zegna

In my view, guilt should be implied where there is obviously a sustainable basis for it. Without even referring to MJ or the legal arena, there are plenty of frivolous, vexatious and/or entirely bare allegations that are made on a daily basis. But if there's no reasonable or sustainable basis on which such allegations or accusations rest, I don't see how you can hold them against someone. Especially when such allegations look to have been made for an improper collateral purpose (usually money or spite).

But like you said, it's down to an individual's judgment. Coming back to the MJ issue, I don't think it's enough to say he's guilty of indecent sexual assault when the settlement or the outcome of the criminal case don't provide a basis for this. This is why I asked what the basis could be. His looks? I don't know.

Put another way, if some woman cried rape and the accused was acquitted on the basis that there was no evidence of any penetration and her testimony was full of holes, I wouldn't go around saying the guy was a rapist. There may be a moral dilemma nonetheless, but the scales may be further tipped by other circumstances (let's say you knew the dude to be an upstanding guy and the "victim" was butt-ugly and you know the guy doesn't do fat or ugly chicks). You know what I mean.

Anyway, I've rambled on long enough...nice to meet you guys.

P.S. I had no idea I'd be posting in the pop forum as much as this. Time to move on.