mvem:
...please you are the one using emotions... You love MJ music and probably idolize him, why won't you defend him so badly....

He was cleared by the fbi and the court of law.
The Court of public opinion is not the court of law.We might as well revert to jungle justice since the only thing that matters for anyone to be labelled guilty is people's opinion

Martinez19:
A man spent 6 years behind bars for a rape he never commited after a girl falsely accused him and there were no evidences to back up her claims. Of course, the judge in charge of that case had no evidence and went emotional but that doesn't mean that what the judge did was legal. The legal protocol is to assume the accused innocent until proven guilty. The fact some judges are corrupt and emotional doesn't mean what they did was legal. Go to anywhere and ask, the legal protocol demands that the accused be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

the accused is always presumed innocent even in those cases, in historic abuse cases the word of mouth testimony of a supposed trustworthy victim is considered evidence and if a jury disbelieves the accused then he is going to jail.


Read up on historic abuse cases in America

Ubenedictus:
the accused is always presumed innocent even in those cases, in historic abuse cases the word of mouth testimony of a supposed trustworthy victim is considered evidence and if a jury disbelieves the accused then he is going to jail.


Read up on historic abuse cases in America

How man times will I correct you on this issue? Even in historic abuse cases, it's still innocent until proven guilty as those with history of sexual crime can still be falsely accused. My sister can wake up one morning and decide to say that she was raped by Bill Cosby, should you believe her because Bill Cosby has a history of sexual assaulting women? IN ALL CASES, THE LEGAL PROTOCOL IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. The fact that some liberal stupid crackhead judges ignored the legal protocol doesn't mean what they did is legal. That's the injustice in the system. It's like telling me that because politicians have looted funds through out history then it is acceptable and legal.

Alleged serial rapist, Asiwaju, has been arrested before for blackmail and rape and his mother has allegedly been dead a long time ago

Check out the full thread



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b61i3fRfxyA

Martinez19:
How man times will I correct you on this issue? Even in historic abuse cases, it's still innocent until proven guilty as those with history of sexual crime can still be falsely accused. My sister can wake up one morning and decide to say that she was raped by Bill Cosby, should you believe her because Bill Cosby has a history of sexual assaulting women? IN ALL CASES, THE LEGAL PROTOCOL IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. The fact that some liberal stupid crackhead judges ignored the legal protocol doesn't mean what they did is legal. That's the injustice in the system. It's like telling me that because politicians have looted funds through out history then it is acceptable and legal.

you just don't get it.


The accused is ALWAYS presumed innocent I am not debating that, but the evidence required for historic abuse cases is totally different from what is required in a recent abuse case.

Testimony of a trusted witness including the accused is considered sufficient evidence. The burden of proof is usually different and there are plans in many western countries to still lessen the burden .




Child sexual abuse criminal court cases from a 12-month period were reviewed to determine the frequency and significance of physical evidence in legally "proven" felony cases with penetration. One hundred fifteen consecutive cases were reviewed, and 87 (76%) had resulted in conviction of the perpetrator on felony charges. Charges of vaginal rape were made in 88 cases, and oral and/or anal sodomy in 67 cases. Physical evidence was present in only 23% of all cases that resulted in felony convictions. Felony convictions were obtained in 67 (79%) of 85 cases without physical evidence and in only 20 (67%) of 30 cases with physical evidence. Eight of the 10 cases without physical evidence that did not result in conviction involved victims younger than 7 years of age. Cases involving the youngest victims had a significantly lower conviction rate (12 of 23), despite a very high frequency (13 of 23) of physical evidence (P less than .0005). Physical evidence was neither predictive nor essential for conviction. Successful prosecution, particularly in cases involving the youngest victims, depended on the quality of the verbal evidence and the effectiveness of the child victim's testimony.
googleweblight.com/i?u=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1881730&hl=en-NG



As you can see physical proof is not necessary, very few of such cases involved physical proof

Ubenedictus:
you just don't get it.


The accused is ALWAYS presumed innocent I am not debating that, but the evidence required for historic abuse cases is totally different from what is required in a recent abuse case.

Testimony of a trusted witness including the accused is considered sufficient evidence. The burden of proof is usually different and there are plans in many western countries to still lessen the burden .




Child sexual abuse criminal court cases from a 12-month period were reviewed to determine the frequency and significance of physical evidence in legally "proven" felony cases with penetration. One hundred fifteen consecutive cases were reviewed, and 87 (76%) had resulted in conviction of the perpetrator on felony charges. Charges of vaginal rape were made in 88 cases, and oral and/or anal sodomy in 67 cases. Physical evidence was present in only 23% of all cases that resulted in felony convictions. Felony convictions were obtained in 67 (79%) of 85 cases without physical evidence and in only 20 (67%) of 30 cases with physical evidence. Eight of the 10 cases without physical evidence that did not result in conviction involved victims younger than 7 years of age. Cases involving the youngest victims had a significantly lower conviction rate (12 of 23), despite a very high frequency (13 of 23) of physical evidence (P less than .0005). Physical evidence was neither predictive nor essential for conviction. Successful prosecution, particularly in cases involving the youngest victims, depended on the quality of the verbal evidence and the effectiveness of the child victim's testimony.
googleweblight.com/i?u=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1881730&hl=en-NG



As you can see physical proof is not necessary, very few of such cases involved physical proof

*face-palms and sighs* have it your way. If you insist then there is nothing I can do.