I am outraged at the unethical, lying and scheming jurors Eleanor Cook who is 79 and Ray Hultman who is 62 years old. These two "elders" should know better than to put their personal fame and love of fortune above children who have been violated sexually.
According to a story from WPMI.com Eleanor has said,
Eleanor Cook, 79, said immediately after Jackson’s acquittal that she thought the singer may have molested other children, but not the accuser.
Her book, titled “Guilty As Sin, Free As A Bird,” is co-written by Larry Garrison (president of the book’s publisher Silver Creek Entertainment) and Cook’s granddaughter.
Absolutely disgusting! So to this unethical granny it's okay to make money off of the pain of a child who she thinks may not have been molested by Jackson. It's sick.
Yesterday on Nancy Grace's television show, Jane Velez-Mitchell said the following,
Nancy, this is absolutely shocking and outrageous. Really disturbing stories about the jurors in the Michael Jackson case. The "New York Daily News" reports that two of the jurors who are writing books say that Michael Jackson, they believe, was guilty.
And in fact, one of the books is even called, "Guilty as Sin, Free as a Bird." That is being written reportedly by 79-year-old juror Eleanor Cook. And she is said to outline a whole slew of juror misconduct.
Get this. She says she snuck in a medical text right into jury deliberations in an attempt to show her fellow jurors that Michael Jackson fit the classic profile of a pedophile.
But she also goes on to say that she literally winked — winked — at Katherine Jackson, Michael Jackson`s mother, in court. And they even exchanged wardrobe tips and got to the point that they were wearing the same color to court on certain days.
But, Nancy, the most shocking and outrageous charge actually concerns you, because one juror reportedly snuck in a copy of a Court TV episode starring none other than yourself and your colleague, Diane Dimond. And the only reason they didn`t get it to play is they couldn`t get the VCR to work.
Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2
Article comments
1 - ochairball
I agree. it's disgusting. it's amazing what people will do for money, as though it will make their pathetic lives better.
2 - Rob H.
You know, I can understand the general public feeling a sense of outrage at the comments of the jurors that they believe Michael probably molested someone, but that they acquitted him anyway... what still amazes me (and by now it shouldn't) is the abject ignorance of the judicial system demonstrated by Nancy Grace, day after day after day.
When the burden on the state is to prove crime "beyond a reasonable doubt", and the evidence is over-whelming that the prosecution's lead witnesses are liars - you have to acquit. First year law students have a better grasp of jurisprudence than poor confused Nancy Grace and her cohorts.
Anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of criminal law knows it is very simple to believe someone probably committed a crime, yet is entitled to an acquittal.
3 - Natalie Davis
In a TV interview I saw today, Eleanor Cook said that given the evidence, she had no choice to acquit. But she said she thinks MJ is a molestor and wishes in retrospect that she had voted to convict him. Of course, that could be for the money and people have the right to be greedy, immoral assholes. But if this alleged juror misconduct can be proven, absolutely -- they should be put away for it.
4 - Victor Plenty
If jurors think the accused may have committed other crimes, that is completely irrelevant to the case at hand.
Jurors must vote on the evidence presented about the charges actually brought to trial, not on what they think about some other incident. If the evidence fails to prove guilt on those specific charges beyond a reasonable doubt, jurors have to acquit.
Both of these jurors were right to vote for acquittal in this case, based on the views they have expressed about the evidence for the prosecution.
5 - Al Barger
Miss Stacy, you established in this column that you are OUTRAGED, but I don't see what over. What, you're mad that former jurors are writing books? So what? That they think he's probably guilty of molesting boys, but weren't certain enough to convict him of molesting THIS one?
You want to lock granny up? Hey, she's not the pedophile here.
6 - Vent Casey III
I don't think that people are upset so much that either Cook or Hultman believe that Jackson is a pedophile, and I don't think that their belief is why they're being criticized. What I'm criticizing them of, and I beleive others are as well, is that they are 1.) Absolving themselves from a verdict that they had equal participation and input, 2.) Claiming that they were pressured into a verdict when they had as much input and opportunity to object as anyone, and 3.) Making such claims while promoting books on the subject. In short, we're criticizing these two for making shit up to profit from the deal. And if they made one story up, their credibility on the other stories they tell is shot.
