June 15, 2010
There is a topic that I thought you should know about,
and that is the fact that two Jurors accepted book deals to
say that MJ was really guilty. Their names were Ray Hultman
& Eleanor Cook. In the first link, they are interviewed
by MSNBC in August 2005 to announce their upcoming books.
Jackson juror expresses doubt
In the second link, Ray Hultman announces in September 2005
that hes going to file a lawsuit to get out of the book
deal he signed, because his co-author Stacey Brown (who also
co-wrote The Man Behind The Mask with MJs
former publicist Bob Jones) plagiarized one of Maureen Orths
slanderous articles on MJ in Vanity Fair:
juror sues to get out of book deal
This next article is from January 2006. It states how Ray Hultman
settled his lawsuit after he was pressured to sensationalize
his story. (The same way Bob Jones was pressured to lie
and say he saw MJ licking Jordies head during a flight
in his book!!) As far as Eleanor Cook, she tried to shop her
book, but it was difficult shopping her book, so
she tried to reposition her book as an indictment
of the American justice system (which definitely deserved
to be indicted after what it did to MJ!). Her publicist stated
that the chances of the book ever being released at less
than 50/50?, and as we now know, it was never released.
Surprisingly, jury foreman Paul Rodriguez was also supposed
to get a book deal, but never got one. He has been one of MJs
staunchest supporters after the trial, and even defended him
in Aphrodite Jones MJ documentary. Im sure he lost
his book deal for refusing to lie and say that MJ was guilty!
swift riches for jurors turned would-be authors
In the last link, I included a press release for Aphrodite Jones
book MJ Conspiracy, where she mentions how other
jurors were ALSO offered book deals to lie and say MJ was guilty,
but they turned them down due to their integrity. They called
Ray and Eleanor traitors:Aphrodite
Jones and Thomas Mesereau
I think this is some info that would be valuable to MJ fans,
because Ive seen MJ haters use Ray & Eleanors
MSNBC interview as an excuse to say that MJ got away with
it just like OJ Simpson. To be honest, while doing research
on MJ after he died, I got a little scared when I found that
interview, but was absolutely relieved to know those books didnt
come out, and that coward Ray Hultman had to sue to get out
of writing it.
David, thanks a lot for the research and valuable links. Following
one of them I came upon a video of the MSNBC show Rita
Cosby: Live and Direct, which was aired and reported by
Associated Press on August 10, 2005 and called Two jurors
say they regret Jacksons acquittal.
jurors say they regret Jackson's acquittal
This is what they say there:
Eleanor Cook: [During the deliberations] I said he was guilty
and I said it in a big way. They came up after me with a vengeance.
I really got attacked.
Rita Cosby: How so?
Cook: I didnt understand, I didnt
know, I was too old
R. Cosby: How did the foreman [Paul Rodriguez] threaten you?
Cook: If I dont change my mind, or go with the group,
or be more understanding, hell have to notify the bailiff,
the bailiff will notify the judge, and the judge will have me
R.Cosby: How angry were you at the way you were treated by other
Ray Hultman: The fact that got me the most was that people could
not take those blinds off long enough to really look at all
the evidence that was there.
R.Cosby: What happened that day when the verdict came down?
How bad was the air?
Cook: The air reeked of hatred. People were angry and I had
never been in an atmosphere like that before. I just thought
that they could turn on me any minute and there wasnt
anything I could do about it.
R.Cosby: Did you tell anyone how bad it was for you?
Cook: I called my daughter and she was very comforting. She
said, Mother, youve done right, your conscience is clear,
youre a strong lady and you can handle it, you can handle
R.Cosby: But you didnt?
Cook: I didnt. I caved in.
Interesting to know what the same jurors said
immediately after the trial? Were they of the same opinion?
Helpfully we have an interview where 8 jurors (out of 12) talk
to Larry King on June 23, 2005 ten days after passing
a Non-guilty verdict on all ten counts. The interview is provided
in full for us not to miss any precious details
Larry King Live: 8 Jurors Talk to King (June 23 2005)
Please, remember that we are keeping an eye on those two jurors
who decided to write books of their own and who two months later
will complain to MSNBCs Rita Cosby that Michael was guilty
and they were coerced into caving in. The names
of the jurors are COOK and HULTMAN.
