trial day 53: REBUTTAL; #161

[CookedGooseinOrlando]

mine addiction started back with rabbi fred neulander...
keep telling myself to stop watching these train wrecks but this one has been - wow!

 

[Lorelilly]

That juror question regarding Jodi's claim of shooting him in the head in the middle of the bathroom has me a bit worried. Was there blood in the center of the bathroom?

Well since she spread water all over the floor who knows. There sure was a WHOLE lot of blood leading away from the bathroom and down the hall. Blood a third of the way up the wall, blood along the baseboards and a WHOLE lot of blood where the tile changes to carpet in Travis' bedroom...where JA slit his throat. Then of course there's that long blood smear where JA drug Travis back to the bathroom. Blood is EVERYWHERE and now the Jury knows how it got there.

 

[raisincharlie]

jose miguel ‏@reporterjmiguel 1m

It's important to note juror #8 was NOT in court today, his seat has been EMPTY ALL

Thank you - wonder if he got a death threat as well ?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I don't like the question about the middle of the bathroom.

It goes directly to support JA's testiphony.

I'm afraid that Dr. Horn's answer to the jury question is easily misunderstood.

He said that there would be bleeding where the injury occurred.

I believe he meant at the site of the brain/sinus/mouth trauma, not the physical location in the middle of the bathroom.

I don't like that question at all.

As incredible as it seems, there is at least one question-writing juror who appears to have bought the torture murderess's lies.

I heard it as coming from the perspective that there was no blood found in the middle, so JA's story is false.

Though, DT could argue she cleaned that area with water.

 

[Truth Detector]

Does someone have a list of the Jury nicknames they can post here?
It would be very much appreciated.

Asked and answered: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/album.php?albumid=1695&pictureid=15106

 

[pinkfairy]

JUROR #8 Was never in the court room today.

 

[STEADFAST]

Wilmott just before the jury came back in.

 

[josie1986]

well I can understand people feeling that way.

I remember during my death investigation class we spent a good amount of time discussing medical examiners. first, not all are doctors. in many states, you don't need to know anything about medicine, bodies, etc because it may be an elected position. the most popular gets to be the ME. there are some states you may not ever want to die in because you do not know if the autopsy and reporting will be done correctly.

i'm very very close to a medical examiner in my county and Ive heard horror stories. I live in a county where the head coroner has a criminal justice history (as a cop, sheriff), but NO MEDICAL HISTORY. she is an elected official. and she works on autopsies and oversees the coroners office!!!!!!! my ME friend said to make sure I never die in my county!!

for me, one who has extensively studied forensics, I would never solely rely just on a medical examination. there has to be more evidence. because there have been way too many autopsies in this country that have been wrong or handled improperly by incompetent people.

it is not regulated enough and it is a highly controversial topic....

read about this stuff here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...gs-to-know/how-qualified-is-your-coroner.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/post-mortem/things-to-know/no-standards.html

we watched this in my death investigation class, id suggest everyone watch it!
video http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/post-mortem/

He is certified and I believe him over a liar any day of the week. Especially with nearly 18years under his belt.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

 

[cece5300]

Sooo excuse every juror who may find JA guilty? Is that the plan? Seems fair. NOT

 

[dog.gone.cute]

If routine why not wait a few minutes when they knew court was about to recess for the day? Things that make me shake my head.

:seeya: I was thinking the same thing !

But then again, maybe it was like a "practice drill" ? KWIM ?

MOO !

 

[moonshyne]

:seeya: Bye, friends! See ya'll Wednesday - it's back to real life and - must I say it - chores. :sick:

I sooo hear ya! Dreading it but I've let the house fall to pieces lately ugh! See you next Wednesday.

 

[MeeBee]

I don't like the question about the middle of the bathroom.

It goes directly to support JA's testiphony.

I'm afraid that Dr. Horn's answer to the jury question is easily misunderstood.

He said that there would be bleeding where the injury occurred.

I believe he meant at the site of the brain/sinus/mouth trauma, not the physical location in the middle of the bathroom.

I don't like that question at all.

As incredible as it seems, there is at least one question-writing juror who appears to have bought the torture murderess's lies.

I think I took it a different way. If Travis was alive and was shot and began gushing blood out the nose and mouth wouldn't there be blood where she said he was shot? This juror may believe the contention that there was very little bleeding because Travis was dead when he was shot.

Anyone agree with this?

 

[Tsunvirtual]

I'm sorry but I just don't buy the coroner's theory that the gunshot would have immediately incapacitated TA. There have been many accounts of people being impaled by objects that went through the face and/or skull and have surprised doctors by being completely alert and normal.

I do feel that the most likely scenario is JA brought the gun to shoot TA and that is what she did first. And when he wasn't instantly killed or incapacitated (he walked to the sink and coughed blood) she went and got a knife and finished the job. That is how he ended up having stab wounds on his back (him trying to get away) and ended up in the entrance of the master bedroom where his throat was slashed.

I have always thought this was what happened. I don't think JA would have risked TA getting away or fighting her off if she attacked him with just a knife. She stole the gun from her grandparents house and there was a reason for that.

Now, I did happen to catch dr. drew last night and did see how the shower photos eerily resemble the shower scene from the movie Psycho. So perhaps if JA is crazy enough (and not just borderline personality) she tried to reenact the scene and stabbed TA first. But then why shoot him after you fatally slash his throat?

The ME addressed being impaled through the brain by an object vs a gunshot the first time he was on the stand. Apparently gases expanding with a gunshot cause a lot more damage. You might want to go back and watch his first testimony.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

AAAHHHHH What Happened??? I went to picdk kids up , went to store and its over?!!

Any links to todays court sessions yet?

 

[Truth Detector]

One woman and two men are gone.

Beth Karas says that only "a handful" of jurors submit questions.

 

[DebinGA]

He took the most notes, IIRC. This is not good. :frown:

The guy that took the most notes in Phil Spector's first trial hung the jury. He was a nut imo.

 

[laniefi]

I think the above needs to be repeated. It is reasonable.

To be honest, I think JA was tired from the physical attack on TA with the knife so she shot him.

 

[Ammonitida]

I know it's distressing to hear juror questions that seem to explore alternative theories or accept Jodi's story, but I wouldn't take them at face value. In many instances where you find someone who seems unreasonably skeptical, they're simply confirming their belief by arguing for the other side and seeing if they get the answer they expect. It's surprisingly common in adult learning. Anyone who has ever facilitated a seminar or workshop knows the type. They sit in the back of the room with their arms folded across their chest and sharpshoot every imagined inconsistency and demand proof of every assumption. At the end though, if you've been responsive and provide them with patient explanations, they're not only convinced, they can become zealots.

I haven't seen formal research about this, but in my experience these people are frequently a group I call "cautious risk takers". That sounds like an oxymoron, but it makes sense when you understand how their decision making process works. A cautious risk taker will spend a lot of time assessing pros and cons, gathering information, and imagining outcomes. They're not impulsive at all. At the end of their fact finding phase, however, they're not only decisive but they also will accept extremely high levels of risk. They just hate surprises. Once they believe that they know what the dangers are, they aren't deterred by the prospect of failure.

I think there are one or two jurors who fit this profile and might make deliberations longer than necessary, but in the end they'll be more convinced than anyone that the 1st degree/premeditation verdict is correct.

That's what I feared. Over thinkers.

 

[neesaki]

How weird, in my last post I quoted Linda7NJ. But my post shows that I quoted Lorelilly. :waitasec:

 

[NashBridges2]

says juror 8 was there this morning