Replies

Are you working for the Jackson family, by chance ?

As for "no physical evidence", there is very seldom "physical evidence" in child molestation cases. How could there be physical evidence of Jackson masturbating a kid ?

Child predators never just molest one kid. It's a compulsion and temptation. As one detective who dealt in such cases told me, "They always say they can't stop." It is ludicrous to think that Jackson would keep his hands off this one particular boy when he did it to many others - some of whom were not mentioned in the trial. Also, the boy- without knowledge of previous boys' testimony had very similar descriptions of Jackson's m.o.

Also, predators always prey on weak and unstable families. One of Jackson's former employees is coming out with a book that says Jackson has an uncanny radar for picking out unstable families to prey on. As for the mother, she's not on trial here. It's the boy's word against Jackson's.

"Are you working for the Jackson family, by chance?"

I was waiting for that. Your posts have taken on an increasingly shrill ad-hominem tone, and such a jab was inevitable.

No, I'm not. But I have a low tolerance for shakedown artists, and in this case such behavior (up to and including the farcical conspiracy charges) adds up to reasonable doubt, or should.

As to the canard that the mother is not getting money from this trial: well of course not, it's a criminal not civil trial; you seem to think I'm an idiot as well as a Jackson employee! A civil trial will follow, just as surely as it did for OJ.

As to "knowledge of previous boys' testimony", let's face it, the whole world knows about previous boys' claims, in lurid detail. Meanwhile the current child just happens to have attributed identical quotations to Jackson and his grandmother, among other suspicious testimony. Not impressive.

The price of reasonable doubt as the burden of proof is that guilty individuals sometimes go free. I'm not arguing that Jackson deserves to, but I am arguing that the cops chose the wrong horse to ride into this criminal trial. Your long laundry-list of legal luminaries notwithstanding, to my eye as an outsider reading published reports, the jury should not convict. Of course, I fully admit that someone sitting in the jury box might well have a different perspective than someone sitting in their easy chair watching the show from afar.