GMA First Juror to speak out

so we have 2 jurors who speak out now? Kaitlen and debbie?

I accidently made another thread before i saw this one, but my post belongs here then.: This is a piece of artical of Debbie who thinks Michael was an addict. :S

In a separate interview broadcast Wednesday, one of the jurors said there were contentious moments, including yelling and cajoling, during the two days of deliberations.

Debbie Franklin, 48, told ABC-TV's "Good Morning America" in the first juror interview so far that most of the jurors had decided on guilt Friday, the first day of deliberations.

But, she said "not everyone was convinced that Dr. Murray was solely responsible for Michael Jackson's death."

"Toward the end of the day, we finally took a vote," Franklin said. "It was not unanimous and we talked a little more about it."

The panel decided to think it over during a weekend break.

"It was stressful," said the mother of two, who is a paralegal. She said there was "yelling and we had to keep saying, `Nobody talk while this person is talking. Raise your hand if you have something to say."

The majority managed on Monday to convince all jurors that Murray was negligent and his mistakes led to Jackson death, Franklin said.

"He had addictions. He asked other doctors to do it (give him the operating room anesthetic propofol). They said no. He was looking for somebody to say yes. And Conrad Murray said yes," she said.

An Associated Press reporter approached Franklin for an interview Wednesday but she refused. She said all jurors had agreed not to speak to the media, but she did not explain why they made that agreement or why she spoke to ABC.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1083957.html
 
I also think after the trial that its ok we got a quilty verdict on IVM, i was one who believed murder 2 was better but i now think we may not have a quilty verdict there. And then he walked right if it was a hung jury?

So this is better.

Im confused that ivy says something different about murder 2 then walkingonthemoon says. What is it now?
 
I don't know why everybody thinks Murray is a "nice guy". What makes him so nice? The fact he tapes his patient while he is under influence? The fact he is shopping for a documentary when MJ's body is not even cold yet? The fact he's a pathological liar? He lied in the police interview and he lies in his documentary as well. So what does make him a "nice guy"?

And, And... blurted out very personal things about MJ in a strip club before he filled him up to the hilt with drugs BEFORE MJ died, then said, in a strip club, "I'm going to milk this situation for all I can". That is not what "nice guys" do!:mat: He came there with an agenda.
 
Imo it's not really right to speculate if the jury would have convicted Murray of murder 2 when the prosecution didn't go for a murder 2 case. We are assuming that the prosecution would have presented the exact same case for a murder 2 charge and that is not necessarily true. There's no way to know what they would have done differently if this had been a murder 2 trial?

I think one of the biggest obstacles to a murder 2 conviction would have been the "Murray is a nice guy" attitude - even if the level of his recklessness fits the implied intent definition of murder 2 legally, emotionally a murder 2 still feels different, so this may have been a mental block for the jury as long as they feel that Murray is otherwise a nice guy?

But again, we have no idea what else the prosecution could have presented if this was a murder 2 case, they could have easily destroyed the "nice guy" image if they wanted to, for example by putting Prince on the stand or telling the jury that as early as May 2009 Murray was using Michael for a documentary? I think if the jury had heard from/about either one, any possible personal sympathy for Murray would have been gone in an instant...
 
Back
Top