LOL!
Were any of the jurors asked their reaction to the video tape of the accuser talking to police? I was watching Dimond interview Sneddon and missed the first few questions asked of jurors and frankly what I did catch was more than enough.
1. Michael Jackson is a freak and a wierdo. His face proves he is mentally ill and his admitted actions prove he is a pervert. Personally, I do not doubt that he is a practicing pedophile.
2. Having said that...in a criminal case it is hard to get a conviction when essentially your whole case rests on the sworn testimony of outlandish liars and scam artists. It just seems like you would have a tough time returning a guilty verdict if you had strong doubts about the credibility of the star witness (you know, ...beyond a reasonable doubt and all that stuff).
3. Having said that ....this jury seemed like a poster child for California vapidity. All that mumbo jumbo about "bonding" and providing a "support system" for each other, but no meaningful reference to the weight given to any of the evidence. I got the feeling that some of them may have thought it would be a real honor to have Jacko's hand in one's jammies. The case was over before the last juror was seated, IMO.
4. On the other hand, an honest-to-God smart jury may have returned the same verdict (see 2 above.)
The bottom line is that I have to just shake my head in amazement that this goofy blankety-blank actually has fans and admirers---millions of them, apparently. It's the same feeling you get when you consider how many people voted for algore. There's just no end to the nutcases out there.