[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Charlie: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: There were no charges filed in 1993. Despite the lawsuit, the police never felt there was enough evidence to even file charges or make an arrest. In fact, were it anyone but wacko jacko, we'd all be calling it a money-grubbing lawsuit targeting the wealthy.

The fact that the kid in question was paid some $13,000,000 or whatever to withdraw his allegations etc may have had something to do with it. Without the childs evidence there was no case. Any self respecting man would fight tooth and nail to defend himself from such a heinious crime if innocent, regardless of status, to have that smear removed. Wacko Jerko threw money at it, hoped it would go away and such things would never happen again.......hope he's got some throw away cash around.....(edit)NOT [/QUOTE]Even if Michael Jackson had fought the original allegations and allowed the case to go to trial, there is no garuantee that verdict of Innocent would actually remove the spectre of guilt. If you don't believer me, just ask O.J. Simpson. He was found innocent of first degree murder. So how many people believe he truly is innocent and justice prevailed...and how many believe that he got away with murder.

A public trial would not have changed anything for Michael Jackson. He can easily afford the best lawyers in the world (and - ironically - retained Johnny Cochran, one of O.J.'s lawyers), so most people would believe that his lawyers got him off. Either way, Michael Jackson's reputation is going to be smeared. The only difference is whether it is over and done with quickly, or whether it drags out on public TV for over a year. In the end, those who believe Jackson is guilty would still believe it and those who believe he is innocent would still believe that also.

That is why it was the best decision for him to go ahead and settle the case out of court.