicions at best, and should regardless provide support to victims to… Read more »

Toa Silva
Guest
Toa Silva

yup so is every murderer, rapist and molester that has never been convicted of their crimes. Theyre all innocent. If he really were innocent, after having allegations of molesting and abusing children he had sleeping in his bed with no other adults around, he still continued to do so saying “One of the most loving things you can do is to share your bed, why cant you share your bed with someone?” its because he felt so above the law and was so unable to control his urges, that he continued the same behavior after paying off the chandlers and… Read more »

Arven Major
Guest
Arven Major

Toa Silva Everyone with power was 100% against MJ judge media DA police. They even falsified evidence against him. He won because his accusers were exposed to be liars and serial false accusers. Robson was the very first defense witness. Do you think MJ was so dumb that he put someone he abused for 7 years on the stand as the very first defense witnesss a and let him be cross examined by aggressive prosecutors?

Fact is there is no evidence Robson lied in 2005. There is proof he had lied since he accused MJ for money. Repeatedly.

Arven Major
Guest
Arven Major

He was the most investigated and scrutinized man in America for decades. Nobody ever found any proof he molested anyone there is only proof his accusers lied and had a finacial motive to lie. So which kids are you a talking about? Exactly who did he abuse, when and how? Which version of their every changing story do you believe? Why don’t you listen tot he countless kids who grew up with him and defend him even today as adults? They have no reason to lie. His accusers had and have millions of reasons to lie.

Steven Wreyford
Guest
Steven Wreyford

Not his “Special” boys. The boys that he had the intense emotional realtionships with. Only Culkin has diplomatically denied MJ abuse. “I don’t think he abused me”???!!

Joshua Wise
Guest
Joshua Wise

Culkin vehemently denies it, as does his brother. Brett Barnes still defends Jackson as well, and he is named dropped as a victim by nearly every accuser. Corey Feldman(contrary to recent statement not defending someone is not accusing them), Aaron Carter, need I go on. It is not a handful of kids he interacted with, but literally thousands, and we have only five accusers with a laundry list of credibility issues, so he’d have to be the most atypical pedophile who ever lived, which contrary to popular belief was a profile he never matched.

Arven Major
Guest
Arven Major

The Chandlers were NOT paid off! Chandlers demanded 20m from him in Aug 93 and MJ REFUSED to pay. He refused to pay even 1m! Now, if he had molested Chandler, Robson Safechuck before Aug 93 when Chandler gave him an excellent opportunity to pay for his silence why didn’t he pay? The civil settlement 6 months later was done only because the judge violated his rights for a fair criminal trial. The civil settlement did NOT end the criminal case and Chandler had every right to testify. So , why wasn’t MJ charged ? Because they had no evidence… Read more »

Steven Wreyford
Guest
Steven Wreyford

The were not paid off? Are you mad? What exactly do you call the millions that MJ settled the out of court? Stop playing with words. Only a lunatic advised by lunatics would settle out of court for $15m if there was no sound evidence since the boy was only partially able to describe MJs genitals correctly. You do realise this don’t you? The Chandlers did not co-operate with the criminal process – there could be a host of reasons and we could speculate indefinitely as to why. Perhaps they had death threats, perhaps external leverage, it could be one… Read more »

Arven Major
Guest
Arven Major

That maid was totally discredited in court in 2005, she testified in 93 that she never saw anything wrong. Then she was fired for theft and sued MJ. She lost. She sold bogus pedo stories to tabloids to make money for the lawsuit. She is still selling the same bogus stories today. She admitted in court that she acted with malice and oppression agianst MJ.

Looks like you did not read the court documents. Stop believing the media. They have lied about MJ for decades. Totally misrepresenting the evidence.

Arven Major
Guest
Arven Major

He didn’t groom anyone. Dozens of families were close to him, he treated all of them with love and respect. Only five who wanted something from him or his Estate and dind’t get it ended up accusing him ALWAYS with a massive financial motive. Then they called every single act of kindness grooming. Ridiculous.

Steven Wreyford
Guest
Steven Wreyford

You respect the families by letting their 7 year old son repeatedly sleep in your bed and for intense emotional relationships with them? That is not respect in anyone’s books by any healthy persons standards.