While reading through the news today I noticed that the judge in the case has ruled that the previous allegations from 1993 will be allowed. What this means as I understand it is that the kids who reached a monetary settlement with MJ over a decade ago will be called and will testify about the details of their case, not this one. In my purely non-legal layman mind, how can this be allowed? Those cases did not go to trial because of the witnesses' unwillingness to testify after a seven-figure settlement. I've read that in the mid 90's, CA passed a law where basically a victim would have to testify regardless once the charges are made, I guess to prevent the same type of "get paid and clam up" situation with victims. It also seems as though this law would then be applied retroactively to these two old victims. Not sure how that works, either. It seems as though the prosecution has little but the word of a child and his shady family about the abuse. If nothing else, they will ruin Jackson and his name. Convince the jury that he is a creep, therefore he must be guilty regardless of the evidence, ala Scott Peterson. For the record, I remain neutral about his guilt or innocence. However, Jackson and his handlers should be convicted of the crime of incredible stupidity to allow himself to be put in this position again after those events years ago. Would any attorneys care to weigh in on this? Did this ruling just ensure that the case will be overturned on appeal if he is convicted?