Why did the Jury deliberate for so many hours over 7 days in 2005?

Slave To The Rhythm

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2014
Messages
417
Points
18
Location
Bavaria, Germany
First of all I believe in Michael‘s innocence and I read a lot about the trials even trial transcripts. For me it was obvious that it had to be a not guilty verdict.
But the jury deliberated for many hours over 7 days. So I wonder why it took them so long to reach a verdict. Is it normal? I‘m from Germany so I don‘t really know much about courts in America...

Thanks in advance!!
 
it was obvious to all of us who followed all the court updates BUT thats not the point.

Those 12 people took their job very seriously, as they should. Being on a jury is a very serious matter and must be conducted in a professional way.

There was a huge amount of evidence and being in that court day after day, was a very draining process. I know, I was there for just one day. Having to concentrate day in day out for months and months, would have been exhausting.

Some reasons it took that long
1. one or more of the jurors requested to see particular pieces of evidence. Maybe someone wasnt feeling well on a certain day or maybe someone wasnt sure or their notes and wanted to check what they remembered was correct.

2. Maybe a juror had a view about a piece of testimony on the day when the person spoke but on reflection has questions about it and wants to re read the court transcript of that day.

3. Maybe a juror just wants to speak with their fellow juror about a piece of evidence or testimony and the discussion takes longer than expected.

4. Maybe a juror requests a piece of evidence and its in storage and by the time it gets to the jury deliberation room, they dont have time that day to discuss it and so need to come back in the morning.

There a huge range of reasons why the jury would take so long to deliberate and come to a verdict
 
Okey thank you so much for your response! I agree with you on everything! The reasons you named are all possible and I believe one juror even said once that she read back some trial documents.

There were one thing that came to my mind beside of that.

Jurors don‘t need to argue their decision or explain it. So if a case is really ridiculous and every juror agrees with that a verdict should be reached earlier?
So could it be the case that they reached the verdict only after several days because one juror was convinced he did it? In Interviews two jurors later said they felt like he was guilty or at least he was guilty in other cases. But they changed their story a bit in different interviews so it’s difficult to know what they really feel like.
 
Last edited:
Slave To The Rhythm;4220361 said:
Okey thank you so much for your response! I agree with you on everything! The reasons you named are all possible and I believe one juror even said once that she read back some trial documents.

There were one thing that came to my mind beside of that.

Jurors don‘t need to argue their decision or explain it. So if a case is really ridiculous and every juror agrees with that a verdict should be reached earlier?
So could it be the case that they reached the verdict only after several days because one juror was convinced he did it? In Interviews two jurors later said they felt like he was guilty or at least he was guilty in other cases. But they changed their story a bit in different interviews so it’s difficult to know what’s true.


It took so long because there was no unanimous agreement, at least not to begin with.
If all had immediately said "guilty" or "not guilty" it would have been a very short deliberation process, but with several months of testimony and evidence it's no surprise it took them 7 days to reach a decision that the foreman could put before the court. It's just a shame that some of the jurors came out and were (still are) very critical of MJ and the decision the jury settled on. It's a shame they have openly said they think MJ is a paedo, just that there was not enough proof to convict in the Arvizo case. It taints the not guilty verdict somewhat and leaves room for doubt in the minds of many.
 
Because there was four months of evidence to go through which is ridiculously long for a trial. And each count,14 of them had to be gone through one by one. A verdict for each count
 
It is understandable given that two of the three jurors who wanted to initially convict had family members negotiate a book deal even before the jurors went for deliberation and they eventually did sell their stories to the media. The other jurors had a hard time convincing them not to vote guilty because they were hell adamant on voting guilty irrespective of the exonerating evidence. The other jurors had to go through the evidence to refute the 'doubt' those jurors who wanted to vote guilty claimed to have. Little did they know their real motive. At the time one of them wanted to still vote guilty even after all his arguments were refuted. It was so bad that the other jurors threatened to dismiss him. The reports were everywhere that a granddaughter of one of the jurors was already negotiating a book deal on behalf of her grandmother. The third juror was an Asian immigrant and a huge fan of Bill O'reily. She believed that although there was not enough evidence to prove he was guilty in Arviso case, he did something in 1993 because she agree with the none sense her idol Bill used to reiterate to his audience 'if jackson was innocent, he would not have settled in 1993' . The irony is we learnt later that O'riely himself had settled multiple lawsuits for sexual harassment.
 
