These pictures reflect one fourth of the members of the Tate/LaBianca Jury.
The Wikipedia (usually bullshit but easiest for me to find) notes:
Some systems allow argument over whether a juror's particular background or beliefs make them biased and therefore unsuitable for service on the jury. In the United States, and probably other nations, it is hardly unknown for citizens to quite deliberately get out of jury duty (for example by mentioning knowledge of legal concepts).
What I want to know is, even with the bad haircut on that guy, what chance did any of the defendants really have? There were no commune or hippie experts who testified. There were no hippies on the jury.
I mean, I know that all of them except Manson were actually guilty... but would you even want to MEET these three?
Stupid Charlie never put on a defense so he gets what he deserves- but this is a fair jury?
4 comments:
The man with the bad do and the woman are from 1970s the other guy Zamora is from 5 years ago.
See, as I said, Charlie didn't take the trial seriously, so whatever he got was his own fault.
My piece just points out that, actually, he never had a chance anyway.
hay col quit pretending to be white rabbitt
trust me
I am not pretending to be White Rabbitt
I could not be that pathetic!
col its sweetblondginger whos pretending to be white rabbitt
Post a Comment