1. Paul Rodriguez Interview
2. Raymond Hultman Interview
3. David Schwartz Interview
4. Anita Gattis Interview
5. Larry Gattis Interview
6. Duke Rape Case
7. Why Serrano is Innocent
8. Grace Induced Suicide
9. JonBenet
10. Secret Journalist
11. Blog Intro
12. Profile
13. Nancy Grace Paying Paper
14. The War on Christmas
15. Tara Sources
MICHAEL JACKSON CASE
TARA GRINSTEAD CASE
TRIAL TRACKING
NANCY GRACE UNDER INVESTIGATION
ABOUT YOUR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Secret Journalist
Larry Harriet Secret Journalist One day I was in a bowling alley and I was approached by 2 men from a very credible television journalistic agency. These 2 men told me that they had an offer for me that I could not refuse. They told me they represent a secret underground society and they wanted me to be part of it because I posess certain rare traits. If I became a member of this society, I would have access to the world's most rich and powerful celebrities and politicians. I would be eating the finest foods everynight, I would be living across the world in the most beautiful and pristine mansions. I would have enjoy optimum health for the rest of my life and I would also have millions and millions of dollars to freely spend. All of my needs would be taken care of. It was simply an offer I couldn't refuse. These 2 men asked me get into their van and they would take me to the society headquarters. I went with them. This is a part of my mission. While you may not understand why I am putting this information out here, I hope you do come to understand that it is a part of my mission. When I first started working for this society I absolutely loved it because I was doing what I've always dreamed to do - being a journalist. I was reporting on some of the biggest stories of our time. I worked on the OJ Simpson case. I worked on the JonBenet Ramsey case. The resources of this secret society gave me great resources and access to sources that no other journalist could have access to. Being a member of this society, gave me instant access to the world's most rich and powerful people - politicans, world leaders, and celebrities alike. I began to work my sources round the clock. What I uncovered was amazing. Let me tell you that big brother is always watching you. What you are doing right now is being extensively reviewed, monitored, evaluated, and archived. Your conversations on the phone are recorded and listened to. Your e-mails, what you watch on TV, what books you read, food you eat, your hobbies, and your likes and dislikes are all being monitored. Because of this information, It took me no time at all to identify the killers of the cases I was covering. I know who the killers of JonBenet Ramsey are, I was able to speak to them, I know why they did it and how they did it. I know that OJ Simpson was not the only person involved in his wife's and his wife's friends death. OJ had an assistant. I know who that assistant is. I've spoken to that assisant. I know that Robert Blake didn't pull the trigger. While he did have involvement in his wife's death, he did not pull the trigger. I know who did. I know that Scott Peterson did kill Laci Peterson. I know how he killed her, when, and where. I also know why he killed her. While I was working these stories, I was absolutely stunned at the video tapes I recieved, the audio tapes I listened to, the notebook notes I read. I came to the conclusion that there is not any crime that can't be solved because most of it is on tape. Its just amazing how the government has eyes all accross this country. They are watching you right now. I still work within this secret society today. I will remain with them until the rest of my life. Once your in you can't get out. I'm not mad that I can't get out because I love being a member of this secret society. I feel like I'm the most powerful person in the world. Right now, I am living in a 3 story mansion in Hollywood with an elevator, waterfall, and basement. Its absolutely beautiful. I'm eating the finest food, riding in planes with powerful politicians and world rulers, and living the most luxiorious life that could possibly be. And in my next edition, I will tell you how your tax dollars are paying for my luxiorious life. Thats right, your tax dollars are paying for my life. And that will be explained in my next edition.
Anita Gattis
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Anita Gattis
The latest in the Tara Grinstead investigation with Anita Gattis Larry Harriet -- Janurary 25th 2006 CourtNet Reporter, Larry Harriet recently did an exclusive interview with Anita Gattis, Tara Grinstead's sister. Below is a rush transcript.
1. What was Tara's personality like? What were her life's focus, interests, and favorite thing to do? Tara was a very outgoing person; friends that you would talk with would say that Tara was a friend for life. She had contact with her elementary, high school, and college friends. Once you were Tara's friend, you were always her friend. Tara was very busy in her time in that she taught high school, was also an assistant principle part time, and was going to school. Tara was also very active in beauty pageants.
2. What type of relationship did you have with Tara? Well, there is a 14 year age difference between us. I used to act as the caregiver, but our relationship grew as we developed similar interests. Sometimes it would be a month in between time that we would see each other, but we would always do a lot of e-mailing in between.
3. How has the support that you have gotten been? Well, the community support is just amazing, the support from Tara's workplace as well. Tara's students love her. In fact, Tara would give out her cell phone number to students because she felt that they might need her.
4. Are you concerned about any of Tara's relationships? Yes. 5. Do you feel that Marcus Harper had any involvement in the case? I am disturbed by that relationship. He was in the military before 911, so every time he would come back from his work with the military, his whole demeanor and personality would change. He would verbally abuse Tara quite frequently. When Tara was parked at a red light, he would scream verbally abusive comments to her. I am disturbed with the fact that he is an army ranger, and Tara was disappeared without a trace. In fact, I am disturbed with the fact that he has access to army bases. Also, in that he has knowledge to dispose of a body, I am just concerned.
6. What do you think about Anthony Vickers?
Yes I do have concerns about him. Some people have felt that he is not smart enough to have involvement in Tara's disappearance. I think he lives in a fantasy world when it comes to his relationship with Tara. I am sure that their relationship was nothing more than friendship. I do have concerns about him.
7. Do you hope that these 2 get re-questioned?
Absolutely. There are in addition to Marcus Harper and Anthony Vickers, some other key people including Sean Fletcher who works on the police force. I am also distraught about the fact that there was a latex glove found outside of Tara's home after she disappeared, and police cars have latex gloves.
8. How is your hope holding out that Tara is alive?
Well, I believe like my mother says in that we have nothing to prove that she is not alive. It is just a gut feeling, I feel that I would know if she were not alive. Tara is such a kind and sweet person; I just feel that if she were not alive, I would feel it.
9. How have the searches been and have you turned anything up at this point?
Well, we have found some things, in particular items of clothing, but I really can't disclose what more we have found that has been sent to the GBI.
10. What do you make of the car, in which Tara's seat was pushed back like a man was sitting in it, and was unlocked, which was unlike Tara?
Well, I think its suspicious, you know Tara always had her seat pushed up as far as she could and my husband would always tell her that she has to push her seat back because if she gets in a wreck, she could be hurt severely, and the seat looks like it had been pushed back, and then somebody tried to push it up again. Tara always locked her car, so yes, I am suspicious of that.
11. What's keeping you going right now?
I just have a gut feeling that Tara is alive. I know my mother has a gut feeling. She and I want to stay strong and stay focused. I know that if the situation were reversed, I would want her to stay as strong as I am being. I really don't know why God has put me in this position, I don't know if it means that I'm supposed to work with missing children, I just know that I am here and that I must go forward. Its hard; my husband is doing a lot of his own investigation. I just know that I have to stay strong and stay focused, and I do believe that Tara is alive.
The latest in the Tara Grinstead investigation with Anita Gattis Larry Harriet -- Janurary 25th 2006 CourtNet Reporter, Larry Harriet recently did an exclusive interview with Anita Gattis, Tara Grinstead's sister. Below is a rush transcript.
1. What was Tara's personality like? What were her life's focus, interests, and favorite thing to do? Tara was a very outgoing person; friends that you would talk with would say that Tara was a friend for life. She had contact with her elementary, high school, and college friends. Once you were Tara's friend, you were always her friend. Tara was very busy in her time in that she taught high school, was also an assistant principle part time, and was going to school. Tara was also very active in beauty pageants.
2. What type of relationship did you have with Tara? Well, there is a 14 year age difference between us. I used to act as the caregiver, but our relationship grew as we developed similar interests. Sometimes it would be a month in between time that we would see each other, but we would always do a lot of e-mailing in between.
3. How has the support that you have gotten been? Well, the community support is just amazing, the support from Tara's workplace as well. Tara's students love her. In fact, Tara would give out her cell phone number to students because she felt that they might need her.
4. Are you concerned about any of Tara's relationships? Yes. 5. Do you feel that Marcus Harper had any involvement in the case? I am disturbed by that relationship. He was in the military before 911, so every time he would come back from his work with the military, his whole demeanor and personality would change. He would verbally abuse Tara quite frequently. When Tara was parked at a red light, he would scream verbally abusive comments to her. I am disturbed with the fact that he is an army ranger, and Tara was disappeared without a trace. In fact, I am disturbed with the fact that he has access to army bases. Also, in that he has knowledge to dispose of a body, I am just concerned.
6. What do you think about Anthony Vickers?
Yes I do have concerns about him. Some people have felt that he is not smart enough to have involvement in Tara's disappearance. I think he lives in a fantasy world when it comes to his relationship with Tara. I am sure that their relationship was nothing more than friendship. I do have concerns about him.
7. Do you hope that these 2 get re-questioned?
Absolutely. There are in addition to Marcus Harper and Anthony Vickers, some other key people including Sean Fletcher who works on the police force. I am also distraught about the fact that there was a latex glove found outside of Tara's home after she disappeared, and police cars have latex gloves.
8. How is your hope holding out that Tara is alive?
Well, I believe like my mother says in that we have nothing to prove that she is not alive. It is just a gut feeling, I feel that I would know if she were not alive. Tara is such a kind and sweet person; I just feel that if she were not alive, I would feel it.
9. How have the searches been and have you turned anything up at this point?
Well, we have found some things, in particular items of clothing, but I really can't disclose what more we have found that has been sent to the GBI.
10. What do you make of the car, in which Tara's seat was pushed back like a man was sitting in it, and was unlocked, which was unlike Tara?
Well, I think its suspicious, you know Tara always had her seat pushed up as far as she could and my husband would always tell her that she has to push her seat back because if she gets in a wreck, she could be hurt severely, and the seat looks like it had been pushed back, and then somebody tried to push it up again. Tara always locked her car, so yes, I am suspicious of that.
11. What's keeping you going right now?
I just have a gut feeling that Tara is alive. I know my mother has a gut feeling. She and I want to stay strong and stay focused. I know that if the situation were reversed, I would want her to stay as strong as I am being. I really don't know why God has put me in this position, I don't know if it means that I'm supposed to work with missing children, I just know that I am here and that I must go forward. Its hard; my husband is doing a lot of his own investigation. I just know that I have to stay strong and stay focused, and I do believe that Tara is alive.
