'The Abrams Report' for August 4
Read the transcript to the Thursday show
Updated: 11:37 a.m. ET Aug. 5, 2005
Guest: Beth Holloway Twitty, Ricardo Yarzagaray, Susan Filan, John Burris, Pauline Coccoz, Melissa Herard, Robbin Trowbridge-Benko, Scott Coffee, Dr.
Mark Goulston, Charlie Crist
...
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ABRAMS (voice-over): And two jurors who acquitted Michael Jackson now say he was really guilty. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) They're planning a tell-all book. Are they changing their minds just to make some money? I'll talk to two of their fellow jurors.
...
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: The “New York Daily News” reporting today that two of the jurors in Michael Jackson case who deliberated for over 30 hours before finding him not guilty of molesting a 13-year-old cancer survivor are now saying (UNINTELLIGIBLE) well you know we got it wrong. Juror number five, Eleanor Cook and juror number one, Raymond Hultman are reportedly writing books, “Guilty as Sin”, “Free as a Bird”, and “The Deliberator” respectively. Remember after the verdict, Hultman defended his decision to find Jackson not guilty.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAY HULTMAN, JACKSON JUROR NUMBER ONE: I don't want to give the impression that this was a really slam-dunk deal where you just go into a room and 12 people agree. I don't think 12 people can agree on anything except that the sun might come up tomorrow morning and beyond that, you've got to talk about it and we did talk about it. We challenged the issues and we came to the decision that pointed to reasonable doubt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABRAMS: Yes. OK. What happened? And remember Cook? She went after the accuser's mother.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELEANOR COOK, JACKSON JUROR NUMBER FIVE: I disliked it intensely when she snapped her fingers at us. That's when I thought, don't snap your fingers at me, lady.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABRAMS: “My Take”–come on. This is absurd. Are these people really going to say he's guilty of the crime now? If that's the case, as “The Daily News” is reporting, they should be ashamed of themselves. What, they had more time to review the evidence since the trial ended?
Joining us now by phone is Jackson juror number 10, Pauline Coccoz and Jackson juror number eight, Melissa Herard. All right, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate it.
Pauline, let me start with you. What do you make of this apparent change of heart?
PAULINE COCCOZ, JACKSON JUROR NUMBER 10 (via phone): It's absurd. It's absolutely absurd. You know you just don't understand other than maybe there is some ulterior motives on their own behalf.
ABRAMS: I mean were these two of the jurors who had real questions. Did they in the jury room say, oh, wait a second, you know we think that he really might be guilty.
COCCOZ: Well, yes. These were the jurors that kept, I guess, prolonging the agony, you might say, because they kept insinuating that you know–well, it just seemed as if they were looking for a needle in a haystack that wasn't there, you know, and we had to keep reminding these two that you have to you know set personal issues aside, events that might have happened to you in the past aside, and you have to look at everything for the evidence in the case. And you know, so I'm just disgusted. I just can't believe that either one of them can actually say what they're saying.
ABRAMS: Melissa, no one pressured these two jurors, did they? I mean no one said you better join the rest of the jury in this case or else.
MELISSA HERARD, JACKSON JUROR NUMBER EIGHT (via phone): Oh, no. No, it wasn't like that at all. It was like if they felt so strong about it, we would–when they were feeling strong about it, we'd ask them, OK, you need to show us where's the proof, and we'd have a whole closet full of evidence, but not one thing could they come up with, not one thing. And we did go through a lot of the testimony and we put stuff up all over the room and went through the lies and...
ABRAMS: But they agreed–I guess what I'm–they agreed with this verdict, right? I mean...
HERARD: Yes.
ABRAMS: If they–I want to just be clear here, that they were on board with the rest of the jury when verdict time came.
COCCOZ: Absolutely.
HERARD: Oh, definitely.