LARRY KING LIVE: 8 JURORS TALK TO KING (June 23 2005)
Aired June 23, 2005 21:00 ET
When we come back, an extraordinary half hour ahead, there were
12 jurors in the Jackson case. And eight of them, eight of them
will be right here and well talk to them on LARRY KING
LIVE next. Dont go away.
KING: We have had lots of guests on this program. And sometimes
in various parts of the country and world. I dont think
we ever had on eight on together in the room. Maybe in political
season. Lets go around and meet the member of the jury
and find out some things about what happened to the Jackson
case. Michael, what was it like for you to be on jury duty?
MICHAEL STEVENS, MICHAEL JACKSON JUROR #7: It was the first
time Ive ever done it and what a way to start, I would
say. When I got the summons in the mail, I didnt quite
know it was for the Jackson trial, and so Im sitting going,
OK, what is this going to be for? And then the closer it got
to the date of the summons, which is the 31st of January, the
more news came about that it was going to be for the Jackson
KING: Did you want to be on the jury?
STEVENS: I didnt care either way.
KING: What was it like for you, Tammy? Tammy Bolton.
TAMMY BOLTON, MICHAEL JACKSON JUROR #6: Well, I never expected
to be picked, you know.
BOLTON: There was a pool of, gosh, a lot of people. We had a
courtroom full of people. And when they stood us up and swore
us in, I was so surprised, I kind of looked around, because
I wasnt sure.
KING: Did you like the experience of serving?
BOLTON: And my heart dropped.
KING: Did you like it?
BOLTON: Its definitely an amazing experience, Id
have to say.
KING: Wouldnt want to do it again, though?
KING: Raymond, what was it like for you? You were on with us
right after the verdict.
RAYMOND HULTMAN, MICHAEL JACKSON JUROR #1: Yes. Well, it was
a little strange. I actually moved to Santa Maria about two
years ago, and registered to vote, and that was where I made
KING: You got called.
HULTMAN: I got called.
KING: Did you like or not like the experience?
HULTMAN: Well, actually, Im kind of with Tammy. I never
expected that I would actually be selected for the jury. Ive
been summoned a few times before, but Ive never been actually
selected for a jury, and this was totally a surprise to me.
KING: Melissa Herard, what was it like for you?
MELISSA HERARD, MICHAEL JACKSON JUROR #8: It was pretty interesting.
I received my summons, and I knew it was for the Jackson trial.
And I was the one sitting up against the wall in the back when
the judge says, well, there will be somebody sitting up against
the wall in the back that will be chosen to come up front, and
next thing you know I was the 13th juror called, and I was in
KING: What was the experience like?
HERARD: It was it was exciting at some times. And other
times it was pretty difficult.
KING: And boring sometimes?
KING: Yeah, thats part of jury duty. Being bored, right?
PAULINA COCCOZ, MICHAEL JACKSON JUROR #10: Coccoz, very good.
KING: What was it like for you?
COCCOZ: I thought it was great. My first time as well. I couldnt
have, I guess, been picked for a better one. And a lot of ups
and downs, a lot of, I guess, rearranging in your life and trying
to adapt, I guess, to their schedule opposed to what were
used to. Change of diets. There was a lot of things involved.
But great experience. Loved it.
KING: Wouldnt want do it again, though, right?
COCCOZ: Hopefully not, no.
KING: Susan Rentchler, what was it like?
SUSAN RENTCHLER, MICHAEL JACKSON JUROR #4: It was interesting.
I was selected for jury duty 15 years ago when I was in my eighth
month of pregnancy. And
KING: You were excused.
RENTCHLER: So I was excused. And this is the first time they
have called me back.
KING: What was the experience like?
RENTCHLER: It was a good experience. It was real interesting.
Im retired, so it wasnt a real hardship on my part.
KING: Wouldnt want to do it again, though?
RENTCHLER: I think I have served my duty for quite a while.
KING: Ellie Cook, youre writing a book about this, right?
ELLIE COOK, MICHAEL JACKSON JUROR #5: Yes, sir.
KING: And you were the one who got ticked off by the mother,
COOK: Oh, big time. Big time.
KING: Ill get to that. But what was it like to serve?
COOK: What was it like to serve? It was an eye-opener. I
really like our country and I like the fact that we do serve.
And this is such a diverse group of people. It really
it was a great experience.
KING: Would you say it was a hard-working jury?
COOK: Yes, oh, definitely. Definitely. I really do.
KING: Susan Drake, what was it like for you?
SUSAN DRAKE, MICHAEL JACKSON JUROR #3: It was a life-changing
experience. I had a
DRAKE: Changing. Yes.
KING: How so?
DRAKE: Well, Im a horse trainer, and I had the Olympic
dream and I had a focus and a path, and all of a sudden something
even more important came along. And I really took it seriously.
I felt the weight of the worlds eyes upon us. And
KING: This was more important to you than your own
DRAKE: Absolutely. Absolutely.
career. And what is the bell for?
DRAKE: The bell was
KING: Ringing, what is that bell?
KING: What is it?
DRAKE: We were only allowed to talk about the case when everyone
was in the room. If you had a potty break or leaving, no one
could talk about it. Only one person could talk at a time. And
you can imagine at times, several people had opinions that wanted
to be voiced at the same time. So I was the official bellringer.
KING: Meaning they had to be all there? If they were all there,
you could voice opinions?
DRAKE: Yes. One at a time.
COOK: One at a time. That was the biggie. One at a time.
KING: This was in deliberation, right? You could never discuss
it before that, right?
DRAKE: No, with anyone else.
KING: Could you all honestly say, swear, that you watched
no media, read no newspaper? COOK: I swear.
KING: Wasnt that hard to do?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was hard. Very hard.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah.
STEVENS: How can you not like go into a supermarket, you know,
KING: And see the headline in the paper.
STEVENS: Overhear two people talking about it, you know.
KING: So what did you do when confronted with everyday life?
STEVENS: Turn around and go do something else.
KING: What did you do?
HULTMAN: I read a lot of newspapers with big holes in them
where my wife had cut out
KING: She cut them out, and you didnt discuss it with
Michael Jackson articles. No, I did not. No.
And that was a difficult part of the whole five month experience,
was it basically became my job. And normally when I come home
from work, you know, I talk to my wife about my job. And in
this case, I really couldnt. And that was difficult.
KING: So none of you ever turned on CNN or any of the other
networks. Didnt watch news?
RENTCHLER: I had to stop watching news, because, you know, it
KING: It could come up at any time.
RENTCHLER: So I just stopped I stopped watching and I
Im a big news watcher. So.
KING: Let me get a let me get a break and well
come back with more of three quarters of the Jackson jury. Dont
(Begin video clip)
TOM SNEDDON, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY DA: Obviously, were
disappointed in the verdict, but we work every day in a system
of justice. We believe in the system of justice. And Ive
been a prosecutor for 37 years. In 37 years, I have never quarreled
with a jurys verdict. And Im not going to start
(end video clip)
KING: Susan Drake, were there many arguments in discussion?
DRAKE: No, we were just going over the evidence and 108 pages
of jury instruction. It took a long time to go over the information.
KING: Was there ever a time, Ellie, where someone wanted
to vote for conviction?
KING: More than by the way, let me correct. I said three-
quarters. And our Raymond Hultman, our fantastic engineer juror,
corrected me, that we are two-thirds of the jury. Were
not three- quarters. Hell never be back. Take a good look
at him. You dont correct the host.
Back to you, Ellie.
COOK: Yes, sir.
KING: Was there more than one? That wanted a conviction on
maybe one of the counts?
COOK: There were a couple of things that I wanted I cant
even remember them now to be honest with you, without my notes
and paper here in front of me. But there was a couple of things
that I thought that he was guilty of, but we couldnt prove
it. And so we had to go with not being able to prove it; we
had no choice.
KING: We had some two people, different people tell us
they thought he was a predator, but that was not proven in this
KING: How many of you by show of hands thought he was a predator
in his life? The rest of you do not know that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do not know that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Absolutely not.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Nope.
KING: Absolutely not?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Absolutely not.
KING: Then what do you make of all the testimony you heard from
the previous kid who got a settlement? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:
Well, he got a settlement.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There were no charges filed. There was
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No criminal case.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was a civil case. There was a settlement
in that case.
KING: Was there ever a time where you thought, Tammy, that
there were time in that trial where you thought Im going
for guilty here? In your mind, going home at night?
