If the jury wasn't sure Michael Jackson was guilty of molesting his accuser, then they were right to acquit him.

But as a general statement, if a clever pedophile targets kids whose backgrounds might make them less credible as witnesses, then that's a big loophole in the criminal justice system.

That being said, back to Jackson's case.

Was District Attorney Tom Sneddon genuinely on a vendetta against Jackson? Would a more dispassionate prosecutor even have brought charges?

Here is what Sneddon told reporters after the verdict:

Asked whether the prosecution's case was undermined because it depended on testimony from the wrong family, he said, "We don't select our victims and we don't select the families they come from."

"When a victim comes in and tells you they've been victimized and you believe that, you don't look at their pedigree," he added. "We look at what we think is the right thing, the right reason."

Then again, according to the NYT article, defence lawyer Thomas Mesereau Jr. did a terrific job of cross-examining some star witnesses and generally out-argued the prosecution.

Another questions I have is whether in the United States of 2005, a defendant's celebrity a help or a hindrance to them when 12 men and women assess credibility?

Here's some of what was reported on the L.A. Times' Michael Jackson blog:

Jurors made themselves available for the crush of reporters wanting to hear their perspective. They said they studied the case closely, took lots of notes and did their best to separate celebrity from the equation.

Male Juror: We looked at the all the evidence. We looked at Michael Jackson, and the first thing we had decided was we had to look at him as an individual, not as a celebrity.

I'll take them at their word, but of the four biggest celebrity trials -- OJ, Robert Blake, Kobe Bryant and now Jacko -- the celebs walked (I should point out that Martha Stewart didn't).

Did Jackson's obvious eccentricity help or hurt him? Holding hands with a 13-year-old boy in a TV interview and admitting you asexually share your bed with him is not typical behaviour for men in their 40s.

But it's not criminal, either -- but it could lead to criminal sexual abuse if it's part of a grooming process.

Another excerpt from the LAT blog:

One reporter asked parents on the jury about "some of the more troubling evidence."

Reporter: I was wondering if you found that troubling or believable, and two, would you approve of your children doing such a thing?

Female juror: Well, as a parent you know it's something that you are constantly aware of every moment of your day - you're protective of what happens to your children. And I guess I might be speaking maybe for myself and a few other jurors. Who ... what mother in her right mind would allow that to happen, or just freely volunteer your children to sleep with someone and um, not so much with Michael Jackson but any person, for that matter. I think that's something mothers are naturally concerned with.

In case you're wondering, the jurors didn't have much use for the accuser's mother, according to this LAT story.

The jurors said they didn't think the evidence was there to convict.

In so many of these cases (and I covered all too many of them during my time as a courts reporter, although none involving a global celebrity), there's often not much in the way of hard physical evidence or independent witnesses, which just leaves credibility.

And that, folks, can come down to a coin toss in the jury's mind, with the defendant supposedly getting the benefit of any reasonable doubt.

While it's terrible if someone who might be guilty goes free, it's far worse if we send someone who's truly innocent to prison.