ABRAMS: Let me play a piece of sound from Ray Hultman. This is one of the jurors who is reportedly writing a book where he's going to apparently say that Jackson's actually guilty. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HULTMAN: We were required to look at some very specific counts in this case. Some specific charges and one of those charges wasn't 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. They were all evidence that could point one direction or the other, but when it came right down to it, we were required to make our decision as to reasonable doubt based on the 10 counts. And I think we did a good job in doing that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABRAMS: So, Pauline, if this is a change of heart, you think this is the money talking?
COCCOZ: You never know. I don't know. I don't want to be malicious or anything, so you know I don't know. Perhaps.
ABRAMS: Melissa?
HERARD: I feel the same way Pauline does. It could be. We'll just have to wait and see.
ABRAMS: All right, if you guys can stick–if you all could just stick around for a minute, I want to bring in my team, former prosecutor Susan Filan and criminal defense attorney John Burris.
Susan, you were there for a lot of this trial. I mean come on. I mean is this for real?
FILAN: Well, look, here's what it could be. This was one of those cases where even right down to the end, it was a cliffhanger and the media was divided as to whether it was going to be a conviction, an acquittal or a hung jury. It was a close call and I remember sitting next to you, Dan...
ABRAMS: Yes.
FILAN: ... when the verdict came out. So what could have happened here is dare I compare it to O.J.? When they were looking at the evidence, it didn't rise to the standard of proof. They had to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt...
ABRAMS: Right.
FILAN: ... but now that they've stepped back and looked at it, they're saying to themselves, of course he did it. They just couldn't prove it and that may be what they're trying to say although inelegantly.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement
ABRAMS: All right, well if that's the case, then he's still not guilty as a technical legal matter. Susan, just so everyone understands, as a prosecutor though, you can't appeal, right? You can't use this...
FILAN: Absolutely not.
ABRAMS: The question though is could someone use it in a civil
lawsuit? Let's say that someone decides to sue, could they say well look -
· let's say the family decides to sue–look, two of the jurors say they got it wrong.
FILAN: No, that's not evidence. No, absolutely not. They can't put these juries on now as witnesses. That's not going to constitute evidence.
ABRAMS: John Burris, as a defense attorney I assume you hear these–let's assume that these jurors do come forward and say you know, we got it wrong. You don't care, do you?
BURRIS: No, I don't care as it relates to this aspect of it, but I will say this. I would want to hear–if I'm representing him in a civil case, I actually want to hear what they have to say because what they have to say may be a road map as what the plaintiff's lawyer may want to do in his case in a civil case. So I would be correspond to want to hear about it, but there's no question that the one lady, Ms. Cook, remember this, we had a discussion about this on your program, Dan, she had already through her daughter, granddaughter made efforts to write a book, had sought out an agent.
And so it seems to me that she needed–she would want–they wanted a guilty verdict, so it's not surprising to me that she would come back, even if she had misgivings at the time. I just think this is really the unfortunate aspect of this sort of public kind of trials now. There's efforts to make money...
(CROSSTALK)
BURRIS: ... on these cases...
ABRAMS: I don't care if these jurors want to make money. I really don't. I don't care if they want to write books about it. I don't care if these jurors come back and say, we think Michael Jackson molested children in the past, but we came up with the right verdict. I am deeply troubled, though, if now, less than two months after the verdict, these jurors are going home and their family members are saying, hey, Ray, what did you do, buddy?
And as a result, he's saying oh, you know what? I'm going to make some money. I'm going to clear my name and I'm going to tell everyone that we effectively got it wrong. I mean that would be very disturbing if that happens, right John?
BURRIS: What makes you think it didn't happen? I mean obviously we have people who've said it was a not guilty verdict and now they've got books, very sexy titles to books...
ABRAMS: Yes.
BURRIS: ... go into deliberations, that really...
ABRAMS: “Free as a Bird”, “Guilty as Sin”...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: I mean you know look, Susan's right, it could mean that what they're saying is that he is guilty of this in other cases but not in this one. We'll see. Anyway, we'll follow it up. Susan Filan, John Burris, thanks a lot.