BOLTON: I dont really think there was. I sat and I replayed
everything in my head over and over again. And I tried not to
stick to one thing or the other and to listen to everything
thoroughly. I cant say there was anything that convinced
me to say guilty ever throughout the whole trial.
KING: What was the prosecutions weakness, Raymond?
HULTMAN: I think
KING: What didnt they do right?
HULTMAN: Well, I think the prosecution did everything they
could possibly do with this case. I think the problem was the
family. But as the prosecutor would tell you, they dont
pick their victims is what they said. And in this case, the
accuser and his family had some real credibility problems. And
that was kind of the key to the whole issue.
KING: So even though you thought he may have been in the past
a predator, they didnt prove it in this case.
HULTMAN: Thats right. And the evidence from the 1993-94
incident was allowed to come into the case only for that purpose.
Which was to provide either evidence that he showed a pattern
for doing this kind of thing or he didnt. And then you
could use that as you would
KING: And you didnt see that as a pattern.
HULTMAN: I saw it as a pattern.
HULTMAN: But there wasnt enough evidence to prove he
had molested the accuser in this case.
KING: Paulina, why do you think hes the the record
is clear to you on him?
COCCOZ: I want to say, you know, I think the prosecution
did a wonderful job. They went through with a fine toothed comb.
And I think Mr. Sneddon, you know, he did his best. And we have
to, you know, really give them credit for that.
But there was nothing we had a closet full of evidence.
There was nothing in that closet that was able to convince any
of us of the alleged crimes. And, I mean, it was I kept
waiting and waiting throughout the trial you know, when are
they going to bring in some kind of evidence that was going
to be convincing and they never brought it.
KING: The prior evidence didnt work on the settlement
COCCOZ: Well, in this case, you know.
KING: It didnt work?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It didnt work for us, no.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not for me.
COCCOZ: Hes absolutely innocent of all these alleged accusations.
KING: Was there a chance you would have convicted anything guilty,
Susan, on one of the minor counts?
DRAKE: Nothing. I went in there with a courage to convict a
celebrity. Because I really believe in doing what is right.
And witness after witness I was more convinced of the innocence,
because of the motivations of financial gain and revenge, it
was just amazing the way it was laid out.
KING: So, when an accuser says this is celebrity justice and
celebrities can get justice, all youve say no to that?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Absolutely not.
KING: You can divorce the fact that Michael Jackson was a superstar?
KING: Was that easy to do?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In that courtroom, he didnt look
like a superstar.
KING: What was it like to look at him every day?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, he wore white socks every day.
KING: He did look at you a lot?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He looked like a very unhealthy man.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Towards the end, he just was looking a
little I saw him every day.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That was very stressful in that courtroom.
All of us, I mean, it took its toll on all of us. We
there was days that, like he mentioned, were boring. And things
were just like too hard to keep your eyes open and we had some
humorous moments, too. We had some good laughs.
COOK: But one thing I can say, anyway, and admiration for his
mother, she was the one person, the one relative that was there
every single solitary day.
KING: Michaels mother.
COOK: Michaels mother. She never missed a day. And she
always looked lovely. And sat there with such dignity.
KING: Did you like Mesereau?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I thought he was an excellent lawyer. I
would have him on my team any day.
KING: Did you like the prosecutor?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They did well too.
KING: Did you like the judge?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, very much so. Very much.
KING: Loved the judge?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Loved the judge.
KING: Well ask about that. Well be right back. With
two- thirds of the jury. Right after this.
(Begin video clip)
THOMAS MESEREAU, MICHAEL JACKSONS ATTORNEY: You never
know what a jury is going to do, you dont know those 12
people. Theyre not personal friends of yours. You dont
know what makes them tick.
But I always had a good feeling about this jury. I always felt
that our case was going in very well. And I always thought the
truth would prevail.
And I really felt that these jurors were very independent minded,
that nobody was going push them around, they were going to follow
the law and do whats right. (End video clip)
KING: Not the full jury but what the hell. I aint covered
by the law. Only two-thirds. What it you make since you couldnt
read the papers or anything, or know about any criticism, what
did you make of, Michael, of the pajamas, wearing pajamas?
STEVENS: I didnt get a good look. Where I sat in the box
was number 7. So, I was closest to the witness stand. And where
I sat, there is like like there is the tables is right
here and theres a big, huge podium right there. So, I
couldnt really see. KING: Who could see?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I did.
