While none of us were there to actually observe the testimony of the accuser, the jury's post-trial comments reveal that they did not necessarily disbelieve him. It would be extremely rare for a teenage male to fabricate stories of being a victim of sexual molestation ... and this kid had to be a better actor than any of the defense witnesses to pull off that video tape interview with the police so convincingly if it wasn't true. Furthermore, there was no reason for the prior victim (the 25-year old) to come in and lie under oath about what happened to him. He had nothing more to gain. There was direct evidence of guilt in this case (from the accuser) which was corroborated by other direct and circumstantial evidence and by evidence that Jackson had done the same thing to others. This was a case of jury nullification. That's why the jury's physical behavior upon the reading of the verdict seemed to be consistent with a finding of guilt, even though they acquitted. They know that Jackson is a child molester but it was ok in this case since they hated the mother so much. One juror even said he believed Jackson had molested children. Another said it was the mother's fault for allowing her kid to sleep with him (so it's ok to molest children as long as the child has a crazy mother). Another juror complained that the accuser would not look at Jackson. What do you expect? This jury was not going to convict Jackson even if he had confessed to it.

It would be extremely rare for a teenage male to fabricate stories of being a victim of sexual molestation ... and this kid had to be a better actor than any of the defense witnesses to pull off that video tape interview with the police so convincingly if it wasn't true. ------------------------------------------------------- You don't know much about some kids. It would not be so rare for this to happen. Especially when a celebrity is involved. Most kids are good and fairly honest but i am told constantly by teenage males (and females) how easy it is to lie when you need to.

You don't know much about some kids. It would not be so rare for this to happen. Especially when a celebrity is involved. Most kids are good and fairly honest but i am told constantly by teenage males (and females) how easy it is to lie when you need to. ------------------------------------------- Lie---yes it is easy for teen-age males and females and children to lie but how many actually lie about molestation? Gavins mannerisms and body language did not show he was lying in fact he behaved the way a young boy would when having to retell episodes of molestation.

Gavins mannerisms and body language did not show he was lying in fact he behaved the way a young boy would when having to retell episodes of molestation. ****************************************************** Thats funny, from what I heard, the jurors asked to watch the tape of the accuser again, and from watching it that second time, they stated they believed him to be lying to the sheriffs on the tape, by watching his body language.

redsunfire -- exactly how did you get to see the "body language and mannerisms" of the witness? Unless you were in the courtroom, asserting that you can interpret what they saw more accurately than the jury seems unreasonable... All you've heard is sound-bite descriptions. They saw the whole package.

YOU LOST!!! GET OVER IT!!!

RE: It would be extremely rare for a teenage male to fabricate stories of being a victim of sexual molestation ... and this kid had to be a better actor than any of the defense witnesses to pull off that video tape interview with the police so convincingly if it wasn't true. Are you serious?!Dangle a mill under my kid's nose & he'll fabricate stories all day long for as long as you want him too, and he'll tell you that to your face too! Check out this link & read the psychologist summed up about the accuser & his brother! Also read what he summed up about MJ also. Let me also remind you that this was a psych which worked for the government, not some quack who'll entitle you to SSI if you pay him under the table.

Hi Red... I would have to agree with the general statement of your posting. I also listened to the jurors on TV and does appear that the jury had let their dislike of the mother, affect their rationale. You can hear it and see it in their body language when the jurors decribed how the mother snapped her fingers at them while on the stand. They took offense of this and let this cloud their minds. All in all, the witnesses were not good-clean witnesses, so they let MJ go. The jurors did however, state that they do believe that he is a child molestor, and it will be the "next jury" to convict him. I think that this had scared MJ straight..at least for a while. But on the other hand, may have educated him to be even more secret to cover tracks.... Just let it go and it will take care of itself.......

I also listened to the jurors on TV and does appear that the jury had let their dislike of the mother, affect their rationale. You can hear it and see it in their body language when the jurors decribed how the mother snapped her fingers at them while on the stand. ******************************************************** They also stated they felt the boy was LYING, lets not leave that little tidbit of information out.

"They know that Jackson is a child molester but it was ok in this case since they hated the mother so much." Once again, interpretation is not fact.

