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.

Unfortunately Calg3, you have not read the last paragraph of the item that I am quoting, in regard to Mr Cohen. The article was enttitled 'Bad Evidence' and can be found on this site>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/13/opinion/courtwatch/main701474.shtml. The last paragraph on that webpage reads: 'Even though he is a freak, even though neither you nor I would ever let our children near him, Jackson is free today because it is not against the law to sleep in a bed with young boys. If you are angry with these jurors don't be. Rest assured that as a group they were perfectly willing, perhaps even a little eager, to send the King of Pop off to jail until he'd be eligible for Social Security. Take it as a testament to the monumental weakness of the evidence against Jackson that this did not occur. Or, to put it another way, the case against Jackson was so bad that even you would have acquitted him based solely upon the evidence. Yes, it was that bad.' I suggest you read the article PROPERLY. And if you think his closing comments are relevant to analysing a leagl trial, then you are no better than he is, when the truth is being sought.

Unfortunately Calg3, you have not read the last paragraph of the item that I am quoting, in regard to Mr Cohen. The article was enttitled 'Bad Evidence' and can be found on this site>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/13/opinion/courtwatch/main701474.shtml. The last paragraph on that webpage reads: 'Even though he is a freak, even though neither you nor I would ever let our children near him, Jackson is free today because it is not against the law to sleep in a bed with young boys. If you are angry with these jurors don't be. Rest assured that as a group they were perfectly willing, perhaps even a little eager, to send the King of Pop off to jail until he'd be eligible for Social Security. Take it as a testament to the monumental weakness of the evidence against Jackson that this did not occur. Or, to put it another way, the case against Jackson was so bad that even you would have acquitted him based solely upon the evidence. Yes, it was that bad.' I suggest you read the article PROPERLY. And if you think his closing comments are relevant to analysing a legal trial, then you are no better than he is, when the truth is being sought. I suggest you and abbyr311 read the article properly.

Thanks for posting those links, Calg. Aslanthebrave, please read the text string on the link. Do you see the word immediately after the date? It says OPINION. I rest my case.

alsanthebrave => 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 ---------------------------------------------------------- What do you think the role of a Legal Analyst should be? He is a Talking Head, a Pundit. A Reporters role is to report the facts. An Analysts role is to analyze and interpret them.

You will have to excuse me in my defense of this person. I am very passionate about his innocence, and I can't help but betray that in my comments. I don't mean to be rude or overbearing, when I respond to your comments, or other people's comments. I just cannot bear the lies and deception presently being played out, so I feel obligated to bring these things to the fore. I have looked at all the allegations made about Michael jackson so far, and the information currently available, in regard to most of his accusers. I would love to see the two cases that were settled out of court, go to trial. Michael, will be shown to be the victim of extortion, again. As Tom Messerau correctly stated, on the day of verdict: "...he's an innocent man. He always was." Hopefully, Michael will heal from this exhausting encounter, and see the light of day.

I dont't watch CBS on television. It isn't necessary since there is a site online, that can be read. If I want to watch CBS, I watch it for the film footage only. There isn't anyone really, in the American Media that one could watch on television, with enough integrity. I do watch the BBC, in some circumstances. When they begin their news items with a US style presentation, I switch the channel. I prefer the Brits to stick to the journalistic excellence, that they used to have in times gone by. Actually there is one journalist interviewer that I have always respected - Michael Parkinson from England. Apart from him, I can't think of any journalist or interviewer, with that kind of integrity. Pity.

Aslanthebrave, did Michael Parkinson report on this case? I've never heard of him before, maybe because I'm here in the states. Can you send us a link to his work so we can see what you're talking about?

hello abbyr. No Michael Parkinson is not a news reporter, although I wish he was. He would bring some credibility to the stable of journalists that presently hog our screens. He is wellknown in Britain, and countries that have BBC programmes. He had a weekly show interviewing famous people. A very well respected man. One american actress being interviewed by him back in the late 80s told him on screen that he was a "wunnerful, wunnerful man". And he is! I don't think he has ever had his show air on american television, and I am not sure if he still has a show running. He is wellknown in Australia, New Zealand , etc. About mid-60ish now. Beautiful interviewer. Not showy or rude. Allows the interviewee to say what they have to say, without browbeating them or taking over their conversation and doing an "Oprah Winfrey", where the interviewee gets to say a few sentences, and never gets to finish his or her conversation, due to Oprah hogging the rest of the conversation. Damn annoying! No, Michael Parkinson is in a class of his own. Check him out on Google; there should be a lot of info on him, there. Actually talking about him, is kinda sad. I used to tolerate watching journalists back in his day. I can barely stomach their nonsense these days. Anyway, that's who he is, I hope that helped.

He is wellknown in Australia, New Zealand , etc. About mid-60ish now. Beautiful interviewer. Not showy or rude. Allows the interviewee to say what they have to say, without browbeating them or taking over their conversation and doing an "Oprah Winfrey", where the interviewee gets to say a few sentences, and never gets to finish his or her conversation, due to Oprah hogging the rest of the conversation. Damn annoying! No, Michael Parkinson is in a class of his own. Check him out on Google; there should be a lot of info on him, there. Actually talking about him, is kinda sad. I used to tolerate watching journalists back in his day. I can barely stomach their nonsense these days. Anyway, that's who he is, I hope that helped. ---------------------------------------------------------- Aslanthebrave, you are right, this guy is good. He can drag out the truth from a well healed liar. Larry King is similar in a way, non offensive, calm, sets his interviewee at ease and drags out suff you did not expect to come out. I like those people, they provide us with real information not their own loud noise.

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'". *********************************** she thought it was funny? good grief what is it with this juror? how pathetic.