KING: What did you think?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I didnt think nothing of it. I
knew he was late that day, because we had to wait locked up
all 20 of us in that little room. And we could tell that he
arrived, because we could hear the screaming. And when we were
brought into the courtroom, and stuff, I actually I looked
at my I looked at him and stuff and wrote in my notes,
Michael looks kind of sick today. Hope hes OK.
KING: Do you know that many in the media, many who are critical
of your decision at the end thought the pajamas would weigh
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, my God.
HULTMAN: I didnt even know he had the pajamas on.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We didnt see the pajamas, No. 1.
And No. 2, he went to the hospital. And after reading it, he
went to the hospital. And if he didnt come straight to
court after that
KING: Susan, when you saw him, you didnt think it was
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Honestly, I didnt
KING: Ah, the pundits. (CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I didnt tell anybody else, see. Were
not allowed to speak to them. None of them knew. I knew he had
KING: But you couldnt tell him, did you see he has pajamas?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, I didnt talk to him about any
KING: How did your families handle all this? How did your husband,
Paulina, deal with you on this case? Didnt he ask you?
COCCOZ: Yeah. I think at times, he noticed the stress on my
face and he would ask me, you know, how I was doing and how
I was holding up. But he was very devoted to helping me boil
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, every day.
COCCOZ: I took hard-boiled eggs every day. That was my meal,
you know. He was wonderful.
KING: Do you tend to bond?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
KING: As a group?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
KING: Were you going to write a book as a group?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thats a good thought.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah, thats a good thought.
KING: Might you do it?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
KING: Are you going to write a separate book?
COOK: Yes, Im writing a book. Im with Larry Garrison
(ph) of Silver Creek Enterprises. And my granddaughter is my
agent. So we I worked yesterday.
KING: Why, Ellie? Why the need to write a book?
COOK: I dont know that I need to write a book, as my granddaughter
has said from the beginning, write a book. And Im
what Im really writing about is the bonding of this jury
and the nice people Im with. Because Ive said thats
to me more important.
KING: What about the mother ticked you off so much?
COOK: Well, she was just downright rude to us as far as Im
concerned. And I think she set her son up. I think shes
probably the poorest excuse for a mother Ive ever known.
KING: Do you all feel that way?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not quite in those words
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not in those words.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You dont think shes going to
get an award for motherhood, but I just wanted
RENTCHLER: I feel sorry for them.
HERARD: I feel sorry for (INAUDIBLE).
KING: You do (INAUDIBLE).
HERARD: I do. I do.
KING: Did it bother you, Raymond, that she looked at you? HULTMAN:
You know, I tried to look past that, Larry, but its really
hard when she is really staring the jury down
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Intimidating.
and being, you know, really in your face. But
I really tried to set that aside and listen to what she was
saying. But in the end, I think that her demeanor did affect
KING: What, Tammy, was the strongest aspect of the prosecutions
case? What to you had some weight?
HERARD: The phone records.
BOLTON: There you go.
KING: The phone records?
BOLTON: Probably. No, because those didnt link anything
together either for us. I mean, there was no links.
KING: Why are you hysterical, Melissa?
HERARD: Because just I oh, phone records. When
we saw the towards the end, when the prosecutor came
back in with some more phone records, I know what I wrote in
my book wasnt nice. Phone records, that was a very
boring, very boring thing.
KING: There is a lot of boredom in the trial, isnt there?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Some.
DRAKE: A comment I had made early on is the credibility was
in the phone people, but even prosecutor Nicola was saying 10
seconds on the phone, and you get billed a minute.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
KING: Let me take a break and well be back with more of
the jury. Dont go away.
KING: There were reports that Paulina and Ellie argued at
times about guilty or not guilty. Did you ever?
COOK: I dont think we argued, did we? Well, maybe we did.
KING: In the jury room. Come on, Paulina, (INAUDIBLE).
COCCOZ: I guess we argued. There was just you know, were
both I guess pretty stubborn. And
KING: She wanted guilty?
KING: You wanted guilty?
COOK: There was a couple of things there I thought he was guilty
KING: Why did you give in? Why didnt you hold your ground?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There was no proof.
COCCOZ: She couldnt mix her personal beliefs with what
the decision was supposed to be based on, and I think we all
had to remind each other that we couldnt do that, that
was not abiding by what the rules were to us.