Larry Gattis Exclusive
COURTNET EXCLUSIVE:: THE LATEST IN THE TARA GRINSTEAD INVESTIGATION WITH LARRY GATTIS, ANITA'S HUSBANDLarry Harriet, CourtNet -- Tuesday, February 7th, 2006Larry Harriet of CourtNet recently did an exclusive phone interview with Larry Gattis, missing beauty queen Tara Grinstead's brother in law. Larry Gattis talks with CourtNet's Larry Harriet about recent allegations of him having an affair with Tara, the latest in the investigation, and how he and his family is getting through this. Below is a rush transcript:LARRY HARRIET, COURTNET: Hey Larry, first of all thankyou so much for doing this interview with me, I really appreciate it. I want to start off by asking you about your polygraph test with the investigators, tell me about what happened.LARRY GATTIS, ANITA'S HUSBAND, TARA GRINSTEAD'S BROTHER IN LAW: There was a lot of things about it that were unethical and very uncomfortable for me, because you know the nature of the questions, and it seemed to me more like a fishing expedition, as opposed to really if I had any involvement in Tara's disappearance.LARRY HARRIET: Right, right the only questions that you failed on the polygraph, allegedly failed, was pertaining to you having an affair with Tara, it had absolutely nothing to do with the investigation, and no proof was suggested that you had anything to do with her disappearance. Which to me, the fact that they would even ask you such a question, when the goal here is that we are trying to find Tara, they should not be trying to dig up any dirt on the family, or victimize the family, and the goal is to find tara and its just completely irrelevant to ask you such questions, when they should be focusing in on the investigation, details surrounding Tara's personality, information about the investigation, and to ask you questions about an alleged affair is just to me, completely irrelevant.LARRY GATTIS: The unethical portion of the polygraph was the fact that they divided issues. A polygraph should ethically be given surrounding one issue, only to clarify a fact, and two issues should not be included in a polygraph. I don't know, I still don't have any indication on how I did on any of the questions, I just know I am no longer a suspect, and I know myself, as far as I'm concerned I pass all the portion, because I know the truth, and they don't.LARRY HARRIET: Right.LARRY GATTIS: Its just some silly machine, it looked liked it was 30 years old, it was not computerized. A lot of the polygraphs are computerized now, and you can get some sort of authentication to the process. I wished I had researched it more. I volunteered in good faith because I just wanted to help, and it seemed like they had a tough time getting by me, and if they are putting extra time investigating me, they need to look at someone else. There is nothing to be gained by them to by looking at me because. We think what I've been going through the last 3 months had more to do with our outspoken nature, and the fact we've been in the press, the fact that we've criticized the GBI, the fact that I've been doing my own investigation along with people that work for me. I've been told to back off.LARRY HARRIET: Right, and you've even launched your own investigation, you even went to Tifton to speak with some of Tara's teachers and that was way before your first interview with the GBI, so you think maybe they got ticked at that and decided that they were gonna do this to you?LARRY GATTIS: Yes, and what made it really obvious is the fact that part of their accusation was the fact that Anita had caught us twice, supposedly a week before she disappeared, and I had been asked about this on numerous, numerous of occasions, and actually probably about it the last time, and they never bothered to ask Anita if she saw that. Anita had actually had a 4 hour interview with an agent, her name was Lea and she had an interview with her for hours and she was never asked, "Did I have an affair," "Did she ever catch us," or anything of that nature. She simply was not asked. We are thinking that they see it, you know when I left the office there, they knew where I was going with this (to the press) and I let them know that. I also let them know that its time for me to let this behavior (of the GBI's) was made public, and I was not going to tolerate it anymore. I told them that as soon as I had the chance, I would go on national TV and expose what they had been doing and agent Turner said "I don't care, I don't listen to that stuff anyway" and so I don't think he really expected me to do that...LARRY HARRIET: You did, you went on Greta VanSustren...LARRY GATTIS: We did, and they (GBI Investigators) have really backed off.LARRY HARRIET: Thats good...LARRY GATTIS: The calls I've had from the GBI since then have been a lot more appropriate.LARRY HARRIET: Right...LARRY HARRIET: Now the polygraph, I mean, did they just want to pressure that element about you having an affair with Tara?LARRY GATTIS: Yes, yesLARRY HARRIET: That was it? I mean that was the WHOLE thing?LARRY GATTIS: The WHOLE thing. That was 90% of the questioning and harassment that day was the supposed affair I had with Tara, and anybody that’s been close to our family, or Tara, or anyone in town knows that’s totally ridiculous, I've don't go to that town very frequently at all. Me and Tara communicated by e-mails a lot and the GBI had all the e-mails that were strictly appropriate, very relative type stuff. So they knew that was ridiculous to start with. It actually got started by, we are not absolutely certain by a rumor from a private investigator that was working with the other side of the family. He has since been terminated. You know, the tragedy is that Tara's gone...LARRY HARRIET: Your right, your right...LARRY GATTIS: ... and I can't let any of this really bother me, there have been rumors all over the place, I don't lose any sleep on those things. I've got more important things to worry about, every free minute, I'm following a lead, and I've been in Ocilla searching every weekend.LARRY HARRIET: Now, your leads, are they pertaining to the 3 suspects in my mind are Marcus Harper, Sean Fletcher, and Anthony Vickers?LARRY GATTIS: The leads have more to do with the possible locations of the body, where she may of been disposed of, that sort of thing. I really can't say if I'm looking on their property or anything or anything of that nature, we have had tips about where she may be. We're working with a number of different physics. That's the sort of thing we're falling up on and hopefully if we find the body we'll get some evidence concerning who did that, I can't really say. I think the GBI is still currently active from the investigation but if they are following up some leads directly related to the suspects, I really can't say. We're looking in some places that haven't really been looked in, we know that chances are she was disposed up by an abductor, possibly within 15 miles of her home, generally within 100 yards of a 2nd main road. You know, there are some stick tics to go by. We have had a lot of help from physics and the thing to that is we have talked to several different ones. They may have different information, but its the common information is that she is 7-10 miles south of her home in Ocilla and there are some areas we've been really concentrating on. Of course, you've got that river down there, and swamps off that river that would be an excellent place to dispose of someone, you have gators, you have turtles, and that would be the most likely thing. We've been studying Ariel photos, and maps, and we've been going to a different location every weekend. We're looking in homes, wells, etc., etc., for evidence.LARRY HARRIET: Right, and your clear. I mean you have that alibi, you are a doctor, and you were on call through the 21st-23rd.LARRY GATTIS: I worked that entire weekend, at the hospital, and your not allowed to get, 15 minutes away from the hospital, it’s a hospital policy. I was in and out all weekend. The time I was not at the hospital, I was with Anita and Gibe (Anita and Larry's son) at home, and I'm sure they've looked into that. If I was going to pick a weekend to do something terrible, I sure wouldn't pick a weekend I was on call.LARRY HARRIET: And your a doctor that...LARRY GATTIS: Specializes in the diseases of the elderly, like 65 +LARRY HARRIET: And you were also Tara's primary physician...LARRY GATTIS: My first training was in family practice, and I'm board certified. I'm qualified to take care of all ages, and to some degree I still do, but I tend to specialize in taking care of the diseases of the elderly. I still maintain a family practice, and keep my boards current, but yes I've taken care of her since she was probably 16 years old.LARRY HARRIET: Do you have an idea on how Marcus Harper, Sean Fletcher, and Anthony Vickers are acting around town? Are they acting weird, any abnormal behavior to your knowledge, what have you seen, have you seen them at all? Have you seen how they are acting in town?continued on the other side...
LARRY GATTIS: No, the only thing, the only information about that would be hearsay, and I haven't heard anything from Anthony or the Fletcher boy. I've just heard some things about what Marcus' been up to, just some second hand information. We've heard he's been exploding bombs...LARRY HARRIET: Well, hes worked with the military...LARRY GATTIS: Yes.LARRY HARRIET: Now, this is important, has Marcus Harper had provided you any support? Has he provided support with the investigation? with searches? anything?LARRY GATTIS: I've tried to meet with Marcus twice and get some information about him as a part of my investigation, and I talked to Nancy, his mother, and I made it very clear at the time that this is just information gathering. I'm just trying to find out more, her (Tara's) habits, places she would go, people she would know, so that I could talk to different people, but, he refused twice to meet with me, so I've not been able to meet with him. To my knowledge, hes not been on any of the searches, nor have we had ANY help from the other suspects (Marcus Harper, Sean Fletcher, and Anthony Vickers). I did talk to Anthony Vickers over the phone for about 30 minutes, that was one night, and the closest I've ever been able to get to him. I've tried to meet him a second time but he refused. So that's kind of where we are at.LARRY HARRIET: You had a conversation, what did you talk about with him, what did he say "Oh gosh, you know, I had absolutely nothing to do with this," or something like "I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry," but, what did you guy's talk about?LARRY GATTIS: He told me at that time he had a lot of information about Tara. He wanted to meet with Anita and me and maybe try to figure out together maybe what happened to her, where she could be, that sort of thing, that was the just of this, and at the time, it had just happened and the police department was really looking at him hard, and we really didn't know who had done what. I had not really started any investigation at that point in time, but I did talk to him for about 30 minutes, that was the just of his conversation was that he wanted to tell us some things.LARRY HARRIET: And the police have not named him as a suspect?LARRY GATTIS: They haven't named anyone. They'll tell you (Police/GBI) "We haven't ruled anyone in, and we haven't ruled anyone out."LARRY HARRIET: There was a glove, a rubber latex glove, found outside of Tara's house, and I worry that he is a member of the police department, and I'm sure that every police car is equipped with gloves in the glove compartment. Have they done anything to your knowledge to trace that glove to the type of glove that the police department buys in bulk, or any type of trace evidence on that glove that would link the...LARRY GATTIS: The last time I asked about that glove was the day that I took the die detector test, and they still say that they haven't gotten any information from the glove yet, thats all they will say. It’s been 3 months, so logic would tell you they've probably got something or nothing from the glove by now, but they won't say anything.LARRY HARRIET: Now, do you know that the police have requisitioned Marcus Harper?LARRY GATTIS: They have questioned him multiple times.LARRY HARRIET: Okay, that's good.LARRY HARRIET: You know, Anita was said before that Marcus Harper would yell obscenities to Tara when she was parked at a red light. Probably, verbally abusive towards her, I don't know if he was physically abusive towards her but, with your relationship with Tara through e-mailing her, talking with her, and seeing her, did she ever confide anything in you about their relationship, about something going wrong with him, anything?LARRY GATTIS: Yes she did, before she went missing we did some e-mails back and forth where she was worried that she was getting a little afraid of him at that time...LARRY HARRIET: Okay...LARRY GATTIS: ... she would say that he said really mean and nasty things to her, obscenities, I'd repeat some of those, but you've probably already heard some...LARRY HARRIET: Yes...LARRY GATTIS: ... shes confided in me, during the summer she became more concerned that something would happen and I e-mailed her back, sometime during the summer, it was before she went missing, and I was worried it would get worse with Marcus and I e-mailed her and warned her about that situation.LARRY HARRIET: Now, Anita has said before, she said on the Greta VanSustren interview that you had a very close relationship with Tara, that you think of her as your own sister. How hard has this been on you?LARRY GATTIS: Its been the hardest thing that I've ever had happen to me in my life, I've never lost anything close to me in my family, so this is kind