Discussion in 'Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias' started by LambChop, Mar 12, 2015.
My heart bleedeth not!
FYI, I know links and other info have been provided over the last week as people have been discussing one or more questions asked during voir dire and what information was known at the time of jury selection (one example: see Beth Karas' voir dire notes pasted by people on this and the sidebar threads).
How many times is it required to include a link to information that has already been linked to previously during an ongoing discussion of an issue that occurs over many days?
And, is the same requirement needed (provide a link/proof) before calling J17 or any other juror a liar or perjurer?
Wilmott and Nurmi sure gave them a lot of time and an unobstructed view of the killer in her "environment" while at sidebar. I'm thrilled they saw it, too!
I understand what you are saying. I believe she may have had good intentions going on this jury, but, something tells me she is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and discussed this case with friends and family that may have influenced her thought process. Of course, we do not have proof of this. Going in deliberations and not budging is suspicious, IMO. I do think that some people see JA in person and see how tiny she is, therefore, how can she commit this horrible crime unless she had a good reason to -> abused woman. Also, Dr. F and Geff may have some sparked some emotions within her.
Sigh. She doesn't deserve to be threatened- if she actually IS being threatened, other than venting on SM. I hope the attorney she's hired is actually there to represent her in an ongoing investigation into juror misconduct.
I'm not so concerned with what J17's intentions were or her intelligence as relates to this voir dire issue, as much as realizing she did disclose what was enough information to indicate one or more red flags. I'm still not clear on how or why the state allowed her on the jury panel. If some grandma types can easily find info about this juror, then I don't know why the state couldn't (or didn't). This issue is about the state and their actions or lack of actions in vetting.
Me too. Which makes the foreman's take on the DT's witnesses even more baffling. He says the jury liked and listened to MF. WTH? And that they were torn between the testimonies of Geffy and DM. WTH?
He did say that they realized in deliberations that the DT's portrayal of Travis was false, but he didn't say anything about MF and Geffy's paid role in creating that false impression for them. Curious. Maybe the interview just didn't cover that part (just that Geffy shouldn't have returned for round 2).
I'd very much hate for MF or Geffy to find any solace in what the jury has to say about them.
Obviously a subject with which he feels comfortable, and believes to be universally applicable and exploitable.
that place looks like a landmine of OSHA violations, imo. Her long fingers and hair drape might just cause her own demise by reaching in or leaning over any one of those machines or conveyors. [emoji57]
The perpetual victim.
ETA: this is sarcasm.
Police protection OK - but why does she need an attorney.......... unless the investigation has found that she did something very wrong.......
Awww her fans from other Countries will not be able to send the "Goddess" a care package :giggle:
PAYMENT: We accept Visa, MasterCard and Discover credit / debit cards and prepaid cards (that have a verifiable United States address). When paying by credit card be sure
to include the card number, expiration date, card verification number (3 digit card verification number found on the back of the card), card members name, address and phone
number. We do not accept prepaid credit cards that lack the ability to assign a valid United States address to the card holder.
I wasn't aware he said that, that's disappointing. Maybe with time and perspective he'll realize that if he and the rest of the jury could see the truth, it should also have been obvious to a professional with access to the same information, and in that light it makes her testimony intentionally biased, and her motives less than honorable.
I wouldn't be surprised to see her with her attorney on the talk shows. If she had honestly deliberate and had nothing to hide, IMO she wouldn't need an attorney to justify or defend her actions.
Yea nice set up - in which one wrong move could cost a hand.
To defend herself from what? Is she expecting a charge to be laid? Is her lawyer supposed to chase down all the twitters who are riling against her and sue them, for what?
OK then, here's a question. That is one line in the article, the rest is Montgomery's statement. So, how would the newspaper KNOW she retained an attorney? She, nor her lawyer made a statement to them in the article. How would they know this? Is she communicating with ja 'fans' & they can't ever keep their mouths shut? Are they advising her? Did she do a video chat with arias on Sat., too? ja is such the advice giver.
What does she have 'to defend herself from"?
She knew the judge would have to air it and the psychopath doesn't want us to see it because we all see right through it.
Just like the clips of her secret testimony - words - empty words and NO EMOTION or true remorse. She hates that we can see she is not capable of emotion.
Nurmi didn't say "so she could get her affairs in order." He asked for 30 days until sentencing. It's very common for courts to wait weeks between trial ending and sentencing. For instance, in the Vanderbilt rape case, the 2 convicted will be sentenced later in April and it's already been about 5 or 6 weeks since conviction.
This time will allow the victim's family to prepare their speech so they can present that to the judge on sentencing day. There are a few steps involved before sentencing takes place. Not to worry, she's in jail and isn't getting out.
J17 has an attorney now, huh ?
I guess if she can't profit from the talk show circuit and the book deals, she'll sue her way into some money.....
Real classy.......but predictable.