Trial Sidebar audio, transcripts released! *Discuss here*

[gcharlie]

Here you go. Verdict Question with Juror #18's writing.

View attachment 34761

IMO, it looks like the majority of questions in the published selection were written by the foreman, based on comparing the handwriting.

Drives me crazy that the press is so selective in what is released. There were hundreds and hundreds of questions.

Just like there are so many pages to the journals/diaries that might make for some very interesting reading.

While I understand that peeps have to pay court and copying fees to get these docs, I for one would sure like to see more, rather than less of them.

 

[gcharlie]

Tara Kelley told us some of the questions she submitted. Here's a pix of the questions that seem to be hers, based on similar handwriting.

Alternate, Juror 17, Tara Kelley questions:

 

[gcharlie]

These questions all look to be written by the same person:

 

[Madeleine74]

Y'all are going to throw rotten tomatoes at me but here goes anyway....

Where there's smoke there's fire...JM mentioning 'marriage' to JW, even in the context of "I'd want to f'ing kill myself" is (to me) not a sign that he hates her...but a subconscious admission of a ...possible...however fleeting, attraction. He brought that up, she didn't. Marriage implies a sexual relationship. Now do I really believe JM thinks he's attracted to her? Heck no. But subconsciously...let's say a psychotherapist like Dr. Demarte would find that remark interesting. Plus, JM later referred to that as a "compliment" and a "joke" (i.e. not an insult). Hmmmm....interesting.

</ducks and runs for cover>

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Y'all are going to throw rotten tomatoes at me but here goes anyway....

Where there's smoke there's fire...JM mentioning 'marriage' to JW, even in the context of "I'd want to f'ing kill myself" is (to me) not a sign that he hates her...but a subconscious admission of a ...possible...however fleeting, attraction. He brought that up, she didn't. Marriage implies a sexual relationship. Now do I really believe JM thinks he's attracted to her? Heck no. But subconsciously...let's say a psychotherapist like Dr. Demarte would find that remark interesting. Plus, JM later referred to that as a "compliment" and a "joke" (i.e. not an insult). Hmmmm....interesting.

</ducks and runs for cover>

I doubt Dr. Demarte subscribes to Freudian nonsense like that.

 

[elementary]

I'm not getting where #18 is getting "haphazard disarray" from? And not a "methodical cleanup." I'm guessing he's also the one who asked all the questions of why would Jodi put the camera in the washer....but haven't gotten to those questions yet. Just a hunch, though.

Did he not understand Juan when he said THERE WAS NO BLOOD LEADING OUT OF THE BATHROOM OR IN THE REST OF THE HOUSE??? How would that be possible without a "methodical cleanup" or some plan?? There were no weapons left. No bloody handprints on the laundry machine. Where did all of the blood go that was covering CMJA?? It sure didn't drop anywhere. And he calls that "haphazard"?? etc. etc..

I'm guessing he is confused as to why there was so much blood in the bathroom everywhere? BECAUSE CMJA DIDN"T EXPECT TRAVIS TO BE ABLE TO FIGHT BACK. She thought the one stab in the chest would pretty much take him out, she could finish him off all in the shower enclosure. Wash the blood with the water, or at least contain it in the shower.

From everything posted here so far, it's clear juror #18 had his mind made up about the convict from the beginning and was looking for evidence to support/justify it.

 

[Madeleine74]

I doubt Dr. Demarte subscribes to Freudian nonsense like that.

1. At least you recognize it as a theory coming from Freud.
2. Demarte would have certainly been schooled in Freud's theories.
3. You have no idea what Demarte subscribes to, nor do I.
4. Any psychotherapist worth their weight would consider any spontaneous utterance someone says, even if later deciding to dismiss it.
5. To you it's nonsense. To a Freudian psychoanalyst? Perhaps or maybe not so much...

 

[elementary]

Y'all are going to throw rotten tomatoes at me but here goes anyway....

Where there's smoke there's fire...JM mentioning 'marriage' to JW, even in the context of "I'd want to f'ing kill myself" is (to me) not a sign that he hates her...but a subconscious admission of a ...possible...however fleeting, attraction. He brought that up, she didn't. Marriage implies a sexual relationship. Now do I really believe JM thinks he's attracted to her? Heck no. But subconsciously...let's say a psychotherapist like Dr. Demarte would find that remark interesting. Plus, JM later referred to that as a "compliment" and a "joke" (i.e. not an insult). Hmmmm....interesting.

</ducks and runs for cover>

With all due respect, what is the point of this gross speculation?

The principle of Occam's Razor suggests otherwise.

 

[Madeleine74]

The point was I found that statement/insult interesting. Others were commenting on it and yukking about it and I had a slightly different read on it...not saying my read is correct, just that I found it interesting that JM used the idea of 'marriage' to JW to make his point and later called it a 'compliment.' Regardless, what he said is amusing, IMO.

 

[elementary]

1. At least you recognize it as a theory coming from Freud.
2. Demarte would have certainly been schooled in Freud's theories.
3. You have no idea what Demarte subscribes to, nor do I.
4. Any psychotherapist worth their weight would consider any spontaneous utterance someone says, even if later deciding to dismiss it.
5. To you it's nonsense. To a Freudian psychoanalyst? Perhaps or maybe not so much...

2. Schooling and utilising are two different things.

3. I can guarantee you, given her occupation, it's not Freud.

4. Your analysis is sexual specific. Most psychotherapists don't need to go there nor find it useful if this were actually a case, which it is not.

 

[AngelWings444]

Tara Kelley told us some of the questions she submitted. Here's a pix of the questions that seem to be hers, based on similar handwriting.

Alternate, Juror 17, Tara Kelley questions:

Thank you SO much! Can you do this for us regarding the possible questions by Juror #18? I tried to do my best, but your are so clear and bigger. Please...whenever you get a chance. :seeya:

 

[mck16]

Been off the site a few days so trying to catch up. Has it ever been reported what happened to ALV? Was she reprimanded for talking to Sam anyone know what she said to her? tia

 

[Horace Finklestein]

1. At least you recognize it as a theory coming from Freud.
2. Demarte would have certainly been schooled in Freud's theories.
3. You have no idea what Demarte subscribes to, nor do I.
4. Any psychotherapist worth their weight would consider any spontaneous utterance someone says, even if later deciding to dismiss it.
5. To you it's nonsense. To a Freudian psychoanalyst? Perhaps or maybe not so much...

Freud is outdated and not evidence based, so Demarte would probably not lend much credence to his outdated theories. I doubt psychotherapists interested in evidence based practice as Demarte seems to be, would bother with Freudian mysticism...

 

[AngelWings444]

To even suggest that Juan's comment to JW during a heated sidebar about the sex tape, is being considered as sexual is laughable to me. JMO

His comment, although a little unprofessional, was hilarious. These reporters, slowly releasing, selective sidebars, are one-sided and bias! Especially, Kiefer! I betcha there are some from the defense that are far worse. Why aren't they releasing ALL OF IT? Total BIAS! Trying to inflame a future jury pool. Just like having DB do the media circus when he didn't even want his face shown in court. Just like having the convicted killer do her media circus the night the jury couldn't reach a verdict. Just like the anniversary of Travis's death...the defense releases that statement. The defense, with Kiefer in their back pocket is trying to taint the future jury pool. Period. It's outrageous.

Kiefer released this sidebar, so future jurors would look at Juan as being degrading towards women. He's a piece of work. Release it all or zip it. JMO

 

[AngelWings444]

Been off the site a few days so trying to catch up. Has it ever been reported what happened to ALV? Was she reprimanded for talking to Sam anyone know what she said to her? tia

There has been nothing released regarding ALV. I don't think it will be released until after the penalty phase is over. JMO.

It would be nice for the local reporters to try to get this information, but don't hold your breathe. Anything that shows the true convicted killer and the bias of her cohorts won't be released. JMO

 

[nells]

The point was I found that statement/insult interesting. Others were commenting on it and yukking about it and I had a slightly different read on it...not saying my read is correct, just that I found it interesting that JM used the idea of 'marriage' to JW to make his point and later called it a 'compliment.' Regardless, what he said is amusing, IMO.

I've also had a different read on JM's comment. If a male colleague said something like this to me in front of a higher-level person (like the judge), I'd be furious. I love JM but I did think this comment was offensive. It'd be interesting to see if JM made similar comments about Nurmi.

 

[Quester]

Re: JM&#8217;s sidebar statement about if he was married to JW &#8230;

To me, I think JM was just trying to argue his point while sending a little barb JW&#8217;s way to unsettle/disrupt/unhinge her - IOW, strategy, gamesmanship. JMHO

It worked ... and ... it was funny! :giggle:

 

[Lilly12]

I believe the defense and Jodi had their eye on all the jurors and over time narrowed it down to a few. Perhaps concentrating on just one. Although I don't believe they put all their eggs in one basket (juror). All defense teams, I believe, zero in on the jurors, not just Jodi, JW, Nurmi.
As for the jurors that are talking, I believe they are being cautious and politically correct. And I don't blame them in the least. The jury room is a sacred place and some discussions should remain secret. That is just my opinion. Heck they zero in on jurors in the von dire? I do not think it stops when the jury is seated. moo

 

[casesensitive]

The point was I found that statement/insult interesting. Others were commenting on it and yukking about it and I had a slightly different read on it...not saying my read is correct, just that I found it interesting that JM used the idea of 'marriage' to JW to make his point and later called it a 'compliment.' Regardless, what he said is amusing, IMO.

Madeliene74--I found your read on JM's statement interesting. <modsnip>

The first thing that came to my mind when I read what JM said to Wilma, was the much quoted exchange between Winston Churchill and Lady Astor.

"Sir, if you were my husband, I would poison your drink."
"Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."

 

[Love Never Fails]

I'm not getting where #18 is getting "haphazard disarray" from? And not a "methodical cleanup." I'm guessing he's also the one who asked all the questions of why would Jodi put the camera in the washer....but haven't gotten to those questions yet. Just a hunch, though.

Did he not understand Juan when he said THERE WAS NO BLOOD LEADING OUT OF THE BATHROOM OR IN THE REST OF THE HOUSE??? How would that be possible without a "methodical cleanup" or some plan?? There were no weapons left. No bloody handprints on the laundry machine. Where did all of the blood go that was covering CMJA?? It sure didn't drop anywhere. And he calls that "haphazard"?? etc. etc..

I'm guessing he is confused as to why there was so much blood in the bathroom everywhere? BECAUSE CMJA DIDN"T EXPECT TRAVIS TO BE ABLE TO FIGHT BACK. She thought the one stab in the chest would pretty much take him out, she could finish him off all in the shower enclosure. Wash the blood with the water, or at least contain it in the shower.

From the beginning I was one who believed she was guilty of cold blooded, premeditated murder. I think the foreman was one who never believed her guilt and was trying to find ways to set her free. When he couldn't, he voted for guilt to go along with the other jurors. I will never ever understand his thinking or his questions. Never.