weekend discussion: discuss the trial here #154

[Ammonitida]

Snarky or stupid. If snarky, the questioner thinks they're the cat's zzz, if stupid..."oh no"! I've read many sites tonight trying to figure this question out one way or another and so far, I've not seen a single reason for this bizarre question. I'm leaning toward stupid.

moo

My heart sunk when I first heard that question on Thursday. Very snarky and stupid. It was like an attack on Demarte's intelligence. She handled it well though. Probably pissed him off.

I still don't like the camera questions. They leave a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[Pink Panther]

It's funny that JW grilled Dr. DeMarte that the 6 signs that indicate if a woman has Battered Women Syndrome is no longer being used by Lenore Walker, the founder of the research. Just for Lenore Walker to go on NG that night and indicate she still uses the 6 signs AND she doesn't believe JA has Battered Woman Syndrome. Is there any chance Lenore Walker could testify for the prosecution?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05A5TcrFDL0
34.00

I don't think that he will. If he could bring it in via the NG episode, I think he would. If he had to bring HER in, I hope that he would err on the side of caution. She was a witness for the defense in the OJ trial. Yes. She took OJ's side in that trial...

moo

 

[snowcat]

I saw that too, but couldn't figure out the significance of it. I didn't see similar requests to compare to either.

I'm coming in very late and this has prob been answered but I believe hln and others said it was a schedule status hearing called by the judge?

 

[Nhic]

Not enchanted imo. Scared. She's got chit on them for sure. When did DB separate? Was he involved with her already prior to his separation? (DB made such a point of saying how wonderful she was and all but he never left her alone with his child? Uhm huh? ) Was MM ever in trouble with the law? For what? Why has he conveniently disappeared off the face of the earth?

We don't know anything about these people. Who the heck knows what she has on them?

moo

Also, hasn't it been said somewhere (during his testimony maybe?) that JA never spent any time alone with his son? That's rather odd, considering they were together 4 years.

 

[lil_buddy]

When taken together, they sound like trick questions. I can't explain why, but they bug me.

I'm taking them at face value.
This person is asking what we all want to to know: why would JA do something so stupid?

 

[ElleElle]

I have "zookeeper" as an occupation for the juror who asked that question.

Bears and Tigers... ? a little in left field imo.

The bear/tiger question bugs the chit out of me. The person who posed it either has an inflated ego or is dumb as chite can be. What was the point? What were they trying to understand? HINKY METRE (Pinellas effect_ for me. Bleh.

I hope that I am wrong or that the person gets eliminated.

For or against the State, there is something not quite right with that question.

moo

 

[Pink Panther]

My heart sunk when I first heard that question on Thursday. Very snarky and stupid. It was like an attack on Demarte's intelligence. She handled it well though. Probably pissed him off.

I still don't like the camera questions. They leave a bad taste in my mouth.

I liked her and respected the fact that she refused to be bullied but I do not think she answered that question well at all. She answered it but she didn't explain it. She assumed that her audience understood the test and most likely, they did/do not.

moo

 

[osabung]

As much as I want justice for TA and his family, and can't wait to see JA locked away or put down, I often think about all the free time I will have after the trial is over...and how much I'm going to miss watching JM grill those afflicted with the can't-tell-the-truth blues. As the end draws near, how bittersweet it is.

 

[lil_buddy]

There was another question before this two=part question about the camera...

not in sequence.

 

[DairyGirl]

Was doing a little sleuthing/creeping. Now I see where JA got the word "Nay" in her "journal" entry (because we know she has no original thoughts, etc)...
http://web.archive.org/web/20130106002648/http://www.myspace.com/tvalexander/photos/1030845#{%22ImageId%22%3A26063558}

I actually thought she was channeling Mr. Ed.

 

[AlwaysOnTheCase]

I wish Dr. D knew that Jodi didn't remember the gun going off
and that Jodi didn't even know she shot Travis.

 

[mollyf]

The bear/tiger question bugs the chit out of me. The person who posed it either has an inflated ego or is dumb as chite can be. What was the point? What were they trying to understand? HINKY METRE (Pinellas effect_ for me. Bleh.

I hope that I am wrong or that the person gets eliminated.

For or against the State, there is something not quite right with that question.

moo

You may have skipped the previous thread, but I and a couple of others voiced similar concern about this juror question. I hope, as others subsequently assured us, this is not a game changer.

It's partly the lack of logic and proper analogy that got to us. In general, we would have preferred to hear: strange dog attack from which one emerges unharmed but witnesses a close friend's mortal wounding OR attacking and slaughtering your own dog.

 

[SyraKelly]

I didn't reply to you earlier...think we're getting signals mixed.

he wanted to protect his young son

 

[Ammonitida]

There was another question before this two=part question about the camera...

Yeah, something about taking vs leaving the camera behind. Like which required more orientation?

I'd say the latter in this case because selectively deleting the photographs, transporting it downstairs and running it through a wash cycle requires more focus than just simply taking the camera with her to hoover damn for disposal.

Is there really someone on that jury who is buying that fog copout?