It is understandable given that two of the three jurors who wanted to initially convict had family members negotiate a book deal even before the jurors went for deliberation and they eventually did sell their stories to the media. The other jurors had a hard time convincing them not to vote guilty because they were hell adamant on voting guilty irrespective of the exonerating evidence. The other jurors had to go through the evidence to refute the 'doubt' those jurors who wanted to vote guilty claimed to have. Little did they know their real motive. At the time one of them wanted to still vote guilty even after all his arguments were refuted. It was so bad that the other jurors threatened to dismiss him. The reports were everywhere that a granddaughter of one of the jurors was already negotiating a book deal on behalf of her grandmother. The third juror was an Asian immigrant and a huge fan of Bill O'reily. She believed that although there was not enough evidence to prove he was guilty in Arviso case, he did something in 1993 because she agree with the none sense her idol Bill used to reiterate to his audience 'if jackson was innocent, he would not have settled in 1993' . The irony is we learnt later that O'riely himself had settled multiple lawsuits for sexual harassment.

Best answer so far thank you so much! Was that the lady who said the mother snapped her finger at her?

It should be forbidden for jurors to negotiate book deals or make money with interviews. They should not be allowed to make money with a case in any ways!
 
If you heard the evidence, the testimony, even the 1993 case in and was proven to be joke (I think some believed the 1993 but not Garvin but it turn out to be good that 1993 came in because many liars were proven. Even Jordan Chandler's mother seem to help MJ more than the DA as even three reporters said) and some admiitted the lied on MJ and was paid by the Nat'l enquire. even the DA seen to give the impression this was more a witch hunt and did not really believe their own cas by that lame opening statement and ending statement and all in between ( sneddon put his hand to his face and shock his head when the mother spoke and the defense did not have to cross examine her. She gave herself away that it was a shame). ITMez did a great job pulling the truth out of these liars.
 
It is understandable given that two of the three jurors who wanted to initially convict had family members negotiate a book deal even before the jurors went for deliberation and they eventually did sell their stories to the media. The other jurors had a hard time convincing them not to vote guilty because they were hell adamant on voting guilty irrespective of the exonerating evidence. The other jurors had to go through the evidence to refute the 'doubt' those jurors who wanted to vote guilty claimed to have. Little did they know their real motive. At the time one of them wanted to still vote guilty even after all his arguments were refuted. It was so bad that the other jurors threatened to dismiss him. The reports were everywhere that a granddaughter of one of the jurors was already negotiating a book deal on behalf of her grandmother. The third juror was an Asian immigrant and a huge fan of Bill O'reily. She believed that although there was not enough evidence to prove he was guilty in Arviso case, he did something in 1993 because she agree with the none sense her idol Bill used to reiterate to his audience 'if jackson was innocent, he would not have settled in 1993' . The irony is we learnt later that O'riely himself had settled multiple lawsuits for sexual harassment.
"if Jackson was innocent, he would not have settled in 1993". That is the stupidest thing some people can make because people settle for all kinds of reason even when they are innocent. look at how Garvin's mother got that settlement from JC Penny. Clearly she lied on JC Penny but they gave her the settlement to get her out of their hair. There are people wo got settlements from accidents and there is not a thing wrong with them. They go to the doctor few times to make it look good just like someone who is really hurt. So again, people settle who are innocent and settlements DO NOT stop the criminal process (settlement or not) if someone is guilty. No, the question is if your kid was really molested, why take the money when you can have the criminal (lets see who is telling the truth) and then the civil case (and these chandlers tried to sue MJ again for money when MJ did the interview with Diane Sawyer). See all of this and more points to MJ's innocence. I will continue to say that MJ was treated like a serial Killer and investigated far worst than the average person who is accused of a crime like this and they found nothing but liars, conartists, and people who changed their stories like underwear.
 
Yes we know the nonsense about settlements, but many people do not. The media reported the settlement for many years as though it was MJ's way of avoiding going to jail. Of course that is not true but when a lie is told long enough people start to believe it. Even now in 2019 I almost guarantee that in the comments of any MJ story online you will see a poster say that MJ's guilty because he paid that settlement.

