Didn't know this, maybe they are just spectators, but I've seen two groups, one taking notes, who I assumed, were in the jury and one talking to each other during breaks, and I assumed these were spectators. I know jurors aren't allowed to talk to each other about the case before the trial ends, so thats why I thought those were spectators. Maybe both groups were spectators?

Here's a couple of pictures, first picture Attachment 382654 seems to be of spectators, lots of talking between them during sidebars. Second picture Attachment 382655 is what I thought was the actual jury, these people have been there different days and also take notes.

I think she is a "bunny boiler". What the jury will think, Heaven only knows. The whole thing is mind blowing for sure.

Lol, perfect description!

I think that first group is the gallery or public, reporters, etc.; and from what I understood watching JVM Thursday night, that second group with the thin-faced lady with the long dark hair, dressed in gold, is Travis' family. I know they were all crying at one point, even that guy with the almost buzz cut.

As I recall, during a trial, no photographs or moving or other pictorial images of a juror or the sitting jury may ever be shown. I think that is a rule of our criminal justice system. I've never seen one during a trial. I don't ever think I've seen images of juries sitting or deliberating. There are stock photographs of juries available for the media but that is all, I think.

Okay thanks, I appreciate the correction. I just thought since the one lady was taking notes she was in the jury and I did hear on the Nancy Grace show one person say that since the female jurors were taking such copious notes, she believed that the females would be the major spokesmen in the jury. So I wonder if she observed that in person or if she was just watching the video.

Don't know if you read my earlier post, but did you hear that jurors are allowed to ask questions at the end?

Yes, I'd heard that. I'm almost positive I saw another trial on the old Court TV one time where jurors could ask questions but I may be just imagining that. But it really sounded familiar somehow when I heard the talking heads on that one TV program bring it up - I'd heard of it somewhere before - and I'm wondering where I heard that before. Could have been in a movie or something I guess but it will be interesting to see what they want clarified or more info on about testimony. Those lawyers act as if they are pretty familiar with the concept even if it is rare. It will be interesting to see if they bring the witness back up to the stand to answer the question or how the court handles that. Could be hard if the witness is long gone, as in an expert witness from out of state. Don't know how all of it works so will be neat to find out as I don't remember anything about it except from some long ago memory of the concept. I'd just ask what proof or actual evidence she has that Travis was her abuser or how she could prove to me he was a possible pedophile other than from the lips of a proven liar.

And where she cleaned herself up after the murder? Did she shower there before Travis was dumped in the shower? Or bathe there? And why did she color her hair dark by the time she arrived in Mesa?

Here is a link to an article online with a photgraph or two of that slim-faced woman with long, long, sleek, dark hair that was wearing gold in the other photo you had. I had thought they said on TV that she was Travis' sister and if you scroll down to Photo 5 & 6 or 6 & 7, photos of several people, you will see that same lady here identified as his sister. I guess that is why she is always so grim or has her head down a lot. She looks daggers at that Arias woman when she was on the stand some of those TV lawyers said on more than one show. She has got to be tough to sit through even some of what I hear bleeped out and blurred out on TV! Must be so hard and painful. But if Arias goes free or something, I would look over my shoulder all the time for that face behind me, if I were her. If looks could kill............................

Jodi Arias trial: Admits to killing Travis Alexander in 'self-defense' and says she was beaten as a child | Mail Online

I'd never heard of it before, but I'm really looking forward to it. You've brought up some very interesting questions.

I was really hoping it was the jury, I mean they've made faces that made me think they weren't buying her story, and I'm so sick of jurors letting people off. I'm listening to day 25, I'm just so miserable listening to her, but I can't stop it. She is just so frustrating. She never seems to be able to answer a question yes or no.

Oh, just from the little I've seen on Thurs. and Fri. I get that not directly answering question bit. I'm sure she's a past master at doing that on her own but no doubt her lawyer's had her keep it up as it seemed to frustrate the prosecutor so that Wednesday, was it? I didn't watch any of the trial that day but after it went off, the lawyers on TV were saying that she really had him going with her obfuscations and half-answers and quips. I'd be too afraid the jury would get angry at me, if I were a defendant and did that. That can be infuriating and one has to wonder why in the heck the tap-dance is necessary when a little two-step would suffice. I think she may be digging her own hole with that way of behavior at it is sooooo obvious she doesn't want to honestly answer the question. Tells you volumes about her and her "story" of what happened. It's also a tried 'n true time-buying device that we all recognize for what it is. Unless they are gullible, no jury should allow a defendant to get by with that if they are trying to in any way to side with her that this was a defensive killing. If I had someone I kind of felt sorry for and they used that technique time after time, I think I would turn on them and wonder what they were working so hard to hide and rethink my feelings for them. So she is taking a real chance. May be cute and clever to her and the defense and TV analysts and infuriate the prosecutor, but it could incite that jury to give her a little extra time or find on a harsher count even if they don't think she planned to kill him. She's so busy playing the game of one-upsmanship, she forgets to play the victim most of the time.

Remember how well Mary Winkler did it? She should have taken lessons from her trial.

Refresh my memory, who was Mary Winkler? By the way, read here about her lawyer L. Kirk Murmi, I think this is the same guy, he's not even a murder defense attorney, he's a defends people charged with sex crimes. Wonder why she picked him, was he the only person who would take the case? Attorney. Sex Crimes, Sexual Assault, Sex with a Minor, Indecent Exposure, Sexual Abuse. Phoenix, Arizona.

Oh, thanks for that link, Nancy. I will read about him.

Mary Winkler is the preacher's wife who killed her husband with a shotgun, got her girls and fled, was later found, arrested and her children went to her inlaws while she was in jail. She's the small, intimidated-acting little woman with the cap of shining brown hair, no make-up, kept her head down all the time, spoke barely in a whisper and her defense attorney brought out the streetwalker spike heels, the micromini skirt or costume of some kind??? and the long, long wig that her husband supposedly made her wear during sex. She wouldn't even say the words required to testify as I recall until her attorney "made" her. I don't know if she ever used the word sex but just alluded to it but maybe she did. She was so good at being a victim she could write books and teach classes. Every male totally believed her and none of the females did on the TV courtroom talk shows. It was a study in the gender gap. But she essentially walked. Got 30 or 90 days in a mental home and time served covered most of that or something. She was out free and had her kids back in no time. Total victim. Even the prosecutor was too intimidated by her fawnish mannerisms to go hard on her! She was GOOD at being a victim. Might really have been but hardly any female watching bought her story. She was the polar opposite of Jodi Arias. I mainly remember her Southern type accent and her "yessir" and "nosir" answers in a whisper and seeing mostly the top of her head during testimony. Oh, she was good. And she was kiting checks and some other kind of money things and many thought she killed her husband on the day he found out what kind of things she'd been doing with money and that she was about to be arrested for the bank fraud stuff. She said he had berated and shamed her in the way he'd treated her and one night she snapped when he did something or acted mean to the baby or something. She totally walked.

Wow, I don't remember anything about her, I guess I never use to keep up with the stuff. I agree with you, it' seems like it would go better for her if she wasn't so darn argumentative with the prosecuting attorney, it sounds like she doesn't have a clue about being demure.

Here is a picture of Mary Winkler and one of the shoes in court. She was something else. Does this jog your memory at all? I think it was 7 or 8 years ago that this case was in the news all of the time.

Something about the hooker shoes jogs my memory, is she the one that started this trend? :D I'm the type that probably thought she was innocent. It took me a long time before I could believe that people are as bad as they are or that they can lie.