Juror #10 Pauline(Paulina?) Coccoz made the pecular decision to attend a celebration party, put on by the Jackson family Since it was only Tito performing, I suppose you can't accuse her of taking something of value. http://www.eitb24.com/noticia_en.php?id=69678 "Coccoz said that when someone gave her the wristbands she decided to bring her family, partly as a public display of her confidence in the jury's verdict. " Previously, by sheer accident, she ran into the the Jackson parents, prior to the verdict: I thought it was funny when she said, "They were probably thinking, 'The life of my son is in the hands of a deli worker'".

You're not the only one who finds some impropriety in a juror attending the celebration party. I'm a little uncomfortable with it, too, although I know of no laws that prohibit it. The second story reflects an entirely innocent encounter that could happen to anyone. Still, I wonder if it was reported to the judge, and if it wasn't, whether it could cloud the integrity of the verdict. ---------------------------------------------------------- Coccoz tells British newspaper THE SUN, "I looked beyond the counter and saw Michael Jackson's mother and father. I'd seen them in court that morning. "I could tell by their looks that they both recognised me. Their faces said, 'We know who you are.' "I went over and said, 'Can I help you with anything?' Joe just gave me this peer through his beedy eyes over the counter. He was just standing there looking at me. "Joe's stare was only for about 20 seconds, but it was the longest 20 seconds of my life. He then walked away down an aisle, you could tell he was real deep in thought. "A lot of things went through my mind, like how did they know where I worked? The situation was very uncomfortable. "The manager asked me to slice some baloney for a customer and when I looked over it was Mr Jackson. "Jackson's mother looked very nervous. But then they grabbed the package and nearly stumbled over themselves to leave."

abbry311, Yes, the second story was innocent, especially on the part of the Jackson parents, who were properly cautious. But, I think the incident should have made her try to be "super cautious" in the future, to avoid a bad appearance.

The female juror invited to Michael Jackson's family celebration, did not speak to the press, apart from the interview given with the other members of the jury. If you are going to question her decision to attend the party; I would hope that you would be happy to queston the decision of the 65 year old male juror Hultman who spoke to the media after the jury disbanded, and admitted that he thought that Michael Jackson was still a molesterer. That statement in itself is questionable, when you consider that he helped to acquit Michael Jackson on ALL TEN CHARGES. In the thread - 'Tom Sneddon: the Incompetent Opportunist'- paragraph 3 states: '... when you have the world media hanging on every word that you utter, it is easy to imagine that you are invincible. You might even think that you can bluff your way through the whole thing, or you might think that the opposition will fizzle in the face of alleged evidence. You might even think that it is only a matter of time, before victory comes. So, you ignore the obvious flaws of your case, and behave like an ostrich, and put your head in the sand and hope that when you pull it out, that your dreams have come true.' I see a correlation between the prosecutor and the male juror, in regard to attention seeking behaviour. Up until Michael Jackson came into their lives, noone had heard of either of them; well not in my neck of the woods. Suddenly they are projected into the spotlight, and everyone is hanging on every utterance from their lips. Yes, it would be easy to see why both men, would want to take advantage of all the attention. Hence, both have made statements about Mr Jackson, that neither can support with evidence. In fact, neither have offered factual or proven evidence, to suppor their claims. Mr Sneddon lost the case on ALL TEN COUNTS, while Hultman, the male juror who now says he thinks Michael Jackson is a molesterer, acquitted Michael Jackson on ALL TEN COUNTS. I guess being in the spotlight is wonderful if the media conveniently avoids asking you to support your statements with hard evidence. The media dishonesty is obvious, but unscrupulous glory-seekers like Sneddon and Hultman, are harder to gauge. Eventually though, they run with their tails between their legs, when they are brought to account. Neither men, deserve the attention they desire.

aslanthebrave, there is no middle ground for you is there. Everybody is perfectly righteous or evil, no in-between. You are now condemning one of the jurors who ACQUITTED Michael Jackson. I thought you would be happy with him. But, if he dares criticize MJ in anyway, then you lump him in with your hatred for Sneddon. You are a true MJ fan. The fact Hultman could seperate his personal beleifs from a the narrow legal matter at hand is a testimate to the jury system. I really have to laugh that you're condemning the same person Nancy Grace is condemning. It really says a lot about both of you.

