Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Two Jackson Jurors Regret Acquittal

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 03:06 PM
Original message
Two Jackson Jurors Regret Acquittal
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/jackson_jurors;_ylt=AkNX3pQT1tjwv2vRuoGKqLiZGA4B;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl


Two Jackson Jurors Regret Acquittal

1 hour, 41 minutes ago



Two of the jurors who voted to acquit singer Michael Jackson of child molestation and other charges say they regret their decisions.

Jurors Ray Hultman and Eleanor Cook, who both have pending book deals, planned to appear Monday night on the new MSNBC show "Rita Cosby: Live and Direct."

In a preview shown Monday on NBC's "Today," Cosby asked Cook if the other jurors will be angry with her.

"They can be as angry as they want to. They ought to be ashamed. They're the ones that let a pedophile go," responded Cook, 79.

<snip>

Explaining the turnaround by Cook and Hultman, Larry Garrison, who is working with both on their separate books and a combined television movie, said all the jurors "had an agreement (to be united) and then basically when they went on 'Larry King Live,' both Eleanor and Ray couldn't tolerate what was going on anymore. They said, 'Enough is enough.'"

<snip>

----------------

Well, glad to see the jury system working... :eyes:

This is nuts. As a juror, you are compelled to vote your conscience. In the end, if the jury can't come to a decision, we do have a hung jury option and the chance to try the case again.

Of course, we do have a book and movie deal, so nad press is better than no press...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Squatch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. Untrue
"As a juror, you are compelled to vote your conscience."

A juror must be fair and impartial and able to make decisions free of any bias or prejudice. Jurors are charged with carefully listening to and evaluating the evidence presented in the case. The jurors must unanimously agree that the defendant is or is not guilty of the offense alleged.

A consience is a bias and prejudice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. What I meant was, when sitting in a jury, you're suppose to
listen to every thing and weigh the evidence, we all agree to that. I describe it as listening to your conscience about what the evidence is telling you. I never ment to imply bias and prejudice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
the other one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Yes it is true.
Whereas a judge will instruct a jury to weigh the evidence and judge wether or not a crime has been committed, there is no law that deprives a jury from excercising Jury Nullification, i.e. choosing to find a person Not Guilty because the law is fundamentally unsound. A judge may even warn a jury against jury nullification BUT in the end the jury is free to hand down whatever verdict it chooses based on whatever reasoning it chooses. A judge can reverse a guilty verdict, but may not reverse a not-guilty verdict.

The people of america could take this country back by practicing jury nullification, by only finding people guilty of crimes that are worth being found guilty of. This would probably destroy the plea bargain system, because defendents would have a greater degree of faith in a jury of their peers if that jury was not bound by any restrictions save judging the accused in relation to society and not a strict reading of the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaineDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well... isn't this interesting?
A little too late.

This story is just as bizarre as the case was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goldmund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
3. Whorin' for book sales.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. Exactly..
.... and if I were king for a day, it would be against the law to discuss your experiences as a juror on a specific case.

These people should shut up. I felt with what limited info I had that Jackson was probably guilty, but the verdict has been rendered and coming back now with a new story is shameful.

Jackasses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kraklen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
4. The jury system did work.
The jury was presented all of the accurate, valid evidence (which wasn't much for the prosecution), and they all voted unanimously to acquit.

They're opinions months afterwards (which is tainted with heresay, bias, speculation, prejudice, etc.) is irrelevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. This paragraph got my attention.
Hultman, 62, told Cosby he was upset with the way other jurors approached the case: "The thing that really got me the most was the fact that people just wouldn't take those blinders off long enough to really look at all the evidence that was there."

NOw, personally, I have no idea whether MJ is guilty or not since I heard none of the evidence (as no cameras were allowed in the courtroom.) When I read this, I took it to mean that many of the jurors were either star-struck or already had their mind made up.

Basically, it seems that this guy thought he was guilty because of the evidence that was there, but that he felt many of the other jurors had blinders on to the evidence and he just voted with them.


Who knows what was going on? I just found this artlice on Yahoo!'s front page news and it got my attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kraklen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. No cameras in the courtroom is irrelevant.
All of the testimony and evidence was reported ad nauseum, they even did a recreation for crying out loud. There certainly wasn't important evidence that the media didn't report.

As for what's going on, it's pretty clear to me that this guy's trying to capitalize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Yep, it sure was ad nauseum.
I am just wary of the corporate media's ability to report since it was decided by many in the media that MJ was guilty- especially on CourtTV.

From my understanding, the recreation was on E! Entertainment television. I question to ability to be factual over the ability to be entertaining on aq channel that specializes in sensationalism.

I certianly think these people are trying to capitalize, but they are also giving the talking heads a total distraction from the true concerns of the American people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
5. I Wonder????
How much of the money they make from this will be given to groups that protect children?

I bet at this moment, neither of these "good" people plan to give any money to anyone but themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leetrisck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
6. This crap is ridiculous - wish Jackson would sue
their asses off but he won't. Think the prosecutor should be charged with malicious prosecution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
10. WTF Jackson should SUE their ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
11. By posting this story, I didn't mean to apply MJ was guilty.
I just find it interesting that after the trial is over, after all the rumors since the 1994 investigation, now suddenly two jurors come out and say... well, maybe he was guilty... that was what the trial was about. This is just shameless book/movie plugging and will stir up even more distractions for the talking heads.

I hope I'm wrong about the talking head distraction, although you know Jon Stweart is gonna have fun with this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
13. The Motivation for Their Turnaround Is Obviou$$$$$$$$$$$$
They did vote their consciences. Then they got home and tried to cash in. A conversation like this would have ensued:

Juror: With all this publicity, there surely ought to be some money in it for me.

Garrison: YOU ACQUITTED HIM, YOU IDIOTS! How can I sell a story of
all the juicy goings on at MJ's place if you say it never happened?
Now the press has gone home disappointed that they don't get photo
ops of MJ in jail, and nobody is interested anymore.

Juror: I had no idea. What can I do?

Garrison: Say you changed your mind, that you really think he's guilty
and the other jurors bullied you. We can get the press back if we give
them something, anything.

Juror: I can still have my book and my movie then?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
14. It's kind of late to change their minds.
I think they may feel the potential book market will be larger this way, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
16. Just a couple of old farts looking for their 15 minutes of fame
I guess they and their agents decided that being flip flop jurors was the best way to profit from being on a jury.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4_Legs_Good Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
18. F*cking rediculous!!! If you have "reasonable doubts" you should bring
them up in the deliberation room, not 2 months after the fact.

If you really think he was guilty, then it's YOU and not the other jurors who let the pedaphile go.

Idiocy, utterly.

david
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 26th 2021, 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC