egafd.com

Because, as I said above, you cannot sue someone for evidence they give in court. And the fact that an accused person is found not guilty means the case against them was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It does not necessarily mean the witnesses against them were lying.

it would be funny if he decides to record again and jonathan king produced .lol.

"Jackson's acquittal meant that, according to the jury's judgement, the accuser was lying - lying under oath. Therefore, why wasn't the accuser charged with perjury?"

Not necessarily, it means the jury was not convinced beyond reasonable doubt. The accuser might have been telling the truth, but the jury were not sure, and if they were not sure, they have to find the accused not guilty.

"Jackson, if so minded or instructed by his powerful lawyers, could have instigated a criminal prosecution against his accuser. My question is simple; why didn't he?"

Because it is not legally possible. Any evidence given in court is privileged. You cannot sue for slander. If, subsequent to a trial, a witness can be shown to have actually lied, as in the case of Geoffrey Archer, then the state can charge him with perjury. But that's for the state to do, the accused person cannot initiate a prosecution.

If a witness could be sued in this way, no-one would ever want to give evidence, and that is clearly against the public interest, hence the fact that evidence given in open court is privileged.

In the Michael Jackson case, if he could have sued his accusers, how would he have got a conviction? It would still come down to his word against theirs, and since they were now the accused, they would get the same benfit of the doubt that he got, and be found not guilty. It would be a complete waste of time and money.