For my part, I think they did a masterful job of using the Jackson trial as a Weapon of Mass Distraction.
There was more coverage of the trial verdict than has been given to the Iraqi war, the Downing Street Memo, the missing 9 billion dollars, and the dismantling of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform laws put together. That's where the real crime is being committed; by the media against the American people.

Jackson has been judged innocent by a jury that had been selected and maneuvered to a prosecutorial tilt. Tom Sneddons 14 year obsessive odyssey against Jackson is hopefully over.
Michael Jackson's career has nowhere to go but a multi million dollar contract in Vegas, or a secluded chateau in the Alps.
Do I think Justice was served? Yes. Judge Melville was far more impressive and honorable in his handling of the entire case than Judge Ito ever was with the OJ Simpson case.

Next up on the Weapon of Mass Distraction agenda: The Phil Spector murder trial. Or maybe the Hillary Clinton book being published by the right wing hate machine. Or maybe the felony trial of the Runaway Bride. Or maybe the madam/drug trial of former Dogpatch resident Mammy Yokum, arrested for running a bordello for Leisure World Senior Citizens, and illegally transporting genetically designed shmoo across state lines.

Time for the Doc to hit the Ether.

The verdict almost made me vomit as did the Simpson and Blake verdicts.

Do you have evidence that makes you 100% certain that each of these three people are guilty?  Withholding evidence in a criminal proceeding is a felony. You could be arrested.

The prosecution's case seemed to depend on the testimony of a bunch of liars and snakes.  How this escaped Sneddon's attention when he was researching this case boggles the mind.

I think this points to the need to improve our high school educational system so that people are able to develop the kind of basic critical thinking skills that, in the case of Sneddon, seems to be missing.

I think justice was served in this case.  Michael Jackson is an eccentric but not a pedophile.

Can you say innocent until PROVEN guilty?  Whether MJ was for real guilty or not, we don't know, and you can vomit all you like.  The jury did their job.  Read the link.

You know, I'm not exactly the paradigm of conformity, and never will be, but I can't touch Wacko Jacko on my best day. He has a thing for young boys, no doubt. How far that thing goes, is another issue. Probably not enough to convict here, unfortunately.

As for the accuser's mother, I have no idea what color she is, but ghetto is as ghetto does here. She was just looking to get paid, and a lot of the verdict is about her.

The Simpson prosecution was handled so badly it almost cost DA Garcetti his job (which it did in 2000). Still, I've always thought while OJ didn't do it, he sure knows who did, although the White Bronco incident sure didn't make him look good.

I don't know how any jury could not convict Robert Blake, I felt that this was a trial on (wife and professional con woman)Bonny Lee Blakey more than him.

Between Simpson, Blake and Jackson, the message is clear. If you've got celebrity, you've got credibilty, and probably can do no wrong.

not "innocent."  There was no "vindication" for Michael Jackson, only the sneakin' suspicion that he got away with it.
As for the verdict, I think he was probably guilty (if he's not a pervert, he's missing a wonderful opportunity), but I don't think the state made it's case, and I have reasonable doubt, even from my mere spectator's position.  So the jury did it's job.  I can't second-guess the jury on this one (on OJ, I do).