:seeya: So, 4 were not following the rules? How can it be unanimous then?
Sorry, I don't mean to be a pain, but maybe i'm lost in translation. lol
You lost me. :floorlaugh: I give up :truce:
:seeya: So, 4 were not following the rules? How can it be unanimous then?
Sorry, I don't mean to be a pain, but maybe i'm lost in translation. lol
I believe this guy was asking most of if not all the questions that were sympathetic toward Jodi that was freaking most of us out. It wasn't just Ammon who thought this. But still...
I read somewhere that he was the one that asked the bear/tiger question. When I heard that question, it freaked me out. Then, when Dr. D answered the question, I was more freaked out. I thought she should have passed on that question without knowing exactly what the juror was getting at. Dr D was slamming Dr Samuels for using the test answers to which Jodi was basing her answers on the Ninja story. So, this question was asking....so what? Regardless of whether it's a bear or a tiger attacking you, you would still answer the same way. I didn't like the question. I didn't like the answer.
You lost me. :floorlaugh: I give up :truce:
Here it is. Warning: Reading this may make your stomach burn and your blood boil:
https://www.facebook.com/Justice4Travis/posts/481669811909166
The threats are disgusting.
I'll thank foreman for his murder 1 with aggravator.
He should have called it quits when he felt he couldn't handle making a decision, let an alternate take his spot, not threw his hands up and say it shouldn't be his job.....hoping the judge would do it for him.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I totally agree. It shouldn't be a mitigating factor in a case like this. No weight given by me. Not when someone commits their first offense in such a shockingly gruesome fashion. I really don't care that it's her first time, thanks very much.
Sure he could just said no comment but clearly the JF like being in front of a microphone. So much so, he made sure he was the first juror to speak.
ITA. He outed himself. I was really worried when I heard the question about the convicted murderer showing signs of PTSD after having "her privacy invaded." That was really late in the trial. And this guy was the foreman. Still having trouble processing this.... :facepalm:
ITA. But when did Juan actually speak directly to the jury...in the beginning....and at the end. Speak to someone as if they're stupid? Wow! Those are powerful words...and I just can't remember a time when JM was disrespectful to the jury.[/QUOT
BBM
For Mr F to express that sentiment I think is very telling. He felt inferior and it showed. WoW, but I guess he knows car parts.
I agree. I don't remember any codescending tone JM used while speaking to the jurors at all. Only to the witnesses who wouldn't answer questions directly, and that was so frustrating. What is the foreperson's former occupation? Anyone know?
I give up too! :floorlaugh: I'm going to switch topics, lol.
Just for the record, if I were on that jury I would of voted DP myelf because of the cruelness/premedating factors/lies/no remorse. I don't see any mitigating factors either, but the 4 who could not agree on the DP with the other 8 must of have found some mitigating factors? That's all :hug:
Probably just my thick head, but what is JF? tia
Geesh! Those people need to CHILL OUT!
Holy cats, we don't hang people in the town square anymore in Arizona, WTH? I'm just grateful that we have a 3 part system in place and CMja is looking at DP, LWOP, or.......LWP. :facepalm:
What the jurors, attorneys, witnesses, etc., DO in handling their infamy is, for the most part, up to them. Like the majority of cases, most of the information becomes "Public Record". They may be sought out by the media or choose to say "No Comment". But one needs to "tread lightly" when speaking to the media, if one decides to in the first place.
From what I learned as a witness in a murder trial/re-trial back in 1980-81, I'd NEVER want to be involved in a trial with National coverage w/o seriously covering my back.
There's honesty in reporting and then there's "Sensationalism". I watched 99% of this trial as live streaming, I didn't get sucked into the whole HLN fiasco. Maybe we need something that defines "truth in news media", make TH lawyers/ex-lawyers legally responsible for their "OPINIONS". We, as private citizens, can be sued for our "opinions" where TH's can't..........
Blah, blah, blah.....same HLN circus, different state, why the jury came to their decision, I don't know. This is NOT the end of this trial and hopefully the media hasn't scared any potential jurors from being called to bring this to a close.
JMO:moo:
I think it shocked her when Flores calmly says, "I don't believe you". She thought he'd hug her and say, "Thank God! You're ok!"
FYI, but as part of the 'rules,' he and the other jurors were allowed to do that. They did not have to go with the list the defense team provided; they were legally permitted to consider other mitigating factors--specifically ones they came up with themselves.
Here is Juror #9 leaving court...
He does not look happy!
http://www.azcentral.com/video/2405455571001
I think a pro-CMja juror or jurors asked:
Could CMja have gotten a headstart on Travis because he stopped to check his camera?
Could the bloody palm print have been left by CMja from some earlier time?
Could Travis have carried the camera to the end of the hallway
The pesky bear v tiger PTSD thing
And wasn't there a question asking the whereabouts of the roommates?
I'm sure there were a few more.
Whichever juror(s) asked the questions, s/he was all about CMja.
JMO
Great post! :rocker: and BBM~ I watched the trial online and stayed as far away as I could from Channel 30 (HLN) :giggle: