by Oroborus21 9 Replies latest jw friends
-just throwing that out there.
I think it stinks. People have a duty as jurors to go against the grain and fight peer pressure if they sincerely believe in their view. They had their chance behind closed doors when it counted to stand up for what they believed. Now they should shut up and sit down.
Didn't they ever see Twelve Angry Men?
-Eduardo
I agree completely. They have no one else to blame but themselves.
Looking forward to Rita Crosby's interview with them in a half hour.
From what I read, even though they didn't want to let him go, they both said that the evidence in this case wasn't there.
They both believe that he has molested other children, but that wasn't what he was on trial for. They wish they could have put him away for those other crimes.
I knew some of the jurors would say they regretted it, especially after public opinion so strongly reacted to the verdict. Being a bit of a cynic, I also wonder how much of their "regret" may be marketing to sell books (although both have said the proceeds from their books will go to charity).
The American justice system is flawed in many ways, but the truth is, they did what they were supposed to do. They did not believe he was guilty of the particular charges, so they found him not guilty. The justice system does not allow for trying people for other crimes they may have committed outside of the scope of the charges at hand.
Just my opinion,,
Happyout
I agree. The time to speak up and stand your ground is in the jury room... you've got to the end of time to hold your ground. Once the verdict is read and accepted by the judge, that's it, it's over!
Twelve Angry Men... that should be required reading for everyone.
What really pissed me off was when I read that both of these jurors had book deals....nothing like a little controversy to pump up interest in your stinking book.
Speaking as someone who thinks Michael Jackson is a horror of a human being and has no doubt that he's a child molester from WAY back, I still think that what these jurors are doing is self-serving and makes me a little queasy.
I can absolutely respect their decision not to convict based on the letter of the law: If there was not ample evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the case at hand, they could not convict. I don't like it, but even with my limited knowledge of the case via the news, I can see how they would have trouble convicting on the merits of the specific evidence. But in the interview given today, I didn't really hear that--I heard two people talking about how they were bullied into a decision that was wrong, and I think that flies in the face of that camera hogging little old ladies previous actions and doesn't gain them much respect in my book.
I think it's pretty pathetic that they didn't hold out and do what they felt was right........on the other hand, at least they've had the balls to come out and say that they regret their decision, unlike the assholes on the OJ Simpson jury who to this day, refuse to admit they let a killer walk free.
As happyout pointed out, if the juror believes that the evidence presented in a criminal case is inadequate to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then that juror is obligated to vote for acquital, regardless of how strong a "gut feeling" he or she may have as to the person's guilt. Juries are supposed to evaluate evidence, not shoot from the hip based on feelings.
I was on a jury once for a man who was accused of murder based on a technicality. It was accepted by all parties that he had not been the one who pulled the trigger. But under Massachusetts law (where I lived at the time), one who is a member of a group perpetrating a crime in which someone is murdered is as guilty of murder as the one who actually committed the deed. Had there been sufficient evidence to establish the defendant's presence at the scene of the killing, he should have been convicted.
Now, my gut feeling was that this guy was guilty. He clearly was a tight part of the group that had been present at the killing; these were people with whom he regularly hung around and perpetrated minor crimes. Additionally, he was clearly a thug, a gangbanger, a street criminal who was no stranger to violence. It seemed pretty clear to me that the best thing for society would be to get this guy off the streets for a long time to come.
There was a problem, though. The defense made a good case that there was a reasonable chance that, at the time of the killing, this particular defendant was not with his usual crowd, but was somewhere else doing something else (I don't remember where or what after all these years). Though I walked into the jury room prepared to send this guy away for life, discussions with fellow jurors and reexamination of the physical evidence led to the inescapable conclusion that, despite my strong "gut feeling," there certainly existed reasonable doubt as to whether this fellow was present at the time of the killing. Since there was no question as to his having done the killing personally, and the entire case against him was based upon his presence or absence at the scene, I eventually found myself voting for acquital on the murder charge - there was a lesser weapons charge that we convicted him of. He was sentenced to time served for the weapons charge and walked out of the courthouse a free man that very day.
My point in all of this is that, no matter how strongly a juror felt that MJ was a child molestor, the jury was bound to acquit him if the evidence was not sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That is almost certainly what happened in this case, and if we believe that MJ is guilty (which I personally do), then we should probably blame the prosecution for not offering a good enough case to convict rather than blaming the jurors, who most likely did exactly what they were instructed by the judge to do.
2 publicity hounds. Liars, too. One week, one firm decision. Book deal=$$$$$
exactamundo, they are after the money, how else to get attention directed at them than try and be different from the rest, they get the attention and the book deals, hyprocrites the both of them. put in a cell with bubba.
