Verdict Watch 05/06/2013 - part 2

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh good Lord, Jean Cesarez being an alarmist again with the "the jurors looked so somber as if they're in complete disagreement ... I've never seen that from them before ... they do not look as if they are in sync at all ... and they're starting late tomorrow and I don't know what that means ... maybe someone has an appointment or ...

and lets it hang like that.

Thank GAWD for Beth Karas who jumped in and said:

"Or maybe they have a verdict. I've seen that. They all go home and sleep on it to make certain they're ok with the decision."

THE VOICE OF REASON.

Oh gee leave it up to Jean to be the pessimist. Good grief they haven't even deliberated but for around 8 hours total.

I remember in the David Westerfield case the jurors were out for 10-11 days before they brought back a verdict of guilty and went on to recommend that he be given the death penalty.

Imo, so many seem to want instant gratification and if it doesn't come then they give up so easily and imagine that something is wrong.

I'm not worried in the least about this jury.

IMO
 
Somehow I feel that the decision to start later tomorrow indicates they have reached a verdict. They must be so eager to get things over with; why would they prolong it? I am not exposing myself very well, but this is how if feels to me, very strongly.

I got a feeling they have a verdict when I saw the 10 start time too! Just a feeling of course... it could be that they want to sleep on it to confirm they all feel good about their decision and deliver the verdict tomorrow. Maybe the judge knows they have a verdict and set the 10am start time because of a scheduling conflict with her or one of the attorneys? I don't know, but I'm choosing to feel hopeful for the night!
 
Somehow I feel that the decision to start later tomorrow indicates they have reached a verdict. They must be so eager to get things over with; why would they prolong it? I am not explaining myself very well, but this is how if feels to me, very strongly.

ETA: I see I am not alone!

They want to get better dressed and start out fresh tomorrow. A late verdict today would mean a long night tonight, since they would have to wait for all the principals to show up. Tomorrow they can do the verdict, then all go have lunch
 
Casares is SUCH a drama queen, paid to stir it up. No integrity whatsoever. Court observers never agreed with her. Her opinion is worth as much as a plug nickel.

And how could Beth and Casares have such differing viewpoints? The different start time is interesting to say the least, since they all agreed last Friday to 9AM.


I guess Jean is just getting ready to have drinks with the defense team after the verdict tomorrow. She celebrated with the CA defense team when she was found not guilty. Gotta keep her invitation open, don't cha know!
 
No there is no minimum time a jury must deliberate. There is no appeal based on the length of time of deliberations. This jury is fully entitled to go through whatever process they deem important.

This case is theirs now. It's not "ours." This is their job and it's up to them. No one has any right to insist on how they should go about it or how much time they should or should not take. What I think is troubling is when an antsy public acts like they won't find out the ending to a fave TV show. This is not entertainment and spectators have no business chastising a deliberating jury because a jury isn't fast enough for their tastes. A bloodthirsty group is a detriment to the entire legal process. That's not why Juan became a prosecutor and I think he'd shake his head at the behavior going on.

So very respectfully disagree that anyone here feels this way. Nope.
 
TWITTER ACCT JUST SUSPENED!! thaks every1 that vile acct was just suspended 30 secs ago - god some ppl are sick!!
 
I also want to add that I stopped listening to JC a long time ago.

I'll take Beth K's word over hers any day! I don't understand why JC is shown more then BK? Don't they know that BK is much more liked? :banghead:
 
:hug: to all my friends here!!! Tomorrow is a new day and please don't stress. They have a lot to talk about--imagine not being able to share stories and thoughts from the beginning of January??!!

It's all good :hug: It will be murder in the first degree.

In the words of Scarlett O'Hara: "After all, tomorrow is another day."
 
cant believe JC is allowed to speak on air,jmo but she seems to blow everything WAY out of proportion.

