It is in the nature of communication to fill in gaps and resolve ambiguity by bringing our own past experience, critical or uncritical thinking skills and even 'intuition' to bear on any given message, in the attempt to derive the intended meaning or the covert or overt truth contained within it. There is a vast spectrum of human experience, preference, prejudice, motivation, bias, intention, and level of sincerity that can be used. Each person is entitled to their own interpretation of a given message, and each third party is entitled to their own evaluation of that interpretation when it is further communicated.
Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #8
- Thread starter LambChop
- Start date
- Status
It is in the nature of communication to fill in gaps and resolve ambiguity by bringing our own past experience, critical or uncritical thinking skills and even 'intuition' to bear on any given message, in the attempt to derive the intended meaning or the covert or overt truth contained within it. There is a vast spectrum of human experience, preference, prejudice, motivation, bias, intention, and level of sincerity that can be used. Each person is entitled to their own interpretation of a given message, and each third party is entitled to their own evaluation of that interpretation when it is further communicated.
Moonchime
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,091
- Reaction score
- 6,013
CMJA does love to write. I wish I could read the Manifesto, even though I know it is filled with lies.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
I watched a Dateline on my Tivo from a few days ago. Young college woman killed -- stabbed over 40 times in her bed. She was an art student in Dallas, a very innocent and introverted 20 yr old gal. Had her first boyfriend, and they hadn't done more than hold hands once or twice in the 2 months they were dating. He was just as awkward as her. Anyway, LE thought the boyfriend did the murder, but it turned out it was committed by the jealous roommate of the boyfriend, a slightly older guy who was gay and hung out with all of them but resented the time and attention his roommate paid to the gal because he wasn't invited along on their dates. He of course was convicted of first degree murder and got LWOP.
ElleElle
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 7,497
- Reaction score
- 33
Of course ... my account expired TODAY. :gaah:
memoriesbymichelle
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2014
- Messages
- 677
- Reaction score
- 0
Interesting too, that she calls herself a hold out juror. She knew what she was. She wasn't voting her conviction or she would have tried to sway the others to her "side". Nope she was a hold out juror thru and thru that didn't consider "be careful what you wish for" as in, you think it will be "exciting" to be on a high profile case, until you are the hold out and people are mad at your vote. JMHO
Nosey Parker
A Brit in Canada
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Messages
- 3,335
- Reaction score
- 25
Yes, she must have felt 'betrayed' when she learned it was Linda that was her arch rival all along.
ETA: Meant to say Lisa, not Linda. Sorry Madeleine. Hope I didn't waste too much of your time!
krkrjx
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
- Joined
- May 4, 2010
- Messages
- 13,110
- Reaction score
- 43,425
I hope the BIG thing is confirmation that every cent of her ill-gotten monies have been confiscated to pay the state back for what it has spent on her. It will not make a dent, I know, but at least she won't have access to those funds! For crying out loud, she claims to be indigent--unable to pay. As in, she would be held accountable if she were not destitute.
If anyone wants to aid the killer in hiring an attorney I suppose they have a right to do that but it needs to be monitored to ensure it is done properly. Properly means for legal fees only and neither she nor her family has access to one thin dime from any such fund.
If anyone wants to aid the killer in hiring an attorney I suppose they have a right to do that but it needs to be monitored to ensure it is done properly. Properly means for legal fees only and neither she nor her family has access to one thin dime from any such fund.
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,123
OBE, I looked up some info on the juror in the Peterson case who was said by the press (IIRC) to have been dismissed for failure to deliberate. (He was the second juror to be Juror #5, the doctor/lawyer.) That seems to have been misleading information. Here's how the defense team described the situation in their Motion for New Trial (I don't think I can provide links as these docs are from a pro-SP site):
During deliberations, on November 10, the Court received a strange note from two of the jurors:
...
"A juror has had a conversation outside the jury deliberation room that may constitute a violation of the admonition. Does the Court wish to hear more? Should we continue to deliberate?"
...
Shortly thereafter, about five minutes thereafter, [the Court] received another note. ...
"I, Juror Number 5, approached Juror Number 6 regarding a question raised in the jury deliberation room. I changed my position on the question based on the conversation." [Second paragraph from Juror #6:] "When I, Juror Number 6, was approached by Juror Number 5, I was under the impression that he was concerned about having potentially upset me regarding a difference of opinion. I was not upset, and I did not go into any further details regarding the topic brought up."
...
