Search results

He was always forgiving her. He was still having sex with her after her slashing his tires, peeping in his windows, breaking into his house all the time, etc. We'll never know why he kept forgiving her, but there's no question that he always did. Personally, I think he wrote that letter...

That's what the foreman said in one of his interviews. That they all agreed they were not going to attempt to sway those jurors with the opposite verdict than their own to their side. I was astounded by that. Not only that he said it but that they all agreed to it since it was their JOB to at...

That's not what my comment referred to. I was commenting on the foreman saying that they all agreed that they would not try to change any of the minds of the jurors that were voting opposite of what they voted. That is throwing in the towel on actually deliberating since it was their job to at...

Jodi was on trial for killing ONE person. It doesn't matter what the gun and the knives in her car "prove" to you. They have nothing at all to do with the case, and she wasn't on trial for being a possible serial killer. The prosecution doesn't even believe that since they believe that she...

The only gun and knife that is relevant to the case is the gun and knife that killed Travis. Any other guns or knives that Jodi had have nothing to do with the case. She could have had an aresenal of guns and a kitchen full of knives but if none of them were the murder weapons (and none of...

We already have laws concerning animal cruelty, and they are far more humane than the laws we have for human beings. That was the point. Human beings are supposed to be considered more important than animals, yet we have animal cruelty laws that are more humane than laws for human beings. And...

Because those weapons were not used to kill Travis. This case was about why she killed Travis and whether or not it was premeditated and especiall cruel. Her being arrested with a gun and knives in her car that were not involved in the crime are not relevant to the case. Why would they be?

They decided together that they would not reveal other jurors' life OR death decisions but that each juror was free to say what their own vote was. They didn't specifically agree to not reveal which jurors voted for life. I suspect that none of the 4 that voted life are going to be willing to...

To be fair, the foreman said that they ALL agreed to that decision, and we have no idea who's idea it was to throw in the towel and not deliberate. I'm REALLY angry with this jury who's job it was to at least TRY to come to a unanimous decision totally dropped the ball and ALL agreed not to try...

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=9113341 Former Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley has said the case could drag on for several more months as the new jury reviews evidence and hears opening statements, closing arguments and witness testimony in a "Cliffs Notes"...

The family doesn't make the decision. JM represents the state, not the family. Surely their desires would be taken under consideration, but it isn't the family's decision to make. I don't even think it's JM's decision to make either but whoever his superior is. His superior (can't remember...

I don't think any prisoner "needs" to be kept in perpetual solitary confinement. Cruel and unusual punishment means it's cruel and unusual for anyone. Perpetual or long term solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punishment. There's no getting around that. A human being cannot survive...

The witnesses don't come back. They already testified, and the jury already came to a unanimous decision of murder 1. They are only retrying the penalty phase, so all the testimony and evidence are already on record. They can't go through new testimony with the witnesses because a) it isn't...

It is cruel and unusual. Anyone in solitary loses their mind eventually. It makes me sick that my country that used to chastise other countries decades ago for this type of punishment now finds it acceptable to do it and does. Same thing with torture. The US imprisoned the Japanese after...

What would be the point? Every attorney already knows that every single juror for every single trial is going to think however they think, and there is no way to know how anyone is going to think. What works for one person may totally backfire with another. Though there are professional jury...

THat's what I'm thinking. All I'm aware of is that in order to be considered capital punishment qualified as a juror is that they believe that capital pushment is justified and that they wouldn't have any problem condemning a defendent to death according to the law. I think that they all...

It's impossible for her to have even done it once. Clearly, Jodi had no idea that the minimum length they accept is 10 inche, and it has to be "virgin" hair (not color or perm processed). There's no way she could have grown out the color treated hair to donate more than an inch because she...

Jodi would absolutely want her family to testify on her behalf simply because it looks terrible to the jury that they're all in court yet notwilling to testify for her and because she has not one single other soul who will testify for her. Jodi's problem is that during the trial she threw every...

I think that both PW and DB were not told that they would be cross examined where anything unsavory from their past could be brought up that they would have to answer to. I believe they thought that they could just make a statement in some sort of favor of Jodi and that would be all there was...

The reason is that he said this during his closing argument. He's allowed to talk about his theory of the crime in his closing. It wouldn't make sense for the defense to object because it's his THEORY of the crime just like all the other things he said about his THEORY of the crime during his...