Two Jackson jurors admit they are stupider than OJ jurors

WTF is this? Two of them are now claiming Jackson was really guilty of molestation, and are indignant because he got off… and they are mad, I tell you, they are stomping their feet and will tell you all about it in their upcoming books!

Christ Almighty.

Here’s the link.

Someone explain this idiocy to me. If they were convinced he was guilty, um, why did they vote to aquit?

Idiot juror Eleanor Cook, with a book to sell, asked if other jurors would be angry with her for slamming them for aquitting Jackson, just like she did, responded

Idiot juror Ray Hultman, also “writing” a book, is indignant at the jury that let the pedophile go free. Nevermind he voted to aquit.

FWIW, from my limited reading of news articles of the Jackson case, I would have voted to aquit. My anger is at these morons who did examine every piece of evidence, reach a conclusion, and for some bizarre reason, are indignant about the conclusion they themselves reached and voted for. It’s scary that idiots such as these specimens are allowed to sit in judgment of another human.

Even more disgusting that they’re trying to profit from it.

Agreed. Unless the pro-aquittal jurors threatened or coerced them (in which case, the judge should have been told about it) they are every but as responsible for Jackson’s freedom as the most zealous believer in MJ’s innocence.

Hell, assuming for the moment that Jackson was actually guilty, I find them more reprehensible. Being fooled by a paucity of evidence for guilt and a slick defense is one thing. Sitting by and allowing a man you honestly believe to be a child molester to go free is reprehensible.

A juror can believe that the defendant is a child molester and also believe that the prosecution has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the charges against the defendant. Not guilty does not mean innocent.

Call me cynical, but isn’t this all about making money on book sales by stirring up some kind of stupid controversy? How well would their books sell if they were saying “I voted to acquit and I still think that was right!”?

Don’t buy the books; of course lots of people will buy the books - and there’s the really tragic stupidity.

If they are lying about their thoughts on their verdict, that’s deserving of a pitting on its own. It’s slightly less scummy than voting against your true feelings.

I do wonder if we need a law which prevents one from profiting from jury duty. Someone’s life is on the line, and some are cavalier about their verdicts, and some profit from them. Some things should not be about the almighty dollar.

Truer words were never typed.

These “authors” should be given the silent treatment. I won’t quibble about their right to pen stupid books, but by God, there’s no law that says we have to read them. I wish the media would quit giving them free publicity. They are a thousand authors more deserving of publicity.

BTW, I was in Barnes & Noble last night. I confess that I chuckled when I saw “Blood Brother: 33 reasons why Scott Peterson is Guilty” by his half-sister on the clearance rack. Will the two people who bought this book please report to the public square so that we can publicly ridicule you?

I blame California.

There is simply nothing that happens out there that surprises me anymore. You just gotta realize that it’s all a part of that messy, crass, tasteless, shameless, superficial, totally entertaining lifestyle they call culture out there.

If a juror came out and said, “I voted to acquit because I knew it would be a better story, and I thought I could make a buck off it”. I mean, actually said that, I wouldn’t bat an eyelash. It’s just the kind of thing I’ve come to expect. I just think they all live under a different set of rules than the rest of us.

Hey, Trunk, it could be worse – you could have Florida crimes being tried by California juries.

Or, as was stated in the article, a juror can believe that the defendant is a child molester and also believe that the prosecutor’s client was not molested. The jury’s only job was to determine the case against Jackson brought by one specific child and his family, not to decide if he was a child molester in some other, non-tried case.

So, yes, it appears dumb on the surface, but it’s not really contradictory when you read the whole article. It’s the way our judicial system works: we don’t bring someone to trial to determine if they are “a pedophile”; we bring them to trial to determine if it’s very likely that on a specific date or dates they committed a specific crime against a specific individual.

A great debate could be had here: would you consider it ethical (it would be illegal, but would it be ethical?) to prosecute and punish a man (or woman) for a crime he didn’t commit if you knew he was guilty for a crime he wasn’t being prosecuted for? I wouldn’t. I’d hate it and grit my teeth, but if the evidence didn’t show he molested the specific child in the specific manner and time alleged, I’d have to vote acquittal as well, and hope someone who really was victimized came forward with another suit and better evidence.

Hey, Trunk & EddyTeddyFreddy! Y’all are aware, are you not, that there’s more than one California culture. Not all of us Californians are Hollywood.

Yeah, the rest are in the Bay Area. :wink:

Take it easy there. Let’s not be so quick to pass judgment. I mean, we haven’t heard from the Robert Blake jurors yet !!! :smiley:

No! Really? :smiley:

Next thing you know, you’ll be telling me that all Arkansans aren’t hillbillies, that all Texans aren’t mega-blowhards, and that Bay Staters aren’t all a bunch of wild-eyed hippy liberals.

What’s reassuring is that, no, lots of people will not buy the books and that Lisa’s observation is accurate: memoirs, especially by nobodies, tend to tank.

Posted by WhyNot:

Absolutely. In the article, one of the two jurors, Ray Haultman, is quoted:

However, there’s also:

Not only that, but:

And as for the other juror, Eleanor Cook:

So, are the two jurors saying that they thought Jackson was a pedophile, just not guilty of the specific charge, or that they thought he really was guilty, but voted to acquit anyway?

What the Hell? A jury isn’t supposed to make “an agreement to be united”; it’s supposed to deliberate as long as necessary, with each juror voting according to his or her own conviction regarding the evidence presented in court. If they all twelve agree, you’ve got a verdict; if they can’t, you’ve got a hung jury, which is better than jurors voting dishonestly.

So: if the two really thought Jackson was guilty as charged, they should be ashamed of themselves for being spineless, instead of being angry at the other jurors. On the other hand, if they thought Jackson was a pedophile but not guilty of the specific charges, what the Hell is their beef with the other jurors? I really can’t make sense of this.

Gotta go with Baldwin. Either the book-hawking jurors are misrepresenting the deliberation process, or a bona fide “miscarriage of justice” has taken place.

I like this idea.

It wasn’t just these two assholes, either – there’s a third woman who was the last holdout, but eventually caved because of a “1% chance” the accuser was lying.

Two local talk radio guys have been railing about this, along with all the alleged juror misconduct for days.

Along with these jackasses suddenly changing the stories they told immediately following the verdict because now they’re humping their upcoming books, we have the following: [ul]
[li]A juror sneaked a forbidden video of Court TV broadcasts…[/li][li]Juror Eleanor Cook says she smuggled a medical text into deliberations to show “Jackson fit the book’s definition of a pedophile to a T.” Other jurors later held it over her head to “intimidate” her into voting for acquittal, she says.[/li][li]Cook admits she frequently winked at Jackson’s mother Katherine in court and “exchanged wardrobe tips” with the entertainer’s mom, which resulted in them wearing the same colors on certain days…[/li][li]A gang of three female jurors were such rabid Jackson fans that they cooed, “Not my Michael . . .” when the panel discussed the felony charges against the pop idol… [/ul] There’s speculation as to whether the state will press charges against any of these scumbags, but even if they’re found guilty of obstruction of justice or whatever else they could be charged with, there isn’t shit they can do about the apparently bad verdict in favor of Jackson because double jeopardy has attached. [/li]

Part of me wants to correct these hopelessly moronic judgements, but I think I’ll pass in hopes that you’ll never visit. However, let me borrow a sentiment from our very own Cecil Adams

I think in your case, Trunk, I vote the latter.

Perhaps not so many as that. Purely as an anecdote I will mention that some of the jurors from the OJ criminal trial published a book, and I later saw it on the shelf at the local 99¢ Only Store. Publisher probably didn’t even recoup enough to make back their advance.