Rundown of 12 Jurors

Seat 1 Juror #66
Male Age 62
Engineer
Believes media can be influencial

Seat 2 Juror #80
Male Age 63
Retired

Seat 3 Juror #108
Female Age 50
Horse rainer
Thinks Michael Jackson is a wonderful entertainer
Gives animal therapy to abused children


Seat 4 Juror #26
Female Age 51
High School Teacher

Seat 5 Juror #100
Female Age 79
Retired
Her children love Michael Jackson

Seat 6 Juror #157
Female Age 22
Physical Therapist Aide

Seat 7 Juror #107
Female Age 42
Special Ed Aide
Sister was the victim of sexual assualt as young girl

Seat 8 Juror #151
Female Age 39
Senior Office Specialist

Seat 9 Juror #88
Female Age 45
Unemployed

Seat 10 Juror #153
Male Age 20
Assistant Head Cashier
Hispanic
His brother-in-law has a sister who works for Michael Jackson's doctor
His sister and her boyfriend did go to Neverland Ranch

Seat 11 Juror #101
Male Age 21
Student
Disabled [Wheelchair] - Writes about car racing
Visited Neverland when he was in 6th grade


Seat 12 Juror #77
Female Age 44
Social Service Worker
Believes children can be influenced by their parents

compiled by court insider TSColdman

lilgish said:

Do we get to vote them off like in American Idol?

lilgish said:

Jury's stacked with MJ fans and former Neverland guests. Whodathunkit?

Rhondab said:

I usually avoid MJ threads at prince.org because they're filled with irrelevant silliness, but when I read this...





Jesus, what an uneducated comment.
I mean, there are lots of dumb thing said on this forum, especially about Michael Jackson, but...wow. I'm just outdone by you orgers.



Oh, wait, you aren't being serious.... Are you?







Jail will teach you humility. Hmm.






[Edited 2/23/05 19:20pm]

superspaceboy said:

Well, we've definitely gotta get rid of the one who's sister was a victim of sexual assult. She's definitely biased. She's probably white and hates that a black man has the best selling album of all time. And she's bitter that Michael Jackson is getting rich off the Beatles back catalog.

Yep, start preparing your excuses now. Folks won't be able to use their precious "reverse race cards" (and we all know that that even tops the "big" joker) when he's acquitted.

Honestly, what were you expeceting, 12 people who've lived under rocks until last week? They already know who Michael Jackson is. They've danced to "Billie Jean." Uh-oh. Mike Jack's obvoiusly got them in his pocket...

SefraNSue said:

YOU orgers? That's funny.

You think it's dumb to predict that a man indicted for child sex abuse will be convicted? Under the circumstances, the prediction is at least feasible, don'tcha think?




That's not what she said. Don't get it twisted. She said he needs to develop some humility and realize these charges are very serious in order to AVOID jail time.

Rhondab is one of our more thoughtful and balanced orgers. What she said was perfectly reasonable.

lilgish said:

Wtf is the complaining, the Jury is stacked with MJ sympathizers

now if mj is found guilty
You know that MAN IS GUILTY!

Luv4oneanotha said:

WTF? You got a jury full of
a) parents - who will be very much inclined to convict in any molestation case
b) women - who will relate with the mother, and could feel attacked when the woman is attacked
c) about half of them works in a job 'protecting/caring for the weaker'
d) not one black. All potential black jurors (2) were dismissed without cause by the prosecution. Apparently they are not feeling confident enough to give MJ a fair trial.
In a case where everybody knew it would be hard to find a jury of peers without too much knowledge of the case would be very hard, I think MJ was severely hurt by the way the jury selection was rushed and the final composition of the jury.
You have to understand they need an anonimous decision for both a guilty verdict or an acquital (sp?). So when it comes down to MJ's word against the accuser's, what is the chance that at least one of those white mothers says, i'm not taking any chances with this rich black and rather wacko superstar?
Also, when the final deliberation gets tough, the (relative) homogenity of the jurors would assure they agree on a guilty verdict much more quickly.
So, in conclusion, very bad jury for MJ. And if he is acquitted by them, I for one will be convinced he really is innocent.

As far as I can see, this is a good jury.

BlueNote

WTF?

BlueNote

SpcMs said:

I think a lot of the MJ crowd are now actively looking for ways to discredit the jury selection before a verdict has even been reached. Everything about the proceedings has been criticised so far.

I also really object to the notion that just because someone is white they will naturally assume a black (although I can't believe I use that term in relation to MJ) man is guilty. You're actually judging these people on their colour, sex, marital status and jobs which is pretty narrow-minded in my opinion.

adoreme said:

Well, according to some Foxnews poll a year ago, some 70% of white people thought MJ was guilty, vs. some 20% of black people (i don't remember the exact numbers, but you get the idea). Demographics do matter, and since this will probably be a case of one word against the other, I think it's worth looking into. Actually, that's what jury selection is all about, judging people on color, sex, marital status and jobs. So i'm sorry if you think the process of jury selection is a 'narrow-minded' one.
Btw, what do you think about the DA using 2 of his 10 juror-vetoes against the only two blacks that were considered?

SpcMs said:

I take your point. However, I still feel that the majority of MJ fans are already searching for reasons why this trial isn't fair as some sort of safety net should their idol be found guilty. I am not American but I refuse to believe that the justice system is part of some big conspiracy to bring down Michael Jackson.

Therefore I would be interested to know the reasons behind the 2 vetoes. I am sure that neither were excluded simply because of their skin colour which seems to have become the battle chant of most of the MJ fans on this thread.

