Woman's statement to Jackson jurors prompt inquiry

Dialdancer

New member



“WOMAN’S STATEMENT TO JACKSON JURORS PROMPT INQUIRY”
Jun. 28 9:13 PM EDT
You are here
Home » AP Party » Woman’s statement to Jackson jurors prompt inquiry


“LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge questioned two alternate jurors in the civil trial over Michael Jackson’s death after a woman approached them and told them not to award the singer’s family any money in the case.

Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos and attorneys on the case questioned the alternates, who said the woman approached them during a break Friday afternoon. Both said the woman told them not to award any money in the case against concert promoter AEG Live LLC.

The alternates said they told the woman she couldn’t talk to them, but she persisted for several moments before finally leaving them alone. They described the woman but said they did not see her in the courtroom after testimony concluded Friday.

The alternate jurors said their interaction would not affect their judgment about the case. The judge told them to return to court Monday and report to bailiffs or court staffers if they saw the woman again.

Jackson family attorney Brian Panish said the interaction was jury tampering and is a felony.

Katherine Jackson mother is suing AEG Live over her son’s death. The company denies wrongdoing.

The case has five alternate jurors remaining after one had to be dismissed because he is moving out of state.”


http://news.yahoo.com/womans-statement-jackson-jurors-prompt-inquiry-011326428.html
 

Dialdancer

New member
Two interesting questions where offered by Helena of VMJ.

1) The jurors said they did not recognize the woman's face.  After 10 wks of view people in the court they should have.  So if they have seen her before, how did she recognize them, know who to approach they are not gearing jersey that say "Juror"?

2) If anyone is bold enough to approach them in the open like this then what are the chances one or more have not been approached in some manner once they leave the grounds of the Court?

Expounded some on question #2.
 
Top