This jury doesn't know all the background like we and the other jury did. They know very little, actually. Again, this computer *advertiser censored* question should have never been allowed.
One of the elements that the DT may use for appeal is the claim that JM mislead the original trial jury when he said there was no *advertiser censored* on the computer. It seems that the DT is following up in great detail on the *advertiser censored* for at least two reasons.
1. They are using the "big lie" to make this jury believe that Travis Alexander was a pervert who was into child *advertiser censored*, and female *advertiser censored*, and just any kind of *advertiser censored* really in a "He Had It Coming" defence. It's a lie, but by repeating it hundreds of times you may get one jury member to believe it's possible and hang the jury. JM is countering that by demonstrating to the jury that the DT is lying, and, by doing so, IMO, he is clearing Travis's good name.
(IIRC, an upthread post stated that LKN had insinuated that the the first witness's 9 year old daughter might taken pictures of herself when she was partially undressed, and then sent them to Travis, and then that Travis might have deleted them. Such a statement or "question" was just another way of slamming Travis, but it also insulted the first witness. It implied that the man was a neglectful father who wasn't paying attention to his daughter's activities, and that his daughter was promiscuous. So, IMO, if LKN's statement was posted correctly, and the first witness was built like a biker, LKN better hire that new PI to take on an extra shift as bodyguard. Not too many men would take kindly to such public insults. It anyone keeping track of how many people have been slandered by the DT over the course of these trials now? Although, I think this must be a new low. Attacking a little nine year old girl is disgusting!)
2. Since the DT is claiming prosecutorial misconduct, they need to lay a foundation showing that JM lied to the jury about *advertiser censored* being on the computer--that there was *advertiser censored* on the computer and that JM knew it. If they can convince a higher court that JM was a liar, that court could declare a mistrial, overturn the guilty verdict, and AZ would get to pay for this all over again.
JM, therefore, is, I think, countering that by showing that out of over 2,000 images on the what is now known to be Deanna's computer, four thumbnail images containing nudity of which IIRC only one met the standard of being called *advertiser censored* in a court of law. So, JM seems to have dealt well with that issue. As well, there was no child *advertiser censored* found, therefore, the lie about Travis masturbating to a picture of a little boy is proven to be false and the fairy tale the DT spun about Travis being a pedophile was shattered. Therefore, Jodi had nothing to be shocked about, there was nothing to make her "snap".
JMO, but, if the DT is repeating lies, JM should be allowed to repeat the truth.
ETA I just found it. My mistake.
bsk in
#164 was
speculating about what LKN might say to the dad. So, I was wrong to rant away as I did. Although, bsk's supposition sounds so much like what LKN has said, I wouldn't have been surprised.
Sorry mods et al.