jodi Arias TAKES THE STAND FOR 9TH DAY #47 *may contain graphic and adult content*

[MsCharlieChan]

I was wondering why she didn't destroy the journal(s) before her arrest?? She had plenty of time.

The narcissist wouldn't dare destroy documentation of her not-so-interesting navel-gazing. Besides, she hoped she'd be (in)famous someday. She'd knew she'd need the journals as reference for the movie or book chronicling her fascinating down-fall.

 

[AZlawyer]

Excellent. So, that begets a question from me. Are jurors instructed at the beginning of a trial that all testimony heard from the witness chair is to be construed as the truth unless otherwise proven differently?

What a horribly worded question, I hope you get what I'm asking from that. TIA!!

No, definitely not. They are free to reject a witness's testimony if they think she is lying for whatever reason.

Here is the standard AZ instruction:

Preliminary Criminal 10 − Credibility of Witnesses
In deciding the facts of this case, you should consider what testimony to accept, and what to reject. You may accept everything a witness says, or part of it, or none of it.
In evaluating testimony, you should use the tests for accuracy and truthfulness that people use in determining matters of importance in everyday life, including such factors as: the witness’s ability to see or hear or know the things the witness testified to; the quality of the witness’s memory; the witness’s manner while testifying; whether the witness has any motive, bias, or prejudice; whether the witness is contradicted by anything the witness said or wrote before trial, or by other evidence; and the reasonableness of the witness’s testimony when considered in the light of the other evidence.
Consider all of the evidence in light of reason, common sense, and experience.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

The narcissist wouldn't dare destroy documentation of her not-so-interesting navel-gazing. Besides, she hoped she'd be (in)famous someday. She'd knew she'd need the journals as reference for the movie or book chronicling her fascinating down-fall.

And her journal was part of her alibi because she'd put a whole lot of BS entries in there. She thought it would work in her favour.

 

[Queen Bee]

Are they on break?

Salem

yes salem, until 3:30 et

 

[Steely Dan]

I'm not watching, just reading comments here. From the comments, it sounds like he's doing great.

Certainly, with her, you would want to handle some not-too-critical points first, just to evaluate her method of response and to get her under control.

And I would never proceed chronologically with a known liar--too easy for them to remember the lies that way.

One thing I might do differently is to not bother refreshing her recollection about what she said yesterday. Just say, "yesterday you told us XYZ." Say it while reading from the transcript in your hand. Don't ask her if she remembers--or if you do, don't worry about her answer. So what if she doesn't remember? The jury does, and they see that you have a transcript. So "yesterday you told us XYZ...let's see what you wrote in your journal about that."

JVM thinks he's coming on too strong and might give the jury a little bit of room to feel sorry for her.

Someone just pointed out that her writing is just fine for somebody who supposedly had a broken finger at the time.

 

[Shelby1]

Are they on break?

Salem

Lunch until 2:30 central time.

 

[rose222]

JM is being organized.

The foundation = Double standards and lies.
Then the gruesome stuff.

 

[Sleuth13]

Just finished lunch -- waiting on Juan for my dessert!!

SCORE AS OF 02/21/2013
TEAM TRAVIS - 1
TEAM GRODY JODI - 0

 

[megmono]

I wish my lunch breaks were this long.

 

[RadarLuv]

Oh I also have to add that I loved how JM mocked Nurmi's "how did you feeeeeeeeeeel". Anyone else catch that?

no, i wish someone would make a clip of it.

 

[PASA]

I think it was another figment of her evil imagination.

And if it really happened she would have stayed there long enough to see who it was and she relishes in outting people that she said Travis went with.

But she is stuck with her story and I dont blame Juan for making it into stalking. She sure stalked him at other times.

IMO

I totally agree. I can't imagine her leaving before finding out who her competition was.

 

[Mr.Midnight]

JC and JVM are irritating the fonk out of me today on HLN

 

[DAWN TREADER]

Hes just laying the foundation .............he will tie it up in a neat bow before cross is over with.

IMO

Yes, I agree OBE - he's a very intelligent, experienced, well-prepared, focused, hard-working, dedicated prosecutor. I must say though as much as I'm enjoying the cross it's Juan's closing argument I really look forward to. I expect it will be masterful. :great:

 

[Stolat]

Hi Websleuths,

I don't know about you, but I have been glued to the livestream of the Jodi Arias trial online and I've been watching the prosecutor Juan Martinez grill Jodi Arias all morning. I admit that he is a breath of fresh air and a shot of energy after the lethargic pace of defense attorney and possible teddy bear Kirk Nurmi. But still, I have some issues with Martinez' approach.

Btw, the best live stream I have seen so far is Wild About Trial. They have the documents, a live reporter in the courtroom tweeting, and all the background info for reference while you watch. http://wildabouttrial.com/videos/jodi-arias-live-stream/

I am a criminal defense attorney in California, which of course doesn't make my opinions correct but it does provide some exposure to different styles of prosecutors. I generally think Martinez is doing a great job of presenting Jodi's inconsistent testimony and developing the persona of Jodi as a jealous ex-lover.

However, I have two primary critiques about his cross-examination thus far. One is stylistic and one is tactical:

First, he has a very abrasive tone and tends to come off as too aggressive and almost violent. He looks sometimes like a junkyard dog about to be let off the chain. It can be effective to be forceful and put Jodi on the defensive, but with his level of intensity he risks losing the jury. The defense only needs to get one juror to avoid a conviction, and the more Martinez viciously attacks her the more sympathy a juror may have for Jodi. He can ask the same questions without always having his fangs out.

Second, he is jumping around way too much in his questioning. In my opinion he should be methodically going through all of Jodi's lies and inconsistent statements. Instead he is skipping around from one time to the next so that it's difficult for the jury to follow along. Jurors may be understanding that Jodi wasn't telling the truth, but Martinez is making it difficult for them to put those lies within the context of the narrative.

This is only day 1 of the cross-examination, and I am really interested to see what happens next.

How does everyone else feel about the testimony so far?

I agree with you that Juan is jumping around a bit. I will give him benefit of the doubt that he will tie it all neatly into one big beautiful bow.

On his demeanor. I'm a bit shocked given how many times all the analysts said that he would need to trea her with kidd gloves that he has barreled through in this manner.

However after watching her for a full hour my jaw has dropped in amazement at Juan's sheer brilliance.

He went out on a limb. He sized her up and he went with his gut feel.

And he's proving to the jury through live demonstration that she is no shrinking violet. In fact she's got some fangs of her own an she has already bared them often. She is not afraid to scratch those nails across his face and make rude irreverent facial gestures at him ...."like, whatEVER!!!!!!"

He's brilliant. I really can't imagine the jury feelin too sorry for a woman who is showing herself to be quite the arrogant smart@ss!!! She really is showing her defiant rebellious side with her slimy sleezy argumentative answers. Quite blaringly. And the jury can see that no man messes with her or makes her feel threatened - which is the ENTIRE premise her defense is based on.

It was a hug gamble for Juan. But he said, I'm going for it. And he nailed it, and she took the bait.

 

[Steely Dan]

And her journal was part of her alibi because she'd put a whole lot of BS entries in there. She thought it would work in her favour.

I don't think she planned on killing TA in January. JMO

 

[Candy_Pickletoes]

No, definitely not. They are free to reject a witness's testimony if they think she is lying for whatever reason.

Here is the standard AZ instruction:

Preliminary Criminal 10 − Credibility of Witnesses
In deciding the facts of this case, you should consider what testimony to accept, and what to reject. You may accept everything a witness says, or part of it, or none of it.
In evaluating testimony, you should use the tests for accuracy and truthfulness that people use in determining matters of importance in everyday life, including such factors as: the witness’s ability to see or hear or know the things the witness testified to; the quality of the witness’s memory; the witness’s manner while testifying; whether the witness has any motive, bias, or prejudice; whether the witness is contradicted by anything the witness said or wrote before trial, or by other evidence; and the reasonableness of the witness’s testimony when considered in the light of the other evidence.
Consider all of the evidence in light of reason, common sense, and experience.

Thank you very much!!

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

And it's a Juan two three strikes your out in this ole ballgame Jodi.

Oh and Jodi's gonna get a Juan way ticket to hell.

 

[Shelby1]

I got locked out *panic*

 

[jon_burrows]

Dumb question but what does FCA Stan for? I know the CA is Casey Anthony but don't know that the F is for. TIA!

Oh and ITA. No way she walks out! There may be similarities between her and CA's personalities and lying abilities, but their is SO much more evidence in this case. Not to mention JA took the stand and CA kept her mouth shut at that point.

Felon

The 'F' was used to differentiate her from the other CA (Cindy).

 

[joypath]

On IS the are "actually" debating the "can you be perfectly cursive" (that's writing, JODI!) with a fractured finger @ post 48 hr injury and NO MEDICAL CARE! How about the answer of NO WAY since the "popsicle stick splints" would have bent (probably), the osteocytes would be working overtime to regenerate and no matter HOW one tries to carefully lean, pressure will be exerted on those other fingers! TRY IT!