I've seen other child molesters get convicted on less than this. There was a mountain of evidence. I believe that these jurors were intimidated by the celebrity factor, plain and simple. Boy-oh-boy I wish some East Coast jurors had gotten the chance to have a crack at this case. Who knows ? Perhaps one day they will.
There was a lot of evidence. As I've said before, what consistitutes sufficient evidence or proof is entirely subjective and can vary from jury to jury. I don't believe there is any amount of evidence that would have swayed this jury. I think they started off - most of them believing he was not guilty and I think they maintained that belief right to the end. It would not have mattered in the least what evidence the DA presented or not. People have been convicted of molestation on far less evidence and with a far less prominent reputation. Evidence is totally in the mind of the beholder. The bottom line is that Jackson is an open child molester and several members of this jury KNOW that and have ADMITTED that and they let him go anyway when they had sufficient evidence to hold him on at least some of the minor charges. What they did is INDEFENSIBLE, and his future victims lie on their heads.