Skip to content

What happened to some jurors after the 2005 trial?

June 16, 2010

My initial desire was not to have anything to do with the nonsense Arvizo case. But my correspondent David provided so much food for thought about the jurors who suddenly started doubting 2 months after the 2005 trial, that I really got stuck in that subject. It was interesting to see why some jurors ‘changed their minds’.

Let’s see what David has found – he starts with August 2005:

Eleanor Cook and Ray Hultman with Rita Cosby of MSNBC. Associated Press Photo

“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.

In the second link, Ray Hultman announces in September 2005 that he’s 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 MJ’s former publicist Bob Jones) plagiarized one of Maureen Orth’s slanderous articles on MJ in Vanity Fair:

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 Jordie’s 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 MJ’s staunchest supporters after the trial, and even defended him in Aphrodite Jones’ MJ documentary. I’m sure he lost his book deal for refusing to lie and say that MJ was guilty!

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”:

I think this is some info that would be valuable to MJ fans, because I’ve seen MJ haters use Ray & Eleanor’s 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 didn’t 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 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 didn’t understand’, ‘I didn’t know’, ‘I was too old’…

R. Cosby: How did the foreman [Paul Rodriguez] threaten you?

Cook: If I don’t change my mind, or go with the group, or be more understanding, he’ll have to notify the bailiff, the bailiff will notify the judge, and the judge will have me removed….

R.Cosby: How angry were you at the way you were treated by other jurors?

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 wasn’t 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, you’ve done right, your conscience is clear, you’re a strong lady and you can handle it, you can handle them.

R.Cosby: But you didn’t?

Cook: I didn’t. I caved in.

Here is the video of their interview:


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 (source:

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 MSNBC’s Rita Cosby that Michael was ‘guilty’ and they were coerced into ‘caving in’. The names of the jurors are COOK and HULTMAN.


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 we’ll talk to them on LARRY KING LIVE next. Don’t go away.

(Commercial break)

KING: We have had lots of guests on this program. And sometimes in various parts of the country and world. I don’t think we ever had on eight on together in the room. Maybe in political season. Let’s 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 I’ve ever done it and what a way to start, I would say. When I got the summons in the mail, I didn’t quite know it was for the Jackson trial, and so I’m 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 jury.

KING: Did you want to be on the jury?

STEVENS: I didn’t 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.

KING: Why?

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 wasn’t sure.

KING: Did you like the experience of serving?

BOLTON: And my heart dropped.

KING: Did you like it?

BOLTON: It’s definitely an amazing experience, I’d have to say.

KING: Wouldn’t 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 the mistake.

KING: You got called.

HULTMAN: I got called.

KING: Did you like or not like the experience?

HULTMAN: Well, actually, I’m kind of with Tammy. I never expected that I would actually be selected for the jury. I’ve been summoned a few times before, but I’ve 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 the back.

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, that’s part of jury duty. Being bored, right? Paulina Coccoz.


KING: What was it like for you?

COCCOZ: I thought it was great. My first time as well. I couldn’t 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 we’re used to. Change of diets. There was a lot of things involved. But great experience. Loved it.

KING: Wouldn’t 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. I’m retired, so it wasn’t a real hardship on my part.

KING: Wouldn’t want to do it again, though?

RENTCHLER: I think I have served my duty for quite a while.

KING: Ellie Cook, you’re writing a book about this, right?


KING: And you were the one who got ticked off by the mother, right?

COOK: Oh, big time. Big time.

KING: I’ll 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…

KING: Changing?

DRAKE: Changing. Yes.

KING: How so?

DRAKE: Well, I’m 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 world’s eyes upon us. And…

KING: This was more important to you than your own…

DRAKE: Absolutely. Absolutely.

KING: … 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: Wasn’t that hard to do?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was hard. Very hard.



STEVENS: How can you not like go into a supermarket, you know, and…

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 didn’t discuss it with her.

HULTMAN: … 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 couldn’t. And that was difficult.

KING: So none of you ever turned on CNN or any of the other networks. Didn’t watch news?

RENTCHLER: I had to stop watching news, because, you know, it was everywhere.

KING: It could come up at any time.

RENTCHLER: So I just stopped — I stopped watching and I — I’m a big news watcher. So.

KING: Let me get a — let me get a break and we’ll come back with more of three quarters of the Jackson jury. Don’t go away.

(Begin video clip)

TOM SNEDDON, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY DA: Obviously, we’re disappointed in the verdict, but we work every day in a system of justice. We believe in the system of justice. And I’ve been a prosecutor for 37 years. In 37 years, I have never quarreled with a jury’s verdict. And I’m not going to start today.

(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?

COOK: Yes.

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. We’re not three- quarters. He’ll never be back. Take a good look at him. You don’t 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 can’t 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 couldn’t 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 case.

COOK: Exactly.

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.



KING: 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 no trial.

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 I’m going for guilty here? In your mind, going home at night?

BOLTON: I don’t 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 can’t say there was anything that convinced me to say guilty ever throughout the whole trial.

KING: What was the prosecution’s weakness, Raymond?

HULTMAN: I think…

KING: What didn’t 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 don’t 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 didn’t prove it in this case.

HULTMAN: That’s 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 didn’t. And then you could use that as you would…

KING: And you didn’t see that as a pattern.

HULTMAN: I saw it as a pattern.

KING: But…

HULTMAN: But there wasn’t enough evidence to prove he had molested the accuser in this case.

KING: Paulina, why do you think he’s 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 didn’t work on the settlement thing?

COCCOZ: Well, in this case, you know.

KING: It didn’t work?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It didn’t work for us, no.


COCCOZ: He’s 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 you’ve say no to that?


KING: You can divorce the fact that Michael Jackson was a superstar?

HULTMAN: Absolutely.

KING: Was that easy to do?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In that courtroom, he didn’t 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: 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: Michael’s mother.

COOK: Michael’s 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?


KING: We’ll ask about that. We’ll be right back. With two- thirds of the jury. Right after this.

(Begin video clip)

THOMAS MESEREAU, MICHAEL JACKSON’S ATTORNEY: You never know what a jury is going to do, you don’t know those 12 people. They’re not personal friends of yours. You don’t 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 what’s right. (End video clip)

KING: Not the full jury but what the hell. I ain’t covered by the law. Only two-thirds. What it you make since you couldn’t read the papers or anything, or know about any criticism, what did you make of, Michael, of the pajamas, wearing pajamas?

STEVENS: I didn’t 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 there’s a big, huge podium right there. So, I couldn’t really see.

KING: Who could see?


KING: What did you think?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I didn’t 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 he’s 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 heavily.


HULTMAN: I didn’t even know he had the pajamas on.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We didn’t 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 didn’t come straight to court after that…

KING: Susan, when you saw him, you didn’t think it was strange?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Honestly, I didn’t…

KING: Ah, the pundits.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I didn’t tell anybody else, see. We’re not allowed to speak to them. None of them knew. I knew he had jammies on.

KING: But you couldn’t tell him, did you see he has pajamas?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, I didn’t talk to him about any of that.

KING: How did your families handle all this? How did your husband, Paulina, deal with you on this case? Didn’t 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 my eggs.


COCCOZ: I took hard-boiled eggs every day. That was my meal, you know. He was wonderful.

KING: Do you tend to bond?



KING: As a group?


KING: Were you going to write a book as a group?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That’s a good thought.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah, that’s a good thought.

KING: Might you do it?


KING: Are you going to write a separate book?

COOK: Yes, I’m writing a book. I’m 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 don’t know that I need to write a book, as my granddaughter has said from the beginning, write a book. And I’m — what I’m really writing about is the bonding of this jury and the nice people I’m with. Because I’ve said that’s 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 I’m concerned. And I think she set her son up. I think she’s probably the poorest excuse for a mother I’ve 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 don’t think she’s going to get an award for motherhood, but I just wanted… (CROSSTALK)

RENTCHLER: I feel sorry for them.

HERARD: I feel sorry for (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 it’s really hard when she is really staring the jury down…


HULTMAN: … 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 the credibility.

KING: What, Tammy, was the strongest aspect of the prosecution’s case? What to you had some weight?

HERARD: The phone records.

BOLTON: There you go.


KING: The phone records?

BOLTON: Probably. No, because those didn’t 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 wasn’t nice. Phone records, that was a very boring, very boring thing.

KING: There is a lot of boredom in the trial, isn’t there?




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.


KING: Let me take a break and we’ll be back with more of the jury. Don’t go away.

(Commercial break)

KING: There were reports that Paulina and Ellie argued at times about guilty or not guilty. Did you ever?

COOK: I don’t 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, we’re 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 of, yes.

KING: Why did you give in? Why didn’t you hold your ground?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There was no proof.

COCCOZ: She couldn’t 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 couldn’t 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 that’s 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 wasn’t planned or anything. And I had a lot of fun.

KING: Did any of you think of going? Susan, did you want to go?

DRAKE: I didn’t know of it.

KING: Would you have gone?

DRAKE: I’m 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 wasn’t a personal invitation, no.

KING: They just said, there’s 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 you’re 79 years old, I’m 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 wouldn’t 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 wasn’t 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, let’s 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?


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.



KING: You were the reader?


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 of…

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 didn’t care about how we got back.

KING: I knew you people would make money off of this. Thank you all very much.


*   *   *

May I focus on several points and ask a couple of questions now?

  • So Eleanor Cook ‘thought he was guilty of a couple of things’ but ten days after the verdict she couldn’t even remember which? Evidently those points were so serious that she couldn’t even recall them? Could it be the 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 didn’t find any?
  • 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, right?
  • Because she acquitted him in spite of her personal beliefs and despite 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 wouldn’t ‘really look at all the evidence that was there’ at that time was saying that ‘there wasn’t enough evidence’ to look into?
  • They had a closet full of evidence but there was still nothing there that was able to convince any of them of the alleged crimes. They kept waiting and waiting… and the prosecution never provided it?
  • And even the pajamas issue which everyone outside the courtroom thought ‘would weigh heavily’ did not affect their decision? Actually many of them didn’t even notice it but instead saw that Michael was really in bad health, right? And therefore they didn’t pay all the tremendous attention to those pajamas. By the way was it an argument in favour of ‘molestation’ or what?
  • And the book Eleanor Cook was writing then was not about her terrible ‘intimidators to whom the poor grandma had to cave in’, but it was “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’?

And my last question is:

  • So what happened to these jurors and why did they have a sudden change of heart two months after the trial?

I know it is difficult to walk in their shoes but  let us still try to. Let us disregard the publicity they were seeking for their books and put even the ever-present money thing aside and look a little further.

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 of them…

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 her very foundation.

One shouldn’t 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 wasn’t willing to lose this chance of a lifetime for making a fortune out of this story either.

Human nature, you know. Michael wrote a song about it.

*   *   *


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 book’s definition of a pedophile to a T.” (

2) David found an interesting commentary on the above story by  Jonna M. Spilbor, an attorney and legal analyst on “Kendall’s Court”. She is also a frequent guest commentator on Court-TV and other television news networks, where she has covered many of the nation’s high-profile criminal trials. In the courtroom, she has handled hundreds of cases as a criminal defense attorney.

Let’s listen to her professional opinion:

When The Jury Has Spoken, But Won’t Shut Up:
How the Jackson Jurors’ Book Deals Broke the Law, and How We Can Avoid Having Jurors Undermine Their Own Verdicts


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 Jackson’s 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 Don’t 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 it’s all perfectly legal – indeed, arguably protected by the First Amendment.

And, it isn’t 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. It’s 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 (let’s not forget the admirable ten Jackson jurors who do NOT have book deals), it won’t 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 submission.

The Case of the Michael Jackson Jurors: Why Did They Come Forward Now?

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 can’t), 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 you’ve 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 the verdict?

I can’t truly know these jurors’ motivations, but I can hazard a guess based on the timing of events, and the statements they’ve publicly made. I’m 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. Hultman’s is to be entitled, “The Deliberator”, while the title of Cook’s 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 less saleable.

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 people’s opening address, the court shall instruct the jury…that 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 California’s 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 Jackson’s 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. It’s time to do away with statutes that allow jurors to profit from their duty. Until then, a defendant’s right to a fair and impartial jury of his peers continues to be severely compromised. Forget the ninety-day limit. Let’s 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 mustn’t be for sale. For example, judges cannot take gifts, and lawyers cannot represent conflicting parties, no matter how that might negatively affect a lawyer’s income stream. Nor can a lawyer publicize his client’s 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 Jackson’s jurors is downright shameful. In this country, an acquittal should guarantee one’s freedom. And I don’t 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…

Updated January 27, 2014

Three and a half years have passed but the public continues to fall into the same traps of Michael’s haters as before. The same questions are asked,  and again and again you have to go over one and the same thing.

Okay, if Michael’s haters cannot stop and continue to rehash the old lies let us listen to the jurors of the 2005 trial once again and see what the same Eleonor Cook  said soon after the trial.

Below is a Good Morning America video where the jurors are asked if there are any second thoughts and Eleonor Cook vigorously shakes her head like all others and says she doesn’t have any. 

Watch it once again, look at her face, at her easiness and the way she laughs and agrees with everyone, and this will answer all your questions:

Diane Sawyer:  “First question, second thoughts – anybody here?”   

All jurors (shaking their heads): “No second thoughts”

(at 2:10 and further):

75 Comments leave one →
  1. David permalink
    June 16, 2010 11:34 pm

    Hey, here is an article that you should include in your post. It’s written by a TRULY OBJECTIVE legal analyst, who wrote several columns during MJ’s trial putting Sneddon on blast for his malicious prosecution!

    In this article, she criticizes the two jurors who accepted blood money to write books saying MJ was guilty, and also criticizes the publishers for their dishonesty as well. (Also, they didn’t even wait the full 90 days, as they are required to do by law.)

    You should include it in your post!

    Also, I gave this same info to another MJ blog, and they also made a new post about it. So that makes 2 MJ blogs that have used my research. I’m glad my hard work isn’t being done in vain! LOL!


  2. skeptikos permalink
    June 17, 2010 2:12 am

    We do live in a world of Stories where MONEY talks loud and clear.

    Another example:


  3. David permalink
    June 17, 2010 3:43 am

    Just to piggyback on what I wrote earlier, here is another article from Jonna Spilbor, who covered MJ in a completely professional way during the trial. After reading all of her columns, I can’t tell if she is or isn’t a fan, which is how it should be!

    This article bashes Amber Frey, who was Scott Peterson’s mistress before he murdered his wife & unborn child. She signed a lucrative book deal before testifying in court, and that book deal may have swayed her testimony because she OBVIOUSLY stood to profit from a guilty conviction. The defense didn’t know about it, and that hurt their ability to effectively cross-examine her. The jurors didn’t know about it either. The following quote jumped out at me:

    “At the very least, if a witness stands to profit from a guilty verdict, the jury ought to consider that in weighing the witness’ credibility. Think about it. What would the book have been called had Peterson been acquitted? Witness for the Side that Can Get Me the Best Movie Deal?”

    That excerpt certainly applies to all of the 1108 witnesses that testified against MJ, as they all would have been highly compensated for their stories to contribute to the numerous tell-all books, made for TV movies, etc. that would have followed had MJ been convicted.


  4. Lynette permalink
    June 17, 2010 3:56 am

    More footage of Elllie Cook on Tom Mesereau’s you tube channel. The jurors interview is the Good Morning America interview the next morning. Afew of them were flown to New York and interviewed by Diane Sawyer. Watch what Ellie Cook has to say in this one.


  5. Suzy permalink
    June 17, 2010 6:41 am

    Thank you Helena, as always.

    Well, Hultman says here as well that he thought MJ was a predator, only it wasn’t proven in this case. The fact he was accused twice of this crime, he saw it as “a pattern” (apparently not looking deeper into that first accusation then, because accusation alone doesn’t make a pattern, especially when you are as rich as MS and a target of vultures.)

    Cook too was arguing with other jurors for a guilty verdict, but she admits here that was based on some “personal beliefs” of hers rather than evidence.

    “COOK: That was hard not to. And that’s 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.”

    So did she actually have some prejudice against MJ? To me it sounds like….

    “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?”

    Yes, this is what I think too. Extracts from Charles Thomson’s recent article:

    “When the jury delivered 14 ‘not guilty’ verdicts, the media was ‘humiliated’, Mesereau said in a subsequent interview. Media analyst Tim Rutten later commented, “So what happened when Jackson was acquitted on all counts? Red faces? Second thoughts? A little soul-searching, perhaps? Maybe one expression of regret for the rush to judgment? Naaawww. The reaction, instead, was rage liberally laced with contempt and the odd puzzled expression. Its targets were the jurors… Hell hath no fury like a cable anchor held up for scorn.”

    “Within minutes of the announcement, Nancy Grace appeared on CourtTV to allege that jurors had been seduced by Jackson’s fame and bizarrely claim that the prosecution’s only weak link had been Janet Arvizo.”

    “In Britain’s Sun newspaper, celebrity rent-a-gob and talking head extraordinaire Jane Moore penned an article titled ‘If the jury agree Janet Arvizo is a bad mum (and she IS)… How did they let Jackson off?’ It began: “Michael Jackson is innocent. Justice has been done. Or so the loony tunes gathered outside the courthouse would have us believe.” She went on to question the jurors’ mental capacity and dismiss the American legal system as ‘half-baked’.”

    “Over on Fox News, Wendy Murphy branded Jackson ‘the Teflon molester’ and said that the jurors needed IQ tests.”

    “Grace later stated that Jackson was ‘not guilty by reason of celebrity’ and was seen attempting to hound jury foreman Paul Rodriguez into saying he believed Jackson had molested children. One of Grace’s guests, psychoanalyst Bethany Marshall, leveled personal attacks towards one female juror, saying, “This is a woman who has no life.””

    Not watching the media coverage, the jurors were probably shocked by the negative, even hostile media and “pundit” reaction to their verdict and I can see how that (along with direct pressure from the media to make them say they believed he was guilty) can make the more weak-minded to start “regretting” the verdict and excuse themselves by saying “I was against it.” But we cannot put aside the book factor either. Is it a coincidence that those who got a book deal were the ones who said they thought he was guilty of “some things”? Those who had something positive to say about MJ had a hard time getting book deals, ask Aphrodite Jones. Even Thomas Mesereau got all book-offeres revoked when it turned out he wasn’t gonna throw dirt on MJ.

    And like you pointed out, Cook was planning to write a book from the beginning. And any book by a juror would be a lot more interesting in the case of a guilty verdict. So apart from her “personal beliefs” this might have been another reason for her to push for a guilty verdict….

    I think there should be a law against jurors writing books on a case.


  6. David permalink
    June 17, 2010 7:28 am

    @ Suzy:

    You’re not the only one who thinks it should be illegal for jurors to get book deals! Read my earlier comments on this post with the links to those columns by legal analyst Jonna Spilbor, if you haven’t done so already! She makes some valid points!


  7. Suzy permalink
    June 17, 2010 8:21 am

    David, thank you, I will check that out.


  8. Susan permalink
    June 17, 2010 5:51 pm

    Hey David;

    Thanks for all your hard work! Really appreciate the time and effort you are bringing to educate. Facts and the truth – hopefully more will see the light. Thank you.


  9. June 17, 2010 7:14 pm

    David, thank you for the article about the jury – it is indeed great. I always said each Michael Jackson’s supporter should be a bit of a legal expert and this is another proof of it. I will surely use the article in the post for everyone to know.


  10. June 17, 2010 9:43 pm

    Suzy, I just want to point out that both Hultman and Cook did voice their doubt during the deliberations but they didn’t find any proof to support their doubts – AND THIS IS THE MAIN THING HERE.

    What they felt is of no importance – a feeling or emotion towards someone IS a prejudice and cannot be considered as proof of anyone’s guilt. That is why the other jurors repeatedly drew Eleonor Cook back from her emotions into the field of reason only and asked her to analyze the evidence, not her feelings. Later she would speak about this absolutely correct procedure as a sort of intimidation – but then she managed to put aside her emotions and look into the evidence only. We know of the result – both Hultman and Cook DID NOT FIND ANYTHING as both of them admitted.

    THIS IS A TOP IMPORTANT FACTOR. There was NO evidence to support those ‘feelings’ and that is why Eleanor Cook VOLUNTARILY (though half-heartedly) voted for non-guilty verdicts – and not one, but fourteen of them!

    What happened two months later was a different story – either her feelings got over her reason once again or being 79 years old she forgot that there had been no evidence or they could not withstand the media hysteria pointed at them this time or the money interests got the upper hand or ALL these factors played their part – this we cannot know for sure.

    But what we do know is that these jurors LIED when they (or at least Hultman) said among other lies that there had been evidence of guilt – WHILE THERE HAD BEEN NONE.


  11. lynande51 permalink
    June 28, 2010 10:17 pm

    I have been reading Diane Dimonds book to find information in there as well. At the end of her book she writes about the jury and the fact that they could not find evidence of guilt in the testimony of the Neverland Five. I will quote the book starting on page 310 paragraph 2:
    “At the juror’s news conference, beamed worldwide, and during various interviews they granted for the next few days, members of the panel tried to explain their mind-set and what went on inside the deliberation room.
    In the beginning there had been three members of the panel who were prepared to vote guilty because they thought Michael Jackson likely was a predator. They were the widow Eleanor Cook; juror number one, Raymond Hultman, a sixty-two -year-old civil engineer; and Katrina Carls, an Asian- American who was married to a local television reporter.
    “I felt the Michael Jackson probably has molested boys,” the silver haired Hultman said.” I cannot believe that… this man could sleep in the same bedroom for 365 straight days and not do something more than just watch television and eat popcorn. I mean that doesn’t make sense to me.”
    During an interview with Court TV, Hultman told me he simply did not believe any of the testimony from three key defense witnesses who testified that as boys they had repeatedly slept with Jackson but nothing inappropriate had ever happened.
    “I had a hard time accepting Macaulay Culkin’s testimony,” Hultman said, “as I did Wade Robsons and Brett Barnes’s. Barnes particularly [because] he was the witness whose sister claimed that he had slept 365 days in a row with Michael Jackson, and I just have a hard time accepting that.” Hultman’s only explanation to me was that in deliberations other jurors offered “other explanations for things that he hadn’t thought about and he interpreted that as “reasonable doubt.”
    Rodriguez had a warning for the just acquitted Jackson “we would hope, first of all, that he doesn’t sleep with children anymore and that he learns that they have to stay with their families or stay in the guest rooms [at Neverland] or the houses or whatever they’re called down there. He just has to be careful how we conduct since all around children.”
    For a panel that had just exonerated Michael Jackson it was odd to hear some jurors admit the part of the prosecution’s case ring true. A few of them said that they believed Jason Francia was sincere when he testified. Several jurors indicated they were particularly taken with the testimony of former Neverland housekeeper Kiki Fournier and the ex house Manager Jesus Salas. The gist of those two witnesses testimony was decidedly negative to Michael Jackson.
    Fournier who had worked at Neverland off and on for more than a decade likened the ranch to Pinocchio’s Paradise Island where boys were allowed to run amok and then collapse in a heap in the wee hours of morning. He told the jurors she would not allow her own children to spend time there.
    Salas who worked at the property even before Jackson bought it in the 1988 testified that he held the Arvizo family escape Neverland ranch in the middle of the night after the mother became frantic to leave. Salas also spoke of delivering alcohol to the master bedroom while Jackson entertained young boys and, he said, during the time the alleged molestation was occurring Michael Jackson was completely intoxicated “four or more times a week.” Salas said the staff worried about the well-being of Jackson’s own three children
    A few jurors mentioned comedian Azja Pryor as another “believable” witness. She had been called by the defense but she gave a decidedly sympathetic view of the boy and his family. For example Pryor said none of the ARVIZOS ever asked her for money and that didn’t square with the defense team’s description of the family as “grifters”.
    Some jurors also knowledge that they found “disturbing” the considerable amount of pornographic materials seized from Jacksons bedroom, the room he shared with this prepubescent male friends. Once inside the deliberation room, panelists admitted they had leafed through some of the collection, including at least two coffee table picture books featuring young nude boys sprawled in provocative poses and homoerotic books, which featured young adult males engaged in sex acts. There was also an assortment of vintage nudist magazines, many depicting children with adults. One juror called the collection “disgusting but not against the law”.
    Dan Whitcomb from Reuters News service asked the question on so many reporters’ minds at a news conference on verdict day. “We heard a tremendous amount of testimony about pornography found in Mr. Jackson’s room, all the explicit material, the alcohol, the sleeping with boy’s… I’m wondering if any of you were disturbed by any of that, if that gave you pause, if that factored into the deliberations, and how you feel about it at this point?’
    “It doesn’t prove the charges,” said foreman Rodriguez, the man who was chosen to lead the others and reaching verdicts. “Those are adult magazines anyone can own them. the allegations of past abuse were considered credible to some extent. There are not too many grown men we know would sleep with children. But we had two based on the evidence presented to us and there were a lot of things lacking.”
    Ray Hultman agreed.”We were required to look at some very specific counts in this case, specific charges, and one of those charges was not that Michael Jackson was guilty of sleeping with boys or that he was guilty of having adult material in his home. Those weren’t the charges in the case.”
    Several jurors told the media that they couldn’t figure out the evidence of conspiracy the state had presented. In fact, some believed that Jackson associates, the un-indicted co conspirators jurors, may have actually tried to help protect the Arvizo family from marauding media in the post-Bashir atmosphere. The jurors also didn’t understand why the prosecution called Jackson’s ex wife Debbie Rowe as a witness. She declared Jackson a wonderful father and the co-conspirators “opportunistic vultures” would probably cause a crisis with the Arvizo family without Jackson’s knowledge or consent____ exactly the point defense team had repeatedly put forth.
    And finally all the jurors stressed that their verdict was not a case of innocent- by- reason- of -celebrity. They said they had all agreed early in the deliberations to view Michael Jackson as “just another guy” and his mega celebrity to influence their decision in any way. Juror number three, Susan Drake, the horsewoman from Santa Ynez, with no children declared, “I went in with the conviction to convict a celebrity.
    Drake would later tell New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser that she had been totally convinced that Michael Jackson was blameless. “I’m adamant” she was quoted as saying “I think he’s not guilty and I think he’s innocent.”
    Within hours of the verdict six of Drakes fellow jurors five from the regular panel and one alternate would become celebrities in their own right. By that evening they had settled into the luxury seats of a private Learjet and were headed to an early morning interview on ABC’s Good Morning America. While in New York the jurors appeared on other networks as well, including NBC, CBS, and Court TV.
    Upon returning to California eight of the jurors traveled to Los Angeles to appear on CNN’s Larry king Live to explain again how they had come to reach their decision.
    Juror number can Pauline Coccoz made a special appearance at a Jackson family party just a few miles from Neverland, at the Chumash Casino, on June 17. It was billed as a “celebration of thanks” and Coccoz was quoted as saying that when she arrived at the party, “they were playing ‘beat it’ and I almost started to cry.”
    So that was the united, public face of the jury. Privately however there had been dissension__ at least according to juror number five, the widow with the bouffant gray hair do. Toward the end of the trial was revealed that 79 year old Eleanor Cook, who had a habit of winking at certain reporters on the gallery every morning, including me, already had a book deal in the works. After the verdict she would tell people that there were three diehard Michael Jackson fans on the jury who strong armed her (and other jurors) into voting not guilty.
    Cook did not reveal the identity of these three jurors or what they did to “strong arm” her into a verdict. But she said the trio of jurors referred to the defendant during deliberations as “My Michael…” as in “No, My Michael wouldn’t ever do that.” Cook also claimed that the three tried to have her tossed off the panel when she refused to agree with their point of view, but maintained that Judge Melville refuse to remove her. Any such jury request to the judge would have to have been part of the official court record, yet there is nothing and all the documents released after the trial by Judge Melville to backup Mrs. Cook’s claim. Court did not explain why she ultimately agreed to vote to acquit if that was not her intention. Those details, she said, would be divulged in her book.
    And there was another controversy surrounding Eleanor Cook that can now be revealed. In early May after Wade Robson and Brett Barnes had been called to as the stand on the opening day of the defense case juror number five when shopping after court. She went to local JC Penney store on South Broadway and Stowell Avenue in Santa Maria just a few blocks from the courthouse. There she sought out her pal Adrian McManus who had worked at the store for many years. The older woman had revealed to the court during jury selection that she knew the former Neverland maid, but she claimed that they were not close, only that she had once bought some perfume from McManus. In reality they had a closer relationship then Cook let on. Adrian McManus said she and the widow would take drives together, eat a meal on occasion, and once Cook had counseled her about an attorney she might want to hire.
    Eleanor Cook should never have been anywhere near a witness in a case on which she was currently sitting in judgment___ but there she was talking openly to McManus. As law enforcement later learned, Cook took McManus aside in the store, in full view of others, and praised her friend for doing well when she had testified for the prosecution on April 7 and 8.
    In an interview, McManus later revealed that during this discussion at JCPenney, Eleanor Cook spoke to her about her thoughts as Robson and Barnes were testifying. Cook allegedly said she wrote in her jurors notebook as the two men spoke “liars, liars, liars.”
    Eleanor Cook also reportedly told McManus that she could never, ever vote to what let Michael Jackson go free. She was completely convinced Jackson was a pedophile, according to McManus. Cook had personal knowledge of sexual offenders, as her grandson had been ordered by an undisclosed court to register for five years as a sexual deviant.
    Cook’s presence in the store that day can be verified by both eye witnesses who saw her there and, according to Adrian McManus, by store transaction receipts. when Eleanor Cook paid for the clothing she bought she used her JCPenney charge card. McManus rang up the transaction under her traceable employee number. Together, the charge card and the employee number transaction provided a paper trail to prove a juror’s flagrant improper visit with a prosecution witness.
    After court the very next day, Cook came back to the store to return a pair of slacks that didn’t fit. Adrian McManus reported that she had as a second conversation with the woman. According to McManus, the widow told her that they shouldn’t be talking, but she was emotional because a dear acquaintance of 35 years had just passed away and she needed someone to talk to. McManus claims Cook told her that if she ever told anyone about her comments regarding the guilt of Michael Jackson, she would have to call her a liar.
    On June 17, 4 days after the verdict and following her whirlwind trip to New York courtesy of ABC Eleanor Clark came back to JCPenney once again in search of her friend. She apparently felt the need to explain herself and the verdict. When Adrian McManus spotted the smiling cope coming toward her she began to walk away down a store aisle. The 79 year old Cook began to cry out for understanding. Adrian McManus gave her none. McManus claimed that a JCPenney supervisor asked Cook to leave the store.
    Within weeks of the verdict, Cook was not the only one with potential book deal. Juror number one, Ray Hultman, also entered into a formal agreement to write a book with an agent of sorts, a man named Larry Garrison of Silver Creek Entertainment. Two jurors, two separate books. Garrison, a sometimes L.A. based actor, has long worked the fringes of journalism, buying up newsmakers stories to turn into profit as movies of the week or long form televisions segments. He is co author of a book entitled Breaking into Acting for Dummies. In September 2005 Hultman took legal action against Garrison to get out of the book deal.
    This is what Diane Dimond writes about the jurors that made book deals. How much of this is fabricated we have no way of knowing but I have a couple of questions for Diane:
    1. Diane if you knew before the end of the trial that Eleanor Cook knew a witness for the prosecution and was friendly enough to visit with her during the trial why didn’t you inform the judge of this flagrant case of Obstruction of Justice? You know don’t you that this would have meant a mistrial? Michael Jackson would have won an appeal and that would have meant another trial or dropping the charges.
    2. Diane how did you know that 3 jurors were going into the case expecting to find Michael Jackson guilty? And how did you which ones they were?
    3. Why DID Eleanor Cook wink at members of the journalist pool every morning including you? It seemed to indicate that you may have shared a secret. Any comment on that Diane?
    4. Ray Hultman says that he can’t believe that an adult male could sleep in the same bed as a young boy for 365 days and not have anything happen. Why would you expect it to Ray? Would you find a young boy that irresistible? If you are an adult heterosexual male sexually interested in adult females why would anything happen? If you can’t find this believable is it because you have those desires?

    These people were probably once on your side Diane. They believed you when you said there would be a lot of money for them at the end of the trial. Did you forget to tell them they had to vote guilty to get that money? I think you just like to turn people against one another Diane.


  12. Suzy permalink
    June 29, 2010 7:02 am

    Thanks lynande51!

    Hultman said.” I cannot believe that… this man could sleep in the same bedroom for 365 straight days and not do something more than just watch television and eat popcorn. I mean that doesn’t make sense to me.”

    So just because HE cannot IMAGINE that nothing happened and sleeping together in a room doesn’t have to be about sex, that must mean MJ was guilty?

    Wow, what an argument, what a logic! I’m glad most members of the jury had more brain-cells than this guy and that Cook woman.

    “A few of them said that they believed Jason Francia was sincere when he testified.”

    A few of them? I guess this “few” must be the usual suspects Hultman and Cook, because the head of the jury, Paul Rodriguez almost laughed off Francia when he said on TV how non-credible they felt that guy was.

    “Several jurors indicated they were particularly taken with the testimony of former Neverland housekeeper Kiki Fournier and the ex house Manager Jesus Salas. The gist of those two witnesses testimony was decidedly negative to Michael Jackson.

    Fournier who had worked at Neverland off and on for more than a decade likened the ranch to Pinocchio’s Paradise Island where boys were allowed to run amok and then collapse in a heap in the wee hours of morning. He told the jurors she would not allow her own children to spend time there.”

    Again the usual Diane Dimond-spin on things. Kiki Fournier’s testimony was actually one of the strongest testimonies in FAVOUR of MJ! Remember she was the maid who told about how Star Arvizo pulled a knife on her and how rude and wild those kids were. And that she thought they were sleeping in their own rooms and not with MJ in his bedroom. Actually a couple of months ago I read an interview with Kiki in Swedish Christian magazine where she talked very fondly about MJ and said she never believed he molested children. (I will get the article here later when I’ll have more time.)

    “A few jurors mentioned comedian Azja Pryor as another “believable” witness. She had been called by the defense but she gave a decidedly sympathetic view of the boy and his family.”

    Oh please, what was Diane smoking?

    “But she said the trio of jurors referred to the defendant during deliberations as “My Michael…” as in “No, My Michael wouldn’t ever do that.””

    Sure yeah, Diane. That sounds credible.

    Diane likes to put her own spin on things, you can tell it from this extract.


  13. Suzy permalink
    June 29, 2010 7:50 am

    Here is the interview with Kiki Fournier (now Chambers) in a Swedish magazine, this March:

    It’s translated from swedish so that’s why some of the grammer is off.

    “When Michael Jackson died in June last year he had for long stopped being a human being of flesh and blood in the world’s eyes. He had become a timid fantasy creature hiding at his ranch in Neverland and it was seen free to speculate about him and his life.

    To meet Kiki Chambers is therefore a wakeup call. She is a woman who has washed his clothes, cleaned his house and watched him play with his children.

    “I don’t want the world to remember him as a crazy person, because he wasn’t. I want him to be remembered as a human being who wanted to make the world a better place and as a father, because that’s the role I saw was most important for him,” she says.

    She, who has watched a superstar from the inside, would also like to witness of how damaging fame and wealth can be.

    “I’ve seen what price a person has to pay when the world worships you. We are meant to worship God, not His creations,” she says.

    Kiki Chambers now lives in a small town in the west of Sweden. The contrasts are big from warm California and life at Neverland, the ranch which Michael Jackson built when trying to create a lost childhood.

    She takes her laptop and shows us clips on Youtube from the inside of Michael Jackson’s home. She points at the place in the kitchen where there was always candy, the stairs where she once fell. She also points out other celebrities who she met.

    ”Elizabeth Taylor was always very nice when she came to visit, others were not,” she says.

    Kiki Chambers worked at Neverland from 1991 to 2003. She got the job as a coincidence.

    ”I knew a man at a building company who worked at Neverland. I used to joke around with him, telling him that if they ever needed a maid they should call me. And they actually did.”

    She was one of many maids who worked full time at the ranch. When she was hired, she was told not to look Michael Jackson in the eyes or take initiative to talk to him. Kiki Chamber’s is a very straight forward and talkative person though, so she had a hard time following the rules. She used to tell him jokes, and one time she thought that she had gone too far, but when others were fired, she was the one who always got to stay.

    “One time he asked me why no one ever spoke to him. I then had to tell him that those were the rules we were given, but he didn’t understand why, he hadn’t actually made those rules,” she says.

    She remembers the first years as happy and joyful. Michael Jackson used to love to play with the children who came to visit Neverland.

    “He liked to laugh, he was open and happy,” she says.

    But in 1993 Michael Jackson was accused of sexual molestation towards a boy named Jordan Chandler.

    “After being accused, which I am sure he was not guilty of, it was like he changed. He wasn’t as happy anymore,” she says.

    As time passed by, Kiki Chambers got a friendly relationship with Michael Jackson.

    “He used to tell me that he could hear my laugh all the way across the house,” she says.

    It sometimes happened that they, late at night, sat down in one of the rooms for longer conversations. He sometimes asked her for advice since there were so many people that wanted to be close to him and use his fame.

    “He asked me if he could trust this person or this person. It was hard, it wasn’t my place to judge who he should be surrounding himself with,” she says.

    It also started coming more and more doctors to visit Neverland. They gave Michael Jackson different kinds of prescripted medication. Kiki Chambers soon realized that something was very wrong. Michael Jackson could act normal one minute, just to be noticeable high on medication the next.

    ”It was hard. I was just a maid, but when was it my responsibility as a human being to do something? What could I do? I prayed to God: Why am I here?”

    Everyone who was working close to Michael Jackson tried to keep this a secret since they knew what kind of scandal this would cause in the media. To Kiki Chambers, it was a hard thing to do.

    “One night, one of my superiors told me that Michael Jackson had been given some medication. But something was very wrong, you could tell just by looking at him, and I got scared. After that, I told my superior that if this ever happens again, I will call 911, I don’t care what consequences it will give me. Because I knew that I could never live with not to have done anything if he died.”

    As a Christian she tried to affect Michael Jackson in a positive way. She gave him Christian books and wrote Biblical verses on the board in the kitchen, which he gave her credit for.

    ”I want people to know that Michael believed in God, it was no doubt about it,” she says.

    One time, Michael Jackson and his crew went to do some errands down town, where Kiki Chambers’ Christian friend was working at a hotel She then asked Michael Jackson if he wanted to see him and he said yes.

    ”We started talking and when we were about to leave, my friend asked me if we could pray together. We all joined hands and he started to speak in tongues. In my mind I said to God: I really hope you know what you’re doing right now. When we left, a person from the crew asked about what had just happened, what language he was praying in. Michael then explained, completely natural, that my friend had been speaking in tongues, and then told them about what it means when you do that.”

    When World Trade Center in New York was attacked, Michael Jackson got really shaken. He gathered all of the staff outside where they held hands.

    ”He asked me to pray to God. I was stunned, but he continued: Pray Kiki, do it. Inside, I prayed to God to help me and, now, I don’t even remember what I prayed.”

    In the beginning of the years of 2000, Michael Jackson’s world started to fall more and more apart. Another boy, Gavin Arvizo, accused him of sexual molestation. [b]Kiki Chambers is totally convinced that Michael Jackson is innocent to all the accusations and that the parents were after money.

    ”What parents leave their children for weeks and weeks at somebody else’s house? That was really irresponsible done of them. And the children got spoilt and manipulative. They asked us what it was going to be for dinner and then they demanded something else, just because. They made is work harder and harder and threatened us to get us fired if we didn’t serve them alcohol,” she say. [/b]

    The following circus in the media made Michael Jackson depressed.

    ”He wondered why people called him Michael Jackson, that made him really upset and it was painful to him.”

    Kiki Chambers describes Michael Jackson as a very complex person. She means that he was a really good business man, but on the other hand he would literally throw money at his so called friends. He was timid and shy, but could at the same time make big statues of himself.

    ”He wanted so badly to love and to be loved,” she says.

    What she considered was most important to him, was his three children. Kiki Chambers says that he was a good father, even though he was struggling with his addiction to painkillers and medication.

    “He loved his children, he sacrificed himself for them. He never had a childhood of his own, therefore it was very important to him how his children were raised. And that’s why he used to cover them up and never show their faces when they went outside.”

    In 2003, Kiki Chambers left Neverland. The last time she met Michael Jackson was during the trial in 2005 where she was a witness.

    ”Michael wondered how it went, and I said it went good. But he then got told that it was not permitted to speak with the witnesses.”

    After that she didn’t have any contact with him, even though she had friends who were still working in his staff. During that time, she prayed and hoped for him, but in June last year, the call that she feared for, suddenly came.

    “It still hurts so much to talk about and I haven’t even been able to start grieving. I see his face in the newspapers and I read so many lies about him. I don’t know how to cope with all the feelings I have, but I pray to God and I know that He’s got everything in His hands now.”


  14. Suzy permalink
    June 29, 2010 7:56 am

    I wanted to emphasize this part:

    “Kiki Chambers is totally convinced that Michael Jackson is innocent to all the accusations and that the parents were after money.

    ”What parents leave their children for weeks and weeks at somebody else’s house? That was really irresponsible done of them. And the children got spoilt and manipulative. They asked us what it was going to be for dinner and then they demanded something else, just because. They made is work harder and harder and threatened us to get us fired if we didn’t serve them alcohol,” she say. ”

    As for Azja Pryor. She openly called the accusers out in an open letter after Michael’s death to admit they were lying and you can look up for her interviews too on YouTube, where she ALWAYS says Michael was innocent and the accusers liars.

    So how did Dimond manage to make her and Kiki “sympathetic witnesses to the prosecution” in her book is beyond me. Probably the same way as she manages to turn photographic art books into “homoerotic material featuring young men engaged in sex acts”.

    And Jesus Salas, in my opinion was a neutral witness.


  15. Suzy permalink
    June 29, 2010 8:58 am

    BTW, Aphrodite Jones said the head of the jury, Paul Rodriguez wanted to publish a book too, titled “Michael Jackson: Innocent”. He is convinced MJ was innocent and they brought the right verdict. Not surprisingly, with that view, publishers weren’t interested in his book….


  16. Suzy permalink
    June 29, 2010 10:54 am

    Maybe it would be also worth exposing Diane Dimond as a liar – although it’s quite a big task, because she told so many lies, at the same time it’s easy because her lies are so easy to expose, so blatant. Here is a blog post from Susan Etok, a doctor who used to be in contact with MJ:

    Notice Dimond’s e-mail is FULL of lies! Like this: “I sat in the nearly 5 month long trial and watched 20-something young men take the stand and tearfully describe what happened to them at Michael Jackson’s hand. ”

    How can a person lie through her teeth so much, so easily, so blatantly? I mean it’s very easy to check out the number of accusers who were on the trial and testified against Michael – and we all know it were 2 (Arvizo and Francia), yet she has no shame in writing there were 20-something? Probably relying on people not looking it up for themselves (just like with the claims in her book).

    I’m telling you the woman is SICK! Someone down among the replies also posted a video (taken down from YouTube since then) where Dimond claims Michael and Lisa Marie Presley never had sex.

    1) What does that have to do with ANYTHING? If she considers herself a serious reporter why is it even a subject for her? Why is that important to her? It’s their business alone what they did in their bedroom.
    2) Both LMP and Michael always maintaned – even when LMP looked pretty angry with him in some of her interviews – that their marriage was normal and they did have sex. So who is Dimond to say they didn’t when the only two people who were there say they did? Was she a fly on the wall?

    It reminds me of when in her book she suggests the liars are those who said they were never molested by Michael – Macaulay, Brett Barnes, Wade Robson. What a sick, twisted mind this woman has!


  17. June 29, 2010 12:10 pm

    Suzy, both Diane Dimond and Nancy Grace must be SICK (as most of the talking heads at the time). They made a whole show out of some rubbish sold at the price of $100 saying that those were the belongings of the Jackson family. The only goal of their indescribable behavior could be deliberate HUMILIATION of Michael and his family.

    Is there a point in showing someone’s underwear in the year 2007 on TV and sending it out for the DNA test to Sneddon? Was there a criminal investigation going on or what? Even if we don’t mention the ethical side of it – IS IT A RATIONAL THING TO DO? What was so special about the year 2007 that any of the alleged Jackson’s underwear should be analysed for the DNA? And this matter to be reported on TV?

    You know, when I look at what was going on at the time I can’t help thinking that it was a kind of mass craziness or mass hypnosis…. Here is a transcript of their interview on that rubbish issue:

    P.S. See how Nancy Grace combines the question of the allegedly Jackson’s underwear with the reports on cocaine usage, alcohogolism and heroin addicts irresponsible with their children – it immediately places him into the ‘abuse’ category. EVERYTHING is okay when it comes to smearing Michael’s image and name! They are just ‘putting his name in a bad class”, as Michael said it!

    P.P.S. The first time the underwear was shown on TV was March 2005. The news report says: ” In her Court TV report last March (possibly in 2004?) on Vaccaro’s collection, Dimond is shown daintily lifting the soiled briefs and speculating that they might contain “DNA evidence.” When the camera was turned off, Vaccaro recalled, “she told me she was going to call the prosecutor about this.”

    – Now even if there was somebody’s DNA ‘evidence’ there WHAT WAS IT the ‘evidence’ of?
    – And what was the idea of showing it AGAIN two years later?


  18. Suzy permalink
    June 29, 2010 12:43 pm

    Helena, yeah, it’s SICK! And people watch this and still think it’s MJ who was sick? Where did people put their brains these days?

    I noticed this part:

    Dimond: “I know there was alleged to have been some drawings of nude boys in Michael Jackson`s hand, but I`ll tell you what, I never saw them. That would be a good story. I`d like to be able to tell you that, but that just didn`t happen.

    Why would she like to be able to say that MJ made drawings of nude boys? I mean what person in their right mind would like to see such material? Just for “a good story”. Not someone who is concerned for children, that’s for sure! If you are concerned for children you should be happy to NOT to find such material, shouldn’t you?!

    At least Dimond didn’t lie and make up things this time. A rare moment from her.


  19. June 29, 2010 1:34 pm

    Suzy, funny how different people notice different things. In the part which you singled out I would pay attention to the first part – why did she mention something which was never found there at all?

    She is not even saying that they were NOT THERE – she just says that SHE didn’t see them – which still leaves an opportunity for them to be there, doesn’t it? An average person will think – if somebody ‘alleges’ that they were there, there might still be a chance that someone saw it?

    Dimond: “I know there was alleged to have been some drawings of nude boys in Michael Jackson`s hand, but I`ll tell you what, I never saw them. That would be a good story. I`d like to be able to tell you that, but that just didn`t happen.”

    THE PICTURES WERE NEVER THERE. If that junk was really analyzed in the year 2004/2005 by Tom Sneddon they would have used the pictures as the MAIN EVIDENCE against Michael if they had REALLY found them. So mentioning those ‘allegations’ was just another move on the part of Diane Dimond to sprinkle some dirt hoping that a little bit would rub off Jackson this or that way.

    You know it is the same as saying – “The police raided the home of X. There were allegations that heroin, cocaine and other narcotics were kept in the house and X’s fingerprints were found on the syringe with the drugs. But I’ll tell you that I never saw them. That would be a good story, but that just didn’t happen”.




  20. lynande51 permalink
    June 29, 2010 3:55 pm

    I should explain what renewed my interest in Diane Dimond. She was on the morning show The View on Friday the anniversary of Michael’s death. You can watch it if you go to the show’s website. You have to register and login to watch but it may be worth it. One of the things that she does is of course give her book a plug. I will tell anyone who wants to know that you can get a used one on Amazon for about $0.02 plus postage that’s all the book is worth don’t bother buying new that’s for sure. It is a shame that they had to use paper to print it on. She also manages to dodge questions about Michael’s children and anything else that might prove she is a fraud without real unpaid sources for her stories, which is what they are just stories, like fairy tales gone wild or something.I for one would like it if she were never consulted for another show but wishes only come true in real fairy tales.I want to bombard the show with emails that really discredit her and her self appointed title of “Michael Jackson expert”.


  21. June 30, 2010 3:07 am

    You know reading some of the juror comments proves to me that they were somewhat affected by the media coverage of the trial. Jason never claimed to slept in the same bed as MJ. And the only time Gavin slept in his room was in 2000, when Frank Tyson was present, and sleeping on the floor with MJ. Which directly contradicts his allegations, by the way. He even offered to the defense that after that he and his brother slept in the guest units. Plus, the ‘365 nights’ with Brett Barnes was a myth completely created by the media. Karlee Barnes said her brother and MJ shared a room with each other during 6 months of one year and for 6 months of another year. It was not one consecutive year like the media and some of the jurors said. Nor were they in the same bed. And all the men and women who testified that they were at these slumber parties testified that for all the years they have known him, they were never abused.

    The foreman wanted him to not continue with something that there was no evidence of having been done in 12 years. No one ever testified that they continues with the slumber parties after 1993. You realize that if you read the testimonies of these witnesses, but you wouldn’t realize that if you paid attention to the media coverage. You would actually think the opposite.

    This proves to me that the jury paid very close attention to the media coverage, and even got key evidence completely wrong because they were listening to the media.


  22. lynande51 permalink
    July 19, 2010 6:02 pm

    Here is a link that I found to an MSNBC article. It tells you what informationor evidence the jurors were interested in based on their notes to the judge that were sealed during deliberations. Knowing as we do that the prosecution and their media pundits lead us to believe that it was only the mothers teatimony that blew the case. This information shows that they were also very intersted in Gavins teaatimony so they didn’t believe him either.


  23. David permalink
    August 1, 2010 1:53 am

    Hey guys, I don’t know if I’ve posted this already, so in case I didn’t, here it goes:

    I found a new YouTube series on MJ that was posted by MJJR.NET. It’s called “Michael Jackson Not Guilty Acquittal Vindication Exoneration Special 2005”, and it is a 5 part series. It’s basically a compilation of all of the media coverage starting from when deliberations began through the aftermath of the verdicts. You get to see Dimond, Grace, and their ilk salivating over the thought of Michael Jackson being convicted, and trying their best to spin the verdict as another “OJ Simpson” debacle. This series validates EVERYTHING that Charles Thomson said in his recent column!

    The best part of the entire series is in part 5, where at the 0:15 mark, you see Eleanor Cooke being interviewed by Larry King a few days after the verdict was announced. She has the following to say about Janet Arvizo:

    “She was just downright rude to us, as far as I’m concerned. And I think she set her son up, and I think she’s probably the poorest excuse for a mother that I’ve ever known.”

    How could she go from saying that, to saying that she was bullied into acquitting MJ? The answer is simple: MONEY!!!


  24. lynande51 permalink
    August 1, 2010 5:17 am

    Hey David on the other You Tube What happened to Michael Jackson the one that lunajo does there is a part 63 (yes I have watched them all and I anxiously await the next chapter)
    Anyway her last one part 63 has Matt Abrams doing an interview with former Santa Barbara sheriff Jim Thomas going on a tour of Michael Jackson’s future jail cell. It is still in early May because the chapter before was Mac’s testimony and he testified on May 11th. So this says a couple of things to me. Sneddon thought it was a slam dunk and they really did have a deal to let the press in on Michaels jail life. These people were sick son’s of bitches that for sure.
    Another thing I have is a good surprise for you. I have a copy of the original 2/7/1994, 1274 word article in TIME magazine reporting the settlement and in it is the name of Michael Jacksons insurance company. It is TIG Insurance a Transamerica subsidiary. It does say that Cochran asked them to cover it but we know that it was turned in before according to court documents. Here is a link to the TIME article.,9171,980091,00.html
    Another thing that I found today is an article from a Chilean paper where Victor G. talks about how wonderful it is to be hired by NBC. An unnamed news director contacted him. Could it have been Tim Russert (may he RIP)? He even goes out of his way to say that the news director is unknown to him. I don’t have a link to that one but I have a copy of it saved to my documents. I could email it to you if you like . It is the translated version.
    The thing I am looking for are the documents from Victor G’g book. There happens to be one document in the whole thing that was able to be verified. It is the DCFS report from Jordan and Evan. The DCFS investigator verified it and was very angry that it was out in the public. How many copies of that thing did Evan make, what did he do send them out as christmas cards to all the tabloids? I just want that one page from the back of the book do you know anyone who has acopy of that thing. I got this information about it from a book review of it. The reviewer called it just like I did: a book written by a pedophile for pedophiles.


  25. lynande51 permalink
    August 1, 2010 5:24 am

    I forgot to add one thing. The jury forman, was a retired High School counselor. Guess he might have been able to tell the difference between a true testimony and false one don’t you think. It adds a little bit more credibility to what he thinks as opposed to Ellie Cook and Robert Hautman.


  26. David permalink
    August 1, 2010 6:18 am

    @ lynande51

    Thank you, thank you, thank you! I really needed that TIME article on the settlement, because I’m currently writing another big post on MJ’s settlement in order to dispel the media myth that it was “hush money”, and that article implied that it was.

    Yes, I have seen all 63 of the “What did happent to MJ” videos, and it’s pathetic how the media tried to give the public the idea that MJ could be guilty by showing off his prison cell. This was to generate ratings and build suspense and make the verdict watch more exciting.

    As for Victor G., the fact that NBC contacted him in Brazil or Chile or wherever he lives shows that NBC deliberately tried to slant their Dateline episode to make MJ look guilty. It’s no accident that Victor G. was involved, yet Mary Fischer, Geraldine Hughes, and Lisa D. Campbell were not. And I’m sure that Maureen Orth influenced NBC to reach out to him!


  27. David permalink
    August 1, 2010 6:31 am

    @ lynande51

    One last thing: I haven’t read “MJ Was My Lover” yet, but I do know someone who claims to have 2 copies: our friend Desiree! Maybe she can sell you a copy at a discount!

    In case you forgot about her, she “visited” our site a few weeks ago to spew garbage about MJ being guilty, so I challenged her into proving it on her blog, and to use “All That Glitters” as a source. After all, if you believe the Chandlers, then you have to believe EVERYTHING written in that book, right? If you have doubts about that book, then you have to doubt their story. Needless to say, she has yet to write a post explaining HOW MJ “did it”, and how he “got away with it”!

    Here’s her post where she talks about the 2 copies that she has:

    @ Helena: could you email lynande51, and give her my email address so that he/she could send me that article on Victor G.? Thanks!


  28. lynande51 permalink
    August 1, 2010 4:35 pm

    I don’t know about Dez I think it might be a bad idea. Anyway she says that Michael’s people bought all the copies off the shelves and that is why it is so expensive. I think she is pretty delusional and the only thing that would convince me she was right is to supply me with her book which I don’t really want to read.


  29. David permalink
    August 1, 2010 7:51 pm

    @ Desiree

    OK, I’ll keep it short and sweet: write a blog entry explaining who MJ molested, how he did it, and how he got away with it. Since you say he molested Jordie, prove it, and use quotes from “ATG” as a source, because you must believe that book if you believe MJ is guilty.

    As for the settlement, don’t listen to what MJ said in an interview. Look at the documents! If he said that the insurance company forced him to settle, then that would lead to even more nosey questions!

    And your logic is severely flawed because you insist he settled before the civil suit deposition because he was guilty. But if he was guilty, why didn’t he pay the Chandlers in August 1993 to prevent the scandal from going public? Why didn’t he pay them before the strip search? Why did his legal team request the civil suit come AFTER the criminal trial?

    One last thing: will you PLEASE criticize the Chandlers in your post, because I’m sick and tired of people saying that MJ is guilty, yet nobody criticizes the Chandlers for not prosecuting MJ, and for threatening and taking legal action to avoid testifying in court in 2005. (Jordie and Ray, respectively.)


  30. lynande51 permalink
    August 1, 2010 8:25 pm

    Or better yet Dez show us what it is we want to see and try to comvince us that your sources are better than yours. For once just show us your proof from those documents.


  31. lynande51 permalink
    August 1, 2010 8:37 pm

    @ David It’s just as I thought: She doesn’t have any of the books. We’ve been waiting weeks for her to come up with answers form her copy of ATG but she hasn’t and there is a simple answer to it. She doesn’t have the books any of them. She’s trying to bluff her way into this site thats all, cause if she had then she would show us her proof. She wants to come here to get her stuff read because no one reads hers or replys to it. All of her quotes from the books are from articles found in the tabloid magazines. She’s just a lonely little girl looking for attention and trying in vain to write something readable.In it’s place we get what ” fanfiction” instead of proof.


  32. Jacqueline M. permalink
    August 1, 2010 9:46 pm

    @ Lynande and David

    Don’t listen to Desiree. She does not like Michael for one simple reason. She believes that Michael was a racist and didn’t want to be black. Desiree is black and because of her ridiculous beliefs, she hates Michael. Ridiculous beliefs because we all know that Michael was proud of being black and loved everybody. Black people, white people, blue people, Michael loved everybody and was never a racist. BUT DESIREE THINKS HE WAS. Look at the things she writes in her garbage can. Sorry… In her blog. She only has hate in her heart. Just ignore her.

    Peace for you too, desiree. I think you need it.


  33. August 1, 2010 11:21 pm

    I’ve had it with people’s notion’s that he didn’t want to be black. He was black . As a matter of fact, Katharine’s family, the grandparents, came from African trade. From the plantation’s.

    And as far as Michael wanting to be white, or only wanting white kids is a very wild allegation to make about someone you haven’t met or never will. If people would just get off their butts, read the autopsy report, they wouldn’t think he was trying to be white. Also, he was not circumcised( referring to Jordy Chandler’s claims). I just love shoving this to the people who think other wise. He had a skin disorder. I’m black, and I don’t think he was trying to be white, he was just plagued with an unfortunate disease that he was trying to treat the best way he can. And as a fellow black American, I am not gonna accuse this guy of one situation, when he was dealing with another, more complex situation.

    Link to Michael’s autopsy:


  34. August 2, 2010 12:00 am

    You know. I have been reading Ray Chandler’s book, all that glitter’s.
    And I’ve maintained that it sounds very convincing. I could say that
    The Chandler’s were ruined By Michael Jackson. That he was only being friends
    with them just nab their son. And I could say that the book is very truthful, cunning
    , And believeable. But I’d be lying through My teeth grotesquely. In the book, what i’ve read so far, is that that Michael charmed them….Charmed them into letting Jordan be with him. The author of the book is so silly with his conjecture-based book that it’s funny…..I actually started to laugh from some sentence’s I was reading. It was crazy. They did not act like they were victims, or that jordie was a victim…..It’s hard to describe. For example: In the book he notes “Evan walked in on Michael And Jordan, and found them in a spooning position asleep, with Mchael’s hand over Jordan crotch”. What does this fool of a father do?……How did he react? By saying “Oh no!” And goes in to the room and moves Michael’s hand off of Jordan’s crotch, And leave.

    Evan ask’s Michael ” are you F******g My son up the a**, Michael say’s “no!” And than proceeded talking about life, life, Evan’s life, and Michael’s career. Evan claims he didn’t believe Michael was Molesting his son. But what I’m saying is, If you even suspected anything was happening, why not them up, make them pay? I don’t care if he was Michael jackson or not. J. Randy Tarborelli noted about the meeting between Evan And Michael, and about the question he asked him about his son. JRT says ” You would think he would ask a question while having his hands firmly around Michael’s neck.

    And no matter how Much the author always try’s to portray his brother, Evan as the good guy, He still sounded like a tyrant.


  35. August 2, 2010 1:25 am

    P.S. The book was a joke. Of course he never admitted to them using Sodium Amytal. The entire book is about him defending his brother. That’s sweet n’ all, but tell the truth. I don’t care how so-called civilized you think your family was, before Michael came into the picture. It seems like Ray was trying to provide the reader with a Michael-jackson-was-an-evil-genius-molester-who split-up-our-two-families. My problem is is that everything sounds so matter-of-factly. He totally disputes everyone’s claims that was on Michael’s side, there’s nothing wrong with that, but he seemed to wanted to trash pellicano, Michael’s then lawyer.

    The whole book is about him wanting to show the reader that his family was all fine til’ Michael came into the picture, but they were already a crazy and siilly family to begin with.
    This book only teaches you “not to trust anybody.” Michael shouldn’t have trusted nobody, but he was raise to help everyone. And that’s understandable.


  36. August 2, 2010 1:27 am


    He did mention sodium amytal, and rejected Mary A fisher’s theory. He goes on to say that “Even if Evan used this so-called truth serum, He did for medical reason’s.”

    Personally, I’m not trusting a man who admitted to not seeing his family for awhile.


  37. lynande51 permalink
    August 2, 2010 1:55 am

    That is just it. I think they put the sodium amytal story out there as a ruse. They were going to use it as ” I gave Jordan and anesthetic which is a ‘truth serum’ and this is how I found out”. What they didn’t think anyone would do is research the drug and find out that it is not a truth serum, because there is no such thing, and were shocked to find out that it is very controversial and produces false memory. They got so caught up in their own lie they didn’t know what to do with it after that.


  38. Suzy permalink
    August 2, 2010 12:50 pm

    @ Denise

    “Even if Evan used this so-called truth serum, He did for medical reason’s.”

    But doesn’t that sound strange? Same as Mark Torbiner’s comment when saying “If I used it only for dental purposes.”

    I mean you either used it or you didn’t there shouldn’t be “ifs”. So when somebody says something like that it does sound suspicious.

    But I’m with lynande51 and Geraldine Hughes on it: in my opinion the whole “truth serum” thing is a fabrication by the Chandlers to make it sound spontaneous how Jordan “came out” with it. According to Geraldine Hughes it wasn’t and Jordan was trained in Rothman’s office weeks before that! Plus Jordan’s police interview and whole behaviour sounds to me as a lying boy and one who knows he is lying. Emotionless, robotic, rehearsed.

    So I think they wanted to use the Sodium Amytal as a fabrication (and maybe it was Evan himself who planted it in the media through that now-TMZ reporter, Levin) but then they realized the controversy around that drug and wanted to backtrack on it. Hence the later denials.


  39. Jacqueline M. permalink
    August 2, 2010 1:04 pm

    That’s what I think, too. I believe Jordan was told what to say, including the story of the “serum truth”. I don’t know, I think it’s strange he has said to the doctor “My father had to pull out my tooth, and I asked him to put me to sleep and bla, bla, bla”. IMO, he was told what to say. But I also don’t think it’s impossible that Evan used sodium amital. He lied anyway.


  40. August 2, 2010 2:03 pm

    I think he was rehearsed really well too. He didn’t describe Michael’s genitalia right(he was not circumcised at all) And i’m not really sure if he decribed the marks correctly on Michael’s genitals.

    During that interview with the psychiatrist, He say’s Michael used the term “duckbutter” for ejaculate. That’s another wild story. And why did Evan want to make a record about that name. That makes me think Evan came up with that mess. He’s gonna sue Michael because he thinks that his history album is for telling on them, and than he wants his own history rebuttal. Meanwhile, Jordie is getting emancipated from his father, hasn’t seen his mother in like…….Ever since the scandal took place……His mother would later admit that she hasn’t seen her son in 11 years in 05′, while testifying.

    And than Evan is gonna attack jordie with mase, strangulation, and a dumbell, That cannot be all of Michael’s doing.

    There was a story released a week or so in november, after Evan’s ominous death, It goes like ” The Jacko curse. What caused Evan chandler to put a gun to his head?” I read the story of course, and in it, Evan say’s to this TABLOID reporter the he still maintain’s that Jordie was molested. But the story is incredibly biased, how am I, as the reader, suppose to know that’s not the journalist making up a conversation? Just like Ray made lot’s of conversation’s up in his silly book “ATG”.

    Wanting to get a book published right after you’ve just signed a confidentiality agreement. SMH.


  41. lcpledwards permalink
    September 15, 2010 8:20 am

    In case you guys haven’t seen this, here is a video of Mesereau condemning these 2 jurors for their treachery!


  42. Alison permalink
    October 24, 2010 9:06 pm

    ooh i just read all the posts here and there’s a lot here isn’t there.

    thats an interesting point about why the sodium amytal got mentioned, it makes sense they prob thought it was proof the account was true till they found out too late it was discredited as a truth serum – reckon they who were into lots of movie watching just got it from spy movies.

    as to the jurors, all the things i was thinking have already been said except this. when i watched the clip linked on the post just before this, can’t see it now, was it suzy? about mesereau, i also watched one there called juror flip flop or something, i think its the one you mentioned where the 2 are interviewed. i have no comments about ray, but eleanor cook – i have met people like her in the course of my work. of course this is my OPINION, not proved fact, but in my opinion, she :
    – is a drama queen,
    – likes to exagerate for attention
    – likes to gossip and can be spiteful with it
    – likes to meddle and stir things up just to get attention for herself
    – is most likely bigoted but will only admit her prejudices when she thinks she has a sympathetic audience.

    i also wondered if she and ray were close, if you know what i mean! if not, i still think she is more than a little in love with him, in this clip anyway. and therefore she having found a fellow bigot to share her drama with, wanted to make sure she impressed him and kept him so to speak.


  43. visitor permalink
    October 30, 2010 9:47 pm

    William Wagner gave an interview and talked about the 2005 trial

    Part one


  44. visitor permalink
    October 30, 2010 9:47 pm

    Part 2


  45. visitor permalink
    October 30, 2010 9:48 pm

    Part 3


  46. Despina permalink
    November 7, 2010 12:20 am

    Visitor,I’m Greek, you did a wonderful work with the translation, thank you!So who’s the guy talking there?


  47. visitor permalink
    November 7, 2010 1:34 am

    I didn’t do the translation. I found it by chance. The man’s name is William Wagner.He is a reporter and a tv host from Santa Barbara.He has a You tube channel. So basically the jurors started “changing” mind when money and book deal were offered to them. MJ’s life story i guess


  48. Olga permalink
    November 7, 2010 10:26 am

    Cook had the book deal before the trial started


  49. lcpledwards permalink
    November 7, 2010 2:30 pm

    @ Olga
    Yes, Cook had a book deal before the trial started, but it went up in smoke upon MJ’s acquittal, along with every other so-called “tell all” book that was ready to go to the presses once deliberations started. The fact that all of them were cancelled shows that they were all full of lies and half-truths, because if MJ was truly guilty, then they STILL would have been released anyway, just like OJ Simpson, who had over a dozen books written about his trial, despite his acquittal.

    I think that Cook and Hultman were targeted because Cook was already tainted because of her book deal, and Hultman was very open about hit belief that MJ had molested kids before, but didn’t molest Gavin. It was easy for them to accept the blood money!


  50. Olga permalink
    November 7, 2010 7:04 pm

    @David maybe the fact that Haultman moved there just on time to become a juror, is not a coincidence


  51. nan permalink
    November 26, 2010 3:12 pm

    i was listening to wm wagener on a radio broadcast and he said he interviewed the cook woman. she neglected to tell people when she was being questioned for jury duty that she used to clerk for a judge…she should have declared that on her jury questionnaire . i dont know if it was local, but if it was, she should have been a familiar face to some people. she also said she was furious with sneddon for not being able to come up with some evidence as she was sure mj was guilty. and they she was so upset that she had to vote not guilty because they had nothing that she actually went out of her way to support a candidate other then the one sneddon wanted in the next election, words to that effect., that is how angry with sneddon she was….so she clearly went in there to find him guity.i dont think she is being truthful when she says she was not trying to get on the jury or she wouldnt have been thinking book deals from the beginning…surely it is comforting to know they were reading the rules in there all that time and not even thinking about guilty on those serious charges.even the four hail mary misdemeanors the judge threw in so sneddon could save face didnt fly.


  52. Olga permalink
    November 28, 2010 9:08 pm

    Sometime ago I posted here the link to William Wagner’s radio interview where he talks about Cook. One of the things he said was that she voted for another D.A. He recently posted a video about it


  53. shelly permalink
    November 28, 2010 11:00 pm

    It’s strange, she was one of the juror who said,2 months after the trial,he was guilty and try to sell a book. Why did she vote for someone who made very clear that he hates Sneddon and critized him for the prosecution of Jackson


  54. visitor permalink
    November 28, 2010 11:30 pm

    Because she wanted to “punish” Sneddon for doing such a sloppy,according her opinion, job in prosecuting Michael.


  55. shelly permalink
    November 28, 2010 11:50 pm

    If she thought it was so sloppy, how can she be so sure that he was guilty?


  56. shelly permalink
    November 28, 2010 11:52 pm

    If she really said that, it means that she saw no evidence of guilt and the only reason she said he was guilty is because of her own prejudice and you can’t convict someone based on prejudice.


  57. visitor permalink
    November 29, 2010 1:38 am

    Cook went there to convict Jackson.That’s what she wanted to do from the begging. That’s why she hadn’t told that she used to work in a local DA office, or something like that. But she realised, unlike those who worked in the media,that the whole case was a total stupidity.If she had seen any kind of evidence that Jackson had molested anyone, she would have convicted him.

    “she said he was guilty is because of her own prejudice and you can’t convict someone based on prejudice” She said that because of her own prejudice and because she was ready to write a book and make money out of it.

    Unfortunatlly, Cook is another proof of the wickedness thas surrounded Michael’s life. People ready to do anything for money. I remember Bashir saying all those nasty things about Michael in that “documentary” of his. But when Michael died he said that he hadn’t seen anything inappropriate . The funny thing is, though, that when he was asked [ Bashir] to testify if the courte, he wouldn’t open his mouth to say that he hadn’t seen anything inappropriate going on. He was prepared to let Michael go to prison than say that he had twisted that documentary.


  58. Teva permalink
    November 29, 2010 2:34 am



  59. Suzy permalink
    November 29, 2010 5:18 am

    Wasn’t Cook also friends with one of the prosecution’s witnesses, Adrian McMannus (sp?)? There was something about someone catching them talk in a shop during the trial, or something like that. Basically Cook should have been thrown out of the jury before the trial ended…..


  60. lcpledwards permalink
    November 29, 2010 5:41 am

    Yes, according to Diane Dimond she was friends with McManus and saw her at a store sometime towards the end of the trial, after McManus had already testified. Cooke certainly should NOT had been on that jury, as she is someone on there with pre-conceived notions about MJ, and just wanted to profit. But the fact that she had no choice but to acquit him shows how weak the case was! Not even a staunch MJ hater could convict him!

    And she couldn’t even write a book to LIE and say he was guilty because they were caught PLAGIARIZING a tabloid article! How pathetic!!


  61. Olga permalink
    November 29, 2010 1:45 pm

    @Shelly look at the previous comments to find the one I have with Wagner’s radio interview where he talks about Cook. She said she wanted to find him guilty because she didn’t like the scene where he grabs his crotch. This outrageous and she should have been kicked out of the courtroom


  62. lcpledwards permalink
    February 11, 2011 8:49 am

    Here is a video of that liar Stacey Brown denying that he was assisting these 2 jurors in writing their book, and trying to destroy their credibility! Remember, his lie was exposed when Ray Hultman sued to get out of the book deal when it was discovered that Brown plagiarized Orth’s Vanity Fair article!


  63. August 15, 2011 1:22 am

    Thank you all for these grave and distressing posts.It is outright scary, especially William Vageners video.Also posts by lynande51,Olga, lepledwars on jurors writing books and generally the corruption in the legal system in California.The good news is that Mesenreau will be helping out.


  64. sanemjfan permalink
    November 20, 2011 5:46 am

    Guys, I have added a video of the interview of the two jurors! It’s at the beginning of the post!



  1. Analyzing the Media’s Hypocrisy in Reporting on Michael Jackson’s Settlements vs. The Settlements of Other Celebrities, Part 1 | MJJ-777
  2. Analyzing the Media’s Hypocrisy in Reporting on Michael Jackson’s Settlements vs. The Settlements of Other Celebrities, Part 1 « redblackghost
  3. Analzying The Media’s Hypocrisy In Reporting On The Michael Jackson Settlement Cases vs The Settlements Of Other Celebrities | AllForLoveBlog
  4. Analyzing the Media’s Hypocrisy in Reporting on the Michael Jackson Settlement Cases Vs. The Cases of Other Celebrities « Fan Blog for MJ
  5. Debunking the Demonic Deception…Michael Jackson and the Truth: Part 2 « Reflections on the Dance
  6. How to Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used By Michael Jackson Haters, Part 3 of 5 « Vindicating Michael
  7. How to Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used by Michael Jackson Haters, Part 3 of 5 « Fan Blog for MJ
  8. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 2 of 5: Michael Did NOT “Channel” Demon Spirits to Help Him Write Songs! « Vindicating Michael
  9. You Don’t Have To Be a “Crazy, Rabid Fan” To Know That Michael Jackson Was INNOCENT!! « Vindicating Michael
  10. Les démarches des médias pendant les procès de Michael Jackson « "Mon reflet dans le miroir… c’est toi" – Blog des amis de MJ
  11. Analyzing the Media’s Hypocrisy in Reporting on Michael Jackson’s Settlements vs. The Settlements of Other Celebrities. | Liatyris

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: