Now we’ve got 25% of the Michael Jackson child molestation jury giving interviews stating that they “regret” their not-guilty vote.
LOS ANGELES – One of three jurors who initially wanted to convict Michael Jackson said she believes the entertainer is a child molester but joined in the unanimous verdict exonerating him because she believed there was reasonable doubt in this case.
Two Jackson jurors, Eleanor Cook and Ray Hultman, said Monday as they began publicizing book deals that they believe Jackson molested his 15-year-old accuser and now regret finding him not guilty in the June verdict.
Our justice system is a wonderful thing. Twelve people have to unanimously decide whether someone is innocent or guilty. And if someone is convicted, they have an appeals process by which they can attempt to exonerate themselves.
But once you’re found not-guilty, there is no appeal for that. Double jeopardy, they call it, and the Constitution forbids trying a man twice for the same crime once he’s been found innocent, no matter what evidence may turn up later. A video could surface of Jacko in flagrante delicto with the accuser, naked and chugging Jesus Juice, and no court could touch him. So, thanks to your not-guilty verdict, Jackson is a free man and his accuser will never receive justice.
There is another option. You can stick to your gut and declare him guilty, and if the other nine don’t come around, we get a hung jury. In that case, a new trial can be ordered and twelve other people get to decide if Jackson is guilty. Maybe even after some time, new, more damning evidence appears. But at least you get to keep a clear conscience, knowing it wasn’t your vote that set a molester free.
It seems to me that juries lately — in California particularly — are misunderstanding what this whole “reasonable doubt” thing means. Here’s what the law offices of Owsley & Associates give as a definition:
Reasonable Doubt: In a criminal trial the prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant guilty and it must do so by proving each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. It is a kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act in the most important of his/her own affairs. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt must be of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs.
What the juries in the OJ Simpson, Robert Blake, and Michael Jackson cases seem to be thinking is this: “is it possible that OJ/Baretta/Jacko is innocent?” Sure, it’s possible. But is it likely, given the evidence?
C’mon now. What reasonable person could doubt that Jackson is a creepy pedophile? Apparently three reasonable people seem convinced of that very fact, only just a little too late. Would you hesitate for a moment in the most important of your own affairs in considering whether your eight-year-old son should have a sleepover at Neverland Ranch? Would you have any reasonable doubt that your child might not be safe? And what resonable person can accept Blake’s alibi, that his wife was shot in the face while he was going back into the restaurant to get his gun? And what reasonable person can find Nicole Simpsons’ blood in OJ’s socks, glove, and Bronco and see that Bronco in a low-speed chase and figure OJ had nothing to do with it? I think in California that “reasonable doubt” means, “well, there’s got to be some other explanation, because he’s a celebrity, and celebrities don’t do such awful things.” (Phil Spector must be sitting around praying he’s recognizable enough to be a celebrity.)
The most disgusting aspect of all this is that these jurors are giving interviews in preparations for their book releases and tours. You feel bad now and think Jackson probably molested some kids and now you want to make a buck off of that? You’re a bunch of revolting ghouls.
