Hello Websleuths!
I've been reading a while but this is my first time posting.
I do feel that Juan Martinez did an amazing job on cross examination for the most part, however, I felt like there were a couple of points he could have made regarding some inconsistences between her testimony about the "broken finger incident" and the actual evidence we see in the text messages. (forgive me if this has already been pointed out on here...I haven't read every single page of comments). IIRC, JA states that the fight leading to the broken finger started over Travis getting angry because she wouldn't lend him $200 (he called her "selfish", I believe she said). However the text messages clearly reveal and Jodi herself admitted that SHE borrowed money from Travis that day (the text message stating "did you make the deposit?) I know Juan got her to admit that but I'm not sure that the jury will remember exactly what she said regarding how the fight got started. I wish he would have pointed out this inconsistency to Jodi so that her lie was evident to the jury. I wish he would have asked her point blank about her testimony regarding the money lending. Maybe he will go back to that at another point, but I felt like it was a wasted opportunity. Also, in regards to the car...Jodi keeps insisting that Travis was the one who wanted to exchange cars and yet he writes something to the effect of "I got a ride so you could pick up the car and now you fell asleep. Guess you didn't need it that badly." Not verbatim...but that was the gist of his texts to her. So how can she say that he was the one that was asking to exchange the cars? Makes no sense. And since it was obvious that SHE was the one who wanted to exchange the car...why did she not do it earlier at the house (the first time she left, when she forgot the angel). I surmise it's because she wasn't even there. Secondly, if she really had, in fact, seen what she claims to have seen Travis doing, why would she have been asking Travis to exchange cars? She said she wanted to stay away from him after that...even going to the Temple (or whatever) to avoid seeing him. These are inconsistencies that are blaringly obvious...that she can't wiggle out of. Why would Juan not point these out? I realize I'm "armchair quarterbacking" here and I'm not a lawyer...but I found myself really disappointed by these missed opportunities. I guess there is still time for him to address these things...but why not do it then instead of harping on things like what the exact time was that she got off of work and such. And another thing...if Travis had a landline, why not get those records in order to refute her testimony about Travis calling her over and over after the incident. She weaseled her way out of cell phone call stuff by claiming he must have called her from his landline. I can't believe they couldn't get a hold of his landline records from that day...unless the phone company doesn't hold records for very long (which would surprise me). I'm sure Juan is going to kick major *advertiser censored*...but I worry that the jury is not getting these inconsistencies. After the Casey Anthony verdict, I'm extremely worried about the intellectual and comprehensive abilities of jurors. I do feel that if this evil woman walks like CA did (or even gets 2nd degree murder), my faith in our justice will be completely destroyed. I don't know how any rational person can look at the facts of this case and not find her guilty of first degree murder.
~gwen