Moggy wrote:OrangeRKN wrote:A documentary and the court of public opinion opinion is a poor substitute for an actual trial. Unfortunately when an accused person is dead there seems to be no viable alternative, but I don't think that's an excuse for throwing aside the maxim of innocence before proven guilt. It's a messy subject that you're not going to get a definitive answer out of, so I think you're better off not wasting your time looking for one if you're not involved.
What is your opinion of Jimmy Savile?
There was a huge official police investigation that concluded "214 of the complaints that had been made against Savile after his death would have been criminal offences if they had been reported at the time". Granted it never went to trial, but the unprecedented scale makes the allegations appear almost undoubtedly true and I have no doubt he would have been found guilty.
That's a very different scenario to a privately funded TV documentary with only 2 complaints. As Jenuall says there is also a big difference between the two as Jackson was accused, investigated and taken to trial during his life - and found not guilty.
Jimmy Saville is an exception rather than the norm in how his criminal behaviour on an unprecedented scale was finally brought to light after his death.
If this documentary was instead the result of an investigation by law enforcement, then that would be somewhat different, although I'd still lament the inability to bring it to trial for a definitive answer.