SIDEBAR #18- Arias/Alexander forum

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Heading to bed. Leaving you with my favorite Travis tribute video.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmeXmTaYxUA"]A TRIBUTE TO TRAVIS AND THE ALEXANDER FAMILY - YouTube[/ame]
 
So little murder next showing in court is 8/26? I heard that the DT wants twitters from jurors? The jurors that found her guilty? Or what?
 
If I read it correctly, were some of Tara Kelley's tweets from March 11 (or somewhere in March). That would mean during trial...I think this was the "Mexican conversation." Anyway, that was a not-smart move by Ms. Kelley, if I'm reading that correctly. She specifically mentions "Jodi" when she was not supposed to talk about the trial, I guess she thought talking about the defendant was okay as long as it wasn't discussing the content of the trial?? I am not trying to attack Tara or anything, just disappointed b/c this kind of thing is exactly what Jodi/Nurmi/Wilmott were hunting and hunting for throughout the trial. And if they found it from Tara, who was alternate, possibly with some digging (I'm sure by Jodi's cohorts, Patti and what's-her-name the convicted arsonist), they might find info. on actual jurors who were in deliberations.

But that goes to the point of, how is this legal?? It CANNOT be legal to go digging through the twitter/facebook accounts of prior jurors trying to find information to suit your needs. I don't think CMJA/Nurmi can use this in their appeal, b/c I don't think it's legal in the first place. It's kind of like tapping their phones or something, but I'm guessing they're saying that it's ok b/c it's on social media which is public?? But doesn't twitter have some privacy settings, which would make it NOT available for public use? The last time I checked Tara's twitter, it said Tara has blocked it and only friends are allowed to view it, or something like that, in other words, the public could not longer read it. So that would mean it is not up-for-grabs for CMJA/Nurmi to use for CMJA's case. And Facebook also has privacy settings, so how is that "public information"?

I'm sure JSS will knock this latest attempt down, but I'm just curious as to how this will all play out on appeal. Looks to me like CMJA is definately going to go the route of "I didn't have a chance for a fair jury" in her appeal of the case...she is trying to get information to support her case, I believe she is already looking past the second re-trial phase, and just focusing on appeals.
 
aa9511 said:
If I read it correctly, were some of Tara Kelley's tweets from March 11 (or somewhere in March). That would mean during trial...I think this was the "Mexican conversation." Anyway, that was a not-smart move by Ms. Kelley, if I'm reading that correctly. She specifically mentions "Jodi" when she was not supposed to talk about the trial, I guess she thought talking about the defendant was okay as long as it wasn't discussing the content of the trial?? I am not trying to attack Tara or anything, just disappointed b/c this kind of thing is exactly what Jodi/Nurmi/Wilmott were hunting and hunting for throughout the trial. And if they found it from Tara, who was alternate, possibly with some digging (I'm sure by Jodi's cohorts, Patti and what's-her-name the convicted arsonist), they might find info. on actual jurors who were in deliberations.

But that goes to the point of, how is this legal?? It CANNOT be legal to go digging through the twitter/facebook accounts of prior jurors trying to find information to suit your needs. I don't think CMJA/Nurmi can use this in their appeal, b/c I don't think it's legal in the first place. It's kind of like tapping their phones or something, but I'm guessing they're saying that it's ok b/c it's on social media which is public?? But doesn't twitter have some privacy settings, which would make it NOT available for public use? The last time I checked Tara's twitter, it said Tara has blocked it and only friends are allowed to view it, or something like that, in other words, the public could not longer read it. So that would mean it is not up-for-grabs for CMJA/Nurmi to use for CMJA's case. And Facebook also has privacy settings, so how is that "public information"?

I'm sure JSS will knock this latest attempt down, but I'm just curious as to how this will all play out on appeal. Looks to me like CMJA is definately going to go the route of "I didn't have a chance for a fair jury" in her appeal of the case...she is trying to get information to support her case, I believe she is already looking past the second re-trial phase, and just focusing on appeals.
Click to expand...

Where did you find concrete evidence that anybody tweetered about anything?
 
aa9511 said:
If I read it correctly, were some of Tara Kelley's tweets from March 11 (or somewhere in March). That would mean during trial...I think this was the "Mexican conversation." Anyway, that was a not-smart move by Ms. Kelley, if I'm reading that correctly. She specifically mentions "Jodi" when she was not supposed to talk about the trial, I guess she thought talking about the defendant was okay as long as it wasn't discussing the content of the trial?? I am not trying to attack Tara or anything, just disappointed b/c this kind of thing is exactly what Jodi/Nurmi/Wilmott were hunting and hunting for throughout the trial. And if they found it from Tara, who was alternate, possibly with some digging (I'm sure by Jodi's cohorts, Patti and what's-her-name the convicted arsonist), they might find info. on actual jurors who were in deliberations.

But that goes to the point of, how is this legal?? It CANNOT be legal to go digging through the twitter/facebook accounts of prior jurors trying to find information to suit your needs. I don't think CMJA/Nurmi can use this in their appeal, b/c I don't think it's legal in the first place. It's kind of like tapping their phones or something, but I'm guessing they're saying that it's ok b/c it's on social media which is public?? But doesn't twitter have some privacy settings, which would make it NOT available for public use? The last time I checked Tara's twitter, it said Tara has blocked it and only friends are allowed to view it, or something like that, in other words, the public could not longer read it. So that would mean it is not up-for-grabs for CMJA/Nurmi to use for CMJA's case. And Facebook also has privacy settings, so how is that "public information"?

I'm sure JSS will knock this latest attempt down, but I'm just curious as to how this will all play out on appeal. Looks to me like CMJA is definately going to go the route of "I didn't have a chance for a fair jury" in her appeal of the case...she is trying to get information to support her case, I believe she is already looking past the second re-trial phase, and just focusing on appeals.
Click to expand...

Twitter has recently changed the way it allows for users tweets to be subpoenaed, after taking a hard line against a courts ability to ask for tweets to be handed over it now concedes that Twitter owns the tweets and there is no expectation of privacy, read more: http://www.socialmediaesq.com/2012/...concedes-and-allows-subpoena-of-users-tweets/ Tara has made her account private at this time, but if her tweets are ever part of a subpoena anything she tweeted while sequestered could be made available, whether they were deleted or not. I am not sure what this will mean for possible appeallate issues, but it does play into Nurmi's argument that a non-sequestered jury in a high profile case has been problematic for Jodi, which is just infuriating as I am sure we all want the verdict to stand, and nobody wants everybody to have to go through this trial all over again.
 
I believe someone was asking Tara questions in the tweets and she responded by saying she could not talk about anything that had to do with the trial. No different than if someone came up to you and did not know you were a juror and asked about the trial. She responded appropriately. We can't always control what we are asked as jurors, only what we respond. It sounds like a desperate stretch for Nurmi. jmo
 
:lurk:I'm coming out of lurking after a lovely vacay from this case.

Nurmi is going way far into protecting the jury from themselves by claiming the right to monitor their Twitter accounts. He's also trying to protect the public from having to watch the trial live-streamed.

I'm sure that, if it were possible, he'd also ask JSS to ban spectators from the courtroom as well as the media.

I can almost imagine a last-minute surprise motion to keep the names of the mitigation witnesses secret and have them wear paper bags over their heads when they testify!

MAJOR SARCASM going on here and just :moo:
 
aa9511 said:
If I read it correctly, were some of Tara Kelley's tweets from March 11 (or somewhere in March). That would mean during trial...I think this was the "Mexican conversation." Anyway, that was a not-smart move by Ms. Kelley, if I'm reading that correctly. She specifically mentions "Jodi" when she was not supposed to talk about the trial, I guess she thought talking about the defendant was okay as long as it wasn't discussing the content of the trial?? I am not trying to attack Tara or anything, just disappointed b/c this kind of thing is exactly what Jodi/Nurmi/Wilmott were hunting and hunting for throughout the trial. And if they found it from Tara, who was alternate, possibly with some digging (I'm sure by Jodi's cohorts, Patti and what's-her-name the convicted arsonist), they might find info. on actual jurors who were in deliberations.

But that goes to the point of, how is this legal?? It CANNOT be legal to go digging through the twitter/facebook accounts of prior jurors trying to find information to suit your needs. I don't think CMJA/Nurmi can use this in their appeal, b/c I don't think it's legal in the first place. It's kind of like tapping their phones or something, but I'm guessing they're saying that it's ok b/c it's on social media which is public?? But doesn't twitter have some privacy settings, which would make it NOT available for public use? The last time I checked Tara's twitter, it said Tara has blocked it and only friends are allowed to view it, or something like that, in other words, the public could not longer read it. So that would mean it is not up-for-grabs for CMJA/Nurmi to use for CMJA's case. And Facebook also has privacy settings, so how is that "public information"?

I'm sure JSS will knock this latest attempt down, but I'm just curious as to how this will all play out on appeal. Looks to me like CMJA is definately going to go the route of "I didn't have a chance for a fair jury" in her appeal of the case...she is trying to get information to support her case, I believe she is already looking past the second re-trial phase, and just focusing on appeals.
Click to expand...

If I am not mistaken, the "Mexican" conversation happened on FB and it looks like she is not the one who mentions her name. To me, and this is based on the bad copy Nurmi provided, it looks like her friends that she's talking to bring her up and Tara ceases responding.

The twitter incident, the one from March, she clearly didn't do anything wrong. She does not mention Jodi only that she can tweet but not discuss the trial, which she didn't. So the defense has nothing. If it was me, I would have avoided the internet in general, but Tara, from what we have seen, did not break the admonition. You can't control what other people talk to you about, only how you respond. She responded appropriately.

This is something found by Jodi's supporters and, undoubtedly, sent in to Nurmi. Nurmi, who has no trouble letting other people do his work for him, even if it is not right, used it in his new, weird motion. If there was anything else on the other jurors they would have found it by now. As long as the deliberating jurors, to everyone's knowledge, were honoring their admonitions, then they have nothing. Trials are made public all the time. Nurmi is really reaching by blaming her conviction on the media coverage. It's because he literally has nothing else to work with. Who would ever overturn this on appeal with this evidence?
 
CarolinaMoon said:
:lurk:I'm coming out of lurking after a lovely vacay from this case.

Nurmi is going way far into protecting the jury from themselves by claiming the right to monitor their Twitter accounts. He's also trying to protect the public from having to watch the trial live-streamed.

I'm sure that, if it were possible, he'd also ask JSS to ban spectators from the courtroom as well as the media.

I can almost imagine a last-minute surprise motion to keep the names of the mitigation witnesses secret and have them wear paper bags over their heads when they testify!

MAJOR SARCASM going on here and just :moo:
Click to expand...

Honestly, I hope the judge does do something like that so they can't play the "all our witnesses are being threatened and intimidated," game.
 
I spent some time yesterday looking at internet sites on this case from the very early stages. It seems that the case did garner a fair amount of national coverage early on due to CMJA's relationship with the press. Not only did she give several camera interviews in September 2008, there were at least three telephone interviews that same month. Steven Alexander also gave a phone interview to 3TV in September 2008.

Unfortunately, many of the links from that time no longer work and searches of the archives of ABC15 and the like bring up very little from that period.

Posters were commenting on CMJA's willingness to talk to the media and an interest in following the case due to her demeanor. As it relates to the DT motions filed in court this past week, much of the attention has been self generated by the convict from the outset of this case.

Friends and family of Travis were speaking out, mostly trying to uphold a positive image of him. Very few people came out of the woodwork professing to know CMJA. Her family was making no public statements at the time. There was reference to her family posting on a forum "helpfindthemissing.org", but a web search yielded no results. The general impression people got was that the family was trying to project a "squeaky clean image" of Travis. I could find nothing from anyone claiming to know CMJA protesting her innocence; friends from her younger years could not believe that the sweet girl they knew did something this horrible. In a nutshell, not much has changed other than CMJA's story and the fact that she is now convicted.

"Posted by steven alexander Aug 13, 06:50PM

because there are three sides to every story. there is jodi's side, travis' side. then there is the truth. and the mesa pd have done a great job on finding that out. so please just leave the bashing and arguing for the court room."

Well said, Steven. I still do not have a good handle on the relationship between CMJA and Travis, other than it was not a healthy relationship and that CMJA was obsessed with Travis and stalked him. But to what extent did Travis initiate contact and continue a clandestine relationship with her and during what time frame? Courtroom testimony only helped to obscure the how this relationship came down. Does JVM's new book help to bring any clarity to this question or does she just cloud things further? Was there clearly a time when Travis was using CMJA as a "booty call" or once they officially broke up, was he always trying to distance himself from her only to find himself back in bed with her one last time? Or was it something in between? It makes no difference in my opinion on CMJA's guilt, mitigating factors or Travis's image; I would just like to understand this better.

