Lisa Stebic: No charges, no prosecution, no conviction... yet
Susan, thankyou for bringing some very much needed attention to this case. I am very upset the media hasn't been covering this case like they should be. And unfortunately, I think this is just another fine example of authorities dragging their feat, being lazy, and letting the evidence come to them instead of getting out there in the thick of it, in the mud and getting the evidence themselves. A lot of time has passed and they have done nothing.
I do not care if they have no body. Proseuctors win convictions everyday in courtrooms all across this country without a body. Will it be an uphill battle? You bet! Will it be really tough on the prosecutors? Absolutely. But they are public servants who swore to protect the public and we cannot afford to have Lisa's killer on the streets one moment longer. We cannot afford allowing him to strike agian. We owe it to his next victim to get him off the streets now.
Friday, February 29, 2008
The Celebrity Factor
You know... you have a good point and I wanted to believe that. But just think about how lady justice was tricked in the Robert Blake case. I was sure the jury could care less about Beretta and wouldn't know Robert Blake from the moon. But I had to eat crow on that because the jury proved to be starstruck.
Just because these celebrities are not "on the scene" like an OJ or Michael Jackson does not mean that they are still not celebrities. It does not mean that the judges don't still give them celebrity treatment in their rulings. And its starstriking to the jury because of who they are, the people they bring into the courtroom, and the people they associate themselves with.
Just think of all the great singers Court TV had on during the trial that testifed to Phil Spector's character (and why Court TV is bringing that in during a criminal trial makes no sense to me)... but don't tell me that the juries don't go home and watch the television coverage of the cases and read the newspapers.
Even if they had not known Phil Spector before, they quickly learned... theres a celebrity in the courtroom!
From what my sources told me, 11 of the 12 prevailed in the jury room to hand down the right verdict. At one point it was 11 to 1 to convict, at another point it was 10 to 1 to convict, according to my sources.
But from my analysis of the case, it was really this one hold out who was really strong and just refused to look at the evidence. He was starstruck. He just could not vote Guilty.
So, the reality is that juries are starstruck. We've seen it time and time agian... even in places where we think it won't be a problem like Robert Blake.
Just because these celebrities are not "on the scene" like an OJ or Michael Jackson does not mean that they are still not celebrities. It does not mean that the judges don't still give them celebrity treatment in their rulings. And its starstriking to the jury because of who they are, the people they bring into the courtroom, and the people they associate themselves with.
Just think of all the great singers Court TV had on during the trial that testifed to Phil Spector's character (and why Court TV is bringing that in during a criminal trial makes no sense to me)... but don't tell me that the juries don't go home and watch the television coverage of the cases and read the newspapers.
Even if they had not known Phil Spector before, they quickly learned... theres a celebrity in the courtroom!
From what my sources told me, 11 of the 12 prevailed in the jury room to hand down the right verdict. At one point it was 11 to 1 to convict, at another point it was 10 to 1 to convict, according to my sources.
But from my analysis of the case, it was really this one hold out who was really strong and just refused to look at the evidence. He was starstruck. He just could not vote Guilty.
So, the reality is that juries are starstruck. We've seen it time and time agian... even in places where we think it won't be a problem like Robert Blake.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Bobby Cutts spared death in Jessie Davis double homicide
Dumb jury syndrome strikes agian! Yesterday, Bobby Cutts was sentenced to 57 years in prison for the double homicide of his wife Jessie Davis and her unborn child Chloe. Cutts was spared the death penalty by the jury of 12. Sources tell me the jury foreman quickly decided agianst the death penalty because Cutts had no prior history of violence and believes he did not intentionally kill Davis. Well thats just simply not true because he did have a misdometer from 10 years ago. But even so, Ted Bundy and Scott Peterson had no prior criminal history either and they are still convicted killers. Jessie Davis and her unborn child get the death penalty... but Cutts doesn't?Some legal analysts have said they understand the jury's decision because Cutts lead law enforcement to the body. So what? That doesn't change the fact that Cutts committed double homicide. It doesn't change the pain, fear, and terror Jessie was going through as she was being killed. It doesn't ease the families burden at all. So thats just a rediculous argument. This is simply the opinion of 12 people... I disagree with it.
Very shocking is that one source told me that the jury foreman was agianst the death penalty but would consider it if he had to. Don't juries have to death penalty juries before getting on death cases?
Larry's Notebook: Here are some of my notes from watching the testimony at the procceding yesterday:
"I never wanted to believe you could hurt her, but in my soul I knew you had... There are mornings I have to cover her picture up. I can't get out of bed." - Jessie Davis' mother
"Do you know what this feels like?... You don't. Because you have not lost someone. You got rid of someone who was an inconvenience. I hate you." - Jessie Davis' sister
"Don't even look at me... He violently murdered her, five foot four, nine months pregnant, that baby could have delivered," - Jessie Davis' father
Rest in peace Jessie and baby Chloe.
Parents starve baby to death
Parents Tracy Hermann and James Sargent are charged in Peoria with starving their 5 month year old baby, Benjamin Sargent to death:
This is brutal 1st degree homicide. I'm very pleased to hear that Lyons may seak the death penalty, I would absolutely encourage and push him to do that. You not only need to do it to provide justice to the infant but to send a message to the public that this kind of crime will not be tolerated. I hate bail! They should not be released pending trial... they should be in jail. Its really interesting for me to hear defense attorneys say that these people should be found not guilty because of their "troubled past" and "history of mental illness." They absolutely refuse to let their clients take any responsibilty. It goes back to what I was saying about defense attornies, I just don't understand how they do what they do. If their fight in the courtroom allowed these parents back on the street to do it agian... I just couldn't live with myself.
The authorities need to be working around the clock to remove the 3 year old from the home.
This is brutal 1st degree homicide. I'm very pleased to hear that Lyons may seak the death penalty, I would absolutely encourage and push him to do that. You not only need to do it to provide justice to the infant but to send a message to the public that this kind of crime will not be tolerated. I hate bail! They should not be released pending trial... they should be in jail. Its really interesting for me to hear defense attorneys say that these people should be found not guilty because of their "troubled past" and "history of mental illness." They absolutely refuse to let their clients take any responsibilty. It goes back to what I was saying about defense attornies, I just don't understand how they do what they do. If their fight in the courtroom allowed these parents back on the street to do it agian... I just couldn't live with myself.
The authorities need to be working around the clock to remove the 3 year old from the home.
Drew Peterson to New York for another heart to heart with Matt Lauer
Drew is eating right into our hands! Keep talking honey! I can't imagine what his defense attorney is thinking. Even I can tell you that you tell your client to be quite. Just like in Scott Peterson, all his interviews can be used agianst him in court. Inconsistant statements can be pointed out by the prosecution. The reality is, even the dating game on the radio will come into court. That will disgust a jury.
With that said, I'm very upset at the law enforcement charged with the prosecution of this case. They are dragging their feat. They have already ruled the 3rd wifes death a homicide... do they have any suspects? Why not charge somebody? They have a body in that case. In Stacy's case... I don't care if they don't have a body because convictions are won in American courthouses everyday without bodies.
The reality is, if they stop dragging their feat and do their jobs... they have a very strong case for double homicide.
With that said, I'm very upset at the law enforcement charged with the prosecution of this case. They are dragging their feat. They have already ruled the 3rd wifes death a homicide... do they have any suspects? Why not charge somebody? They have a body in that case. In Stacy's case... I don't care if they don't have a body because convictions are won in American courthouses everyday without bodies.
The reality is, if they stop dragging their feat and do their jobs... they have a very strong case for double homicide.
