You gotta look at it from a juror's perspective. They must leave any prior knowledge of the accusor and defendent at home, and make a decision only on the facts presented in the case. One fact that came up was the accusor's history with court cases. Money hungry? I'd say very. This is a major setback to the plantiff's case. Another thing is the jury has to be proven beyond reseanable doubt. Without any hard evidence, only circumstantial evidence was provided except for the shady accusor, it is almost impossible to prove 12? people that MJ is guilty BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. IMHO it is better to let a guilty man walk than an innocent man suffer. The problem most people have with the verdict is they are using their prior knowledge, and are biased in one direction. When looking at the evidence presented, the case against MJ wasn't powerful at all.
Also, think of how the jurors had to have felt. If they say guilty, all the MJ fans will hate him, if they say not guilty, it will be another group of people. Either way they would piss off a group of people.
I'm note saying his is innocent, personally I think he did do something to those boys, I'm just looking at it the way the jury is mandated to.
