Marrk said:

Jackson Jurors Suspect He Molested Children


The jurors who found Michael Jackson not guilty of child molestation on Monday suspected he did abuse children, but didn't have the evidence to convict him. The 12 jurors delivered a unanimous verdict at California's Santa Maria courthouse ending a 14 week trial - but two have admitted they believe Jackson probably did molest young boys at his Neverland ranch. Raymond Hultman says, "I feel that Michael Jackson probably has molested boys. I cannot believe that this man could sleep in the same bedroom for 365 straight days and not do something more than just watch television and eat popcorn. I mean, that doesn't make sense to me. But that doesn't make him guilty of the charges that were presented in this case - that's where we had to make our decision. That's not to say he's an innocent man. He's just not guilty of the crimes he's been charged with." Another juror says, "We had a closet full of evidence that always came back to the same thing - it was not enough." Another adds, "We expected some better evidence, something more convincing, but it just wasn't there. You hope that you will find a smoking gun, something you can grab on to one way or another and we had difficulty in finding that." Jury foreman Paul Rodriguez says, "The allegations of past abuse were considered credible to some extent. There are not too many grown up men we know who would sleep with children but we had to base it on the evidence presented to us. There were a lot of things lacking." The jurors claimed the prosecution case was damaged by the mother of Jackson's accuser, who they claim antagonized the jury with theatrical, over-the-top testimony. They also suspected her motives. Rodriguez adds, "As a parent you spend every moment of your day protective of what happens to your children. What kind of mother in her right mind would allow that to happen, to freely volunteer your child to sleep with anyone, not just Michael Jackson, but anyone?"

Marrk said:

The kids fingerprints were on a porno mag. Circumstantial as to how it got there but at least they had something as opposed to Peterson which was completely circumstantial.

cborgman said:

3 of them had doubts 9 of them all sure he's innocent.

and those 3 had doubts about 93. which we didnt hear about much anyway
[Edited 6/15/05 11:37am]

Civil liberties and freedom should never be sacrificed for guilty verdicts based on innuendo, hearsay, gut feelings and hunches.

Sadly there are too many people wishing the opposite was true in this particular trial.

IMO.
[Edited 6/15/05 11:46am]

Marrk said:

I absolutely agree

cborgman said:

That's a cut and paste job article...which you attributed to imdb. Juror 1 volunteered this thought and I heard two others jurors say as much. Let's not act like 18 people have come out and said they think he's the serial pedophile the prosecution portrayed during the trial--but just didn't see enough evidence to convict him. If any one bothered to read my post from the libertarian William Wagener he had said that juror 1 and 2 were holding out because of their believes of some prior guilt .

This is a lame attempt by the media and others to show the MJ is not innocent, but just not guilty because of evidence....I don't want to get into this, but this was the strongest case they ever had against him, please no one try to argue otherwise, because you would make yourself look like a fool. Why is this news? Many of the Public believe this so why would the jury be any different. This is just done to put MJ fans in there place and perpetuate the notions that there's never a chance he could be truly innocent.

Again.


Why is this news? Many of the Public believe this, so why would the jury be any different.
[Edited 6/15/05 11:55am]

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Fingerprints on a porno mag...

Wow, what a big proof you have...


You know if having fingeprints of teenagers on some porno mag means a proof of molestation, any bodyelse can be attacked of molestation...

How many teenager watch father's porn movies when parents aren't at home...
I did it numerous times when I was a 12/13 years old...

krayzie said:

That is why I said it would be considered circumstancial as to how it got there. And it's one thing for you to stumble on yoru fathers stash and another for a child who isn't even MJs to find his stash. MJ fans really crack me up because they'll make excuses night and day how this kids fingerprints are legitimately on Michael Jacksons pornography.....

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

It's not making excuses, it's factual those kids had the run of the house even when Michael wasn't there. they memorised security codes all over the house. This was testified to by more than one witness during the course of the trial. They were running amok, smashing up the guest house, breaking into the wine cellar. Throwing things at his Elephants, taking Mike's golf buggies off property and smashing them up.

Good as gold when Mike was their though.

Scum.

The guy shouldve gotten the guilty verdict. And thats that.

CherrieMoonKisses said:

boohoo!

Shouldn't have been on trial in the first place.
[Edited 6/15/05 12:59pm]

Marrk said:

No kids in his bed = no thought of a trial. Michael brought all this on himself.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Bed and sex both have three letters, but they're entirely different words.

oh, and
[Edited 6/15/05 13:18pm]

Cloudbuster said:

Poor bastard..date in one hand,vaseline in the other...who's gonna hold the umbrella




.
[Edited 6/15/05 13:26pm]

MartyMcFly said:

His children are so adorable..

