verdict watch 5/8/2013 #3

[amberjul]

On a positive note re: DT's motion this morning, sounds like they are expecting a M1 conviction and want to prepare JA

I missed that. Do you have a link? TIA

 

[MidwestMama]

Please save yourself the anguish and look away when Jean C comes on your teevee. She is a self-serving media-seeking shill. She loves to inject herself in the story. Look at ME! Look at ME!

She's like the paparazzi of legal journalism. NO, I take that back. She is the wart on the azz of a paparazzi of legal journalism.

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

(JVM is her twin separated at birth)

moo.

:floorlaugh: I see what you did there... :floorlaugh:

 

[elementary]

Absolutely, at bare minimum there needs to be a threshold for critical thinking and comprehension. What's the point of spending millions of dollars and having highly educated professionals present something to a bunch of dullards?

Amazing that the jurors changed to 10AM. Why? Why not get it over with as soon as possible?

I think there is a holdout. This does not bode well, IMO, for the penalty phase. She is not going to get death. IF there is Murder 1.

I want to be totally wrong.

I think it's time to introduce professional jurors.

 

[lil_buddy]

when i was having all these problems loading WS, I got it stuck in my head that it must mean the verdict was reached.

I was incorrect.

 

[snowcat]

Good question.

Many observers have weighed in on this seeming puzzle.

*JA was up for over 36 hours and had driven all night in order to get to Mesa after departing Pasadena at around 9PM. Hence she needed to sleep!!! She could not have shot him upon arrival then slept nor could she have decamped immediately after being awake so long.
* Need for sleep takes her to 12Noon or 1 PM. Now she needs to sort out the lay of the land. Who was in the house? When would roommates be back in the house? Was there any activity outside the house?
* A gunshot makes a lot of noise that could be heard.
*It is likely JA had her weapons concealed in the purse or backpack.
* She needed TA in vulnerable position AND she needed access to the weapons.
*The idea of a clean kill in the shower is a good one. In this position she could clean him and her up at the same time. A murder in TA bed or bedroom would have been messy and bloody.
*JA planned for a quick clean kill. The fact that TA did not die quickly wrecked her initial plans and caused complications.
*It is possible that JA dressed and then declared she was leaving in order to drive back home or to SLC. Then she performed her JA Act – reentered the bedroom dressed but this time armed.
*The Calvin Klein shower photo set was a pretty good ruse to maneuver TA into a vulnerable position.
*It is a persistent mystery why she did not put a bullet squarely between his eyes or through the temple to kill him instantly.
*JA wanted the up close and personal murder. Knife him to death while watching him squirm in pain.
* The window of opportunity for JA presented itself between 1PM and 6PM. It is possible as many observers speculate that JA had allowed for TA change of heart hence she had a Plan A or Plan B in mind. The 1PM to 4PM sex and negotiations turned out poorly for JA.
* JA needed 2 primary things to execute this crime 1) lethal weapons in place 2) TA in a vulnerable clean kill position. Those 2 elements came together around 5PM on June 4, 2008.

:goodpost: :yourock:

 

[SusieD]

Absolutely, at bare minimum there needs to be a threshold for critical thinking and comprehension. What's the point of spending millions of dollars and having highly educated professionals present something to a bunch of dullards?

The process of voir dire gives both sides a chance to figure out who the "dullards" are. That's the jury screening process and it all takes place in the open, like it should.

You know there are a lot of seemingly bright people on this board who for some reason cannot grasp the concept of time zones and googling to find a link to live streaming. I'm sure they could easily pass any test you throw down. I know I would not want a one of them on a jury hearing my case.

Do your best in voir dire and you get what you get.

I'm not thrilled with the caliber of people on a lot of juries, but pre-testing is just wrong, IMO.

 

[AZWatcher]

quote=nursebeeme;9393214]slightly o/t: at the hallmark store check out they had GIANT tootsie pops! (like the size of a softball!

[/URL][/IMG][/QUOTE]

:angel: Oh it's so hard to behave.

 

[Tulessa]

Stop with the Mormon rumors. If you don't have a link to back it up, it doesn't belong here.

Thanks,

Salem

Wasn't me! I don't touch race, politics or religion. Grabs a copy of TOS from my siggy JIK~ Free samples for the taking folks!

 

[Gin]

Is it to juvenile to respond 'that is for us to know and you to find out!'.... JA is such a control freak. She probably hates that she can't record what they will say and manipulate it.

Maybe she would prefer to just issue them a script.

 

[Leilei]

here you are:

http://www.superusvoxtv.com/index.php/en/live-tv/video/hln

Thank you, Snoopy! :seeya:

 

[Snoopy1]

thank you so much snoopy!!!!!

you're my favorite dog today (just don't tell my frenchie boris)

:seeya:

you are welcome - and that'll stay between us!

