Your 2nd post undermines your case that Jackson wasn't guilty of anything. Sure, magazines with child porn in them COULD have been planted, and sure Michael Jackson's fingerprints on a Barely Legal magazine COULD have been added when he was in a drug haze, and sure, the boy COULD have heard a description of MJ's anatomy from somebody else who saw it, but you're stacking up one semi-plausible alternative explanation after another...

a few points:

1) Michael Jackson had been shaken down multiple times for big money already by various alleged victims. (And whether the allegations of the paid-off kids and families in question were true or not, the term "shaken down" is still entirely appropriate.)

That point speaks to the possible motive for planting evidence.

2) I realize that the plaintiff in the criminal investigation maintained that money was not a motive in his accusation- but a) if Jackson had been convicted in a criminal trial, that would have made any civic lawsuit/judgement against him an open-and-shut case; b) the book advance figures to the plaintiff in the wake of the trial would have been, beyond a doubt, in the seven-figure range.

3) your reference to my "one semi-plausible explanation after another" refers to the totality of the evidence presented in the prosecution in the case.

What's missing? Evidence not entered by the prosecution, evidently because they had none: fingerprints or DNA conclusively tying the gay porn/nude boy pics to Jackson (much less to both him and his accuser); the trial testimony of Jordie Chandler- the boy making the alleged ID of Jackson's genitals- at the criminal trial under oath, because Chandler declined to testify; any other hard evidence, like semen traces.

The accuser in the criminal trial is said to have "echoed the details of the first accuser"- Jordie Chandler, the boy whose father received a $25 million settlement- but the Vanity Fair stories never bring up that every one of the details enumerated at length in the article series- the nickname "Rubba"; "Jesus juice"; the underwear fetishism, etc.- were already available to the general public, in an unauthorized biography of Michael Jackson that had been previously published and widely circulated.

That leaves a total of one nude girlie magazine as evidence that Jackson shared sexual material with the boy accusing him of molesting him. Out of an entire search of the estate.

You might call that "stacking one semi-plausible explanation after another"; but considering that it's the prosecution that needs to prove it's case, I'd say that your label more rightfully belongs to their case. I'd call it "reasonable doubt."

4) The 12-person jury agreed with my assessment. I've read that following the verdict, two jurors have come forward expressing remorse, and claiming they were pressured into agreeing with the majority in order to gain an acquittal. If they had any integrity and courage of conviction on a matter of felony child molestation, they should have held out, hung the jury, and left the case a mistrial, in my opinion.

When interviewed, both jurors expressed plans to write books on their experiences. Wouldn't you know it?

5) over to you:

This is a good one. I am sure many defense attorneys will try to use this from now on. "Your honor, the guns and piles of money in my client's possession, hidden under his bed, simply do not add up. Why, if he knew he was being investigated, wouldn't he have gotten rid of them?

Defense lawyers do, in fact, use such defenses all the time. And they are known to win with them. Often they don't even need to make a big deal about it- they simply need to cast doubt on of the prosecution narrative, and let the jury make up their own minds.

We aren't talking a "smoking gun", here. Even easier than illegal drugs- and we know how easily those can be planted- magazines are easy to plant in someones bookshelves, boxes, or closet. (For that matter, it's even easier to do on a computer- who knows how many people have "child porn" on their machines, possibly from inadvertently browsing the wrong porn site on the web, or from having their computers hacked, etc.? I can't be the only person who's ever wondered about that...) Magazines are also well-known as a great medium for holding fingerprint traces, hair traces, etc.- so what happened to that part of the evidence trail? One copy of Barely Legal magazine- that's it? That's it?

I need to note that some of the people shaking Jackson down for money were employed in the Neverland household, as maids or custodians.

I also need to note that possible means, motive, and opportunity for planting those magazines could be easily postulated, in the case of any of Jackson's accusers over the years.

Consider that Jackson's defense apparently didn't even feel it necessary to attempt to explain away the presence of the magazines- perhaps because the evidence chain in their connection was so flimsy.

Speaking of motive, means, and opportunity- imagine how much one single clear photo or accurate description of the unique features of Michael Jackson's genital characteristics would have been worth, to someone who found themselves in position to plausibly bring an accusation against him in a civil lawsuit, for the loathsome offense of child sexual abuse.

Go on, give me a ballpark figure.

Ultimately, the case against Jackson has to weigh what the prosecution did enter into evidence, against what they didn't enter into evidence.

I'm told that there's a book on the 2005 Jackson trial, written by someone who- like myself, considered his guilt to be indisputable at the outset of turning her attention to the case- only to find herself arguing for the possibility of his innocence, after applying herself to a more thorough observation and review of the trial.

I haven't read that book. I plan to.

I don't think you've managed to make a case against Jackson that's anywhere near as airtight as you presently think.

"Maybe this was silly, but I hoped someone would touch on the suffering and sickness that led Jackson to abuse his body and abuse a staggering array of drugs."

This was not the appropriate time or place or venue for that. I agree with your positions most of the time, but not with all that you protest in this article. I am not a crazed fan; I am a practical woman of 65 yrs old, not enthralled with celebrity and a little too knowing of their failings to be so turned off by the failings of this one. As for his children? It was appropriate for them to be there and if one chose to speak, so be it.

I can understand your fatigue with the coverage. It is not over. Now and soon, we will have non stop coverage of the toxicology results, the contribution factors and the signal event that precipitated his death; then the criminal investigations and the indictments, perhaps. There is plenty of coverage left and you and this site will be right there and not bored with that. All along, you can muse and cover the custody issues and through all of it, we will read yours and everyone else's opinions and critique.

It is interesting that you are not so fatigued with a has been fluke of a narcissistic, do nothing, empty headed celebrity that there are at least 5 separate "articles" on this site just today all about her. She has accomplished nothing except to instill abject fear in many of us that she might just house herself in the highest seat of government one day.

I feel the same way about her as you feel about Michael Jackson and his death. I would really like to resume normal broadcasting and I DO mean NORMAL. I dislike watching her deconstruct in public, with the media egging her on, as much as you dislike the decline and fall of MJ.