"The jury got it wrong" I think this depends on what you mean by "it". If a jury is suspicious that a defendant may have committed some crime, but feels that the specific charged crimes have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, what do *you* think they should do? Under the law, under such circumstances you are supposed to acquit. Yes, there is plenty of reason to suspect that Jackson may be a pedophile. Yes, some of the jurors are suspicious of exactly that. But that's not the question they were asked. Nowhere in the package of verdict forms was there a form for a verdict of guilty or innocent of being a molester. They only had forms dealing with specific crimes, between specific dates. If, for example, the boy is telling the truth about being molested, but it happened earlier than he claims and he has shifted the time until *after* he publicly defended Jackson, then legally Jackson would be not guilty, since the time frame is part of the charges. The timeline the jury had was a problem from day one. They were uncomfortable with it. This provided a valid basis for reasonable doubt. If, as another example, Jackson has molested in the past, and even if he had such intentions toward this boy, but he never actually did it because of the Bashir video, then, again, the correct verdict, however uncomfortable it might make us feel, would not "Not Guilty". Although there was direct evidence from the boy and his brother, there was *no* confirmation, direct or circumstantial, dealing with the period of Feb 20 through Mar 12. I'm not aware of *anything* which even confirms that Jackson and the boy even *saw* each other during that period, much less *touched* each other. On the contrary, we have the mother's statement to Azja Pryor that she and the boys were being kept away from Jackson. You can assume anything you want about the time period before Feb 20, but unless the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that Jackson and the boy met between Feb 20 and Mar 12, there is no valid basis for a conviction. The boy has taken acting lessons, and has an extensive history of lying, including under oath in this case and in previous cases. We didn't see him under oath. They did. We haven't seen the police interview. They did. They concluded that they couldn't trust him. That decision was theirs to make, not ours.

By the way, some of the jurors mentioned that they specifically think he probably molested in the past, but that they accepted the verdict because they agreed that the current charges were not actually proven. This doesn't sound to me like the sort of people who, as you claim, "was not going to convict Jackson even if he had confessed to it". Some of these people wanted to convict, but found that under the appropriate legal standard they could not do so. Remember, the verdict is *NOT* about whether or not Jackson is a molester -- and was never supposed to be.

He was and still is innocent... you guys are just stuck on the sleeping in the same bed thing. I think it's because you're perverts, and if it was you in the bed you would molest them. Which you equate to mean that Jackson must have done what you would do -------------------------------------- Just for the record- I?m definitely a woman and would never even think about molesting a child. b.t.w. I still think Jackson is guilty.

Just for the record- I?m definitely a woman and would never even think about molesting a child. b.t.w. I still think Jackson is guilty. ================================== WOW!!! You think that only MEN molest children!! Hey guys, what do you think of that??

There you go with the ?Guy? thing again. The majority of child molesters are men. The last famous or infamous child molestation case by a woman was Mary Kay Laterno.

There you go with the ?Guy? thing again. The majority of child molesters are men. The last famous or infamous child molestation case by a woman was Mary Kay Laterno. ===================================== Most women are never caught because most boys don't complain about it... It's usually some friend that let's it slip and the authorities find out....

Mary Kay has proven that she, although a chils molester, is not a pedophile. There is a difference, however, we do not know that most child molesters are male. We can never know that because itmis certainly possible that women who might molest a child may also never be charged. We have no way of knowing at all.

There you go with the ?Guy? thing again. The majority of child molesters are men. The last famous or infamous child molestation case by a woman was Mary Kay Laterno. --------------------------------------------------------- Hey Sunset, I know that millions of males around the world actually pay millions of females, millions of dollars, millions of times per year to molest them as many millions of times as they can. So who are the biggest molesters, guys or girls? And that Gavin look alike, he got a lucky strike with Mary Kay Laterno, that was a chance in a billion! I mean to say he didn't need to pay anything to get molested by the teacher that most boys his age in a highschool class fantisize about rather than do their arithmatic. I think these lustations are considered normal childhood biological arithmatic theorizations of virtual organic cell procreations with the sexy teacher, a thousand times a million equals very good luck for most boys.

This persons views are just a continuation of the stereotype that men are predators who are not to be trusted.... If a 46 year old woman allowed preteen children to sleep in her bedroom nobody would say a thing, but men are evil predators who cannot be trusted therefore they must be molesting children... You can see it in her words "Just for the record- I?m definitely a woman and would never even think about molesting a child."That implies that only MEN are capable of doing harm...

This persons views are just a continuation of the stereotype that men are predators who are not to be trusted.... If a 46 year old woman allowed preteen children to sleep in her bedroom nobody would say a thing, but men are evil predators who cannot be trusted therefore they must be molesting children... You can see it in her words "Just for the record- I?m definitely a woman and would never even think about molesting a child."That implies that only MEN are capable of doing harm -------------------------------------------------------- You?ve veered so completely away from my original post that I find it difficult to respond to you. I was referring to highly publicized cases and I think even you might agree that the Jackson case is unique. I thought you were a man but apparently by the way you reacted to my post, I?m now assuming you?re a woman. b.t.w. If a 46 year old woman allowed pre-teen boys to sleep in her bedroom as Jackson did I would consider that a red flag.