Quote Originally Posted by basschick
..., the law here requires that any juror with a "reasonable doubt" find him innocent. it's the law.
Just on that basis he's innocent in the legal sense. The woman pleaded the fifth, was proven BEYOND a reasonable doubt to be a liar in court, therefore, just using pure logic, he's innocent.

When you have a mother of a child that has a history such as hers, you have to think the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. The first place they went wasn't the cops, it was an attorney, and not any attorney, the SAME ONE which got the previous big settlement. Another thing people don't think about here when they say there are so many accusations that are so similar to the other case... they have the same shady attorney.. hello! He could tell them EXACTLY what to say to make it seem like Jackson's done it again.

Because of my court case and what I went through, I'm not at all quick to judge but as far as if Jackson is a child molester in reality, not just in the narrow eyes of the law, yes I think he is. I think he's a **** because after they showed evidence from that book that chronicled Lord of the Flies and I looked it up on the internet to see exactly what they were talking about.. you had to be a serious ****, or an actor in the movie, to want to keep that particular book. He has books of naked boys, he has mostly boys sleep in his bed, and that's not a good combination. Whether he molested this kid is hard to tell from the evidence.