As a general rule, I don't care about Michael Jackson but they just

said his jury includes someone who 'went to Neverland Ranch as a child.'

How does something like that happen? Shouldn't that person be disqualified automatically?

shouldn't that automatically disqualify as well?

so many men, so many women, occupations etc.

I don't recall any cases in Canada where race was an issue. Of couse we don't tend to have as many 'sensational' trial.

Myself, I don't care if a person is black, white or purple. It's just pigment.

the hatred here for black entertainers. What are you really trying to say?

what are YOU really trying to say????

I read somebody making a good point.

Imagine if Bush had a jury trial and one of the people on it visited his box and met him at a Rangers game before he became president. I'd disqualify that guy.

When have you seen hatred for black entertainers? Do you really think people are wary or don't like Michael Jackson because he's black?

Dude, the guy was asked point blank if he would let his children sleep in the same bed as an adult man, they weren't related to, who had been accused in the past of child molestation. He said yes.

I don't think Michael Jackson is weird, or fucked up, nor do I dislike him because he's black.

The guy is really really weird, with alot of circumstantial evidence that he's criminal as well. He deserves a trial, but I wouldn't let my kids anywhere near him unescorted.

But the other day, someone said that everything is just so weird and Michael is so totally spaced out that he might really be telling the truth and think it is "sweet" to sleep with boys and there is nothing sexual there. Not sure how this will play out, but white or black, jackson really need some professional help. He has gone round the bend.

That's for a jury to decide, him to know for sure, and live with either way.

I think it's totally possible the guy is really just that fucked up that he is telling the truth and thinks it's sweet. If so he's got some serious issues. Still. As long as he doesn't hurt anybody he can do whatever he wants. If he wants to be weird and whatever, as long as he doesn't hurt children, more power too him.

It's also my right though to keep my kids far far away from people that act like that. Whether or not he's guilty or did anything bad, you don't leave your kids with people that odd, evidence or not.

If you had a neighbor who walked around with a big axe all the time would you leave your kids with him? Never been convicted of anything, though one time he was accused of hurting a child with his axe. Still no evidence, he says he just likes axes. Carries axes around. He'd never use one of these axes to hurt a child.

I wouldn't. If he wants to carry the axe around, hey it's legal I won't stop him, but my kids aren't going anywhere near that psycho.

agree with you more. If Michael Jackson was hated because he's black, he wouldn't be quite so wealthy. A good portion of his money came from whites buying his products.

Also, I can't understand anyone seeing this as a witch hunt. Jackson has bought his way out of similar criminal trouble in the past, and, apparently, continued the same practices. What those practices were, exactly, is what the trial should determine. Of course he deserves a fair trial, but, far from being a witch hunt, he certainly deserves to be ON trial.

He was inverstigated before and the DA/cops thought they had a good case. He allegedly bought his way out of it. Because he skated on that one, I think he has been carefully monitored by the DA/cops to try to pin one on him.

Is it racial? IMO no, they just have an animus for child molesters which he is alleged to be.

I think he's weird, but that has nothing to do with his race.

I would think both sides would want that juror disqualified. He's been to the defendant's house. They might not be friends, but there is a personal connection there. Even if this juror is able to be perfectly impartial, there will always be a doubt that deliberation was fair, no matter what the verdict is.

I don't think of him as black, he is paler than I am.

what we've got here is a witch hunt.

There's also one of Jackson's former attorney's testifying for the prosecution.

Is quite tightly knit. Most people there have been to the ranch. It is a notable location. More like an amusment park than a house. It would be like disqualifying a juror trying Walt Disney because they lived in Orlando and had visited Disney World.

I'm sure Neverland is like the local Disneyland
for local kids....convenient for a sexual predator.

> convenient for a sexual predator.

Your bias is showing. That's the type of thing we don't need here.

an "alleged" sexual predator.

chose the jury from had a neverland ranch connection. so many people in that town have worked there or been there o r know someone who did.

the wine country of central California