Nicely articulated, Robin. I'm not sure if you're arguing that this verdict is going to be seen as a green flag by celebrity sex criminals, which is one that I'd disagree with. Let's see if Michael Jackson has a career left - the object lesson that's delivered may not chime with the jury's verdict.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this, Robin. I think you're assigning too much clout to Jackson's wealth and celebrity. The jury decided that the Arvizo family - and Gavin in particular - were unreliable witnesses, and it seems to me that they may well have had good grounds for doing so. (Arvizo certainly gave me the shivers in the original Bashir film.) Jackson's freely admitted bed-sharing predilections are not wholly relevant to the specific facts of the actual charge brought against him - and the burden of proof upon the prosecution should certainly be higher than that.

I'd have thought that it would take a good deal more than wealth, celebrity and expensive lawyers to unfairly influence a properly screened jury - and it seems to me that you might be making unfair assumptions about these jurors. (Besides, isn't there also the possibility of an equal and opposite "David & Goliath" reaction: the honest-to-goodness "little people" tearing down the mighty superstar?)

I once sat on the jury for an indecent assault case. Although most of us ended up with a strong mistrust of the accused, we had to acquit: because the witness was manifestly unreliable. However, we could at least console ourselves in the knowledge that he had been "punished" by the very public nature of the case, and its impact upon his circumstances. I think there's a parallel here - and I don't think that the precedent has been set, in the way which you describe it.

I don't understand how the mother's quest for money means that MJ is not guilty. She can be greedy regardless of whether her son is a victim or not - so how can her greed be evidence that it's all a lie? Is a greedy person necessarily a liar?
And another thing: Now he's saying that he won't be spending time with children again. It seems like everyone's forgotten that he has children of his own. There is reason to worry about the state of his children whether he's a paedophile or not, because he's clearly unstable. I hope they have a sane nanny...

Hello all.

Nice to get a little disagreement here. I had too much time on my hands yesterday, spending six hours in Moorfields Eye Hospital. Not a stroke or a detached retina - just floaters, so it seems. Perhaps I was overinfluenced by the unpleasantness of that experience.

I think MJ should have got off on the case as presented but I do worry that this sort of thing will teach the wrong lesson to celebrity defence attorneys. pace PB above. Perhaps I'm too ready to perceive the downsides of our trashy celebrity driven media, which I loathe. I'm concerned by the general unaccountability of the famous. And money does warp justice.

I hear Jacko is keen to do Live 8. If that's true that makes me think he thinks he hasn't done anything wrong. Which I think he has and he needs to accept that these so called friendships are exploitative. I also now hear that his legal people are saying he will change his social habits. That's something.

I'm possibly also influenced by the fact that a friend has been accused similarly and I will probably have to give evidence in his defence. I want to be believed and I've just seen a lot of witnesses trashed, admittedly for the prosecution but trashed nonetheless.

I'll do jokes for a fortnight to compensate.

a very interesting piece, robin.

Q and i were talking about the verdict yesterday (who wasn't) and neither of us are convinced that MJ is completely innocent. what parent in their right mind would let their son sleep in the same bed as a 46 yo man ? i wouldn't for a start, especially not with a man who enjoys cuddling your son - who knows how a cuddle could end up.

MJ says he loves children - so why is it that he only had boys over ?

the defence announced stars such as liz taylor (betty ford being her second), liza minelli (another betty ford fan), diana ross (alcoholic) etc were going to be witnesses. only the 'home alone' actor and jay leno showed up, if i remember correctly. i take it that the others were not reliable witnesses.

MJ's ex-wife, debbie rowe supported MJ. i believe she is still fighting for custody of the children - could this have been a reason to be so supportive of her ex-husband ?

an air-hostess claimed to have seen MJ pouring wine into coca cola cans and giving them to the children. this is one charge that i believe him to be guilty of.

but which of the guards, the housemaid and other ex-employees of the MJ household who witnessed to having seen 'strange' goings-on reported them to the authorities ? if they really had happened and these people left them un-reported then they're all as guilty as each other.

i'm sorry for a poorly-written reply - i keep swatting kids. just a couple of my cents amongst all the others.

Hmmm.

I was reading the BBC messageboard (why? WHY???) and half the comments began with "Whether he's innocent or guilty..." and "Innocent or not..."

Which shows a fine respect for both the legal foundations of the western world, and the validity of one's personal opinion formed by reading 'Heat' magazine versus what the jury have heard.

We have a twisted, twisted culture. He was perhaps more likely to get off due to the circumstances you describe, Robin. Likewise, he is perhaps less likely ever to be 'cleared' in the court of public opinion.

Don't know where I'm going here. The only comment I've ever really made to anybody on the initial suspicions, arrest and case was this: "What would have been different had he been a smelly elderly nobody living on a council estate in Portsmouth?" And hell - it would have been different. But I'm not sure it'd be wholly one-way traffic.

Not sure the phrase is appropriate, but good luck when it comes to your friend's case.

Some academic law person made famous by the OJ Simpson trial made some comment that MJ was more likely to be prosecuted because of his fame and, sort of conversely, let off, because of his fame.

I think that there is plenty of evidence, in the English CJS anyway, that a very small proportion of child abuse cases are ever prosecuted, precisely because of the unreliability of the witnesses and the lack of corroborating evidence. And when they are, it is often lesser charges, and thus a paltry sentence, because of what can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

But I cannot understand anybody who would allow their child to sleep with any adult who is not a parent or very close relative. I know that very many step-parents go out of their way to establish clear boundaries. And speaking as an aunt, I am very clear that there are boundaries that are much tighter than parental or even grandparental boundaries.

If one millionth of one percent of the time taken, money spent, and interest shown in this tiny case had been used to help the gazillions of children damaged every day - then possibly some good might have happened.

Jackson is the epitome of irrelevance. Freaky man, freaky kids with freaky parents, all living in a freaky country. It's the press/media which are most guilty - as they reflect the consciousness of the people.

If the people didn't obssess on these scurrillous matters, then the papers and telly wouldn't be full of them.

I wonder how many of the MJ supporters outside the court would let MJ share a bed with their children?

However I would agree with Peter all the way, what an enormously expensive irrelevance it all has been. Unfortunately, and it is bound to happen, which celebrity will be next up on the media/court circuit?

I'm guessing, Bogue, probably most of them.

"He's not a child molestor, he's the King of Pop" say the halfwits.

"I can't be a murderer, my name's Derek."

Hell. Peter's right. What the hell have we created?!?

David v Goliath - yes indeed, such is the American justice system. Frankly, any mother who will let her 13 y/o son sleep with MJ or anybody else for that matter is very weird indeed.
The whole MJ life story is so bizarre it's amazing he hasn't been locked up before for being completely bonkers... Maybe this will finally tip him over the edge and he'll join Prince Charles talking to the trees.