Quote Originally Posted by eestlinc
I think it's easy for us to say "oh he's clearly guilty" but I think we should trust the jury. I highly doubt they let him slide because they like Thriller.
Exactly. The jury had the job of assessing all the evidence and deciding whether he was guilty or not.
None of us have seen that evidence. All we've had to go on is the media hype, which is absolutely never reliable.
Now, I don't know whether Jackson was guilty or not. But a jury clearly decided that there was not proof beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty. You can't send a man to prison with the eternal stigma of a criminal conviction, when there's still a reasonable doubt that he might be innocent.

People say he got off because he could afford good lawyers?
Pffft. The prosecution in this case was the United States Government, the biggest and most powerful body of its kind in the world. Besides, no lawyer can actually alter whether somebody was factually guilty of a crime or not. That's a common misconception.

Do *I* think he's guilty? I really don't know. There have been a lot of allegations, from a lot of sources, for a considerable period of time. But if a jury of honest, impartial Americans could not conclude that he was guilty, then I'm in no position to try to impose a different result.

Think about it this way... whether he's guilty or not, this trial has damaged his wealth, health and reputation - more than it would for any 'regular' person facing the same charges.

Whenever a court case is decided in a way that somebody disagrees with, they often say that it "makes a mockery of [country]'s justice system". I find this interesting: rather than accepting that results will not always favour them, they take this one result and hold it up as 'proof' that an entire establishment is fundamentally flawed. It happens all the time, no matter how a case is decided.