long weekend break: discuss the latest here #114

[ElleElle]

BBM ~ I own just a handful of shoes. And I think some of my metro-sexual and gay male friends would disagree with that statement.

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.

 

[DairyGirl]

This reminds me of the KC trial when JB tried to discredit Yuri Melich because he posted on Websleuths as Dick Tracy or something like that. It's called grasping at straws.

 

[Sulamith]

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

OMG! Mistress Josie looks like the Lone Ranger. WTH does a domination have to do with this case? I am thinking they are somewhat insinuating that JA & TA had some sort of a BDSM thing going on and it went wrong?? I don't have satellite so I only watch the clip. What a trashy show. IMO

 

[Nezumi]

Katie DDJ on DD just said that she was in the courthouse cafe and one of the jurors - #5? - asked her if she was in line and KatieDDJ said 'no.' Apparently, Nurmi was right behind them. I think we have our 'misconduct' explanation.

 

[panthera]

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

Katie on Dr. Drew's show just said this juror was submitting a lot of questions when JA was on the stand. So, it could be!

MOO

 

[MeeBee]

Katie DDJ on DD just said that she was in the courthouse cafe and one of the jurors asked her if she was in line and KatieDDJ said 'no.' Apparently, Nurmi was right behind them. I think we have our 'misconduct' explanation.

Oh, goodness I hope that's all it is, but I have a feeling that's not it lol.

 

[katiedid2]

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:.

Me thinks nurmi wants out, either way she's not going to find any jury on planet earth, in her favor.:floorlaugh:
It is what it is.

 

[panthera]

Katie DDJ on DD just said that she was in the courthouse cafe and one of the jurors - #5? - asked her if she was in line and KatieDDJ said 'no.' Apparently, Nurmi was right behind them. I think we have our 'misconduct' explanation.

Considering the source, it probably is something along those lines.

:banghead:

MOO

 

[JSR]

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:.

No what they're hoping for is a do over with a population that has been saturated with this trial coverage. A do over would mean they would get what Casey Anthony's Defense team was so lucky to get. A free pass to boot out any potential juror who had heard about the case. With those type of limitations you by nature will seat a jury who is more skeptical and one who is less likely to trust and believe a states case. Which is how Casey Anthony scored with her ridiculous Pinellas 12. Couple the Pinellas 12 and them being sequestered and you have a recipe for disaster, well for the state anyway. Unfortunately for the State of Floridia that case was lost before it ever began. And that's what Jodi's DT is hoping for. To start over again with the odds in their favor in terms of seating a jury with a more favorable profile. I.e. Dumb and skeptical.

 

[pip]

Who cares about her personal preferences, whether in footwear or companionship? She's being paid by the defense. If it suits the defense to hire a sexist domestic violence expert, that who they'll hire.

Absolutely, and that is exactly what I think Ms. Laviolette is. I for one am not too worried that she is being helpful to the defense. The jurors are seeing manhater too.

 

[gngr~snap]

Katie DDJ on DD just said that she was in the courthouse cafe and one of the jurors - #5? - asked her if she was in line and KatieDDJ said 'no.' Apparently, Nurmi was right behind them. I think we have our 'misconduct' explanation.

Why is Nurmi watching Katie DDJ so close?

 

[ljwf22]

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.

Have you seen the pictures of Travis' closet? Shoes galore.

 

[Allyne Smithe]

Hmmm.... Interesting. So, maybe she said something about making money? :waitasec:

Doubtful. This motion said, "Ms. Arias takes the position that the statements Juror 5 made in front of her fellow jurors amounts to misconduct that inserted partiality in what is supposed to be an impartial body. In this regard, it is even more obvious that Juror 5 is neither fair or impartial at this point in time making her removal from the jury essential to ensure the rights due Ms. Arias pursuant to the authorities mentioned above."

Sounds like a whole lot of nothing to me. The judge already heard what Juror 5 said, and if she didn't dismiss her then, it doesn't seem likely she will.

