|
Post by Invincible on Jul 26, 2017 16:30:24 GMT
Have you watched The Jury Speaks episode? What do you guys think about it?
Someone posted it on YouTube
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jul 26, 2017 17:28:29 GMT
I think it was generally OK and fair and a step in the right direction. I think it was only scratching the surface though, but I guess that's what you can fit into 45 minutes. There was a lot of emphasis put on Gavin's demeanour, particularly in the police interview. Apparently it was important to the jury, though the fact that Hultman and the alternate juror thought he was convincing (and that was basically their only argument for thinking MJ was guilty) while the others felt just the total opposite - that just shows personal impressions are subjective.
The fact is though that in this case we have LOTS of objective evidence that show that Gavin was a liar, not just his mother and not just generally but also regarding his claims in this very case. The timeline nonsense was addressed though I felt it could have been emphasized a bit more that the change was significant because it totally changed the whole narrative of the Arvizo's initial story. There was not any mention of the very significant changes in the content of the Arvizos allegatins, such as the number of molestations changed from the initial 5, then 7 to 2, the initial claim of Star also being molested completely disappeared, the lies and contradictions they were caught in re. who told Gavin to masturbate (MJ or, as he initially said, his grandmother), whether they did or did not go to MJ's room while he wasn't there (Gavin denied they did while Star admitted they did), the nonsense of the conspiracy charge etc etc. So a lot more could have been said. There are just so many objective facts that expose these allegations as lies. I don't know if even the jury could realize all of these facts. I imagine it's a bit overwhelming to hear all those testimonies day after day and they don't have time to analyse everything the way we do. They also probably don't have an opportunity to compare Gavin's testimony with older versions of his story in police interviews etc. I would have also loved to hear more about how their allegations were shaped - ie. William Dickerman and then Larry Feldman and Stanley Katz's involvement.
But overall it was OK and fair.
|
|
|
Post by Invincible on Jul 26, 2017 18:16:49 GMT
I think the show was actually good. It's not perfect and it doesn't have all details, but for a 43 minute episode they did well. Their research was great. I understand why the show didn't go into too much details as it is not the purpose of the show. This show is about the jurors' experience and impressions which is not necessarily showing all the facts and evidence in the case.
The timeline is one of the weirdest things in this weird case, and I'm glad someone finally addressed it.
I also loved that they addressed that the tabloid stories from 2016 were not true. They mentioned Wade (and not James) but it's not something you can avoid. It seems that Wade didn't make the jurors change their mind and they had an issue with his alleged "perjury", which shows us what any jury would think.
|
|
|
Post by Angel of Light on Jul 26, 2017 18:50:09 GMT
I'll just share what I wrote on MJJC forum since it pretty much sums up what I thought!:
The show was decent and fair. As someone mentioned previously (on another forum), the narration even seemed pretty "Pro-MJ." The way they presented the prosecution's evidence and then discussed how the defense invalidated them was a great way to execute the story. That might be the most information the public has gotten about what happened on the defense's team. I also was very impressed with the amount of background information they provided about Janet Arvizo. I was not expecting them to go that far. I think the show got the point across that she was a scammer. The discussion and reenactment of Gavin's interview with the police was a pivotal point of the show as well.
Regarding Ray Hultman's "gut feeling": It's funny because he still agrees with their verdict and would still vote not guilty. I wonder if this guy hears himself when he speaks? I honestly don't think Ray cares if MJ was guilty or not. The guy was offered a book deal and he saw dollar signs. He will say anything. It seems that he is still holding out hope for that book deal, hence why he was so "in your face" about believing MJ to be guilty on this program. He knows "not guilty" was the right verdict, but he will continue to publicly say MJ was a child molester in hopes of some financial profit. That's my impression of him.
It was great to see Aphrodite on there. Despite what she said a couple years ago about the Chandler allegations, she still stands by the verdict of the 2005 trial and her book was excellent.
Overall, good program, but there is room for improvement. I didn't think it was fair to cite Wade's allegations without any background information. But most of the jurors seemed to dismiss it anyway, which was nice to see. Also liked how they debunked the "porn" stories from last year. I'll admit, I was expecting this to be a completely negative show much like the shows Reelz has done on MJ. I'm so glad I was wrong.
I've watched the entire series and they all have been fairly interesting. If any of you haven't watched them yet, I recommend it!