Authorities dragging their feat in Brianna Dennison case
Law enforcement sources are telling me that the Nevada Division of Parole and Probation is helping the Reno Police Department investigate the Brianna Dennison case. Sources have told me that many possible persons of interest are on deck. Some of these people have given DNA samples and law enforcement is working on interviewing them. Sources tell me that they have an interest in interviewing all known sex offenders in the area to see if they had anything to do with the murder, know who did it, or can provide police a clue or valuable information.One high level source told me that law enforcement needs to work around the clock to catch Brianna's killer most urgently because their seems to be a pattern of this person striking once a month. Then I have to personally ask, why is law enforcement dragging their feat? Brianna was found dead on the 15th of this month... its been 14 days... 2 weeks, and you still haven't done anything. You don't even have a suspect. The reality is, the public is going to crack this case, you need to be running to television begging the public for help. I am also disappointed in the media for not giving this case the attention it needs. Their is a killer on the loose who strikes once a month... what could be more important than preventing the next Brianna Dennison from happening?
Tipline: 745-3521
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Halt the Auction!
Sources are telling me that Michael Jackson is desperately trying to keep his Neverland ranch with a new loan. My source told me that the ranch will not be put up for auction and the financing is being worked out as we speak. Another source tells me that just a few weeks ago Michael Jackson payed off back taxes on the ranch. Therefore, it doesn't make sense that he would do that just to let the ranch go a few weeks later. Developing...
Michael Jackson's Neverland for Sale
I can confirm that Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch is to be sold during an auction on March 19th. Unless Jackson pays $24,525,606.61 by that date a public auction with occur in Santa Barbara at the county courthouse. The winner of the auction will not just win Neverland, but all property within and around the property. My sources tell me that Michael Jackson has not been at Neverland since June 30, 2005. I am very curious at who in the world would ever want to buy such a rediculous and crazy property that in my mind, is the scene of multiple crimes.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The Blame the Victim Defense
I can smell a big victim bashing smear campaign in court to distract the jury from the evidence. The defense attorney will dig up any thing they can, anything in her past to drag her memory through the mud like OJ did with Ron and Nicole and Robert Blake did with Bonny Lee Bakley. IMO, judges should not allow that. Its not relevant. If your client is so innocent, you shouldn't have to resort to smearing the victims to prove it.
The Abuse Factor
The reality is that both forms of abuse are awful. Emotional abuse is virtually un-prosecutable which is unfortunate. Abuse of all types should be condemmed. These people need to be put in jail and then once in jail get help for their problem. A lot of people tell me that we shouldn't help them but the reality is, they will be back on the street agian... so even though it seems disgusting to help them, we need to do it so they don't strike agian. Some people tell me that would cost an arm and a leg for tax payers. When the reality is, it would be a drop in the bucket. If we can spend trillions to keep America safe overseas, we can spend a little more to keep America safe here at home.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Larry's Mail Bag - Feb. 24, 2008
Larry’s Mail Bag - Feb. 24, 2008
It seems by exclusive report about Michael Jackson has created quite a stir because Michael Jackson is dominating the conversation tonight. But your also asking me questions about other legal news. Here it is:
Eggnog, North Pole:
Larry, what did you think when Michael Jackson was re-investigated in November of 2003?
Larry:
Thank God! Ever since 1993, I knew Michael Jackson was a criminal and I was outraged that he thought he could buy his victim off. This was finally karma coming around to bite MJ.
Georgia, Washington:
Larry, why did it take so long for authorities to investigate Michael Jackson?
Larry:
Because they had to get all their ducks in a row. They had to move the family and make sure no harm came to them. They had to do through questioning and investigation. They had to arrange to have all the resources to go in and invade Neverland. It took a long time but prosecutors played it smart and did it right.
Cookie, South Carolina:
What was Michael Jackson’s reaction to the search of Neverland?
Larry:
I’m sure he was shocked. Many child abusers think they aren’t doing anything wrong. He obviously thinks Tom Sneddon is out to get him as proven by his song "D.S." He was probably furious that his home was being raided. Thats why he hid out in a hotel for so long.
Nancy, Virginia:
What did the accusser say at the grand jury to get them to indict?
Larry:
Well… I can tell you what the mother said. She said that she would never file a civil suit and that she did not want the devil’s money. And she has proven her promise to be true. The reality is that there was overwealming evidence to indict. Just think if this had been Ray whats his name. You have accusers, prior bad acts witnesses coming in and saying they slept with Jackson in bed for 365 nights in a row that we know of and many were absued. You have maids and Neverland workers testifying that they saw Michael Jackson in very strange and compromising positions with young boys. And finally, you have an accuser and a case in chief. They had no choice but to indict.
Hillary, Maine:
What did you think of Michael Jackson geting up on the SUV and dancing the jig?
Larry:
Well you know Hillary, whats so shocking about that is he did it during a courthouse hearing about his felony child abuse charges. It showed a total lack of respect for the system, the serious nature of the charges he was facing, the judge, and the courthouse… but the reality is that Michael Jackson does what Michael Jackson wants and he doesn’t listen to anybody so all in all, I wasn’t suprised.
Jane, Georgia:
What did you think when it was revealed that Jordie Chandler had recieved 25 million dollars to shut up?
Larry:
Well, you know Jane I can’t answer that question without first saying that it was reporter Diane Dimond who exposed the truth on that and made it public. But it just shows you how scared Michael Jackson was to face those charges in a courtroom. If it was you or I and we were accused of this, I doubt very seriously we would pay a dime to our accuser, much less 25 MILLION DOLLARS. We would face it in the courthouse and we would win.
Debbie, Colorado:
What did you think about the selection of the jury?
Larry:
Moreover Debbie, I was very suprised the defense did not ask for a change of venue. Santa Maria, California is a very conservative and mainly white very small town. Abuse agianst children is going to be particularly dispised down there. So I thought that was interesting and I can’t imagine what their strategy was or what they were thinking. If they got it moved to a place like LA, a more liberal city, MJ would have a better chance to be found not guilty. And I have to believe they knew that.
About the selection of the jury, I thought both sides did a good job. Although, there were problems caused by Judge Melville. He esentially said in the courtoom that we are going to treat this case of Michael Jackson like any other case. Well, the reality is… you can’t. I mean, you cannot just treat it like any other case when its an international superstar like Michael Jackson. When members of the jury got up on the stand to take questions… the judge only gave them 5 minutes. Well how on earth can you get to know somebody and their motives in 5 minutes? This goes to the problem of the Michael Jackson jury because the members of the jury WANTED to be on the jury… they were not weaded out. The only people that should of been on that jury is people that wanted to do their civic duty. Another problem was that both sides wanted huge over 100 page questiion questionnaires for the jury to fill out. But Melville said "Oh No, theres not gonna be any 100 page questionnaries… we’ll give you 10 pages." And the questions were like where do you live, where do you work, have you ever been convicted of a felony, etc. So, I’m very critical of Melville in this case because hes made rulings thats really hurt the pursuit of the truth for both sides.
Lynn, Kentucky:
What did you think when the trial began?
Larry:
Lets roll! I was very excited to see Jackson face a court of law. I thought Sneddon won hands down during opening statements and I was very excited to get the testimony under way and rolling.
Millicent, Washington:
What did you think of the accusers testimony?
Larry:
I thought he was telling the truth. I don’t buy into the defense spin that this family was lying because if that we true why didn’t the accuser say he was abused 30 times, 40 times and in a more invasive way? If your gonna create a story, lets make it grand! Lets get as much money as we can possibly get out of this. But he said that he was abused 2 times that he could recall and I think that goes to the credibility of his testimony.
