[Alberta's Child]

Oh, stop the dramatics, would you? The child isn't being "punished" because of his mother -- his alleged molester is being acquitted because his mother was a terrible witness for the prosecution. The child himself was a terrible witness for the prosecution, too. In some cases this would not have been a problem, but when the prosecution is predicated on the testimony of just a few witnesses -- all of whom have credibility problems -- then it's easy to see how this would have ended in an acquittal.

I knew Jackson was going to be acquitted when the prosecutor promised the jury that they would hear damning testimony from a number of key witnesses, and none of that testimony lent any credibility whatsoever to the charges that had been brought against Jackson.

[blueblazes]

I'm not sure if you answered me. Do you believe Michael Jackson is innocent?

[AnAmericanMother]

Good lord, more prosecutorial incompetence.

If you stand up in opening and tell the jury they are going to hear Facts X, Y and Z from a witness, and that witness gets on the stand and not only doesn't testify to X, Y, and Z but DENIES that X, Y, and Z EVER HAPPENED, that is the ever-lovin' kiss of death.

Did the DA then claim "surprise" and ask to take those witnesses on cross examination and impeach them with their prior inconsistent statements? Did he even HAVE prior recorded statements or affidavits from these witnesses? What a clown!

If I had botched a case like this, I would expect to be turning burgers at Wendy's.

[sarasota]

I thought Jackson would be found guilty on at least one of the charges (alcohol to minors would be a nice start) when Messereau promised the jury that Jackson himself would take the stand.