jodi arias TAKES THE STAND #66 *may contain graphic and adult content*

[luv]

There really isn't any "typical" amount of time. It differs with each defendant and attorney. But we have to keep in mind Arias LOVES to talk, and Nurmi talks slower than a snail.
My personal guess is 3 days.

Thank you! I just asked this in the legal questions thread but I will go delete it now. :seeya:

 

[Only4Justice]

It is probably more to do with craving the attention of a man and thinking if she offered sex, he would want her.

MOO

Not necessarily. Although I'm old (48!) I had many girlfriends that were "promiscuous" in high school - I was sexually abused and was not.

It's a generalization. Not true in all cases that being sexually abused=being promiscuous.

 

[Sustained]

The problem with the seat cushions in the back of the rental car is chain of custody. LE would have had to seize the car immediately after JA turned it in, and before anyone cleaned it or rented it after her. Once it's been touched by anyone else, that's it. Too late now.

IIRC, didn't Arias gave Leslie Udy a ride to a PPL dinner meeting on 6/5/08 ... wouldn't Leslie have noticed blood red stains on the seats or missing floor mats ? She most certainly would have noticed a smoke-like smell to the car, indicating the Arias bonfire took place after she left West Jordan and before arriving in Redding.

 

[panthera]

Yeah if the car rental wasn't able to remove the koto laid aka blood stains from the rental car! Could LE still test?

Even if LE has tested in 2008, cleaning solutions, etc would have degraded the sample. Also there is the matter of it being a rental car and others using it. Since JA has admitted killing Travis, a moot point now.

MOO

 

[JusticeJunkie]

I calculated the time between each photo to see if there was a pattern or lapse of time. Here is what I found:

#1 5:22:24 Travis in shower arms crossed
#2 12 seconds later Travis lower back
#3 18 seconds Travis's back arms up
#4 36 seconds R profile of face with head up
#5 1 min R profile face looking down
#6 10 seconds L profile head up
#7 12 seconds same as previous only close-up
#8 4 seconds zoomed out of previous photo
#9 4 seconds arms on wall above head R profile
(Then almost 2 minutes elapse and he looks startled turning around on photo #11) Wonder if he thought she had left only to find she was back?
#10 1 min 56 seconds Travis's back arms above head facing away
#11 22 seconds later Startled look R hand up L profile
#12 1 min 36 seconds seconds later R profile head down water running on face
(Again a long lapse and then Travis looks upset.)
#13 26 seconds Eerie close-up of Travis's face angry or startled
Is he sitting on the floor like he is in the next photo?
#14 1 min 10 second Mid-section sitting on floor of shower
#15 44 seconds blurry ceiling shot
#16 1min 2 seconds dragging photo
#17 1min 16 seconds What is this photo of?

Thx for the list. It sorta debunks the timer theory IMO.
Juan asked Arias if that last pic was pic of Travis, and she agreed. I think another poster figured it was of his bloody back.

 

[popsicle]

oh, nevermind, I see: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/trutv-cutting-in-session-to-two-hours-a-day_b167293

I wonder if HLN will provide additional coverage?

They said from 12:30 on. est

 

[dtzblnd]

Can someone please tell me who the little smudge of blood on the washer belonged to? Was it TA's or JA's? TIA.

 

[panthera]

Not necessarily. Although I'm old (48!) I had many girlfriends that were "promiscuous" in high school - I was sexually abused and was not.

It's a generalization. Not true in all cases that being sexually abused=being promiscuous.

I wasn't agreeing that JA was abused; just the opposite, in that I believe her promiscuous behavior was a way of getting the attention of men........men who may not otherwise pay any attention to her.

MOO

 

[JusticeJunkie]

No she never admitted to the third gas can. That what she refutes...the third can. As if that would really matter at this point in the trial....DA

Well, she did admit to buying it, but says she returned it without using it.
lolololol

 

[minor4th]

I'm confused again...

What is the difference between "aggravated assault that leads to death" and "second degree (not planned) murder"? Does the difference lie in premeditation? But if so if the state doesn't prove the murder was premeditated, how can they prove the assault was premeditated? And if you can't prove JA planned to commit a murder/hurt Travis in any way, how can you get a conviction based on felony murder?

And where is the distinction between assault and murder? Or is that distinction not important if murder is the result?



Sigh, I confuse myself.

An assault that leads to death is a homicide - probably would be manslaughter, rather than second degree murder if the intention was not to kill the person. For purposes of charging a defendant, if death was the result, they would not be charged with assault - they would be charged with some form of criminal homicide. The assault is "merged" into the homicide.

