Well, the defense in the Michael Jackson trial has rested. And Michael didn't take the stand in his own defense. While I see some wisdom in this approach (after all, when he starts defending sleeping with boys on cross examination, he'd probably be toast), I have to wonder if it will help or hurt him once the case is handed over to the jury.

As far as I'm concerned, the prosecution in this case didn't prove their case. As bakerstreet pointed out on his blog, the prosecution's argument went after what MJ IS, rather than what he did. And the specific allegations have to be questioned in light of the substantial evidence that the boy and his parents were professional extortionists.

But one thing I'd want to hear if I were a juror is Michael's own version of the events. We've heard from everyone whose shoe ever stepped through the gate at Neverland, but the one person who could potentially give the most crucial evidence isn't talking.

I find it hard to imagine a scenario in which Jackson is actually convicted. But if anything weighs heavily against him, this would be it.