They look happy, and very well taken care of. I bet he is a wonderful father.

sag10 said:

Marty's just mad at the verdict.

That Rabbi Schmuely or whatever he's called (used to be MJ's friend, not now) was on BBC radio the other night. He was saying Michael is a great father and just how much his kids adore him.

I couldn't believe all the Michael Jackson nut-huggers waiting outside the courthouse. I didn't see this, but some lady released a dove in the air when the verdict was announced. OMFG! I wonder what these morons do for a living? They're as bad as Elvis fans. Pathetic.


As disgusted as I am with MJ these days, the verdict was the right one. No credibility at all.

lilgish said:

Did anyone read what I wrote


anyway here...what about this fully written article from a local paper not a cut and past job from IMDB
Jurors talk about the choice made
By Quintin Cushner/Staff Writer


Juror Susan Derr Drake said her life changed completely during the four-month Michael Jackson trial, as she balanced working as a horse trainer and riding instructor with hearing evidence in the high-profile case.

The 51-year-old Santa Ynez woman left home each weekday by 7:15 a.m. for the trip to the Santa Maria Court Complex and her role as Juror No. 3.

After a full day of testimony, Drake left the courthouse at 2:30 p.m., only to arrive at 3:30 p.m. at the Santa Ynez Valley barn where she often instructed riders until 8 at night.

During the trial, jurors bonded with each other and often shared potluck lunches, Drake said during an interview Tuesday.

The eight-woman, four-man jury came from a wide variety of ages and backgrounds.

"That made it more interesting," Drake said. "That allowed us to share our life experiences."

Jurors plan to hold a barbecue and reunite once the public interest in their lives diminishes, she said.

Drake expressed admiration for Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville, another avid horseback rider.

"One of my favorite moments was when the energy of the room was intensifying, and he told (prosecutor Ron Zonen) just to relax and drop his head, and lick and chew like a horse. I loved that moment."

She does not believe Jackson ever behaved inappropriately with children, despite prosecutors' claims that the entertainer has molested boys for more than 15 years.

Juror Ray Hultman is more ambivalent about Jackson's relationship with children.

The 62-year-old Santa Maria man said he believes Jackson likely did molest children in the past. However, the civil engineer could not find beyond a reasonable doubt that Jackson molested a 13-year-old Los Angeles boy in 2003.

"The counts were very specific about who Michael Jackson molested and the time frame for which it occurred," Hultman said.

The majority of jurors believed from the onset that Jackson was not guilty, Hultman said. He and others eventually agreed that there was enough reasonable doubt to find the entertainer "not guilty" on 10 felony counts involving conspiracy and child molestation.

"There were possible scenarios that could be shown about Michael Jackson's non-guilt," he said.

Drake said her decision to acquit Jackson was not so difficult. "In my mind, this case was full of problems," Drake said. "Timelines, testimony inconsistencies, motivations of financial gain and revenge. Credibility and reasonable doubt were our focus."
Despite her preference for the defense version of events, Drake had praise for attorneys on both sides.

"I felt prosecutor Ron Zonen was powerful in his delivery," Drake said. "And defense attorney (Tom) Mesereau was brilliant in presenting the results of his investigation."

Drake owns two of Jackson's albums and has nothing bad to say about him. "I wish Michael Jackson a speedy healing from this experience," she said.

Hultman believes Jackson is a musical genius, but said he has mixed feelings about the man. "I have a hard time respecting someone who admits to sleeping with young boys," he said.
http://www.santamariatime...news01.txt


seems like people are only paying attention to the comments they wanna hear
[Edited 6/15/05 15:33pm]

lilgish said:

well, actually, i think the 93 evidence was a lot stronger, but...

cborgman said:

but it wasn't.

Jay Jackson never took Gavin with him in a hotel room and tried to extort millions in front of Jackson and his P.I…now did he? How could Janet Arvizo let her son spend a few nights with Mike? Mr. Chandler was ready to build a wing in his home for Mike to stay. Chandler extorted Mike in the summer of 93 before it went to press and took his Insurance settlement six months later.

Two Grand Juries didn’t feel there was enough evidence to bring this case to trial. Of course why should they when the victim wouldn’t testify. The only time he claimed abuse on record was under drug inducement at Stan Katz’s (who has an interesting past to say the least) office.




Oh yeah, that drawing didn’t match mikes dick either . Iceberg....tip….. ??

