[sharktrager]

You stated the mother alone is reasonable doubt. Therefore, no matter what else happens, in your opinion, a molester of these children could not be convicted.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

It would be very hard to get a conviction given the mother's antics and history. Or, it should be.

This bears all the hallmarks of a shakedown. None of us are safe when someone like her can succeed in making accusations of this sort. She has beyond zero credibility... negative credibility, in fact: the truth tends to exist 180 degrees from what she says. She shook down J.C. Penney and she defrauded the welfare agencies and made a habit of taking celebrities for a ride; she was caught in several whoppers on the stand and took the Fifth regarding the welfare situation. She's bad news and her word is a stain.

Any jury has to consider the credibility of the accusers. For this particular child, and substantially due to the mother, I have reasonable doubts that Jacko did what was alleged, and so (IMHO) should the jury. The cops simply picked the wrong horse to ride for this criminal case. In the broader sense, quite possibly he's a molester, but that's not what's being tried.

At this point it seems quite possible that a conviction will emerge. And that, in my opinion based on what I've seen in published reports of the trial, is a dangerous thing.