The Michael Jackson trial is biggest judicial media event ever. It is difficult to see it being easily eclipsed. Even live coverage of Saddam Hussein's trial would not reach as far into the popular consciousness - after all there are TV camera's at Milosovic's trial in The Hague.
And yet, it seems, there is very little there. Every piece of evidence the prosecution has put has blown up in its face. The accuser's brother seemed at first to be an articulate and credible witness. But he admitted to lying under oath at a previous trial when the family had sued a major corporation for money. So, articulate then, but not credible. The accuser's mother was even harder to believe.
The prosecution's next star witness was Jackson's estranged wife - but her testimony could have been delivered for the defence.
Disgruntled ex-employees gave testimony that had seen Jackson molesting children. But dropping star names like Macauley Culkin into the mix made it seem like a way of raising the stakes for selling their story. Especially now that Culkin has appeared in Jackson's defence.
It is possible that Jackson is guilty. He is certainly a very odd man. But this is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, and if he were not a celebrity, I suspect the judge would have already dismissed the charges.