The Court examined Juror 5. Juror 5 expressed a desire to be removed from the jury and reported some alarming things. He believed that the jury's attitude changed "based on something which happened outside of the jury room." He said that he felt physically threatened based on statements made by others, "There have been comments made to me personally -- that have made me reflect on whether or not my safety is at issue here." The Court failed to investigate this troubling report, instead focusing on a vague and innocuous exchange between Juror 5 and Juror 6, the new jury foreman:
The Court: You tell me what happened, doctor.
Juror 5: On Monday afternoon, that day, we had a discussion, a round-table discussion regarding the conflicting opinions between Dr. DeVore and Doctor March; and Doctor Galloway was included. That discussion was far-ranging, and I had some certain opinions and thoughts on it. And, in fact, was at the easel making some drawings. Others had different opinions as to what they heard. We had a discussion on that. And that was, I think, toward the conclusion of the day. And I think we resolved to table that issue at some point. And on the way home I was sitting with Juror Number 6, and he had brought up what I thought were some opinions that I didn't understand.
The Court: In the jury room?
Juror 5: In the jury room. And I -- and he also brought up points which I thought were quite meaningful and ones I hadn't understood --
The Court: In the jury room?
Juror 5: In the jury room.... I questioned him about those opinions.
The Court: On the bus?
Juror 5: On the bus. And because -- well, I mean the reasons are probably irrelevant. But it was a good discussion and an interesting discussion. And I continued to want to pursue this line of discussion. He had had the points -- we were sitting together. I raised the question. He responded in answering my questions. And I wasn't thinking at the time. But we did go back and forth a little bit on the bus. And when I wrote in the second note there that I changed my opinion based on the conversations on the bus, that's true. What he told me with regard to his thoughts on what Doctore Devore was saying at a particular time. I did find pertinent and relevant. And my position or opinion changed. And the weight that I was giving those two experts did change as a result of that conversation.
Now, yesterday there was obviously change in jurors based on something which happened outside of the jury room. Last night I recalled this conversation and felt that I needed to bring it up. And it's created some extraordinary consternation, frustration, hostility in the jury room. Everything from the fact that Cap is now the new Foreperson, and I'm trying to take him down, and I've wanted off the jury now for quite some time. There is just an enormous amount of hostility now focused at me because of this.
The Court: Okay. Now, let me ask you a couple of questions. Is this -- when you said you changed your opinion after this conversation, was it based on what he said, or was it also including things that were discussed in the jury room?
Juror 5: It's based on what he said.....
The Court: Okay. What about this hostility in there now? Did you think that it's going to be impossible for this jury to deliberate further because of this alleged animosity between maybe you and the rest of the jurors?
Juror 5: I think it's going to be impossible -- well, I think it would be infinitely better if I were not the focus of some of this hostility. And, as I say, my motives have been impugned. And there are other issues. I'm not sure that my safety is even not --
The Court: What's troubling me, is this degenerating into some pettiness between the jurors, rather than -- to me, it's more a dispute about the process rather than getting into the merit of this case. Is that what's going on in there?
Juror 5: No, sir. I think that if I weren't there this jury would buckle down in a substantive way. We made substantial progress. We changed Forepersons. We took everything off the wall. We started again. The new Foreperson is doing an excellent job. Issues are up on the white board, the easel is being prepared. Then this issue with regard to Juror Number 7 yesterday came up. I had this fit of conscience, or whatever. And now we're back to frustration again. But, to answer your question, I think that the jury is very focused when it's -- when the time is appropriate, and people are focused. I think they are doing a terrific job.
The Court: But it's not -- I don't think it's a good idea for me to substitute you out as a juror just because you can't get along, or some people have some animus toward you. If I have to bring every juror back in here, I'm going to tell them that, you know, they are supposed to be concentrating on the facts and the jury instructions in this case in arriving at a decision.
Juror 5: Your Honor, I think they can do that. I'm not sure I can do that at this point.
The Court: Well --
Juror 5: As I say, there have been comments made to me personally that -- that have made me reflect on whether or not my safety is at issue here.
The Court: You have been threatened bodily?
Juror 5: I have not been threatened bodily, but the comments, the looks --
The Court: Who is responsible for these comments?
Juror 5: Your Honor, I prefer not to do that, or go there, except to say that I have tried mightily. I think I'm at an end of what I can do reasonably with this jury to weigh this evidence fairly. I don't think I can weigh it fairly any longer.
The defense moved for a mistrial based on the jury's processes degenerating to the point where the jury was not deliberating on the evidence, but had resorted to implicitly threatening other jurors.
The Court examined the new foreman, Juror Number 6, and falsely stated that Juror 5 had characterized himself as a "cancer in that jury room." Juror Number 6 claimed ignorance:
The Court: Okay. Now Number 5 is having some problems. He's expressed the opinion that he should be excused because he feels that he is a cancer in that jury room. Can you explain what's been going on with Juror Number 5?
Juror 6: I can't really explain why he feels that way, other than speculation, where he wants to talk a lot more than other people. And we're trying to give people fair and equitable time to voice their thoughts, and everything else. And he tends to take a very long time. But, other than that, everybody gets a certain amount of time, they get cut off. So they take a certain amount of time to make their point and then they get cut off. That's the only thing that I can think of.... This hit me this morning out of the blue. I have no idea where it came from.
The Court examined Juror Number 5 again, and elicited an explanation for why the rest of the jury, including the new foreman, would not be forthcoming with the truth of how they were reaching their verdict--they were not basing their deliberations on the evidence, but what they believed the public wanted:
The Court: As you sit there now, do you feel, if you were to continue to deliberate in this case, that you could be a fair and impartial juror in this case?
Juror 5: No.
The Court: If you deliberated further, do you feel you would be able to follow the jury's instructions and reach a just verdict in this case?
Juror 5: No.
The Court: Okay. We'll put you back outside. One other question. Can you give me the reason for that, why you feel that way?
Juror 5: When I took the oath, I understood it to mean that I needed to be able to weigh both sides fairly, openly. And given what's transpired, my individual ability to do that I think has been compromised to a degree that I would never know personally whether or not I was giving the community's verdict, the popular verdict, the expected verdict, the verdict that might, I don't know, produce the best book. I'm not going to speak to the media. I don't ever want to personally profit from this case in any way, directly or indirectly. I think I'm going to get on an airplane if you grant relief, literally.... But, your Honor, I did my level best.
Juror 5 praised the efficiency with which the jury was deliberating. The Court, however, never pressed Juror 5 to explain his report that he was being pressed to come to a verdict to please public opinion. He refused to answer a direct question on that point, and the Court did not demand an answer:
The Court: Just a couple other questions. You mentioned the word community's verdict. Are you suggesting that the jury is result-driven, that they are all trying to drive this toward a certain verdict when you talk about community?
Juror 5: I can't -- I'm unable to speak for all the jurors, or other jurors.
The Court: You don't know what the other jurors are thinking, correct?
Juror 5: I know that there are jurors who have made up their minds.
The Court: Some jurors have certain opinions?
Juror 5: Exactly.
The Court: Other jurors have other opinions?
Juror 5: That's unclear.
The Court removed Juror Number 5 -- again without articulating a finding of good cause -- and denied the defense's motion for a mistrial:
The Court: Juror Number 5 wanted to get off this case from the second day [of deliberations]. Remember he talked about, it was hostility toward him in the second day already. And I brought him in, and I instructed him on the 1.00 and 17.40 and 17.41. Apparently hasn't done any good. I don't know what's going on in here, but there is a real problem with this one particular juror now. He says, he cannot be a fair and impartial juror for whatever reason. If this is -- I don't know if these -- I think he's suggesting that the deliberations are result-driven.
Mr. Geragos: Exactly what he's suggesting. And he is suggesting that there is result driven to meet with the community's passion.
Mr. Distaso: But that's, of course, not -- that's slightly in conflict from the Juror Number 6 who says that the jury is progressing exactly as juries are supposed to progress.
Mr. Geragos: Well, no. He says said that they are making progress towards getting a community verdict. And if they do, that's not what he said -- 6 said at all. 6 says they are making progress getting to where they want to be. If they eliminate him, then they will get to where they want to be.
The Court: Well, you know, Mr. Geragos, I'm going to bite the bullet again as I have been doing for the last five and a half months. I'm going to excuse Number 5. I'm going to gag him. If he wants to get on an airplane and fly to Bangkok, go ahead. You have your record here. And if there is a conviction, we'll see what happens.
Shortly thereafter, the jury returned a verdict of guilty.
----------------------
The prosecution, in response (I can't cut and paste from that one), basically said that removal was required under the circumstances, because the juror flat-out said he could no longer be fair or follow the jury instructions. Which is a good point.
During deliberations, on November 10, the Court received a strange note from two of the jurors:
...
"A juror has had a conversation outside the jury deliberation room that may constitute a violation of the admonition. Does the Court wish to hear more? Should we continue to deliberate?"
...
Shortly thereafter, about five minutes thereafter, [the Court] received another note. ...
"I, Juror Number 5, approached Juror Number 6 regarding a question raised in the jury deliberation room. I changed my position on the question based on the conversation." [Second paragraph from Juror #6:] "When I, Juror Number 6, was approached by Juror Number 5, I was under the impression that he was concerned about having potentially upset me regarding a difference of opinion. I was not upset, and I did not go into any further details regarding the topic brought up."
...
The Court examined Juror 5. Juror 5 expressed a desire to be removed from the jury and reported some alarming things. He believed that the jury's attitude changed "based on something which happened outside of the jury room." He said that he felt physically threatened based on statements made by others, "There have been comments made to me personally -- that have made me reflect on whether or not my safety is at issue here." The Court failed to investigate this troubling report, instead focusing on a vague and innocuous exchange between Juror 5 and Juror 6, the new jury foreman:
The Court: You tell me what happened, doctor.
Juror 5: On Monday afternoon, that day, we had a discussion, a round-table discussion regarding the conflicting opinions between Dr. DeVore and Doctor March; and Doctor Galloway was included. That discussion was far-ranging, and I had some certain opinions and thoughts on it. And, in fact, was at the easel making some drawings. Others had different opinions as to what they heard. We had a discussion on that. And that was, I think, toward the conclusion of the day. And I think we resolved to table that issue at some point. And on the way home I was sitting with Juror Number 6, and he had brought up what I thought were some opinions that I didn't understand.
The Court: In the jury room?
Juror 5: In the jury room. And I -- and he also brought up points which I thought were quite meaningful and ones I hadn't understood --
The Court: In the jury room?
Juror 5: In the jury room.... I questioned him about those opinions.
The Court: On the bus?
Juror 5: On the bus. And because -- well, I mean the reasons are probably irrelevant. But it was a good discussion and an interesting discussion. And I continued to want to pursue this line of discussion. He had had the points -- we were sitting together. I raised the question. He responded in answering my questions. And I wasn't thinking at the time. But we did go back and forth a little bit on the bus. And when I wrote in the second note there that I changed my opinion based on the conversations on the bus, that's true. What he told me with regard to his thoughts on what Doctore Devore was saying at a particular time. I did find pertinent and relevant. And my position or opinion changed. And the weight that I was giving those two experts did change as a result of that conversation.
Now, yesterday there was obviously change in jurors based on something which happened outside of the jury room. Last night I recalled this conversation and felt that I needed to bring it up. And it's created some extraordinary consternation, frustration, hostility in the jury room. Everything from the fact that Cap is now the new Foreperson, and I'm trying to take him down, and I've wanted off the jury now for quite some time. There is just an enormous amount of hostility now focused at me because of this.
The Court: Okay. Now, let me ask you a couple of questions. Is this -- when you said you changed your opinion after this conversation, was it based on what he said, or was it also including things that were discussed in the jury room?
Juror 5: It's based on what he said.....
The Court: Okay. What about this hostility in there now? Did you think that it's going to be impossible for this jury to deliberate further because of this alleged animosity between maybe you and the rest of the jurors?
Juror 5: I think it's going to be impossible -- well, I think it would be infinitely better if I were not the focus of some of this hostility. And, as I say, my motives have been impugned. And there are other issues. I'm not sure that my safety is even not --
The Court: What's troubling me, is this degenerating into some pettiness between the jurors, rather than -- to me, it's more a dispute about the process rather than getting into the merit of this case. Is that what's going on in there?
Juror 5: No, sir. I think that if I weren't there this jury would buckle down in a substantive way. We made substantial progress. We changed Forepersons. We took everything off the wall. We started again. The new Foreperson is doing an excellent job. Issues are up on the white board, the easel is being prepared. Then this issue with regard to Juror Number 7 yesterday came up. I had this fit of conscience, or whatever. And now we're back to frustration again. But, to answer your question, I think that the jury is very focused when it's -- when the time is appropriate, and people are focused. I think they are doing a terrific job.
The Court: But it's not -- I don't think it's a good idea for me to substitute you out as a juror just because you can't get along, or some people have some animus toward you. If I have to bring every juror back in here, I'm going to tell them that, you know, they are supposed to be concentrating on the facts and the jury instructions in this case in arriving at a decision.
Juror 5: Your Honor, I think they can do that. I'm not sure I can do that at this point.
The Court: Well --
Juror 5: As I say, there have been comments made to me personally that -- that have made me reflect on whether or not my safety is at issue here.
