[barend]

hey... where have you been?

[Slade]

Jesus, you dissapointed me. Normally, I look forward to your occasional post with delightment for your unique wit, but that was just lame...

[Jen]

I never watched the news so I was immune, I just read. And why is it that everyone completely ignored my point and continued to just randomly state that he definately did it. Consider this:

If a parent is willing to do something horrible like let their child get molested for money, then wouldnt they be willing to accuse an innocent man for money if no molestation had occured?

Come on, it's simple logic and its more than enough to create reasonable doubt.

....

No hard evidence, no reliable witnesses. Moreover Jackson does not fit the profile of a sex offender, either mentally or physically.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One man's "randomly stating that he definitely did it" is another's "randomly stating that he definitely didn't do it"!

Apparently this forum isn't the only place in the world where, surprise surprise, people reading the same sets of facts draw different conclusions. The jury forman has stated publicly that he believes that Michael Jackson has molested boys in the past, but he voted to acquit because he didn't think it could be proved in this trial about this accuser.

As for no reliable witnesses, I think it should be noted that child sexual abuse is notoriously difficult to prove: child abuse victims are often very bad witnesses, and that there is often no "hard evidence" at all. And as far as him not fitting the profile, well, I suppose that is a matter of some debate!

[J m HofMarN]

Jen- I certainly wasn't refering to you because you seem to have an actual knowledge of the facts. Many of those in favor of a conviction seem to just be doing it based on looks and general weirdness.