There is no requirement that assault be premeditated.

The distinction between assault and murder is that one results in injury and the other results in death.

The only reason assault is brought up in this case is for the purposes of charging felony murder - there has to be an underlying felony, during the commission of which the victim was killed. In this case, the primary underlying felony is burglary, and assault was also mentioned as a possible underlying felony. The actions that would have constituted assault were also the actions that led to Travis' death, but in Arizona the initial assault is sufficient as the underlying felony in a felony murder charge -- even if that assault is what led to death.

Your confusion is well-founded, and I did not think assault would have been viable as the underlying felony until I read the judge's ruling and the caselaw that was cited in support of her ruling.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

To be serious, the thing is, they tried to,present some things as deviant and aberrant behaviors that I find quite tame. The pop rocks really? That's just kind of innocent fun IMO. Ejaculating on her back? I was single all through the 80s. For a man who doesn't want to get you pregnant and if you don't want to either and if you don't have precautions, "pulling out" and, well, having a washcloth nearby was not unusual at all. The nice guys would even go wet it with warm water.

I know I'm not alone in this....ladies? This was one of our rooftop happy hour topics of conversation. See what you guys are missing? Lol

Seriously, I've wanted to say "that the best you got?" When JA acts so mortified. GMAB

Pop Rocks.. check
Tootsie Pops.. nope, Tootsie Pop Drops.. check
Halls Cough Drops.. check
ETC. ETC.

Sure wish I could join your roof top conversations, I could add plenty. :rocker:

 

[al66pine]

At post 1080, JusticeJunkie said [respectfully snipped]:

"... But we have to keep in mind ... and Nurmi talks slower than a snail...."
----------------------------------------------------
Nurmi mumbles slower than a snail.

There, fixed it, in the interests of accuracy.

 

[katiedid2]

anagrammy, i think you're a treasure. your insight into this case with your knowledge of mormonism is greatly appreciated by me!! everything you've written here makes perfect sense. i do think his conversation on the bishop played a role in this, and i think her mentioning her 'reputation' to flores was no accident.

Well put and quite possible thank you

 

[Tuba]

For me, her admited self-designation as hyper literal points to one who creates room around words so as to facilitate lies. Eg., "I said I wasn't at a lake. Silverlake is a reservoir!" There is an attempt to resist, rather than an attempt to communicate or candidly convey. It is offensive & repugnant to listen to. "You can't catch me in the true meaning of a term because I am the one laying the traps here." From Arias' own lips, "I said I WILL tell the truth" (not I tell the truth or I am telling the truth or I have told the truth).

 

[Madeleine74]

IIRC, didn't Arias gave Leslie Udy a ride to a PPL dinner meeting on 6/5/08 ... wouldn't Leslie have noticed blood red stains on the seats or missing floor mats ? She most certainly would have noticed a smoke-like smell to the car, indicating the Arias bonfire took place after she left West Jordan and before arriving in Redding.

Not necessarily. People notice what they notice. Not seeing something doesn't mean it's there or not there--it means they didn't notice it (or the absence of it). There could have been items of JA's covering up the back seats. As for floor mats I doubt anyone pays attention to that when getting a ride in a car.

 

[popsicle]

Can Wilmott do the re-direct or does Nurmi have to do it since he did the direct?

 

[minor4th]

I thought this fight was instigated by Jodi's fake accidental text trying to make him jealous.

Well, she said it was because she was talking to this other guy and Travis "freaked out" because she accidentally sent the other guy's text message to Travis. From the texts between Jodi and Travis, it's obvious he was not jealous because he knew she was lying about the message that was supposedly meant for that other guy (who most likely did not even exist).

However, I think there was something more that he was mad about.

 

[Quester]

Jodi Arias Trial - Sex, lies and audiotape. Anderson Cooper 360 special

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC-tYAjGYPA"]Jodi Arias Trial - Sex, lies and audiotape. Anderson Cooper 360 special. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JusticeJunkie]

IIRC, didn't Arias gave Leslie Udy a ride to a PPL dinner meeting on 6/5/08 ... wouldn't Leslie have noticed blood red stains on the seats or missing floor mats ? She most certainly would have noticed a smoke-like smell to the car, indicating the Arias bonfire took place after she left West Jordan and before arriving in Redding.

IMO she was a good witness, but she said she did not notice any of those things.

 

[minor4th]

Can Wilmott do the re-direct or does Nurmi have to do it since he did the direct?

Nurmi has to do it. Usually there's a "one lawyer per witness" rule.