Tulessa
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2009
- Messages
- 23,016
- Reaction score
- 3,514
CAN YOU GUYS KINDLY STOP BASHING JEAN CASAREZ! It's not funny and it's disrespectful.
We are not bashing, we are stating facts.
CAN YOU GUYS KINDLY STOP BASHING JEAN CASAREZ! It's not funny and it's disrespectful.
I just can't imagine a scenario where I am on this jury, we have already discussed this for 12 hours...and have already discussed much of this for many hours previous...
And I leave today and go home for a 4 day weekend only to come back next Tuesday and discuss it more...
I mean, discuss WHAT more? If you haven't gotten to an agreement at this point, what will a 4 day break and more discussion get you?
So this tells me...something happens this afternoon.
RIGHT??????????????????????
Regardless, they were unanimous in premeditation.
I meant they mean nothing as in "they really aren't happening". Half or more of the things JC says, no one else seems to see. She is looking for things that aren't there.
And as I stated previously, just MHOO.
Complete speculation. We have absolutely no idea what took them 13 hours I think it was to decide guilt. I don't think there were any hold ups I think they went over the evidence and were mostly caught up with felony vs pre med.
I think they are an intelligent strong jury and that there not necessarily hold outs. Just people that want it to be a good solid decision.
It's true, she IS an attorney...So she should know the risks in stating opinions about deliberating jurors, like body language or facial expressions...Then going on live TV to insinuate they're not getting along and things are going badly in their deliberations - when she does not know that at all.
She's also the one who threw a wrench into the trial so big it required her to take the stand.. She went on TV to talk about ~ NOT seeing ANY jurors ~ who did NOT see the prosecutor ~ signing a cane & standing for a picture.
And finally, she verbalized the same negative interpretations of jurors body language & facial expressions during the guilt / innocence deliberations, and was dead wrong. It's not productive, helpful or necessary in any way, and it causes needless anxiety and pain for the family...Yes, she's an attorney, and should be well familiar with how difficult this already is for them, and that she's adding to their pain by always pontificating about how badly things are going for the state and the victims family. It's always one way; never ever does she "opine" that they look united, or even ambiguous...It's always a 'sky is falling' report from her..jmo..
:truce:
In twitter, he said he actually saw the juror's note.
Things that make you go hmmmm.....
So folks, what's your prediction:
1. Verdict today? YES/NO
2. DP/Life
Wild About Trial ‏@WildAboutTrial 3m
Breaking News: There is nothing noteworthy to report still.#JodiArias
I just can't imagine a scenario where I am on this jury, we have already discussed this for 12 hours...and have already discussed much of this for many hours previous...
And I leave today and go home for a 4 day weekend only to come back next Tuesday and discuss it more...
I mean, discuss WHAT more? If you haven't gotten to an agreement at this point, what will a 4 day break and more discussion get you?
So this tells me...something happens this afternoon.
RIGHT??????????????????????
CAN YOU GUYS KINDLY STOP BASHING JEAN CASAREZ! It's not funny and it's disrespectful.
So folks, what's your prediction:
1. Verdict today? YES/NO
2. DP/Life
I find that JC is almost always wrong. I don't care what her qualifications are but she's like the person that says '2+2=3' or 'the sky is never blue.' She wants to go against the grain just because...
Where would they find a new jury ANYWHERE that doesn't loathe her? Because of her own vanity she has plastered herself on every major news network. There aren't many people unaware of the girl that stabbed her ex-boyfriend 29 times. I think she dug her own grave with her narcissism!
The court's public information office tweeted an update that matched up with the Juror question that Kiefer reported (the "IF" we can't reach a unanimous verdict) not what we saw the Judge say before she gave the jury the Allen charge.
The jurors do not "promise" to vote for death. A “death-qualified jury” consists of jurors who are able to fairly consider both execution and life in prison, without strong predispositions toward either, as possible sentences for a guilty defendant. Death-qualified jurors must be able to consider both aggravating and mitigating evidence and to render a death sentence in an appropriate case. That isn't the same as "promising" to vote for death.Saffie-
Very good questions. I asked #1 last night, worded differently.
I was confused over whether being DP qualified means you promise to vote death if the verdict is M1. I still don't know......:waitasec:
And Welcome! Even though you aren't "new"!
Thank you!We are not bashing, we are stating facts.