This current case was the best they had, it was weak, but they also presented it badly. If the info came out in 93, ppl would be saying that was weak and if MJ settled this current case (without priors) people would say it was strong. Trust me in 94, Mike would be walking out of an L.A (Johnny woulda got a change of venue) courtroom with Johnny Cochran and thousands of fans cheering.
[Edited 6/15/05 16:51pm]

Well, I predicted he would walk. No surprises there.
Interesting that one of the jurors said he believed MJ is a child molester, but there wasn't enough evidence in this case to prove it.
I didn't follow this case as closely as I thought I would, but I'm glad it's over.
Michael will be free to molest again, since you know there will be no shortage of brain damaged parents offering their sons to the King of Crap. His extensive porn collection will be returned to him as well as his books with pictures of naked boys and life will go on.

next

[Edited 6/15/05 19:02pm]

Marrk said:

But Marrk, your cute turn on the variables notwithstanding,

you can't bring urself to disagree with Supa's equation.

Well, I decided to watch the Larry King interview with Jermaine. I'm not as riled up as I thought I would be. He also said that the family might pursue the malicious prosecution. Hey, if they that's what they feel like they should do, well, they should go for it. However, I would think that some of the stuff Michael might have to "live through again," but if they feel like he was "wronged" by Sneddon/ the D.A. office, the sheriff's department and even Judge Melville, they have to do something to "right" it. In fact, Jermaine thinks there was some sort of conspiracy(??), I don't know about that. But there is only one sure way to find out.

Jermaine also denied that Michael "shared his bed with boys." I have a real problem with that denial coz as I previously posted, Michael admitted AT LEAST to that, and so did his defense witnesses. But whatever Jermaine wants to think, well ok then. Maybe I expect too much, but I would think that just saying that Michael is sorry for his past perceived "misjudgments," but he still had no hurtful intentions towards any children," would be a nice gesture. However, that doesn't seem like it's gonna happen any time soon, but maybe it will when emotions get a little less heated.

In addition, Jermaine ranted about the media again, particularly CourtTV and Nancy Grace. Definitely, the media-at-large has been biased from the get-go, plus completely hyper-critical of Michael in MOST circumstances over the years. I wonder if Jermaine was also referring to comedians like Leno, Letterman, etc, too??? Anyway, Jermaine said that there was a strong possibility that Michael would move out of the US to escape the media even though he loved Americans. In a way, I don't think leaving the US would be a bad move for Michael. Also, other countries just seem to be more liberal as far as "artistic expression" is concerned. It's sad though, but if he needs some peace and a creative environment, movoing out of the country might be the only way to get it.

Finally, Jermaine said that he wasn't sure if Michael was gonna release a cd or tour anytime soon coz Michael really needs to rest and recover. But he thinks that Michael could be interested at some point in the future, but then again, maybe not: Jermaine said the only "audience" Michael really needs is his family. This whole situation is sooooo sad.

lilgish said:

Wow, strong words, lil.

If you believe that, then tell me . . . why would MJ have paid a king's ransom to shut Jordy Chandler up and Sneddon hot on his trail? Did Jordy not give a deposition or other sworn statement outlining his allegations against MJ?

If you believe Chandler was extorting MJ, then why didn't MJ just bring suit accusing Jordy of extortion to vindicate himself? Could truth have been Jordy's ultimate defense?

My point is this. MJ probably should have been acquitted in this case. You could very well be right that MJ has never abused a child. But to completely foreclose the possibility that MJ is a pedophile is unwise.



No, some MJ fans (like me) are flabbergasted that MJ diehards would completely ignore the patent truth of MJ's unhealthy relationships with children, and the possibility that MJ could have done the unthinkable.

Due to a shoddy criminal case, a brilliant defense attorney, and millions of dollars in settlements, we'll never really know.

Guess whose fault that is? Your boy's. For taking children into his bed. And for settling with past accusers without putting up much of a fight.

namepeace said:

You are so awesome.

BTW, I was reading the above regarding Jermaine's apearance on Larry King. Is Mike or his family ever gonna take responsibility for Mike's part in this?

