Mike Savage made a great point last night. Many of the pedophile priests were convicted with far less evidence and witnesses than MJ was tried with. That's actually true in many cases. The prosecution's case against MJ was adequate - they had a lot of evidence and eyewitnesses. People rail against the mother but apparently the DA's thinking there was that he had to put her on, whether he wanted to or not as the defense would have put her on anyway. She was going to end up on the stand no matter what. Unfortunately the DA has to prosecute the cases that come before him with the people who come before him. In molestation cases the victim's families will seem odd or disturbed because those are the types of people that molesters target.
It's kind of like trying an organized crime case - your witnesses are not going to be nuns. A reasonably intelligent jury would have to sift through truths, half truths and lies and see what makes sense. This jury was totally incompetent to do that, and moreover, were biased in favor of Jackson from the very start. The jury is disgusting. This case was more than adequate for a conviction of at least some of the charges. This baloney about lack of evidence or a poor case is just that - baloney. It's purely apologetics for a terrible, moronic, star-struck jury who just didn't give a damn about this kid or any other kid Jackson is accused of molesting.
The really unfortunate thing here (beyond the verdict itself) is that the young man who was the victim, was actually very credible. He is a cancer survivor and is now a youth minister and is not someone who seems to be looking for anything other than justice. It's unfortunate he has a crazy mom, but that's not his fault. I understand this young victim is feeling pretty badly today that the jury didn't believe him. I don't think it's just that they didn't believe him - I don't think they gave a damn whether MJ did it or not.