KING: You think there she was right in pointing that out, that
maybe you were leaning toward a personal feeling?
COOK: That was hard not to. And thats why I in
the beginning, I pleaded with the judge not to be on the jury.
And that was one of the reasons.
But I was on the jury. And I did have to leave my personal beliefs
aside and go with the proof. And let me tell you, I did try
to find proof. I did not find it.
KING: Paulina, you went to the victory party. Why? COCCOZ: It
just kind of happened that way. It wasnt planned or anything.
And I had a lot of fun.
KING: Did any of you think of going? Susan, did you want to
DRAKE: I didnt know of it.
KING: Would you have gone?
DRAKE: Im not sure that would have been my choice.
KING: Do you want to go, Michael?
STEVENS: If I was invited, kind of. I heard about it.
KING: Was there an invitation to you?
COCCOZ: It wasnt a personal invitation, no.
KING: They just said, theres a party, come.
Would you gone?
BOLTON: I might have went. I might have went. Yeah.
KING: Were all of you Jackson fans? Fans of the music?
HERARD: I was. And I said that.
KING: Ellie, no?
COOK: No. Well, my age group, when youre 79 years old,
Im not going to go out there and do a moonwalk.
COCCOZ: Come on, Ellie.
COOK: Well, maybe I would.
KING: Do you were you a fan, Raymond?
HULTMAN: I enjoyed some of the music, yeah. But I wouldnt
classify myself as a fan.
KING: Why do we like, Melissa, the judge so much? HERARD: Because
he because he made us very comfortable. I know for me
personally, he made me feel at ease. He was, I think he was
very fair to both sides. And when he meant business, he meant
business. And it wasnt all fun and games in the courtroom.
He knew when we were getting stressed, because he could look
at us, and he would give us the time for, like, an early break,
lets take early break now. You know, and sometimes he
would want to take a break.
KING: Did you read, Susan, did you read, Susan Rentchler,
his instructions fully? RENTCHLER: Yes.
KING: You did?
RENTCHLER: We all did.
KING: All 120 pages?
RENTCHLER: That was the first thing we did as when we went
back is we read all of them.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Front to back.
KING: You were the reader? STEVENS: Yes.
KING: You read it to the group?
STEVENS: Yeah. Whatever we needed that needed to be
read, we read again and again.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We stopped and discussed certain parts
KING: I want to thank you for participating with us
tonight. I really appreciate you coming. You, two-thirds of
the jury. And they were Raymond Hultman, Ellie Cook, Paulina
Coccoz, Melissa Herard, Michael Stevens, Tammy Bolton, Susan
Rentchler and Susan Drake. And we thank you all very much.
KING: I congratulate you on your service.
KING: By the way, what did you make? What was the pay?
COOK: Oh, $14 a day.
COCCOZ: No, $15 a day.
COOK: $15 a day.
KING: And plus gas?
COOK: Only one way, 37 cents. I got that one right.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They got us there and didnt care
about how we got back.
KING: I knew you people would make money off of this. Thank
you all very much.
* * * * *
May I ask a few questions now?
So Eleanor Cook thought he was guilty of a couple
of things but ten days after the verdict she couldnt
even remember WHICH? Evidently those points were so serious
that she couldnt even recall them? Could it be administering
alcohol or conspiracy charges?
And Eleanor Cook had her personal beliefs from the very
beginning (and even pleaded to the judge not to be on
the jury because of that) but had to be reminded by others
that she should put those personal feelings aside and abide
by the law ONLY?
And she did have to put them aside after 120 pages of
all those instructions were repeatedly read to
her and the other members of the jury? Is THIS the way she thought
she was intimidated by others?
So instead of her personal, clearly negative beliefs
she tried to look for the proof of guilt and DIDNT FIND
And this makes her ten non-guilty verdicts all the more PRECIOUS
to us as she was hostile towards Michael Jackson all
through the trial?
She acquitted him in spite of the fact that the
prosecution did everything they could possibly do with the case?
And Tom Sneddon was at his best and did a wonderful job of going
through the case with a FINE TOOTHED COMB?
And Ray Hultman who LATER complained about the people who wouldnt
really look at all the evidence that was there OVER
HERE says that there wasnt enough evidence
to look into?
