I dunno about that. How about these people being biased in FAVOR of MIchael Jackson from the outset. DO you think that several of these jurors (6 I heard) who describe themselves as fans of MJ, should have been seated as jurors? Is that okay? Should that old broad who has the sex offender grandson have been seated? How about people who have been to Neverland - should they have been seated?
The bottom line - which you seem to keep eluding - is that Michael Jackson is a 45-46 year old single man who has admitted that he routinely sleeps with young boys who are unrelated to him in the same bed? Should this be allowed? How is this to be stopped? SHould it be stopped. I say it is unacceptable - the mere fact that he does this and has admitted it publicly PROVES that he is most assuredly a child molester as what else would a grown man be doing with these children in his bed all the time? Can you actually defend this practice? Because that's what it comes down to. It doesn't come down to me assuming or thinking or guessing anything about Michael Jackson. It comes down to what he has personally said and done. He should be stopped. This jury had a chance to do that and didn't. Several of them have admitted that they believe he IS a child molester. And yet they let him go. His future victims are on their heads.
DA Sneddon must have thought so, since he could have struck them, but didn't.
Should this be allowed? How is this to be stopped?
If Jackson is so prolix in his pedophilia, there have to be other victims who don't have gold-digging mothers. Go find them and encourage them to come forward.