Juror number 2: -Says he didn't have an opinion about MJ...but now.. he feels MJ is a sweet man...and a caring person.. that he wouldn't hurt a child.. -believes MJ has never done anything to any child.. -says that he wishes MJ dont have sleepovers again..so people don't take advantage of this.. -SAYS THAT MOST OF THE JURORS.. BELIEVED MJ IS INNOCENT.. that he put his vote in ..not only for reasonable doubt.. but that he feels mj is innocent.. -says 4 jurors had doubts about 1993 but the rest didn't believe.. despite the settlements.. including HIM... -says that the mother was a liar and so were the children... the mother lied in JC pennny and had those kids to lie.. -he felt insulted when she winked at him and told him about 'our culture'.. saying.. "YOu know how our culture is.. we do the best to get our point".. - says he was upset and disgusted..and thought.. WE ARE NOT like that.. -says GAVIN changed his story too many times..and so did the other members of the family... -says that the boy was only honest when proclaiming his LOVE FOR MJ ON THE STAND.. that was the only time he sounded honest... - he knew when those kids were lying.. -says he would never have allowed anybody on that jury to send MJ to jail for this .... -says that he explained to others that 1993 wasn't the reason why MJ was on trial.. reminded them what Melville told them.. only to use it as propensity.. that's all... -Indicates he is now on MJ's side.. that they only wanted to get him on money.. says the family had a history of FALSE CLAIMS....

Please include a link to your source.

The Spanish Show "Aqui Y Ahora"

The Spanish Show "Aqui Y Ahora" ---------------------------------------------------------- Also on Sky UK 1800hrs GMT 18 June coming up.

Are you speaking of Juror #2 Paul Rodriguez, who was foreman? I want to be clear on what you're saying.

well , use the net and suss out the confirmation you need

"well , use the net and suss out the confirmation you need" Well, it appears you watched the whole interview, took notes, but didn't notice the name of the person who is talking (or you could state they withheld their name). You sure are a fountain of knowledge. I'll assume it is Juror #2 Paul Rodriguez, who was foreman. "The jury foreman, Paul Rodriguez, said jurors were 'very troubled' that Jackson, by his own admission, had overnight sleepovers with children in his bed. " http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/14/jackson.trial/ Jury foreman Paul Rodriguez, 61, also said he could not rule out that Jackson had abused boys in the past. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/tm_objectid=15631529&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=juror--jackson-probably-has-molested-boys-name_page.html You are trying to make him into a character witness of MJ. He clearly found MJ not guilty of the *specific* charges. That's it. No more.

I knew , but I am glad you found it, good work. Don't assume, it is. Of course being troubled is right to say, but remmember no one has had mj's life and sometimes being trouble is a step in understanding. He understood far enough into the situation to realize this did not mean MJ GUILTY OF MOLESTING GAVIN

"I knew , but I am glad you found it, good work. Don't assume, it is." Well, based on your response to my prior posts, you obviously did *not* know. The next time you mention what you heard or read, cite the source, and include the relevant information. Do not expect strangers to take your word for anything. note: Many media sources screw up juror numbers. Different outlets have used the same number to refer to different jurors (and vice versa). Even the BBC has made this mistake. "believes MJ has never done anything to any child.. " Do you still claim he said this? It is not consistent with his other statements. Either he has contradicted himself, or you misinterpreted him.

Well, based on your response to my prior posts, you obviously did *not* know there is no 'obviously' as you stated. I knew exactly , but I referred to number, if you wanted to know more it was for you to suss or anyone else to suss it out.

"I knew exactly , but I referred to number, if you wanted to know more it was for you to suss or anyone else to suss it out." So, why bother posting at all, if people are just supposed to "sus out" the information for themselves. I think I "sussed out" some misrepresentation of a juror's comments.

RODRIGUEZ: We did consider that a lot, you know, just him sleeping with children and so on, so forth. There's not too many grown men that we know that would do that. But, again, we had to base it on the evidence presented to us, and come out of there with -- deciding on everything with -- beyond a reasonable doubt. I can't emphasize that strongly enough. So if the evidence was there, we would have worked with it but there was a lot of things lacking, so we just didn't have anything that we needed to complete the case. from cnn THE BOLD SAYS IT ALL ABOUT THE PROSECUTION's CASE: basically no evidence, and lot of things lacking

Do you even know what a url is, or how to copy/paste one into your post? Are you new to the internet?

Calg3, I know what a url is, its the hatching on the end of a knob. Also, I think you are reading into Juror #2 more than what he means. You need to understand that some media were pressing him into agreeing that some members were concerned about the spin about MJ. If I was in his position I would agree to some questions and later discover they were put out of context. This guy did not seem to be media savy. However underneath what he was saying I could tell that he really did think that MJ was innocent of "All charges and accusations" This will come out I am sure as this guy comes to terms with the art of answering media pressure questioning. This guy is going to be interviewed on UK Sky TV. I understand it will be "a free and open chat" Lets see if he confirms what OASIS is reporting about him. This time it will be in English.

The bottom line is that no one when asked if anyone could have possibly molested a child despite the evidence or lack thereof, could say an unequivocal "no". That it is possible, is true for anyone. To think otherwise is foolish. Any juror who said that wouild be leaving herself open to future ridicule and by saying there is always the possibility, places himself on sturdy ground so as to not be attacked by thosw who will not give up the belief that the x defendant is guilty. It is the safest place for the juror to be. The xd is thankful enough for the verdict and the blood-seeking public is placated as much as possible.

Calg3 I believe you are wrong on the jury number for Paul Rodriguez. He is juror number 80, as best I remember. So, jury #2 would be someone else.

Sorry. I just figured out what you were talking about. I had heard them call him juror #80 at some point. I thought it was during the interview after the verdict. But maybe not.

To be precise he was juror number 100547807. His seat number was 2. A juror seat can change to a different juror, but in this case, that did not happen. Some in the media have mixed up juror numbers, so I wouldn't be surprised if anybody reading press accounts got the numbers mixed up. The final word on jury seat numbers: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005270404,00.html

Those are the seat numbers, but CNN has refered to the jury foreman as juror #80. Where did they get the 80?

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/law/0502/interactive.jackson.jury.HFR/content.1.1.html http://www.cnn.com/interactive/law/0502/interactive.jackson.jury.HFR/juror.80.html I think it's the order they were called during jury selection. He was the 80th *potential* juror called. Maybe.