Kevin Spacey not guilty

[noname223]

Here is an article on the case.

MSN

www.msn.com

The jury pleaded not guilty. I know maybe I should not express my thoughts despite not having followed the case closely. But I have to say Kevin Spacey seemed for me like a psycho. I was big fan of him in House of Cards but some of his appearances afterwards seemed for me like a mixture of insanity and megalomania.

As you might know there were many allegations against him. Mostly they consisted of sexual molestiing etc. He once released an insane video where he defends himself against the allegations and behaves like the main character of House of Cards. Who is by the way a complete manipulative liar. I had the impression maybe he coulld act in such a good way in this role because it resembled his true nature. But as I said this is all speculation.

One could criticize that the mainstream and social media often pretends to know the culprit before the judgement. And that the media often has a certain bias.
This guy seemed for me fishy though.

But I don't pretend I would know the full truth. Maybe the jury was right afterall. What is your opinion on it?

 

[Celerity]

I haven't been following this closely, but I attend to agree with you. Maybe there wasn't enough evidence for the jury?

 

[Smart No More]

Another speculator here....

I remember him from his excellent performance in American Beauty. Whilst I really enjoyed his character in that i think its possible that what made it such a good one could be seeded in some darkness of Spacey's psyche. He's an unassuming man to look at. Easily cast as a very plain dad until you hear him speak and watch his behavior. That contrast can be disarming. It can also impact a mans ego. It's easy to see a potential path for a gay, average in the looks department, performing arts man that found himself in a position (some might say above his station) of "power" to indulge himself in an extroverted manner out of the ordinary in regular life. Give an inch, take a mile right? That's not to say he took that path. The jury say he's innocent so as far as the law goes he is. Many a convict has been wrongly convicted though and that cat flap swings both ways. The fact of the matter is, we don't know. It's just easy to believe it's possible from what we see from our position.

I think it's important to give benefit of doubt for the sake of people who fall into wrongly being assumed guilty. I'd rather see criminals get away with a crime than innocent people being convicted. That's a hard decision to make but I've given it some thought. I understand it might be a controversial view though.

It's really hard not to make the final move into assumption of guilt and I too am "guilty" of do it. For example the Michael Jackson case. Those boys/guys who were eventually interviewed in the documentary "Leaving Neverland" provide a compelling insight and in my gut I believe them. I think their testimonies provide many factual elements that indicate guilt. However the courts cleared him. I ask myself what's worse, to be wrongfully convicted of such a crime or to see a person get away with it. Its perplexingly hard to make that choice and I find myself bouncing from one side to the other as I think it over. But wrongly convicting people doesn't fix a crime because it leaves a perpetrator on the loose as well as doing further harm. Purely on that I have to say the benefit of the doubt has and is the lesser potential evil.