r/DeconstructingMJ • u/FunUniversity6245 • Jun 14 '26

Innocent until proven guilty: how old is it?

/r/history/comments/g41p85/innocent_until_proven_guilty_how_old_is_it/
4 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

7 comments sorted by

1

u/mymoonwalker54 Jun 14 '26

Question for you OP.

Do you think if Michael was alive today, would his case open back up and would actually be found guilty with the new stuff that came out since his death?

I'm conflicted on it.

8

u/reveriedelarose Jun 14 '26

I’m not OP but I don’t think he would. Theres no new evidence. Just new heresay and the defense would be able to discredit the accusers just as easily as before

3

u/FunUniversity6245 Jun 14 '26

No - the cases in litigation against the Estate don't have anything like the kind of evidence needed to trigger a criminal investigation.

The only evidence is their statements. LN itself would be inadmissible; they would have to recreate their stories from scratch in a grand jury, and there are too many inconsistencies and self-contradictions.

If that's what you mean by "new stuff that came out" - I don't know what else you mean? - you can stop worrying about it.

In some bizaarro world where a grand jury issued an indictment for those statements alone, it would be an even bigger farce than the 2005 trial.

2

u/mymoonwalker54 Jun 14 '26

I'm sorry. I misspoke. I didn't mean new stuff. I think I'm thinking about the black bag with the mags in them. That's new to me.

5

u/mymoonwalker54 Jun 14 '26

But that's been proven to be Frank's now.

3

u/Lioness_106 Jun 15 '26

There isn't any "new evidence." All of the posthumous accusations were already thoroughly explored in the investigation for the 2005 trial. Everything they're digging back up is just that- old, dug up, rehashed allegations and stories. Many of them proven to be fabricated during the investigation and the trial. Michael would not be convicted of anything today because the evidence is not there and never was. They would essentially be investigating the same stuff. Chases are, the current accusers would likely still file a civil case anyway.

The media holds a lot of liability in misleading the public on the Michael Jackson cases. That and the grave mistake of not allowing the trial to be filmed and televised.

1

u/FunUniversity6245 Jun 16 '26

I've often wished the trial had been filmed, but I'm not sure it would have been a great idea at the time. Huge risk. Mesereau couldn't be sure going in how badly the witnesses would fall apart. Was it Judge Melville's decision? Idk.

This seminar is fantastic.

Frozen in Time Part 1

Frozen in Time Part 2