NANCY GRACE
Attorneys for chief suspect Joran Van Der Sloot`s appear to stall for time in the Natalee Holloway investigation on Aruba, as volunteer search teams begin to squabble and one even threatens a lawsuit against another.
Aired August 17, 2005 - 20:00:00 ET
...
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Got to move to the music. I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell, filling in for Nancy Grace.
More courtroom drama, more bizarre allegations swirling around Michael Jackson tonight, even as he reportedly remains secluded in the very tiny, very wealthy principality of Bahrain in the Middle East. Today, a court controversy -- a whole world away in Louisiana -- that is where Michael Jackson is being sued by a man who claims the pop star sexually assaulted him way back in 1984, but insists he just recently remembered it.
We have team coverage on this repressed memory case. Tonight, in Los Angeles, Michael Jackson`s attorney, my good friend, Brian Oxman. In New Orleans, Joseph Bartucci junior`s lawyer, Bert Pigg. And, in Los Angeles, Larry Garrison. He is co-authoring books with two Jackson jurors.
But first, to my also very good friend and courtroom buddy from the Jackson trial, "Inside Edition" chief correspondent Jim Moret. Jim, what is the very latest on this suit?
JIM MORET, CORRESPONDENT, "INSIDE EDITION": Hi, Jane. First of all, good to see you on that side of the desk right now.
Just when you thought Michael Jackson`s legal troubles may be over, he was fined today $10,000 by a federal judge in New Orleans for failing to appear at this civil lawsuit which was filed where a man claims that he was sexually assaulted by Michael Jackson during the 1984 World`s Fair.
Now, Jackson`s lawyer, not Tom Mesereau, but a gentleman named Charles Gay, in that case said that Michael Jackson didn`t know about the court appearances because he said he received the summons on June 13th. That`s when the jury in the criminal trial first brought their verdicts in.
The plaintiff, the gentleman you referred to, Joseph Bartucci, Jr., claims that, in 1984, when he was 18 years old, he was lured into a limousine by a Jackson employee, held against his will. And on a trip from New Orleans to Los Angeles, he was sexually assaulted on a number of occasions.
And as you mentioned, this was a repressed memory which apparently Mr. Bartucci now claims he was reminded of the incident when he first saw coverage of the criminal case. So it`s a rather interesting spin. But you have to remember this is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal case.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And that`s a very good point to make, civil lawsuit. These are not criminal proceedings.
We have Brian Oxman, a Jackson family attorney, with us. And, Brian, I understand -- and Elizabeth is going to put this up -- we have, and you have brought them to us, a couple of photos of the gloved one and the Gipper, to show us evidence, you say, that Michael Jackson was actually with then-President Ronald Reagan at the time of these alleged incidents.
Tell us about that.
BRIAN OXMAN, JACKSON FAMILY ATTORNEY: Michael Jackson was in the middle of the Victory Tour, which ended on the 27th of May in 1984. And he was concluding that tour and went to visit Ronald Reagan on May 14th and was very close to the president from then on.
In fact, today`s news is that Judge Roberts, who is the Supreme Court nominee, wrote memos to the president saying that he didn`t think that they should tout Michael Jackson too much. But despite Judge Roberts` efforts, Michael Jackson and Ronald Reagan were the best of friends for years, all the way up to the time that the president passed away.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And you`re saying that that`s what he was doing at the time of these allegations. Let`s hear from the attorney representing this man who was suing Michael Jackson, Bert Pigg.
What do you say to that, that Michael Jackson was doing something else and, in fact, Brian gave us a whole list of things that he was doing, in fact, allegedly visiting stars like Shirley MacLaine and various people?
BERT PIGG, ATTORNEY FOR BARTUCCI: Well, first of all, I think Brian needs to check his chronology of when the Victory Tour actually took place, because it didn`t start until later on in the summer from when these allegations took place, this activity took place here in New Orleans.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I think, you know, the toughest part of this whole thing is the repressed memory angle. Let`s go to defense attorney David Wohl.
What are your thoughts on this whole issue of repressed memory, which is so controversial?
DAVID WOHL, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Jane, let me back up a second and talk about these allegations. The allegations themselves, in my view, are strike one. The idea that Michael Jackson -- and put aside what you think about him for a moment -- would take a boy into his limo, drive him from New Orleans to California and back for days, molest nonstop. I think, even for Michael Jackson as a defendant, that seems marginally on the border of ludicrous.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Bert, let`s...
