jodi arias TAKES THE STAND FOR 13TH DAY #63 *may contain graphic and adult content*

[ElleElle]

Ok...
So she is psycho crazy woman and premeditates his killing because of the old "If I can't have him, no one else will".

Why didn't she just just shoot after the roommates left, cornered in the shower stall.

Why was it is so vicious?

I'm just curious to know what exactly would convince you of premeditation?
A notarized 'To Do' list?

 

[Grammy Jean]

My favorite comic relief moment when Juan said,

"It's YOUR FOG!"

 

[Observer in AZ]

Ok Guys HELP ME...

I could have SWORN JA said during cross about making calls she said she tried to call BRIAN then JM says yeah you tried to call Matt Darryl & Ryan but etc etc...

On NG Mike Walker Sr Editor National Enquirer says Brian Carr met JA YEARS BEFORE the murder...

Wasn't Brian Carr spewing thinly veiled threats last night on NG???

MAYBE MM is turning on Brian knowing being involved.. something not right here people!

Anyone else catch any of this???

 

[LotusPawprint]

I predict a mistrial or acquittal. Juan botched the case on cross for the most part.

1. He didn't establish a credible motive. No focus whatsoever on the May 26th text exchange (where he was very mean to her) and no attempt to link it to the May 28th "burglary". He seems to think that cancun crap is enough. It isn't.

2. No attempt to refute her claim that Travis guilted her into seeing him. Juan could have pointed out the flurry of phone calls she made to him on June 3rd to undermine her lies.

3. Never properly pointed out the inconsistency of her sexual talk and fantasies and her claims of being raped during the relationship. She claims she was anally raped in 2007. When describing this she pretended to act like she was raped, by pausing, crying, etc. Yet, just a little while later she's exploring her sexual fantasies with him, requesting facials and wanting to frak him like a "horny little school girl". Juan should have pointed out how far-fetched it was for a rape victim to continue to engage in mutual, enjoyable, kinky sexual relationship with her rapist. This would have crushed her whole "sexual abuse" crap. I don't feel that Juan made this point clearly enough.

4. He had her cornered on the rope issue. She bungled by admitting that she had no reason for throwing the rope away. Juan could have pointed out that "reason". The rope was imaginary -- conjured up to explain the knife's close proximity to the crime scene -- and her lie about throwing it in the dumpster was made up to explain why no rope was recovered.

5. The gun!!! He had her here too. All he had to ask was;

Juan: Isn't it true that the reason you disposed of the gun was because it didn't belong to Travis but to your grandparent and you knew that leaving it at the scene would have further implicated you?

There are other things, but these stick out the most.

I predict a conviction of premeditated murder. Juan is winning this case and we're still in the defense CIC.

Also I disagree with all of your points.

All JMO.

For the record: I am NOT a prognosticator like JA "sometimes" claims to be.

 

[Truth Detector]

Premeditation takes it out of the realm of crime of passion . I believe a crime of passion has to take place as the result of a sudden impulse or rage.
All that planning she did was cold and calculated.

Spot on.

She stalked the ex-boyfriend.

She stole a .25 caliber gun from her own grandfather and staged that scene.

She rented a nondescript white car and turned the license plates upside down.

She borrowed two gas cans and bought one so she wouldn't have to buy fuel in Arizona.

She lied to anyone and everyone before and after the murder about anything and everything.

And that's less than 2% of her meticulous planning and execution of this murder.

Why are some of us seeing a premeditation duck quacking here?

 

[connie9030]

I missed the smile! Anyone have a screenshot?

I thought she expressed a morbid curosity when she kept asking the detective to see the crime scene pictures when she was being interviewed. Today I realized the reason she was hiding her face when the pictures of Travis were displayed was because she didn't want the cameras to capture her abnormal reaction to them. I think she liked looking at her handy work. She has no emotion and no conscience at all and has a very unusual mind. I can't see how she can even be of any value to anyone in prison. She would be a good mate for Scot Peterson.

 

[TigerBalm]

NO Dr. Drew, Juan Martinez is not sitting around at night watching the TH's on tv critiquing him. He is too busy prepping for his next day of trial.

 

[popsicle]

No way I can keep up with a 6,000 post day. Or whatever it is. I'm just starting now. But wanted to say ... when does Jean C sleep? That woman is my inspiration, the picture of class and strength.

Don't catch up just join in...

 

[thefragile7393]

After the disaster in Florida, I have no confidence that a jury will convict Jodi. CA killed a toddler.....Travis was a grown man.

Sigh. We are NOT Florida.....totally different judge, jury, defendent, victim, lawyers, STATE....

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[legalmania]

I predict a mistrial or acquittal. Juan botched the case on cross for the most part.

