I can not believe I just read this. Two of the jurors from Michael Jackson's trial believe that he is guilty and are going to write books.

Personally I think that is repulsive and I wonder how they can sleep at night.

Jurors to spill the beans on Jackson trialPublished: Saturday, 6 August, 2005, 11:58 AM Doha Time

LOS ANGELES: Two of the jurors who acquitted pop legend Michael Jackson of child sex charges now say they believe he was guilty and are penning tell-all books about their deliberations, sources told AFP on Thursday.
The panellists are spilling the beans about their secret wrangling that resulted in Jackson being unanimously cleared two months ago in books that will be made into a television movie, sources behind the projects said.
Former juror Eleanor Cook, a 79-year-old grandmother, is writing a tome called Guilty As Sin, Free as a Bird with the help of her granddaughter, while Ray Hultman, 62, will pen The Deliberator, along with Stacy Brown.
“Their revelations will rock the world,” said a source close to the projects. “There are going to be huge revelations that will tell the true story of what happened behind those closed doors,” the source added.
Both books will ultimately be overseen by author and producer Larry Garrison of SilverCreek Entertainment in California, the source said, adding that the US TV networks were vying to acquire rights to make one movie from both books.
The source said that a rift had developed between the two jurors and some of their 10 colleagues, including the jury’s foreman who the pair allege was “like a jellyfish”, the source behind the book projects said.
The 12 jurors had agreed they were going to “stick together” and say the same things publicly about why they vindicated Jackson following the delivery of their verdict, but some of them chose to break ranks, the source said.
“Eleanor and Ray were pretty miffed and now they are going to say what really happened,” said the source, who requested anonymity.
Cook had adamantly defended the 10 not guilty verdicts in a press conference and television interviews after the trial ended in the California town of Santa Maria on June 13.
Hultman said after the verdict was announced in court that he believed Jackson probably was guilty of molesting boys but that the prosecution had failed to prove its case.
Jackson was acquitted of molesting a 13-year-old former cancer patient, plying him with alcohol to seduce him and plotting to kidnap the boy and his family and hold them prisoner at his Neverland Ranch. – AFP

Originally posted by ~Sal~
Personally I think that is repulsive

Because they're writing books or because they didn't vote to convict?

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Because they're writing books or because they didn't vote to convict?

I cant speak for him, but personally:

Both.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Because they're writing books or because they didn't vote to convict?

It's the WHOLE damn thing that makes me nuts. Kids were hurt, but Jackson could hire the best lawyer possible because he has money, the money shielded him. I do not blame his lawyer because he did his job.

But we have a nut job who basically was abused himself as a child who perpetuates the cycle instead of getting help and then hides behind his money. He was smart enough to touch children whose parents are barely functioning and unable to know enough to protect their own children from a devious predator.

Then we have a prosecutor who was so angry with the whole thing he could not distance himself enough to put a decent case together.

Then we have 12 jurors who had to cope with the presentation of both lawyers....a kid testifying who comes from a home that I wouldn't want my cat left in, a kid who is a cancer survivor and has no support system and knows the world is looking at him. And a mother who is so messed up she couldn't properly look after a gold-fish let alone a kid and who presents as though her sole purpose was money; which it may well have been.

The ones who lose here are the kids and us.

But the lawyers got paid. And now that sick twist is going to sell more CD's and the jurors are going to write books about the whole thing...money, money, money for everyone but the real victims. No money, no justice...so what was served? And what was the point?

The whole thing is a travesty!

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
I cant speak for him, but personally:

Both.

HIM? <smack> :D

now what guy would put ~ in front and behind ~ his name?

:mad: ;)

I agree Sal the system is in serious need of repair money talks and it is sad. There was a guy just let out of prison after serving 18yrs on a crime that he did not commit, DNA proved his innocence. I bet if he had money he would have been able to commit the crime and walk off free.

Originally posted by ~Sal~
HIM? <smack> :D

now what guy would put ~ in front and behind ~ his name?

:mad: ;)

I didnt know you were female, Sal, lol.

I have a problem with a juror who votes to aquit and then wants to write a book about how "I really thought he was guilty".

If they believed Jackson was guilty they had no business voting to aquit. I suspect they took notes at the trial for their books.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I have a problem with a juror who votes to aquit and then wants to write a book about how "I really thought he was guilty".

If they believed Jackson was guilty they had no business voting to aquit. I suspect they took notes at the trial for their books.

I agree and it angers me, for people were victimized here. There is such a thing as a real victim and we as a society have a moral obligation to protect real victims of crime. This did not happen here because of "subtly of law". We are moving further and further from justice and the price will be steep.

Originally posted by ~Sal~
I agree and it angers me, for people were victimized here. There is such a thing as a real victim and we as a society have a moral obligation to protect real victims of crime. This did not happen here because of "subtly of law". We are moving further and further from justice and the price will be steep.

To be honest Sal, I'm not convinced that Jackson was guilty in this case. Twelve people heard the evidence, and all twelve voted to aquit. Two now say they believe he was guilty, but I think they just want to sell books and movie rights. I think that if there was any slightly convincing evidence that he sexually abused his accuser, the jury would have convicted him. Nobody likes a child abuser.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
To be honest Sal, I'm not convinced that Jackson was guilty in this case. Twelve people heard the evidence, and all twelve voted to aquit. Two now say they believe he was guilty, but I think they just want to sell books and movie rights. I think that if there was any slightly convincing evidence that he sexually abused his accuser, the jury would have convicted him. Nobody likes a child abuser.

But what if they did their job as instructed. What if, they believed in their heart that he did it, but did not feel the preponderance of the evidence showed that?

YOU are like my partner. He will not say Jackson is innocent or guilty for he doesn't feel it weighs on either side.

I say they can't convict on "slight". It has to be "beyond" a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution did not show that, then one must find "not guilty". Not innocent as Jessy Jackson was chanting...but not guilty.

Am I the only one that thinks this should be an illegal thing to do?

Originally posted by ~Sal~
But what if they did their job as instructed. What if, they believed in their heart that he did it, but did not feel the preponderance of the evidence showed that?

Yeah, what she said.

Originally posted by ~Sal~
But what if they did their job as instructed. What if, they believed in their heart that he did it, but did not feel the preponderance of the evidence showed that?

Their "beliefs" are irrelevant. If they heard no evidence pointing to Jackson's guilt, why would they believe he was guilty?

YOU are like my partner. He will not say Jackson is innocent or guilty for he doesn't feel it weighs on either side.

I don't know which side the evidence falls on because I didn't get to see the evidence.

I say they can't convict on "slight". It has to be "beyond" a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution did not show that, then one must find "not guilty". Not innocent as Jessy Jackson was chanting...but not guilty.

From a legal standpoint, "innocent" and "not guilty" are the same.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Their "beliefs" are irrelevant. If they heard no evidence pointing to Jackson's guilt, why would they believe he was guilty?

Exactly, their beliefs are irrelevant, they must go on evidence presented. They may well believe he is guilty because they may recognize the skill of the defense counsel to manipulate the facts and spin them to Jackson's advantage. That is his job as his counsel. They may recognize that just because the kid's mother presents like a money grubbing fool does not negate the possibly that her child was molested.

Not all is black and white nor are things always as they appear.

From a legal standpoint, "innocent" and "not guilty" are the same. Agreed but legal standpoint and truth may differ widely.