You know, obviously we are not in the courtroom and can only speculate, but I have been watching the reinactments with commentary by both defense/prosecuting attorneys. I realize that it's the attorneys job to defend or get a conviction, but I'm beginning to believe that both sides are prejudiced and neither wants to admit a "point" for the other. So maybe lawyers aren't the ones to listen to for commentary.

From what I've seen, it would "appear" that the prosecutors haven't made a good enough case, and yet I wonder what the "average" juror is thinking. Looking at it in that respect, and knowing that most children who are molested deny it, why should it be any surprise that any of these witnessed who say they were never touched/molested by Jackson, deny it? In other testimony by witnesses (with baggage I might add), have testified to seeing inappropriate behavior (although not molestation)on Jackson's part. As a juror you must decided who to believe or not believe and I think this requires a unanamous vote. I really doubt that the prosecutor will get that, but we'll see.


TIS

Just a sidenote: Last October I was on jury duty in a murder trial, which had almost all "ify" witnesses. The most believeable (to all of us jurors), was the one gal who came out of prison to testify, handcuffed and in jail uniform. Go figure!!! :p