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8838598/
Read the transcript to the Thursday show
Updated: 11:37 a.m. ET Aug. 5, 2005
Guest: Beth Holloway Twitty, Ricardo Yarzagaray, Susan Filan, John Burris, Pauline Coccoz, Melissa Herard, Robbin Trowbridge-Benko, Scott Coffee, Dr.
Mark Goulston, Charlie Crist
...
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ABRAMS (voice-over): And two jurors who acquitted Michael Jackson now say he was really guilty. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) They're planning a tell-all book. Are they changing their minds just to make some money? I'll talk to two of their fellow jurors.
...
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: The “New York Daily News” reporting today that two of the jurors in Michael Jackson case who deliberated for over 30 hours before finding him not guilty of molesting a 13-year-old cancer survivor are now saying (UNINTELLIGIBLE) well you know we got it wrong. Juror number five, Eleanor Cook and juror number one, Raymond Hultman are reportedly writing books, “Guilty as Sin”, “Free as a Bird”, and “The Deliberator” respectively. Remember after the verdict, Hultman defended his decision to find Jackson not guilty.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAY HULTMAN, JACKSON JUROR NUMBER ONE: I don't want to give the impression that this was a really slam-dunk deal where you just go into a room and 12 people agree. I don't think 12 people can agree on anything except that the sun might come up tomorrow morning and beyond that, you've got to talk about it and we did talk about it. We challenged the issues and we came to the decision that pointed to reasonable doubt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABRAMS: Yes. OK. What happened? And remember Cook? She went after the accuser's mother.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELEANOR COOK, JACKSON JUROR NUMBER FIVE: I disliked it intensely when she snapped her fingers at us. That's when I thought, don't snap your fingers at me, lady.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABRAMS: “My Take”–come on. This is absurd. Are these people really going to say he's guilty of the crime now? If that's the case, as “The Daily News” is reporting, they should be ashamed of themselves. What, they had more time to review the evidence since the trial ended?
Joining us now by phone is Jackson juror number 10, Pauline Coccoz and Jackson juror number eight, Melissa Herard. All right, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate it.
Pauline, let me start with you. What do you make of this apparent change of heart?
PAULINE COCCOZ, JACKSON JUROR NUMBER 10 (via phone): It's absurd. It's absolutely absurd. You know you just don't understand other than maybe there is some ulterior motives on their own behalf.
ABRAMS: I mean were these two of the jurors who had real questions. Did they in the jury room say, oh, wait a second, you know we think that he really might be guilty.
COCCOZ: Well, yes. These were the jurors that kept, I guess, prolonging the agony, you might say, because they kept insinuating that you know–well, it just seemed as if they were looking for a needle in a haystack that wasn't there, you know, and we had to keep reminding these two that you have to you know set personal issues aside, events that might have happened to you in the past aside, and you have to look at everything for the evidence in the case. And you know, so I'm just disgusted. I just can't believe that either one of them can actually say what they're saying.
ABRAMS: Melissa, no one pressured these two jurors, did they? I mean no one said you better join the rest of the jury in this case or else.
MELISSA HERARD, JACKSON JUROR NUMBER EIGHT (via phone): Oh, no. No, it wasn't like that at all. It was like if they felt so strong about it, we would–when they were feeling strong about it, we'd ask them, OK, you need to show us where's the proof, and we'd have a whole closet full of evidence, but not one thing could they come up with, not one thing. And we did go through a lot of the testimony and we put stuff up all over the room and went through the lies and...
ABRAMS: But they agreed–I guess what I'm–they agreed with this verdict, right? I mean...
HERARD: Yes.
ABRAMS: If they–I want to just be clear here, that they were on board with the rest of the jury when verdict time came.
COCCOZ: Absolutely.
HERARD: Oh, definitely.