You know, its really amazing the courage this boy had and all abuse victims have but especially this boy. He got up in the courtroom and faced the judge, the jury, Michael Jackson, his defense team, the prosecution, and worst of all the audience with over 70 media personell hanging on his every word, writing it all down, staring at his face, juding his credibility, etc. Its just amazing that a boy that young had so much courage and he deserves a lot of credit for that.
Mesereau tried to tear down the boy’s credibility by asking the boy why he said to Dean Alpert that Michael Jackson didn’t do anything to him. But the boy held his own and said that he didn’t want to be made fun of at school and didn’t want people to think this actually happened. And that is true, a lot of abuse victims feel shame. They shouldn’t… but they do.
So, in the end he in my mind ended up to being one of the strongest witnesses for the prosecutions, very believable, and very credible.
Clara, North Carolina:
What did you think of the mom’s testimony?
Larry:
Unfortunate. The reality is that Sneddon wanted to get a battered womans expert on the stand to explain her behavior, but Melville didn’t allow it. I excuse her testimony and give her a pass because she is a product of 15 years of domestic abuse. How can she protect her children when shes busy trying to protect herself? And the reality is that a lot of these child abuse cases happen in broken homes where their are serious problems. Her testimony clearly explained why this case was right charges, wrong family.
VanillaBean, UK:
Did you find the youth minister credible?
Larry:
Extremely so. You betcha. He was scrubbed in sunshine. He could not bring himself to say the words in the indictment, he turns red hes so shy. You know when you witness is a devout religious youth minister with very credible testimony, thats a tall order to tear down on the stand if your Mesereau. The best he could do was suggest to the jury that he just wanted his 2 million dollars. But the reality is, he didn’t get that until he was 18. He did not get paid for his testimony, he had no motive to be in that courtroom. Ron Zonen said during closing arguments that if you forget everything else in this case and you believe just the youth minister, Jackson is a child abuser. The argument that I have used to members of the jury is this:
Do you believe the youth minister? If you believe the youth minister, then Jackson is a child abuser. If Jackson is a child abuser and hes bunked up this kid night after night, after night, after night… in his bedroom… alone… what do you think happpened?
But clearly, that argument is not good enough for some members of the jury like foreman Paul Rodriguez who told the media that he didn’t believe the youth minister.
Mary, Maine:
What do you say to people like me who think Michael Jackson is not guilty?
Larry:
Do some research and take a look at the things former Neverland maids testified as to what they saw.
Tom, CA:
Whats you take on Brett Barnes’ testimony?
Larry:
Brett Barnes is interesting because he testified that he wasn’t abused but his sister testified during the defense case mind you that she saw Michael Jackson and Barnes in bed together. They slept together during 2 six month long concert tours: 180 days, 180 days… add it up… 365 days. There was no chaperone, it was just Michael Jackson and a little boy. So agian, I ask the question… why does Michael Jackson sleep with young boys? Brian Oxman says that Michael Jackson has boys sleep in the bed while he sleeps on the floor with a chaperone present… but I’ve got to ask, why are Michael Jackson and a young boy even sleeping in the same room?
Val, British Columbia:
What was the defense’s argument?
Larry:
Simple. That the family was a bunch of liars just in it for Jackson’s money. Obviously, the jury bought into it wholesale.
Earl, Pangea:
Do you think the prosecution could of won if they would have left out the conspiracy charge?
Larry:
No. I honestly believe much of this jury were Jackson fans and the others were blinded by celebrity. I don’t think it would of made a difference. The prosecution believed that Michael Jackson was guilty of conspiracy, and so do I. So, I absolutely think he should of been charged and convicted of it. Authorities found videotaped survailance of this family, Jackson did everything in his power to falsely imprison them and keep them at Neverland, and made up a story that there were killers out to get them. I don’t buy into the defense spin that just because the mother went to get her wax on and her wax off so to speak that Jackson is not guilty of conspiracy. The reality is that it doesn’t matter what the mother did, Jackson comitted a conspiracy. And its just that simple. It is so clear cut. I did however think that maybe because the conspiracy charge was so complicated and included 28 overt circumstances, maybe the jury wouldn’t be able to figure it out and find him not guilty just because of that reason.
Drew, Oregon:
What was the defense’s closing argument like?
Larry:
Arrogant.
Carol, California:
Why do you think jury deliberations took so long?
Larry:
You know, I really don’t know. I mean the jury semmed so unanoumous in their not guilty verdict. My guess would be that because the 3 holdouts their were (Ellie Cook, Ray Hultman, and Katarina Carls) posed problems for the other jurors.
Fran, South Dakota:
Why didn’t the accuser and the family show up in court for the verdict?
Larry:
Because they didn’t live in the area.
Robbie, Ohio:
When did you know the verdict was innocent?
Larry:
When they read the 2nd count. It didn’t suprise me they came back with a not guilty regarding the conspiracy. But when they came back with that second count as not guilty, I knew the rest were not guilty. If they didn’t believe the accuser, they surely weren’t gonna believe his brother. If they didn’t believe he was abused, they surely wenen’t gonna believe Jackson administered alchol with the intent to abuse. And if they voted not guilty on 1-10, why not on the 4 lesser included on the alcohol to top off the cake?
Francisco, CA:
Larry, it seemed to me that the jury didn’t understand reasonable doubt, what is reasonable doubt?
Larry:
Francisco, how right you are. The proseuction is held to a burden of proof of presenting evidence and testimony that proves their allegations to a moral and reasonable certainity. If the jury believes the accuser in their moral heart and reasonable head, the state met the burden. Its not some "proof beyond all doubt" or "beyond a shadow of a doubt" thing like the defense would like you to believe.
Charlene, Australlia:
What could of Sneddon done better to win the case?
Larry:
In my mind, its not what did the state do wrong. The state put up a good case, the state presented their witnesses as they found them, the state presented overwealming evidence and testimony to the jury. It is what could of Melville done to be more fair to the state? He could of let the jury talk to Sneddon for move than 5 minutes before he selected them. He could of let the jury fill out more detailed questionnaires. Melville made grave errors in regards to the jury and any good prosecutor will tell you that cases are won and lost in jury selection.
Briteny, Louisiana:
What did you think of the reporting during the trial?
Through. There was too much daily scoreboarding and I think it was very biased in favor the defense. I was just absoultey stunned at some the post-verdict interviews with jurors where these alleged all star world class A1 journalists just bought in their story wholesale and did not question them about hearing not one, not two, not three, but four little boys abused by Jackson during the trial. It was just stunning. Court TV got a bad wrap. I watched Court TV as my source for the trial updates during the day because they had Diane Dimond who knows more about Michael Jackson than just about anybody in the world. I must say and I believe I can say because I actually watched every minute of Court TV’s coverage that they were very fair and trying to seek the truth. I was very impressed with Diane Dimond. She never once gave an opinion, she had amazing sources, and made us all feel like we were all on the front row seat of that courtroom despite their not being a camera in the courtroom. Savannah Guthree, Fred Graham, Jack Ford, Vinnie Politain, and Catherine Crier went out of their way to be fair to Jackson. They invited at least one defense attorney on during every show and most of them expressed their belief that Jackson was innocent. And Court TV’s Jami Floyd reported for the Jackson camp for 2 hours everyday on Court TV air. She expressed that she thought the jury should find Jackson not guilty and the case was not proven by the prosecution.
But heres the thing that gets me… lets say just for the point of conversation that Court TV was pro-prosecution biased during the Jackson trial. So what? Why is Jackson’s defense team running to TV shows like "The Tonight Show" and "Scarborough Country" whining and complaining about how biased Court TV is. If their client is really so innocent and the facts are really so clear, why are they worried about what talking heads say on TV? If the accuser is such a liar, why even waste your time complaining about people on TV? If the deck stacks so much in your favor, who cares what some journalist says about your client on TV. Hes innocent… isn’t that all that matters?
