Out here in California, there has been extensive coverage (as nationally, I would imagine) of the Michael Jackson trial. There's been a lot of talk around town about the mother of the accused, and her lack of credibility as a witness. Some people have claimed that she should never have allowed her child to stay at the Neverland ranch alone with someone that has been accused of child molestation before.
All of this is well and good, but I don't find that it's relevant. Put in slightly more legal terms, I don't find it probitive (in other words, it doesn't establish guilt, or lack of guilt). The real question here is whether or not a crime was perpetrated by Michael Jackson, not whether or not the mother was at fault for leaving her kid there.
There's no question that Michael Jackson is just plain weird, even if he did not molest this child, or the child that accused him in 1993. So my question is, why do people constantly try to do this at trials? Why argue simply to discredit people, and not to actually show that actions are appropriate? Is Michael Jackson the new OJ?