They had a closet full of evidence but there was NOTHING there
that was able to convince any of them of the alleged crimes?
They kept waiting and waiting
and the prosecution never
And even the PAJAMAS issue which everyone outside the courtroom
thought would weigh heavily did not affect
their decision? Actually many of them didnt even notice
it but saw that Michael was really in bad health? And therefore
they didnt pay all the tremendous attention to
those pajamas which they actually deserve? Evidently as a crucial
argument in favour of molestation?
And the book Eleanor Cook was writing then was not about her
terrible intimidators to whom the poor grandma had
to cave in but about the BONDING of this jury and
the NICE people she was with?
And she actually thinks it was a great experience?
And she did NOT say a word in that interview about indicting
America? On the contrary, she said I really like our country
and I like the fact that we do serve?
SO WHAT HAPPENED TO THESE JURORS and WHY DID THEY HAVE A SUDDEN
CHANGE OF HEART 2 MONTHS AFTER THE TRIAL?
I know it is difficult, but let us give the benefit of
the doubt to these jurors, disregard the publicity they were
seeking for their books and put the ever-present money thing
Could this sudden change in their attitude arise from them being
so overwhelmed by the media hysteria and accusations of being
prejudiced, biased, star-struck,
etc., that they cracked under the pressure and decided to side
with the majority after the trial?
Poor things, just imagine them sitting there, never reading
the press or watching TV and listening to the evidence ONLY
and never knowing the sinister media interpretations given to
what they hear or see in the courtroom. They were just fulfilling
their duty as best as they could fairly and accurately
only to find out later that this was NOT what was expected
It seems that the hatred Eleanor Cook spoke about two months
later in that TV interview was experienced by her not before
but after the verdict she indeed may have never been
in an atmosphere like that before (this I truly believe ) and
it shattered and confused her attitude to Michael to its very
One shouldnt also forget the interests of her granddaughter
who was the initiator of the book from the very beginning (as
her grandma said), who was her agent and who wasnt willing
to lose this chance of a lifetime for making a fortune out of
this story either
* * * * *
UPDATE: 1) Eleonor Cook was so hostile in her attitude towards
Michael that she allowed herself misconduct as a juror
she admitted to illegally bringing in a medical text
to show (evidently to other jurors) that Jackson fit the
books definition of a pedophile to a T. (http://www.bookrags.com//wiki/People_v._Jackson)
2) David found an interesting commentary on the above story
by Jonna M. Spilbor, an attorney and legal analyst on Kendalls
Court. She is also a frequent guest commentator on Court-TV
and other television news networks, where she has covered many
of the nations high-profile criminal trials. In the courtroom,
she has handled hundreds of cases as a criminal defense attorney.
Lets listen to her professional opinion:
When The Jury Has Spoken, But Wont Shut Up:
How the Jackson Jurors Book Deals Broke the Law, and How
We Can Avoid Having Jurors Undermine Their Own Verdicts
By JONNA M.SPILBOR
Sep 01, 2005
Less than two months after clearing Michael Jackson of all charges,
jurors Ray Hultman and Eleanor Cook have come forward publicly
to announce they made a mistake. In their words, they feel Jacksons
jury let a pedophile go.These surprising revelations
are of no legal significance whatsoever to Michael Jackson
double jeopardy prevents Jackson from being retried, no matter
what any or all of the jurors say post-verdict. Yet they are
significant for us all for they are destructive to the
integrity of our criminal justice system. There is something
very powerfully unsettling about a jury, or rogue members thereof,
undermining its own verdict.
The stakes are high when jurors whose verdict was Not
Guilty start to reverse themselves in public statements,
their comments degrade the sanctity of the criminal justice
system, and violate the paramount right of any defendant
the right to a fair trial. They also threaten the spirit of
the double-jeopardy clause; despite his acquittals, Jackson
may not be at risk in the courtroom anymore, but his guilt is
being debated, once again, in the court of public opinion.
Why Jury Duty and Dollar Signs Dont Mix
Today especially when it comes to celebrity trials,
being selected for jury duty is almost like winning the lottery.
It leads to lucrative book deals. Movie options. All-expenses-
paid interviews in exciting cities. The post-trial money-making
opportunities for celebrity-trial jurors abound. And its
all perfectly legal indeed, arguably protected by the
And, it isnt much of a leap from there to imagine an unscrupulous
publisher who, with a wink and nod, secretly convinces a juror
that his or her advance may include an extra zero should the
verdict be, say, guilty. Its been said that sex
sells, but acquittals? Eh, not so much.
