Jackson Jurrors Now Say He's Guilty



For those who haven't heard, two jurors in the latest Michael Jackson trial are now claiming that they believe Michael was guilty.

According to Eleanor Cook and Ray Hultman, they have no doubt that Michael was guilty. Why then did they join the other jurors in unanimously acquitting MJ? According to the two, now dissenting jurors, they voted to acquit Jackson when it became apparent that the other jurors would never convict.

Michael Jackson's lawyer, Thomas Mesereau, said that it makes no difference what they are saying, Michael was acquitted. He further raises the issue that the two jurors in question are each writing books and are making movie deals.

This brings up a couple of good issues.

First, I don't believe that anyone involved in a trial should be able to profit from that trial. Being a member of a jury is a civic duty. The purpose of a trial is to determine the guilt or innocence of a person - not to make millions. If you are the relative of a victim you should be ashamed of trying to make millions of your situation. And criminals? They should never profit from crime. Making YOU money isn't what our courts were set up to do. They were set up to find the truth, to convict the guilty and to set free the innocent.

Secondly, as I recall the deliberation didn't last that long - a couple days at the most. So, saying that the jury would never convict is a pretty rash statement. They do state however that the jury foreman, Paul Rodriguez, threatened to remove them from the jury if they didn't agree to acquit. Can the jury foreman do that?

Finally, I believe that being on a jury is not only a civic duty but a solemn one. As a juror - you should have to take an oath to reach your decision based solely on the merits of the case and according to the instructions of the Judge without prejudice of any sort. If you violate that oath, for example by voting one way and then some time later going against that vote - then you should be brought up on charges for violation of the public trust. Now, I don't know what the punishment would be for such a crime. I guess it would fall somewhere between 30 lashings with a wet noodle and perhaps say, death. But I am getting pretty fed up with these jurors who let people go only to show up in the news some time later and claim "I wanted to convict but I was pressured".

This is just crap. If you think someone is guilty, then it is your duty to vote that way. If you give into peer pressure - then you are an idiot and a fool. You have no right to make statements such as "God has forgiven me". Perhaps God has - perhaps he has not. God doesn't tell me his inner thoughts. What I want to know is, if he is guilty and you let him go, what are you going to say to the parents of the next child he molests?

Posted: Wed - August 10, 2005 at 06:51 PM   If this blog entry was of use to you, why not show your appreciation by donating to support the site? Just click on the MAKE A DONATION button on the right hand side of the page! It's all handled by PAYPAL.
  |   |   | | | |

©