WOHL: Strike two is the repressed memory. Let me just say something about that. That is considered in most psychological parlances right now as junk science.
Nineteen years, he forgets completely about it. In 2003, suddenly he remembers? You know, it`s a very tough sell for any jury, and it`s going to be a tough sell for this one.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, Bert, this is your chance to defend your client. A lot of people are saying this is kind of a junkie lawsuit. What you to say?
PIGG: Well, repressed memory syndrome is a recognized cause of action here in Louisiana. There`s case law galore verifying this psychologically. It`s verified by our experts in this case. And the facts will come out at trial. And I`m sure Mr. Bartucci will prevail.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know, Brian Oxman may want to jump in, but I have to say that part of the problem isn`t just repressed memory, it`s repressed memory of more than 20 years of a long and involved alleged sexual assault.
And let`s bring our head of psychiatry into the picture here. You are an expert on repressed memory. Do you buy this?
JOSEPH DELTITO, PROFESSOR OF PSYCHIATRY: Repressed memory, where it does exist, is usually a bad artifact of poor psychotherapy or were someone has contingencies that would reward him for remembering something. They`re usually false memories. They`re usually implanted.
The nature of severe trauma is that people have trouble forgetting. I never heard of someone who was in Auschwitz, Dachau, whose experience was so bad they couldn`t remember it. The nature of trauma is that you can`t forget it, post-traumatic stress disorder.
At night, you have dreams about it. When you feel the temperature of a certain level, you think you`re in Vietnam again and you re-experience the war. You hear a bottle drop, it`s like a shot going off.
The nature of severe trauma is that you can`t forget things, not that you do forget things. I don`t want to say 100 percent of the cases it never occurs, but the idea of someone who`s 18 years old who had an experience over four days and doesn`t remember that it happened is essentially ludicrous from a modern psychiatric point of view.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And, Jim Moret, if this lawsuit is accurate, weren`t there some allegations of some really awful stuff, like cutting with a razor blade and things of that nature?
MORET: Well, there are several points that have been made here. One, you`re not talking about alleged repressed memory of somebody who`s very young. You`re talking about somebody who was 18. You`re talking about something happening over a series of days.
And like the doctor just said, you would think, as a lay person, that these would be events that, if they happened to you, you would have a difficult time forgetting and you wouldn`t be able to forget, let alone repress.
And, three, you then have the allegation that, while watching the criminal proceedings in California, suddenly your mind is sparked and you go, "A-ha, I was hurt, as well." These are all problems, I think. That doesn`t mean that this won`t be brought forward in court, but I think it makes it very, very difficult to win this case.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And let`s weigh in now with Larry Garrison, who`s co- authoring two books, or some books with two Jackson jurors. Do you think - - some say Michael Jackson brings this stuff on himself. He`s kind of a weirdo magnet. He behaves in a bizarre fashion, and therefore weird allegations are made against him.
Hello, Larry?
LARRY GARRISON, CO-AUTHORING BOOKS WITH JACKSON JURORS: Hello?
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hello?
GARRISON: You`re now coming through.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. All right...
GARRISON: What`s your question?
VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s a valid question for Brian Oxman, because he is Michael Jackson`s attorney. Brian, we`ve discussed this. Michael Jackson has faced more than a thousand lawsuits. You told me that. Does he bring this on himself?
OXMAN: Michael Jackson is one of the most incredible icons throughout the entire world. You can`t go any place where people don`t know about him and can`t recognize him. He`s an incredible phenomena.
The result of that is that he`s attracted a lot of litigation and a lot of lawsuits during his career. And people, well, just as Jimmy Durante used to say, "Everybody wants to get into the act." And when we have the jurors up in Santa Maria wanting to tout a book and sell it to a publisher, they, too, want to get into the act. And it`s the almighty dollar calling them.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And, Jim Moret, you and I were there for the trial. We saw the circus. Is this just an extension of the circus? Has it come back to town?
MORET: You know, when I first heard about two jurors coming forward saying that they changed their minds and that, on reflection, they had second thoughts, you and I were there for four months. And that`s our job. That`s fine.
The fact is that the system should work. And if, in fact, you believe somebody is guilty, you every right to say, "You know what? I`m going vote guilty. I don`t care if it hangs up this jury."
