i promise to find the real molester

Well, now that Michael Jackson's jury has cleared him of guilt perhaps they can explain their theory of what actually happened. In particular I'm sure they have interesting explanations for the following:

1. Why the boy's underwear turned up in bathroom of Jackson's daughter (matching the underwear the boy said was removed from his body by Jackson).
2. How the boy's fingerprints ended up on the pornographic magazine, Barely Legal, found in Michael Jackson's bedroom, along side Jackson's prints.

To say that Jackson is innocent (at least of lewd acts) is to say that there is some legitimate excuse for this. I'd just like to know what the jury think it is.

I also want to know why the jury believed that Jackson's testimony was truthful despite having been proved perjurous on the point that the boy had never been in his personal bedroom—in contrast to fingerprint evidence. And why the jury believed that the boy's testimony was inaccurate despite the findings of the police raid backing up much of the boy's story—such as the alcohol found in Jackson's bathroom and the boy's underwear.

I wish jury exit interviews were mandatory.