Friday, 24 June 2005 - 12:27 AM BST
Name:
Tom
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.
