CookedGooseinOrlando
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 0
Depends on WHERE you work!
:waiting:
i'm pretending i'm working... while i wait for some good news for travis....... my poor boss
Depends on WHERE you work!
all excellent issues. one of the issues i wish Juan had addressed is the question that keeps coming up by the THs: if she wanted to kill him why didn't she just shoot him right away when she got there.
I had this terrible dream last night that the jury had asked for the entire testimony of Alice LaViolette to be read back! Took me a few minutes to recover my senses after I awoke.
On a more serious note, I think the more time that goes by, the more I am convinced we're not likely to see a first degree murder conviction. As much as I'd like the jury to see the evidence the way I do, I think they're hung up on a couple of things that Juan (whom I love and adore, BTW) could have hit harder in rebuttal and closing. To me, the "loose ends" are:
1 - I wish the prosecution had brought Chris Hughes to the stand on rebuttal to provide context for the e-mail that ALV 'interpreted' so selectively for the jury. Not only would it have redeemed the damage it did to TA, but it would have reinforced the idea that Jodi was a wacko and that TA's friends didn't trust her and were actively working to "rescue" him from her.
2 - I wish JM had spent more time arguing alternative murder scenarios and not wedded himself to one, emphasizing to the jury that it doesn't matter which weapon came first in the attack, and that they don't need to figure out what happened in that hallway -- only to conclude that the end result, TA's death, was part of Jodi's plan. In that regard, I wish he'd hammered more on the point that the evidence tells us that Jodi brought BOTH deadly weapons with her (TA owned a gun and at least one bullet, but no other ammo? No gun cleaning items or accessories? Ridiculous. No knife in the house was known to be missing, and none in the house matched his wounds). Even if she hadn't brought them with her, the amount of overkill and the fact that she didn't utilize the many opportunities to "escape" completely negates the idea of self-defense. As such, it doesn't matter which weapon she planned to, or did, use first. The plan and the result are still there, established beyond a reasonable doubt -- hence, premeditation.
3 - I wish JM had engaged in a more lengthy discussion to the effect that, "mistakes and messes don't negate premeditation." I have seen intelligent and thoughtful comments from people on this board, who are conversant with all of the evidence, who get hung up on this idea that "Jodi did a shoddy clean-up job, so it couldn't have been premeditated." A plan doesn't have to be fool-proof. It doesn't have to get carried out as intended. A killer doesn't have to do a "good job" in order to be guilty of murder 1. JM could have suggested that her original plan WAS for a "clean kill" in the shower that wouldn't have required a clean-up. Not only that, but Jodi actually DID do an incredibly good job of cleaning up, given the short time frame she had to work with. She spent hours in that house, had sex in at least 2 different locations and brutally slaughtered someone, and the only evidence she left behind was a couple of hairs, a single handprint, and a couple of partial footprints from shoes that can't be located/traced to her? (As for the camera -- I don't think she meant to throw it in the washer, and even if she did, it was a reasonable presumption that deleted photos from a camera washed in bleach were not going to be recoverable!!!) Seriously, not bad. O.J. left 100x more D.N.A. and physical evidence behind, and he was still acquitted.
I don't know what's going on in the jury room any more than anyone else, but I suspect that if they're hung up on some issues, these are likely suspects.
I didn't care for Mark when he was a regular on Dr. Drew during the CA trial. He came across as a showboating big mouth who was angling for his own program. What a difference a trial makes. I've come to appreciate Mark's contributions/commentary this time around--voice of reason, witty, insightful, occasionally funny without being over-the-top. That said, I didn't agree with his constant criticism that JM didn't use notes, ask linear questions or stand still at the podium. JM's style in this trial is no different than any other case that he's tried. His track record shows that it's worked for him in the past, why fix what isn't broken?Mark's on Twitter and you can also find his TV segments on YouTube. That way you don't have to filter out the crud to find him.
But wait! JA took an oath, she swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! Maybe in her world a lie means the truth. Her world, and AL's, and CA's and FCA's
I already cleaned my closet this morning. Now I'm going grocery shopping and I think I'll pick up a shrimp sandwich for lunch on my way home. I've got my favorite kind of nervous energy today - the kind that makes me productive.
I've thought since Friday that the verdict will be today. I'm dressed in blue and wearing my turquoise earrings that an Arizona friend gave me years ago.
:hug: I am glad you're here!
I have faith in this jury.
Think about the quality of the questions that were posed to witnesses.
Three jurors were dismissed, yet they have all been respectful of the process. None have spoken out on the trial itself. I may be reading too much into this, yet I believe that conversations were held in that jury room about the importance of this civic duty and some kind of pact may have been made between them. This would then explain why juror 5 and juror 8 attended court after their dismissal; their presence was continued support of the process and the jury.
Reflect back here, if you will, to the numerous debates that have taken place on this forum trying to make sense of information. It is likely that the jury is having these same debates; many have nothing to do with guilt or innocence. These reasonable questions have more to do with trying to make some kind of sense of the evidence. Naming some, but not all, of those issues:
Did Travis know JA was coming that day?
At what time on June 4th did Travis become aware of JA?
Did Travis willingly have sex with JA that day?
Did the gunshot wound come first or last?
Did Travis know that the sex call was being taped on May 10th?
What made Travis so angry as to write those texts on May 26th?
These are major issues which have been discussed here and it is reasonable to expect that the jury is discussing them as well. Coming to some kind of conclusion, even if it is "we will never know" means that the issue has been addressed and thus the jury can feel confident that they have fulfilled their role in reviewing the evidence before reaching their verdict.
"Mark, Mark, I'm your biggest fan and think you're the dreamiest....Let's run off to a desert island together....Don't forget your hair gel...." :floorlaugh:
Morning all :seeya: Great weather here in Jackson, MS.
While I am hoping for the verdict today I WILL NOT let myself get upset if it does not come. Justice WILL come eventually, and it's going to smack JA in that lying mouth of hers. But I will be here waiting (with all of you) no matter how long it takes. I owe that to Travis and his family.
O/T Kyle had a GREAT night! He got up once to use the restroom. He is STILL asleep.
I saw this quote on a plaque downstairs and I loved it.
"Children are a message we send to a time that we will not see"
JC was spewing that same juror BS on HLN this morning too. I've decided to give myself a timeout from all the TH speculation about what's going on with the jurors and what the delay means. Have my phone programmed to receive text alerts and will check in with WS, but otherwise I'm going to make today a productive, positive day in Travis's honor.
:waiting:
i'm pretending i'm working... while i wait for some good news for travis....... my poor boss
You can get a life-sized standup of him online. You could take pictures with him! Or, he could join you for dinner, or ride in your car! The possibilities boggle the mind. :floorlaugh:
Thanks for the laugh this morning. :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
Yes Mark is a very nice looking guy.
I'm set up to receive notice from Wild About Trial. Type WAT in the body of the text, then send to 33733. You'll receive a confirmation message almost instantly.Is there a way to get the "notice" they have a verdict Emailed? Like the Text thing.. If they make that announcement in the next 6 hrs?
BREAKING NEWS:
Amazon site frozen by the sudden onslaught of women across the world racing to purchase Mark cardboard stand-ups...
:floorlaugh: