Two Jackson Jurors Change Their Minds: Too Little, Too Late

Two jurors from the Michael Jackson trial now regret their decisions to acquit the singer on the serious child-molestation charges that were brought by a young cancer patient.

Both jurors have pending book deals.

Both are dodging their responsibility for letting Jackson off the hook. If they thought he was guilty, then why didn't they fight tooth and nail for a guilty verdict?

Instead, one of the aspiring authors say that the other jurors should be "ashamed for letting a pedophile off the hook." They failed to convince the other jurors that they were right. Instead of confronting the other jurors, they said "oh well", voted 'not guilty' and went home. They copped out. The other jurors were honest about their votes on the verdict. These two jurors clearly were not.

This is also another illustration as to how badly the prosecution bungled the case. They should have stopped the parade of useless witnesses (especially the boy's mom) and gone after the testimony of the boy from the first case, plus any others that had made accusations in the last ten years. There are apparently quite a number of them that didn't make it into the headlines. The prosecution did not introduce enough doubt about Jackson into the jury deliberations for them to convict.

It should also be said that these two jurors will say just about anything to raise publicity about their upcoming books.

So the other jurors ought to feel mad at their two turncoat jurors for casting them in a bad light; there's more than enough blame to go in both directions. The entire verdict cannot be blamed on nine or ten others when it took twelve to reach a verdict.