long weekend break: discuss the latest here #114

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, I was thinking if the judge was questioning the jurors about if they had seen anything, she most likely had to ask them very general questions so she wouldn't give them information that could be prejudicial. She probably just asked questions about how they came and went, who they saw, or heard.
Your post made me think - maybe the juror said she'd ridden in the elevator with any or all of the attorneys, and someone did something rude? That would probably be enough to use to get her bumped.

I've missed a lot of posts the last few days (spending family time because they are TIRED of mom and her trial), so I apologize if this has been discussed already. But didn't the judge say the jurors would be questioned one by one, and not as a group? If that's the case, this one particular juror must have said something that set the DT off, but it wouldn't contaminate the other jurors, right?


ETA: Just got my answer from Beth Karas.....love Beth.
 
Okay, so I read Nurmi's motion. He seems bound and determined to get a mistrial. My question is, why? He can't possibly think another trial is going to go any better than this one. Does he think JM will be more agreeable to a plea rather than starting over?

If he starts over, now for sure everyone has seen this one. It would only be to stall this out and hopefully try to get off the case. During the interim he will ask to be removed and a new Public Defender will come in.

They "might" let him if they get a mistrial. The new Public Defender will ask for a new trial date probably 12 months in the future so he can review the mountain of paperwork. I'm not sure if Willmott would stay on either. She might get a whole new crew including Psychologists.

And so it goes, into the next Century. The result will not change much, her address will stay the same for the rest of her life.
 
From what was reported by Beth Karas today, she allegedly said something that showed her bias for the prosecution to some of the other jurors, or at least so that they heard. Apparently this information was found out during the questioning of the jurors over the other motion (about Martinez signing autographs etc). It is heavily speculated that another juror or jurors ratted her out for what she said.

What if it turns out this juror talked about how handsome/attractive/sexy Mr. Martinez is? No wonder Nurmi's all hot and bothered.

Nurmi: you have other strengths--we all can't be as spectacular as Juan Martinez.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
 
And the kicker is, they think she did it. They really miss the boat on this. They thought they had to have DNA. These fools came from the same mold.

OMG! Not watching JVM, but really? LOL :lol:

What a ridiculous woman (JVM). She's so "yelly and screamy and all shouty" (quote from Jodi Arias spoof on YouTube). I am so disgusted with HLN in general ... I used to not like NG, but I'm kinda liking her these days. She seems to have toned it down a bit. Vinny is driving me batty these days. And, although Dr. Drew is a tad annoying with his squirmy, discomfort with everything ... at least he is tolerable to listen to. Don't even get me started on that insipid After Dark program ... talk about sensational and irresponsible tabloid journalism .... :banghead:

Thanks for listening ... feeling a bit better :blushing:
 
I think we all need to remember any of our own jury experiences. One of my turns at jury duty did involve an accusation of juror misconduct and we were questioned by the Judge, one by one, in open court. I have more respect for our legal system than I can relay to you here, and I answered the Judge honestly that I never heard the other juror discuss the case on her cell phone, at lunch, on the street; I also would have not allowed that to influence my deliberation had I heard it. But I can tell you that if I ever heard or saw anything that would have had the sheerest of hints of impropriety I would have reported it to the Judge immediately. In the huge courtroom, before we were even called in the voir dire, I overheard two comments made by a woman in reference to the defendant who was there to witness voir dire. She already said he was guilty, based on his race and she made a joke about it. I checked her out from head to toe. I made up my mind that if she was called to the box and seated I would get to the Bailiff immediately and report what I had heard. Thankfully she was not chosen and she left. Ultimately we found the defendant guilty, but it made me sick to think that I could be that defendant and THAT woman could have been one of MY jurors. I certainly have no doubt as to what this verdict should be, but I'll fight to the death to see that it's done right and done by the book. There is no constant in that defendant chair. It could be any of us. And we all have the right to the letter of the law.
I won't bash any of the jurors who told the Judge what they heard. It's what they are supposed to do. Am I chapped that a 'guilty verdict' juror might have to hit the bricks? Yep. Am I glad that apparently other jurors are doing the right thing? Even yepper!
 
He would probably re-think putting her on the stand! :twocents:

That's true. What a mistake that was.

Although I assume JM will still get to play those wonderful TV interviews, where Jodi goes into such great detail about something even she admits never happened. Plus a million other things.

Perhaps Nurmi will also find a better psychologist than Samuels. That couldn't hurt.
 
She's the judge. If clear misconduct were reported to her she would act on that and not wait for a motion. That makes it clear to me that this is not some clear egregious misconduct but likely some random statement the juror made about someone....like Nurmi! I can imagine all kind of things I'd be tempted to say. So, the juror says Nurmi's a doofus or picks his nose or something. Is that seriously going to taint the other jurors and prevent them from properly deciding guilt or innocence? But I can see the DT trying to make hay out of it.



You would think the Judge would have addressed the issue when it happened. I think the defense is grabbing in the dark for anything they might be able to get for a mistrial. Maybe if they did get a mistrial, Nurmi could have himself removed from the case, since this is what he has wanted for a long time. Court should have released him long ago when he requested it.
 
Correct. The sealed interview was originally about the alleged prosecutorial misconduct (i.e. the picture taking incident). It appears that Juror No. 5 said something during that interview (with the Judge and Attys present I thought Jodi was also present but others are saying no. I still think it's possible Jodi was in attendance). But since they do not indicate anything regarding the original PM motion I gather that what this juror allegedly said is separate from the picture taking incident.

