Another trial analyst, defense attorney Ivan Golde, said he was surprised prosecutors would bring a case against Jackson based on testimony from such flawed witnesses.
"The D.A. wanted to get Michael Jackson, so he went along with this witness who's got all this baggage," Golde said.

This opinion is interesting. But in just about every case of child abuse (or indeed rape) the victims - usually in a situation where it is one person's word against another - the main prosecution witnesses are always flawed. And the only defence used - is usually to attempt to discredit these witnesses - based on these flaws.

The defence also had the main witness for the defence - Michael Jackson - who was equally flawed - but they did not dare placing him on the stand and risk the type of cross-examination that they subjected the child in this case to.

Not so sure about anyone 'getting MJ but the DA surely has a responsibilty to at least try to protect the children of their district? Even when those (like the parents) fail in this. Whatever the outcome - the fact that a court and a jury can hear the evidence and decide - must be better than (possibly) placing yet more children at risk. Especially as the 'buying-off' of MJ's last (long time sleep-in) accuser - resulted in the law being changed.