Tom Chappelow replies!
Topic: Misc.
I forgot to mention that I got a reply from Tom Chappelow (or an imposter with a lot of free time on his hands) following this post from last month:

Haven't these people heard of Dry Ice?

For the lazy among you, I shall paste in his reply here:

Me being that same Tom Chappelow, I feel I should pass comment. (Somebody I know passed this page on to me.) Now, there have been two child abuse accusations made against Mr Jackson, the first of which he essentially "paid off". That behaviour is extremely suspect. If he was innocent, why pay the family to stay quiet?

For the next, there were a LARGE number of people who backed up the claim that Jackson had inappropriate relations with the boy, and other boys. If somebody is repeatedly accused, with many witnesses, of a crime, does that mean they're automatically guilty? No. But it does, in my opinion, mean there must be *some* substance to the accusations.

By the way, the jury said that Jackson wasn't guilty... enough. They believed that he had inappropriate relations with boys, but that the prosecution hadn't adequately proved IN THIS CASE that Jackson had inappropriate relations with the boy. They have to judge the case as to whether they're convinced beyond reasonable doubt of the specific charges. The verdict 'not guilty' does not mean 'entirely innocent', which is why I said that I didn't believe the charges were "entirely fictional".

Hope this helps you understand my opinion.

I'm still not satisfied with this. While the jury may have only said that he wasn't guilty in this case, it's worth keeping in mind the fact that the prosecution selected their best case to put on trial. The fact that Jackson did pay a previous accuser to remain silent doesn't actually prove guilt, though I agree it was a mistake. He may have decided that there was a risk of a miscarriage of justice. I could equally argue that if the family were convinced of his guilt, why did they accept money instead of pursuing justice for their child? What message does that send out?

Also there seems to be some ambivalence in:

If somebody is repeatedly accused, with many witnesses, of a crime, does that mean they're automatically guilty? No. But it does, in my opinion, mean there must be *some* substance to the accusations.

TC appears to accept that there can be some substance to an accusation, even when someone is innocent. So it could be in this instance.

DY