And OJ didn't kill his wife, either. They had MASSIVE amounts of evidence there and it was ignored.
It's a different case... comparisons are more distraction than benefit.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that any evidence in the OJ case wouldn't have been admissable in the Jackson case. I might be wrong, but I don't think so.
"They had MASSIVE amounts of evidence there and it was ignored."
And that is the most significant diffference between these cases. OJ bought the shoes worn by the killer. OJ would fit the gloves if not for having shrunk from the dried blood. Blood stains, etc. Jeez, that was physical evidence badly handled by the idiot prosecutors.
In Jackson's case, the star witnesses have a history of false suits, lying, and tampering. Everything was circumstantial. "He has porno, so he's guilty".
God forbid should any child walk through an Army barracks where there is typically porno mags. Would every soldier be guilty of having molested the child if the mother gold digs?
I would love the discussion of this case to center on the facts presented as evidence. If someone wants to say Jackson is guilty, by all means present the evidence as presented in court. I'd be happy to discuss it and change my mind that I don't think he was guilty of molestation.