Posted on 06/13/2005 12:36:01 PM PDT by Dog
Just breaking...
Tom Sneddon was asked if he knew of a possible book deal by a juror and he answered that he did and that it was taken care of by the judge. Not sure what was meant by his answer. Is this the same juror you speak of?
The judge is letting the jurors keep their NOTES, so they can be more accurate in their books.
Do these people believe we're interested in the "housekeeping details" of how they ran this jury?
Looking at this jury...I'm not sure what would have impressed them more than the great food.
LOL... yup, now we know!
These are softball questions.
Oh brother. Schiavo has NOTHING to do with this case. NOTHING.
I think the message we're getting from this case is: don't even bother to try to prosecute a celeb in the future. It's too expensive, too much blood, sweat and tears, and a flat-out waste of time. No jury will convict a celeb. From what little I heard from this jury, I don't think they would have convicted him even if they had a video of him raping the boy.
Maybe so
But it would be nice if the jury actually answered the questions
Professional juries, anyone?
UNREAL...they are giggling and laughing about who took notes-
OMG...these folks are beyond belief..juvenile..
Yes!
Aren't they "cute"?! They think so.
I think I've only heard one hardnosed question. The rest have been softballs by reporters and producers angling for exclusive interviews with the jurors later. Like Good Morning America, Celebrity Justice The Today Show, Entertainment Tonight, Greta Van Sustern.
No one laughed when Fox came up.
You're comments are dead on target.
The fact that MJ was found not guilty is different to him professing innocence. This simply means that the DA did not prove his case.
A lot of that is due to the nature of the questions. The press is asking a lot of silly, non-relevant questions.
It also seems that they were coached by the judge to avoid certain comments. Notice how they'd like to comment on some things but stop.
They don't seem unintelligent to me.
Finally, a good question from FOX reporter.
I wouldn't go that far. I might have a third lawyer or team to advise the jurors independent of the judge and prosecutors, although that is supposed to be part of the duties of the judge. I'd also let the jury ask questions during the trial, like the members of a military court can.
The jorors seemed to feel that the witnesses were not credible with a few exceptions (the telephone people, the housekeeper, one other). So they let MJ off because they didn't believe the testimony of the witnesses. Pretty simple.
Why, yes we do. Actually, Condi Rice worked at STANFORD. Maybe you have heard of it? It's in Palo Alto, California.
Was talking about that before with Mr.FF... If I were the prosecutor, she's the first one I say bye-bye to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.