no, there is no "middle ground" when it comes to the TRUTH. I commented to this thread, because the issue was raised about the female juror attending a party for the Jackson family. I asked if the male juror who spoke to CNN about Mr Jackson, after the jury was disbanded, was going to be mentioned as well. And no, don't expect me to support someone who makes a claim against a man, who he helped acquit. There is either right or wrong, good or bad, truth or lies. When it affects the innocence and life of a man, regardless of whether he is famous or not, it is damn well vital that the truth be presented in its entirety. When you are the one on the stand, being ACCUSED OF MOLESTERING A YOUNG BOY, then you can tell me that there is no "middle ground" to truth, in regard to yourself. Since you are not on the stand, and it is NOT YOUR LIFE that is being ruined and discussed by the news media, then you can afford to take a "middle ground" approach. I doubt very much, whether you would take such allegations in the spirit of your comments. I would hope that you NEVER ever find yourself in the same predicament, and at the hands of ravenous wolves and con artists. Be thankful, at least, that you can slip off into osbcurity and guard your privacy. I don't apologise one little iota, for demanding that people tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Anything less, would be dishonesty of the highest order.

And by the way, Mr Hultman did separate his personal views from that of his duties as a juror. However, he made a decision based on EVIDENCE PRESENTED. If a person is going to make an accusation against another person, they are obliged to provide evidence to support their claims. The Arvisos and other accusers were systematically shown to have either lied or misrepresented facts. Mr Hultman made decisions consistent with what YOU AND I AND EVERY OTHER PERSON unfamiliar with the evidence given to the jury, would expect him to make. For that he can be commended. However, when asked about his opinion on Mr Jackson, he admitted that he thought that Mr Jackson was a molesterer. On what grounds or factual evidence, did he make that statement? Answer: he had no grounds to make such a statement, except his own "personal" opinion. It is an example of judgements made, based on unproven allegations. For that, Mr Hultman deserves to be taken to account. As I have stated several times, he is a glory-seeker, like Mr Sneddon, and suddenly found himself on centre-stage, as everyone from grandmothers to world leaders, hung on his every word. Oh by the way. I think Michael Jackson is innocent, simply because the facts don't stack up. And yes, I think he is a musical genius, and the victim of scam artists, money-hungry associates, and the world media. And no, I don't apologise for defending him.

And by the way, Mr Hultman did separate his personal views from that of his duties as a juror. However, he made a decision based on EVIDENCE PRESENTED. If a person is going to make an accusation against another person, they are obliged to provide evidence to support their claims. The Arvisos and other accusers were systematically shown to have either lied or misrepresented facts. Mr Hultman made decisions consistent with what YOU AND I AND EVERY OTHER PERSON unfamiliar with the evidence given to the jury, would expect him to make. For that he can be commended. However, when asked about his opinion on Mr Jackson, he admitted that he thought that Mr Jackson was a molesterer. On what grounds or factual evidence, did he make that statement? Answer: he had no grounds to make such a statement, except his own "personal" opinion. It is an example of judgements made, based on unproven allegations. For that, Mr Hultman deserves to be taken to account. As I have stated several times, he is a glory-seeker, like Mr Sneddon, and suddenly found himself on centre-stage, as everyone from grandmothers to world leaders, hung on his every word. Oh by the way. I think Michael Jackson is innocent, simply because the facts don't stack up. And yes, I think he is a musical genius, and the victim of scam artists, money-hungry associates, and the world media. And no, I don't apologise for defending him.

Aslanthebrave =>The female juror invited to Michael Jackson's family celebration, did not speak to the press, apart from the interview given with the other members of the jury. If you are going to question her decision to attend the party; I would hope that you would be happy to queston the decision of the 65 year old male juror Hultman who spoke to the media after the jury disbanded, and admitted that he thought that Michael Jackson was still a molesterer. That statement in itself is questionable, when you consider that he helped to acquit Michael Jackson on ALL TEN CHARGES. ---------------------------------------------------------- There is a huge difference between a juror attending the victory celebration of a defendant whom she had just acquitted, and a juror speaking to the press about his opinion of the case. The former risks the appearance of being in collusion with the defense; thus negating the integrity of the jury decision. The latter is simply sharing his thoughts with the general public. The former appears unethical; there is nothing unethical about the latter. I gather from your spelling that you aren't from the United States. Perhaps laws and customs are different where you come from. I understand that in England the press is not allowed to cover a trial in process. Here in the United States we expect full transparency of the legal process. It is not necessarily inconsistent for this juror to believe that the defendant has committed crimes in the past, but is innocent of the specific crime he was charged with. In this case, the charges specified that Michael Jackson had committed lewd acts upon Gavin Arvizo, a minor, within a specific range of time (February 20th to March 12th, 2003). The defendant very well could have been a pedophile without having molested *this boy* at *this time*. Given that set of circumstances, it would be right and proper for a juror to acquit, even if he believed the defendant to be a molester.

If the female juror was in collusion with the defense, why did all the other jurors vote in favor of the defense. Were they all in collusion too? Were they forced to make a NOT GUILTY verdict, by this lone juror? Hardly! I would be far curious about why the male juror, decided to tell the world that Michael Jackson was a molesterer after he took part in acquitting him. And why did he go to CNN to tell all, instead of telling his story at the press conference held for the jury, after the verdict? And yes you are right, trials should be transparent. The media were present throughout the whole four months of the trial, in the courtroom. We want to hear, why the Arviso's were not believed. We want to hear the whole story of their alleged kidnapping, as the media heard it being said. we want to hear why the jury did not believe Gavin ARviso, based on the evidence presented while the media were present in the courtroom. We don't want to hear the personal opinions of legal analysts that work for CBS, or media organisations. We would like the facts presented, as they were covered, in the court trial. The media witnessed and heard testimony given. Now they have an obligation to tell all, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. And no, there is no middle ground on press honesty as well. The whole truth, and nothing but the truth, period!

IT was the Juror who recognized MJ parents when in a a deli locally. Secondly the reason that the MALE JUROR seems to come across as MR. DOUBLESPEAK is nothing more than saving his own hide. HE KNOWS MJ INNOCENT. GREAT FOR THE SUPPROTERS but hell for the haters. MJ MAY BE OR IS PROBABLY AS HE ALWAYS PREFACES REGARDING MJ'S past molestation allegations IS SAID TO appeases the GUILT MONGERERS AND HATERS. IN OTHER WORDS, HE KNOWS MICHAEL JACKSON IS INNOCENT , WITHOUT A DOUBT IN HIS CRIMINAL CHARGES , BUT SINCE NO PAST CRIMINAL CHARGES EVER LAID AGAINST MY AND THE FACT THE JUROR DOES NOT KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE PAST ALLEGATIONSE HE seems to have decided to throw out a crumb for JORDY CHANDLER and NOT FOR THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH OF THE MATTER.

MJGRAMMYOASIS, why are you arguing with something nobody said. I said the Jackson parent's acted properly and innocently. So did abbyr311. The articles I referenced didn't say anything bad about them. So what are complaining about. The *only* thing anybody criticized, in this thread, was the *jurors* choice to attend a Jackson family party, because of the *appearance*. Why must anybody who disagrees with you be "GUILT MONGERERS AND HATERS"?

aslanthebrave =>If the female juror was in collusion with the defense, why did all the other jurors vote in favor of the defense. ---------------------------------------------------------- I never said that the juror *was* in collusion with the defense, I simply said that attending the victory party *risked the appearance* of collusion. Perhaps you don't understand the rules as they apply to juries. Jurors are not allowed to read media reports, discuss the case, or get any information other than what is presented at trial. Their decision must be based solely on the information at trial, and must be unanimous. If 11 jurors voted to acquit in good faith, and one juror had a deal going on with the defense, it would negate the integrity of the verdict. Like you, I believe Michael Jackson was innocent of these charges. I don't want any of those jurors to do anything that would make it look like their decision wasn't 100% by the book. ---------------------------------------------------------- aslanthebrave =>We don't want to hear the personal opinions of legal analysts that work for CBS, or media organisations. We would like the facts presented, as they were covered, in the court trial. ---------------------------------------------------------- Speak for yourself. If you want the facts presented as they were covered in trial, and ONLY those facts, I suggest you read the transcripts and ignore everything else. I have read the transcripts, and they formed the basis of my opinion. However, I DO want to hear personal opinions from a variety of sources, including this message board and several legal analysts whose opinions I respect. It's then up to me to determine whether or not I agree with those opinions.

seriously, if you are going to write a thread suggesting that a female juror attending a party thrown by the family of michael jackson; then you ARE saying that there is something not quite right. I suggest you read what you said again. The trial was over, and she was most certainly entitled to attend the party. It is also wrong for a juror to talk to the press, about his feelings on the trial before a verdict has been reached. Since he spoke to them after the trial, about believing that Michael Jackson was a molesterer in his mind, he did not breach the rules of being on a jury. Had he done such a thing BEFORE the verdict was reached, he would have been dismissed. His statement would have disqualifed him as a juror, due to his confession that he thought the singer was a molesterer. So, regardless of whether the female juror attended the party after the verdict, or he spoke to CNN post-verdict; both are irrelevant. But you raised the issue, in regard to her only. So raised the issue in regard to him. And at the end of the day, all that happened was that two people exercised their right to express or engage in activities that they were legally entitled to. If you like personal opinions, good for you. I happen to think that analysts who give personal opinions like calling someone a freak, while discussing a court trial and innocence, is incompetent and biased. I suggest you read the last paragraph of his article. Yes, a great example to the deceptive elements of the news media.