She's an alarmist. She got that Nurmi motion ball rolling by saying a "WHAT IF?!" and he went with it.
 
okay - sorry off topic (again) but what does "meh" stand for?? I keep seeing this on the net - and no clue what this means? Anyone??

also, your reminded me that I saw Ricky Nelson at the Burbank airport one time while waiting for my sister's plane. Another gorgeous looking guy! well - he was...

It stands for "not impressed" lol
 
I absolutely cannot stand Jean C. She's a meddlesome reporter who injects herself into a story instead of reporting it. She's no legal eagle, more like a drama queen shilling to keep herself in front of a camera.

Other than that I'm sure she's a lovely person.

What I have grown to detest about Jean is she is the only one that sees the case one way when everyone else in the courtroom that is actually there and watching closely always has a different observation totally opposite of Jean's.:banghead:
 
Anderson cooper reporting on finding missing kids..good news while we wait!!
 
I have to agree. :( But you know, I thought at the time and still now, that was the craziest question I ever heard. I just can't fathom what that question is supposed to mean. Is it that the juror thinks one big lie is just like another big lie so what's the difference? :waitasec: But if that's the case, is the juror just going to excuse the big lie?

I dunno, but that question has been troubling to me since it was first asked in court. As much as Jodi lied, and the jurors are aware of a lot of these lies, how can they believe one word that comes out of her mouth?

Don't worry about the bears and tigers, if you have PTSD, it's a very smart question. Someone on that jury either HAS PTSD or has a family member or friend with PTSD. I have had diagnosed PTSD since 1989.

I will briefly try to explain it:

Bear in the woods attacks you: your triggers for PTSD would be sights, sounds or smells to THAT situation. The smell of the woods, rotten breath, woody dirt, blood, etc. The sights? Woods, bears, claws, and probably that particular time of day. Sounds, growling, snuffling, claws ripping, woofing noises that bears make. Physical, head being touched.

Tiger in the lowlands: Triggers: sight, black and yellow stripes, yellow eyes, water type trees and foliage, teeth, time of day. Smell, blood, large cat smell, water areas, blood. Sound, tiger noises, water bird noises, gnashing teeth. Physical, neck or body being touched.

Both are large animals, but they look, attack, and live entirely different. So PTSD sufferers would have entirely different triggers for either of 2 those events.

Tearing down both of JA's "stories:
Ninjas: afraid of strangers (both men and women), cameras, ski masks, guns, knives, showers, clicks, loud sudden noises, confined spaces, maybe even tile floors, specific bedroom furniture, her purse, TA's house, slasher movies, blood, being touched in the head, keeping her car registration in her purse..

TA attacking her: body slams, UFC, naked men, naked wet men, closets, lying or being touched on her back, someone trying to wrestle with her, floating shelves, someone yelling "I'll kill you, b**ch", cameras...

They're both attacks but the elements are different. Different triggers, different fears, noises, sights, sounds. So I kinda got into the ridiculous there on TA attacking her because the PTSD would be downright silly.

Hope this helps!
 
A few things.

I'm going to be completely honest and maybe my view won't be a popular one.

1) If I was a juror deciding the fate of a defendant with a charge of murder and the penalty on the table was death I would FOR SURE want a night to sleep on my verdict. No matter how firmly I believed in my verdict. This is a very very very serious matter.

2) in terms of a public execution I would have to pass on that. I am not honestly a huge proponent of the DP. I do however think it's needed in certain cases. Having said that I believe this particular case warrants the DP.

But I don't think executions should be viewed publicly save for cases where crimes against humanity were committed.
 
I absolutely cannot stand Jean C. She's a meddlesome reporter who injects herself into a story instead of reporting it. She's no legal eagle, more like a drama queen shilling to keep herself in front of a camera.

Other than that I'm sure she's a lovely person.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
217
Guests online
632
Total visitors
849

Forum statistics

Threads
607,023
Messages
18,214,106
Members
234,019
Latest member
Crackerjack82
Back
Top