Emotional juror?
After jurors left for the day, Roger Rosen said he and others on the defense team have noticed that a juror appeared visibly disturbed by graphic photos shown during the trial. The juror, a 37-year-old woman, seemed particularly upset when a picture of Clarkson’s tongue, severed during the autopsy, was shown this week.
Rosen said the juror removed her glasses and appeared to wipe tears from her eyes.
He said she also had looked away earlier in the trial when photos of Clarkson’s bloody body were shown.
Rosen said he understood her reaction, but was concerned she might be so bothered she could not thoroughly examine the evidence, which would be unfair to both the defense and prosecution. He asked Fidler to speak to the juror privately to evaluate the degree of her discomfort.
Fidler declined, saying “jurors are not required to be totally unemotional” and the facts “fall far short” of showing her objectivity is compromised.
To all P.S. supporters: For the sake of argument, L.C. was suicidal. If someone shot her before she commits the act . Should the shooter be charged with murder? If to statistics/percentages are true. How many people that shoot someone wipe their fingerprints off the gun ? As to experts. What qualifications does a person need ? (a plumber that reads crime books ? YES) As to reasonable doubt. There is no absolute only what is reasonable. Time is running out P.S. must take the stand to explain what happened. Please give comments so I can better understand your side.
Posted by: A.O. | July 27, 2007 at 07:22 AM
many of us are very intrested in the Lana Clarkson trial.. We are all following it daily.. Where is a site that we can see the Crime scene photos that the jury saw??? Please advise.... Reagrs DODGE
Posted by: Dodge | July 27, 2007 at 09:31 AM
To: Dodge. courttv.com is the site. and its channel. Oh' as for Punkin pie. Everyone knows an ARIES could not have done it for the reason on that date. the planets were not align in relation to EUROPA which is an absolute requirement for the matrix of your presumption.
Posted by: A.O. | July 27, 2007 at 12:22 PM
The defense edvidence is ' THE SCIENCE ' .Well I have problem. 1. The photo the defense entered (gun with smoke) It is a larger cal. Appears heavely oiled , Barrel should be up with a right twist after the lead tip leaves the gun. The cloud is a Puff as the sharp outline (on top) indicates. It is not a water pipe bursting. 2. The other defense photo is L.C. dress. If in fact it was suicide, The gun would have stayed or dropped on her lap. Her dress appears to be nylon or rayon,If there is contact made, there would be damage due to the heat of the barrel (put an iron on a synethic sock) 3. A pros. photo on the chair,steps does not indicate registers (a.c./heat) needed to draft G.S.R. furhther than 2 feet. and lastly the WATER FOUTAIN NOISE. A conversation took place (ear/mouth required)
Posted by: A.O. | July 28, 2007 at 07:51 PM
There would not be enough heat from a 38 pistol fired one time to damage her dress. FREE PHIL
Posted by: JERRY | July 30, 2007 at 09:53 AM
OK would there be a smear (blood,tissue,oil) as it falls off the lap ?
Posted by: A.O. | July 30, 2007 at 04:01 PM