weekend break: discuss the latest here #123

[Pink Panther]

I see this a bit different. The father seemed very upfront but I am not so settled believing Mum was. Seems to me the first few things out of Mum were about mental issues that Jodi has. It just seems to me like a list of excuses instead of an admission that perhaps Jodi could have been involved. Da on the other hand, was more inclined to listen to Detective Flores about it.

Maybe I am just cynical because Mum tried to sell the fake letters concerning TA to the NE.

The "I think I'm gonna puke"...two seconds later "I'm ok"...raised huge red flags for me. The whole apple/tree thing...

moo

 

[Linda7NJ]

I can only bash the mothers AFTER they have been shown/proven to be just as big of scumbags as their daughters. The only thing different is that they didn't murder anyone. I felt that Cindy Anthony just slapped little Kaylee in the face by supporting her killer. I have daughters, and grandchildren. And, if any of them ever hurt my grandchild, I would be there for the victim (my grandchild) no matter that the perp was my own child.

I just can't imagine ever helping the state execute my child. I also can't imagine I could stop living him ... Ever... For any reason.
If the death penalty was off the table, yes, I would help the state.

Cindy already lost her granddaughter. I have zero doubt she loved and adored that baby. But killing Casey wasn't going to bring her back and I can't expect Cindy to want to bury her own daughter too. Cindy's biggest fault was loving her daughter too much,

Jodi's mom. I don t know enough about her. She's done nothing I can see to deserve the venom thrown her way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

JM mentioned in opening statement an email from Jodi on 5/28 that's the first mention of Cancun in any correspondence. Does anybody have that email text? tia

 

[TXHoney]

Sorry if this has been discussed already but I think the statute of limitations is 2 years after death. Found this link re Arizona law, hope it's ok to post. A resident legal eagle can hopefully weigh in

http://www.loosebrown.com/articles/wrongful-death-law-arizona.html

bbm

"A wrongful death action must be filed within two years of the death, or it will be forever barred by the statute of limitations. In some cases, especially those involving claims against government agencies, claims must be presented in a much shorter time period."

Weird, the Arizona statutes say one year. Gotta love the internet.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Civil law suits are expensive. They'd never get back even what it cost them to bring the suit. Not in her lifetime----which I have a feeling isn't going to be too long.:jail:

From your mouth to gods ear.

Yes... Me... The atheist just typed that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mobius99]

Cracks me up everyone someone claims she's smart! Roflmao! If she's smart....I'm a flipping super genius


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Linda7NJ, you're cracking me up!

Jodi is so smart got herself locked away in jail for turning in the ninja killers.

No wait.

Jodi is so smart the ninja killers got away and she got a jail cell for herself.

No wait.

Jodi is so smart the ninjas let her go so she could get locked up and she better not tell anyone, OR ELSE.

No wait......

 

[Sleuth5]

Oh...I wouldn't say pushy....opinionated?, not really.....maybe a touch, but this much I know..you are all very intelligent and have great insight when it comes to your posts regarding this trial.

:truce:

Don't let 'em snow ya. Pushy and opinionated for sure. :seeya:

 

[TXHoney]

Do you really think the family would want to be in court with her again to try to get some money? For her, winning the lottery will be if she isn't sentenced to death.

I just answered someone else's question about it. But I think that's why the statute of limitations is extended by law, "just in case" a family wants to consider that as an option. It was done in the OJ case, I believe.

Do *I* personally think the family would want to do it? My guess would be no.

 

[Linda7NJ]

ITA, same author I think too isn't it? He developed the PCL, used by LE today.

Yep. Robert Hare


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pink Panther]

I agree. JM left that questioning open and I'm sure it will come up again during rebuttal. Not sure how he could bring it back up without MM though.

DB, reluctantly testified that he had met with a producer for a tv show...Do you remember? In the magazine message, JA states that the interview went well. Maybe the coded message did not involve MM but DB instead?

moo

 

[Linda7NJ]

I think he is jealous of Dr Drew and wants a spot on HLN, these tabloid docs are awfully competitive:floorlaugh:

Dr Drew is as insightful as a sock. IMO complete a total waste of time. I do love me some Eiglarsh though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mellinyce]

Did the DV expert have access to her entire journal? Or just cherry picked pages?
Can't wait to hear her take on Jodi's musings after she slaughtered Travis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Before JW ended her direct with ALV she had ALV state that she was there to testify to domestic abuse and that alone implying that anything that happened after the murder does not constitute her testimony because the abuser (in her eyes as well as the DT) was no longer a threat. JW made it right before or after the stupid comments about her not having memory issues. It seems to me that she (JW) thinks this will stop JM from asking any questions pertaining to the day of the murder. I'm not a lawyer just thinking that was her way of putting one up on JM like with the other comments she made before resting with ALV.

