August 10,2005 LOS ANGELES -- A third juror in the Michael Jackson case who initially favored a guilty verdict weighed in after two others expressed second thoughts, saying she believes the entertainer is a child molester but joined in the verdict exonerating him because of reasonable doubt.
Appearing on MSNBC on Tuesday, Juror Katarina Carls said she initially agreed with Eleanor Cook and Ray Hultman that Jackson was guilty, but decided she could not convict because of jury instructions that he must be acquitted if there was reasonable doubt. She said it was possible that Jackson's accuser was lying.
"I kept asking myself, is there any slight possibility that this boy might lie at all? And my answer was yes," she said.
Here's the thing, jurors: If you think there's a possibility that Jacko's accuser was not believeable because of inconsistencies with timelines and details, fine. But you also have to keep in mind that he's a child, and testimony of children carries with it a lot more leeway than that of an adult. But, if you still have a lingering feeling that Jacko is, in fact, a Chester Molester, don't you think that mitigates any sort of apprehension about whether this child's testimony is 100% bulletproof?
Yeah, granted, the kid's mom was a little wacky, and her parenting skills leave very much to be desired, but we're talking long history of alleged pedophilia here. And furthermore, it's not the mother who is on trial here.
The fact that the other two jurors are coming out with books on the entire trial just reeks of blatant opportunism, dilutes their effectiveness as a jury, makes them look like the biggest idiots on the planet, and - do I even need to say this? - makes a mockery of our country's judicial system.