Jodi Arias TAKES THE STAND #27 *may contain graphic and adult content*

[chakti]

This totally freaks me out. Now I'm getting the eerie feeling that Jodie had a gun on Travis the whole time he was in the shower while instructing him in what she wanted him to do. It can't just be coincidence, imo.

And how did he end up sitting in the bottom of the shower? He looks limp to me, so is this when she shot him in the face, thus no blood visible on his body?

That is just what I think too. By the time she drug him back to the shower he would have been pretty much bleed out, plus she rinsed him off.

 

[Martin L]

I feel like i got punked by a mag i saw on ebay ,,they put a photo on the cover that looked alot like someone,,put the persons name on the bottom but ithe photo was someone totaly diffrent,,i think i will stop looking for conections to stuff

 

[chakti]

no....I am referencing the shower pic from the police.

I am talking about the one after the face picture. Before the police pictures.

 

[Carol2]

Beth Karas will be on Tricia's radio show tomorrow. Here is a thread for you to post your questions (no discussion)
Questions for Beth Karas *no discussion*; Jodi Arias Trial - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Here is a link to Tricia's True Crime Radio if anyone would like to bookmark it:
Tricia's True Crime Radio

 

[parker38]

no....he was shot on the other side of the head.

I haven't gone and looked at the pic but I remember it was the right side
of his body toward us and it was said the bullet went in the right temple
and lodged in his left cheek. So he was shot on the side facing us jmo

 

[lil_buddy]

While I agree that "absolutely" is an overstatement, there really is some validity to gender-specific critical thinking.

Lawyers use those "profiles" all the time in jury selection.

"Scientific" jury selection is a pseudo-science. There is no clear evidence to support it's efficacy.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_jury_selection:

Although advocates and practitioners of scientific jury selection claim the practice is overwhelmingly effective at choosing juries that will render the desired verdict, its true effect is often more difficult to discern. Part of this difficulty is in duplicating the conditions of a real trial. In one experiment, two kinds of shadow juries watched a trial and rendered a verdict. The results indicated that the juries were substantially different, but that this difference was likely due to the two experimental juries’ knowledge that they were not deciding an actual verdict, prompting a lower burden of proof.[19]

Another simplified experiment indicated that lawyers trained in a systematic selection method made better predictions of juror verdicts in two of four cases – the sale of illegal drugs and a military court-martial (the other two cases were murder and drunk driving). The systematic method was more effective in those two cases where the predictive relationships between demographic variables and attitudes/verdicts were strongest, and least effective where such predictive relationships were weak or nonexistent.[20]

Some academic researchers argue that the actual efficacy of SJS is obscured by poor research methodology. Specifically, demographic characteristics used to predict juror attitudes and juror verdicts may not hold true across all kinds of cases. For example, men convict more frequently than women in some types of criminal trials but less frequently in others.[21] Besides this, demographic characteristics are often less predictive than the attitudes jurors hold; for example attitudes towards rape are better verdict-predictors than gender in rape trials.[22]

The actual efficacy of jury consultants may not be very important because the demographic composition of the jury has little effect on the verdict it renders, usually causing only a 5%–15% variance in verdicts.[23][24] The evidence presented at trial has far more impact on what the verdict will be.[25] As Kressel and Kressel indicate, "when the evidence is strong, nothing else matters much" and even when the evidence is ambiguous, demographic characteristics of jurors are a relatively minor influence.[26] Some researchers argue that a significant improvement in jury selection, however small, may be worthwhile when the stakes are high, like for a defendant accused of a capital crime or a corporation that stands to lose millions of dollars in a civil suit.[23]

A key issue in the efficacy of scientific jury selection is the fact that the overwhelming majority of attempted efficacy research employed models of practice only used by what might best be termed "unqualified" or inadequately trained practitioners. These groups may indeed focus on using outdated demographics, but fully qualified litigation psychologists do not. This brings up a second issue that efficacy research has neglected to address: namely, the wide variability in practitioner quality, training, education, and professional preparation. To date, no efficacy study has properly accounted for the fact that many jury consultants, perhaps even a majority, are simply unqualified to design scientific research, craft scales to accurately and reliably measure juror psychographics, and conduct the sophisticated statistical modeling and analysis employed by properly qualified Litigation Psychologists.

 

[Carol2]

Is there a link to the nude photos? I couldn't find it in the media section. Want to see the look on Jodi's face in that one pic.

Thanks!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/jodi-arias-crime-scene-photos_n_2412031.html

 

[Carol2]

By the way, Tricia's True Crime Radio is on Sunday nights at 8 pm Eastern (7 pm Central, 6 pm Mountain, 5 pm Pacific). Here is a link if anyone would like to bookmark it:

Tricia's True Crime Radio

 

[lil_buddy]

The last woman put on death row in Arizona Juan Martinez put her there.