And when I first heard reports that two people were claiming -- now it`s three -- claiming that they have second thoughts, it infuriates me, because there was seven days of deliberations. And you would think that, if those deliberations were legitimate, they had every opportunity to voice their opinions.
It`s difficult to go back and say, "You know what? I don`t feel that he was really innocent. And now, let me try to sell a book." That frustrates me.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jim, you`re not the only one. It infuriates me, a lot of the other reporters I`ve spoken with, also furious. We all sat there outside the court, our stomachs in knots waiting for this verdict.
And then when it came down, we were all really in a tizzy. And it was almost like it was happening to us. And then to hear that the people that we had been anticipating their decision, well, they feel that they were coerced, even though you can`t coerce somebody in that situation, it is frustrating, because we`re all kind of emotionally invested in that.
And we`re going to talk a lot more about that when we come right back. That is a big issue, the jurors in the Jackson case. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell filling in for Nancy Grace.
The jurors in the Michael Jackson case, so many people in a tizzy because some of the jurors now saying, after the verdict, well, they thought Michael Jackson was guilty, but they felt pressured into saying not guilty.
Now, let`s go straight out to Larry Garrison. He is co-authoring books with two of those jurors. Larry, put us in their shoes, because it`s so easy to judge from the outside. But we weren`t sitting in that room. You`ve spent time with these two jurors.
What were they going through? What`s their side of the story?
GARRISON: Well, to start with, you have a third juror that came out this week who is not doing a movie or a book. And she is now collaborating in, as far as what they`re saying they went through happened behind the closed doors.
Ellie is a 79-year-old great grandmother who doesn`t give a hoot about money. And what the American public and the world is about to find out is they`re looking to combine the book possibly right now and give a portion of their profits to Feed the Children.
This is not about making money. This is not about doing a movie. They realized that they were pressured. They realized that they should have stuck to their guns, and they didn`t.
I think both of them are quite -- right now, they`re courageous people. They`re coming out. And they`re jeopardizing their personal life right now, really for nothing.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Let`s hear from one of them who spoke out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAY HULTMAN, JUROR IN MICHAEL JACKSON TRIAL: We actually challenged one another in the deliberation room. I mean, it wasn`t -- I don`t want to give the impression that this was a really slam-dunk deal where you just go in to 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 got to talk about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. So they say they felt pressured to agree.
Dr. Joseph, you can`t be pressured. Nobody can say you have to vote this way. That`s the whole reason you have jurors and juries. But can they feel that way, peer pressure? What`s the psychological pressure for them inside that room?
DELTITO: Sure. The dynamic in that room is that some people are more dominant, some people are more submissive. The nature of these negotiated sort of decisions is, "Today, I`m thinking a little bit more guilty, a little less guilty."
Someone may, at a certain moment, coalesce everyone so they all come to a certain agreement at that moment. But a half-hour later, they doubt it. It seems that what they`re talking about to me is the normal process that goes on in any of these kind of emotional juries.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And former prosecutor Wendy Murphy, a lot of us said afterwards, you know, maybe they went back to their neighbors and their neighbor, who had been watching all the coverage, were very upset with their decisions. So then they start backpedaling and saying, "You know, I really didn`t want to vote that way. I was forced to."
...
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jim Moret, we all watched that particular juror in court. And she has reportedly said that she was winking. And we did kind of see a little bit of a wink. But we didn`t know who she was winking at.
And then it turns out she says she winked at Katherine Jackson and that they had some kind of communication and they were wearing the same color outfits. What runs through you, having sat in that hot courtroom for four months, when you hear that stuff?
MORET: You know, first of all, I did not notice any communication between Eleanor Cook and Katherine Jackson. I did see her smile and nod a couple of times. It could have been toward Katherine Jackson, I don`t know.
It`s so frustrating, though. And I have to tell you something. I`ve talked to Larry Garrison in the green room. We happened to be at the same studio. He seems very respectful, very honorable, and he seems to believe what he`s saying. And I support his ability to represent these people.
But as a lawyer and as a reporter, I`m so frustrated that -- you know what? If you make a bad decision, live with it, fine. Maybe the prosecution didn`t prove its case. You and I sat in that courtroom and there were differences of opinion. Was it proven or not?
Live with it. That`s all I say.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Right. And, wow, it just puts the whole experience that you and I both went through in a different perspective to hear them, after the fact, change their minds. Wow.
Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/050...8/17/ng.01.html
Attorneys for chief suspect Joran Van Der Sloot`s appear to stall for time in the Natalee Holloway investigation on Aruba, as volunteer search teams begin to squabble and one even threatens a lawsuit against another.
Aired August 17, 2005 - 20:00:00 ET
...
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Got to move to the music. I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell, filling in for Nancy Grace.
More courtroom drama, more bizarre allegations swirling around Michael Jackson tonight, even as he reportedly remains secluded in the very tiny, very wealthy principality of Bahrain in the Middle East. Today, a court controversy -- a whole world away in Louisiana -- that is where Michael Jackson is being sued by a man who claims the pop star sexually assaulted him way back in 1984, but insists he just recently remembered it.
We have team coverage on this repressed memory case. Tonight, in Los Angeles, Michael Jackson`s attorney, my good friend, Brian Oxman. In New Orleans, Joseph Bartucci junior`s lawyer, Bert Pigg. And, in Los Angeles, Larry Garrison. He is co-authoring books with two Jackson jurors.
But first, to my also very good friend and courtroom buddy from the Jackson trial, "Inside Edition" chief correspondent Jim Moret. Jim, what is the very latest on this suit?
JIM MORET, CORRESPONDENT, "INSIDE EDITION": Hi, Jane. First of all, good to see you on that side of the desk right now.
Just when you thought Michael Jackson`s legal troubles may be over, he was fined today $10,000 by a federal judge in New Orleans for failing to appear at this civil lawsuit which was filed where a man claims that he was sexually assaulted by Michael Jackson during the 1984 World`s Fair.
Now, Jackson`s lawyer, not Tom Mesereau, but a gentleman named Charles Gay, in that case said that Michael Jackson didn`t know about the court appearances because he said he received the summons on June 13th. That`s when the jury in the criminal trial first brought their verdicts in.
The plaintiff, the gentleman you referred to, Joseph Bartucci, Jr., claims that, in 1984, when he was 18 years old, he was lured into a limousine by a Jackson employee, held against his will. And on a trip from New Orleans to Los Angeles, he was sexually assaulted on a number of occasions.
And as you mentioned, this was a repressed memory which apparently Mr. Bartucci now claims he was reminded of the incident when he first saw coverage of the criminal case. So it`s a rather interesting spin. But you have to remember this is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal case.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And that`s a very good point to make, civil lawsuit. These are not criminal proceedings.
We have Brian Oxman, a Jackson family attorney, with us. And, Brian, I understand -- and Elizabeth is going to put this up -- we have, and you have brought them to us, a couple of photos of the gloved one and the Gipper, to show us evidence, you say, that Michael Jackson was actually with then-President Ronald Reagan at the time of these alleged incidents.
Tell us about that.
BRIAN OXMAN, JACKSON FAMILY ATTORNEY: Michael Jackson was in the middle of the Victory Tour, which ended on the 27th of May in 1984. And he was concluding that tour and went to visit Ronald Reagan on May 14th and was very close to the president from then on.
In fact, today`s news is that Judge Roberts, who is the Supreme Court nominee, wrote memos to the president saying that he didn`t think that they should tout Michael Jackson too much. But despite Judge Roberts` efforts, Michael Jackson and Ronald Reagan were the best of friends for years, all the way up to the time that the president passed away.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And you`re saying that that`s what he was doing at the time of these allegations. Let`s hear from the attorney representing this man who was suing Michael Jackson, Bert Pigg.
What do you say to that, that Michael Jackson was doing something else and, in fact, Brian gave us a whole list of things that he was doing, in fact, allegedly visiting stars like Shirley MacLaine and various people?
BERT PIGG, ATTORNEY FOR BARTUCCI: Well, first of all, I think Brian needs to check his chronology of when the Victory Tour actually took place, because it didn`t start until later on in the summer from when these allegations took place, this activity took place here in New Orleans.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I think, you know, the toughest part of this whole thing is the repressed memory angle. Let`s go to defense attorney David Wohl.
What are your thoughts on this whole issue of repressed memory, which is so controversial?
DAVID WOHL, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Jane, let me back up a second and talk about these allegations. The allegations themselves, in my view, are strike one. The idea that Michael Jackson -- and put aside what you think about him for a moment -- would take a boy into his limo, drive him from New Orleans to California and back for days, molest nonstop. I think, even for Michael Jackson as a defendant, that seems marginally on the border of ludicrous.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Bert, let`s...
WOHL: Strike two is the repressed memory. Let me just say something about that. That is considered in most psychological parlances right now as junk science.
Nineteen years, he forgets completely about it. In 2003, suddenly he remembers? You know, it`s a very tough sell for any jury, and it`s going to be a tough sell for this one.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, Bert, this is your chance to defend your client. A lot of people are saying this is kind of a junkie lawsuit. What you to say?
PIGG: Well, repressed memory syndrome is a recognized cause of action here in Louisiana. There`s case law galore verifying this psychologically. It`s verified by our experts in this case. And the facts will come out at trial. And I`m sure Mr. Bartucci will prevail.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know, Brian Oxman may want to jump in, but I have to say that part of the problem isn`t just repressed memory, it`s repressed memory of more than 20 years of a long and involved alleged sexual assault.
And let`s bring our head of psychiatry into the picture here. You are an expert on repressed memory. Do you buy this?
JOSEPH DELTITO, PROFESSOR OF PSYCHIATRY: Repressed memory, where it does exist, is usually a bad artifact of poor psychotherapy or were someone has contingencies that would reward him for remembering something. They`re usually false memories. They`re usually implanted.
The nature of severe trauma is that people have trouble forgetting. I never heard of someone who was in Auschwitz, Dachau, whose experience was so bad they couldn`t remember it. The nature of trauma is that you can`t forget it, post-traumatic stress disorder.
At night, you have dreams about it. When you feel the temperature of a certain level, you think you`re in Vietnam again and you re-experience the war. You hear a bottle drop, it`s like a shot going off.
The nature of severe trauma is that you can`t forget things, not that you do forget things. I don`t want to say 100 percent of the cases it never occurs, but the idea of someone who`s 18 years old who had an experience over four days and doesn`t remember that it happened is essentially ludicrous from a modern psychiatric point of view.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And, Jim Moret, if this lawsuit is accurate, weren`t there some allegations of some really awful stuff, like cutting with a razor blade and things of that nature?
MORET: Well, there are several points that have been made here. One, you`re not talking about alleged repressed memory of somebody who`s very young. You`re talking about somebody who was 18. You`re talking about something happening over a series of days.
And like the doctor just said, you would think, as a lay person, that these would be events that, if they happened to you, you would have a difficult time forgetting and you wouldn`t be able to forget, let alone repress.
And, three, you then have the allegation that, while watching the criminal proceedings in California, suddenly your mind is sparked and you go, "A-ha, I was hurt, as well." These are all problems, I think. That doesn`t mean that this won`t be brought forward in court, but I think it makes it very, very difficult to win this case.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And let`s weigh in now with Larry Garrison, who`s co- authoring two books, or some books with two Jackson jurors. Do you think - - some say Michael Jackson brings this stuff on himself. He`s kind of a weirdo magnet. He behaves in a bizarre fashion, and therefore weird allegations are made against him.
Hello, Larry?
LARRY GARRISON, CO-AUTHORING BOOKS WITH JACKSON JURORS: Hello?
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hello?
GARRISON: You`re now coming through.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. All right...
GARRISON: What`s your question?
VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s a valid question for Brian Oxman, because he is Michael Jackson`s attorney. Brian, we`ve discussed this. Michael Jackson has faced more than a thousand lawsuits. You told me that. Does he bring this on himself?
OXMAN: Michael Jackson is one of the most incredible icons throughout the entire world. You can`t go any place where people don`t know about him and can`t recognize him. He`s an incredible phenomena.
The result of that is that he`s attracted a lot of litigation and a lot of lawsuits during his career. And people, well, just as Jimmy Durante used to say, "Everybody wants to get into the act." And when we have the jurors up in Santa Maria wanting to tout a book and sell it to a publisher, they, too, want to get into the act. And it`s the almighty dollar calling them.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And, Jim Moret, you and I were there for the trial. We saw the circus. Is this just an extension of the circus? Has it come back to town?
MORET: You know, when I first heard about two jurors coming forward saying that they changed their minds and that, on reflection, they had second thoughts, you and I were there for four months. And that`s our job. That`s fine.
The fact is that the system should work. And if, in fact, you believe somebody is guilty, you every right to say, "You know what? I`m going vote guilty. I don`t care if it hangs up this jury."
And when I first heard reports that two people were claiming -- now it`s three -- claiming that they have second thoughts, it infuriates me, because there was seven days of deliberations. And you would think that, if those deliberations were legitimate, they had every opportunity to voice their opinions.
It`s difficult to go back and say, "You know what? I don`t feel that he was really innocent. And now, let me try to sell a book." That frustrates me.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jim, you`re not the only one. It infuriates me, a lot of the other reporters I`ve spoken with, also furious. We all sat there outside the court, our stomachs in knots waiting for this verdict.
And then when it came down, we were all really in a tizzy. And it was almost like it was happening to us. And then to hear that the people that we had been anticipating their decision, well, they feel that they were coerced, even though you can`t coerce somebody in that situation, it is frustrating, because we`re all kind of emotionally invested in that.
And we`re going to talk a lot more about that when we come right back. That is a big issue, the jurors in the Jackson case. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell filling in for Nancy Grace.
The jurors in the Michael Jackson case, so many people in a tizzy because some of the jurors now saying, after the verdict, well, they thought Michael Jackson was guilty, but they felt pressured into saying not guilty.
Now, let`s go straight out to Larry Garrison. He is co-authoring books with two of those jurors. Larry, put us in their shoes, because it`s so easy to judge from the outside. But we weren`t sitting in that room. You`ve spent time with these two jurors.
What were they going through? What`s their side of the story?
GARRISON: Well, to start with, you have a third juror that came out this week who is not doing a movie or a book. And she is now collaborating in, as far as what they`re saying they went through happened behind the closed doors.
Ellie is a 79-year-old great grandmother who doesn`t give a hoot about money. And what the American public and the world is about to find out is they`re looking to combine the book possibly right now and give a portion of their profits to Feed the Children.
This is not about making money. This is not about doing a movie. They realized that they were pressured. They realized that they should have stuck to their guns, and they didn`t.
I think both of them are quite -- right now, they`re courageous people. They`re coming out. And they`re jeopardizing their personal life right now, really for nothing.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Let`s hear from one of them who spoke out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAY HULTMAN, JUROR IN MICHAEL JACKSON TRIAL: We actually challenged one another in the deliberation room. I mean, it wasn`t -- I don`t want to give the impression that this was a really slam-dunk deal where you just go in to 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 got to talk about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. So they say they felt pressured to agree.
Dr. Joseph, you can`t be pressured. Nobody can say you have to vote this way. That`s the whole reason you have jurors and juries. But can they feel that way, peer pressure? What`s the psychological pressure for them inside that room?
DELTITO: Sure. The dynamic in that room is that some people are more dominant, some people are more submissive. The nature of these negotiated sort of decisions is, "Today, I`m thinking a little bit more guilty, a little less guilty."
Someone may, at a certain moment, coalesce everyone so they all come to a certain agreement at that moment. But a half-hour later, they doubt it. It seems that what they`re talking about to me is the normal process that goes on in any of these kind of emotional juries.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And former prosecutor Wendy Murphy, a lot of us said afterwards, you know, maybe they went back to their neighbors and their neighbor, who had been watching all the coverage, were very upset with their decisions. So then they start backpedaling and saying, "You know, I really didn`t want to vote that way. I was forced to."
...
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jim Moret, we all watched that particular juror in court. And she has reportedly said that she was winking. And we did kind of see a little bit of a wink. But we didn`t know who she was winking at.
And then it turns out she says she winked at Katherine Jackson and that they had some kind of communication and they were wearing the same color outfits. What runs through you, having sat in that hot courtroom for four months, when you hear that stuff?
MORET: You know, first of all, I did not notice any communication between Eleanor Cook and Katherine Jackson. I did see her smile and nod a couple of times. It could have been toward Katherine Jackson, I don`t know.
It`s so frustrating, though. And I have to tell you something. I`ve talked to Larry Garrison in the green room. We happened to be at the same studio. He seems very respectful, very honorable, and he seems to believe what he`s saying. And I support his ability to represent these people.
But as a lawyer and as a reporter, I`m so frustrated that -- you know what? If you make a bad decision, live with it, fine. Maybe the prosecution didn`t prove its case. You and I sat in that courtroom and there were differences of opinion. Was it proven or not?
Live with it. That`s all I say.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Right. And, wow, it just puts the whole experience that you and I both went through in a different perspective to hear them, after the fact, change their minds. Wow.
Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/050...8/17/ng.01.html