Posted on 07/15/2013 5:12:50 PM PDT by kristinn
Still looking...I’m sure it won’t be long
>>>>and any who are not, get insulted...<<<<
WELL!!!!!!! I have NEVer BEEN so insulted!! [stomp stomp stomp...door slam!!]
just kidding...good point in your post...I had the same concern.
right, and the other 3 were for guilty(2 of mansluaghter, 1 of 2nd degree)
FYI. .tomorrow night Cooper will have more of his interview with this juror.
OK. I thought you were referring to Rachel, lol.
>> ...any woman worth her intellectual salt can see the point behind such concerns
This *rational man*, however, can see the sheer idiocy of clinging to such concerns AFTER they have been P-R-O-V-E-N completely unfounded. “Gee, we were on the precipice, half of the women were emotional therefore we ARE right!” doesn’t cut it when the thinking women WON, proving they were nowhere near the precipice of this supposed emotional abyss.
Ah, I don’t know... there must be *some* explanation for your persistent cluelessness. Are you blonde, maybe? :-)
she lost all credibility. No voice alteration, EAsily voice recognized.
it is only going to be days before she is recognized.
the fact it was 3-2-1 does not speak well for them.
Horsehockey.
Again, I’ll ask: different jury, 3 white men, 3 black men.
What’s the initial vote? What’s the outcome?
Mark Geragos was on CNN the other day talking about during Jury selection the prosecution had 2 jurors struck but the defense used their batson challenge(basically a term where they say the jurors were struck because of race) and the judge apparently agreed and had the two put back on the jury.
i’d like to hear more about that and I’d bet this B37 was one of the two who was put back on
that would come in on a civil case.
I have already heard one pundit say she thought it was deliberate sabotage by Serino.
she went to mr alternative lifestly cooper?
Did she say all 6 believed the lead detective when he said he thought George was telling the truth? Was that a big part of their deliberations? Wish to hell she hadn’t said that because the “judge” told them to disregard what he said because it was speculation. So if it was used to acquit Zimmerman is that grounds to have him retried? I don’t think it is. How many times have I heard lawyers say it’s silly for a judge to tell a jury to disregard something they just heard because it’s like putting the cat back in the bag? Is this a big deal or what? Anyone know?
it is only going to be days before she is recognized.
Did you mean to say she lost all anonimity?
nope...knew of him....never met him in school...knew of him cause he played some football...he hooked up as an employee after he was booted from society
also, I think in time it will come to be realized that this case was decided the day the jury was selected without any blacks on it. at that point a hung jury was the best the state could hope for. they were never getting a conviction.
Please elaborate.
click my name...go to forum it’s there already
I meant credibility just for appearing on anderson cooper. The anonymity is a farce.
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.