 

[KPinMN]

Snarky or stupid. If snarky, the questioner thinks they're the cat's zzz, if stupid..."oh no"! I've read many sites tonight trying to figure this question out one way or another and so far, I've not seen a single reason for this bizarre question. I'm leaning toward stupid.

moo

The positive part about that strange bear-tiger question is that I thought Dr.JD explained why the PDS would be invalid if you lied about bear vs. tiger very well. I think she clearly communicated that the re-experiencing of the trauma seen with PTSD would be different if the trigger were different in any major detail and thus the answers to the PDS would differ.

 

[GoAskAllie]

and the fact that his hands among other things appeared in a photo attributed to Travis ? jmo

For all we know, it's possible his ex-wife asked him nicely (or perhaps not so nicely) to not testify on camera for the sake of his son. Kid is 13 or 14 now.

 

[Bernina]

What if........what if all it was, was TA saying JA was going to be exactly like her mother?...or she was just like her mother...don't know where the text is....

That is REAL. She had absolutely no respect for her mother, physically abused her, kept her out of her life, basically refused to acknowledge her because there was something she hated about her, but her mother was a REAL ENTITY.

TA berating her, calling her names, threatening her, a sociopath turns that around on a person so fast it'll make your head spin. She had enough to keep him quiet if it even bothered her but it was only words and she didn't believe it applied to her in her little demented fantasy world.........she could "control" his girlfriends (threats, emails,etc), insert herself at will into his life and still believe they were going to live happily ever after.

But compare her to her MOTHER? Call JA Satan, but don't ever compare her to her mother!

Just a thought...my dad is a narsicists/sociopath (or anti-social personality disorder, whatever they're calling it now) and he'd be able to turn things around on a dime, stick a knife in your back when you were shaking his hand, but he'd go ballistic, if you EVER compared him to someone he loathed. That was the ONLY thing that PERSONALLY got to him in any meaningful way. Everything else? Didn't have an effect on him. He had drama when HE wanted drama, all others need not apply. He was in control.

Just random thoughts.....JA's thought process or lack of, although totally whacked, is fascinating in a weird kind of way. I've just always been interested in why people think and/or believe in the way they do since early high school:dunno:

 

[ClosArgs]

Yeah, it's a snarky question.

How about this crap question;

Would you consider deleting pictures and washing the camera an attempt to destroy evidence?

Why would anyone ask a question that has such an obvious answer?

It's like asking Demarte, "does two plus two equal four?".

I am addicted to supreme court decisions and discuss them with a couple of law friends continuously. I don't think a "snarky" question as a necessarily defense oriented question. It may be a question to clarify their own leanings by asking a question contrary to the the side he/she leans. I believe based on the overall quewstions these jurors have not drunk the JA Kool Aidde.

 

[KPinMN]

Ahh. I see the confusion. AstroKitty (??) posted that Jodi had piquerism which basically is sexual gratification from piercing or stabbing. My post was asking when that was brought out because I always thought Jodi slashing tires was just predictable stalking crap she read about in a novel or saw on television and her sexuality was just another means to an end given that's the only way she knows how to make human connections with men. Plus it was easy for her to manipulate men using sex.

It never seemed as if there was sexual pleasure for her. It was just machinations.

So when you explained about the aggression, I was convinced I'd missed a really interesting explanation of sexual sadism.

OMG, we just all need to meet up at Starbucks and talk it out. Look at how much we keep missing. lol

BBM

If we do we better call ahead to make sure they have enough ingredients for stawberry Fraps on hand to serve all of us!

 

[InALandFarFarAway]

Even after some jurors asked a bunch puzzle questions?

There's an ******** on that jury who will cause at best, a hung jury or at worst an acquittal, unless Juan delivers a smoking gun.

Only the jury questions regarding Dr. Dick S. copying the answers to his test sheet were pro-prosecution. Most of the rest were trick questions.

Others were just plain stupid. Why would anyone ask, "do you consider deleting pictures and washing the camera an attempt to destroy evidence?". Really? Who would even question that? Somebody buying the defense's nonsense? The question, "when Jodi said that no jury will convict me, could that have been due to her BPD?", also appeared to support the defense. A juror leaning toward not guilty looking for an "innocent" explanation for Jodi's television proclamation? That's how I took it.

Yes. Even after. If they don't get it by now, there's no getting it.

We don't know who asked the questions and we don't know if the person or persons who asked the questions that are annoying you will make it to the final juror count.

In my mind, from what I've heard, these jurors get it or they get it enough to reason with the ones who don't. And it won't take that much convincing after the closing arguments.

The only question that bothered me out of all the questions asked was the tiger/bear question. That's it. Many here have explained their interpretations and they sound reasonable.

I think there are one or two jurors who are at saturation level and they're ready to go. They're hip to Jodi's sh&t but they don't like JW and they want to mess with her head. One or two bored jurors poking a stick at JW.

Regardless, it's time for them to wrap this up, make their closings then fight over the judge's instructions.

After that, let the chips fall.