Posted on 08/08/2005 1:43:20 PM PDT by COUNTrecount
Plenty of evidence was presented. The jurors just decided to do the same silly thing the OJ jurors did.
And that is the bottom line. People can argue about how solid the case was and all of that. But the bottom line is that the juror was convinced that Jackson was guilty. That means the case was good enough for that juror. And she didn't vote that way. In a perfect world she would do about 90 days in jail for failure to execute her sworn duty.
If even one of these idiots had voted guilty, Jackson could have been tried again.
Is Cook the "don't snap your fingers at me, lady" juror? I really tried to look it up, but I could wade only so far into the Michael Jackson trial swamp.
I strongly disagree. In the Simpson case there was overwhelming, reliable evidence. In the Jackson case almost every prosecution witness gave testimony the prosecution didn't expect, or was extremely unreliable. In the Simpson case, jury nullification was the only reason for the jury to ignore the evidence. In the Jackson case, a conviction could only have been the result of jury nullification.
I once actually bought a book for $0.01 on Amazon.com. (It was an Oprah Winfrey cookbook.)
A hypothetical book by the other 10 jurors which explains why the lurid details didn't add up to a crime to them, will not garner as many dollars as either book by the other two. It's simple tabloid sales arithmetic.
For goodnessake if MJ has been not just that naughty but also that promiscuous, then produce "one" kid that the state can make a better case over. It ought to be a cake walk. This case has at least shown that if one steps forward he will not be crucified by all comers (even if ultimately not believed).
Juror Eleanor Cook was upbeat after she and fellow jurors handed down acquittals in the Michael Jackson trial June 13. The 79-year-old grandmother was memorable for recalling her thoughts after the mother of Jackson's accuser snapped her fingers at the jury: "Don't snap your fingers at me, lady!" Now Cook has reportedly claimed she was railroaded into a not-guilty verdict.
My understanding is that there were 17 witnesses who indicated at some point in their testimony that Jackson had molested the boy. The testimony of one alone might be questionable, but when you have that many, it seems clear to me that Jackson was a pedophile. The jury should not have let him off because the testimony of one witness, if standing alone, was questionable. They failed to look at all the evidence.
"They can be as angry as they want to. They ought to be ashamed. They're the ones that let a pedophile go," responded Cook, 79.
Bawawwawawa!
The D.A. should have waited until he had a real case. His own personal motives got in the way of the public good. When almost every witness you put on the stands turns into a surprise, you aren't doing your job correctly.
I expect to see several cartons of them soon after publication at Mike's Warehouse (a local deeply discounted store). I've found bestsellers there for pennies on the dollar. Hopefully this will be marked $0.01 and even if at that price I won't buy it.
Exactly. That was what I was getting at. Just didn't say it that way. Thanks.
This chick is nuts and I refuse to buy her book or anyone on that jury who writes a book on their experience.
I sure hope these losers didn't get too big an advance.
Even at a buck a piece I would never read their trash. Pretending to "regret" letting the pedophile loose won't work with me.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Commiefornia juries....go figure.
NO YOU LET THE PEDOPFILE GO....BI__H!!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.