the contentions against the statistic that 58%of black jurors were struck in the time mentioned as compared to 22% of white jurors seem to be stating that either the statistic is erroneous or that the aim of the statistic is biased or disadvantageous to the contenders in what it may possibly signify.

therefore, i must ask the author if the statistics are comprehensive or erroneous.

if they are not, then it would then seem to me that those who disagree with the statistic gatherer's aim are simply trying to limit what a certain set of truthful numbers may mean to those who must judge and apply their meaning. this kind of practice has no place in either the courts or a social forum.

statistics, if truthfully gathered, can be interpreted in many ways, depending on the situation and with what other statistics they are presented in conjunction.