Don't the parents of these kids visiting "Jacko" incure any responsibility should their kid(s)get diddled.  Seriously!; If a bartender keeps feeding you martinis when he knows your already hammered he and the bar are held responsible should you injure or kill someone on the way home. Michael Jackson has been the poster boy for pedophiles for ten years and parents line up to have their kids get a ride on his knee.
  I know this time were talking about criminal and not civil charges and so far no money has been mentioned. It will though, and ultimately a select few will make bank from both the childs aledged victomization as well as Michaels ordeal.

  H'mmmmmmmmm  
Maybe M J really IS in financal trouble and that is why the kid's parents are settling for criminal charges this time.

  IAATM

     Cm.

is him hiring Mark Geragos before he's even been arraigned ... this is the "power-shop" version of celebrity justice (a la O.J./Scott P.)

just look around to see which high-powered scum-bag attorney is getting off the latest scum-bag criminal and hire him right quick

call me cynical, but Jacko is just as guilty as the two of them, which means he's be just as likely to walk away a free man ... here's a thought, maybe Jacko should devote the rest of his career looking for the REAL pedophile

I agree.  I hope MJ is innocent.  If he is guilty and committed molestation in 93' then the parents (93') ultimately pimped out their child and are sicker F's than MJ.

There is indeed trouble in Neverland ...

Would you let your child stay overnight with Michael Jackson?  After hearing all of the allegations and gossip (accurate or not), the surgeries and extreme makeovers and hearing him talk in interviews, wouldn't alarm bells be ringing like crazy in your mind?  Plain and simple for me -- the King of Pop is off his nut!  No way in the world would I let my child near him without me right there every second.  It leads me to conclude that those parents were either just as loony as MJ or that they were looking for a payday.

I have two boys 8 and 10 and a daughter 14, I would NEVER under any circumstances let them sleep over at MJ's house. Nor would I let them stay with Chester the Molester. I just can't believe that any parent would let a child spend the night with an adult freind, especially when he is a suspected child molester. I think the parents of these kids need to be charged as well.

Personally, I feel like the parents are pimping out their children. I know that if I had kids the last place I would take them is to Neverland. My feeling is that he is guilty as sin. Reason I say this is because, if he was not guilty last time, then the right lawyers etc., would have got him out of it. He certainly has enough money to fight it and it would probably have cost him less then what he paid the kids parents.
    BTW, the parents didn't file charges this time a social worker did. Makes things a little different cause now the state is involved.

Just My Opinion of Course,

Tiffany

The change in the law was influienced by the last time it happened.  A victim can't refuse to testify.

That`s not true. It is what the D.A. said but he has since clarified it. The new law has to do with delaying a civil suit so that the accused can`t "buy off" a victim.

While I think MJ has a problem with kids, I think he's the victim here:

-helped out kid with cancer: bought the Mom a car and paid for her apartment so she could be near the kid during his treatment
-when MJ decided to stop helping the family (kid's cancer went into remission) financially they suddenly press charges
-family says "we aren't interested in money" yet they hired a lawyer: no one who calls the police to press charges against someone needs a lawyer - unless they're guilty of something themself

Reasonable Doubt - he will be acquitted. And I hope he countersues. I do wish one of Jackson's relatives would tell him to seek help. He has a lot of issues.

The press conference was an absolute travesty.  On top of being incredibly unprofessional, the DA incorrectly implied that California law provides that the state could compel a child victim to testify.  This is entirely incorrect.  The state CANNOT compel the victim to testify.  Any testimony must be voluntary.  

The new law only provides that the state can intervene in any related civil suit should the victim choose not to testify in the criminal case.  In short, the new law doesn't guarantee anything--it is merely an obstacle for those victims who are seeking a big payday.  The victim can refuse to testify.  If so, there is no case.