>And now we use that as a proof argument that this jury is going to do the exact opposite?
Nope. That’s kind of a straw-man. All I’m saying is that I’ve been wrong before. Oh and about the OJ thing, even though many were saying that OJ was dead meat I thought the prosecutors were terrible and was not suprised at the verdict.
Someone needs to pray for the soul of that judge because from what I’ve seen, that *B* is going straight to hell for her behavior!
Oh and about the OJ thing, even though many were saying that OJ was dead meat I thought the prosecutors were terrible and was not suprised at the verdict.
I’ve been in two juries. I know what kind of stuff is said in the privacy of the deliberation room among the jurors. In our case it was like someone removed duct tape from our mouths after four weeks (both were four week trials).
BTW, in one case there was testimony hidden from us, but when we deliberated and they gave us the documentation from the trial, someone had inadvertantly left the actual documents in. We found out that the night the plaintif “slept wrong” on his leg (with a synthetic vein that ended up clogging up and requiring amputation) that he was sleeping drunk in the ditch. ;-)
And we found for the defendent.
But if there are any members of this jury that see this the way we do, they are really give what for to any jurors that take the MSNBC position on this case. Trust me on that one.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall in that room.