Wednesday, August 10, 2005

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.”

18 comments:

Lee Ann said...

Jef - I totally agree. The whole idea that he was innocent ~ Joke! I feel anyone on the jury should have stuck to their convictions and not let the others persuade them.

Fred said...

He was guilty. The only problem was that the prosecution couldn't prove it.

For instance, they portrayed Macaulay Culkin as a victim. Culkin gets on the witness stand and denies it. Reasonable doubt.

With reasonable doubt comes a not guilty verdict.

Ticharu said...

No Jackson on my shelves, and if not for him owning the Beatles copyrights, he'd not have gotten rich off me.

Goan Pao said...

People will do any for attention..as if being a juror on the Michael Jackson case was not enough..these guys still want more attention...attention drawing freaks is what I call them...and news hungry media will give any moron his time on the news...

Lee Ann said...

Zombie - Yeah, Scot Peterson, sleeze! You are right about people publishing either for fame or money, or both.

Fred - Absolutely! I guess Macauley didn't want that kind of publicity! Seems a lot of people don't tell the truth on the stand!

Ticharu - Definitely had good potential talent wise, but he went completely in the dumps. Not on my shelf either.

Goan pao - yes, bad combination -good 'ole papparazzi and "the nobody" wanting publicity.

BULLSEYE said...

30 days...in the electric chair!!!

Lee Ann said...

bullseye - Thanks for stopping by! I guess we all should have been the jury...everyone seems to agree what the verdict should have been.

Allison - I agree with you totally girl. What parent in their right mind... the whole thing is just disgusting.

Nobody said...

To me, its juz a big circus act. At the start of the trial, I never believe he will ever be guilty as charged.

Cheers!


xxx
Someone from the far east.

BeckEye said...

I tend to think he's guilty, but I just wonder about the kind of parents who would let their kids go off and "play" with this guy. Was Gary Busey not available for a play-date?

It's almost like they're putting their children in harm's way to profit from it.

Blake said...

The jurors need to quit angling for a book deal. Get over it, you said he wasn't guilty even though he was, now go back to your regular lives.

Never has their been a more clear cut verdict thrown out the window--blame it on California.

Blake

BadGod said...

I never understood his fans. Did these people quit their jobs to go and be there? I don't get it.

I did kinda like that song "billie jean" . Yeah, I admit it. That was the only song I liked. Really.

Lee Ann said...

Ghost - thanks for stopping by! You are right, the trial was a waste of taxpayers money, it was a lost cause from the beginning. Cheers to you too!

BeckEye - I totally agree with you! Yeah, where was Gary?

Blake - you are right, doesn't it always boil down to the money?

Badgod - haha, yeah! Maybe they thought Michael could do something for them if they supported him (forget my job!) Remember the lady who let the dove go free on each verdict? Crazy fans! Like I said earlier, he definitely had talent potential. He had some of the best music videos...very innovative!

Carl Spackler said...

lee ann i have to agree, the whole dame judicial system is screwed up. why is it that celebrities/athletes get of for everything. i drive drunk and get a DUI...that guy from the backstreet boys drives drunk and gets some community service. i do drugs at work i lose my job...pro athelete does steriods he gets a 10 game vacation. i would have love to seen michael go to the big house. i could go on.

Lee Ann said...

heather - thanks for stopping by! We need more parents like you...I agree, what were the parents thinking?

Carl - yes, you know your parents teach you that life isn't always fair. But that is ridiculous. It is amazing,if you have wealth and/or fame, the things you can get away with.

Becky said...

That is so wrong to say about a kid that was molested... That "he liked being his toy." He's a kid for chrine out loud, you can't make a sound decision like that kind of thing when you're that damn young. This really gets to me, as I was molested as a child for years, and there will always be a feeling of guilt, like I did something to deserve it, or I kinda liked it, not saying I liked it, I'm just saying you're a kid you don't know what you like! How dare anyone say that about a child?! I've worked myself into a tissy now... Need to calm down...

Lee Ann said...

rebecca - it is a shame that any child would have to go through that. I am sure it must have been a terrible experience. Somehow, in this situation, it seems his parent could have prevented the situation. Thanks for your comments.

mojoala said...

I agree he is guilty. But I also think that the two jurors are trying to cash in on the incident. To me it's just the big city way.

The rest of the world is not like us small town Alabamians.

lee ann, you got some real good feedback on this.

Lee Ann said...

mojo - haha, yes you are probably right! I do have to wonder if Joe Smith, from "low income housing", in NY city or Los Angeles, would get off....heck no. Big city, fame, wealth ~ different rules!

Bill - yes! Remember the interview Michael Jackson had on tv long before this case. He was shown on air holding hands with this boy, saying they had "sleep overs"! I couldn't believe it. There wasn't anything right about the situation from any angle!