 

[SMK]

when i was having all these problems loading WS, I got it stuck in my head that it must mean the verdict was reached.

I was incorrect.

Me, too I hope now that they are coming in at 10 AM rather than 9, that it doesn't mean this is going to drag on until the end of the week

 

[kscornfed]

Amazing that the jurors changed to 10AM. Why? Why not get it over with as soon as possible?

I think there is a holdout. This does not bode well, IMO, for the penalty phase. She is not going to get death. IF there is Murder 1.

I want to be totally wrong.

I think it's time to introduce professional jurors.

why would coming in an hour later indicate a holdout? maybe the traffic sucks at 9 am and they decided 10 was better. maybe it's a problem for one juror who has morning obligations. who knows? but i don't see it as a 'sign' of where they are.

 

[aa9511]

I agree with this potential source of confusion.

It seems that juries in high profile cases feel it incumbent to be murder sleuths and thus to reason through the cause of death, the sequence of death, sort out motives, and evaluate carefully all the forensic evidence etc. “Reasonable doubt” takes on undue proportions thus jettisoning common sense. Reasonable doubt soon becomes any sort of doubt or possible doubt. The jury feels that no rock must be left unturned in their search for answers. The jury’s journey into the weeds will tie them into knots as was demonstrated by shadow juries on HLN After Dark.

We have all seen juries far and wide – not illuminated by bright klieg lights of notoriety - convict with M1 verdicts just based one piece of circumstantial evidence. The reason is that common sense compelled them to this conclusion. The murder scene was staged. The alibi turned out to be a lie. A cell phone ping belied the testimony. The gun could not have been in that position. The 911 call was phony. And these are cases where the defendant pleaded innocent.

I believe this jury is hung up on M1 vs M2 and will feel compelled to issue an M2 verdict OR will be deadlocked.
I believe an alternate jury hearing and pondering this case in complete anonymity would have issued an M1 verdict in 4-6 hours.

Mere simple common sense screams M1

Oh, I completely agree with everything you have just said. I posted last night that if this thing comes back with anything less than murder 1, a big reason will be the media spotlight on the case. It just makes jurors not think "reasonably." Like you said they want to over-analyze things. I also said like you did, that if this was not under media scrutiny, the jury would have come back in a few hours with M1. Any jury anywhere would come back with M1. The only thing muddy-ing up the waters here is the media, and I pray pray that it comes back M1, otherwise I will always have a feeling of guilt that I played a part in not delivering justice for Travis' family, as in I was a part of the attention to the trial. They never asked for this attention to the trial. Any 12 reasonable people anywhere would see this is M1 an deliver an M1 verdict.

 

[MidwestMama]

quote=nursebeeme;9393214]slightly o/t: at the hallmark store check out they had GIANT tootsie pops! (like the size of a softball!

[/URL][/IMG][/QUOTE]

Holy cow! That is even bigger than I imagined! You could use that thing as a weapon in a fight!

 

[Hopeful One]

That's something H.O. would say! I loveeeeeeee that girl! :floorlaugh:

:giggle:

:blowkiss:

 

[SusieD]

The sheets were found in the dryer, which leads me to believe they were put in the washer before the shower pics were taken. It would have been too risky for Jodi to stick around long enough for the sheets to complete the wash cycle and then start a second load of wash. If she didn't strip the bed until after the murder, then I think she would have put everything in one big load. The camera was found in the washing machine with a towel, t-shirt, Travis's undergarments, socks, etc. Also, if she had planned to take the camera, why waste precious time deleting any photos at all? She thought that deleting the pics and running it through a wash cycle with bleach would destroy the camera and the memory card. Thankfully she was wrong about the card.

I always thought Travis put the sheets in the washer. I think he felt Jodi cooties and sex-regret. Plus he was a pretty tidy guy.

 

[amberjul]

Here is a link to (what I call) Weblseuth-tiquette. Very Informative

Rules, Etiquiette & Information:

Rules Etiquette & Information - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[Maryann123]

So the DT feels they are entitled to these statements before the victims testify? For what purpose does the DT need them other than to object,approach, sidebar and then sealing the transcript of this sidebar?

IMO, the DT shouldn't have ANY right to influence what the victims want to convey nor should they be entitled to search under the cloak of "Discovery" to determine what the victims are going to testify about.

If that's the case, I swear I wouldn't write anything down. I'd have everything I wanted to say memorized. What are they gonna do about it? I'd just tell them, I'll make up my mind what I'm gonna say at the time I say it.

 

[spcagrl]

Hi everybody! Has anyone heard if they have started deliberating yet? If not, what are they doing?????