In Wake of Trial, Mostly Shallow & Insulting Reports from Media — MB #276 JUNE 22 2005 — In the wake of Michael Jackson being cleared by a mostly white, conservative Santa Maria jury on 10 felony counts, there have been mostly fatuous reports about how his celebrity got him off and about how stupid the jurors were. Latched onto that lazy bandwagon are the arrogant talking heads pretending to know what they are talking about; trying to retry Jackson based on his possession of legal pornography, legal alcohol and legal books, all in an effort to make themselves feel better. Just how do you derive an illegal activity based on legal activities? Well, you simply ignore the facts, pretend you know what youre talking about, and wail incessantly, all while stabbing your finger into the air on camera like a hysterical banshee. Or you can get your information from tabloid reporter Diane Dimond; whichever is simpler. The media certainly got their faces cracked wide open with this acquittal. And after the trial, they seemed to have moved on because the outcome wasnt as financially advantageous as they were hoping. The media in general have been woefully inadequate at asking tough, in-depth questions about the prosecution (persecution) of the acquitted Jackson. They have thus far refused to ask just why in hell this case got this far in the first place, especially with so many things wrong concerning the various and contradictory stories the accusing family told.
Category: News
DA has locked horns with defense lawyers in past (Nov 2 2004)
[b]DA has locked horns with defense lawyers in past[/b] 11/2/04 By DAWN HOBBS NEWS-PRESS STAFF WRITER Long before Michael Jackson’s
Lawyers press for investigation of DA, staff – Gary Dunlap Lawsuit
Lawyers press for investigation of DA, staff By Mark Abramson – Staff Writer 5/28/04Lawyers for Solvang attorney Gary Dunlap are
Blather From The Cable Jurors – The Day
[b]Blather From The Cable Jurors[/b] By TIM RUTTEN Published on 6/18/2005 If you hang around a courthouse long enough, one of the things you learn is that people willing to predict a jury’s verdict are the sort who take stock tips from their barbers. These days, however, the news organizations most preoccupied with sensational trials are the cable television news outlets, and they are creatures of appetite rather than principle or even brute experience. … Thus, the broadcast farce in the 90 speculative minutes preceding Michael Jackson’s acquittal in Santa Maria Monday. On Court TV, which routinely uses everything but card stunts to cheer on the prosecution in whatever case it’s covering, those one-time prosecutors turned Valkyrie anchors, Nancy Grace and Kimberly Guilfoyle, unhesitatingly predicted conviction. Over on CNN that’s big CNN, the one that’s still mostly respectable defense attorney Robert Shapiro flatly stated, He’s going to be convicted. Meanwhile, the analysts on MSNBC hedged their bets a bit by parsing the various combinations of conviction and acquittal Jackson might receive. No equivocation at Fox, though, where former prosecutor Wendy Murphy confidently predicted there is no question we will see convictions here.
Court TV found guilty of lacking fairness – Cincinnati Post
[b]Court TV found guilty of lacking fairness[/b] Publication date: 06-15-2005 The Michael Jackson trial was a great disappointment to me, but it had nothing to do with Mr. Jackson or the verdict. Instead, my disappointment is focused on what had been one of my favorite TV outlets, Court TV. In the interest of full disclosure, let me say that I have what might be called a special interest in that channel. The man who is credited as a founder of cable’s Court TV, Steven Brill, once told me at a gathering in Washington, D.C., that a program with which I was associated was his inspiration, Back in the late 1980s, I was the host of a nationally syndicated show called “On Trial.” It was the brainchild of a wild and woolly – and innovative – TV producer named Woody Frazier. On a cross-country trip, Woody watched local newscasts and learned that, for the first time, cameras were allowed in a growing number of courtrooms around the country. He decided to take advantage of this new environment by creating a show. He would send three, and sometimes four, camera crews across the country to cover interesting trials. They would be edited in such a way that two or three ongoing trials would be covered every day on the Monday-through-Friday program. It was a great idea and got decent ratings, but it was too expensive to sustain in syndication. However, Steven Brill watched the show and thought it might work on cable. He was right. Court TV was born.