of like a first experience. I can't say we've lost her, I mean it looks that way, but I've sort of adopted Tara as my sister, she was 14 when I met Anita, and we were always really close. She didn't have a dad, and I have a sister but we don't maintain contact, and thats another story but, Tara was always like a sister to me. She lived with us for a while, had holidays at our house. I went to the beauty pageants she was in. We did music together. We had a lot of common interest. I am a musician and I write songs, and I wrote a couple of songs for her. We went through those and recorded some stuff together. I helped her get ready for her pageants. She'd practice singing; I'd open the church up so she could go in and sing. As a guy, I know it’s unusual but I like to shop, so we went shopping together. So, we had a lot of common interest, but definitely not anything like the GBI suggested...LARRY HARRIET: No, of course not, of course not...LARRY GATTIS: I guess, you know, I told them during the interview, I said "I guess you think all the guys you interview have absolutely no morals whatsoever!" I don't know how they could think the worse about everyone. Yes, Its been tough, I've had bad dreams, I had one last night. You know, everynight you lay down and go to sleep, I run down the entire scenario in my mind. You know, "Have I missed anything?, "Where haven't I looked?," "Is there some clue that I've overlooked, or something that would explain this mysterious turn of events?" It’s an everynight thing to lie down and go through the entire scenario in my head again. During the day, of course, I'm doing a medical practice, and it’s tough to keep that together because we're gone so many days of the month. Anita's my office manager, and she spends more time in Ocilla than she does here, and right now, I spend a lot of time down there to, all my weekends, and many nights. So it’s been tough to keep the practice going like it should have been, you know, I've lost a lot of revenue since this happened. which is not a problem, but its just one of many aspects. The main thing is the stress of not having Tara, wondering where she is, what happened to her, was she hurt, you know, was she tortured. Just basically, what happened to her? I try not to think about some of that stuff.LARRY HARRIET: What kind of person was she?LARRY GATTIS: She was a really outgoing, but the main thing with Tara was that she was really a kind, and generous person. She thought about other people all the time, not about herself. She got up in the morning everday looking for someone to do something for, and her occupation dealt with that, probably the last thing she thought about everynight...LARRY HARRIET: Yes...LARRY GATTIS: I would get these calls, being a medical person, and she would have a friend that was having some sort of emotional or medical problem, she would call me and say "What can I do? How can I help?" and I got those calls a lot.-------------------That completes the interview. I did talk with Larry after the interview offering my support, and some other things, but I don't want to post that here out of respect for him.This interview transcript has been cut from its original format to protect privileged information.Sorry about not posting this earlier. I hope you enjoy the new pictures.Seeking Truth,Larry HarrietCourtNet
LARRY GATTIS: No, the only thing, the only information about that would be hearsay, and I haven't heard anything from Anthony or the Fletcher boy. I've just heard some things about what Marcus' been up to, just some second hand information. We've heard he's been exploding bombs...LARRY HARRIET: Well, hes worked with the military...LARRY GATTIS: Yes.LARRY HARRIET: Now, this is important, has Marcus Harper had provided you any support? Has he provided support with the investigation? with searches? anything?LARRY GATTIS: I've tried to meet with Marcus twice and get some information about him as a part of my investigation, and I talked to Nancy, his mother, and I made it very clear at the time that this is just information gathering. I'm just trying to find out more, her (Tara's) habits, places she would go, people she would know, so that I could talk to different people, but, he refused twice to meet with me, so I've not been able to meet with him. To my knowledge, hes not been on any of the searches, nor have we had ANY help from the other suspects (Marcus Harper, Sean Fletcher, and Anthony Vickers). I did talk to Anthony Vickers over the phone for about 30 minutes, that was one night, and the closest I've ever been able to get to him. I've tried to meet him a second time but he refused. So that's kind of where we are at.LARRY HARRIET: You had a conversation, what did you talk about with him, what did he say "Oh gosh, you know, I had absolutely nothing to do with this," or something like "I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry," but, what did you guy's talk about?LARRY GATTIS: He told me at that time he had a lot of information about Tara. He wanted to meet with Anita and me and maybe try to figure out together maybe what happened to her, where she could be, that sort of thing, that was the just of this, and at the time, it had just happened and the police department was really looking at him hard, and we really didn't know who had done what. I had not really started any investigation at that point in time, but I did talk to him for about 30 minutes, that was the just of his conversation was that he wanted to tell us some things.LARRY HARRIET: And the police have not named him as a suspect?LARRY GATTIS: They haven't named anyone. They'll tell you (Police/GBI) "We haven't ruled anyone in, and we haven't ruled anyone out."LARRY HARRIET: There was a glove, a rubber latex glove, found outside of Tara's house, and I worry that he is a member of the police department, and I'm sure that every police car is equipped with gloves in the glove compartment. Have they done anything to your knowledge to trace that glove to the type of glove that the police department buys in bulk, or any type of trace evidence on that glove that would link the...LARRY GATTIS: The last time I asked about that glove was the day that I took the die detector test, and they still say that they haven't gotten any information from the glove yet, thats all they will say. It’s been 3 months, so logic would tell you they've probably got something or nothing from the glove by now, but they won't say anything.LARRY HARRIET: Now, do you know that the police have requisitioned Marcus Harper?LARRY GATTIS: They have questioned him multiple times.LARRY HARRIET: Okay, that's good.LARRY HARRIET: You know, Anita was said before that Marcus Harper would yell obscenities to Tara when she was parked at a red light. Probably, verbally abusive towards her, I don't know if he was physically abusive towards her but, with your relationship with Tara through e-mailing her, talking with her, and seeing her, did she ever confide anything in you about their relationship, about something going wrong with him, anything?LARRY GATTIS: Yes she did, before she went missing we did some e-mails back and forth where she was worried that she was getting a little afraid of him at that time...LARRY HARRIET: Okay...LARRY GATTIS: ... she would say that he said really mean and nasty things to her, obscenities, I'd repeat some of those, but you've probably already heard some...LARRY HARRIET: Yes...LARRY GATTIS: ... shes confided in me, during the summer she became more concerned that something would happen and I e-mailed her back, sometime during the summer, it was before she went missing, and I was worried it would get worse with Marcus and I e-mailed her and warned her about that situation.LARRY HARRIET: Now, Anita has said before, she said on the Greta VanSustren interview that you had a very close relationship with Tara, that you think of her as your own sister. How hard has this been on you?LARRY GATTIS: Its been the hardest thing that I've ever had happen to me in my life, I've never lost anything close to me in my family, so this is kind of like a first experience. I can't say we've lost her, I mean it looks that way, but I've sort of adopted Tara as my sister, she was 14 when I met Anita, and we were always really close. She didn't have a dad, and I have a sister but we don't maintain contact, and thats another story but, Tara was always like a sister to me. She lived with us for a while, had holidays at our house. I went to the beauty pageants she was in. We did music together. We had a lot of common interest. I am a musician and I write songs, and I wrote a couple of songs for her. We went through those and recorded some stuff together. I helped her get ready for her pageants. She'd practice singing; I'd open the church up so she could go in and sing. As a guy, I know it’s unusual but I like to shop, so we went shopping together. So, we had a lot of common interest, but definitely not anything like the GBI suggested...LARRY HARRIET: No, of course not, of course not...LARRY GATTIS: I guess, you know, I told them during the interview, I said "I guess you think all the guys you interview have absolutely no morals whatsoever!" I don't know how they could think the worse about everyone. Yes, Its been tough, I've had bad dreams, I had one last night. You know, everynight you lay down and go to sleep, I run down the entire scenario in my mind. You know, "Have I missed anything?, "Where haven't I looked?," "Is there some clue that I've overlooked, or something that would explain this mysterious turn of events?" It’s an everynight thing to lie down and go through the entire scenario in my head again. During the day, of course, I'm doing a medical practice, and it’s tough to keep that together because we're gone so many days of the month. Anita's my office manager, and she spends more time in Ocilla than she does here, and right now, I spend a lot of time down there to, all my weekends, and many nights. So it’s been tough to keep the practice going like it should have been, you know, I've lost a lot of revenue since this happened. which is not a problem, but its just one of many aspects. The main thing is the stress of not having Tara, wondering where she is, what happened to her, was she hurt, you know, was she tortured. Just basically, what happened to her? I try not to think about some of that stuff.LARRY HARRIET: What kind of person was she?LARRY GATTIS: She was a really outgoing, but the main thing with Tara was that she was really a kind, and generous person. She thought about other people all the time, not about herself. She got up in the morning everday looking for someone to do something for, and her occupation dealt with that, probably the last thing she thought about everynight...LARRY HARRIET: Yes...LARRY GATTIS: I would get these calls, being a medical person, and she would have a friend that was having some sort of emotional or medical problem, she would call me and say "What can I do? How can I help?" and I got those calls a lot.-------------------That completes the interview. I did talk with Larry after the interview offering my support, and some other things, but I don't want to post that here out of respect for him.This interview transcript has been cut from its original format to protect privileged information.Sorry about not posting this earlier. I hope you enjoy the new pictures.Seeking Truth,Larry HarrietCourtNet
How the Michael Jackson Case Evolved
How the case evolved
By DAWN HOBBS NEWS-PRESS STAFF WRITER-->
MIKE ELIASON/NEWS-PRESS FILEIT STARTED WITH A RAID: Michael Jackson's legal troubles began at Neverland Valley Ranch, above, on NOv. 18, 2003, when dozens of law enforcement agents searched for evidence. Mr. Jackson climbed on an SUV after his arraigment, below, and once appeared at court in his pajama bottoms, bottom right.
March 1988: Michael Jackson purchases the 2,600-acre Neverland property, off Figueroa Mountain Road near Los Olivos, for $14.6 million.
Aug. 1993: The Santa Barbara and Los Angeles county district attorneys' offices begin investigations of Mr. Jackson in connection with sexual molestation allegations made by a 13-year-old boy. A former maid's son tells investigators the entertainer molested him, as well.
Sept. 1993: The family of the 13-year-old files a civil lawsuit against Mr. Jackson.
Jan. 1994: The boy's family and Mr. Jackson reach an out-of-court settlement, reported to be $20 million. At about the same time, the former maid and her son are paid $2 million by Mr. Jackson.
Sept. 1994: Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon and the L.A. district attorney halt the criminal investigations of Mr. Jackson after the two boys refuse to testify.
March 1997: A Santa Maria jury awards Mr. Jackson $1.5 million in damages after five former Neverland Valley Ranch employees allege that they were threatened, spied on, harassed and wrongfully fired.
Nov. 2002: Lawyer and talk show host Gloria Allred calls on Mr. Sneddon and a state child protection agency to investigate Michael Jackson after he dangles his baby over a hotel balcony in Berlin.
2003
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Feb. 6: In a British documentary broadcast on ABC, Mr. Jackson admits to letting visiting children sleep in his bed at Neverland, but says that there was no sexual contact. Mr. Sneddon tells the News-Press it's "much ado about nothing," and "sleeping in bed with a kid is not a crime, that I know of."
March 13: A Santa Maria jury awards $5.3 million to Mr. Jackson's former concert promoter after the entertainer pulled out of a concert.
April-May: Following News-Press reports, the county inspects Neverland, including its amusement rides and zoo; county officials say that half of Mr. Jackson's 16 amusement rides have been built without permits.