Len, Texas:
What was the Jackson family reaction to the verdict?
Larry:
In the courtroom, they showed no emotion. Outside the courtroom, they had some harsh words for the media.
Savannah, DC:
What did you make of Katharine Jackson telling Rita Cosby the reason people think Jackson is guilty is because of the "two wicked women out there?"
Larry:
Well… she forget that one wicked man… Larry Harriet. I felt so let out. But the reality is, I just addressed that. If Katharine believes so much that her son is innocent, the things pundits say on TV shouldn’t bother her. Wether they are biased or not, which I don’t believe they are… it shouldn’t affect her one way or another.
Courthouse, Daytona Beach:
Why did so many people speculate that Michael Jackson wouldn’t make it through the trial?
Larry:
I really don’t know. Some of the journalists acted as if this was the first time an American citizen was facing criminal charges. I think Michael Jackson is a lot tougher than they gave him credit for.
Rammy, Canada:
Why didn’t the 93 accuser testify?
Larry:
You know… he can look at it either way. He can on one hand say "few thank God I didn’t get in the middle of that bryerpatch" but I do wonder if its dawned on him if wether or not he could of made a difference. The reality is that I do give him a break because he was just a boy when it happened and it was the adults in his life said okay… we’re gonna take the money and get out of California. But the reality also is, that was then when he was a boy and this is now and hes a man and there are other boys to consider. But I must also say that in my mind he is a victim of child abuse, has suffered extreme psycological and mental issues, and may not have wanted to face the man who did it to him in open court. You cannot blame a child abuse victim for not wanting to testify.
Anne, Seattle:
Do you blame the state for the non-conviction?
Larry:
No. The only people to blame are the dumb jurors. They rejected evidence. They ignored evidence. They didn’t use their common sense. And they still can’t answer the question as to wether or not they would let their child spin the night at Neverland.
Cinnamon, North Pole:
Larry, do you think there were Jackson fans on the jury?
Larry:
Yes. According to one juror, Eleanor Cook, juror #5… their were at least 3 jurors that were die hard Michael Jackson fans. I think the number is more close to five. According to the juror, they would make statements like "Oh… not my Michael," and "My Michael wouldn’t do that." To be specific… in my personal opinion, the following jurors were the Jackson fans:
Juror 3 - Susan Drake: said to a reporter than Michael Jackson was not only not guilty but innocent
Juror 6 - Tammy Bolton: allegedly made statements in the jury room suggesting she was a Michael Jackson fan
Juror 7 - Michael Stevens - totally in the Jackson camp; said during press conference "hes a superstar"
Juror 8 - Melissa Herard - said during jury presser that Michael Jackson is just a "normal person" who you could "walk up to on the street and say hey, whats up?"
Juror 10 - Pauline Coccoz - attended Michael Jackson "Celebration of Thanks" victory party and cryed when they played "Beat It"
How can you come up with a fair verdict when there are 5 die hard Michael Jackson fans on the jury? It goes back to what I was saying about the people on this jury wanted to be on the jury. They weren’t weeded out during jury slection.
Art, London:
Do you think the jury watched the media coverage of the case?
Larry:
Yes, don’t even tell me the juries don’t go home and watch the coverage of the cases and read the papers.
Karen, Graceland:
Can a victim get a fair trial in California?
Larry:
In California, its rich’s mans justice. I don’t like to believe it but the reality is after Simpson, Blake, Jackson, and now Spector… I firmly believe it. In order to convict a celebrity, you have to have proof beyond all doubt. You have to have the crime on video. And even that probably won’t be enough.
Roy, Japan:
Larry, hi. I really enjoy your articles and while I disagree with you gravely about Michel Jackson, I respect your opinion. My question is what did you think of Eleanor Cook and Raymond Hultman going on TV disagreeing with their not guilty verdict?
Larry:
Hello Roy. We welcome opinions of all shapes here and welcome your views, even though we may disagree. When not only Ray Hultman and Ellie Cook but also Katarina Carls disagreed with their verdict… I was absolutely shocked. Some pro-prosecution reporters saw them as the second coming because they were saying Jackson was guilty but I was furious at them because I knew that because of their caving in, Michael Jackson would be free to strike agian. They said that they believed the accuser, that Michael Jackson was a danger to young boys, and there was no doubt in their mind that the accuser was abused by Jackson. Their backbones are carved out of banannas. The pressure by the foreman and the other Jackson fans on the jury should not have been enough to make them compromie their beliefs.
But moreover and more stunning was Rita Cosby’s interview with juror #8, Katarina Carls. She stated that she "believed the boy" and believed Michael Jackson is a child abuser. But because "theres a slight possibilty that the family might lie…" thats reasonable doubt so she had to "follow the law and the jury instruction" and could not convict. Well the reality is, thats not the law and thats not reasonable doubt. She said that she "believed the boy." Well, if you believe the little boy in your MORAL HEART and REASONABLE HEAD… the state met the burden. The burden of proof for stateside is not to prove allegations "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "beyond all doubt" but TO A MORAL AND REASONABLE CERTANITY.
These jurors made me furious. They are a disgrace to our justice system. Their sole motives are to profit and make money off their decision and flip-flop. Its just absolutely outrageous. Judge Melville should prosecute them both.
Hillary, New York City:
How long did the jury deliberate?
Larry:
32 hours and 57 minutes
Roseanne, Michigan:
What was the most outrageous fact of the vedict to you?
Larry:
The fact that the jury did not find Michael Jackson guilty of the misdometer. Even though I cannot understand a not guilty verdict on the conspiracy, abuse, or alchol with the intention to commit a felony… the most outrageous verdict came with the not guilty on the misdometer. Their was overwealming evidence and testimony about Michael Jackson feeding these kids alcohol. I guess the jury believes the children got into the wine cellar and got the alcohol themselves. Not finding Michael Jackson guilty on the misdometer alchol proves to you how in the tank they were and how many of them were Jackson fans. It proves if nothing else, that they were BLINDED by celebrity.
Terrance, OceanLake City:
Why is it so difficult to prove child abuse?
Larry:
Tom Sneddon has been quoted as saying that child abuse cases are very often much harder to prove than homicides. The reality is its because the lack of DNA evidence. Its the CSI effect. In the case of Michael Jackson, its the dumb jury effect. Its the celebrity effect. I go back to what juror #8 told Rita Cosby on MSNBC’s "Live and Direct." She said that she asked herself, "is there a slight possibilty that this boy might lie? And my answer was yes… so I have to vote not guilty." Well, if that standard was applied to all child abuse cases, nobody would ever be convicted of child abuse. Nobody would ever go to jail for child abuse. Their would be nothing but not guilty verdicts because of that "slight possibility." The reality is, if you believe the accuser’s testimony in your head and your heart… the state met the burden. The problem is, jurors don’t understand that and thats why child abuse is so hard to prove.
Ashley, Santa Maria:
I think Sneddon should be tried for prosecutorial misconduct.
Larry:
Ashely, the reality is… a victim came into to Sneddon’s office and said "I was abused." As a prosecutor, what do you do? Throw the case out because the kid had cancer? Throw the case out because the mothers a little wacky? Throw the case out because the families not as smart or educated like the rest of the jurors? Throw the case out because how dare a mother let their child go to Neverland? I mean, do you turn away from a difficult case? No! You stand up for the victim, you try the case, you do your best, you go up agianst an international superstar and maybe you lose… but the reality is, he did the right thing. There is absolutely nothing he did wrong and nothing he could be charged with.
Lena, Australlia:
How does the Jackson family rationalize so many little boys all having the same story about mj?
Larry:
They think its all a big conspiracy. They think all these boys are after Jackson’s money. They think they are all lying. In my mind, the majority of them know the truth but because Michael is a love oned, they are blinded.
