Quote:
Originally Posted by AD720
So you know that to be true? For a fact?
In 1993: no criminal charges filed - lack of strong enough evidence
In 2005: found not guilty on all charges in a jury trial
Have you read anything about the accusations in 1993? About the family and their alleged motives? How about the 2005 People v Jackson case? About the contradictory testimony given by the alleged victims?
Settling out of court proves nothing but an attempt at avoiding a long drawn out trial in which much more money would have been spent in lawyers fees. I'm inclined to believe that if the alleged molestation occurred the family would simply not be satisfied with a monetary settlement and would not rest until justice was served.
But I'm not trying to convince you, you've made up your mind. As have I until the time if/when more evidence comes to light. Go ahead and believe what you want but don't tell people that they are naive just because they disagree with your assessment of the situation.
|
I'm with you, and I read very closely through the years.
What I got out of the whole deal is that he definately molested many children, but thought it was okay because he thinks he's a kid and it's natural for kids to "explore".
It all adds up. Right up to the end.