They did. It was one of the mitigating factors they presented in opening statement.
Nurmi opening statement included JA, "this mentally ill woman", being "diagnosed with BPD and PTSD".
They did. It was one of the mitigating factors they presented in opening statement.
They did. It was one of the mitigating factors they presented in opening statement.
JW is providing ex parte notices that she wishes to have sealed. There are 3 - judge orders them sealed even though she has not seen them, does not know what they are. There will be other supplemented materials given related - and JSS will also seal those.
From what I have seen, juries are about and try very hard to keep personal feelings like that out of it and follow the law.
I think they get what they are deciding and will decide accordingly and keep their need for vengeance or a sense of duty out of it. This is a very huge decision that weighs heavily on people. I Don't think this jury will do that. They will want to make sure they're doing what they think is right. .
If my mother in law was alive she could have kept up with everything through short hand....she was extremely fast. I took a course in the 80's that used the words we have now but cut out a lot of the letters. Secretaries were using that because it would let the 'boss' beable to read what was dictated before it was actually typed out, in case the secretary had not typed it out yet....did that make sense? Infact a lot of the texting is done like that now. U for the word YOU, lv would be love or leave depending on the content of the paragraph, mthr is mother, most vowels are cut out. This person could be using a form of shorthand like this or one she made up. Hence she is saying 'recording'.
But their shrinks did not admit to it. IIRC.
They did. It was one of the mitigating factors they presented in opening statement.
Paragraph two invalidates everything the prosecution has tried to accomplish. It just gave every juror the right to say Life, with no justification.
1. BBM: I thought it was supposed to be: "If mitigating factors are of higher value than aggravating factors than you must vote for death.." But it seems to be "Even if the mitigating factors aren't higher than the aggravating factor - you can still decide they are enough to show mercy." Did I understood that right?
2. BBM: Can facts and circumstances of the case include trashing the victim after death?
Yeah, its interesting isnt it.
I probably have interpreted it all wrong. The way I take that 2nd paragraph is like this.
"No matter what evidence you may or may not have heard during this trial, you can vote any way you want".
Now I probably won't word this right...
But do you all think that this jury will vote for DP, in a sense out of their need to "punish" JA for her crime as well? For example the first jury got their "say" by voting GUILTY! Could this jury feel as if they would let the Alexanders down, would let JA get away with it somehow, if they too don't give their own version of "guilty" but this time by voting for "DP"?
I did not explain that right. But could that be a motivation?
BBM. Judge Perry caved and seriously erred when he allowed that woman onto the jury, but I could see that he felt pressured that the DT was going to claim racial bias (she was black) if he didn't let her on, so he did. I lost all respect for him when that happened.
Yeah, but I don't mean vengeance. I remember the jurors from the previous trial apologizing to the Alexanders for not returning with a sentence. So I wonder if these jurors will feel that same sense of duty. Not vengeance but duty. And aren't personal feelings and sense of duty part of the "personal decision" of death versus life that they will have to make?
Only healthcare professional that made that claim was a state witness, Dr D, and we know how defense treated her. Don't think F&G admitted to it.
Susan Smith comes to mind. She was with two different guards, who were subsequently fired. I wouldn't be surprised to see the killer involved in something like that. :moo:Yeah, Don't be so sure. There are stories of Women convicts having hook ups with Jailers.
JW is providing ex parte notices that she wishes to have sealed. There are 3 - judge orders them sealed even though she has not seen them, does not know what they are. There will be other supplemented materials given related - and JSS will also seal those.