DietCoke, DC:
Why are there so many Michael Jackson fans?
Larry:
I don’t know, I think they are so blinded by their adoration of this man and its one thing I’ve learned from covering this case that I think we are kind of blinded by the celebrity we have now. They’re blinded by it. They don’t know the rules of society so they behave any way they want to behave and we’re blinded by it because we don’t hold them to the same standard as the average citizens of this country. And I think we need to sit back, especially with our kids who adore these superstars, and these music stars, and these movie stars… and say wait a minute… the talent is great, but if there are bad people behind it, we shouldn’t be so adoring. Most mistakes celebrities can be forgiven, but not all.
Megyn, Great Britan:
What do you think of section 1108?
Larry:
Megyn, I’ve studied the law and think its a huge advancement for victims, prosecutors, and believe it or not… defendants. It gives every side a more fair trial and the jury a more complete picture. Why shouldn’t the prosecution be able to establish a pattern of behavior?
Bill, New York:
Do you think Michael Jackson will ever be prosecuted agian?
Larry:
I hope so. I would hope that if a victim came in the door tommorrow, whoever the prosecutor was would have the courage and conviction of Sneddon and Zonen. But I have to tell you that I’m not confident. After what this victim went through, I highly doubt another victim would have the courage to come forward. And even if they did, I doubt a prosecutor would go through it agian. But the reality is and the hope is that prosecutors are a rare breed, they think of good and evil, right and wrong and the truth is, that I hope a they would not shy away from it.
William, Oklahoma:
Is OJ the trial of the century?
Larry:
No. We have had some big cases in the past like OJ, Chandra Levy, Elizabeth Smart, Michael Jackson, Robert Blake, Scott Peterson, Natalee Holloway, etc. They are all crimes of the century in their own right. And respectively, the lower profile cases that don’t make the news are still big and important cases in their own right.
It seems by exclusive report about Michael Jackson has created quite a stir because Michael Jackson is dominating the conversation tonight. But your also asking me questions about other legal news. Here it is:
Eggnog, North Pole:
Larry, what did you think when Michael Jackson was re-investigated in November of 2003?
Larry:
Thank God! Ever since 1993, I knew Michael Jackson was a criminal and I was outraged that he thought he could buy his victim off. This was finally karma coming around to bite MJ.
Georgia, Washington:
Larry, why did it take so long for authorities to investigate Michael Jackson?
Larry:
Because they had to get all their ducks in a row. They had to move the family and make sure no harm came to them. They had to do through questioning and investigation. They had to arrange to have all the resources to go in and invade Neverland. It took a long time but prosecutors played it smart and did it right.
Cookie, South Carolina:
What was Michael Jackson’s reaction to the search of Neverland?
Larry:
I’m sure he was shocked. Many child abusers think they aren’t doing anything wrong. He obviously thinks Tom Sneddon is out to get him as proven by his song "D.S." He was probably furious that his home was being raided. Thats why he hid out in a hotel for so long.
Nancy, Virginia:
What did the accusser say at the grand jury to get them to indict?
Larry:
Well… I can tell you what the mother said. She said that she would never file a civil suit and that she did not want the devil’s money. And she has proven her promise to be true. The reality is that there was overwealming evidence to indict. Just think if this had been Ray whats his name. You have accusers, prior bad acts witnesses coming in and saying they slept with Jackson in bed for 365 nights in a row that we know of and many were absued. You have maids and Neverland workers testifying that they saw Michael Jackson in very strange and compromising positions with young boys. And finally, you have an accuser and a case in chief. They had no choice but to indict.
Hillary, Maine:
What did you think of Michael Jackson geting up on the SUV and dancing the jig?
Larry:
Well you know Hillary, whats so shocking about that is he did it during a courthouse hearing about his felony child abuse charges. It showed a total lack of respect for the system, the serious nature of the charges he was facing, the judge, and the courthouse… but the reality is that Michael Jackson does what Michael Jackson wants and he doesn’t listen to anybody so all in all, I wasn’t suprised.
Jane, Georgia:
What did you think when it was revealed that Jordie Chandler had recieved 25 million dollars to shut up?
Larry:
Well, you know Jane I can’t answer that question without first saying that it was reporter Diane Dimond who exposed the truth on that and made it public. But it just shows you how scared Michael Jackson was to face those charges in a courtroom. If it was you or I and we were accused of this, I doubt very seriously we would pay a dime to our accuser, much less 25 MILLION DOLLARS. We would face it in the courthouse and we would win.
Debbie, Colorado:
What did you think about the selection of the jury?
Larry:
Moreover Debbie, I was very suprised the defense did not ask for a change of venue. Santa Maria, California is a very conservative and mainly white very small town. Abuse agianst children is going to be particularly dispised down there. So I thought that was interesting and I can’t imagine what their strategy was or what they were thinking. If they got it moved to a place like LA, a more liberal city, MJ would have a better chance to be found not guilty. And I have to believe they knew that.
About the selection of the jury, I thought both sides did a good job. Although, there were problems caused by Judge Melville. He esentially said in the courtoom that we are going to treat this case of Michael Jackson like any other case. Well, the reality is… you can’t. I mean, you cannot just treat it like any other case when its an international superstar like Michael Jackson. When members of the jury got up on the stand to take questions… the judge only gave them 5 minutes. Well how on earth can you get to know somebody and their motives in 5 minutes? This goes to the problem of the Michael Jackson jury because the members of the jury WANTED to be on the jury… they were not weaded out. The only people that should of been on that jury is people that wanted to do their civic duty. Another problem was that both sides wanted huge over 100 page questiion questionnaires for the jury to fill out. But Melville said "Oh No, theres not gonna be any 100 page questionnaries… we’ll give you 10 pages." And the questions were like where do you live, where do you work, have you ever been convicted of a felony, etc. So, I’m very critical of Melville in this case because hes made rulings thats really hurt the pursuit of the truth for both sides.
Lynn, Kentucky:
What did you think when the trial began?
Larry:
Lets roll! I was very excited to see Jackson face a court of law. I thought Sneddon won hands down during opening statements and I was very excited to get the testimony under way and rolling.
Millicent, Washington:
What did you think of the accusers testimony?
Larry:
I thought he was telling the truth. I don’t buy into the defense spin that this family was lying because if that we true why didn’t the accuser say he was abused 30 times, 40 times and in a more invasive way? If your gonna create a story, lets make it grand! Lets get as much money as we can possibly get out of this. But he said that he was abused 2 times that he could recall and I think that goes to the credibility of his testimony.
You know, its really amazing the courage this boy had and all abuse victims have but especially this boy. He got up in the courtroom and faced the judge, the jury, Michael Jackson, his defense team, the prosecution, and worst of all the audience with over 70 media personell hanging on his every word, writing it all down, staring at his face, juding his credibility, etc. Its just amazing that a boy that young had so much courage and he deserves a lot of credit for that.
Mesereau tried to tear down the boy’s credibility by asking the boy why he said to Dean Alpert that Michael Jackson didn’t do anything to him. But the boy held his own and said that he didn’t want to be made fun of at school and didn’t want people to think this actually happened. And that is true, a lot of abuse victims feel shame. They shouldn’t… but they do.
So, in the end he in my mind ended up to being one of the strongest witnesses for the prosecutions, very believable, and very credible.
Clara, North Carolina:
What did you think of the mom’s testimony?
Larry:
Unfortunate. The reality is that Sneddon wanted to get a battered womans expert on the stand to explain her behavior, but Melville didn’t allow it. I excuse her testimony and give her a pass because she is a product of 15 years of domestic abuse. How can she protect her children when shes busy trying to protect herself? And the reality is that a lot of these child abuse cases happen in broken homes where their are serious problems. Her testimony clearly explained why this case was right charges, wrong family.
