the only thing I think the man is guilty of, is never growing up

The mom was full of shit anyway. I'm glad he got off. This is just another attempt to exploit celebrities for cash.

It's only a matter of time for the civil suit to happen...

I think MJ is a child molester.

I also think he was not guilty of what he was accused of, or at least the evidence was such that it didn't go beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is a case of the system working.

I am not at all surprised by the verdict. The prosecution failed to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson may be very weird, but I don't think he's a pedophile--or if he is, I don't think he's dumb enough to do something that would get him caught.

I believe that none of us know whether he did molest those children...
hell, if he did it, those kids were given so much booze, they probably don't know either..
In any case, my opinion is that whether he did it or not, he thought about it on more than one occasion....
to prove that he actually molested those kids back in the mid nineties is going to be quite difficult. But I don't care. Parents shouldn't be stupid enough to let their kids hang out with a mentally deranged adult who has a Peter Pan complex. It doesn't make sense... :rolleyes:

Four carefully selected examples that concur with a judgement from someone who hasn't seen the same evidence as the jury don't exactly make a solid case. Just because the media has branded Jackson as a child molestor does not make it true.

BFD

Couldn't care less

Yuck! Excuse me while I barf first. He's such a child molestor it's disgusting IMO!!

Or maybe, in truth, the parents of the kids that were ALLOWED to sleep with him should have been on trial for pimping their kids to Wacko Jacko.

Of course in OJ's case we DID see the evidence, and the fucker is guilty.

This case is a great example of a simple, fundamental aspect of criminal court cases. There's three verdicts that can happen:

1. Found Guilty
2. Found Not Guilty
3. Found Innocent

If you're guilty in a criminal case, the prosecution has proven without a reasonable doubt that you have committed the crime.

If you're not guilty in a criminal case, the prosecution has found evidence that insinuates a guilty subject, but does NOT have enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you're found innocent, the defense has proven without a reasonable doubt that the person is innocent.

In this case, it's obvious that the plaintiff's prosecutors couldn't find enough evidence to prove him guilty without a reasonable doubt. <B>This does not mean Jacko is innocent...it means there is not enough evidence to prove him guilty 90% or more</B>. He may have won the court case, but he is anything but innocent by the court of law.

I don't know anything about his trial, but again, this is a perfect example of how our legal system works and how it is upheld.

-Lasereth

I'm quite surpised at the amount of negative opinion being formed about him. Yeah, he's weird, very weird, but he loves kids (don't twist that sentence) - why does that make him a child molester? I really don't see it. You are shouting blue murder at the verdict. Sure, there's a bit of smoke. Sleeping with kids in your bed is smoke in the eyes of the anti-paedophile-crazed media and world that we are now in, but that does not mean he did anything to them that was sexual.

From http://www.australianparentsformegan...ocs/whatis.tpl: Definition of a Paedophile: Keyword: "Sexual". MJ has always admitted that he slept with kids, but has always maintained it is non-sexual. Now can we please trust the jury and justice system and accept the verdict. Not guilty. Give the guy a break? So he's a bit weird, let him be weird in his own way - he's not hurting anyone. That has just been decided by the jury.

I'll be happy when all the hub-bub dies down in a couple weeks and we and all get back to the important news, like missing girls in Aruba, and ... sigh. Nevermind.

Exactly!!!

They should have locked him up anyway. I'm sure he has molested kids in the past if not this particular time.

That would be everything the system isn't. They couldn't convict on what they thought he did in the past. His trial wasn't about if they thought he molested in the past, it was he molested the boy that in this particular instance. If you could convict people on their pasts, there's few people who would not go to jail for something.

Alas, the Jury also found OJ innocent. He is still out there searching for the real killer by the way.

this jury didn't take 4 and a half hours to reach a verdict. it took them nearly 40 hours of deliberation last I'd heard. they started off split, and they came to a conclusion. this isn't a case of civil law where preponderence of the evidence comes into play. it's criminal court where the "beyond a reasonable doubt" tenet comes into play. do i think he did it? maybe this time, and definitely in the past. do i think there's a good chance the mother was simply trying to make a big enough deal of her bad parenting to get MJ to settle out of court? absolutely a reasonable thought, therefore throwing doubt on the prosecution.