100 questions from the jury: Arias answering on her 16th day on the stand #73

[TotallyObsessed]

I tried this experiment on my tile floor with a bullet casing, water, corn syrup thick and diluted (arterial and venous) and it slid and rested clean. With the patterns on that floor, like mine it is hard, very hard to get a casing to roll but easy to slide. If I said rolled I apologize.

I LOVE WSrs who do home experiments!

 

[KMouse]

I think it is highly likely we will have a hung jury,

And you think that because?

There's still more defence witnesses, a rebuttal, and closing arguements.

 

[Snoopy1]

Chris Williams ‏@chriswnews
Judge Stephens @ the bench. Travis kin in front row. Handful of reporters including me in #JodiArias ctroom early. No #Arias spectators yet

 

[Nali87]

Yes, and to me that is real proof of overkill.

Overkill means no self defense excuse right?
Because you're supposed to match the force use against or use enough force to stop the other person from hurting you?

I think I read somewhere that Jodi keeps saying Travis kept threatening to kill her (I'll ****ing kill you *****)(Who says that after being shot!? PFFF) because only that would allow (lack of a better word) her to kill him after she had already shot him. Strike him before he kills her.

Self defense to me would be had she shot him or whatever and then had left.
(Self defense would've been running out the door and out of the house from a naked man that couldn't follow you)

 

[snowcat]

Jumping in here before we have more live action... I don't post much, mostly because by the time I get around to it someone else has expressed my thought or asked my question... I'm not an attorney, psychiatrist, psychologist, LE, or (most importantly??) psychic... but...

Having served on several juries over the years, I am applying the principles used in those deliberations to come up with the following, over simplified, points.

JA admits killing TA, and there is photographic and forensic evidence to prove this fact. It IS NOT reasonable to doubt this fact. So, this becomes a "fact" in my argument for conviction.

JA is a known and admitted liar. One of the few things she has said that I can truly believe is that she admits to lying. It is NOT reasonable to doubt that JA has lied, her stories have changed under oath on the witness stand. So this becomes a "fact" in my argument.

1) Her tales of an abusive relationship are uncorroborated, there is no proof other than her word that these things happened. Although everyone is different and will react to abuse differently, she exhibits none of the expected characteristics. Her actions, in fact, contradict that she was a victim of abuse. Remember, she is a known (and admitted) liar. It IS reasonable to doubt these claims;
2) The explanations of extra gasoline, using a rental car, and other machinizations for the trip make no sense. No reasonable person would do any of this, much less for the "reasons" she states. It IS reasonable to doubt that she did all of this for any purpose other than to hide her visit to Mesa (premeditation!)
3) "Inference" becomes important here. Inference is basically adding 2+2 to determine the result. Combine the theft of g-pa's gun under "strange circumstances", which happens to be of the same type used in the "killing"; all the "fog", convoluted circumstances of how the "killing" gun came to be where it supposedly was, JA herself and other people have stated that TA did not own a gun. Add it up, and reasonable people will get 2+2=4. It IS reasonable to doubt any scenario other than JA stole g-pa's untraceable gun for use in the killing (premeditation!).

Now, let's do the math: 1) TA died at JA's hand; 2) she had no reasonable claim to "self defense"; 3) the trip to Mesa was planned to be "under the radar"; 4) she brought the weapon(s) with her... <drumroll, please> . TA's death was premeditated murder.... 2+2=4

To avoid writing a mini-novel, I will stop at this and conclude with this: "Beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't mean "100% no doubt". It means "can a person reasonably believe what they are being told?" If the answer is "No", then we are beyond reasonable doubt. I can doubt that I will burn my hand if I put it on the burner, but I see the knob is in the "On" position, the burner is red-hot. Is my doubt reasonable? Would a reasonable person put their hand on the burner? I don't think so...

Yes, I have the advantage of more information than an actual juror in the courtroom, but people are convicted of crimes everyday. Keep your faith in the judicial system. It is not perfect, but it does work most of the time. One of the juries on which I served was for a rapist, the victims were effectively "raped" again and again by the defense. Still makes me ill 20+ years later.... Sickening, but not surprising to see the true victim, TA, vilified given the sexual aspects that have been the forefront of this defense...

I apologize if someone else has said this before and probably better, I try to read to avoid being redundant Sorry for the long post, hope it makes as much sense to others as it does to me (LOL!)...

Thank you! Could not have out it better and you have eased my mind after yesterday.

 

[MagicRose99]

Don't blame the judge for the long trial--blame Numri he's the one that dragged the sex bit over and over again--look how long he had her on the stand.
Remeber he gets paid by the hr.

because he's a lawyer who specializes in sex... he had to turn this around to "sex" otherwise he wouldn't have a clue how to try to defend a moral-less butcher claiming "self defence"

 

[corundogs]

The bullet, according to the ME, entered in the area of Travis' right temple and followed a downward trajectory to lodge in the left cheek. I find it hard to believe a moving target would be so easy to shoot in the temple. A stationary target on the other hand, piece of cake.

Especially for someone who isn't well practiced with using a gun. She was shaking like a Chihuahua remember? That's a pretty well placed shot for someone who most likely rarely shot a gun if ever (I don't know her actual history but I am sure many here do! LOL!!)

 

[TotallyObsessed]

How disgusting and disrespectful to Travis. :banghead:

But unfortunately, sex sells. And it is TV.

 

[katiedid2]

Jumping in here before we have more live action... I don't post much, mostly because by the time I get around to it someone else has expressed my thought or asked my question... I'm not an attorney, psychiatrist, psychologist, LE, or (most importantly??) psychic... but...

Having served on several juries over the years, I am applying the principles used in those deliberations to come up with the following, over simplified, points.

JA admits killing TA, and there is photographic and forensic evidence to prove this fact. It IS NOT reasonable to doubt this fact. So, this becomes a "fact" in my argument for conviction.

JA is a known and admitted liar. One of the few things she has said that I can truly believe is that she admits to lying. It is NOT reasonable to doubt that JA has lied, her stories have changed under oath on the witness stand. So this becomes a "fact" in my argument.

1) Her tales of an abusive relationship are uncorroborated, there is no proof other than her word that these things happened. Although everyone is different and will react to abuse differently, she exhibits none of the expected characteristics. Her actions, in fact, contradict that she was a victim of abuse. Remember, she is a known (and admitted) liar. It IS reasonable to doubt these claims;
2) The explanations of extra gasoline, using a rental car, and other machinizations for the trip make no sense. No reasonable person would do any of this, much less for the "reasons" she states. It IS reasonable to doubt that she did all of this for any purpose other than to hide her visit to Mesa (premeditation!)
3) "Inference" becomes important here. Inference is basically adding 2+2 to determine the result. Combine the theft of g-pa's gun under "strange circumstances", which happens to be of the same type used in the "killing"; all the "fog", convoluted circumstances of how the "killing" gun came to be where it supposedly was, JA herself and other people have stated that TA did not own a gun. Add it up, and reasonable people will get 2+2=4. It IS reasonable to doubt any scenario other than JA stole g-pa's untraceable gun for use in the killing (premeditation!).

Now, let's do the math: 1) TA died at JA's hand; 2) she had no reasonable claim to "self defense"; 3) the trip to Mesa was planned to be "under the radar"; 4) she brought the weapon(s) with her... <drumroll, please> . TA's death was premeditated murder.... 2+2=4

To avoid writing a mini-novel, I will stop at this and conclude with this: "Beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't mean "100% no doubt". It means "can a person reasonably believe what they are being told?" If the answer is "No", then we are beyond reasonable doubt. I can doubt that I will burn my hand if I put it on the burner, but I see the knob is in the "On" position, the burner is red-hot. Is my doubt reasonable? Would a reasonable person put their hand on the burner? I don't think so...

Yes, I have the advantage of more information than an actual juror in the courtroom, but people are convicted of crimes everyday. Keep your faith in the judicial system. It is not perfect, but it does work most of the time. One of the juries on which I served was for a rapist, the victims were effectively "raped" again and again by the defense. Still makes me ill 20+ years later.... Sickening, but not surprising to see the true victim, TA, vilified given the sexual aspects that have been the forefront of this defense...

I apologize if someone else has said this before and probably better, I try to read to avoid being redundant Sorry for the long post, hope it makes as much sense to others as it does to me (LOL!)...

Great comment! Very encouraging well put
Thank you

 

[grammieto5]

I hope so, but I'm worried that there will be many questions not allowed because Nurmi will pitch a fit over them and the judge will appease him. I don't like the fact that they get to choose which ones they are okay with and which ones they aren't. What's the point of this then? Of course they should get rid of the duplicates, but otherwise, all should be allowed in. The jury is deciding her fate after all.

Yeah, but at least nurmi will know if they're asking these questions then they're thinking this.

