Posted on 06/13/2005 12:36:01 PM PDT by Dog
Just breaking...
Of course he says he brings them "hot milk and cookies." Do you find this a credible explanation? I certainly don't.
The ONLY thing they've said is that they didn't like the mother.
Now being asked if they thought the victim and his family were scam artists.
Juror #10: Couldn't help but wonder, many things with the timeline. Yes. The thought was there.
Juror #2: When she snapped her fingers at me. (Oh, well, that's a reason to let a pedophile go)
I don't give a HOOT how much they bonded, or what they thought of the media. I want to know HOW they could not see that MJ masturbated this kid???? And drugged him????
jorors = jurors
What is the context for the snapping fingers? It sure had a lot of impact.... Anyone know?
Jurors 10 and 3 were uncomfortable with the "timeline."
Juror #2 also did not like the witness who snapped her finger and winked at him.
Are they all on something?
They are laughing at the Mother again! Was the Mother molested? I can't believe this!!!
The evidence was strong and so was the case, but the game wasn't a contest. There was plenty of clear evidence that Jackson was guilty on several counts, the jury just didn't want to face those facts.
Mesereau made a mess of the case, but it didn't matter. Two other defense attorneys were fired, ...or bailed. They knew he was guilty. They should have had confidence in the shallowness and stupidity of California juries.
Is it me, or does it just seem like dislike for the mother was the predominating factor here?
Now the man with glasses is making fun of the mother, and how she "snapped her fingers at me".
You know, the last thing I want to do when I am on a jury is make 19 new friends. With this jury and the OJ jury, it's like they were at a completely different trial than the one we were watching.
There is the snapping fingers comment again from that dopey looking guy with the ugly mustache and bad striped shirt.
My comment was my comment; candee's comment is a lie.
Unless YOU have a post to prove I ever one time support Michael Schiavo?
Care to back up YOUR assertion?
"BUT .. it was Michael Jackson who was on trial .. not the mother"
Agreed. But it's the defenses job to do exactly what they did. Put doubt in the jury's mind about the guilt of the person on trial.
The defense did their job...the prosecutor dropped the ball.
Rather than trial by bench, what about a panel of 12, but that every county hires a few permanent panels to hear cases? Maybe they could even be elected By The People every few years?
They really did not like her.
I guess that's why Jackson picked them.
"The only crime here is you people wanting him to be found guilty never followed the actual testimony and are riding an emotional wave of "For the children"."
The only crime?
Oh Re-ally.
Particularly in these high-profile celebrity cases, the defense attorneys seem to have a good eye for jurors who have been Oprafied into imbecility. I didn't follow the case and don't know how I would have voted, but these jurors are looking and sounding like idiots.
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.