 

[Pink Panther]

Reflecting back on AlaV's testimony at cross, since we have no new material. She is amazingly defensive and the closely, affectedly modulated voice is not a good disguise for that. It may be her prime technique in dealing with people but, with her eyes squinting shrewdly and her challenges as to what Martinez is trying to make her say, she gives herself away utterly. If you are thinking about where an examiner is leading you, you are definitely not speaking candidly. The truth is not your objective. Because Martinez called her on every refusal to answer Yes or No, she was exposed as circumspect about her beliefs in her field and her opinions on the defendant. Coy she is not. The ultimate affront was when she sought to put the cross examination on her terms by demanding the prosecutor speak to her like she was speaking to him.

Tuba - Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! SPOT ON!

moo

 

[norest4thewicked]

I just can't imagine ever helping the state execute my child. I also can't imagine I could stop living him ... Ever... For any reason.
If the death penalty was off the table, yes, I would help the state.

Cindy already lost her granddaughter. I have zero doubt she loved and adored that baby. But killing Casey wasn't going to bring her back and I can't expect Cindy to want to bury her own daughter too. Cindy's biggest fault was loving her daughter too much,

Jodi's mom. I don t know enough about her. She's done nothing I can see to deserve the venom thrown her way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Selling forged info to tabloids (or trying to), selling artwork of a killer and even the disrespect she shows to the court is enough for me to dislike her. I could never stop loving my child either, but if one of mine killed an innocent person, I can't see me being a support in any way other than love. But that's just the way that I would feel and I realize that we are all different.

 

[CourtsInSession]

BBM

I can tell you without hesitation that there is no way I would turn myself into the center of attention by showing up at the courtroom. No effing way.

So speak for yourself, but claiming you don't want to speak to the media (via the media) and showing up in the middle ring of the circus is by no means universal behavior.

Legal advisors? GMAB

I agree! Furthermore, I keep reading, 'why shouldn't she be back in the courtroom, she didn't do anything wrong'. Well yes she did do something wrong. She went against the judges orders to not make comments, talk about the case etc. Fortunately she didn't cause a mistrial, but it could have happened. If I had gone against the judges orders and gotten booted from the jury, I would be humiliated and would never have had the nerve to walk in the courtroom again. Most don't seem to realize, "Yes, she did do something wrong." JMO

 

[mck16]

Before JW ended her direct with ALV she had ALV state that she was there to testify to domestic abuse and that alone implying that anything that happened after the murder does not constitute her testimony because the abuser (in her eyes as well as the DT) was no longer a threat. JW made it right before or after the stupid comments about her not having memory issues. It seems to me that she (JW) thinks this will stop JM from asking any questions pertaining to the day of the murder. I'm not a lawyer just thinking that was her way of putting one up on JM like with the other comments she made before resting with ALV.

I think she was just being a SA. jmo

 

[shane13]

A judgement could be filed and that's all that's needed for Travis' family to scoop every nickel headed her way in future.

For example, she draws (I use that term loosely :facepalm, she could give those drawings to her mother, who could sell them, and give the sale proceeds to JA possibly. Or her parents may die (not that I want that to happen fgs), she's a beneficiary of their estate, and she wouldn't see a nickel of it. It's a good thing to have filed with the court IMO.

Not an atty again.

I believe AZ has a 2 year period to file a civil suit after an event--that's passed. But on the previous page, a Statute was shown that this is extended to 1-year after a criminal case is concluded--regardless of the verdict.

Now even though JA may be penniless now, perhaps she could accrue big $$ from interviews, articles, book etc. Even if she is on death row, that could be for many years.

I do not know if anyone has found out if AZ has a son-of-Sam type law barring convictee from keeping profits resulting from writings about her crime?

That seems to be the key element now. JA could even get around that perhaps. Say e.g. she claims--as OJ did--to write a work of fiction and not about the crime, or write about her current life in jail. Thus it would not be about the actual murder. A publsher might still pay her well as people might buy the book or tune in to her interview.

If AZ does not have a son of Sam law,TA family should sue. ANd perhaps they should even if AZ does, for the above reasons.

I believe that if JA is convicted the civil suit then becomes easy and short and would only need to be about the amount the jury will decide. MOO

 

[Pink Panther]

She also mentioned she had a hard time thinking when he did. I thought that was a interesting thing to say.. odd ..Jodi said the same thing.

LOL. Who do you think coached who?

 

[Rocco]

I just answered someone else's question about it. But I think that's why the statute of limitations is extended by law, "just in case" a family wants to consider that as an option. It was done in the OJ case, I believe.

Do *I* personally think the family would want to do it? My guess would be no.

It made sense in the OJ case because he had money and assets. It just wouldn't make any sense in this case in my opinion. And even in the OJ case, the Brown's and Goldman's won the case and were awarded a large sum of money but I don't think they've ever collected very much of it.

 

[norest4thewicked]

My husband and I differ on the fact that this is THE biggest circus trial I have ever seen. He says that OJ was worse. Has anyone ever seen a bigger cluster trial than this?