Maybe she complained about how long this trial was taking and that the individual juror interviews were stupid. ?
 
According to reports, "she" said something wrong in front of other jurors.

Cannot wait to find out what she allegedly said. Nevertheless, I was under the impression the panel of 12 who would be deciding JA's fate has not been determined yet? So maybe this one would be an alternate anyway?

:waitasec:

MOO
 
Listening to JA interview with Det. Flores (on NG) before her arrest. She refers to AZ as the "Mormon land of opportunity". So much for her Mormon 'faith'...the only thing she saw was $$$ signs. She is the devil's spawn!

Yeah, that and as someone else pointed out while ago... (sorry, don't recall who, but it was Brilliant) She was sooo disappointed to find out that "Morman" did not mean MORE MEN. It was simply spelled Mormon.
 
The biggest annoyance with this juror kerfuffle is that its gonna take up an hour or more tomorrow before they get the Brady Bunch's housekeeper on the stand. :banghead:

So.......that would make DrFog Sam the Butcher......??? (Poor Alice....:(
 
We'll be lucky if this is resolved by the end of lunch recess. There's also the hearing with the InSession employee. :facepalm:

I believe that is about the clip that was shot of JM signing the ladies cane. Nurmi told the judge on Thursday he'd have it by Tuesday morning. jmo
 
From what was reported by Beth Karas today, she allegedly said something that showed her bias for the prosecution to some of the other jurors, or at least so that they heard. Apparently this information was found out during the questioning of the jurors over the other motion (about Martinez signing autographs etc). It is heavily speculated that another juror or jurors ratted her out for what she said.

That is the confusing part for me. Evidentially the judge heard whatever was said, so why not deal with it right then?
 
Cannot wait to find out what she allegedly said. Nevertheless, I was under the impression the panel of 12 who would be deciding JA's fate has not been determined yet? So maybe this one would be an alternate anyway?
:waitasec:

MOO

Exactly. Hopefully this is just a lot of nothing, and the juror will be dismissed.
 
I respectfully object to the Birkenstock Bash....*again*... ffs-not everyone has a "sex in the city" life..and I'm a hottie in a natural, country-girl, rock your world kind of way. :cow:

Agree with manhater vibe...but please don't lump us in with her....("us" being woman who may not wear what you want us to wear....)

I know there are many 'types' of women that wear Birkies.. I just lived in SF and Bezerkely too long...saw plenty. Making an observation that Birkenstocks was a go to shoe for gender bending women is not being judgmental, it was purely an accurate observation. I have also seen many other women wear them and looked very cute!
 
I agree.And I think that if I was truly an abused woman who killed her batterer, I would want my "expert" to be an M.D. or Ph.D. NOT just a marriage and family counselor. JMO!

I hold several degrees and that doesn't ensure that I know more in reality than any marriage or family counselor, etc. Being in the trenches has its merits. I've learned over the years that it's not the letters behind the name that make a person knowledgeable.
When I finally sought help in the second of my abusive relationships I didn't filter my search by the degree held by the practitioner. I wanted to know their area of practice, i.e., Narcissistic Personality Disorder.... JMO
 
I think we all need to remember any of our own jury experiences. One of my turns at jury duty did involve an accusation of juror misconduct and we were questioned by the Judge, one by one, in open court. I have more respect for our legal system than I can relay to you here, and I answered the Judge honestly that I never heard the other juror discuss the case on her cell phone, at lunch, on the street; I also would have not allowed that to influence my deliberation had I heard it. But I can tell you that if I ever heard or saw anything that would have had the sheerest of hints of impropriety I would have reported it to the Judge immediately. In the huge courtroom, before we were even called in the voir dire, I overheard two comments made by a woman in reference to the defendant who was there to witness voir dire. She already said he was guilty, based on his race and she made a joke about it. I checked her out from head to toe. I made up my mind that if she was called to the box and seated I would get to the Bailiff immediately and report what I had heard. Thankfully she was not chosen and she left. Ultimately we found the defendant guilty, but it made me sick to think that I could be that defendant and THAT woman could have been one of MY jurors. I certainly have no doubt as to what this verdict should be, but I'll fight to the death to see that it's done right and done by the book. There is no constant in that defendant chair. It could be any of us. And we all have the right to the letter of the law.
I won't bash any of the jurors who told the Judge what they heard. It's what they are supposed to do. Am I chapped that a 'guilty verdict' juror might have to hit the bricks? Yep. Am I glad that apparently other jurors are doing the right thing? Even yepper!

Thank you for saying this! I am now going to edit my previous post - I used the phrase "ratted out" and I didn't mean to imply that I thought it was wrong on their part (just I am a little worried that it might indicate that there are pro-defense jurors)
 
:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

I'm so glad Steely mentioned this. I was driving myself nuts trying to think of who she reminded me of.

:lol:
That picture of Alice number 2 does her a lot of justice. Must have been taken in the 70's while she was working in the shelter :wink:
 
Dr Drew and Beth chatting about Juror. Beth said it's possible they might remove Juror 5 (NOT saying they will) but they certainly can if needed and it will not be a mistrial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
171
Guests online
211
Total visitors
382

Forum statistics

Threads
608,952
Messages
18,248,023
Members
234,513
Latest member
morrie1
Back
Top