The Court: You have been threatened bodily?
Juror 5: I have not been threatened bodily, but the comments, the looks --
The Court: Who is responsible for these comments?
Juror 5: Your Honor, I prefer not to do that, or go there, except to say that I have tried mightily. I think I'm at an end of what I can do reasonably with this jury to weigh this evidence fairly. I don't think I can weigh it fairly any longer.
The defense moved for a mistrial based on the jury's processes degenerating to the point where the jury was not deliberating on the evidence, but had resorted to implicitly threatening other jurors.
The Court examined the new foreman, Juror Number 6, and falsely stated that Juror 5 had characterized himself as a "cancer in that jury room." Juror Number 6 claimed ignorance:
The Court: Okay. Now Number 5 is having some problems. He's expressed the opinion that he should be excused because he feels that he is a cancer in that jury room. Can you explain what's been going on with Juror Number 5?
Juror 6: I can't really explain why he feels that way, other than speculation, where he wants to talk a lot more than other people. And we're trying to give people fair and equitable time to voice their thoughts, and everything else. And he tends to take a very long time. But, other than that, everybody gets a certain amount of time, they get cut off. So they take a certain amount of time to make their point and then they get cut off. That's the only thing that I can think of.... This hit me this morning out of the blue. I have no idea where it came from.
The Court examined Juror Number 5 again, and elicited an explanation for why the rest of the jury, including the new foreman, would not be forthcoming with the truth of how they were reaching their verdict--they were not basing their deliberations on the evidence, but what they believed the public wanted:
The Court: As you sit there now, do you feel, if you were to continue to deliberate in this case, that you could be a fair and impartial juror in this case?
Juror 5: No.
The Court: If you deliberated further, do you feel you would be able to follow the jury's instructions and reach a just verdict in this case?
Juror 5: No.
The Court: Okay. We'll put you back outside. One other question. Can you give me the reason for that, why you feel that way?
Juror 5: When I took the oath, I understood it to mean that I needed to be able to weigh both sides fairly, openly. And given what's transpired, my individual ability to do that I think has been compromised to a degree that I would never know personally whether or not I was giving the community's verdict, the popular verdict, the expected verdict, the verdict that might, I don't know, produce the best book. I'm not going to speak to the media. I don't ever want to personally profit from this case in any way, directly or indirectly. I think I'm going to get on an airplane if you grant relief, literally.... But, your Honor, I did my level best.
Juror 5 praised the efficiency with which the jury was deliberating. The Court, however, never pressed Juror 5 to explain his report that he was being pressed to come to a verdict to please public opinion. He refused to answer a direct question on that point, and the Court did not demand an answer:
The Court: Just a couple other questions. You mentioned the word community's verdict. Are you suggesting that the jury is result-driven, that they are all trying to drive this toward a certain verdict when you talk about community?
Juror 5: I can't -- I'm unable to speak for all the jurors, or other jurors.
The Court: You don't know what the other jurors are thinking, correct?
Juror 5: I know that there are jurors who have made up their minds.
The Court: Some jurors have certain opinions?
Juror 5: Exactly.
The Court: Other jurors have other opinions?
Juror 5: That's unclear.
The Court removed Juror Number 5 -- again without articulating a finding of good cause -- and denied the defense's motion for a mistrial:
The Court: Juror Number 5 wanted to get off this case from the second day [of deliberations]. Remember he talked about, it was hostility toward him in the second day already. And I brought him in, and I instructed him on the 1.00 and 17.40 and 17.41. Apparently hasn't done any good. I don't know what's going on in here, but there is a real problem with this one particular juror now. He says, he cannot be a fair and impartial juror for whatever reason. If this is -- I don't know if these -- I think he's suggesting that the deliberations are result-driven.
Mr. Geragos: Exactly what he's suggesting. And he is suggesting that there is result driven to meet with the community's passion.
Mr. Distaso: But that's, of course, not -- that's slightly in conflict from the Juror Number 6 who says that the jury is progressing exactly as juries are supposed to progress.
Mr. Geragos: Well, no. He says said that they are making progress towards getting a community verdict. And if they do, that's not what he said -- 6 said at all. 6 says they are making progress getting to where they want to be. If they eliminate him, then they will get to where they want to be.
The Court: Well, you know, Mr. Geragos, I'm going to bite the bullet again as I have been doing for the last five and a half months. I'm going to excuse Number 5. I'm going to gag him. If he wants to get on an airplane and fly to Bangkok, go ahead. You have your record here. And if there is a conviction, we'll see what happens.
