TorisMom003
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 4,386
- Reaction score
- 7
Ignorant question: Who is Pandora?
An (unusual person) that is very friendly with SJ (the owner/operator of JAII site) and that is a JA supporter.
Ignorant question: Who is Pandora?
I know you feel very passionately about this and I understand your viewpoint totally. However, it is not up to any potential juror to anticipate the information the state or defense needs and to premtively and proactively make sure everyone in that courtroom knows, ahead of even being asked, nor at the time of being asked, about a potential factor that wasn't asked about that might cause them to be excused.
The public does not have the burden of being legal experts. Their only burden is showing up on time, answering the questions asked, and being truthful in their answers. That's it. They do not have the burden of anticipating what either side should ask or should have asked nor do they have the burden of construing additional meanings that the person questioning might be or should be inferring but hasn't articulated. That burden rests on the attorneys conducting the voir dire (as well as the judge). If the questions are general and do not provide enough context and specificity to elicit information needed to properly vett a potential juror, that is totally on the backs of the attorneys.
Asking a juror if they "know" someone on either side in the case is not the same as asking a potential juror if they or someone they know has been previously arrested, convicted or sentenced within that jurisdiction (or even within the entire state) nor is it the same as asking a potential juror "have you ever met, spoken with, or had any personal dealings with anyone on either side in this case, including the prosecutors, the defense, the judge, or anyone else involved in this case? It just isn't the same no matter how much twisting others have done to try and make it so.
I'm not saying Juror 17 didn't lie and she well might have. However, no one has pointed us to a source providing proof of this from her voir dire. In the absence of proof I'm not going to conclude she's a lying liar who lied during voir dire. I certainly wouldn't want someone thinking that of me were I in that situation, and absolutely not without evidence and proof.
Awww her fans from other Countries will not be able to send the "Goddess" a care package :giggle:
PAYMENT: We accept Visa, MasterCard and Discover credit / debit cards and prepaid cards (that have a verifiable United States address). When paying by credit card be sure
to include the card number, expiration date, card verification number (3 digit card verification number found on the back of the card), card members name, address and phone
number. We do not accept prepaid credit cards that lack the ability to assign a valid United States address to the card holder.
https://www.accesscatalog.com/downloads/OrderForms/AZ_DOC_2015_OF.pdf
We don't know what kind of knife she had , do we? If it was a machete it doesn't take much to wield it across someones neck....
An (unusual person) that is very friendly with SJ (the owner/operator of JAII site) and that is a JA supporter.
She was aksed if she knew any of the players from this trial. And she said nothing. She is a liar. If I did what she did I would expect to be called a liar too.
We can try and play semantics. We can try and pass the blame around. But it is a straight forward question that seems pretty easy to understand for most people.
An (unusual person) that is very friendly with SJ (the owner/operator of JAII site) and that is a JA supporter.
She was aksed if she knew any of the players from this trial. And she said nothing. She is a liar. If I did what she did I would expect to be called a liar too.
We can try and play semantics. We can try and pass the blame around. But it is a straight forward question that seems pretty easy to understand for most people.
You know Lambchop, I was thinking about that too. After the foreman sent the note to JSS, J17 sent her note as well, and we don't know what she said. After JSS spoke to 2 of the 11 DP jurors, and J17, J17 started "particpating" (which could just mean she was going through the motions as a CYA).
IMHO, Jodi did feel abused by Travis in her warped perception of reality. Most of us see that she wasn't abused, but thankfully we don't think like her. Travis did not want to share his life with her, and leading up to his death, he started calling her out on her escalating intrusive behavior. She felt extremely threatened that Travis would expose the person she really is to the world, and her mind, killing him was justified.
What if J17 relates to that, as in she thinks the same way as Jodi? We're already hearing she feels attacked and assaulted, with no credible threats against her. She doesn't like people questioning her thought processes, or motivations, even though her posture and words while deliberating are suspcious. I would have been angry if I was one of the other jurors. If you are going to hang a jury, you had better be able to give some valid reasons why. She couldn't think of one scenario where she could give the death penalty!? If asked, the first one on my list would be a pedophile that raped and murdered a child. IMO, she played the judge and the rest of the jury. She knew she had to pretend she was open to discussing a possible DP verdict, and she did just that, knowing she would not vote for death. She is anti-DP, and if she didn't realize that going into the trial, she should have known it when she couldn't provide an example of where she thought it was justified, and asked the judge to be removed from deliberations. She wants to be a victim now, but IMO she is devious. It's all for naught now, but that's my opinion with what we know at present.
LOL...UP. Ok, I'm so out of that loop and I think I will keep it that way. (I don't even know who SJ is but was wondering if one of them was MDLR)
That's why the DT always had her sit in a kiddy chair.
No, I have not seen JA on person. I am just going by the picture of her covering her face after the hung jury. TH was just towering over her. I believe some people (Foreman #1) and others (my brother) just cannot fathom how a woman of smaller build can take on a guy TAs size. That's all. All JMO.
I think it would be interesting to see the rationalization for the answer to "Do you know the prosecutor?" (if that was asked of course) and the prosecutor had prosecuted your husband who landed in jail as "no". "No, I know who he is and I've seen him before but I don't really 'know' him"?? I guess a person could go all existential on it "does anybody ever really know anyone else?". Arrrrgh
Then we've got the likes of Alyce LaViolette (sorry to even bring up that name) who specializes in DV and "abuse" yet claimed HER life was threatened and she was being "stalked and harrassed" while she waltzed in to a fast food Asian restaurant openly discussing the case DURING her days of testimony and got her pic tweeted. That to her was "stalking" and "harassment".
Then a couple days later, after claiming she was so "traumatized" by the "threats" she received, she waltzed in to the Palomar to dine literally past all the media who stay there and , ahem, utilize the bar area liberally. The bar area you have to walk THRU to get to the restaurant. She was baiting it/loving it while claming abuse/harassment and no she gets no passes from me. The one example she used was someone emailing her or whatever saying they hoped she choked on a chicken bone. And she parlayed that in to a death threat and she KNOWS what a death threat is by people she's supposed to champion. Please!
Then she used all of it to get out of testilying again. Oh and let's not forget her approach on Samantha in front of my face. All of this "abuse" and "threats" turned inside out is very very disturbing and insulting to true DV victims who live in fear who it is ACTUALLY happening to.
I imagine she could and would parlay my little apples/oranges analogy into some kind of "death threat". This kind of thinking is very very disturbing to me.
Sorry, but no one has been able to define what "knowing" means.
I know who my DA is and several ADAs. I know what they look like and I know what their voices sound like. I've seen some during live streams of trials. I would recognize them in person. But I don't "know" them nor they me.
I've spoken with 2 or 3 ADAs before. They likely would not recognize me were we to meet up again, but I certainly would recognize them. Because I've had personal interaction with them I would answer yes to 'know'ing the person. Then I would clarify that we spoke once and where it was and what it was about.
But outside of any personal contact? No. I don't "know" anyone else and I would be answering truthfully if asked that question.
So, did Juror 17 ever talk to, meet, have any dealings directly with anyone from the prosecutor's office, including Juan? Or was it that her fiance did and she 'knew' Juan's name and knew it was Juan who was the ADA who got husband #1 convicted? They are not the same thing.
And while it sure seems I'm spitting hairs, the law really is about splitting hairs.
Is laundering money for clients part of MDLR's job description ?
I wonder if she skims a little money out of the account herself to pay for her "administrative fees".
You know.....Jodi didn't get sentenced to the death penalty much to the dismay of many of us in here, but seeing MDLR in handcuffs being escorted into the courthouse would be almost as good.
I wonder if she attended any of that trial or if her then husband spoke to her about who was prosecuting him. I would think it would be normal to assume either of those would be true. Did she testify in it?
I'll tell you this--none of the players in my sister's case will ever forget the name Cathy Hughes. Of this, I'm certain.
Sorry, but no one has been able to define what "knowing" means.
I know who my DA is and several ADAs. I know what they look like and I know what their voices sound like. I've seen some during live streams of trials. I would recognize them in person. But I don't "know" them nor they me.
I've spoken with 2 or 3 ADAs before. They likely would not recognize me were we to meet up again, but I certainly would recognize them. Because I've had personal interaction with them I would answer yes to 'know'ing the person. Then I would clarify that we spoke once and where it was and what it was about.
But outside of any personal contact? No. I don't "know" anyone else and I would be answering truthfully if asked that question.
So, did Juror 17 ever talk to, meet, have any dealings directly with anyone from the prosecutor's office, including Juan? Or was it that her fiance did and she 'knew' Juan's name and knew it was Juan who was the ADA who got husband #1 convicted? They are not the same thing.
And while it sure seems I'm spitting hairs, the law really is about splitting hairs.
She can also flip it and say she was not on her meds the day she chose to not allocate also, therefore was not in the right frame of mind.