VanillaBean, UK:
Did you find the youth minister credible?
Larry:
Extremely so. You betcha. He was scrubbed in sunshine. He could not bring himself to say the words in the indictment, he turns red hes so shy. You know when you witness is a devout religious youth minister with very credible testimony, thats a tall order to tear down on the stand if your Mesereau. The best he could do was suggest to the jury that he just wanted his 2 million dollars. But the reality is, he didn’t get that until he was 18. He did not get paid for his testimony, he had no motive to be in that courtroom. Ron Zonen said during closing arguments that if you forget everything else in this case and you believe just the youth minister, Jackson is a child abuser. The argument that I have used to members of the jury is this:
Do you believe the youth minister? If you believe the youth minister, then Jackson is a child abuser. If Jackson is a child abuser and hes bunked up this kid night after night, after night, after night… in his bedroom… alone… what do you think happpened?
But clearly, that argument is not good enough for some members of the jury like foreman Paul Rodriguez who told the media that he didn’t believe the youth minister.
Mary, Maine:
What do you say to people like me who think Michael Jackson is not guilty?
Larry:
Do some research and take a look at the things former Neverland maids testified as to what they saw.
Tom, CA:
Whats you take on Brett Barnes’ testimony?
Larry:
Brett Barnes is interesting because he testified that he wasn’t abused but his sister testified during the defense case mind you that she saw Michael Jackson and Barnes in bed together. They slept together during 2 six month long concert tours: 180 days, 180 days… add it up… 365 days. There was no chaperone, it was just Michael Jackson and a little boy. So agian, I ask the question… why does Michael Jackson sleep with young boys? Brian Oxman says that Michael Jackson has boys sleep in the bed while he sleeps on the floor with a chaperone present… but I’ve got to ask, why are Michael Jackson and a young boy even sleeping in the same room?
Val, British Columbia:
What was the defense’s argument?
Larry:
Simple. That the family was a bunch of liars just in it for Jackson’s money. Obviously, the jury bought into it wholesale.
Earl, Pangea:
Do you think the prosecution could of won if they would have left out the conspiracy charge?
Larry:
No. I honestly believe much of this jury were Jackson fans and the others were blinded by celebrity. I don’t think it would of made a difference. The prosecution believed that Michael Jackson was guilty of conspiracy, and so do I. So, I absolutely think he should of been charged and convicted of it. Authorities found videotaped survailance of this family, Jackson did everything in his power to falsely imprison them and keep them at Neverland, and made up a story that there were killers out to get them. I don’t buy into the defense spin that just because the mother went to get her wax on and her wax off so to speak that Jackson is not guilty of conspiracy. The reality is that it doesn’t matter what the mother did, Jackson comitted a conspiracy. And its just that simple. It is so clear cut. I did however think that maybe because the conspiracy charge was so complicated and included 28 overt circumstances, maybe the jury wouldn’t be able to figure it out and find him not guilty just because of that reason.
Drew, Oregon:
What was the defense’s closing argument like?
Larry:
Arrogant.
Carol, California:
Why do you think jury deliberations took so long?
Larry:
You know, I really don’t know. I mean the jury semmed so unanoumous in their not guilty verdict. My guess would be that because the 3 holdouts their were (Ellie Cook, Ray Hultman, and Katarina Carls) posed problems for the other jurors.
Fran, South Dakota:
Why didn’t the accuser and the family show up in court for the verdict?
Larry:
Because they didn’t live in the area.
Robbie, Ohio:
When did you know the verdict was innocent?
Larry:
When they read the 2nd count. It didn’t suprise me they came back with a not guilty regarding the conspiracy. But when they came back with that second count as not guilty, I knew the rest were not guilty. If they didn’t believe the accuser, they surely weren’t gonna believe his brother. If they didn’t believe he was abused, they surely wenen’t gonna believe Jackson administered alchol with the intent to abuse. And if they voted not guilty on 1-10, why not on the 4 lesser included on the alcohol to top off the cake?
Francisco, CA:
Larry, it seemed to me that the jury didn’t understand reasonable doubt, what is reasonable doubt?
Larry:
Francisco, how right you are. The proseuction is held to a burden of proof of presenting evidence and testimony that proves their allegations to a moral and reasonable certainity. If the jury believes the accuser in their moral heart and reasonable head, the state met the burden. Its not some "proof beyond all doubt" or "beyond a shadow of a doubt" thing like the defense would like you to believe.
Charlene, Australlia:
What could of Sneddon done better to win the case?
Larry:
In my mind, its not what did the state do wrong. The state put up a good case, the state presented their witnesses as they found them, the state presented overwealming evidence and testimony to the jury. It is what could of Melville done to be more fair to the state? He could of let the jury talk to Sneddon for move than 5 minutes before he selected them. He could of let the jury fill out more detailed questionnaires. Melville made grave errors in regards to the jury and any good prosecutor will tell you that cases are won and lost in jury selection.
Briteny, Louisiana:
What did you think of the reporting during the trial?
Through. There was too much daily scoreboarding and I think it was very biased in favor the defense. I was just absoultey stunned at some the post-verdict interviews with jurors where these alleged all star world class A1 journalists just bought in their story wholesale and did not question them about hearing not one, not two, not three, but four little boys abused by Jackson during the trial. It was just stunning. Court TV got a bad wrap. I watched Court TV as my source for the trial updates during the day because they had Diane Dimond who knows more about Michael Jackson than just about anybody in the world. I must say and I believe I can say because I actually watched every minute of Court TV’s coverage that they were very fair and trying to seek the truth. I was very impressed with Diane Dimond. She never once gave an opinion, she had amazing sources, and made us all feel like we were all on the front row seat of that courtroom despite their not being a camera in the courtroom. Savannah Guthree, Fred Graham, Jack Ford, Vinnie Politain, and Catherine Crier went out of their way to be fair to Jackson. They invited at least one defense attorney on during every show and most of them expressed their belief that Jackson was innocent. And Court TV’s Jami Floyd reported for the Jackson camp for 2 hours everyday on Court TV air. She expressed that she thought the jury should find Jackson not guilty and the case was not proven by the prosecution.
But heres the thing that gets me… lets say just for the point of conversation that Court TV was pro-prosecution biased during the Jackson trial. So what? Why is Jackson’s defense team running to TV shows like "The Tonight Show" and "Scarborough Country" whining and complaining about how biased Court TV is. If their client is really so innocent and the facts are really so clear, why are they worried about what talking heads say on TV? If the accuser is such a liar, why even waste your time complaining about people on TV? If the deck stacks so much in your favor, who cares what some journalist says about your client on TV. Hes innocent… isn’t that all that matters?
Len, Texas:
What was the Jackson family reaction to the verdict?
Larry:
In the courtroom, they showed no emotion. Outside the courtroom, they had some harsh words for the media.
Savannah, DC:
What did you make of Katharine Jackson telling Rita Cosby the reason people think Jackson is guilty is because of the "two wicked women out there?"
Larry:
Well… she forget that one wicked man… Larry Harriet. I felt so let out. But the reality is, I just addressed that. If Katharine believes so much that her son is innocent, the things pundits say on TV shouldn’t bother her. Wether they are biased or not, which I don’t believe they are… it shouldn’t affect her one way or another.
Courthouse, Daytona Beach:
Why did so many people speculate that Michael Jackson wouldn’t make it through the trial?
Larry:
I really don’t know. Some of the journalists acted as if this was the first time an American citizen was facing criminal charges. I think Michael Jackson is a lot tougher than they gave him credit for.
