Does history matter in the Jackson case?

Judge Rodney Melville's ruling that testimony about other alleged molestations will be allowed in the Michael Jackson will dramatically rewrite both sides' courtroom strategies.

Many of you thought the judge made the right call, allowing the jury to consider 2003 charges that Jackson molested a then-13-year-old cancer patient in light of other boys who came forward with their own claims about the King of Pop.

Others felt that the decision was just the latest attempt to bulk up a weak case against the pop legend.

Here are some of your thoughts on the latest twist in the Jackson case.

A BAD RULING?
"Presenting prior accusations to the jury that did not result in even a criminal charge seems a very questionable legal practice. If the jury is to make its determination on the evidence in the present case only, these unadjudicated accusations can't help but prejudice them. This kind of information would be more appropriate for a sentencing hearing." —Ron, Calif.

"If I were on the jury, I would have serious questions about these prior 'bad acts.' It could end up that the prior 'bad acts' testimony only serves to create confusion." —Jabari, Washington, D.C.

"I'm not a Michael Jackson fan nor am I one of his supporters. I do believe however that in a court of law only facts should be presented as evidence. Allegations from the past that were never proven or even evaluated by a court of law are hearsay at best and at worse slander." —Terry, Lombard, Ill.

"I think the judge is setting the stage for a mistrial by allowing hearsay and previous allegations to be brought into the courtroom." —Michael, Atlanta, Ga.

"If the prosecution can't get a conviction using the evidence that they have that actually pertains to this specific case, that's tough for them." —Joel, Tallahassee, Fla.

PAST PATTERNS
"Any vice cop -- or anyone who has been impacted by child molestation -- will tell you that what we have heard about Jackson to date fits every profile ever written about child molesters. The "softening," the isolation, the use of mood altering substances, the proximity of molester to those being molested, the threats." —Josie, San Diego, Calif.

"The use of prior bad acts is a common technique used in the investigation and prosecution of child molesters. Only on rare occasions is there physical evidence to support the allegations made by the accuser. Having multiple accusers, who do not know each other and do not know what each has said, tell the same or very similar stories about the perpetrator and his actions is evidence that is very convincing, reliable and important in deciding who is telling the truth." —Michael, Long Beach, Miss.

His character has been suspect for years and his other behaviors of altering his appearance speaks volumes about his instability and self-esteem. I believe the past adds up to years of abuse and that he has behaviors that reflect "grooming" of children.  —J. Almond, Indiana

"I have followed the Michael Jackson case ever since 1993 and I am confident that there is no evidence that Jackson molested any of these boys. The biggest question that no one can seems to answer is that if the prosecution had evidence back in the 90's that a crime by Jackson had taken place, then they would have filed charges. It is just that simple." —Pamela, Los Angeles, Calif.

MORE FROM MICHAEL JACKSON TRIAL

Michael Jackson trial Section Front

2 jurors say they regret Jackson's acquittal Michael Jackson misses federal court hearing Financial company sues Michael Jackson Michael Jackson vacationing in Bahrain Jackson thanks family, fans, God for help Jackson jury’s notes show consideration Jackson's mother feels for accuser Lawyer calls Jackson jury ‘courageous’ Jackson family's sprawling ties Who's who in the Jackson case Michael Jackson trial Section Front   Add Michael Jackson trial headlines to your news reader: