OK trying to catch up.
Thread locked, everyone is now some type of gilligan pod person, and Mr. Foreperson has anyone who keeps up with this case going batpoop. Sounds about right.
After watching some interviews and reading some of the posts here I have come to the conclusion that the "jury of peers" qualification needs to be reworked.
This guy is 69 years old. Some people that age probably are more in the know, but it seems like this guy rolls on the old fashioned train. I think he was seeing more than JA, I think he was seeing his daughter, a grandaughter, niece, etc.
Does anyone think if they limited ages of juries to try and match defendants that things might be different?
Imagine a group of 25-35 years olds judging her. They would "get" the phone sex, the texts, the emails. The talk of the "rape" tied to the tree would not be as shocking, it was fantasy talk, that is all.
They would understand the concept of Travis' IM where he is pretending to "talk" to the Jodi who is peeping in (not take it as LITERAL because Jodi could not have really been seeing it and dismiss it being a joke because of the "LOL"). I understood it, he was joking about her stalking, but dangit he was also SERIOUS. Can someone 2-3 generations removed grasp it?
Please, no one be offended by this either. I know a lot of older people are right up to speed on this kind of stuff also. But I will go out on a limb and say many are not (thinking of my Dad, my Gramma. On the other hand my Mom WOULD get it). And also most sleuthers don't count because it is an entirely different breed. Not sucking up, but you all invest in knowing about people like Jodi, you get it.
I don't know. Just picturing 12 ladies and gents of around JAs age, possibly some having been through a stalker themselves and understanding how much social media has helped the modern stalker become 10 times the monster it used to be.
Do you all get what I am saying? Or am I just overtired and thinking too much on this?