1. He didn't establish a credible motive. No focus whatsoever on the May 26th text exchange (where he was very mean to her) and no attempt to link it to the May 28th "burglary". He seems to think that cancun crap is enough. It isn't.

2. No attempt to refute her claim that Travis guilted her into seeing him. Juan could have pointed out the flurry of phone calls she made to him on June 3rd to undermine her lies.

3. Never properly pointed out the inconsistency of her sexual talk and fantasies and her claims of being raped during the relationship. She claims she was anally raped in 2007. When describing this she pretended to act like she was raped, by pausing, crying, etc. Yet, just a little while later she's exploring her sexual fantasies with him, requesting facials and wanting to frak him like a "horny little school girl". Juan should have pointed out how far-fetched it was for a rape victim to continue to engage in mutual, enjoyable, kinky sexual relationship with her rapist. This would have crushed her whole "sexual abuse" crap. I don't feel that Juan made this point clearly enough.

4. He had her cornered on the rope issue. She bungled by admitting that she had no reason for throwing the rope away. Juan could have pointed out that "reason". The rope was imaginary -- conjured up to explain the knife's close proximity to the crime scene -- and her lie about throwing it in the dumpster was made up to explain why no rope was recovered.

5. The gun!!! He had her here too. All he had to ask was;

Juan: Isn't it true that the reason you disposed of the gun was because it didn't belong to Travis but to your grandparent and you knew that leaving it at the scene would have further implicated you?

There are other things, but these stick out the most.

You could be right no one knows what the jury is thinking. If just one of them is thinking like you then your right, If they are thinking like 90& of the people then your wrong. I can't wait to hear their questions that may help us understand what directions they are thinking.

 

[Kensie]

I predict a mistrial or acquittal. Juan botched the case on cross for the most part.

1. He didn't establish a credible motive. No focus whatsoever on the May 26th text exchange (where he was very mean to her) and no attempt to link it to the May 28th "burglary". He seems to think that cancun crap is enough. It isn't.

2. No attempt to refute her claim that Travis guilted her into seeing him. Juan could have pointed out the flurry of phone calls she made to him on June 3rd to undermine her lies.

3. Never properly pointed out the inconsistency of her sexual talk and fantasies and her claims of being raped during the relationship. She claims she was anally raped in 2007. When describing this she pretended to act like she was raped, by pausing, crying, etc. Yet, just a little while later she's exploring her sexual fantasies with him, requesting facials and wanting to frak him like a "horny little school girl". Juan should have pointed out how far-fetched it was for a rape victim to continue to engage in mutual, enjoyable, kinky sexual relationship with her rapist. This would have crushed her whole "sexual abuse" crap. I don't feel that Juan made this point clearly enough.

4. He had her cornered on the rope issue. She bungled by admitting that she had no reason for throwing the rope away. Juan could have pointed out that "reason". The rope was imaginary -- conjured up to explain the knife's close proximity to the crime scene -- and her lie about throwing it in the dumpster was made up to explain why no rope was recovered.

5. The gun!!! He had her here too. All he had to ask was;

Juan: Isn't it true that the reason you disposed of the gun was because it didn't belong to Travis but to your grandparent and you knew that leaving it at the scene would have further implicated you?

There are other things, but these stick out the most.

Are you my husband??? I hope you are wrong. I am still thinking LWOP.

 

[Turnadot]

In couple's therapy you learn that instead of getting angry, you should get curious. If your partner seems to have ideas that make no sense to you, you should try to understand the basis by asking questions.

Never work. Because my first question would be: why are you so hilariously stupid?

Then a huge argument would follow.

(((couple's therapists)))

 

[borndem]

Beth Karas InSession
After Arias completes her testimony next week, the defense is expected to call two experts: psychologist Richard Samuels and domestic violence expert Alyce LaViolette. They are expected to offer opinions that she suffers from PTSD and Battered Women's Syndrome--and will explain Arias's behavior in that context.

After today's Juan-of-a-kind rip-a-killer, the above experts may have to change a few things about their intended testimony. Today' session, IMO, changed a few things w/respect to JA: She finally admitted that she knew she had done wrong, and she admitted that she did things to cover her tracks. Just for a start....

 

[thistle]

In couple's therapy you learn that instead of getting angry, you should get curious. If your partner seems to have ideas that make no sense to you, you should try to understand the basis by asking questions.

OK, you get curious, you understand their issues, you figure out they're crazy-Or maybe you should avoid couples' therapy, & run the other way-trust your own instincts...don't mind me, I'm just cranky tonight...

 

[ElleElle]

Well put, thank you.

There is more, I will write down as I think of them.

I predict a mistrial or acquittal. Juan botched the case on cross for the most part.

1. He didn't establish a credible motive. No focus whatsoever on the May 26th text exchange (where he was very mean to her) and no attempt to link it to the May 28th "burglary". He seems to think that cancun crap is enough. It isn't.