Put the prospect of making a million bucks in front of a middle-class
juror (which most are) and you may create a monster.
And even if eleven jurors have perfect integrity (lets
not forget the admirable ten Jackson jurors who do NOT have
book deals), it wont matter much if the twelfth does not.
That twelfth could either hang the jury, or else hold out so
strongly for conviction, that he or she batters the rest into
The Case of the Michael Jackson Jurors: Why Did They Come
Looking at jurors Hultman and Cook, I asked myself this: Why
come forward now? For that matter, why come forward at all?
If they cannot change their verdict (and they cant), and
therefore cannot change the outcome of the case, why speak out?
The answer, sadly, requires little imagination. Obviously, something
happened in between what appeared to be an unwavering not
guilty verdict following several days of deliberation,
and August 8th, when they appeared together on a primetime
cable news show to announce their about-face.
What was it? Did these two people happen to show up at some
Jurors Anonymous meeting, only to learn the Step
Six is admitting when youve rendered the wrong decision?
Or, were they approached with the prospect of a book and movie
deal which (wink, wink) just might make them a whole lot richer
if there were (hint, hint) a controversy of sorts surrounding
I cant truly know these jurors motivations, but
I can hazard a guess based on the timing of events, and the
statements theyve publicly made. Im putting my money
on the book and movie deal because, simply, the revelations
of jurors Hultman and Cook coincide with the announcement of
their individual books deals and combined television project.
Each juror will be coming out with his or her own book, and
both, not surprisingly, will be published by the same publisher.
Hultmans is to be entitled, The Deliberator,
while the title of Cooks tell-all is to be, Guilty
As Sin, Free As A Bird. I imagine that books entitled
Yup, Like We Said, Still Not Guilty would be a lot
How The Jackson Jurors Broke the Law: They Were Supposed
to Wait Ninety Days
In California, Penal Code section 1122 states, in part:
After the jury has been sworn and before the peoples
opening address, the court shall instruct the jury
prior to, and within 90 days of, discharge, they shall
not request, accept, agree to accept, or discuss with any person
receiving or accepting, any payment or benefit in consideration
for supplying any information concerning the trial; and that
they shall promptly report to the court any incident within
their knowledge involving an attempt by any person to improperly
influence any member of the jury. (Emphasis added.)
This is Californias version, but most states, it turns
out, have similar statutes imposing moratoria, but not
forbidding jury book and movie deals.
Looking at the calendar, it has not been 90 days since Jacksons
jury was discharged. Clearly, the pair is in violation of the
statute a statute punishable by contempt of court.
But this is an unusual case: Most jurors would simply have complied
with the law, and waited the ninety days. Most publishers
attorneys would have been sure to advise them to do so. And
that leads to an important question: In a typical case, is a
ninety-day moratorium on juror book deals enough?
In my opinion, absolutely not.
An Ounce of Prevention: Why Not Do Away with the 90-Day Clause
of Penal Code §1122?
There is an easy fix. Its time to do away with statutes
that allow jurors to profit from their duty. Until then, a defendants
right to a fair and impartial jury of his peers continues to
be severely compromised. Forget the ninety-day limit. Lets
just say no to juror book and movie deals.
Even in a society as delightfully entrepreneurial as ours, there
are a few things in life that simply mustnt be for sale.
For example, judges cannot take gifts, and lawyers cannot represent
conflicting parties, no matter how that might negatively affect
a lawyers income stream. Nor can a lawyer publicize his
clients secrets to the world then take refuge in
a claim that he was only exercising his First Amendment rights.
Similarly, never should the rights of an accused be trumped
by the price tag one juror places on his or her sworn duty to
be fair and impartial.
An Acquittal Should Guarantee Freedom Not Being Tried
In the Press By the Same Jurors
The conduct of Michael Jacksons jurors is downright shameful.
In this country, an acquittal should guarantee ones freedom.
And I dont simply mean freedom from future prosecution,
I mean freedom from public ridicule, freedom from suspicion,
freedom from having to be berated publicly by the same individuals
who set you free
Thank you Helena for your generosity
sharing your investigation!