|
Post by Russg on Jul 26, 2017 7:56:27 GMT
Michael Jackson 'was a beautiful human being' who was prosecuted by a family whose 'ulterior motive' was money, says a former juror who presided over child molestation case Michael Jackson was brought to trial in 2005 on child molestation charges
Paulina Coccoz says that she would still vote not guilty if trial were held today
Prosecutors brought charges against Jackson following 2003 documentary
Footage from film showed Jackson holding the hand of 13-year-old cancer patient, sparking outrage from TV audiences
Jackson later admitted to sleeping with young children in his bed, but insisted it was a non-sexual act of affection
Jackson died in 2009 of cardiac arrest at the age of 50 A former juror on the 2005 Michael Jackson child-molestation case says she would still cast a vote of not guilty if the trial were held today.
More than a decade removed from the proceedings, Paulina Coccoz maintains that Jackson was wrongly prosecuted by attorneys on behalf of the parents of Gavin Arvizo, a 13-year-old cancer patient that Jackson had befriended years before.
'Itโs really important for me to share my story because when I talk, even in my daily life to people that I donโt know or even with people I know, everybody still thinks he was guilty,' Coccoz, known as juror #10, told Fox News in an interview published Friday.
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4718322/Michael-Jackson-juror-vote-innocent.html#ixzz4nvFPWwrU
|
|
|
Post by Liberian Girl on Jul 26, 2017 8:55:17 GMT
Wow, The Daily Fail reporting a fair, non-biased article on the MJ trial. Has hell frozen over?
|
|
|
Post by Angel of Light on Jul 26, 2017 12:11:46 GMT
I am surprised by the unbiased articles that have been published in light of the Oxygen documentary. Despite the few flaws of the episode, I think it was a step in the right direction. Some progress is being made, slowly but surely. The public has finally been given the defense's side of the story, and the facts are surfacing.
It's also surprising that the media gave Paulina the time of day, considering she is firm in her stance on Michael being not only "not guilty" but completely innocent. This woman sees right through the BS and isn't budging!
|
|
|
Post by Liberian Girl on Jul 26, 2017 12:28:38 GMT
I am surprised by the unbiased articles that have been published in light of the Oxygen documentary. Despite the few flaws of the episode, I think it was a step in the right direction. Some progress is being made, slowly but surely. The public has finally been given the defense's side of the story, and the facts are surfacing. It's also surprising that the media gave Paulina the time of day, considering she is firm in her stance on Michael being not only "not guilty" but completely innocent. This woman sees right through the BS and isn't budging! I was definitely pleasantly surprised to see Paulina's interview gaining traction on usually hostile media outlets. A few comments said "oh, she must be a fan" etc, but it was still nice to see some unbiased reporting of the 2005 trial for a change.
|
|
Huey
Wondering Who
Celebrating life !
Posts: 65
|
Post by Huey on Jul 30, 2017 22:09:53 GMT
I am glad she spoke and the Daily Mail reported what she said (!), considering its history of writing anything that would lead to a MJ-bashing.
|
|
|
Post by danileevanbuskirk on Aug 7, 2017 5:18:21 GMT
I have read LONG ago so forgive me if my mind is not on point that a good portion of these jurors said MJ was guilty just not in Gavins case..Basically it was summed up like "we know you are guilty for past allegations, stay away from boys MJ"
Maybe one or two still maintains that MJ was some wonderful human being yet this is not what I took from most of the jurors overall. And anyway how can a juror even claim to know what sort of person MJ was, he did not even get on the stand, not to mention she probably never talked to him, unless this is the one that went to the NL party (even then how many words did she speak to him to come up with this) Forgive me for not really believing someone who did not know MJ.
Someone correct me if I am wrong about the other jurors.
Dani
|
|
|
Post by mjjfan810 on Aug 7, 2017 6:51:04 GMT
Are you even a fan? This juror knew MJ as well as any other member of the jury, why should her opinion be disregarded over other members of the jury who may have thought Michael was guilty? Why do I have a hunch you may be MyMJJForums first troll?
|
|
|
Post by jaywonder on Aug 7, 2017 6:56:49 GMT
Only two jurors thought he was guilty, but they also had book deals ready before the trial was over, Hultman included.