She was on the stand for 9 days. She also claimed self defense and abuse.

The jury believed her so much they gave her the death penalty! :seeya:

The one thing that is different about these 2 cases is that in the Andriano case there was a clear motive of monetary gain.
That might be the diff between DP & LWOP. IDK

 

[nursebeeme]

By the way, Tricia's True Crime Radio is on Sunday nights at 8 pm Eastern (7 pm Central, 6 pm Mountain, 5 pm Pacific). Here is a link if anyone would like to bookmark it:

Tricia's True Crime Radio

I also have already set up a discussion thread of the show... I will open it tomorrow before show time!

here again is the link to ask beth Karas questions..:

Questions for Beth Karas *no discussion*; Jodi Arias Trial - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[LambChop]

Another odd thing that strikes me strange is when Jodi talks to the jury she acts as if she is doing a presentation to an audience. Pretty much what she has seen during her PPL meetings, IMO. People do not normally do that. She's suppose to be testifying about what happened to her not what she has learned and now is presenting it to an audience. jmo

 

[neesaki]

I am talking about the one after the face picture. Before the police pictures.

Not sure if we're talking about the same pic. I was referencing the one shot right after the photos of him showering, then he was sitting in the bottom of the shower. This was before any visible stab wounds. I am going off the "shot first" theory. Is that the same one?

 

[Sweetiemom]

Another odd thing that strikes me strange is when Jodi talks to the jury she acts as if she is doing a presentation to an audience. Pretty much what she has seen during her PPL meetings, IMO. People do not normally do that. She's suppose to be testifying about what happened to her not what she has learned and now is presenting it to an audience. jmo

I think to Jodi it is all about the drama-have you noticed how soft and low her voice gets when she is discussing anything sexual? Trying to make herself sound reluctant to go there. Yeah, right. I hope the jury can see through her games. :moo:

 

[Really?]

Not sure if we're talking about the same pic. I was referencing the one shot right after the photos of him showering, then he was sitting in the bottom of the shower. This was before any visible stab wounds. I am going off the "shot first" theory. Is that the same one?

Yes...In my theory the sitting in the shower pic is when he was shot.

 

[LadyEdith]

JA had plenty of time to study CA's case/trial. She is trying to throw anything out there that is just as shocking. I do not know how she thinks this can work. It is only her word and no one else. Unless they provide some phony pics of little boys. I don't think her atty would risk his job on providing false pics of little boys and I do believe it would ruin his career forever and shes' just not worth the risk.

If she accuses him of being sexually attracted to young boys she is toast. JM will hammer her like an anvil on why she didn't report it--or talk to his bishop or LDS friends about it. Joe Paterno could not live down the accusations of him overlooking Sandusky's heinous acts.

This is just part of the "kitchen sink" defense where they do ANYTHING to make Travis look like the bad one. I think it will backfire--I think JM is smart enough to make it work against them.
Their defense strategy is:

1. Poor abused Jodi
2. Jodi was an innocent victim of every man she ever met
3. Jodi was a girl who couldn't say no
4. Travis was a hyppocrit
5. Travis was a cad
6. Travis was evil and deviant
7. Jodi was the hero by killing Travis. She took back her life and saved little boys everywhere from sexual predator Travis


It ain't gonna work.

 

[nursebeeme]

Another odd thing that strikes me strange is when Jodi talks to the jury she acts as if she is doing a presentation to an audience. Pretty much what she has seen during her PPL meetings, IMO. People do not normally do that. She's suppose to be testifying about what happened to her not what she has learned and now is presenting it to an audience. jmo

I agree... and when she is crossed this is gonna change and the jury is going to notice it.

 

[Ricki]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/jodi-arias-crime-scene-photos_n_2412031.html

Her face has that same flat look we have been seeing during trial. No emotion..just a poker face. Nothing sexy about her look. It looks like no one is taking her picture at least not a lover. More like she set the camera up to focus on her and the pic was automatically taken.

 

[nursebeeme]

Is anyone else worried that if Juan is too aggressive with Arias it could backfire: re: the jury

 

[lil_buddy]

I think Juan scares the jeepers out of Jodi! Has anyone noticed how quickly she says "Oh sorry" when Juan objects? She apologizes after almost every objection by Juan. He's already under her skin! Juan is one of the best I've ever seen. It will be epic!

The little miss courteous act is for manipulating the jury - not because she is scared of JM. She probably sits in her cell fantasizing in gruesome detail about brutally murdering JM. IMO

 

[Really?]

Is anyone else worried that if Juan is too aggressive with Arias it could backfire: re: the jury

not me. This is a serious heinous crime. I hope JM forces her to pull a Bundy in court...lol

I also hope the jury is sick of seeing her being coddled by her defense.