I can't say whether or not there was actual misconduct, I don't know enough about law to claim it. But if what Cook and Hultman claim is true; that the foreman threatened to kick them off the jury for not voting a certain way, why did they not tell the members of the court when the misconduct occured? Either they're making this up to make for a juicy story and amp up promotion for a publisher, or they're just gullibly stupid.
7 - Nick
10 jurors still seem to be happy with the verdict though...
That is an overwhelming majority...
8 - Aaman
This is another example of the deficiences of the jury system - India dropped the jury system in the 1970s - a topic on which I shall expound sometime
9 - Nancy
So what do they do in India? I'm all for dropping juries. First off, most people don't want to serve, so their dedication to doing whatever they must to attain a fair verdict is questionable. Secondly, most people are stupid and/or semi-literate, like the jurors that let the HealthSouth Exec off the hook: too dumb & uneducated to even understand what the issues are - which is vital considering how extremely involved & sophisticated issues can be especially in these white collar crime cases involving CEO wrongdoing. Thirdly, jurors are supposed to be ignorant of or indifferent to the issues. In this day & age, anybody indifferent to or ignorant of the issues is either a complete boob or lying. Yeah, I think the jury system could go bye-bye without too much pain.
So - what do they do in India: is it all trial by judge?
10 - Aaman
Yes - one, or more judges, whether the case is on appeal or not.
The Supreme Court is only at one place - New Delhi - and has the Chief Justice and not more than 25 puisne judges, appointed by the President of India. However, the President must appoint judges in consultation with the Supreme Court and appointments are generally made on the basis of seniority and not political preference.
Supreme Court Judges retire upon attaining the age of 65 years. In order to be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court, a person must be a citizen of India and must have been, for at least five years, a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession, or an Advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession for at least 10 years, or the person must be, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist.
In the 1960s India moved away from using juries for most trials, finding them to be corrupt and ineffective, instead almost all trials are conducted by judges. There are tribunals for certain matters too, that have legal authority.
11 - Nancy
Sounds like a better system than rounding up a bunch of half-educated or half-senile halfwits subject to the blandishments & dramatic hysteria of lawyers, witnesses, et al.
12 - mandre
It is clear that most of this was made up. Cook first said that her book would be about the great relationships she had with the other jurors. Would any one buy a book like that? She got with her agents and they told her that wouldn't sell, so she changed her story.
As for Michael Jackson, I followed the trial and I am convinced that he is NOT a pedophile. The police stormed his house and could find No evidence. They found adult magazines. Presenting those in a child molestation case really makes the prosecution look stupid. If he would've been convicted then he would've appealed and they would have to throw it out because there is no real evidence.
These jurors are sick and I wouldn't buy there book. I am just saddened how the media treats Michael Jackson. When all he wanted to do was to give love to those less fortunate.
13 - Ralph Chacon
OH! I have seen one evil magical glove and a mask of deception inside a menagerie of children who are lost in a neverland of dreams and sexual exploitation.
As the black widow spider who is patiently spinning its web for the unsuspected innocent prey so is this evil black pale spirit, wondering the world spinning a web of love for humanity and for its innocent little children who are supervisor only by his weeping spirit who sings songs of imaginings?
Singing, come unto me oh little ones for I’m the king of the worlds populous, I shall save you from your families’ hate, which compensates you without love.
Woe unto you deceived and manipulated souls of humanity, for you don’t know the hour of your demise. Your innocent little children have been captivated to a web of a wonderland of sexual abuse, beyond the span of your imaginations; this smirking evil mask that captivates their minds with its evil white glove and gestures of sexual exploitation, feeds his dreams with allusions of pubescences?
14 - pauline
hey ralph chacon, are'nt you the same loser who testified at the trial
15 - ASSSS
YOU KILLED MICHAEL YOU DICKS
16 - Bill
I think Michael was innocent and it's a disgrace the way he was treated at the end of his life, particularly from his own country. Think of what he gave to the world from his music and memories..He gave a hell of alot.
17 - Louise
Michael was INNOCENT and it was the liars, backstabbers and evil of this world that killed him!! All these people have his innocent blood on their hands...