Pardon any typos here...I am having a horrible time with language today. :(
 
I hope someone puts the hearing up on youtube or here, I am going to miss it, can't believe it! Grr.
 
I think there was interest early on, but not near as huge as, say CA or GZ. I never even heard of her or the murder until I came upon an episode of Nancy Grace Mysteries one boring Saturday. I was intrigued, Googled the names, and discovered the trial was set to start in a few days. I decided not to follow the because I did not want to be disappointed by another verdict. I did not really start following the trial until, again I was surfing and came across Jodi ON THE STAND. It was her very first day and I could already tell this girl was an actress, though I had seen the interviews pre trial. I could only watch bits and pieces because she just disgusted me. I was also very intrigued by the prosecutor. They kept alluding to his controversial style and they would cut to him and I really wanted to see him cross her. How often do you see the prosecutor actually get a shot at the defendant them self?

The case itself, I think did not start becoming bigger and bigger until after it started and, especially, until after she took the stand. And it still was not as huge as those other trials. It was certainly big, but not as big as you would think. If you actually watched the trial and followed HLN and were within a trial watching circle, it probably did seem that huge. Her verdict wasn't even top news on CNN. I don't think it'll be that hard to empanel another, unbiased jury, even in Phoenix.
 
Anyone think that Judge Stephens will set a date for retrial tomorrow? Or will there just be another date set for a case management conference?
 
Good Day Everyone,
My son finally got a job (Part-time) and since 8/5 I have been babysitting my two grandsons (almost 3 and 1) and their 8 year old half brother. School started last week so I will only have the older one 6 or 8 hours a week. Brought back memories of how elated I was when summer vacation ended when my kids were young. I will be doing the homework with the older boy as he has ADHD and I am better suited to dealing with that particular aspect of his day, hopefully that will make his life a bit easier.

Anyways, reading up on the latest filing regarding the ''tweets" of potential jurors, as the jurors remain anonymous until after trial completion, wouldn't this be a moot point?? Especially as there seems to be no instances of jury misconduct either intentional or inadvertently?? I don't see the point of how people can send 'tainting tweets' to jurors when we don't know who the jurors are. I see this as just another delay tactic and throwing more crap at the wall to see what may stick. They must really be busy coming up with motion to file to give the appearance they are working so hard and diligent that they need more time. I see this as a complete waste of paper and court time and believe HHJSS will deny this request and carry on.

I hope everyone had a great summer and look forward to the outcome of tomorrow's status hearing.
 
gcharlie said:
Anyone think that Judge Stephens will set a date for retrial tomorrow? Or will there just be another date set for a case management conference?
Click to expand...

We can only hope for a date. I do not have much hope though. I really think JA is doing her best to stay in jail to delay the eventual trip to the Big House. I guess jail is better than prison.
 
Headline today:

NY Attorney General sues Donald Trump, says Trump University a fraud

:snake:

IIRC, even the Don tweeted about CMJA.
 
gcharlie said:
Anyone think that Judge Stephens will set a date for retrial tomorrow? Or will there just be another date set for a case management conference?
Click to expand...

I think she'll set a date, probably for the first of the year. In the meantime she may have hearings for all the motions Nurmi/Willmott filed and will file between now and then, it looks like they're just getting warmed up, and all will have to be dealt with before jury selection. So the slow trod until jury selection gets underway, which they'll probably have to send out a slew of summons in order to get the requisite number seated. If the defense has their way, the selection process will take as much time as the retrial. lol
 
PrincessSezMe, thank you for bringing us the refresher, Opening Statement 1-13, Juan Martinez. It was really good to go over the evidence & his interpretation before the pre-trial conference. Studying J.A.'s facial expressions again was useful too. Putting this on page 9 was a nifty convenience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 142 more.
Total: 448 (members: 143, guests: 305)

Online statistics

Members online
143
Guests online
305
Total visitors
448
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,468
Messages
18,254,534
Members
234,660
Latest member
Dexter 7783
Back
Top