ILikeToBendPages
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 28,804
- Reaction score
- 73,798
MM said no *advertiser censored* on computer and last Thursdays the defense witness also said there wasn't any found.
Why would she wait until Wednesday to rule on prosecution misconduct and allow testimony about it today? The misconduct is about the computer. The hearing for that was last week. She should have ruled on it prior to allowing further testimony. Seems odd to me.Not sure if this Tweet was posted ... but posting just in case:
From Jeff Gold:
Jeffrey Evan Gold @jeffgoldesq · 47m 47 minutes ago
#JodiArias Judge says she will wait until Wed to rule on defense "Brady" motion to dismiss due to pros miscounduct
From Kiefer :
Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer · 2m 2 minutes ago
The afternoon in Arias begins with the customary sidebar.
The jury is seated.
Juan Martinez continues cross examination of Detective Flores.
Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer · 27s 27 seconds ago
Martinez and Flores agree there was no *advertiser censored* on the computer, just an indication of a single visit to a *advertiser censored* site.
Willmott objects.
Steve Krafft ‏@SKrafftFox10 43 sec.43 seconden geleden
#jodiarias Det. Flores says "there is no child *advertiser censored*" on Travis Alexander's computer.
Why would Juan need to look for *advertiser censored* of JA on the computer when there was more in evidence than anyone could want to know about JA's anatomy?