I don't know one way or the other whether he's guilty or not, but enough's been said on one side of the argument here that I'd just like to say: Hasn't it occurred to anyone that since there is a precendent of Jackson paying a very large sum of money to the parents of a previous boy who made allegations to avoid a court case, that any unscrupulous parents of any of the kids Jackson invites to Neverland ranch could assume they could get the same if they made false allegations?
In my opinion the balance of evidence in previous cases points towards guilt then, but that STILL doesn't necessarily mean he's guilty in this instance.
As serious and damaging a crime as paedophilia is I wouldn't want to be part of a lynch mob that prejudges before seeing/hearing any evidence whatsoever.
|