Peace, meet my sister Dorothy, she fills in when I’ve (lil) been quite chatty,

namepeace said:

The Police opened up an investigation of extortion against Evan Chandler, in a few weeks the police closed the investigation and found no evidence that Chandler was extorting Michael Jackson. Did the Santa Barbara or L.A.P.D fully investigate? Educated minds can take a stab at that one.

namepeace said:

Shutting Jordy Chandler up in August 1993 could have been easily done if Mike gave him the millions he wanted. In fact, Jackson Private Investigator Anthony Pelicano tried to low ball Chandler a few weeks earlier offering him screenwriting deals. Remember the settlement came in January of 1994, four months after it came out in the press and 6 months after Jackson was confronted by Chandler. I don’t know about you, but if you wanna shut someone up you don’t wait six months (four media hell months) to do it.

namepeace said:

Tom Sneddon was hot on his trial was right, but remember that Evan Chandler supposedly went to L.A.P.D first and they wouldn’t touch it cause it was a black celebrity and right after the riots. Sneddon could have charged Jackson when he came back to states and up until the settlement in January. Of course as I’ve stated many times Sneddon and LAPD did convene a grand jury after the settlement, but as we know they didn’t indict because the boy wouldn’t talk. Criminal charges were never filed and why is that? Sneddon with dick photos and all had ample time to charge Jackson. Evan Chandler only showed signs of wanting a civil suit. So hypothetically, Michael would have gone through a civil suit first and then possibly a criminal suit. Civil suits are rarely filed before criminal ones, with a lesser burden of proof it’s possible Mike would have had to pay. Pay how much???? I can guarantee it would be much more than what was fully paid by MJ’s insurance company to Jordy. If Michael was criminally charged in 94, trust me he and Jonnie Cochran would be walking out of an L.A courtroom in the same way mike walked out on Monday. Does settling with Chandler imply that MJ or his people believed he could have been convicted civilly? I would say yes, MJ’s behavior with Jordy or other boys is enough to find him culpable in civil court. Sneddon or any D.A would have no problem indicting MJ after that.

namepeace said:

He gave two noted depositions/statements. The famous one he gave to the cops and the drug induced one he gave to the esteemed psychiatrist Stan Katz; the same man who got Gavin to come clean about what MJ had done to him in the few weeks after the Bashir documentary aired.

Side note: Evan Chandler was secretly taped by his friend discussing in detail his schemes, not to mention the wiretapped calls Pelicano (now in jail) has of Evan. The latter unheard. I can go into details on how the 93 case was weaker and the Chandlers more nefarious, but I’ll hold off.

namepeace said:

Honestly I could write a book on MJ, it would be better than any shit out there, but Joe would certainly hunt me down if I did. I’ve never made the bold statement that he was not a pedophile. The states assertion that he was a serial pedophile was quite a joke, latent at best, if you believe it to be true. I know things and I have dropped things about Mike that only one orger seems to know. There’s no need to mention them in here, especially since Mike walked, but these allegations are a small part of something he’s been dealing with since childhood. I wonder how Joe felt walking out of the court?


I can go into a long discourse on the supposed die-hard fans. When I want a discourse on MJ’s music or music in general I come here. There some Prince fans on here who are more familiar with mikes music than some of his so-called die hards, many of those people think he’s some sort of saint. I stopped following Mike during the whole history project and only renewed my fandom in 01/02. I am a biased? Of fucking course. I’m a fan. A fan that has learned a lot through certain experiences. I did a divination (tarot) on Michael months earlier, in fact it was the day he came late with Pajamas, I was so worried, I asked about the case and the cards told me certain things. My divinations have never been wrong. Mike needs help, I hope a positive and strong Brother like Dick Gregory can help him, that’s the best man I know close to him that can.

Do I believe Mike touched this current accuser? Hell No and yes I believe Mike is a good person..so there is my biased opinion. I'm certainly not ready to put him up there with Kelly.


I want to take this time to acknowledge the orger Luv4oneanotha. He is a very smart brother who cancelled his account a few days ago. You and he had great conversations. He thought Mike was going down, I don’t know if that’s why he left, but whatever the reason…Love, if you’re reading this please come back or drop us a line. You were very intelligent and contributed much to this community.
[Edited 6/15/05 22:13pm]

shygirl said:

I was just waiting for Shygirl to come back to this site.She pops up only when there is a new Michael Jackson scandal.

Of course I was not surprised a number of TV programs and magazines found an instant way to cash on this verdict, because at this age of "the critical media consumer" everyone can and is even expected to voice an educated opinion.

"SEND US A TEXT MESSAGE AND TELL HOW YOU FEEL!" "1800-45345 if you believe he is GUILTY! 1800-34534 if you think he is not!"

I just wish that at some point in time, someone on TV or other media will dig deep into the whole thing and then show the results. The way it is now is unbearable, I think. Not jut in Michael Jackson's case, but especially.