http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1507174/20050809/jackson_michael.jhtml?headlines=true

not suprising - how else could a child molester walk free

Well...according to the article:

The claim is an about-face for Cook, who was adamant about the decision and specifically lashed out at the accuser's mother in a post-verdict press conference, quipping, "Don't snap your fingers at me, lady!" a reference to the mother's habit of punctuating her testimony with finger snaps (see "Jackson Jurors Say Accuser's Mother Made A Bad Impression").

and...


Another juror reached by the Times denied any coercion took place.

Susan Drake, 51, said that during the deliberations, the two "were clear in expressing their feeling he might be guilty but totally clear that the evidence wasn't there and reasonable doubt prevailed." She described the deliberations as "thoughtful and courteous," not intimidating.

I don't find their claims to be terribly convincing, and if they really believe he was guilty they should have voted that way. By not voting the way they thought they should, they abdicated their responsibility as jurors.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I don't find their claims to be terribly convincing, and if they really believe he was guilty they should have voted that way. By not voting the way they thought they should, they abdicated their responsibility as jurors.

I totally agree. They are the ones that abdicated their responsibility. If they truly thought the guy was guilty they should have stuck to their guns and said so.

they voted to clear Jackson on 14 counts after jury foreman Paul Rodriguez threatened to remove them from the jury if they did not agree to acquit,

Unless California has some bizzaro law, I can't see how the jury foreman would even have that power.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Unless California has some bizzaro law, I can't see how the jury foreman would even have that power.

I did hear something about that actually--on Nancy Grace, I believe.

now a 3rd juror is making the same claim

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050809-1912-ca-jackson-jurors.html

Is there no way to reverse the verdict?

No way to have another trial? i am sure they can bring forth another child or further inspect the last family.

Sorry, its just i don't have a degree in Law so i am not aware of all the capabilities of our court systems

they can't reverse the verdict.

Of course - when he molests another child, he can be arrested on new charges. It's just a matter of time.

I'm afraid not, Evak. Double jeopardy--a citizen can't be tried twice for the same offense.

Originally posted by DrewM
now a 3rd juror is making the same claim

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050809-1912-ca-jackson-jurors.html

Of course, there is money in it (by this statement I am not saying that MJ did not molest innocent children).

Absolutely-- just like the OJ trial and the jurors who wrote books later.
I wonder how these people sleep at night. Not only did they let a guilty person go free, they also attempt to make money out of it.

Originally posted by rendova
I'm afraid not. Double jeopardy--a citizen can't be tried twice for the same offense.
but for a DIFFERENT offense.........

Untrue!

Do you think his aquittal gives him a free pass to abuse kids with no fear of prosecution?

They tried him on the abuse of 1 specific child. If another kid comes along and says he was abused at any time in the future - they can prosecute him on that.

Originally posted by DrewM
Untrue!

Do you think his aquittal gives him a free pass to abuse kids with no fear of prosecution?

They tried him on the abuse of 1 specific child. If another kid comes along and says he was abused at any time in the future - they can prosecute him on that.

Yea, they can't do have double jeopardy for this crime (not molestation, but meaning the molestation of the child)
But they can do it for the many other children brought up during this arduous trial. Macaulay Culkin for instance.

He cannot be tried again on the same charge against this victim .
But, he can be charged and tried again, against a DIFFERENT victim.
Sad that there could BE a new victim.
Maybe there is a way to eliminate this potential problem.

Originally posted by rendova
He cannot be tried again on the same charge against this victim .


Sure he could. I think what everyone is trying to say is that he can't be charged with a crime stemming from the same alleged event (even if the charge is different). If he (allegedly) did it again to the same kid, he could be charged again.

i dont know whether he's guilty or innocent, but these people are looking to sell books. if their story is like the rest they may not sell as much, but it came down to who was going to be the first person to come out and say they were wrong, just what the public wants to hear, now they will sell more books than their counterparts. once again, the public shows that money is more important than integrity.....that's all this is about !

got to love the justice system in this country, not only is it a circus, dumba**es can even make a buck when it's over.....very sad.... I think these pricks that are writting books, getting fame for themselfs {and freak boy MJ} and making money should be sent to the big house.

Originally posted by mad dog
got to love the justice system in this country, not only is it a circus, dumba**es can even make a buck when it's over.....very sad.... I think these pricks that are writting books, getting fame for themselfs {and freak boy MJ} and making money should be sent to the big house.

but how will you "protect Micheal" while he is there?...just kidding... `
~ducking for cover~