Guilty conscience about the not guilty verdict?

I know that the topic of Michael Jackson has been trampled into the ground. However, the latest news I heard was not regarding him directly, but two of the jurors from his case for child molestation. The whole situation disgusted me, and I did not even watch it when it was center of media attention. I was not shocked at the verdict, I mean, look at O.J., Robert Blake and other “big wig” Corporate CEOs that were so fortunately found “not guilty”. There is a lot to say for being wealthy and famous. In my opinion, there was no question, guilty! But that is just my opinion.

Anyway, Cook and Hultman were two of the jurors in the Michael Jackson case. The jurors unanimously acquitted Jackson of all charges. So why are two of the jurors front and center now? Do they just have a guilty conscience or are they possibly searching for the path of wealth and fame? Two months after the trial, the two say they regret their vote to set Michael Jackson free. Cook was quoted as saying, “No doubt in my mind whatsoever, that boy was molested, and I also think he enjoyed to some degree being Michael Jackson’s toy.”

When the trial was over, I guess to justify his decision, Hultman told the AP “That’s not to say he’s an innocent man. He’s just not guilty of the crimes he’s been charged with.”
Now it comes out, Hultman said he was not happy with the way other jurors approached the case saying, “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 it is revealed that the jurors took an anonymous poll early in their deliberations and Cook and Hultman were two of three jurors who voted for conviction. If this is true, why did they ever back down? Cook and Hultman said they agreed to go along with the other jurors when it became apparent that they would never convict the pop star. I am sorry, but that is weak and wrong. What is the purpose of the system if they don’t stick to their convictions? It is futile at best. Their claim is that the foreman of the jury threatened them of dismissal if they didn’t agree with the rest of the jury. What? That is crazy! The foreman cannot make that kind of decision. Supposedly the foreman said he would tell the bailiff, the bailiff would notify the judge, and the judge would have them removed. For not agreeing with the other jurors? How and why would they even consider that true? Cook said, “The air reeked of hatred and people were angry and I had never been in an atmosphere like that before.”

When Cook was asked if they thought the other jurors would be angry with them for telling their “true story”, Cook said, “They can be as angry as they want to. They ought to be ashamed. They’re the ones that let a pedophile go.” Excuse me, but wasn’t she part of that jury? Didn’t she let him go as well?

Their reasons are pathetic. The whole purpose of the jury is to vote for the truth. Does that mean they are admitting that they lied now? There is only one reason why they are coming forward now….Yes, you guessed it… Hultman’s book will be called “The Deliberator” and Cook’s is “Guilty as Sin, Free as a Bird.”