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Jul 26, 2017 22:36:40 GMT
I saw the show and Ray got me through my nerves. How earth could Hultman and the alternate juror believe in Gavin if he was caught in many lies and contradictions? Hultman is the kind of old white man who had black people hung in the past. I'm glad the majority could see the prosecution had no case whatsoeverand failed to prove Michael was guilty.
|
|
|
Post by aazzaabb on Jul 26, 2017 22:58:16 GMT
I haven't followed this nor the Quincy Jones trial. I feel so deflated from a lifetime of court cases -trials and tribulations- but I'm going to get up to speed on these before the next few court cases arrive.
|
|
|
Post by Invincible on Jul 27, 2017 0:45:01 GMT
I saw the show and Ray got me through my nerves. How earth could Hultman and the alternate juror believe in Gavin if he was caught in many lies and contradictions? Hultman is the kind of old white man who had black people hung in the past. I'm glad the majority could see the prosecution had no case whatsoeverand failed to prove Michael was guilty. The alternate juror was weak. It didn't sound like he has anything to say and he doesn't really have any strong opinion on the case, he even said that in 2005. His only apparent concern was the fact he was the only African American in the jury and MJ didn't have a jury of his peers. Hultman is the stereotype of the white man from the south. I thought it was very telling when he said the defense team wouldn't want him there because he is "white, conservative and educated man". Clearly the defense didn't make this case about race so why should they worry about him more than about anyone else? It's because he sees it as problematic, not because the defense didn't want white jury. Hultman was prejudiced against MJ from day one and he failed to back up his opinion with facts other than his feelings. I find it a little ironic that the two men based their opinion on their "gut feeling" regarding Gavin's body language while the rest of the jury said Gavin wasn't believable and pointed out facts about him. One of the jurors also pointed out that Gavin was laughing to himself during the investigation. It shows how perceptive these men are.
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Jul 27, 2017 1:34:33 GMT
I saw the show and Ray got me through my nerves. How earth could Hultman and the alternate juror believe in Gavin if he was caught in many lies and contradictions? Hultman is the kind of old white man who had black people hung in the past. I'm glad the majority could see the prosecution had no case whatsoeverand failed to prove Michael was guilty. The alternate juror was weak. It didn't sound like he has anything to say and he doesn't really have any strong opinion on the case, he even said that in 2005. His only apparent concern was the fact he was the only African American in the jury and MJ didn't have a jury of his peers. Hultman is the stereotype of the white man from the south. I thought it was very telling when he said the defense team wouldn't want him there because he is "white, conservative and educated man". Clearly the defense didn't make this case about race so why should they worry about him more than about anyone else? It's because he sees it as problematic, not because the defense didn't want white jury. Hultman was prejudiced against MJ from day one and he failed to back up his opinion with facts other than his feelings. I find it a little ironic that the two men based their opinion on their "gut feeling" regarding Gavin's body language while the rest of the jury said Gavin wasn't believable and pointed out facts about him. One of the jurors also pointed out that Gavin was laughing to himself during the investigation. It shows how perceptive these men are. Hultman claims to be educated but failed miserably to back up his arguments with facts. Feeling aren't factual evidence to sustain why Michael was guilty. To this day I will never understand how The Grand Jury allowed such a circus, such a waste of time and millions of dollars to go on trial. The Grand Jury in 1994 did the right thing to not indict Michael.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jul 27, 2017 2:10:43 GMT
I found Hultman's self-description interesting as that could also be Sneddon's and the other prosecutors description too. And if he felt that identification so important that might be another reason why he would want to take the prosecution's side by any means. Sneddon and Co. were the people he identified with.
Let's not forget also that the Arvizos deliberately tried to play on conservative sensibilities, such as emphasizing how religious they were, Gavin made sure to mention it was Jesus who healed him not MJ etc.
I think these all might have played a part in his "gut feelings" and his general prejudice against MJ. He also seems to believe that the rest of the jurors were star struck but just because someone realizes through a process that the defendant is a good man and starts sympathizing with him doesn't mean they are star struck. And it's a two edge sword anyway. One can argue also that there are blinders in anti-celebrity attitude. Actually this seems to be the case with most people. There is this sentiment in people that celebrities somehow get preferential treatment when it isn't actually always true. In MJ's case it was just the opposite. He was a target because of his celebrity. And Hultman seemed to be one of these people with an anti-celebrity attitude. He felt the need to show how not blinded he is by MJ's celebrity even at the cost of ignoring all the exculpatory evidence.
The alternate just didn't seem too smart to me and seemed to be easily influenced, so his flip-flopping doesn't phase me much.
|
|
|
Post by Invincible on Jul 27, 2017 19:53:51 GMT
I felt Hultman's "gut feeling" is more about his own prejudice than about anything else that happened in the courtroom. He said he didn't believe Macaulay and Wade, he twisted Brett's words, but he found Gavin believable?
The rest of the jurors said Wade's testimony was very strong while Gavin's was very not convincing.
I agree that the grand jury shouldn't have allowed the case.
|
|