in how the jurists were quick to "convict" the mothers of the children who allowed their sons to sleep with Michael Jackson but then failed to convict him of sleeping with their children? *************************************** sad isn't it? and you think he will change his ways? nope!

Sleeping with a child or anyone else is not a crime! It used to be quite common and still is acceptable throughout many parts of the world. Ever gone camping? bed or no bed, what's the difference?

Sleeping with a child or anyone else is not a crime! It used to be quite common and still is acceptable throughout many parts of the world. Ever gone camping? bed or no bed, what's the difference? ****************************************** don't ever complain about a perp case again Nell. you want to excuse Michael but ot others? how hypocritical. don't be stupid by using camping as an example.

What is a "perp case"? And what do you mean by "excuse Michael but ot others"? What does "ot" mean? Nelbrewster's point is accurate and well-taken. In many parts of the world sharing a bed does not have nefarious conotations.

What is a "perp case"? And what do you mean by "excuse Michael but ot others"? What does "ot" mean? Nelbrewster's point is accurate and well-taken. In many parts of the world sharing a bed does not have nefarious conotations. ********************************************* sharing your bed and having to pay off victims? you Michael supporters are nuts. and in other parts of the world people sleep with many children all the time? pleeeeeeasse!

sharing your bed and having to pay off victims? you Michael supporters are nuts. and in other parts of the world people sleep with many children all the time? pleeeeeeasse! ==================================== actually in many cultures a communal bed is common... It used to be quite common in this country...

yeah showering with little boys isnt illegal either, sigh... actually in most other countries of the world, things probably would not have been this good for jackson...think of it, the middle east where they have call to prayer 6 times a day? muslims who won't wear perfume becasue it is considered too 'sexual'? many countries are much more conservative, women are not allowed to wear revealing clothing, if they do they are considered cheap... if you arent covered to the ankles and the wrists, people will stare and think of you as being cheap... gods and the camping example IS stupid what the hel? why dont all jackson supporters jsut sign up for N a-mBLa now... for some reason this site is censoring this acronym...

are you really that ignorant, that you cant tell the difference in camping and sleeping a grown mans bed ?you and mj should go to the parts of the world were this is acceptable

As one juror said on Larry King tonight, he believes that MJ did molest some boys, but the prosecution did not provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt! This defends my point that MJ is not innocent, just lucky that he was able to hide hard evidence. We haven't seen the last of Mr. Sneddon vs. MJ.

As one juror said on Larry King tonight, he believes that MJ did molest some boys, but the prosecution did not provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt! And the oprative word is BELIEVE. It was what THAT juror believed. But in true hypocritical fashion, if this juror said HE BELIEVED he knew the truth about Micheal Jackson because he was abducted by a UFO, you certainly would not believe him then. Micheal JacksonIS INNOCENT. He was not proven guilty. Believe, innuendo, rumor, conjecture dose not and did not create truth here, the facts did, and he WALKS. He goes home, and not to any prison. So just accept that.

I totally agree brit_man. It is quite clear that a number of witness had been got to and the family has been made to look like a bunch of money grabbing scumbags. Hell thats what the defense team have been paid millons to do. How they sleep at night knowing what they've done is beyond me. I have never been a great lover of the way americans do things and this is definatly another money over matter case. For gods sake when people were reliving the moments when mj molested them the jury were chatting and laughing with each other like it was a tv show.. I was not in the court room but after reading many different eyewitness accounts they all stated this and I think its disgusting. This would never be allowed to be turned into a media circus in the uk. We protect our children, we have respect and morals all things that make me very glad I live in a RESPECTABLE country..

I agree, but you can't get through to the MJ supporters because they have their minds made up. To back up my point again, more jurors today, on Goodmorning America, believe Micael Jackson is guilty of molesting children, but they were not allowed to find guilt on the sole testimonies of other victims.

maybe they found him to be innocent because of testimonies of other so-called victims. How many "victims" did the prosecution present who actually testified that NOTHING ever happened to them while visiting Neverland?

I don't think Sneddon & Jackson will never meet again in a courtroom. Sneddon has already stated that he is retiring and will not run for office again. In 2006 he will no longer be able to touch MJ.

I don't think Sneddon & Jackson will never meet again in a courtroom. Sneddon has already stated that he is retiring and will not run for office again. In 2006 he will no longer be able to touch MJ. ******************************************* and MJ will continue touching others.

I was never around to know what MJ did or didn't do but a jury of 12 found him not guilty. Do others here have first hand knowledge of what actually happened. Please tell us all what you actually witnessed. MJ is weird, he is strange, and he may have done a lot of things, but in our system you have to prove your accusations. There was no proof.

There was proof, but,Not Beyond A Reasonable Doubt!

"There was proof, but,Not Beyond A Reasonable Doubt!" --- This depends on which charge you examine. One of the critical components of a conspiracy is that the conspirator has to know that it exists. Otherwise, you're not conspiring... Since there was no evidence of any sort to connect Jackson to the conspiracy charges (even ignoring for a moment the silly nature of many of the specific conspiracy allegations), this means that there was no proof of conspiracy. This is not a case of which evidence you believe. There simply was no evidence *to* believe, on that particular point. I found it ironic that the jury said that they had trouble with this one and had to come back after the other charges. This means that nobody asked the right question. "What evidence were we presented that showed that Jackson was aware of any criminal conspiracy?" The answer, none, should have ended discussion of that count. Ironically, the overall testimony on that count *introduced* much of the basis for reasonable doubt on the other charges, since the family supported their mother's claims -- both the true ones, and the false ones... There was in fact "proof" for the other allegations -- but the critical proof consisted of the word of the two brothers. Ironically, if they had gotten on the stand and said that their mother's story was just plain wrong, there might well have been a conviction, since this would likely have *enhanced* their credibility with the jury.

Again, MJ would be convicted, as mst jurors have stated, if they were allowed to solely convict on the truthful statements of other victims!

"Again, MJ would be convicted, as mst jurors have stated, if they were allowed to solely convict on the truthful statements of other victims!" This would be like saying that a jury should convict someone of robbing the First National Bank, whether or not there is any evidence they were anywhere near that bank, since they were told that the person robbed the Second National Bank over a decade ago... The only way the statements of previous alleged victims can be sufficient is if the defendant is charged with molesting them. Otherwise, why not just charge him with 500 counts, listing made-up names and dates, and simply put that one alleged past victim on the stand to "prove" all of the current allegations? They *were* allowed to convict based on the unsupported statement of the *current* accuser -- but they concluded that they couldn't trust him. He was not on trial for "being a molester", which some, though not all, of the jurors have stated that they believe -- there is no such felony -- only for specific acts of molestation which were alleged to have happened in 2003. Even if the prior allegations were sufficient to reach a conviction, you'd still have the reality that *all 12* of the jurors would have to agree. I haven't yet heard anything to specifically indicate that *all 12* of the jurors would have done so.