Foreman: J. Francia Not Too Credible Either, No Proof of Guilt MB#275
Foreman: Jason Francia Not Too Credible Either, No Proof of Guilt – MB#275
Not all Jackson jurors feel the way media-touted Juror #1 feels
JUNE 16 2005 — As some of the media recover from their stunned outrage that an innocent Jackson wasn’t convicted, others are left to dissect what some of the jury members really think.
A number of the jurors don’t believe Jackson has ever molested anyone. For example, juror Susan Drake told the Santa Maria Times that she doesn’t believe Jackson ever behaved inappropriately with children (see Jurors talk about the choice made (June 15 2005) – Santa Maria Times ).
Two female jurors, both with children, appeared on the Today Show June 15 2005 to discuss the case (see Today: 2 Female Jurors speak out June 14 2005 ).
When pressed, juror Melissa Herard actually said she would let her children visit Neverland under her supervision. If she thought he was guilty of anything, she certainly wouldn’t have said that.
Both Herard and another juror, Tammy Bolton, said there is no evidence that Jackson had ever molested anyone.
In response to Raymond Hultman and his many….many interviews saying Jackson “could be” a molester, Bolton flat out said she doesn’t agree, and that’s one of the reasons why she made the decision she made. She told the host, “I don’t feel that was proven to me.”
Herard said she’s confident of Jackson’s innocence and made the point that there hasn’t been a trial before this one concerning any of the other allegations.
Jurors talk about the choice made
[b]Jurors talk about the choice made[/b] By Quintin Cushner/Staff Writer Jurors talk about the choice made By Quintin Cushner/Staff Writer
Not Guilty Verdict Sparks Media Meltdown MJEOL Bullet #274
Not Guilty Verdict Sparks Media Meltdown MJEOL Bullet #274 JUNE 14 2005 — A mostly white, conservative Santa Maria jury found Michael Jackson not guilty on 10 felony counts and 4 misdemeanor counts leveled against him by the prosecution in a California courtroom yesterday. Some members of the media have all but pulled their hair out on camera at a verdict that they cant explain-away/downplay/second-guess. They cant say he got off because the black jurors didnt trust the government. There were no black jurors. They cant say he got off because it was moved to liberal Los Angeles County. The defense didnt opt to move it to another location. They have no where to go .oh but thats not stopping them from trying. Not 2 hours after the verdict, some had already begun to look for a reason why the jury didnt convict an innocent Jackson of the charges against him. The aptly titled Nancy disGrace (thats Nancy Grace) yelled that the poor minority family didnt stand a chance against the Jackson machine. Poor minority my ass! This poor minority family has connections not only to law enforcement, but also to the military. One of Janet Arvizos connections was a police officer shed known for a long time before this trial. Shes also married to an army Major who makes $80,000 a year. Not to mention all of the thousands of dollars out of which they apparently defrauded celebrities. Oh yeah, boohoo for the poor minority family. If anyone had a handicap coming into this trial, it was Michael Jackson, who the media had already tried and convicted both in 1993 and 2003 with zero evidence.
NOT GUILTY – Verdict Reached in Jackson Trial
JUNE 13 2005 — A verdict has been reached in the Michael Jackson trial. The verdict will be read at
Art Books Turned into child porn by Desperate Prosecution MB #262
Art Books Turned into child porn by Desperate Prosecution MB #262 Unbelievably desperate prosecutors now trying to turn two 1960s art books into child porn MAY 1 2005 — Prosecutors have been scrambling in the past few days to put as much distance between Debbie Rowe’s explosive testimony and the end of their “case” as possible. The prosecution has introduced 2 art books seized from Neverland in 1993….yeah, we’re back to 1993…again. They hope that the jury will overlook the fact that these books are legal, available for purchase, and really have nothing to do with either the 1993 allegation or the 2003 allegation. Just when you thought it couldnt get more ridiculous, the prosecution always takes it one step further. One of the books is called “The Boy: A Photographic Essay” and consists of photographs taken on the set of the classic movie Lord of the Flies. The other is called “Boys will be Boys” published in the 1960s .yeah, the 1960s. To be clear, none of this is child pornography. But the prosecution wants the jury to believe otherwise.