 

[Litigatrix]

In my opinion, whether the gun came first or the stabbing came first is a difference without a distinction. If she brought the gun, she intended to use it...ergo premeditation. If she shot him first, and then felt the need to stab him 28 TIMES and slit his throat to his spinal cord, then that is enough for the cruelty aspect IMO and possibly an even better case for it than stabbing him first and then shooting him, because no one can possibly believe that TA is the incredible Hulk and got angrier and more "ferocious" after being SHOT IN THE HEAD. If she stabbed him and then shot him, the sheer overkill is enough for the cruelty. Either way, she gets the needle.

 

[bpinkbinkie]

And you think that because?

There's still more defence witnesses, a rebuttal, and closing arguements.

Whenever I watch a crime show with my bf I always end up saying "God help us if you ever get put on a jury" because within the first 10 minutes he will make his pronouncement of guilt or innocence. Although now I think he just does it to watch me go ballistic on him.

 

[Nali87]

It is physically impossible to happen the way she said. Primarily because she says he got angrier and more Violent "after" she shot him in the head.

Um, note to the kid, after you shoot anyone in the head, they first would fall over. There is a need to compose ones self after a bullet passes through the brain and lodges in your face. Even if it grazed over the surface of the head, a grazing wound would stop someone for a while.

Passing through the temple into the brain, out into the cheek would double him over for a while at least. Moans, screams, blood everywhere. Plenty of time for you to WALK downstairs, walk to the car, drive away.

Would he be able to pull himself up eventually on the sink, that is possible, in a daze just reaching for things to hold onto, trying to get himself help but certainly disoriented. Could he make it to a phone to call 911. I hope he could have, that is debatable. It's more likely he would crawl, make his way to the lower level and if he could muster up screaming, he might get someone's attention who is outside.

If she was defending herself, she could walk away. The Jury is asked if they believe a man became more violent and threatening "unarmed" naked, wet with a bullet in his head, that her standing there armed with a gun and knife could STILL not get away.

The answer clearly would be no. No he was not a threat. It is against the law then to continue to batter him.

EXACTLY!

Who would get more violent against someone who's holding a loaded gun and had just shot them in the head!?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

https://twitter.com/wildabouttrial

Any WSers liveblogging it?

 

[Lulu67]

Don't kick me, but there were times during JA's testimony where for ONE SECOND I almost believed she WAS really sorry for killing him and hurting his family so much; but then she will go right back to the abuse/pedophilia hooey and I realize she is only sad and shedding actual tears about HER situation.

Truly, had I taken someone's life, especially someone I cared deeply about, I would need to take stock of Kleenex or Puffs because I'd not be able to stop crying throughout the trial. Not to mention begging forgiveness from the family.

Maybe everyone is making sure there is PLENTY of leeway with this (the judge; JM), so this nutjob never walks the streets again. Maybe her family is so stonefaced because even THEY are afraid of her. I know I would be if she were my family member.

By the way, and this is totally OT, but I'm Muslim and when someone is without a doubt guilty of murder, in Islam the judgement is left up to the FAMILY of the victim. If they want the killer to die, then death it is, no questions asked, no appeals, just death; if they opt to forgive the killer, the killer must then pay "blood money" to the family as compensation (and really.....no amount of money can ever make up for the loss of a loved one, but a family who opts for forgiveness is doing a HUGE thing for the killer - giving them what they did not give their loved one: life). Too bad in THIS case, Travis' family can't decide.

 

[jojomonkey]

Yeah, but at least nurmi will know if they're asking these questions then they're thinking this.

That's true.

 

[norest4thewicked]

The seal is up on this channel:

http://www.wptv.com/generic/news/national/Jodi-Arias-trial-live-video

But, I have no idea what that means. My experience in the past is that once the seal is up, we begin to see something within 30 minutes, but that's just what I remember.

 

[kaRN]

Right! She could have called anonomously. Even she "claims" she wasn't totally sure he was dead. So stop somewhere and call! But then, anybody who says they are "embarrassed" to admit they've just killed somebody has a whole box worth of screws loose.

If you were totally defending yourself then calling 911 would be getting you help as much as your abuser.

 

[katiedid2]

I LOVE WSrs who do home experiments!

Lol reminds me of the saying
DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME.

 

[StephanieHartPI]

13 min ago
Chris Williams &#8207;@chriswnews
Judge Stephens @ the bench. Travis kin in front row. Handful of reporters including me in #JodiArias ctroom early. No #Arias spectators yet