Go back to previous topic
Forum nameGeneral Discussion
Topic subjectthere's no definitive answer.
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13305786&mesg_id=13317356
13317356, there's no definitive answer.
Posted by Dr Claw, Mon Mar-04-19 05:08 PM
because

1) sexual assault cases rarely have "proof". it's a game of the accuser's word against the accused.

2) because of the nature of sexual assault, and #1, you basically have to be there to know certainly.

then there is the matter (for y'all dum-dums in the back) of Mike's own behavior. he hosted sleepovers for children. he said on TV that there is nothing wrong with sharing a bed with a child. and while he is not technically wrong about the second, society says otherwise. there are too many cases of adults using that setting (or similar settings) for rape. no matter your intention, it's just not appropriate. even if Mike never touched a single child, the whole optics of it all is going to make him look suspect. furthermore he seemed to have too much of an interest in things that were childish as he aged, and became more independent. all red flags from a circumstantial perspective, and the main reason I don't fault anyone for thinking he's a pedo.

I don't agree. the only reason I don't agree is because of the nature of the 2 cases that went to court. I believe, as can be supported with the court proceedings, behavior of the accuser's families, and the general stories leading up to the allegations, that Mike did not commit those crimes, and that he may have been the subject of an extortion attempt. the testimony of many in the same situation has been very consistent in their denials. there appears to be no evidence of any real hush money or gifts being paid out to these people, who have been presenting themselves unprompted.


however, very few will go against their gut, because... we all know what it looks like, and 99% of the time, it's usually the case.

but I ain't the kind of person who just lets unsubstantiated bullshit fly out of my mouth when it comes to crimes.

that's why I never say "100% innocent, he would never hurt a fly". I say "there's reasonable doubt". that's the best you can do in a situation like this.

this is a situation very similar to OJ, and I have a similar belief:

"not guilty" is correct, media narrative suggests they're mad about that, the accused (OJ and MJ) don't make it easy to believe them.

I will say if different accusers without the weirdness in their stories come forward? I could change my position. that's why I say it's not definitive.