Nov. 18: Nearly 70 Santa Barbara County law enforcement authorities raid Neverland, a videographer's West Hills residence and a private investigator's Beverly Hills office.
Nov. 19: Mr. Sneddon and Sheriff Jim Anderson announce that a warrant for Mr. Jackson's arrest has been issued.
Nov. 20: Mr. Jackson, accompanied by defense attorney Mark Geragos, surrenders to Santa Barbara County authorities; the entertainer is booked in County Jail, surrenders his passport, posts $3 million bail and is released.
Dec. 18: Mr. Sneddon files seven felony counts of committing a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent to enable him to commit child molestation.
2004
Jan. 16: Mr. Jackson pleads not guilty to all nine felony counts; he dances on the roof of his SUV outside the courthouse and hosts a party at Neverland to thank fans for their support.
Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville imposes a strict gag order on lawyers, investigators and witnesses.
March 29: Mr. Sneddon convenes a criminal grand jury.
April 21: The grand jury indicts Mr. Jackson on 10 counts.
April 25: Mr. Jackson replaces Mr. Geragos with Los Angeles defense lawyer Thomas Mesereau.
April 30: Mr. Jackson pleads not guilty to charges from the indictment: one count of conspiracy, four counts of lewd acts with a child, one count of an attempted lewd act with a child and four counts of administering alcohol to commit a felony.
May 19: The state Supreme Court refuses to lift Judge Melville's gag order.
June 14: Court documents are released showing that Judge Melville declined a defense request to lower Mr. Jackson's $3 million bail.
Aug. 16: Mr. Sneddon testifies at a pretrial hearing about his role in the investigation.
Late December: Court officials send out notices to North County residents eligible to be called for jury duty.
2005
Jan. 31: Jury selection begins at the Santa Maria courthouse.
Feb. 15: Jury selection is suspended after Mr. Jackson is taken to Marian Medical Center with the flu.
Feb. 23: Judge Melville swears in 12 jurors.
Feb. 28-March 1: Mr. Sneddon and lead defense lawyer Mr. Mesereau make opening arguments.
March 3-4, 7: The accuser's sister says Mr. Jackson gave wine to her brother in early 2003.
March 8-9: The accuser's brother says he twice saw Mr. Jackson molest his brother at Neverland.
March 10: Mr. Jackson comes to trial in his pajamas after a detour to the Santa Ynez Valley Cottage Hospital emergency room for treatment of back pain.
March 10, 14-15: The accuser says Mr. Jackson molested him at Neverland in March 2003.
March 21: Mr. Jackson is late for court after again stopping at Santa Ynez Valley Cottage Hospital for treatment of back pain.
March 28: Judge Melville rules that evidence from a 1993 child molestation investigation of Mr. Jackson can be admitted.
April 4-5: The son of the former Neverland maid says that Mr. Jackson molested him more than 15 years ago.
April 11: The mother of the boy whose family received the $20 million settlement says her son shared a bed with the entertainer more than 60 times in 1993.
April 13-15, 18: The mother of the accuser in the current case testifies that Mr. Jackson and his associates held her and her family captive.
April 27-28: Debbie Rowe, Mr. Jackson's ex-wife, says she wasn't coached by his associates before being interviewed for a video portraying him favorably.
May 3: A forensic accountant says that Mr. Jackson is overspending by $20 million to $30 million a year and is facing financial disaster.
May 4: The prosecution rests its case.
May 5: Judge Melville denies defense requests for a mistrial and acquittal; the defense begins its case by calling two young men who each shared a bed with Mr. Jackson when they were boys; Wade Robson and Brett Barns tell jurors that the entertainer never molested them or touched them inappropriately.
May 11: Actor Macaulay Culkin tells jurors that Mr. Jackson never molested him; the "Home Alone" star's testimony contradicts a prosecution witness who said he saw Mr. Jackson fondle the actor when he was a child in the early 1990s.
May 12: Judge Melville orders Mr. Geragos, Mr. Jackson's former lawyer, to appear in court the next day under threat of an arrest warrant.
May 13: Mr. Geragos says he thought the accuser's family was going to shake down Mr. Jackson for money and ordered a private investigator to surveil them.
May 17: Simone Jackson, a cousin of Mr. Jackson, tells jurors the accuser and his brother stole wine from the Neverland kitchen.
May 19: Judge Melville rules that CNN talk show host Larry King cannot testify; Mr. King was expected to say that the family's civil attorney, Larry Feldman, told him the accuser's mother was out for money.
May 20: Mr. Geragos takes the stand for a second time and under cross-examination denies that the Jackson camp conspired to hold the accuser and his family captive.
May 24: Comedian Jay Leno testifies that the family never asked him for money, but acknowledges that he told police he thought he was a "mark" for the accuser's family.
May 25: Comedian Chris Tucker calls the accuser "cunning" and tells jurors that the boy tried to hit him up for money. The defense rests its case.
June 2-3: Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen for the prosecution and Mr. Mesereau for the defense give closing arguments.
June 3: The case goes to the jury.
June 5: Mr. Jackson goes to the emergency room at Santa Ynez Valley Cottage Hospital for treatment of a back problem.
June 13: The jury finds Mr. Jackson not guilty of all 10 counts.
By DAWN HOBBS NEWS-PRESS STAFF WRITER-->
MIKE ELIASON/NEWS-PRESS FILEIT STARTED WITH A RAID: Michael Jackson's legal troubles began at Neverland Valley Ranch, above, on NOv. 18, 2003, when dozens of law enforcement agents searched for evidence. Mr. Jackson climbed on an SUV after his arraigment, below, and once appeared at court in his pajama bottoms, bottom right.
March 1988: Michael Jackson purchases the 2,600-acre Neverland property, off Figueroa Mountain Road near Los Olivos, for $14.6 million.
Aug. 1993: The Santa Barbara and Los Angeles county district attorneys' offices begin investigations of Mr. Jackson in connection with sexual molestation allegations made by a 13-year-old boy. A former maid's son tells investigators the entertainer molested him, as well.
Sept. 1993: The family of the 13-year-old files a civil lawsuit against Mr. Jackson.
Jan. 1994: The boy's family and Mr. Jackson reach an out-of-court settlement, reported to be $20 million. At about the same time, the former maid and her son are paid $2 million by Mr. Jackson.
Sept. 1994: Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon and the L.A. district attorney halt the criminal investigations of Mr. Jackson after the two boys refuse to testify.
March 1997: A Santa Maria jury awards Mr. Jackson $1.5 million in damages after five former Neverland Valley Ranch employees allege that they were threatened, spied on, harassed and wrongfully fired.
Nov. 2002: Lawyer and talk show host Gloria Allred calls on Mr. Sneddon and a state child protection agency to investigate Michael Jackson after he dangles his baby over a hotel balcony in Berlin.
2003
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Feb. 6: In a British documentary broadcast on ABC, Mr. Jackson admits to letting visiting children sleep in his bed at Neverland, but says that there was no sexual contact. Mr. Sneddon tells the News-Press it's "much ado about nothing," and "sleeping in bed with a kid is not a crime, that I know of."
March 13: A Santa Maria jury awards $5.3 million to Mr. Jackson's former concert promoter after the entertainer pulled out of a concert.
April-May: Following News-Press reports, the county inspects Neverland, including its amusement rides and zoo; county officials say that half of Mr. Jackson's 16 amusement rides have been built without permits.
Nov. 18: Nearly 70 Santa Barbara County law enforcement authorities raid Neverland, a videographer's West Hills residence and a private investigator's Beverly Hills office.
Nov. 19: Mr. Sneddon and Sheriff Jim Anderson announce that a warrant for Mr. Jackson's arrest has been issued.
Nov. 20: Mr. Jackson, accompanied by defense attorney Mark Geragos, surrenders to Santa Barbara County authorities; the entertainer is booked in County Jail, surrenders his passport, posts $3 million bail and is released.
Dec. 18: Mr. Sneddon files seven felony counts of committing a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent to enable him to commit child molestation.
2004
Jan. 16: Mr. Jackson pleads not guilty to all nine felony counts; he dances on the roof of his SUV outside the courthouse and hosts a party at Neverland to thank fans for their support.
Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville imposes a strict gag order on lawyers, investigators and witnesses.
March 29: Mr. Sneddon convenes a criminal grand jury.
April 21: The grand jury indicts Mr. Jackson on 10 counts.
April 25: Mr. Jackson replaces Mr. Geragos with Los Angeles defense lawyer Thomas Mesereau.
April 30: Mr. Jackson pleads not guilty to charges from the indictment: one count of conspiracy, four counts of lewd acts with a child, one count of an attempted lewd act with a child and four counts of administering alcohol to commit a felony.
May 19: The state Supreme Court refuses to lift Judge Melville's gag order.
June 14: Court documents are released showing that Judge Melville declined a defense request to lower Mr. Jackson's $3 million bail.
Aug. 16: Mr. Sneddon testifies at a pretrial hearing about his role in the investigation.
Late December: Court officials send out notices to North County residents eligible to be called for jury duty.
2005
Jan. 31: Jury selection begins at the Santa Maria courthouse.
Feb. 15: Jury selection is suspended after Mr. Jackson is taken to Marian Medical Center with the flu.
Feb. 23: Judge Melville swears in 12 jurors.
Feb. 28-March 1: Mr. Sneddon and lead defense lawyer Mr. Mesereau make opening arguments.
March 3-4, 7: The accuser's sister says Mr. Jackson gave wine to her brother in early 2003.
March 8-9: The accuser's brother says he twice saw Mr. Jackson molest his brother at Neverland.
March 10: Mr. Jackson comes to trial in his pajamas after a detour to the Santa Ynez Valley Cottage Hospital emergency room for treatment of back pain.
March 10, 14-15: The accuser says Mr. Jackson molested him at Neverland in March 2003.
March 21: Mr. Jackson is late for court after again stopping at Santa Ynez Valley Cottage Hospital for treatment of back pain.
March 28: Judge Melville rules that evidence from a 1993 child molestation investigation of Mr. Jackson can be admitted.
April 4-5: The son of the former Neverland maid says that Mr. Jackson molested him more than 15 years ago.
April 11: The mother of the boy whose family received the $20 million settlement says her son shared a bed with the entertainer more than 60 times in 1993.
April 13-15, 18: The mother of the accuser in the current case testifies that Mr. Jackson and his associates held her and her family captive.
April 27-28: Debbie Rowe, Mr. Jackson's ex-wife, says she wasn't coached by his associates before being interviewed for a video portraying him favorably.
May 3: A forensic accountant says that Mr. Jackson is overspending by $20 million to $30 million a year and is facing financial disaster.
May 4: The prosecution rests its case.
May 5: Judge Melville denies defense requests for a mistrial and acquittal; the defense begins its case by calling two young men who each shared a bed with Mr. Jackson when they were boys; Wade Robson and Brett Barns tell jurors that the entertainer never molested them or touched them inappropriately.
May 11: Actor Macaulay Culkin tells jurors that Mr. Jackson never molested him; the "Home Alone" star's testimony contradicts a prosecution witness who said he saw Mr. Jackson fondle the actor when he was a child in the early 1990s.
May 12: Judge Melville orders Mr. Geragos, Mr. Jackson's former lawyer, to appear in court the next day under threat of an arrest warrant.
May 13: Mr. Geragos says he thought the accuser's family was going to shake down Mr. Jackson for money and ordered a private investigator to surveil them.
May 17: Simone Jackson, a cousin of Mr. Jackson, tells jurors the accuser and his brother stole wine from the Neverland kitchen.
May 19: Judge Melville rules that CNN talk show host Larry King cannot testify; Mr. King was expected to say that the family's civil attorney, Larry Feldman, told him the accuser's mother was out for money.
May 20: Mr. Geragos takes the stand for a second time and under cross-examination denies that the Jackson camp conspired to hold the accuser and his family captive.
May 24: Comedian Jay Leno testifies that the family never asked him for money, but acknowledges that he told police he thought he was a "mark" for the accuser's family.
May 25: Comedian Chris Tucker calls the accuser "cunning" and tells jurors that the boy tried to hit him up for money. The defense rests its case.
June 2-3: Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen for the prosecution and Mr. Mesereau for the defense give closing arguments.
June 3: The case goes to the jury.
June 5: Mr. Jackson goes to the emergency room at Santa Ynez Valley Cottage Hospital for treatment of a back problem.
June 13: The jury finds Mr. Jackson not guilty of all 10 counts.
Raymond Hultman
Now Read...
The Larry Harriet News Center's exclusive interview with Jackson juror, Raymond Hultman.
From:
Ray Hultman
Reply-To:
Larry Harriet
To:
Larry Harriet
Subject:
Request for interview
Date:
Mon 10/10/05 09:25 PM
Dear Mr. Hultman,
Hello, I am larryHARRIET, I am an investigative reporter. I run a news website about current court cases and legal issues. I was wondering if you would be kind enough to answer some questions for my website. I would really appreciate it.Thanks,
larryHARRIET
-----------------------
INTERVIEW
1. Mr. Hultman, first of all, thankyou for doing this interview for us, I really appreciate it. Okay, I want to ask you specifically about the jury, what happened in the jury room, were you suprised at their jump to vote not guilty? Explain.
yes i was suprised to see that the jury wanted to vote not guilty it was about 3 of us out of the 12 that wanted to vote guilty and i was shocked to see that the rest of the jury was ready to vote not guilty after hearing all of this testimony by people that sounded credible to me
2. I did an exclusive interview, with your foreperson, Paul Rodriguez, and I asked him about you, he said that you kept making statements about how your heart felt. He felt that you could not convict just based on how your heart felt. How was he in the jury room, what was your reaction to him, was he the leader of the pact to make the you vote not guilty.
paul would keep saying to ellie that if she could not change her mind about her guilty verdict he would have her thrown off the jury my reaction to him while we were in trial was he seemed to be a very nice man as they all did but when we all got into the jury room i was amazed to see he was so rude
3. When I interviewed Paul, he was really disappointed that you and Ellie would "twist what he said," he felt that you were twisting his statements to sell books, your reaction?
well he did make rude comments that is the truth and me writing my book is not about money its about the truth
4. What is happening with the book, I've heard that you were filing a lawsuit about it?
i don't have an answer for you with that i can't comment
5. What is your definition of reasonable doubt?
proven beyond a reasonable doubt with a empasis on reasonable
6. In reviewing my tapes from the Jackson trial, I saw the interviews you gave to Diane Dimond, Court TV, Nancy Grace, CNN, Fox, etc. and you pretend that nothing went wrong in that jury room, now we know because of your statements that there was massive things going down in that jury room that were wrong, why did you pretend that everything was all right, that you saw smoke but couldn't find fire?
we all agreed we did not want the public to think anything went wrong it was just so we all agreed
7. What was your reaction to the mother in the case?
rude, very rude, but i had to know that the mother was not on trial, it was michael jackson
8. How finally were you convinced to change your vote to not guilty?
it was just like fine get over it i'll go with the group i was not about to have a hung jury because i spent 5 months of my life and no way was that all for nothing
9. If you had to do it all over agian, would you, If you were able to go back in time and not sign the papers, not vote not guilty but guilty would you?
yes in a second
10. If the victim is reading this right now what would you want to say to him?
i'm sorry very sorry
11. Do you hope the mother and the victim file a civil suit?
yes i do very much so at least jackson won't get off scott free
12. Do the other 9 jurors being so ready to vote not guilty tell you anything about the American Justice System, about the power of celebrity?
yes it does because with the testimony presented to us i believe that if it wasn't michael jackson and it was joe smo he would of been found guilty automatically
13. Was there anything in the defense case that you believed?
yes actually i did believe there was a little bit of doubt about this family but a little bit of doubt not reasonable doubt
14. Court watchers and legal eagles often think about jurys and celebrity trials, "I bet you would of voted not guilty even if there was a video of the crime," what would you say about that statement in correlation with this jury?
i believe that even if there was a video some of the things a few of the jurors came up with was just crazy they would probably say it was an actor in the video or something crazy
15. What happened with the juror who snuck in the court tv video of Nancy Grace and Diane Dimond analyzing the Jackson case? Did you want to see it?
in a way i did because with the jury being so just stubron i wanted them to see something from the media but the tv was broken so we did not see it.
16. Did it take a toll overall on you, this whole ordeal?
yes it did such a toll because its all you think about
17. Would you ever want to be on a jury when its a high profile case ever agian?
no
18. Did you believe the states witness the youth minister?
yes i did believe him from what i remember we never reviewed his testimony in the jury room but from what i remember he was telling the truth
19. What would you say to Michael Jackson?
get it together your a grown man and you need to stop doing these things the jury found you not guilty but that does not mean you are innocent and we know that something is not right at neverland stop hanging around with little boys.
20. What are you going to do if say a year from now you see a picture of Michael Jackson in the mall shopping with another nine year old little boy with toys and movies for the boy?
well i hope it does not happen
21. What would you say to Thomas Stendon?
i would say sorry because you did put up a good case and i believe jackson is guilty of these charges
22. Do you think there is a lesson to be learned here about jury selection?
yes i do its so important for the state to choose the jury very well to make sure they can be fair and unbiased that celebrity will not overpower their decisions
23. Why do you think michael jackson chooses to be with little boys?
i don't know
24. Do you think that out of this whole ordeal with the jury's not guilty verdict, with you coming back out saying you think jackson is a child molestor, is there a lesson to be learned?
yes i do i hope that jurys will go with their heart and stick to their verdict and not cave in
25. Any closing thoughts?
thanks
Thankyou for answering my questions, I appreciate it.
larryHARRIET
The Larry Harriet News Center's exclusive interview with Jackson juror, Raymond Hultman.
From:
Ray Hultman
Reply-To:
Larry Harriet
To:
Larry Harriet
Subject:
Request for interview
Date:
Mon 10/10/05 09:25 PM
Dear Mr. Hultman,
Hello, I am larryHARRIET, I am an investigative reporter. I run a news website about current court cases and legal issues. I was wondering if you would be kind enough to answer some questions for my website. I would really appreciate it.Thanks,
larryHARRIET
-----------------------
INTERVIEW
1. Mr. Hultman, first of all, thankyou for doing this interview for us, I really appreciate it. Okay, I want to ask you specifically about the jury, what happened in the jury room, were you suprised at their jump to vote not guilty? Explain.
yes i was suprised to see that the jury wanted to vote not guilty it was about 3 of us out of the 12 that wanted to vote guilty and i was shocked to see that the rest of the jury was ready to vote not guilty after hearing all of this testimony by people that sounded credible to me
2. I did an exclusive interview, with your foreperson, Paul Rodriguez, and I asked him about you, he said that you kept making statements about how your heart felt. He felt that you could not convict just based on how your heart felt. How was he in the jury room, what was your reaction to him, was he the leader of the pact to make the you vote not guilty.
paul would keep saying to ellie that if she could not change her mind about her guilty verdict he would have her thrown off the jury my reaction to him while we were in trial was he seemed to be a very nice man as they all did but when we all got into the jury room i was amazed to see he was so rude
3. When I interviewed Paul, he was really disappointed that you and Ellie would "twist what he said," he felt that you were twisting his statements to sell books, your reaction?
well he did make rude comments that is the truth and me writing my book is not about money its about the truth
4. What is happening with the book, I've heard that you were filing a lawsuit about it?
i don't have an answer for you with that i can't comment
5. What is your definition of reasonable doubt?
proven beyond a reasonable doubt with a empasis on reasonable
6. In reviewing my tapes from the Jackson trial, I saw the interviews you gave to Diane Dimond, Court TV, Nancy Grace, CNN, Fox, etc. and you pretend that nothing went wrong in that jury room, now we know because of your statements that there was massive things going down in that jury room that were wrong, why did you pretend that everything was all right, that you saw smoke but couldn't find fire?
we all agreed we did not want the public to think anything went wrong it was just so we all agreed
7. What was your reaction to the mother in the case?
rude, very rude, but i had to know that the mother was not on trial, it was michael jackson
8. How finally were you convinced to change your vote to not guilty?
it was just like fine get over it i'll go with the group i was not about to have a hung jury because i spent 5 months of my life and no way was that all for nothing
9. If you had to do it all over agian, would you, If you were able to go back in time and not sign the papers, not vote not guilty but guilty would you?
yes in a second
10. If the victim is reading this right now what would you want to say to him?
i'm sorry very sorry
11. Do you hope the mother and the victim file a civil suit?
yes i do very much so at least jackson won't get off scott free
12. Do the other 9 jurors being so ready to vote not guilty tell you anything about the American Justice System, about the power of celebrity?
yes it does because with the testimony presented to us i believe that if it wasn't michael jackson and it was joe smo he would of been found guilty automatically
13. Was there anything in the defense case that you believed?
yes actually i did believe there was a little bit of doubt about this family but a little bit of doubt not reasonable doubt
14. Court watchers and legal eagles often think about jurys and celebrity trials, "I bet you would of voted not guilty even if there was a video of the crime," what would you say about that statement in correlation with this jury?
i believe that even if there was a video some of the things a few of the jurors came up with was just crazy they would probably say it was an actor in the video or something crazy
15. What happened with the juror who snuck in the court tv video of Nancy Grace and Diane Dimond analyzing the Jackson case? Did you want to see it?
in a way i did because with the jury being so just stubron i wanted them to see something from the media but the tv was broken so we did not see it.
16. Did it take a toll overall on you, this whole ordeal?
yes it did such a toll because its all you think about
17. Would you ever want to be on a jury when its a high profile case ever agian?
no
18. Did you believe the states witness the youth minister?
yes i did believe him from what i remember we never reviewed his testimony in the jury room but from what i remember he was telling the truth
19. What would you say to Michael Jackson?
get it together your a grown man and you need to stop doing these things the jury found you not guilty but that does not mean you are innocent and we know that something is not right at neverland stop hanging around with little boys.
20. What are you going to do if say a year from now you see a picture of Michael Jackson in the mall shopping with another nine year old little boy with toys and movies for the boy?
well i hope it does not happen
21. What would you say to Thomas Stendon?
i would say sorry because you did put up a good case and i believe jackson is guilty of these charges
22. Do you think there is a lesson to be learned here about jury selection?
yes i do its so important for the state to choose the jury very well to make sure they can be fair and unbiased that celebrity will not overpower their decisions
23. Why do you think michael jackson chooses to be with little boys?
i don't know
24. Do you think that out of this whole ordeal with the jury's not guilty verdict, with you coming back out saying you think jackson is a child molestor, is there a lesson to be learned?
yes i do i hope that jurys will go with their heart and stick to their verdict and not cave in
25. Any closing thoughts?
thanks
Thankyou for answering my questions, I appreciate it.
larryHARRIET
David Schwartz
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITHDAVID SCHWARTZ
criminal defense attorney and respected legal analyst
exclusive interview with www.schwartzdefense.com 's David Schwartz.
Larry:
below please find the answers to the questions presented in number order as you list them in the questions
Scott Peterson
1. Do you believe that it is just to determine a verdict, or essentially make a case based solely on circumstantial evidence?
I believe that in many cases, circumstantial evidence can be stronger than direct evidence. Many cases exist where direct eye witness testimony is not credible based on a variety of factors including, but not limited to, the lighting conditions, criminal record of the eye witness, ability to perceive, eyesight of the witness, positioning of the witness, time of day etc. I have seen many strong cases that are based on particular circumstances that are simply indefensible.
2. Do you believe that it is just to give a death penalty sentence based on a verdict reached solely on circumstantial evidence?
No. I do not believe the death penalty is proper under any circumstances. As long as human beings are making these decisions on guilt or innocence we can never be 100% sure that a defendant is guilty. The killing of one innocent person would be one person too many for a civilized nation. We are better than that. moreover, DNA evidence has now exonerated over 100 death row inmates. That is a mind boggling number of mistakes. Thousands of other convicted felons have been exonerated on non death penalty cases.
3. How should reasonable doubt be presented by a prosecutor/defense attorney in a case of solely circumstantial evidence?
It is the prosecutors job to present evidence. It is the defense attorneys job to point out all areas that can constitute reasonable doubt. Every inconsistency, all credibility issues, alibi, affirmative defenses, sanity issues must be presented to the jury in order to create doubt in the minds of the jurors.
4. Why do you think there was so much public interest in the Scott Peterson case?
The media drives the public interest in the trial. The fact that lacy and Scott looked like the all American married couple, with a baby on the way, the fact that Scott was living a double life and the whole Amber Fry element was an attractive combination for the Peterson case to become an obsession.
5. Do you believe Scott Peterson was innocent?
No, I believe he did it. The question is did the prosecution prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
6. How do you feel about the death penalty overall?
As explained in question # 2, I believe the death penalty should be abolished. Almost all of the civilized nations in the world have abolished the death penalty. We can never be 100% certain of guilt in any criminal case. The death penalty is a barbaric solution to punishment, it is more costly than life in prison, you cannot reverse the death penalty, it is immoral and there is no correlation between the death penalty and the prevention of crime.
7. If you believe Scott is innocent, what do you believe happened to Laci Peterson?
I believe the only logical explanation that has been put forward is that Scott killed Lacey. Again, the question is, did the prosecution prove this theory beyond a reasonable doubt?
8. Some legal analysts said that for celebrities the states burden is to prove the case beyond all doubt? Do you believe this?
No. I believe the same standard applies to all defendants. The case against Jackson was simply weak.
9. On Court TVs Catherine Crier Live, Wendy Murphy said this jury had "dumb-juror syndrome." Your reaction to that?
I like Wendy but I believe she is dead wrong. We do not know who these jurors are. They made exactly the correct decision based on the evidence presented to the jury and the credibility issues of the prosecution witnesses.
10. You said that Tom Sneddon clearly had a vendetta against Michael Jackson, what proof behind it?
I believe his motives were clear. He has targeted Jackson for over 10 years. He illegally searched the offices of a defense retained investigator. The tone of this prosecution, the treatment of the witnesses, the approach of trying to embarrass Jackson at every turn, the fact that Sneddon himself went out on some of the actual warrants and his general demeanor pretrial and during the trial showed me a prosecutor that had a vendetta against Jackson.
11. Why was Tom Sneddon so obsessed? His motives?
He probably felt in his heart that Jackson was a child molester He did get completely caught up in the celebrity aspect of the case as evidenced by his press conferences.
12. Do you believe Michael Jackson is innocent?
I believe he was guilty of giving alcohol to a minor and acting completely inappropriately with children. I believe the parents of these kids were just as guilty for putting their children in these positions. I do not believe the evidence was credible to convict Jackson of Child Molestation.
13. What do you think Michael Jackson was doing with this boy, and his previous boys, night, after night, after night, after night...?
As a parent and a human being, I would like to believe that he simply was giving the children attention and offering them an innocent Disney world like experience. I cannot speculate if anything else happened. We were not there to know. The question again is did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jackson molested this child. I believe the answer is "NO."
14. The jury put much of their blame for the state not being able to prove their case on the mother, do you believe this is relevant?
The mother was a huge part of the failure. The mother put her child in this position at Neverland in the first place. The evidence was overwhelming that she orchestrated this whole case because of the money.
15. Were you in the courtroom or did you read a transcript of the mother's and accuser's, and accuser's brother's testimony? If so, did it sound scripted, rehearsed?
Scripted is a term of art. Most witnesses go through practice runs of the questioning. Many witnesses testimony sounds scripted because of preparation. I do believe their is some truth to the fact that the testimony was scripted.
16. Do you that in a child molestation/rape trial, having previous accusers testify saying, "I was molested," helps the prosecution? Why did it not help in the case against Michael Jackson?
The prior bad acts should have never come into the trial. It was highly prejudicial and many of the allegations were too remote. It did backfire on the prosecution because they had multiple cases of credibility problems to deal with. It did seem that the prosecutors orchestrated much of this testimony.
17. Do you think that if Tom Sneddon would of left out the conspiracy charge, he would of had a better chance of getting a conviction?
Yes, The conspiracy was ridiculous. The kidnapping, imprisonment, etc., all led to the downfall of the credibility of the prosecution. The case should have focused on just the molestation.
18. How do you think Tom Sneddon credibility came across to the jury?
The credibility of Sneddon was a factor in the case.
19. What did you think of the judge's rulings to not allow cameras in the courtroom?
I believe trials should be televised. My problem with the high profile case is the pretrial publicity. I believe all of the hype will taint the jury pool. My solution is to seal all of the proceedings up until the trial. Once a jury is impaneled, then the trial itself should be televised.
20. What did you think of the reporting during the trial?
Thorough.
21. How do you think the Jackson family rationalized so many little boys saying they were molested by Jackson?
Money and brainwashing. Many boys who testified said the they were not molested.
22. Paul Rodriguez said that their personal beliefs regarding the other little boy accusers, could not play a part in the determination of the verdict.
I agree. That is why the evidence of all other accusers should have been suppressed and the law in California to allow this evidence should be deemed an unconstitutional violation of a dendants right to a fair trial. A defendant should not be expected to defend himself against every prior unproven allegation of bad conduct.
23. Do you believe that if a jury believes an accuser's testimony with their moral heart and reasonable head, the state met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
No, the standard is if the juror has a reason to doubt the evidence, then they should vote "not guilty."
24. What was your reaction to Ellie Ray and Raymond Hultman coming out after the verdict saying that they believe the boy was molested and that Jackson is a child molester?
I did not give it much thought, but those thoughts were inconsistent with their verdict.
25. Ellie Ray admitted to juror misconduct, should she be prosecuted?
Depends on the misconduct.
26. How do you think a jury determines the credibility of a witness in regular cases?
Courtroom demeanor, prior bad acts, consistency of their testimony, ability to perceive the facts, criminal record, profession, how they withstand cross examination, eye contact with the jury and questioner, body language during testimony, confidence.
27. How do you think a jury determines the credibility of a witness in celebrity cases?
same as # 26
DEFENSE ATTORNEY'S INSIGHT
28. We hear all the time about attorneys, having their personal story, their moral reason for doing what they do, do you have a personal story as a defense attorney?
I am a former prosecutor with the Brooklyn District Attorney's office. I represent average everyday citizens accused of a wide variety of crimes. I believe that practicing criminal law on the defense side has opened up my eyes on the injustices that take place everyday in the system. A criminal defendant that cannot afford an attorney is at a severe disadvantage in getting a fair result. The sentencing guidelines in most states are way too harsh. Every case is unique and should be handled in a unique manner and should not be lumped into categories. Criminal defense is a necessary part of the criminal justice system. I am proud of my achievements as a lawyer who practices criminal law. It is fulfilling to get a Heroine addict into a drug program rather than jail, or vigorously defend people who are falsely accused, or convince a DA that your client is not as culpable as they originally thought or to have a case dismissed based on a skillful application of the rules.
29. Have you ever represented a client that you believed was guilty?
Yes.
30. Do you think mistrials come in the favor of the prosecution or defense?
Depends on the case. A mistrial usually favors the prosecution because they can refine their case and they learn what the defenses are.
31. What does it feel like when you spend so long in a case, and win? and lose?
The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat are as extreme as you would imagine. I like to think back on the victories and think about the rush of happiness both as a former prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney.
32. Would you ever consider being a prosecutor?
I have been a prosecutor and yes I would consider it in the future if the opportunity arose. Most prosecutors try to administer justice in a fair manner and it is just a few bad eggs that will do anything, including violating all of the rules of proper conduct in order to get a conviction. If I ever decided to be a prosecutor again, I know that justice and fairness to all parties would be my main concern.
Current
33. We know now that Pamela Vitale, wife of Daniel Horowitz, was murdered, your thoughts?
Horrible tragedy and all of our hearts go out to Dan and his family. The suspect should be treated fairly, be represented honorably and be afforded all of the rights that any other criminal defendant has in the criminal justice system.
Closing thoughts
Criminal defense lawyers are a good group of people and constantly fight to make sure that the scales of justice are fairly tipped. Without us, the system would fall apart and the government would step all over our constitutional rights. Anyone at any time could be accused of a crime. People should get the very best defense that they can get. We are misrepresented on television and the media only covers the most hideous of all cases. We do great work on behalf of people and the great works of my colleagues and I should get more notoriety. Thank you for the interviews
Contact David Schwartz through his website: www.schwartzdefense.com
www.schwartzdefense.com
David M. Schwartz5402 Third AvenueBrooklyn, New York 11220718-492-7700SCHWARTZLAWFIRM@AOL.COM
criminal defense attorney and respected legal analyst
exclusive interview with www.schwartzdefense.com 's David Schwartz.
Larry:
below please find the answers to the questions presented in number order as you list them in the questions
Scott Peterson
1. Do you believe that it is just to determine a verdict, or essentially make a case based solely on circumstantial evidence?
I believe that in many cases, circumstantial evidence can be stronger than direct evidence. Many cases exist where direct eye witness testimony is not credible based on a variety of factors including, but not limited to, the lighting conditions, criminal record of the eye witness, ability to perceive, eyesight of the witness, positioning of the witness, time of day etc. I have seen many strong cases that are based on particular circumstances that are simply indefensible.
2. Do you believe that it is just to give a death penalty sentence based on a verdict reached solely on circumstantial evidence?
No. I do not believe the death penalty is proper under any circumstances. As long as human beings are making these decisions on guilt or innocence we can never be 100% sure that a defendant is guilty. The killing of one innocent person would be one person too many for a civilized nation. We are better than that. moreover, DNA evidence has now exonerated over 100 death row inmates. That is a mind boggling number of mistakes. Thousands of other convicted felons have been exonerated on non death penalty cases.
3. How should reasonable doubt be presented by a prosecutor/defense attorney in a case of solely circumstantial evidence?
It is the prosecutors job to present evidence. It is the defense attorneys job to point out all areas that can constitute reasonable doubt. Every inconsistency, all credibility issues, alibi, affirmative defenses, sanity issues must be presented to the jury in order to create doubt in the minds of the jurors.
4. Why do you think there was so much public interest in the Scott Peterson case?
The media drives the public interest in the trial. The fact that lacy and Scott looked like the all American married couple, with a baby on the way, the fact that Scott was living a double life and the whole Amber Fry element was an attractive combination for the Peterson case to become an obsession.
5. Do you believe Scott Peterson was innocent?
No, I believe he did it. The question is did the prosecution prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
6. How do you feel about the death penalty overall?
As explained in question # 2, I believe the death penalty should be abolished. Almost all of the civilized nations in the world have abolished the death penalty. We can never be 100% certain of guilt in any criminal case. The death penalty is a barbaric solution to punishment, it is more costly than life in prison, you cannot reverse the death penalty, it is immoral and there is no correlation between the death penalty and the prevention of crime.
7. If you believe Scott is innocent, what do you believe happened to Laci Peterson?
I believe the only logical explanation that has been put forward is that Scott killed Lacey. Again, the question is, did the prosecution prove this theory beyond a reasonable doubt?
8. Some legal analysts said that for celebrities the states burden is to prove the case beyond all doubt? Do you believe this?
No. I believe the same standard applies to all defendants. The case against Jackson was simply weak.
9. On Court TVs Catherine Crier Live, Wendy Murphy said this jury had "dumb-juror syndrome." Your reaction to that?
I like Wendy but I believe she is dead wrong. We do not know who these jurors are. They made exactly the correct decision based on the evidence presented to the jury and the credibility issues of the prosecution witnesses.
10. You said that Tom Sneddon clearly had a vendetta against Michael Jackson, what proof behind it?
I believe his motives were clear. He has targeted Jackson for over 10 years. He illegally searched the offices of a defense retained investigator. The tone of this prosecution, the treatment of the witnesses, the approach of trying to embarrass Jackson at every turn, the fact that Sneddon himself went out on some of the actual warrants and his general demeanor pretrial and during the trial showed me a prosecutor that had a vendetta against Jackson.
11. Why was Tom Sneddon so obsessed? His motives?
He probably felt in his heart that Jackson was a child molester He did get completely caught up in the celebrity aspect of the case as evidenced by his press conferences.
12. Do you believe Michael Jackson is innocent?
I believe he was guilty of giving alcohol to a minor and acting completely inappropriately with children. I believe the parents of these kids were just as guilty for putting their children in these positions. I do not believe the evidence was credible to convict Jackson of Child Molestation.
13. What do you think Michael Jackson was doing with this boy, and his previous boys, night, after night, after night, after night...?
As a parent and a human being, I would like to believe that he simply was giving the children attention and offering them an innocent Disney world like experience. I cannot speculate if anything else happened. We were not there to know. The question again is did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jackson molested this child. I believe the answer is "NO."
14. The jury put much of their blame for the state not being able to prove their case on the mother, do you believe this is relevant?
The mother was a huge part of the failure. The mother put her child in this position at Neverland in the first place. The evidence was overwhelming that she orchestrated this whole case because of the money.
15. Were you in the courtroom or did you read a transcript of the mother's and accuser's, and accuser's brother's testimony? If so, did it sound scripted, rehearsed?
Scripted is a term of art. Most witnesses go through practice runs of the questioning. Many witnesses testimony sounds scripted because of preparation. I do believe their is some truth to the fact that the testimony was scripted.
16. Do you that in a child molestation/rape trial, having previous accusers testify saying, "I was molested," helps the prosecution? Why did it not help in the case against Michael Jackson?
The prior bad acts should have never come into the trial. It was highly prejudicial and many of the allegations were too remote. It did backfire on the prosecution because they had multiple cases of credibility problems to deal with. It did seem that the prosecutors orchestrated much of this testimony.
17. Do you think that if Tom Sneddon would of left out the conspiracy charge, he would of had a better chance of getting a conviction?
Yes, The conspiracy was ridiculous. The kidnapping, imprisonment, etc., all led to the downfall of the credibility of the prosecution. The case should have focused on just the molestation.
18. How do you think Tom Sneddon credibility came across to the jury?
The credibility of Sneddon was a factor in the case.
19. What did you think of the judge's rulings to not allow cameras in the courtroom?
I believe trials should be televised. My problem with the high profile case is the pretrial publicity. I believe all of the hype will taint the jury pool. My solution is to seal all of the proceedings up until the trial. Once a jury is impaneled, then the trial itself should be televised.
20. What did you think of the reporting during the trial?
Thorough.
21. How do you think the Jackson family rationalized so many little boys saying they were molested by Jackson?
Money and brainwashing. Many boys who testified said the they were not molested.
22. Paul Rodriguez said that their personal beliefs regarding the other little boy accusers, could not play a part in the determination of the verdict.
I agree. That is why the evidence of all other accusers should have been suppressed and the law in California to allow this evidence should be deemed an unconstitutional violation of a dendants right to a fair trial. A defendant should not be expected to defend himself against every prior unproven allegation of bad conduct.
23. Do you believe that if a jury believes an accuser's testimony with their moral heart and reasonable head, the state met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
No, the standard is if the juror has a reason to doubt the evidence, then they should vote "not guilty."
24. What was your reaction to Ellie Ray and Raymond Hultman coming out after the verdict saying that they believe the boy was molested and that Jackson is a child molester?
I did not give it much thought, but those thoughts were inconsistent with their verdict.
25. Ellie Ray admitted to juror misconduct, should she be prosecuted?
Depends on the misconduct.
26. How do you think a jury determines the credibility of a witness in regular cases?
Courtroom demeanor, prior bad acts, consistency of their testimony, ability to perceive the facts, criminal record, profession, how they withstand cross examination, eye contact with the jury and questioner, body language during testimony, confidence.
27. How do you think a jury determines the credibility of a witness in celebrity cases?
same as # 26
DEFENSE ATTORNEY'S INSIGHT
28. We hear all the time about attorneys, having their personal story, their moral reason for doing what they do, do you have a personal story as a defense attorney?
I am a former prosecutor with the Brooklyn District Attorney's office. I represent average everyday citizens accused of a wide variety of crimes. I believe that practicing criminal law on the defense side has opened up my eyes on the injustices that take place everyday in the system. A criminal defendant that cannot afford an attorney is at a severe disadvantage in getting a fair result. The sentencing guidelines in most states are way too harsh. Every case is unique and should be handled in a unique manner and should not be lumped into categories. Criminal defense is a necessary part of the criminal justice system. I am proud of my achievements as a lawyer who practices criminal law. It is fulfilling to get a Heroine addict into a drug program rather than jail, or vigorously defend people who are falsely accused, or convince a DA that your client is not as culpable as they originally thought or to have a case dismissed based on a skillful application of the rules.
29. Have you ever represented a client that you believed was guilty?
Yes.
30. Do you think mistrials come in the favor of the prosecution or defense?
Depends on the case. A mistrial usually favors the prosecution because they can refine their case and they learn what the defenses are.
31. What does it feel like when you spend so long in a case, and win? and lose?
The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat are as extreme as you would imagine. I like to think back on the victories and think about the rush of happiness both as a former prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney.
32. Would you ever consider being a prosecutor?
I have been a prosecutor and yes I would consider it in the future if the opportunity arose. Most prosecutors try to administer justice in a fair manner and it is just a few bad eggs that will do anything, including violating all of the rules of proper conduct in order to get a conviction. If I ever decided to be a prosecutor again, I know that justice and fairness to all parties would be my main concern.
Current
33. We know now that Pamela Vitale, wife of Daniel Horowitz, was murdered, your thoughts?
Horrible tragedy and all of our hearts go out to Dan and his family. The suspect should be treated fairly, be represented honorably and be afforded all of the rights that any other criminal defendant has in the criminal justice system.
Closing thoughts
Criminal defense lawyers are a good group of people and constantly fight to make sure that the scales of justice are fairly tipped. Without us, the system would fall apart and the government would step all over our constitutional rights. Anyone at any time could be accused of a crime. People should get the very best defense that they can get. We are misrepresented on television and the media only covers the most hideous of all cases. We do great work on behalf of people and the great works of my colleagues and I should get more notoriety. Thank you for the interviews
Contact David Schwartz through his website: www.schwartzdefense.com
www.schwartzdefense.com
David M. Schwartz5402 Third AvenueBrooklyn, New York 11220718-492-7700SCHWARTZLAWFIRM@AOL.COM
Exclusive Interview with Jackson Juror, Paul Rodriguez - Part Two
Exclusive Interview with Jackson Juror, Paul Rodriguez - Part Two
Larry Harriet, Investigative Journalist
October 8th, 2005
Last night, after receiving many e-mails from you, I compiled a list of 20 questions, and last night, I IMed Jackson Juror, Paul Rodriguez, and he was kind enough to answer my questions.
Paul Rodriguez -I want to thankyou very much for answering those questions I gave you last week. I posted them on my blog and the e-mail's I got were fantastic. Many people thankyou very much for giving interviews on the insight of your decision to aquit Jackson. I posted on a court watchers message board, and asked my fellow members if they had any questions for you.
1. Are you planning on writing a book?
You know what, I have talked to some people, nothing set in stone but I have considered it, and might do it.
2. What do you think of Ray Hultman and Ellie Cook writing their books?
I'm not mad, but disapointed. I saw their interview and read their press statements, and I was really disapointed. I was a juror who FOLLED THE LAW of REASONABLE DOUBTand they twisted the things I said in order to sell books, when what I said, was the LAW of reasonable doubt. You have to look at the EVIDENCE and what you believe aboutsomething doesn't matter.
3. What happened with the juror who brought in the court tv episode of Nancy Grace and Diane Dimond?
We never saw it, we couldn't get the VCR to work.
4. Do you that in the case and your decision that you did something wrong?
No, I don't I followed the law of reasonable doubt. We had to consider him not only as a celebrity, but as a person, who under the law has the right to a fair trial and the presumptionof innocence.
5. How do you take the criticism of people like Wendy Murphy who claims you of having "dumb-juror" syndrome?
I disagree. I'm a smart person, who followed the evidence, and it just wasn't there.
6. How do you think jury's convict people of child molestation/rape cases?
I think that if they convict they must convict beyond a reasonable doubt, there has to be a smoking gun, like a video, semen, you know... SOMETHING of substance. Not just testimony.
7. What do you think of the mother who testified on behalf of the prosecution.
I'll say that she was rude, hostile, and bizare, she DID NOT represent my culture at all. I was frankly ashamed of her who thought she was a part of the latino club.
8. The mother, being a troublesome witness, did the mother directly affect your position?
I will say yes, she did, I looked for patterns in the way she talked and her sons talked and it all seemed programmed, they sounded alike.
9. Some of the jury thought there was smoke but no fire, did you see smoke?
Yes, I did, I thought that Michael Jackson has molested boys in the past, and probably molested this boy, but as I said, what we believe doesn't matter... the EVIDENCE has toPROVE IT.
10. What do you think of the juror that went to the jackson victory party?
I thought, well... thats fine, I guess. Kind of a stab, because we knew that something was wrong at "Neverland" but couldn't convict because of the testimony.
11. Did you ever make racist comments to the asian juror, Katarina Carls?
No.
12. If you could tell Mr. Tom Stendon one thing, what would that be?
I would tell him that during the trial, it clearly came through to us that you had an agenda, to take down a man, a human being, and it didn't work.
13. Did you ever watch television or read newspaper throughout the trial?
No, none at all. I tried so hard not to. I would be in the supermarket and hearing people talking about it, and I had to move to another isle quickly, because I did not want anythingto influence my decision, but I do have to say that I did accidently see the newspaper cover of "pajama day."
14. Do you regret your decision to aquit Michael Jackson?
Based on the evidence presented to us, no. If there was say a video, semen, or something that was a smoking gun on the molestation, I would of have voted GUILTY.
15. What did you think of "The Boy," Michael Jackson's collection of child porn?Didn't want to look at it, didn't want it to influence my decision.
16. Well you say, that you didn't want it to influence your decision, it was entered into evidence, so, why not look at it?
No comment.
17. What did you do after the verdict, did you watch/read anything about the case?
You know, I was pretty much Jacksoned-Out, I mean when you spend 5 mts. of your life, thinking about Jackson molesting boys, its nerve racking. So I gave a couple interviews,and kind of just slid out. I went home and rested.
18. All of the people who are mad at you the jury, because they felt Jackson was guilty, what would you say to them?
I studied the evidence, based on reasonable doubt, I voted Not Guilty.
19. Did you want evidence that proved the case beyond reasonable doubt or all doubt?
Well, I'd say reasonable doubt, I mean the bar was set high and the evidence just didn't hold up.
20. Any closing thoughts?
Thanks for the questions, and I'll get to those others you gave.Thankyou very much for taking the time to answer our questions, I appreciate it.
Larry Harriet, Investigative Journalist
October 8th, 2005
Last night, after receiving many e-mails from you, I compiled a list of 20 questions, and last night, I IMed Jackson Juror, Paul Rodriguez, and he was kind enough to answer my questions.
Paul Rodriguez -I want to thankyou very much for answering those questions I gave you last week. I posted them on my blog and the e-mail's I got were fantastic. Many people thankyou very much for giving interviews on the insight of your decision to aquit Jackson. I posted on a court watchers message board, and asked my fellow members if they had any questions for you.
1. Are you planning on writing a book?
You know what, I have talked to some people, nothing set in stone but I have considered it, and might do it.
2. What do you think of Ray Hultman and Ellie Cook writing their books?
I'm not mad, but disapointed. I saw their interview and read their press statements, and I was really disapointed. I was a juror who FOLLED THE LAW of REASONABLE DOUBTand they twisted the things I said in order to sell books, when what I said, was the LAW of reasonable doubt. You have to look at the EVIDENCE and what you believe aboutsomething doesn't matter.
3. What happened with the juror who brought in the court tv episode of Nancy Grace and Diane Dimond?
We never saw it, we couldn't get the VCR to work.
4. Do you that in the case and your decision that you did something wrong?
No, I don't I followed the law of reasonable doubt. We had to consider him not only as a celebrity, but as a person, who under the law has the right to a fair trial and the presumptionof innocence.
5. How do you take the criticism of people like Wendy Murphy who claims you of having "dumb-juror" syndrome?
I disagree. I'm a smart person, who followed the evidence, and it just wasn't there.
6. How do you think jury's convict people of child molestation/rape cases?
I think that if they convict they must convict beyond a reasonable doubt, there has to be a smoking gun, like a video, semen, you know... SOMETHING of substance. Not just testimony.
7. What do you think of the mother who testified on behalf of the prosecution.
I'll say that she was rude, hostile, and bizare, she DID NOT represent my culture at all. I was frankly ashamed of her who thought she was a part of the latino club.
8. The mother, being a troublesome witness, did the mother directly affect your position?
I will say yes, she did, I looked for patterns in the way she talked and her sons talked and it all seemed programmed, they sounded alike.
9. Some of the jury thought there was smoke but no fire, did you see smoke?
Yes, I did, I thought that Michael Jackson has molested boys in the past, and probably molested this boy, but as I said, what we believe doesn't matter... the EVIDENCE has toPROVE IT.
10. What do you think of the juror that went to the jackson victory party?
I thought, well... thats fine, I guess. Kind of a stab, because we knew that something was wrong at "Neverland" but couldn't convict because of the testimony.
11. Did you ever make racist comments to the asian juror, Katarina Carls?
No.
12. If you could tell Mr. Tom Stendon one thing, what would that be?
I would tell him that during the trial, it clearly came through to us that you had an agenda, to take down a man, a human being, and it didn't work.
13. Did you ever watch television or read newspaper throughout the trial?
No, none at all. I tried so hard not to. I would be in the supermarket and hearing people talking about it, and I had to move to another isle quickly, because I did not want anythingto influence my decision, but I do have to say that I did accidently see the newspaper cover of "pajama day."
14. Do you regret your decision to aquit Michael Jackson?
Based on the evidence presented to us, no. If there was say a video, semen, or something that was a smoking gun on the molestation, I would of have voted GUILTY.
15. What did you think of "The Boy," Michael Jackson's collection of child porn?Didn't want to look at it, didn't want it to influence my decision.
16. Well you say, that you didn't want it to influence your decision, it was entered into evidence, so, why not look at it?
No comment.
17. What did you do after the verdict, did you watch/read anything about the case?
You know, I was pretty much Jacksoned-Out, I mean when you spend 5 mts. of your life, thinking about Jackson molesting boys, its nerve racking. So I gave a couple interviews,and kind of just slid out. I went home and rested.
18. All of the people who are mad at you the jury, because they felt Jackson was guilty, what would you say to them?
I studied the evidence, based on reasonable doubt, I voted Not Guilty.
19. Did you want evidence that proved the case beyond reasonable doubt or all doubt?
Well, I'd say reasonable doubt, I mean the bar was set high and the evidence just didn't hold up.
20. Any closing thoughts?
Thanks for the questions, and I'll get to those others you gave.Thankyou very much for taking the time to answer our questions, I appreciate it.
Exclusive Interview with Jackson Juror, Paul Rodriguez - Part One
Exclusive Interview with Jackson Juror, Paul Rodriguez - Part One
Larry Harriet, Investigative Journalist
October 8th, 2005
My confidential sources, were able to obtain Jackson jury foreman, Paul Rodriguez's e-mail address, he was kind enough to answer some questions for us.
1. Did it all come down to "reasonable doubt" for you, take us through the counts.
Yes, it really did we started out on Count #1, which we felt the defense proved not guilty, because of the mother leaving the ranch and not asking for help. So, we felt that Mr. Jackson was INNOCENT of that charge. On the molestation, we couldn't convict based on testimony of past acts. We couldn't convict on the boy's testimony because of reasonable doubt. We did not feel that Jackson gave them alcohol at all, let alone with the intent of molestation, and if he did it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Now, we know that Katarina Carls, Ellie Cook, and Ray Hultman thought he was guilty, what happend in the jury room with them?
Well the 3 of them, kept making statements on the way there heart felt, what they thought, their huntch. And I told them we could not convict based on what they believe because of reasonable doubt.
3. What was your impression of Thomas Stendon?
He was a redneck.
4. What was your impression of Mr. Jackson?
He didn't do anything but sit there, so I don't know how to base that.
I can't answer Q's 5-25, right now, I have to go. I may get back to them.Paul
If Paul Rodriguez answers the rest of my questions, I'll post them here.
Larry Harriet, Investigative Journalist
October 8th, 2005
My confidential sources, were able to obtain Jackson jury foreman, Paul Rodriguez's e-mail address, he was kind enough to answer some questions for us.
1. Did it all come down to "reasonable doubt" for you, take us through the counts.
Yes, it really did we started out on Count #1, which we felt the defense proved not guilty, because of the mother leaving the ranch and not asking for help. So, we felt that Mr. Jackson was INNOCENT of that charge. On the molestation, we couldn't convict based on testimony of past acts. We couldn't convict on the boy's testimony because of reasonable doubt. We did not feel that Jackson gave them alcohol at all, let alone with the intent of molestation, and if he did it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Now, we know that Katarina Carls, Ellie Cook, and Ray Hultman thought he was guilty, what happend in the jury room with them?
Well the 3 of them, kept making statements on the way there heart felt, what they thought, their huntch. And I told them we could not convict based on what they believe because of reasonable doubt.
3. What was your impression of Thomas Stendon?
He was a redneck.
4. What was your impression of Mr. Jackson?
He didn't do anything but sit there, so I don't know how to base that.
I can't answer Q's 5-25, right now, I have to go. I may get back to them.Paul
If Paul Rodriguez answers the rest of my questions, I'll post them here.
About Larry Harriet
About Larry Harriet
Larriet Harriet, Investigative Journalist
October 8th, 2005
Welcome to my blog. I just launched my website at larryharriet.bravehost.com
I am an investigative journalist. I have covered many court cases including O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake, Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson, David Westerfield, and many more. I have worked for the local newspaper, globe news magazine, and my investigative articles have been featured on many news websites including google news, msnbc, and variety.com. I have also covered many missing people cases including JonBenet Ramsey and recently, the Natalee Holloway case in Aruba. I have planned to cover the Phil Spector trial, in January, my investigative reports will be written on many other news websites. I also have a contract with the program "Trial News" to cover Phil Spector.
Larriet Harriet, Investigative Journalist
October 8th, 2005
Welcome to my blog. I just launched my website at larryharriet.bravehost.com
I am an investigative journalist. I have covered many court cases including O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake, Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson, David Westerfield, and many more. I have worked for the local newspaper, globe news magazine, and my investigative articles have been featured on many news websites including google news, msnbc, and variety.com. I have also covered many missing people cases including JonBenet Ramsey and recently, the Natalee Holloway case in Aruba. I have planned to cover the Phil Spector trial, in January, my investigative reports will be written on many other news websites. I also have a contract with the program "Trial News" to cover Phil Spector.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)