Incidentally I read this morning that one of the jurors is actually the grandmother of a man found guilty of child sex crimes. She has been quoted as saying "I love my grandson. He made mistakes but he had a fair trial and I hope Michael Jackson will get the same".

adoreme said:

No reasons were given for the vetoes. The defence object twice, the judge overruled both times.
I guess there's also a positive side here: if he's acquited, we'll know for certain it wasn't because of his race.
But to be honest, i do worry about a fair trial. Most jurors say they haven't heard of the '93 charges, and very little about the current ones. Those things make me go mmmmm...

Sheriffs Cleared Jackson Before Charging Him
February 23, 2005
A "Celebrity Justice" exclusive.

In a stunning development, "Celebrity Justice" has learned that the Santa Barbara Sheriff's department closed its case against Michael Jackson, clearing him just months before then arresting him on child molestation charges.

On February 20, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., three social workers with the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services visited a Los Angeles apartment and interviewed Jackson's accuser, his brother, sister and mother. Sources tell "CJ" those interviewed all said, in no uncertain terms, that Jackson did not molest the boy.

"CJ" Executive Producer Harvey Levin reports that the three social workers returned to their office, only to get an unusual phone call at 3:00 p.m. the same day. According to Levin's sources, a lieutenant from the Santa Barbara County Sheriffs Department called and said, "Do not interview the boy or his family." According to the source, the social workers were puzzled. They had "never gotten a request like that before."

"CJ's" sources say the social workers then forwarded their information to the Santa Barbara County Sheriffs Department. A detective investigated the matter and, in April 2003, closed the case against Jackson -- squarely clearing him. "CJ" has learned the sheriff's department no longer employs that detective.

Prosecution sources tell "CJ" they have evidence that has not yet been made public that will show the mother was coerced and threatened by Jackson's people, even though, they say, nobody from Children's Services detected it. According to Levin's sources, however, the social workers say there was absolutely no evidence of duress. They say they've "done this for a long time" and it was "clear" to them this family spoke freely, without hesitation and without threat.

http://celebrityjustice.w...2/23a.html

I don´t think Mj would ever play a brand new song in advance.

Another question.
I am not sure about the timeline right now, so correct me if I am wrong. But Gavin and his siblings said in Bashit´s documentary that he was near to death. Later it was said that when he met MJ he was REALLY sick. BUT (according to Take two documentary) after he met MJ he cured mysteriously. Now IF he was molested while being near to death, would molesting him help him fight cancer and make him want to live again? It just doesn´t make sence to me.

dag said:

I think maybe you should stop comparing what's presented in documentaries and deciding which is "truer" than the other. Wait until the whole story comes out.

namepeace said:[quote]

SefraNSue said:

D@mn right!

So you´re saying that you think that he might be found quilty of that conspiracy charce? Why? It sounds ridiculous to me, since he´s the only one accused. You know, conspiracy requires more than one person.

dag said:

Because the D.A. really wan'ts to get MJ on something...

The GrandJury Proceedings only Indicted MJ because of Said Conspiracy Charge!
if their was no conspiracy charge to back up the molestation, this might have not went to trial
Sneddon knows this because the Grand Jury from 93 never indicted MJ because their was lack of evidence to support the testimony

Like in the 1993 case Evidence in an actual Molestation had happened is lacking,
But the Cover-up in laymens terms is their
Prosecution has many wiittnesses who will testify that the family was held up against their will
Not because the molestation
But because of the Documentery,

If Sneddon can't nail Jackson with a Molestation charge, he can nail him for a Intoxicating a minor, or the Conspiracy charge.

Conspiracy is much easier to say "Fabricate" than to prove a molestation actually happened

I've said this before, its damn near impossible to prove a molestation happened without some sort of DNA evidence.
which they have none, all their hope was on a bed, which came out negative.

But Prosecution does have many of mj former employees who where around during the alleged conspiracy,
Unless Defense has sufficient evidence that the family wasn't held captive against their will
They'll no doubt get the Conspiracy Charge, and possibly intoxication of a minor,
As for the Molestation in itslf, i see the charge being dropped because of insufficient evidence...

Like Martha Stewert was not charged with an actual crime
she was Charged For Covering it up etc...

These Are Legal Loop holes...

That being said,
D.A. Thomas Sneddon Indeed has some kind of Vendetta,
Cause i don't know of many D.A.'s Who would charge Anything possible,
If your like me and have been following this case since the beginning

You know that the Conspiracy charge wasn't in the Formal Charges Against Michael Jackson
They came after the Grand Jury Indictment...
Strange...
or is it?

they needed Conspiracy to get an Indictment!

Damn im good!

Oh an Jackson isn't the only one on trial
So are his Co-Conspirators, if he goes down so do they...
one of them shall be nameless but his last name rhymes with, "Sucker"
Notice he hasn't done any movies lately hehe

GOOD?

I'd say your grammar is pretty damn amazing!

Luv4oneanotha said:

Yeah I do follow it from the very beginning, I try my best, but I haven´t read all the transcripts for example (they´re too damn long and my eyes start hurting). But yeah, I know the conspiracy was added later. But as far as I know the other guys were not charged yet, or were they? Cause I remember everyone thinking it strange that he was accused of conspiracy alone.

dag said:

The Conspirators where either given immunity and testified for prosecution,
or they're in hiding waiting for trial...

The Judge has a sealed document with all of the co-conspirators

Luv4oneanotha said:

Michael Jackson without vitiligo...

papaa said:

You remind me of t petty english teacher, Jealous cause his students have better opportunities than he has. Have made better choices... Whilst he's sitting withering into an old man.

Have you ever Read Nabokov?

GOOD ATTEMPT

C+

Luv4oneanotha said:

krayzie said:

lmfao

You know if you look real hard, take away the hair, the lips and that nose,
you can almost see...
forget it

papaa said:

"Take your father's cross
Gently from the wall
A shadow still remaining"



When the angels fall...