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Aug 7, 2017 7:21:38 GMT
Are you even a fan? This juror knew MJ as well as any other member of the jury, why should her opinion be disregarded over other members of the jury who may have thought Michael was guilty? Why do I have a hunch you may be MyMJJForums first troll? Turns out your hunch was correct. I banned her. Ain't got time for supposed "fans" who push the MJ was a pedo agenda. There's plenty of places online they can hang out, this is not one of them.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Aug 7, 2017 16:23:36 GMT
I have read LONG ago so forgive me if my mind is not on point that a good portion of these jurors said MJ was guilty just not in Gavins case..Basically it was summed up like "we know you are guilty for past allegations, stay away from boys MJ" Maybe one or two still maintains that MJ was some wonderful human being yet this is not what I took from most of the jurors overall. And anyway how can a juror even claim to know what sort of person MJ was, he did not even get on the stand, not to mention she probably never talked to him, unless this is the one that went to the NL party (even then how many words did she speak to him to come up with this) Forgive me for not really believing someone who did not know MJ. Someone correct me if I am wrong about the other jurors. Dani It doesn't really matter what jurors think about the past allegations since this court never extensively discussed the past allegations. They only heard selected bits and pieces of past allegations, such as they heard about Jordan's settlement, they heard June's testimony, but they were never presented with all the massive problems of the Chandler case, so they got a pretty much one-sided and superficial view of that case and that makes their opinion about that case irrelevant. They were presented with two cases - the Arvizo and the Jason Francia case. They rejected both. I have no idea why it bothers you so much if a jury member expresses positve thoughts about MJ. If you watched the documentary she backed up her decision with good arguments. And like jaywonder said, there were two jury members who said they felt he was guilty and they both were shopping a book. One of them actually was shopping a book already during the trial (it was mentioned during Sneddon's post-trial press conference). But it doesn't matter because eventually they both voted "not guilty". Moreover, one of those two jury members, Ray Hultman was on the Jury Speaks documentary too and he AGAIN voted "not guilty". Which means despite of his personal agenda or biases even he has to admit that the reasonable doubt in the case just cannot be ignored. If you feel the verdict was wrong you should be able to explain why, instead of just attacking a jury member for expressing a positive opinion about MJ.
|
|
|
Post by dancingmjsdream on Aug 7, 2017 16:52:30 GMT
Are you even a fan? This juror knew MJ as well as any other member of the jury, why should her opinion be disregarded over other members of the jury who may have thought Michael was guilty? Why do I have a hunch you may be MyMJJForums first troll? Turns out your hunch was correct. I banned her. Ain't got time for supposed "fans" who push the MJ was a pedo agenda. There's plenty of places online they can hang out, this is not one of them. Yeah I read her posts today on MaxJax, she believes MJ is guilty but she's still a fan. I will never got those people.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Aug 7, 2017 16:57:52 GMT
Turns out your hunch was correct. I banned her. Ain't got time for supposed "fans" who push the MJ was a pedo agenda. There's plenty of places online they can hang out, this is not one of them. Yeah I read her posts today on MaxJax, she believes MJ is guilty but she's still a fan. I will never got those people. Tells more about those people than MJ. In other threads she's been drooling over sexy Bad era MJ while she thinks he is a pedophile?
|
|
|
Post by dancingmjsdream on Aug 7, 2017 17:04:26 GMT
I wonder if these 'fans' only listen to certain songs. Can they take songs like Heal the World etc seriously? If some juror had called MJ a monster people would agree because he is 'weird' but if he's a wonderful human being there is no evidence for it and people don't know him....
|
|
Huey
Wondering Who
Celebrating life !
Posts: 65
|
Post by Huey on Aug 7, 2017 23:19:57 GMT
I have no time for those so-called "fans". They are not better than MJ haters.
|
|
|
Post by speedd3mon on Sept 18, 2017 8:01:50 GMT
I have no time for those so-called "fans". They are not better than MJ haters. I know I'm late but I just want to have it cleared, what user were you talking about?
|
|