Jackson jurors did not rule out past abuse of boys

JURORS in the Michael Jackson case revealed yesterday that they had not ruled out that the pop star abused boys in the past.

After unanimously clearing the self-styled King of Pop of all 10 charges relating to the alleged molestation of 13-year-old Gavin Arvizo, some spoke of their concerns that the singer had shared a bed with children.

But they said that despite the 700 pieces of evidence and 140-plus witnesses presented during the lengthy trial, the prosecution’s case just did not add up.

Raymond Hultman told CNN: “I feel that Michael Jackson probably has molested boys. 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. But that doesn’t make him guilty of the charges that were presented in this case and that’s where we had to make our decision.”

Jury foreman Paul Rodriguez expressed a similar view, adding that they were all aware that such evidence could not be used to convict the singer in this particular case.

The allegations of past abuse were considered credible to some extent, he said, adding that he thought there may have been a pattern of abuse.

The jury of eight women and four men announced their verdict after more than 32 hours of deliberations over seven days.

Asked whether they thought Jackson had been the victim of an elaborate sting, one said: “The thought was there. You could not help but wonder and things just did not add up when you looked at the timeline.”

Juror number eight said she felt that as a mother, the values Mrs Arvizo had taught her children were hard to comprehend.

“I would not want any of my children to lie for their own gain,” she said.

The jury agreed that no single piece of evidence, including testimony from alleged previous victims, swayed their opinion in any way. They said Home Alone star Macaulay Culkin’s testimony was “extremely important” but no more than anybody else’s.

The jurors said they had agreed from the outset that they would not treat Jackson as a celebrity, but think of him as any other defendant.

They said they had studied his demeanour and reactions to much of the evidence, although one said that 90% of the time it was almost as if he was not in the room.

The foreman said the jury took only two votes. They divided up tasks and used their copious notes to follow the timeline of events.

The jurors also took an anonymous poll among themselves early in their deliberations, and it was apparent that most believed the pop star was innocent.

Mr Hultman said he and two others didn’t initially share that opinion, but the majority eventually convinced the three that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to convict Jackson on the charges they were deciding. He said he thought the prosecution’s strongest piece of evidence was a video of the accuser making his first statement to sheriff’s investigators. But he said he was concerned because the accuser had already spoken to two attorneys and a psychologist before going to deputies.

Jurors said they were put off by the accuser’s mother, who tended to stare at them and snapped her fingers at them during her testimony.

And Mr Rodriguez said Jackson thanked them. “He looked over at us. In fact, I made eye contact with him as the last part of the verdict was read and he kinda just mouthed to us and openly said ‘Thank you’.”