The MAIN thing that would lead me to believe he is guilty is the 1993 payoff, that right there was either a case of "lets get this the **** over with" or "lets not bring this to court"
.
I'm sorry man...if some guy raped my son, no amount of money would save his sorry ass from my legal and/or physical wrath.
To me, the settlement indicated that it was a load of crap from the parents involved in that '93 case. Unless your some kind of terrible parent, you don't take a couple of million and throw your kid in therapy and call it even.
As for the CURRENT state of affairs...describing a penis doesn't really prove anything. Any Chappelle fans in here?: "I have never seen Michael's alleged penis but I bet I could describe it. I bet there's a head...a shaft...some balls...maybe some hair...some pressed, permed hair..." and later: "I couldn't pick my own penis out of a lineup, and me an' my penis is like
this, son! [crosses fingers]"
Bottom line none of us know what happened in there, but I find reasonable explanations for just about all the evidence presented, and I guess that is probably what the jury did too--things like the fingerprints on the porno. What a bunch of crap...I bet they have the fingerprints of everyone in the house on them, depending on the quality of the porno (Torrie Wilson/Christy Hemme playboys come to mind...).
Either way, the jury heard everything that everyone had to say, and they decided the only choice that matters.