ABRAMS: Let me play a piece of sound from Ray Hultman. This is one of the jurors who is reportedly writing a book where he's going to apparently say that Jackson's actually guilty. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HULTMAN: We were required to look at some very specific counts in this case. Some specific charges and one of those charges wasn't 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. They were all evidence that could point one direction or the other, but when it came right down to it, we were required to make our decision as to reasonable doubt based on the 10 counts. And I think we did a good job in doing that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABRAMS: So, Pauline, if this is a change of heart, you think this is the money talking?
COCCOZ: You never know. I don't know. I don't want to be malicious or anything, so you know I don't know. Perhaps.
ABRAMS: Melissa?
HERARD: I feel the same way Pauline does. It could be. We'll just have to wait and see.
ABRAMS: All right, if you guys can stick–if you all could just stick around for a minute, I want to bring in my team, former prosecutor Susan Filan and criminal defense attorney John Burris.
Susan, you were there for a lot of this trial. I mean come on. I mean is this for real?
FILAN: Well, look, here's what it could be. This was one of those cases where even right down to the end, it was a cliffhanger and the media was divided as to whether it was going to be a conviction, an acquittal or a hung jury. It was a close call and I remember sitting next to you, Dan...
ABRAMS: Yes.
FILAN: ... when the verdict came out. So what could have happened here is dare I compare it to O.J.? When they were looking at the evidence, it didn't rise to the standard of proof. They had to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt...
ABRAMS: Right.
FILAN: ... but now that they've stepped back and looked at it, they're saying to themselves, of course he did it. They just couldn't prove it and that may be what they're trying to say although inelegantly.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement
ABRAMS: All right, well if that's the case, then he's still not guilty as a technical legal matter. Susan, just so everyone understands, as a prosecutor though, you can't appeal, right? You can't use this...
FILAN: Absolutely not.
ABRAMS: The question though is could someone use it in a civil
lawsuit? Let's say that someone decides to sue, could they say well look -
· let's say the family decides to sue–look, two of the jurors say they got it wrong.
FILAN: No, that's not evidence. No, absolutely not. They can't put these juries on now as witnesses. That's not going to constitute evidence.
ABRAMS: John Burris, as a defense attorney I assume you hear these–let's assume that these jurors do come forward and say you know, we got it wrong. You don't care, do you?
BURRIS: No, I don't care as it relates to this aspect of it, but I will say this. I would want to hear–if I'm representing him in a civil case, I actually want to hear what they have to say because what they have to say may be a road map as what the plaintiff's lawyer may want to do in his case in a civil case. So I would be correspond to want to hear about it, but there's no question that the one lady, Ms. Cook, remember this, we had a discussion about this on your program, Dan, she had already through her daughter, granddaughter made efforts to write a book, had sought out an agent.
And so it seems to me that she needed–she would want–they wanted a guilty verdict, so it's not surprising to me that she would come back, even if she had misgivings at the time. I just think this is really the unfortunate aspect of this sort of public kind of trials now. There's efforts to make money...
(CROSSTALK)
BURRIS: ... on these cases...
ABRAMS: I don't care if these jurors want to make money. I really don't. I don't care if they want to write books about it. I don't care if these jurors come back and say, we think Michael Jackson molested children in the past, but we came up with the right verdict. I am deeply troubled, though, if now, less than two months after the verdict, these jurors are going home and their family members are saying, hey, Ray, what did you do, buddy?
And as a result, he's saying oh, you know what? I'm going to make some money. I'm going to clear my name and I'm going to tell everyone that we effectively got it wrong. I mean that would be very disturbing if that happens, right John?
BURRIS: What makes you think it didn't happen? I mean obviously we have people who've said it was a not guilty verdict and now they've got books, very sexy titles to books...
ABRAMS: Yes.
BURRIS: ... go into deliberations, that really...
ABRAMS: “Free as a Bird”, “Guilty as Sin”...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: I mean you know look, Susan's right, it could mean that what they're saying is that he is guilty of this in other cases but not in this one. We'll see. Anyway, we'll follow it up. Susan Filan, John Burris, thanks a lot.
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8838598/