long weekend break: discuss the latest here #114

[mck16]

She asked Jodi to define '*advertiser censored*.' At least Jodi Ann THINKS she's narrowed down the meaney-pants juror with all the pointy questions and she wants her outta there. Just my theory but I'd put money on it.

I have been wondering if the questions have their names on thme. ty

 

[TigerBalm]

For those who weren't watching JVM earlier and missed Mistress Josie the dominatrix, here you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6Y87eTQNFg&feature=youtu.be

 

[JSR]

I bet the DT has been watching juror #5 for a while. If a juror is engaged and attentive, and taking lots of notes (like it's been said about this juror) it could be bad for their client. Not because of any kind of prejudice, but because that juror is paying attention and could be an influencer when it comes to deliberations. If this is the juror JA has been trying so desperately to woo and that juror is not responding favorably to her, maybe they just want her off and they've simply been waiting for a chance to find something to base a motion on. I would not put it past this DT to pull that tactic.

Especially if they think she was the one who submitted all those very damaging juror questions. If Tri color was the one who submitted many of the questions it will be a shame for the jury because she would be able to highlight all the premeditated points.

 

[JusticeJunkie]

I think the fact that Nurmi cited to the Reeves case (which is about a comment made in jest to a juror that resulted in the Supreme Court remanding a case back to state court after a conviction for a determination of whether the comment hindered the defendant's right to a fair trial) along with the vague nature of the motion, means that Juror No. 5 made a comment purely in jest that was somehow deemed "prejudicial" to Arias by the DT.

I doubt that the motion gets any traction...but time will tell.

They still do stuff like that?? Was anyone related to Nurmi?

 

[katiedid2]

LOL.. your burkas. Glad you edited that..

Lol I know after reading it. I couldn't get to the edit button fast enough. I wouldn't want to offend anyone with my typos.

 

[LambChop]

I have been wondering if the questions have their names on thme. ty

I don't think they do. But I bet Nurmi can tell by the writing on most of the questions who they belong to. He's such an expert on handwriting, don'tsha know.

 

[katiedid2]

I have been wondering if the questions have their names on thme. ty

Oh I posted earlier about that, I kinda thought she may have been the one to make the *advertiser censored* comment.

 

[fred_]

Flores is awesome don't get me wrong, maybe I watch to much true crime tv. Maybe a rougher approach with JA would have been more effective.
I'm not saying Flores isn't effective, it's just that his soft spoken calm demeanour was what kept her calm.
Maybe she needed an aggressive approach! The scare the crap out of her approach.

Agree! I just had the same thought rewatching the police interviews on hln

 

[katiedid2]

Especially if they think she was the one who submitted all those very damaging juror questions. If Tri color was the one who submitted many of the questions it will be a shame for the jury because she would be able to highlight all the premeditated points.

Well the jurors can't unhear the responses made by the defendant.

 

[DairyGirl]

I think the jury questions pretty much tell the defense it's over for Jodi! And you are right, a do-over is her only hope.

She could have a million do overs and she would still be found guilty. Because she is. She has no hope.

 

[ClosArgs]

Just now on Dr. Drew, the lawyer Mark asked a question that he can't wrap his head around and a lot of us here struggle with as well.

If JA planned to go to AZ to murder TA, why/how could she have sex with him first and then slaughter him?

A panelist answered simply "She is a black widow."

I'm sorry but I have no difficulty with this. What better way to lull him into a false sense of security with her?

That question smacks of asking a cat why a dog barks. JA doesn't operate on the same wavelength most people operate on.

 

[MeeBee]

She could have a million do overs and she would still be found guilty. Because she is. She has no hope.

It's all just a stalling tactic. A new trial would just prolong the inevitable, which is all they really want. I think they better take what they can get now since the story has become so huge it'll make it hard to find an impartial jury in a new trial.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

Worst case scenario, in my opinion, is that it is serious enough to dismiss this juror. The problem the defense has, it appears, is they know their case isn't making any points with the jury and they are grasping at straws for a do-over.

MOO

But how could they think anything would turn out different with a do-over? That's what I don't understand. Are they just hoping to wash their hands of it and make it someone else's problem to try? The facts are what they are, and unless she has a much more believable story #4 (yeeeeahhhh riiiiiiigggghhhht). That's not happening. It will just tick the potential jury pool and local taxpayers off even more, which does not gain their client any more sympathy, and she will be convicted anyway. I don't understand what their game plan is here, it makes no sense to me. I've compared it to old ships, that sank on their maiden voyage....and lifeboats and stuff, but my post went poof....so I won't go there :great:.

 

[Mykeru]

On the subject of professional women wearing extremely high heels.... my shrink sez it makes you have to run harder to keep up with the men, I lurves my shrink!

Heels, they are a plot by men to keep women down? I love being a guy.

Problem is: I'm not all that fond of heels, especially completely impractical footwear. A women who wears big ol' uncomfortable heels that actually interferes with how she walks resulting in a flat-footed shod clopping kind of reveals more about herself than maybe she intends to.

Women are in an arms race competing with other women, and seem excessively interested in shoes. My theory is that the brain maps the area for the genitals and the feet adjacent to each other, and the overlap explains both foot fetishism and women being unable to go ten minutes at a time without thinking about shoes.

Short version: Women are the only people who care about what shoes they wear.

Which is really the purpose of the defense witnesses, whether Travis Alexander had active wants, gave, took, was indifferent, everything that happened in the relationship up to and including his being butchered was ultimately his fault.

The "it's the guy's fault" is so deeply ingrained that the defense has gotten positively lazy putting it across.

Shoes are something men impose on women? Yeah...sure. I'm going to start a Free Flats Distribution Center for the oppressed.

 

[atthelake]

Especially if they think she was the one who submitted all those very damaging juror questions. If Tri color was the one who submitted many of the questions it will be a shame for the jury because she would be able to highlight all the premeditated points.

I have spent 15 minutes trying to figure out what is going on. Can somebody give a quick summary for those of us who have not been on today thank you . did something happen with tri color?

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[panthera]

I think I know the answer to that. But it's just speculation on my part.

I think Jodi wanted to make sure Travis sinned right before she killed him. So he wouldn't have time to repent. It was like her last big FU to Travis. I'm sure she even screamed at him that he was going to hell now because he didn't have time to repent for his transgression. It would have made his death even more cruel. I can't imagine what went through his last agonizing moments if he thought he was dying a sinner that didn't repent.

If confessing to the Bishop is the only form of forgiveness in the Mormon religion, then I will agree, it could go to her motivation for sex with Travis before she killed him. I just do not know that much regarding their beliefs and what would condemn him for eternity, considering he was also brutally murdered before he had the opportunity to make that call. It would seem, in my opinion, the "sinner" is the one who took his life.

MOO

 

[katiedid2]

I see a wilmott admirer on the dr drew jury with katie wick.

 

[panthera]

I have spent 15 minutes trying to figure out what is going on. Can somebody give a quick summary for those of us who have not been on today thank you . did something happen with tri color?

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Basically Nurmi filed a motion; he wants a mistrial or have Juror #5 removed. She allegedly said something - we do not know what - to other jurors.

MOO

 

[camcneishg]

the other day when Doc was on the stand.....I remember towards the end one juror put one last question in the basket......wonder if DT saw who it was that put the question in the basket? noticed the hand writing?

 

[MeeBee]

I see a wilmott admirer on the dr drew jury with katie wick.

You mean the young girl?