"The prosecuter was hoping to "split the baby" his strategy backfired on him..." --- I don't think the word "backfired" really covers the full range of what this did. I don't know what word to suggest as a better option, though! Perhaps we need to coin one? Something like "The prosecutor was hoping to "split the baby", but his strategy Sneddoned on him"... By including the conspiracy charges, he made the case into a silly circus of absurd prosecution allegations, and introduced the single best defense witness in the whole trial -- the mother. As some of the commentators noted, when she was on the stand, the defense pretty much stopped objecting, except to object when the prosecution tried to *stop* her answers! I think he not only allowed the mother to destroy her own credibility, and damage the credibility of her children, but by standing behind her, they damaged their own credibility, and the subconscious presumption that if they brought a charge to trial it must be real. Also, the much broader case allowed for expanded testimony from the children on non-molestation-related subjects, which further damaged *their* credibility. I think another reason they introduced those charges was to provide another avenue for introducing some of their evidence for molestation which would not have been allowed into a molestation case (such as the Bashir video), but by the end of the prosecution case I think it was quite clearly a strategic error. One step forward, fourteen steps back.

tom sneddon was on the Today show this morning and he said that the mother had already been subpeonoed by the defense so regardless if they put her on....the defense would have because their whole argument was that the mother concocted the molestation story and had her children lie for profit. they really had no choice but to try and work with what they had.

Without the conspiracy case, very little of the mother's testimony would have been relevant. Many people were listed as defense witnesses -- few were called. If the conspiracy case did not exist, they might have called her, or they might not have. I suspect they'd have viewed it as a major risk. Part of the reason she was such an effective defense witness is that she was officially a prosecution witness. Either way, her testimony would have been a whole lot briefer -- and from the prosecution perspective, that would have been a whole lot better. The best prosecution approach to her, if the defense called her, would have been to simply treat her as if she was odd, unreliable, but irrelevant. Because of the conspiracy case, they spent most of the trial trying to convince the jury to *trust* her. Tons of time was burned, and testimony was introduced, to try to keep the Titanic afloat. Let her sink, and go on with your case. Let the defense try to convince the jury to pay attention to her -- don't do it yourself. Removing the conspiracy charge would have reduced the amount that all members of the family needed to testify -- and clearly that would have been better for the prosecution. As a similar example of how the question of who called a witness makes a difference, remember Debbie Rowe's testimony. She was called, by the prosecution, to "prove" that the interviews were scripted. In that context, her statement that the interviews were *not* scripted meant much more than if the *defense* had called her to establish that an interview *other* than the one that the family was in was *not* scripted. If the defense had called her, it would have been irrelevant to the contention that the family's interview was scripted. Since the prosecution called her, and told the jury ahead of time what she'd say, it was a bombshell. The prosecution should *never* have associated the woman with this case. If they had not charged conspiracy, and the defense called her, the prosecution should have just asked her on cross, sounding bemused, whether she had any direct knowledge whether or not her son was molested. When she eventually got done saying "No", they should have said "in that case, no more questions." This would have told the jury that she had no useful information and was irrelevant, and would have avoided connecting her with their case. It would have been up to the defense to try to make her relevant.

But the defense would still have brought up her past(lying, lawsuits etc) to bolster their theory that she instructed her children to lie for gain.

Sure -- the defense would have tried to smear the family through her -- and they might have succeeded. This seems a poor reason for the prosecutor to choose to do that job for them. The prosecution chose, because of the conspiracy case, to make her a central witness at the heart of the prosecution case. This was invaluable to the defense. If the defense had tried to paint her the way she ended up looking by the time she got down from the stand, it probably would have looked underhanded and desperate. The prosecution handed them her head on a silver platter.

It would have been IMPOSSIBLE to not put the accuser on the stand. The constitution guarantees you the right to face and question your accuser... ################### Only stating what the juror said......

librepub__ , you decided to read something I didn't say. I *never* said the jury should ignore the law. I think if a jury beleives there is a reasonable doubt, in *any* case, than they must find the person not guilty, according to the law. However, I think the large evidence that MJ has engaged in illegal conduct with children in the past, is still signficant. There is a great danger to other children. It's important that the public send a clear message to MJ, that his past behaviour of sleeping with boys will not be accepted. It's also important parents understand the danger, and keep their kids away from this man. Parents should not trust a man with their kids, just because he didn't molest a particular boy during a three week period. lincolne, over time, you've given me enough doubts about the case, that if I was on the jury, I would probably have ended up acquitting him at least of the felonies. Off topic: Lincolne, you've correctly pointed out, how MJ's weird personality is a common, but dangerousely wrong, reason to think he's guilty. You're right. Another growing reason why people are sure he's guilty, is his fans. Rather, than using rational logical arguements, to explain their position, they often, behave like cult followers. The slightest criticism of MJ is herasy. Again, this is no reason to convcit a person. But, maybe MJ fans should think about what kind of impression they have on the broader public's perception of MJ.

However, I think the large evidence that MJ has engaged in illegal conduct with children in the past, is still signficant. There is a great danger to other children. It's important that the public send a clear message to MJ, that his past behaviour of sleeping with boys will not be accepted. ========================================= Then please explain this to me. If the evidence of the past acts was so conclusive, why didn't the DA charge jackson with those crimes? Afterall he was able to get those alleged victims to testify in court..

"Then please explain this to me. If the evidence of the past acts was so conclusive, why didn't the DA charge jackson with those crimes? Afterall he was able to get those alleged victims to testify in court.." Jordan Chandler refused to testify (in 1993 and 2005). His uncle stated that if they had been given protection by police, Jordan would have. We don't know exactly why. Without his appearance, none of his statements, including his description of MJ's body, could be admitted into evidence. The law in the past made it impossible to compell a child abuse victim to testify. This combined with the fact there is a statute of limitations.

Jordan Chandler refused to testify (in 1993 and 2005). His uncle stated that if they had been given protection by police, Jordan would have. We don't know exactly why. Without his appearance, none of his statements, including his description of MJ's body, could be admitted into evidence. The law in the past made it impossible to compell a child abuse victim to testify. This combined with the fact there is a statute of limitations. ========================================== I wasn't talking about Chandler... I'm talking about witnesses like the youth counselor who testified... BTW- I'm not talking about charging him in THIS case, I'm asking why he didn't bring charges within the 6 year statute of limitations??

I wasn't talking about Chandler... I'm talking about witnesses like the youth counselor who testified... ********************************************************** He alleges these things happened to him between the late eighties and early nineties. He was very young. Let's see..he's only 24 now..that would have made him how old back then? I would imagine he didn't want to go through something like the humiliation of a trial just like most children and their parents don't. Now that he is a mature adult and has been through counseling, as he stated on the stand, I presume that is why he agreed to testify.

He alleges these things happened to him between the late eighties and early nineties. He was very young. Let's see..he's only 24 now..that would have made him how old back then? I would imagine he didn't want to go through something like the humiliation of a trial just like most children and their parents don't. Now that he is a mature adult and has been through counseling, as he stated on the stand, I presume that is why he agreed to testify. ======================================== So let's say he was 10 years old, would you accept money instead of seeing the molestor of your child brought to justice??? BTW - if you say yes you're either lying or not a parent...

I am a parent of two boys and until I am in the situation I don't know what I would do. I do know that if my child were suffering greatly I would definitely consider NOT putting him through the public humiliation of a trial...especially when it involves a high profile celebrity like Michael Jackson. If you already have decided that I am lying then why did you even ask me?!

i dont think any of us knows what we would do in that situation.i would want justice but i cant honestlt say what i would do

"Another growing reason why people are sure he's guilty, is his fans. Rather, than using rational logical arguements, to explain their position, they often, behave like cult followers. The slightest criticism of MJ is herasy. Again, this is no reason to convcit a person. But, maybe MJ fans should think about what kind of impression they have on the broader public's perception of MJ." I think this is true -- but I think many people on both sides have revealed unreasonableness. I can't believe how often I've heard people attack the jury and the verdict. Based on the case presented, the verdict was the right verdict -- whether or not Jackson is a molester. People who say "Jackson's a molester, so the jury are idiots", or "Jackson's a molester, so he should have been convicted" are simply revealing that they don't really understand what this trial was supposed to accomplish, and what it was not supposed to accomplish. The jurors were not asked to judge whether Jackson is a molester. Their responsibility was much narrower. Yes, if Jackson is a molester, children are still at risk. Yes, it will be a true tragedy if a child is molested. But it will not be the fault of the jury, or the verdict. In this country, it is *NOT LEGAL* to simply grab someone, say that "everyone knows he did something", which while often repeated is of course false, and should be replaced with "many people strongly believe he did something", and throw him in jail. This is for your protection, and even the protection of your children. There have been, and still are, societies in which mere suspicion or accusation were sufficient. They have not been ones in which most people in this country would willingly live. Dictatorship can eliminate most crime -- but at the cost of all civil liberties and protections. It is wrong for even one child to be abused. But it would be even more wrong for all children to spend their entire lives in fear of being "informed" on by someone who doesn't like them. That system was tried in the USSR under Stalin, who killed 20 million citizens based on suspicion. Most people who attack the jury verdict don't seem to understand that historically this is the choice. You risk letting some go free even if they are guilty, or you ensure that none are free. Mankind cannot create perfect justice.

The jury members may "feel" anything. Thank God they acted on more than that. On the oither hand, the statements about these suspicians act as disclaimers for those who would attack the jury.

The chances that Michael jackson is a child molester is 50/50, same as for any other human being.

I *never* said the jury should ignore the law. I think if a jury beleives there is a reasonable doubt, in *any* case, than they must find the person not guilty, according to the law. ++++ I have to agree with you here. Most of us had to rely on the media for information on this case and the jury heard things and saw things that we didn't. We have to rely on them and what they saw and heard. They seem to me to have been very diligent and tried their best to follow the law. I felt the same way in the OJ case (which I was able to watch since it was televised). Had I been on the OJ jury I would have "felt" that OJ did the crime but would have been unable to convict because the case was not made by the prosecution and the "evidence" had been tainted by technicians and police not following proper procedure. In both of these cases the juries did their jobs and "had" to acquit. In both cases I tend to believe in the guilt of the defendents.

The jury members may "feel" anything. Thank God they acted on more than that. On the oither hand, the statements about these suspicians act as disclaimers for those who would attack the jury. ------------------- Juries generally convict on their feelings about the evidence. It's really hard to separate the two. I'm sure that at this point the prosecution is wishing that they had selected a different jury although they would never admit it publicly I was surprised that they put certain people on the jury that they did.

Juries generally convict on their feelings about the evidence. It's really hard to separate the two. --------------------------------------------------------- People can and do separate initial "feelings" from those they have after they view evidence. That's what education should be doing on all levels. It is true that some people hold on to feelings after evidence and reason contradict them but let's not paint all people with the same brush. A trained and educated mind does know the difference. But after the fact, one can still have feelings about what is outside the circle of evidence and they are that and nothing else. Unfortunately those feelings, even if totally wrong will not be addressed.