While there were good strategic reasons to pay the settlement in 1993 it was a terrible PR move. Unfortunately MJ himself never properly explained the reasons (he was banned from talking about it) and nobody else did on his behalf. In the same way the Chandlers avoided talking about the settlement by Ray Chandler publishing a book instead of Evan Chandler, MJ could have easily had somebody who could relay or 'leak' his side of the story to the press. Sadly MJ didn't choose that option.
 
I understand the discussion about the settlement but that’s something we all are aware of.

So let‘s go back to the topic of why the jurors deliberated so long
 
As complex the accusations were.. the way the prosecution twined them a way to make it hard to give Michael any hope of a full vindication - this would only make it very hard for a fast verdict..

but even though the prosecution played a good (evil) game l, Michael was still 100% cleared of all allegations
 
Another issue was the last minute changes to the alcohol charges. Until the very last minute before the jurors went to deliberation, the alcohol charges were linked to the molestation, mj was charged with giving alcohol to a minor to facilitate the sexual abuse which was a felony in California. By the end of the trial, when it was very clear that the prosecution did not prove their case, they asked the judge to instruct the jurors that they could still vote guilty on the alcohol charges even if they believed MJ did not molest Gavin, and the judge gladly did so against the defence protests.

Why was that problematic? On top of the contradicting testimony about the molestation, the jurors heard testimony that the boys used to drink before they even knew MJ. They also heard testimony from Neverland employees that the boys were first caught drinking in their mother's company when MJ was away in Florida. So, the whole story about them not knowing what alcohol was before mj allegedly introduced it to them was proved a lie. The media pundits at the time claimed that MJ could still be found liable on the ground that he is the owner of the premises where minors had access to alcohol. That could have been true if it was a civil trial not a criminal one, but the media and the prosecutors were counting on a very liberal interpretation of the law. The aim of the applicable law is to hold a violator liable if such violator had an intent to provide alcohol to a minor which the prosecutors could not prove. The prosecutors became so desperate to get MJ on anything, and the judge did grant them their wish. The jurors were left with the original ten counts plus the newly added alcohol-charges. They had to examine the alcohol charges from a totally different perspective which also took time. They dismissed everything because unlike the prosecutors and the judge, the jurors mission was not to get mj on anything, they were to examine the evidence and use common sense in weighing the evidence. Once they came to believe that there was no evidence to support the molestation claims nor the original alcohol charges, they wisely did not held MJ liable for the kid drinking alcohol in his mother's company.
 
I actually think it was better for Michael that the jury did take a few days to make their decisions. It showed that they carefully considered all the evidence presented and ultimately decided Michael was not guilty. If they had returned their verdict after just a day of two, some people would have said they did not study all the evidence and testimonies and that they returned a not guilty verdict because Michael was a celebrity. Of course there are still people who say Michael should have been found guilty, but they can't say the jury did not study the evidence.
 
I actually think it was better for Michael that the jury did take a few days to make their decisions. It showed that they carefully considered all the evidence presented and ultimately decided Michael was not guilty. If they had returned their verdict after just a day of two, some people would have said they did not study all the evidence and testimonies and that they returned a not guilty verdict because Michael was a celebrity. Of course there are still people who say Michael should have been found guilty, but they can't say the jury did not study the evidence.
I agree. And the few people who do say MJ should have been found guilty CAN NOT give you anything evidence or logic debate to backup their believes. We do NOT make people out to be guilty based on bias/bigot views, we are suppose to go by the FACTS and there were PLENTY of FACTS that backed MJ and showed this was a LIE on MJ. Michael was given no special treatment (people who are on trial for this kind of crime-and the evidence back that these people did it along with some people who admitted they did it- got treated better than Michael.
 
Agree. Those who believe MJ is guilty almost always rely only on inaccurate tabloid reports.

Them: They found DNA evidence! Me: No they didn't.
Them: He had inappropriate images of children! Me: No he didn't.
Them: He got Gavin drunk on Jesus Juice!Me: No he didn't.
Them: He paid a family off to avoid going to jail. Me: No he didn't.
Them: He held them captive! Me: No he didn't.
Them: There was a ton of evidence that he was guilty! Me: no there wasn't.
Them: Everybody knows he's guilty. Me: I give up!


It gets boring after all these years.
 
You cant reason with stupidity. Mj is the original victim of fake news.the media have done a good job brainwashing the public.keep pushing lies down everyones throats for long enough and eventually they become facts
 
Back
Top