I believe she said on the stand during jury questions something to the effect of "now that I've seen the testimony" or "now that I've read the testimony" - especially in relation to JA shooting Travis in the closet.
I believe this was in response to information provided by JM. He often introduces previous testimony to which she is not privy, until he presents it to her, and asks her whether, in light of this new information, she would re-evaluate her stance. (Her response has staunchly been a pro-defense, "no.")
I don't think ALV is reading tweets and message boards or any online material about the trial. She seems to be something of a Luddite; she has NO understanding of text messages or "g-mails," as she refers to email. She has repeatedly shown a lack of understanding of, for example, the abbreviated nature of text-speak, choosing to label it as "abusive" rather than what it really is: sparing our thumbs a few keystrokes. I find it unbelievable that she would be "stressed" to the point of near-breakdown (as has been described) by these things, having demonstrated her lack of awareness of electronic communication by any means.
Similarly, her views of things such as Brazilians (indicative of pedophilia? Well, while I know
some men who prefer that things be au naturel---and for the stated reason that they are squeamish about having their partners look prepubescent) demonstrate a HUGE lack of familiarity with current trends. What was fashionable in the 1960s and 1970s has changed. Some of us have changed along with this, and some have not; most of us are at least
aware of these changes. I have great faith that the men and women on the jury will largely be aware of what is going on in the world around them---and if some do not, that the others will reassure them that NOTHING out of the mainstream is evident in ANYTHING we know about Travis Alexander. (I mean, really: arguing that a 30-year-old man lying about his
virginity is evidence of a sinister double life is laughable. Few openly discuss their sex lives; it's not
lying, it's
discretion.) That Travis Alexander's tastes and curiosities varied--in this new century---from those of a 1970s-era feminist lesbian who had demonstrated, time and again, that she is NOT current professionally or culturally, is not at all surprising, and I don't think this will be lost on the jury.
As much as I've hated watching ALV's testimony, she has served a very important function in the delivery of justice: her staunch defense of Arias contributed to an overall strong case for which few arguments can be made for appeal. No one can argue that the DT failed to provide a rigorous defense; JA got her day(s) (and days and days) in court, and there will be few grounds for appeal, which will likely be denied. She got top-notch legal representation. And ALV was part of that, as difficult as she has been to watch.
That ALV is easily impeachable is a gift, as well. That the DT is unable to find experts to support the only theory with which they could hope to attain a lesser conviction simply speaks to the heinous nature of the crime.
It's just plain indefensible.
And yet, they have done a stellar job of working with what they have. I suspect they will continue to do so during the penalty phase, perhaps using a different approach. (I expect they will instruct the jury to forget what went on in the courtroom prior, and focus on the abuse Arias experienced as a child, and how that contributed to the formation of personality disorder. However, I suspect that will not spare her life.)
I
hate watching them--really, I do. I hate seeing them defend this monstrous woman. I
hate the pain his family is enduring as the DT attempts to besmirch their brother's good name. It's agonizingly heart-breaking to observe. But I'm glad they are. It means that Jodi Arias will never walk among us again.
The family of Travis Alexander, his friends, and all of us
will see justice. I just know it.