Rammy, Canada:
Why didn’t the 93 accuser testify?
Larry:
You know… he can look at it either way. He can on one hand say "few thank God I didn’t get in the middle of that bryerpatch" but I do wonder if its dawned on him if wether or not he could of made a difference. The reality is that I do give him a break because he was just a boy when it happened and it was the adults in his life said okay… we’re gonna take the money and get out of California. But the reality also is, that was then when he was a boy and this is now and hes a man and there are other boys to consider. But I must also say that in my mind he is a victim of child abuse, has suffered extreme psycological and mental issues, and may not have wanted to face the man who did it to him in open court. You cannot blame a child abuse victim for not wanting to testify.
Anne, Seattle:
Do you blame the state for the non-conviction?
Larry:
No. The only people to blame are the dumb jurors. They rejected evidence. They ignored evidence. They didn’t use their common sense. And they still can’t answer the question as to wether or not they would let their child spin the night at Neverland.
Cinnamon, North Pole:
Larry, do you think there were Jackson fans on the jury?
Larry:
Yes. According to one juror, Eleanor Cook, juror #5… their were at least 3 jurors that were die hard Michael Jackson fans. I think the number is more close to five. According to the juror, they would make statements like "Oh… not my Michael," and "My Michael wouldn’t do that." To be specific… in my personal opinion, the following jurors were the Jackson fans:
Juror 3 - Susan Drake: said to a reporter than Michael Jackson was not only not guilty but innocent
Juror 6 - Tammy Bolton: allegedly made statements in the jury room suggesting she was a Michael Jackson fan
Juror 7 - Michael Stevens - totally in the Jackson camp; said during press conference "hes a superstar"
Juror 8 - Melissa Herard - said during jury presser that Michael Jackson is just a "normal person" who you could "walk up to on the street and say hey, whats up?"
Juror 10 - Pauline Coccoz - attended Michael Jackson "Celebration of Thanks" victory party and cryed when they played "Beat It"
How can you come up with a fair verdict when there are 5 die hard Michael Jackson fans on the jury? It goes back to what I was saying about the people on this jury wanted to be on the jury. They weren’t weeded out during jury slection.
Art, London:
Do you think the jury watched the media coverage of the case?
Larry:
Yes, don’t even tell me the juries don’t go home and watch the coverage of the cases and read the papers.
Karen, Graceland:
Can a victim get a fair trial in California?
Larry:
In California, its rich’s mans justice. I don’t like to believe it but the reality is after Simpson, Blake, Jackson, and now Spector… I firmly believe it. In order to convict a celebrity, you have to have proof beyond all doubt. You have to have the crime on video. And even that probably won’t be enough.
Roy, Japan:
Larry, hi. I really enjoy your articles and while I disagree with you gravely about Michel Jackson, I respect your opinion. My question is what did you think of Eleanor Cook and Raymond Hultman going on TV disagreeing with their not guilty verdict?
Larry:
Hello Roy. We welcome opinions of all shapes here and welcome your views, even though we may disagree. When not only Ray Hultman and Ellie Cook but also Katarina Carls disagreed with their verdict… I was absolutely shocked. Some pro-prosecution reporters saw them as the second coming because they were saying Jackson was guilty but I was furious at them because I knew that because of their caving in, Michael Jackson would be free to strike agian. They said that they believed the accuser, that Michael Jackson was a danger to young boys, and there was no doubt in their mind that the accuser was abused by Jackson. Their backbones are carved out of banannas. The pressure by the foreman and the other Jackson fans on the jury should not have been enough to make them compromie their beliefs.
But moreover and more stunning was Rita Cosby’s interview with juror #8, Katarina Carls. She stated that she "believed the boy" and believed Michael Jackson is a child abuser. But because "theres a slight possibilty that the family might lie…" thats reasonable doubt so she had to "follow the law and the jury instruction" and could not convict. Well the reality is, thats not the law and thats not reasonable doubt. She said that she "believed the boy." Well, if you believe the little boy in your MORAL HEART and REASONABLE HEAD… the state met the burden. The burden of proof for stateside is not to prove allegations "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "beyond all doubt" but TO A MORAL AND REASONABLE CERTANITY.
These jurors made me furious. They are a disgrace to our justice system. Their sole motives are to profit and make money off their decision and flip-flop. Its just absolutely outrageous. Judge Melville should prosecute them both.
Hillary, New York City:
How long did the jury deliberate?
Larry:
32 hours and 57 minutes
Roseanne, Michigan:
What was the most outrageous fact of the vedict to you?
Larry:
The fact that the jury did not find Michael Jackson guilty of the misdometer. Even though I cannot understand a not guilty verdict on the conspiracy, abuse, or alchol with the intention to commit a felony… the most outrageous verdict came with the not guilty on the misdometer. Their was overwealming evidence and testimony about Michael Jackson feeding these kids alcohol. I guess the jury believes the children got into the wine cellar and got the alcohol themselves. Not finding Michael Jackson guilty on the misdometer alchol proves to you how in the tank they were and how many of them were Jackson fans. It proves if nothing else, that they were BLINDED by celebrity.
Terrance, OceanLake City:
Why is it so difficult to prove child abuse?
Larry:
Tom Sneddon has been quoted as saying that child abuse cases are very often much harder to prove than homicides. The reality is its because the lack of DNA evidence. Its the CSI effect. In the case of Michael Jackson, its the dumb jury effect. Its the celebrity effect. I go back to what juror #8 told Rita Cosby on MSNBC’s "Live and Direct." She said that she asked herself, "is there a slight possibilty that this boy might lie? And my answer was yes… so I have to vote not guilty." Well, if that standard was applied to all child abuse cases, nobody would ever be convicted of child abuse. Nobody would ever go to jail for child abuse. Their would be nothing but not guilty verdicts because of that "slight possibility." The reality is, if you believe the accuser’s testimony in your head and your heart… the state met the burden. The problem is, jurors don’t understand that and thats why child abuse is so hard to prove.
Ashley, Santa Maria:
I think Sneddon should be tried for prosecutorial misconduct.
Larry:
Ashely, the reality is… a victim came into to Sneddon’s office and said "I was abused." As a prosecutor, what do you do? Throw the case out because the kid had cancer? Throw the case out because the mothers a little wacky? Throw the case out because the families not as smart or educated like the rest of the jurors? Throw the case out because how dare a mother let their child go to Neverland? I mean, do you turn away from a difficult case? No! You stand up for the victim, you try the case, you do your best, you go up agianst an international superstar and maybe you lose… but the reality is, he did the right thing. There is absolutely nothing he did wrong and nothing he could be charged with.
Lena, Australlia:
How does the Jackson family rationalize so many little boys all having the same story about mj?
Larry:
They think its all a big conspiracy. They think all these boys are after Jackson’s money. They think they are all lying. In my mind, the majority of them know the truth but because Michael is a love oned, they are blinded.
DietCoke, DC:
Why are there so many Michael Jackson fans?
Larry:
I don’t know, I think they are so blinded by their adoration of this man and its one thing I’ve learned from covering this case that I think we are kind of blinded by the celebrity we have now. They’re blinded by it. They don’t know the rules of society so they behave any way they want to behave and we’re blinded by it because we don’t hold them to the same standard as the average citizens of this country. And I think we need to sit back, especially with our kids who adore these superstars, and these music stars, and these movie stars… and say wait a minute… the talent is great, but if there are bad people behind it, we shouldn’t be so adoring. Most mistakes celebrities can be forgiven, but not all.
Megyn, Great Britan:
What do you think of section 1108?
Larry:
Megyn, I’ve studied the law and think its a huge advancement for victims, prosecutors, and believe it or not… defendants. It gives every side a more fair trial and the jury a more complete picture. Why shouldn’t the prosecution be able to establish a pattern of behavior?