2. No attempt to refute her claim that Travis guilted her into seeing him. Juan could have pointed out the flurry of phone calls she made to him on June 3rd to undermine her lies.

3. Never properly pointed out the inconsistency of her sexual talk and fantasies and her claims of being raped during the relationship. She claims she was anally raped in 2007. When describing this she pretended to act like she was raped, by pausing, crying, etc. Yet, just a little while later she's exploring her sexual fantasies with him, requesting facials and wanting to frak him like a "horny little school girl". Juan should have pointed out how far-fetched it was for a rape victim to continue to engage in mutual, enjoyable, kinky sexual relationship with her rapist. This would have crushed her whole "sexual abuse" crap. I don't feel that Juan made this point clearly enough.

4. He had her cornered on the rope issue. She bungled by admitting that she had no reason for throwing the rope away. Juan could have pointed out that "reason". The rope was imaginary -- conjured up to explain the knife's close proximity to the crime scene -- and her lie about throwing it in the dumpster was made up to explain why no rope was recovered.

5. The gun!!! He had her here too. All he had to ask was;

Juan: Isn't it true that the reason you disposed of the gun was because it didn't belong to Travis but to your grandparent and you knew that leaving it at the scene would have further implicated you?

There are other things, but these stick out the most.

 

[Pink Panther]

I don't believe that he knew she was going to show up. She probably called him to check that he was home but I don't think "guilted" her to "swing on by". I think she most likely let herself in unannounced while he was already sleeping and that she was the one on his computer, not him. It sounds like she was trying to load something incriminating onto his computer. It's more likely that HE surprised her and she made up some bullchite story as to why she was there and they ended up "making up" and going to sleep. Her initial plan was probably to kill him in the early hours of June 4th and something happened that made her change to plan b. I think that something is that TA was awake and heard her downstairs in the office.

moo

 

[TxBlondie]

I predict a mistrial or acquittal. Juan botched the case on cross for the most part.

1. He didn't establish a credible motive. No focus whatsoever on the May 26th text exchange (where he was veduring ccusingmean to her) and no attempt to link it to the May 28th "burglary". He seems to think that cancun crap is enough. It isn't.

2. No attempt to refute her claim that Travis guilted her into seeing him. Juan could have pointed out the flurry of phone calls she made to him on June 3rd to undermine her lies.

3. Never properly pointed out the inconsistency of her sexual talk and fantasies and her claims of being raped during the relationship. She claims she was anally raped in 2007. When describing this she pretended to act like she was raped, by pausing, crying, etc. Yet, just a little while later she's exploring her sexual fantasies with him, requesting facials and wanting to frak him like a "horny little school girl". Juan should have pointed out how far-fetched it was for a rape victim to continue to engage in mutual, enjoyable, kinky sexual relationship with her rapist. This would have crushed her whole "sexual abuse" crap. I don't feel that Juan made this point clearly enough.

4. He had her cornered on the rope issue. She bungled by admitting that she had no reason for throwing the rope away. Juan could have pointed out that "reason". The rope was imaginary -- conjured up to explain the knife's close proximity to the crime scene -- and her lie about throwing it in the dumpster was made up to explain why no rope was recovered.

5. The gun!!! He had her here too. All he had to ask was;

Juan: Isn't it true that the reason you disposed of the gun was because it didn't belong to Travis but to your grandparent and you knew that leaving it at the scene would have further implicated you?

There are other things, but these stick out the most.

I think he's proven all he needs to that shows she'll lie about anything that doesn't fit her story so there's really no point in hashing those things further. I believe he'll wrap all of those points up in a big red bow during closing. JMO

 

[Curious Me]

The jury will not have video of the trial. They can view evidence again, but will not likely be provided transcripts of testimony. Sometimes, the judge or court personnel will read back portions of testimony for the jury if they request it.

They are allowed to take notes though.

I'm surprised in this day and age they can't watch it again. Why is video access of the actual Trial not provided to the jury? What harm would be done? First perceptions only, use of notes, no going back to see it again seems so wrong to me, but JMO.

Whew, good thing I'm not on that jury. I often watch the day's trial again and still missed things.

 

[looneymama]

Ok...
So she is psycho crazy woman and premeditates his killing because of the old "If I can't have him, no one else will".

Why didn't she just just shoot after the roommates left, cornered in the shower stall.

Why was it is so vicious?

I think she wanted to make sure he knew that rejecting her was the biggest mistake he would ever make.

 

[thefragile7393]

Casey Anthony's case was circumstantial. Same with OJ. This one has direct evidence and an admission of the killing. Different deal.

so was Petersons Drew and Scott. Its the luck of the draw sometimes with juries answer if they truly understand what circumstancial evidence actually is.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2