This isn't about the child. It's about a criminal case in which the prosecution -- under the standards of justice that govern criminal courts in the United States of America -- has to meet a very substantial burden of proof.
From the start, this case was nothing more than a showcase for all kinds of freaks . . . Jackson himself, the kid's family, and all those @ssholes who spent every day of the last couple of months congregating outside the courthouse or Neverland holding up their "Free Michael" signs.
So was justice served in this case? You yourself seem to acknowledge that Jackson is a child molester and now he has been set free by this pack of morons they call a jury. You don't think he should have been convicted on a SINGLE charge, even the alcoholism charge? Then what is the point of a legal system at all if the guilty can never be found "guilty". When is there "enough" evidence? What constitutes "enough" evidence? We have a man who publicly admits to sleeping with young boys. What do you think he's doing in there? How is he going to be stopped? Can he be stopped? What "evidence" would be enough?
I think we have a serious dirth of common sense in this country. How can a man publicly admit to sleeping with unrelated young boys in the same bed, be allowed to do this? THat should be a crime in and of itself. Maybe that's the problem - maybe this particular act in and of itself needs to be legislated as a crime.