Bill, New York:
Do you think Michael Jackson will ever be prosecuted agian?
Larry:
I hope so. I would hope that if a victim came in the door tommorrow, whoever the prosecutor was would have the courage and conviction of Sneddon and Zonen. But I have to tell you that I’m not confident. After what this victim went through, I highly doubt another victim would have the courage to come forward. And even if they did, I doubt a prosecutor would go through it agian. But the reality is and the hope is that prosecutors are a rare breed, they think of good and evil, right and wrong and the truth is, that I hope a they would not shy away from it.
William, Oklahoma:
Is OJ the trial of the century?
Larry:
No. We have had some big cases in the past like OJ, Chandra Levy, Elizabeth Smart, Michael Jackson, Robert Blake, Scott Peterson, Natalee Holloway, etc. They are all crimes of the century in their own right. And respectively, the lower profile cases that don’t make the news are still big and important cases in their own right.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Kathleen Savio: Domestic Homicide
Today, officals ruled Kathleen Savio's death in an empty bathtub a homicide. Well its about time! Finally, authorites did something right. Now lets stop dragging our feet, get up, do our jobs, and protect the public from this dangerous killer. Lets charge Drew Peterson. It doesn't matter that we don't have a body. Prosecutors all accross the country win convictions everyday without a body. Lets get him into a courtroom, get a jury to convict him, and get him the death penalty. Whats with the delay?
He is guilty!
A jury of 12 today found Mark Jensen guilty of murdering his wife Julie Jensen. He is guilty! Now, the next step is just making sure he gets the death penalty. Rest in peace Julie.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
What I'm working ON
I am currently working an explosive series about the Michael Jackson jury during his 2005 criminal trial. The series will be entitled "Dumb Juror Syndrome: Inside the Michael Jackson Jury." It will be an explosive, powerful, and dynamic series that will take a long, hard look into the most powerful players in the trial of the century.The series will expose many things including:
- how the jury did not understand, or did not want to understand the definition of "reasonable doubt"
- how the jury ignored and did not look at crucial prosecution evidence that pointed to Michael Jackson's guilt
- how the jury foreman intimated juror Katarina Carls by misleading her on the facts of the law, reasonable doubt, and made racist comments towards her all in hope that she would change her vote from guilty to not guilty
- I will expose the little known fact that a member of the jury told Court TV's Diane Dimond the day after the verdict that he thinks Michael Jackson is a child molestor
- how the jury had the intention of profiting off their position as jurors and thought that a "not guilty" verdict would put them in the best position to do so
- how the jury engaged in juror misconduct in the jury room
- how the jury ignored a specific piece of material that was entered into evidence by the prosecution
- how the jury ignored specific witnesses that favored the prosecution and pointed to Michael Jackson's guilt
- I will expose how the jurors made inconsistent statements during their press conference and in interviews they gave to the media
- the real reason why jurors Ellie Cook and Raymond Hultman told the media that their was nothing wrong in the jury room the day after the verdict, but then months later alleged countless acts of misconduct and said that they were intimidated into their not guilty verdict in favor of book and movie deals
- I will expose that at least 3 members of the Michael Jackson jury were die hard fans of his
- I will expose and lay out the facts and truth about the slanderous and derogatory statements Tom Mesereau made to the jury about the accuser and his family... statements which have proven to be untrue. For example, Mesereau alleged to the jury that the family was just in this for money and they were going to file a civil suit immediately following the verdict. Almost 3 years have passed and this statement has been proven untrue
- I will expose how one juror committed an act of juror misconduct during the trial by going and speaking to a witness and friend after her testimony as reported in investigative journalist Diane Dimond's book on the Michael Jackson case "Be Careful Who You Love," which you can purchase at Amazon.com or your local bookseller
- I will expose how law enforcement and authorites have failed in their job to protect the integrity of criminal trials by not prosecuting members of this jury for the rampid juror misconduct that occured during and after the trial
- I will expose how the judge showed bias and favor for the defense by not putting Michael Jackson in jail the day of pajama day
- I will expose how pajama day may have been a defense strategy to divert the jury's attention away from the accuser and his testimony
- I will look into the effect this verdict had on other victims of child abuse in America
- I will expose how the defense team played fast and loose with ethics while defending Michael Jackson
- I will look into the very serious question about how we choose juries in America
- I will expose how this jury did not understand the law and did not follow the jury instructions given to them by the judge
- I will expose Michael Jackson's long history of child abuse allegations agianst him
- I will explain why and how the accuser and his family could succeed in a civil suit agianst Michael Jackson if they so choose to bring one
- I will lay out a jury action plan for prosecutors and District Attornies all across the country to make sure a grave injustice like this does not happen agian
- I will expose how the jurors made inconsistent statements during their press conference and in interviews they gave to the media
- the real reason why jurors Ellie Cook and Raymond Hultman told the media that their was nothing wrong in the jury room the day after the verdict, but then months later alleged countless acts of misconduct and said that they were intimidated into their not guilty verdict in favor of book and movie deals
- I will expose that at least 3 members of the Michael Jackson jury were die hard fans of his
- I will expose and lay out the facts and truth about the slanderous and derogatory statements Tom Mesereau made to the jury about the accuser and his family... statements which have proven to be untrue. For example, Mesereau alleged to the jury that the family was just in this for money and they were going to file a civil suit immediately following the verdict. Almost 3 years have passed and this statement has been proven untrue
- I will expose how one juror committed an act of juror misconduct during the trial by going and speaking to a witness and friend after her testimony as reported in investigative journalist Diane Dimond's book on the Michael Jackson case "Be Careful Who You Love," which you can purchase at Amazon.com or your local bookseller
- I will expose how law enforcement and authorites have failed in their job to protect the integrity of criminal trials by not prosecuting members of this jury for the rampid juror misconduct that occured during and after the trial
- I will expose how the judge showed bias and favor for the defense by not putting Michael Jackson in jail the day of pajama day
- I will expose how pajama day may have been a defense strategy to divert the jury's attention away from the accuser and his testimony
- I will look into the effect this verdict had on other victims of child abuse in America
- I will expose how the defense team played fast and loose with ethics while defending Michael Jackson
- I will look into the very serious question about how we choose juries in America
- I will expose how this jury did not understand the law and did not follow the jury instructions given to them by the judge
- I will expose Michael Jackson's long history of child abuse allegations agianst him
- I will explain why and how the accuser and his family could succeed in a civil suit agianst Michael Jackson if they so choose to bring one
- I will lay out a jury action plan for prosecutors and District Attornies all across the country to make sure a grave injustice like this does not happen agian
- how Tom Mesereau mislead the jury by making them believe the prosecution had to prove the allegations beyond all doubt when in reality the standard is that they have to prove them to a moral and reasonable certanity
- the unfotunate reality that Michael Jackson is more likely than not to never face a courtroom again for allegations of child abuse because no prosecutor would ever want to take the case and go after a world wide mega music superstar like Michael Jackson who has beat the rapp so many times before
Its going to be powerful. This series will provide comprehensive insight and trigger your mind to think about one of the greatest injustices to ever go down in an American courtroom. Its a Larry Harriet exclusive. And its all going to be right here. Stay tuned!
- the unfotunate reality that Michael Jackson is more likely than not to never face a courtroom again for allegations of child abuse because no prosecutor would ever want to take the case and go after a world wide mega music superstar like Michael Jackson who has beat the rapp so many times before
Its going to be powerful. This series will provide comprehensive insight and trigger your mind to think about one of the greatest injustices to ever go down in an American courtroom. Its a Larry Harriet exclusive. And its all going to be right here. Stay tuned!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)