[wardaddy]

ok...i like you but by your logic since a poor fellow in BC was railroaded by his screwed up kids and the law then by default Michael Jackson who admitted to sleeping with little boys not his own when he was in his 30s and 40s in his little hideaway room where the cops found reams of incriminating porno and then paying some of the parents of these kids millions in hush money is therefore innocent too.

Jackson through great lawyering and faulty witnesses got lucky as not guilty but he ain't innocent.... you've got to be kidding me..

[libstripper]

The problem with Jackson's second case is the prosecution just did not present the necesssry corroborating evidence to raise it beyond a "he said, he said" case. OTOH, the one that resulted in the about $20,000,000 settlement had such evidence in the form of the complaining witness accurately describing unique characteristice of Jackson's gentitals and Jackson's bedroom alarm system that prevented people from stumbling in on Jackson while he was buggering kids. Legal fairness to everyone, like the man who was framed in the article, necessarily means applying basic due process rules to a vile slug like Jackson, and letting such an individual walk when there isn't adequate evidence in the specific case to convict him.