mjbunny
Proud Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,357
- Points
- 63
Ummmm, I wasn't arguing about anything And I certainly never implied that MJ was guilty!!! My goodness. I meant those who believe they are 'hardcore rationalists'... i.e. people who'd say that it's simply a matter of belief on the jury's part as to whether the prosecution had a good case or not. If there's reasonable doubt, then there's no conviction. And that's the stance the media harps on like mad when it's in their best interest to screw up someone's life by saying that "not guilty doesn't mean innocent". They like to paint themselves as realists so they can get away with it. Whichever way they can make more money. If it's by promoting someone's innocence they'll appeal to you emotionally and you'll hear "Oh come on, of course they didn't do something like that! Everyone can easily see they're not capable of it!" But, more commonly, if the big cash-in lies in guilt they'll say,"Hey, we weren't there, so we don't really know-- no matter what the jury says", implying that you're not being rational if you don't doubt at least a little. It's all a sick game for money.i don't know what you mean by hardcore, but if you mean sticking to technicalities... then in this country you INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. So yes I AM hardcore in my unwavering position that Michael is Innocent, and so Proven in Court by 10 NOT GUILTY Verdicts.
Last edited: