A.Beautiful.Mind
New member
Now there's been a slight description of each member of the Jury.. It seems there is a wide variety of individuals who can be either favourable or benificial for both the defense and prosecution.
To me that should be how we approach this. Not having an African American juror doesn't automatically spell disaster for Michael, nor should we be 100% confident that it won't. We just don't know. What we do have, is a "case" that is weaker than jello. And for that, I'd hope that any sane, common sensed person, no matter WHAT color, will realize the absurdity.Originally posted by whisper
To me, it doesn't seem as if this is too bad.
this is definitely good.Seat 3
Juror #108
Female
Age 50
Horse rainer
Thinks Michael Jackson is a wonderful entertainer
Gives animal therapy to abused children
*nods*Originally posted by Tiger Lilly
5 friggin days?! Ah well, nothing surprises me about shite California anymore (no offense to anyone who lives there). There's something seriously wrong with that place. Sneddon as DA counts for 95% of what's wrong there. Jeez... so angry!
But I don't think that jury sounds half as bad as it could be. And I'm a little sick of the race thing. Yeh, I'm disappointed there aren't more African American people on that jury too but lets not lose faith in our white brothers here. It doesn't matter what race you are you can still see bullsh!t when it's thrown in your face! This jury doesn't have to be black to see this is a set-up. I still say bring it, Sneddon!opcorn
To me that should be how we approach this. Not having an African American juror doesn't automatically spell disaster for Michael, nor should we be 100% confident that it won't.
Originally posted by mjlovergurl
i agree Dana. its really unfair and this jury doesnt seem to even care that they have one the worlds most talented legendary entertainer's life on the line. makes me sick.