Replies

I don't think anybody will disagree that ol' Michael is as weird as they get . . . and that a lot of his weirdness revolves around narcissism, grandiosity, and refusal to grow up. Pedophilia would sure fit into that repulsive mix.

But you can't convict even a certifiable weirdo on general principles. You have to convict him of the acts charged, with THIS complaining witness. The oddball behavior, previous settlements, all the rest of it -- that's smoke for sure indicating a fire somewhere, but not necessarily here.

I think the prosecutor went in overconfident and relying on innuendo and general reputation to bolster his case.

But the judge charges the jury that they can NOT convict on reputation, or on acts not charged. Even if other acts, or porn, or that bizarre painting, came into evidence, the judge would charge the jury that Jackson was on trial for the particular charges in the indictment and no others, and that they should consider the evidence of other acts only for the limited purpose allowed (usually identity, pattern and practice, intent, etc.)

Which means that, if the jury felt proof of the acts in the indictment was insufficient, they were instructed to ignore the rest of the stuff -- which sounds unjust when you are just convinced of the guy's guilt, but that's what the jury's there to determine, not if Jackson is a weirdo and has bad taste in art.