aslanthebrave => seriously, if you are going to write a thread suggesting that a female juror attending a party thrown by the family of michael jackson; then you ARE saying that there is something not quite right. I suggest you read what you said again. The trial was over, and she was most certainly entitled to attend the party. ---------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps we have used so many words you can't find the forest for the trees. To save you the trouble of scrolling upward, I'll quote my original comments here: "You're not the only one who finds some impropriety in a juror attending the celebration party. I'm a little uncomfortable with it, too, although I know of no laws that prohibit it."

abbyr311, I find you accurate on all counts. aslanthebrave, it's hard to argue with somebody who reads things I didn't write. You didn't understand the point that *appearances* are important. I felt Juror #10 (Coccoz) should have used the same good judgement that MJ's parents used previously, when they wisely "backed out" of a situation that might *appear* bad. "We don't want to hear the personal opinions of legal analysts that work for CBS, " I do want to hear the personal opinions of legal analysts, as long as it's presented as such. If you don't like it, don't watch.

I don't know. As a professor who teaches a critical reading course, we ponder this often. Should i share my opinions or not. Well, I save them until the end of the course. Even if students ask me, I say, "Well, some people would say...On the other hand, others would say...while I point out bias and inappropriate assumptions as well as propaganda techniques and biased word use, I try to be as unbiased as possible. When people who are supposed to be legal analysts come right out and say that the defendant is guilty or close to it, it is too much for me. I think they should try harder to be analysts and not get carried away with their personal prejudices.

Nelbrewster => When people who are supposed to be legal analysts come right out and say that the defendant is guilty or close to it, it is too much for me. I think they should try harder to be analysts and not get carried away with their personal prejudices. ---------------------------------------------------------- You didn't read the article aslanthebrave was talking about. Here's a link and a direct quote: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/13/opinion/courtwatch/main701455.shtml "Jackson is free because there was no physical evidence against him and very little compelling eyewitnesses to his alleged crimes. He is free because his lawyers were much, much better than prosecutors. And he is free because he faced one of the weakest criminal cases I have ever seen." This theme is consistant with what this author has been writing throughout the trial. It is his opinion, and he does not present it as anything other than his opinion, which is based on his legal experience and his observation of the trial. This analyst NEVER even implied guilt. Frankly, I think he's on target, but that isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not it is unethical for him to present his opinion. I think the right to express one's opinion is the cornerstone of free speach, one of our most important cultural values. Aslanthebrave has a different perspective.

Nelbrewster => When people who are supposed to be legal analysts come right out and say that the defendant is guilty or close to it, it is too much for me. I think they should try harder to be analysts and not get carried away with their personal prejudices. Yes, I agree. The articles written by Mr Cohen, the legal analyst for CBS, begin by stating that he is a legal analayst for CBS. Therefore, he is given some degree of respect, right from the start. And yes, when a person like this, presumes to come under that title, or that work description, he is OBLIGED, simply by the use of that title, to present a case, or argument that reflects his station. if he is going to use personal opinions, in his summary of the trial or aspects of the trial, he should strike that p[articular job description from his introduction, and state that he is giving a personal opinion. Any journalist who introduces himself that way, implies from the kickoff, that he or she has a measure of crebility when speaking about a legal subject. If you don't agree with my views, nooone is asking you to read them. If I want to watch a news item on television, I ignore what the narrator is saying, and watch the images instead. I make up my own mind, from reading more than one source, on matters being projected on the screen. And I don't really care if you don't agree with what I have to say, that is your right. I reserve the right too, to question the ethics of the media and people like Mr Cohen. You state that he never implied guilt. You obviously didn't read the last paragraph of that item. I suggest you read it, and read all of the other articles this man has written since the trial began. Free speech is wonderful, when the person speaking is speaking the truth. I do not apologise for questioning the ethics of Mr Cohen, or his colleagues. And I will continue to bring to the attention of others, his slight of hand, and cunning journalistic methods.

abbyr311 => "This analyst NEVER even implied guilt." aslanthebrave => "You state that he never implied guilt. You obviously didn't read the last paragraph of that item." Last paragraph of Andrew Cohen: "So it's finally over, this grand, gross spectacle of Ick. A man who acts like a kid came up against a kid who acts like a man. Prosecutors backed the kid and the jury backed the man. And I'm fairly sure that no one involved is ever going to be the same again. " abbyr311 obviously did read the article. aslanthebrave obviously misread it. Did you forget the second page? I noticed the last paragraph of the first page was a little tougher on MJ, though nothing in the entire article said MJ was guilty.