If any juror has no idea whether the defendant is innocent or guilty at this late stage in the trial, THEN I'd say they were unfit to remain on the jury. :moo:

 

[Tsunvirtual]

I agree he doesn't look happy in any of the pics, but nobody forced him to snap six photos of JA on his bed before he quickly replaced her on the bed--50 seconds after the last gynecological closeup--and posed for a pic. How would he even have heard of a UK bird? Two fingers up, in the US, is a peace sign. On the sex tape, he raved about her body and the "detail in your p***y," talked about all the shots he wanted to get in the planned photoshoot. Apparently the last photo he took was that closeup of JA's rear end. It's a guy thing.

Both the Probable Cause Statement in the Indictment, and Detective Flores' report, state there were eight nude photographs during that early afternoon session [7 minutes 16 seconds total], six of JA, the first at 1340 hours on his bed, and two of TA immediately afterwards. The defense made two motions concerning the nude photos, in June and July of 2011, and, as a result, two nude photos of JA have been withheld.

I've changed my mind about the shower shoot. Previously I believed he was under duress the whole time. But I can't see how she would have displayed a weapon until he was safely cornered, or else he would have gotten away. Evidence shows he was getting ready to clean the downstairs tile floor. According to his roommate, the floor cleaner he'd purchased several weeks earlier hadn't been assembled, but when he returned home he found it assembled and left in the middle of the room, with furniture stacked on the sofa.

If she interrupted his floor cleaning to entice him to have sex in his office (as she claimed they had), then perhaps she got him upstairs to wash up and then persuaded him to pose for a photoshoot. We'll never know exactly how it went because JA's word can never be trusted even when/if she tells the truth.

Considering how bad the nude photos of JA were that we saw: I had to wonder what was so much worse about the two with held that they weren't shown. She is just nasty!

 

[BeachGirlFromPA]

If ALV doesn't care who I crawl into bed with at night, I'll give her the same respect. Her gender preference has nothing to do with anything. I thought maybe as a society we were slowly moving past that part of person's life being so darned important. I think also, she comes across so man hatey because historically women were the ones she counseled. The stats support it still. Men don't report abusive episodes as much as women. She knows, or should, that the numbers lie, but she's hearing way more from women reporting as victims.

 

[Mykeru]

BBM ~ I own just a handful of shoes. And I think some of my metro-sexual and gay male friends would disagree with that statement.

Probably, but if you think about it, a good deal of the fashion industry could be interpreted as a plot by gay men against women.

Of course, in my ideal world, women would have backbone and internalize personal agency enough to say "no" when someone suggests the new fashion trend is to jam a fuchsia 10d nail into one's eye socket, tar and feather oneself with a bath of crazy glue and torn down pillows, eat only yellow foods that end with the letter 'Y" and only poop on a bi-weekly basis.

Because, the logical conclusion of blaming everyone for stupid stuff one does is Jodi Arias.

 

[MeeBee]

Considering how bad the nude photos of JA were that we saw: I had to wonder what was so much worse about the two with held that they weren't shown. She is just nasty!

I'll bet they wanted them kept out because she looked like she was enjoying it too much. They want her to look like she's the one under duress. Snicker.

 

[BeachGirlFromPA]

From what I hear, and KDDJ said something to this effect. The DT is looking for anything and everything they can call into question for misconduct. Nurmi was watching KDDJ respond to a juror, even when it was a simple question about the line.... The DT are like vultures looking for a speck of anything they can call into question. Everyone needs to be careful, a simple slip could turn into a huge mess thanks to Nurmi and his minions.

 

[Boytwnmom]

she was relating what's going on, i.e. rumors and defense desperation. Katie seemed a little upset-I think this thing has gotten so big and she's gotten a lot of attention and I hope she's OK. I digress.

It didn't help that DD started out trying to ask Katie about a rumor that he "heard" she knew about-"Jodi and a male juror are flirting". I felt so bad for Katie. She shut it right down and that's when she said all kinds of rumors are going on...

I've never been at the center or even the periphery of a media maelstrom and it's always been my idea of hell. I hope Katie and the other innocents take care of themselves. The defense would not hesitate to make whatever allegations they felt might benefit their client. I think she is being very careful about what she says on DD. These shows don't care about these people-they care about ratings.

Oh, goodness I hope that's all it is, but I have a feeling that's not it lol.

 

[katiedid2]

Haha vinnie said...anytime anyone passes gas! In the courtroom,The defence calls for a mistrial.