[laredo44]

My only surprise was that he wasn't even convicted of the minor offenses (serving alcohol to children, for example) that the defense didn't really contest at all.

The fact that they didn't convict on the alcohol charges calls their entire process for determining guilt into question in my opinion. Has anyone asked jurors why the didn't?

[HHFi]

The fact that they didn't convict on the alcohol charges calls their entire process for determining guilt into question in my opinion. Has anyone asked jurors why the didn't?

Didn't the defense at one point have a witness trying to impeach the accuser's and his brother's characters by testifying that he'd seen them at Neverland, drinking and looking at porn? Considering they were allegedly under Michael's supervision at the time, isn't that an admission that he let them have alcohol as a prelude to lewd activities?

Personally, I don't think these 12 dunderheads would have found him guilty if he'd been charged with having a nose job.

[Alberta's Child]

Someone posted on another thread that the jury would have had a difficult time convicting Jackson only on the alcohol charges, because the formal charge was "serving alcohol to a minor with the intent of molesting him" or something like that. If the jury wasn't going to convict him of molesting the child, then they couldn't really convict him of the alcohol charge, either.

I'll stand corrected on that if I'm wrong, but that's how someone explained it to me this morning.