Thanks for that. These clips just make me depressed. The 4 STRONGLY felt there was emotional and verbal abuse that was on-going and lasted for a long time??? WTF???? Juror 6 says the 4 got these from texts and e-mails...ok what e-mails?? I don't recall any such e-mails. And only ONE text message. AGGHGHHGHGHGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I could tell Mark was going crazy too. Can anyone tell me WHAT E-MAILS these are? Please, I feel like I missed a huge part of the case even though I watched every day. I don't remember e-mails from Travis being "abusive." Did the jury somehow have access to extra e-mails not discussed during the trial?
Also, the 4 also got emotional abuse from WHAT JODI SAID, that he was FORCING HER TO HAVE SEX BUT SHE DIDN"T WANT TO, and Juror 6 even pointed out she still liked the sex. FORCING???? WTF?????? Omigosh. FORCING??? I'm thinking these jurors got CMJA's lack of real care for Travis OR for the sex, and mis-interpreted that as Travis forcing her to have sex with him. NO 4 JURORS, IT'S ACTUALLY B/C CMJA IS A PSYCHOPATH WITH NO FEELINGS FOR PEOPLE. TRAVIS WAS JUST AN OBJECT TO HER. THE SEX WAS ALL AN ACT FOR HER TO TRAP TRAVIS. How did they not get this????? Did they not get any of the stuff about, oh you know, HER OBESSION WITH HIM AND HER OBSESSIVE BEHAVIOR? DId they not get that HER WHOLE LIFE IS ONE BIG ACT FOR HER. WHY WOULD THEY EXPECT ANY REAL EMOTION FROM HER???? So this goes to the obvious point that didn't these 4 jurors learn anything about CMJA"S LYING LYING LYING LYING LYING LYING LYING. What part of LYING do they not understand???????? She lied to them about gas cans and everything to do with the murder...I guess they thought, oh that deals with the murder so of course she would lie about that, but why would she lie about the other things? BECAUSE SHE KNEW PEOPLE LIKE YOU WOULD BE ON THE JURY. The 'Abuse" is a DIRECT AND MAJOR PART OF HER WHOLE CASE - SELF=DEFENSE, AS IN SHE KILLED TRAVIS FROM SELF-DEFENSE. Did the 4 juros NOT even get that connection???????????????????????????? So why do they think she wouldn't make all that up to support her "abuse" claim????????????
Also, I like Juror 6 and she tries real hard to defend the 4, which I respect...but she keeps saying "It was their opinion and we have to respect that." There was no "violence" in the jury room, we respected their opinions. Well, just because someone has an opinion doesn't mean it's based on fact. Did the other 8 jurors ever QUESTION them as to the basis IN EVIDENCE of their "opinions." As in, please show me the exhibit number(s). Isn't that what was supposed to be going on in the jury room? If someone says something which I did NOT get from the trial AT ALL, then why would I not question that person as to what evidence r they basing their beliefs on?? I think this was Foreman's fault, who set the tone that everyone should tell their view and that's that. "Repect each other opinion." Well, you can respect and question and deliberate at the same time. It doesn't have to be either agree or disagree and nothing in between. It doesn't seem like any real deliberating even went on in the jury room.
Let's us think the Heavens that we got a M1 conviction, at this point I'm highly surprised by that. I tried to give the 4 jurors the benefit of the doubt, but the more I hear, the....and I should stop now because I am about to go batty.