Shortly thereafter, the jury returned a verdict of guilty.
----------------------
The prosecution, in response (I can't cut and paste from that one), basically said that removal was required under the circumstances, because the juror flat-out said he could no longer be fair or follow the jury instructions. Which is a good point.
oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,711
Ugggghhhhhhhhhhh!
Why oh why is BK giving this murderer free time and attention?
I will state it again, and again. I am sooooooo glad I did not sign up to be a paying member of her site.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
Don't know who Linda is. I'll go look it up.
daisydomino
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,355
- Reaction score
- 2
I'm sure you will see itthings have a way of escaping the paywalls. Not via WS though. FWIW, it's pretty much everything she said in the 48 Hours interview with a few more lies thrown in, probably to make her lies sound more (lol) believable.
"As bold as this may sound, I will not spend one day in an Arizona prison for a crime in which I had no part - not one day. If anything, I'll be home for Christmas."
krkrjx
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
- Joined
- May 4, 2010
- Messages
- 13,110
- Reaction score
- 43,425
IMO, BK wants her site to continue to draw onlookers. It's money in her pocket.
And once again I feel the need to say I do not dislike BK. I just don't fall for her reports always being accurate.
tcrockett
New Member
really, there is nothing in the manifesto that you have not heard. It is the same old lies over and over again
Moonchime
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,091
- Reaction score
- 6,013
Oh my!!!
Moonchime
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,091
- Reaction score
- 6,013
Did you mean to write Lisa, as in Lisa Andrews?
...as long as it has nothing to do with Nancy Grace...:seeya: I am not certain IF this is allowed ... but I know Christine's Examiner articles are allowed here:
Juan Martinez's Tie @juanstie · 40m 40 minutes ago
BOOM!��
I just got the ok to break the BIG story!
@bychristinebswk and I are putting together an article right now. It will be out TODAY!
Hopefully, we'll learn this Bombshell soon !
MissHaley
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2014
- Messages
- 1,646
- Reaction score
- 0
So much keeps happening, hour by hour. A few thoughts at this point. Close to the end of the trial, many trial watchers, reporters, etc. kept saying things like, 'there's going to be a lot coming out after the trial'. and left it at that. Like Troy, Jen from TD, Beth, Chris & Sky Hughes, etc.
Now we're being flooded. When trial video was released, we heard about the judge's assistant for example. AND THAT WAS FROM LAST TRAIL! Her talking to the foreman!
We questioned the way back about all the secrecy with this trial. A question I have is just how secret was these things? If so many 'secret' things were kept back, why? It was said not to 'taint' the trial, 'taint' the jury'. Now we are finding out, A LOT of things were already tainted even before. My head is spinning.
Also, I have seen many judges admonish witnesses, defense, PT for things far less that what def. witnesses said on the stand & refusing to answer Juan's questions & tricks by this DT. Just in the AH trial, a witness was confused on a question. No one objected but the Judge said, "I'm going to rule the witness is unresponsive." Just like that. JSS had a lot of power to run a professional & respectful courtroom. She just had to speak up, but didn't. MO FWIW
Now we're being flooded. When trial video was released, we heard about the judge's assistant for example. AND THAT WAS FROM LAST TRAIL! Her talking to the foreman!
We questioned the way back about all the secrecy with this trial. A question I have is just how secret was these things? If so many 'secret' things were kept back, why? It was said not to 'taint' the trial, 'taint' the jury'. Now we are finding out, A LOT of things were already tainted even before. My head is spinning.
Also, I have seen many judges admonish witnesses, defense, PT for things far less that what def. witnesses said on the stand & refusing to answer Juan's questions & tricks by this DT. Just in the AH trial, a witness was confused on a question. No one objected but the Judge said, "I'm going to rule the witness is unresponsive." Just like that. JSS had a lot of power to run a professional & respectful courtroom. She just had to speak up, but didn't. MO FWIW
Love Never Fails
On Time Out
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2013
- Messages
- 12,919
- Reaction score
- 82,342
If you read the letter she wrote to his family, it's about the same thing.
Nosey Parker
A Brit in Canada
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Messages
- 3,335
- Reaction score
- 25
Yes- my mistake - Lisa. Sorry Madeleine.
JMO--Well, it's true she's not going to spend one day in an Arizona prison. She's going to stay all the days of the rest of her life there.
And her Christmas wish? It's not happening. Maybe after about 45+ Christmases in Perryville she might pick up on that.
- Status