Jodi Arias Penalty

[Tink]

OMG I just found the article. That jury was watching the news. They asked if she ever hurt a pet. The only way they would know that is from not listening to the admonition. And also the skank question wasn't supposed to be read in court!!!!

 

[animallover]

This is good, behind the scenes drama:


Arias trial: Transcripts of juror questions unsealed

http://www.azcentral.com/community/...-juror-questions-unsealed.html?nclick_check=1

Omg. Lol I can't help but LMAO at Jaun. Hehehe

 

[animallover]

I can't believe that not at least one of those jurors saw media on the case. it was way huge news.

 

[animallover]

Ok Lord forgive me but I was watching Hln after dark and juror #2s shirt buttons are gonna pop off and hit Ryan in the eye if stands too close. Lol sorry if I offend anyone but couldnt help myself.

 

[Tink]

They definitely were watching stuff or else they wouldn't have asked about her hurting animals. That is a HUGE problem. Could get a new trial. And also the skank question wasn't supposed to be asked. I couldn't get TW link to work but I googled the article I don't know if I'm looking at same one as you guys.

 

[Tink]

Did you guys here this about Zimmerman Court documents released Wednesday show that George Zimmerman's attorneys have filed a motion requesting that the judge bar prosecutors from calling their client a "racist" in front of the jury.

The motion wants to prohibit disparaging descriptors of Zimmerman, including THESE terms:

- "Racial profiled" (or any variation)
- "Vigilante"
- "Self-appointed neighborhood watch captain"
- "Wannabe cop"
- "He got out of the car after the police (or dispatcher) told him not to"
- "He confronted Trayvon Martin"

Zimmerman's attorneys argue those terms improperly elicit "unfounded connotations" and "unfair emotional responses.” They also say there is no evidence to support the use of these terms or statements. If prosecutors are allowed to use them, the defense claims, it would be for the sole purpose of inflaming the jurors and appealing to their emotions to create a bias against Zimmerman.



Some of it I get but I think them not being able to say he got out of the car after being told not to is crazy!

 

[Tink]

Aye what happened with your pup the last few years?

 

[animallover]

Did you guys here this about Zimmerman Court documents released Wednesday show that George Zimmerman's attorneys have filed a motion requesting that the judge bar prosecutors from calling their client a "racist" in front of the jury.

The motion wants to prohibit disparaging descriptors of Zimmerman, including THESE terms:

- "Racial profiled" (or any variation)
- "Vigilante"
- "Self-appointed neighborhood watch captain"
- "Wannabe cop"
- "He got out of the car after the police (or dispatcher) told him not to"
- "He confronted Trayvon Martin"

Zimmerman's attorneys argue those terms improperly elicit "unfounded connotations" and "unfair emotional responses.” They also say there is no evidence to support the use of these terms or statements. If prosecutors are allowed to use them, the defense claims, it would be for the sole purpose of inflaming the jurors and appealing to their emotions to create a bias against Zimmerman.



Some of it I get but I think them not being able to say he got out of the car after being told not to is crazy!

yes I agree. Because he kept pursuing TM even after he was told not to.

Wouldn't that be a part of the 911 call? So they would only be able to play part of it?

 

[Tink]

IDK Paula, I guess we'll see what happens once it's ruled on. But to me that seems like a fact of the case not bias inducing. But who knows stranger things have happened. It's like not being able to say murder and having to used killed. Only I think this is more important not just a play on words.

 

[animallover]

Yes it is important to the case. Shows that zimmerman should not have pursued him and waited on the cops. Imo I know some people have said but he has called before and all that about they don't show or whatever but I look at it this way, he had a choice and he chose to follow him and look at the outcome. But like I said jmo

 

[animallover]

when I hear neighborhood watch I think of that Ben Stiller movie. Lol

 

[IrishTexanChick]

Now there's 6 dead in the Philly collapse. Terrible!

 

[IrishTexanChick]

Six dead in Philadelphia building collapse, 13 injured - CNN.com

 

[animallover]

Hey Tink here is one thing I just saw. Is this the one you was talking about?

Jodi Arias juror questions the judge wouldn?t ask

 

[TW]

They definitely were watching stuff or else they wouldn't have asked about her hurting animals. That is a HUGE problem. Could get a new trial. And also the skank question wasn't supposed to be asked. I couldn't get TW link to work but I googled the article I don't know if I'm looking at same one as you guys.

Not necessarily, Tink. They may have wanted to look for behaviors, in the past, to determine if she was/is a psychopath. Harming pets is well known as a connection or early indicator (in childhood), and most animal lovers know this.

 

[TW]

Now there's 6 dead in the Philly collapse. Terrible!

I read an earlier article and I wonder why the roofers never reported the shoddy/risky way they were doing demo. He said he knew that that the building was going to collapse. Maybe he did?

Also, why was there no city engineer, or any engineer onsite monitoring the work?

This story makes me angry.

 

[TW]

OMG I just found the article. That jury was watching the news. They asked if she ever hurt a pet. The only way they would know that is from not listening to the admonition. And also the skank question wasn't supposed to be read in court!!!!

LOL on the skank question. But why didn't they object when the judge read it? And why did the judge read it?

 

[TW]

In re harming animals: I guess the only way to prove that they watched related materials not admitted as evidence, would be to determine the release of that video with Flores and the Doggy Boy story and see if the question corresponded to that time frame.

 

[Snookie]

They always use unskilled labor for demolition.

No doubt they tore out a load bearing main beam.

I wonder if any illegal aliens were working there.

 

[TW]

They always use unskilled labor for demolition.

No doubt they tore out a load bearing main beam.

I wonder if any illegal aliens were working there.

None of that matters. There should have been supervisors onsite to direct the project.
You had an active building with occupants next door, it's insane that city inspectors didn't halt the demo.

A wealthy NYC investment company owns the property. Clearly they took shortcuts to either get the project completed faster, or to to save money on labor, by not having the crew take it down brick by brick manually.

I think a few people are at fault, and the workers would be last on my list. They did what they were told to do. And if they weren't doing as they were told, why weren't they stopped or fired?