sosgemini said:

Damn right, I celebrated. How does the verdict change the fact the Gavin was manipulated. I’m celebrating Jackson being found as I believed him to be; not guilty. If Michael was charged with manipulation or negligence that would be a different situation. I celebrated for many reasons, many dealing with how Michael was dealt with in the media and public. I also feel for the fans who had a lot invested in this case, whatever you may think of them, there are many people to be happy for other than Michael.

Jurors say they were unaffected by celebrity, bothered by mother
By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent

Monday, June 13, 2005


(06-13) 17:07 PDT Santa Maria, Calif. (AP) --


The jurors who decided Michael Jackson's case said Tuesday they avoided being star-struck, were put off by the accuser's mother and reached agreement in methodical and friendly deliberations.


"We looked at all the evidence, we looked at Michael Jackson and one of the first things we decided that we had to look at it was just like any other individual, not just as a celebrity," the foreman said. After that, "we were able to deal with it just as fairly as we could as with anybody else."


Jurors spoke Tuesday in a tightly controlled news conference in a spare courtroom outfitted to look more like a TV studio. As a condition of their willingness to participate, they were identified by number, not by name. In a statement that the judge read in court after the verdict, jurors asked to be allowed to return to "our private lives as anonymously as we came."


They said they had built lasting friendships in the jury room and were able to put aside initial differences.


"I think we all just looked at the evidence and pretty much agreed," said juror No. 5.


The mother of the accuser, who tended to stare at the jurors, made them uncomfortable.


"I disliked it intensely when she snapped her fingers at us. That's when I thought "Don't snap your fingers at me, lady," said juror No. 5, a retired widow.


Juror No. 2 indicated he felt the mother singled him out because he was a fellow Hispanic.


"The mother, when she looked at me and snapped her fingers a few times and she says, 'You know how our culture is,' and winks at me, I thought, 'No, that's not the way our culture is."


Juror No. 10, a 45-year-old woman with one adult child and two teenage sons, discussed the panel's feelings about the 46-year-old pop star sharing his bed with boys.


"What mother in her right mind would allow that to happen? Just freely volunteer your child to sleep with someone. Not so much just Michael Jackson but any person for that matter. That's something that mothers are naturally concerned with," the juror said.


Jurors found no "smoking gun" in the evidence.


"We expected probably better evidence, you know, something that was a little more convincing, and it just wasn't there," said juror No. 10.


The mass of about 2,200 credentialed media representatives who gathered for the verdict surprised jurors. But juror No. 1 said, "By the time we got to deliberations, we were all so conditioned to the media, we didn't pay any attention."


The foreman said the jury took only two votes. They divided up tasks and used their notes to follow the timeline of events in the case.


"The timeline was really a concern," said juror No. 3, a 50-year-old woman, echoing comments by legal analysts. The prosecution said Jackson molested the teenage boy while trying to deal with the fallout from a television documentary that prompted outrage over his sleepovers at Neverland.



ssb- see...just what we had been saying all along. BTW, this WAS the place to get the best information out there....you all brought many aspects to the table that pretty much told the true story of what was going on. You can tell those that did not know what was going on, figured he was guilty. But not by what I was reading here, which for the most part was spot on...probably even had more of an unbiased opinion than on the MJ site. THANKS FOR A GREAT DEBATE ON THIS!

I'm not going to start saying what I really think about Jackson and the possibility of his guilt but he was found not guilty and I have to say, I agree. Damn the mother more than the prosecution. Sneddon made a very wise comment when he said (and maybe I'm paraphrasing a little) that you can't choice the victims. They believed her and I wouldn't be shocked if something had happened, but the fact is if you have someone with such a bad past who cannot act in a normal manner, she will hurt the case. Maybe she shouldn't have went up there or been groomed better! Was it that big of a mistake that MJ didn't go up there? Say what you will about him, but when it gets upset and starts talking in a different tone, it's not comfortable to watch! I think no matter where you stand on this issue, it's sort of time to let it go. I just hope that if there are any victims of child molest ion out there that this does not deter them from coming forward.

VinnyM27 said:

I totally agree with you, especially the last sentence.

VinnyM27 said:[quote]I'm not going to start saying what I really think about Jackson and the possibility of his guilt but he was found not guilty and I have to say, I agree. Damn the mother more than the prosecution. Sneddon made a very wise comment when he said (and maybe I'm paraphrasing a little) that you can't choice the victims. They believed her and I wouldn't be shocked if something had happened, but the fact is if you have someone with such a bad past who cannot act in a normal manner, she will hurt the case. Maybe she shouldn't have went up there or been groomed better! Was it that big of a mistake that MJ didn't go up there? Say what you will about him, but when it gets upset and starts talking in a different tone, it's not comfortable to watch! I think no matter where you stand on this issue, it's sort of time to let it go. I just hope that if there are any victims of child molest ion out there that this does not deter them from coming forward.[/quote]


Wonderfully put Vinny!

The problem with the trial, is the goddamn jury put the mother on trial and not m j. he wasn't accused of raping her, just her boy. the mother and her past should have had nothing to do with it. now if he is really guilty of this, he will do it again, because he will think he can get away with it. just like in 93. i totally think he is guilty.. i mean, EVERYONE is not lying on him. it's not some conspiracy. it's a lot of people telling the same story.. the jurors got star struck, no matter what they will admit to, and put the mom on trial.


fuck that jury.. they were afraid of another riot scene like at the rodney king trial. convict a famous white guy for a crime, and it's all good, convict the famous well known "king" of pop( that is a way over stated title for this fuck),
and fear the riots and backlash.

who cares, mike is guilty, and now he is free to do it again. and he will.

and his next victim's probably won't take him to trial, cos they know what the outcome will be...

Many people think that mike is guilty because they want it so much !!!!! You can prove that he's 100% innocent you'll always find people who'll think he's guilty, only because they hate him.

Journalists spend the last 15 years to destroy MJ day after day, lies after lies, if they'd done their job properly they'd found that many things are really strange in these paedophile affairs.

If you were a paedophile would you come and saying it on TV ? i don't think so... hundreds of childrens came at neverland the 20 last years and we had only two cases of supposed child molestation which was unproven, strange for a guy who fucks every child he meets ?

When the same gossip are repeated day after day, year after year, people end by thinking it's true.

I'm a father and if you molest my little boy, you'll can give me all the money in world, i won't let you free, never !!!! These stories ARE ONLY ABOUT MONEY.

rockyraccoon said:

Well great to know you know better then. I shouldn't watch any news coverage as I could just e-mail you about all the details involved in this case.

rockyraccoon said:

You know that you're totally ignoring what was going on, right? But making up the truth to fit the perceptions in your mind is a lot easier of course.

rockyraccoon said:

The mother's character was very important to the trial. Would you trust a proven liar and serial extortionist, especially one who was shown to have previously trained her children to lie in court? Of course you wouldn't.

I'm fairly convinced race and fears over riots had nothing to do with the verdict. It was a good call and the right verdict.

And I for one believe Michael Jackson is a paedophile who has molested children in the past - except he didn't molest Gavin Arvizo.

Jackson isn't the only victim here. The biggest casualty of all are the Arvizo kids, especially Gavin. He recovers from cancer to find himself at the centre of a very ugly, very public case he could never hope to emerge from positively whatever the verdict. If Jackson had molested him and was found guilty, he would have to live with that for the rest of his life. Now that he's been acquitted he will have to live with the fact that the world thinks he's a liar, when, in all likelihood, he was put up to it by his greedy rapacious scumbag of a mother.

Shapeshifter said:

Suddenly your post reminded me of

Has this been discussed?

You take the main witness of the crime and then you make sure she won't be believed. Brilliant!

Shapeshifter said:

Why was everyone allowed to use their names anyway? They should change it now.

sosgemini said:

Happy to disappoint you!

calldapplwondery83 said: