Monday, August 08, 2005

Courageous Convictions

Know what I despise more than people who don't have the courage of their convictions, and are swept into voting with the herd, even when they believe something completely different?

Those who disagree with the herd, but go along with them because they have plans to write a book further down the line, knowing that they'll make a killing because it's an insider's view of a controversial topic.

There should be a special place in hell set aside for people like the two ex-Michael Jackson trial jurors who came forward today to say that despite the fact that they voted not guilty when it actually MATTERED, they actually felt all along that MJ was guilty as charged, and really did violate that young boy and all of the others who were mentioned but not charged in the indictment.

It made me feel physically ill to see Eleanor Cook, 79, telling the interviewer how she knows God has forgiven her, and she's forgiven herself. Well I'm so glad for her. And that she's 'speaking out now because it's never too late to tell the truth'. Um...hello? Actually it IS a little bit on the tardy side. Maybe the time to have 'told the truth' would have been on the actual verdict form. Sorry, but 'they went along with the others once they realized that the others would never convict the pop star' is a big heaping scoop of something brown and smelly. Standing firm on their convictions would have resulted in a hung jury. A hung jury would have given the prosecutors the option of retrying the king of pop in front of a different jury. One which maybe wasn't so 'full of blinders that they wouldn't take them off long enough to see the evidence that was there.'

It made me especially sick to recall the infamous press conference the jury gave following the acquittal, and Ms. Cook's attitude towards the victim and his mother during this conference. If you really and truly disagree with a verdict, and only go along because you feel pressured and intimidated into doing so, why are you sitting there so smugly following this verdict you so adamantly disagree with, and letting us know what grifters you think the boy and his family are?

So that leaves two options. Either you're changing your tune now that you have a new book coming out telling the world about the insider's view of the Jackson jury, and those dollar signs are looming large in front of your eyes, or, and this is way more sinister, you had plans for the book from the very beginning, and despite your difference in opinion with the bulk of the jury, went along with them anyway. Because...for god's sake, who wants to read a book from a juror on a hung jury? So much better and so much more lucrative to read one written by a juror who actually came up with a verdict, particularly if we can add the pathos of being forced into a decision we disagreed with.

Either way you slice it, it reeks to high heaven. This poor kid, along with all of the others MJ has used and abused, was vilified in the press courtesy, in a large part, of these two people. I'm so glad that God has forgiven Ms. Cook, and that she's forgiven herself. Maybe someday all the victims will be able to also.


Blogger 'Lema said...

That's..... sick. How can someone exploit another in such a way as to tell the world that they are liars and acquit their victimizer and then turn around and say that they were telling the truth? Scum of the earth.


8:44 PM  
Blogger Jensgalore said...

Yeah, that's pretty horrifying. You count on jurors to vote according to their conscience, according to what they honestly believe is true. If they don't, the system doesn't work and that is the worst part of this. Because if she was playing some sort of game, she hurt our system of justice, taking away yet another portion of the trust people have in it. And that is very, very sad.

4:32 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home