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

[oceanblueeyes]

Re: BBM
This was a critical thing he accomplished and I bet he promised the family that he would make that one of his major goals.

I think he spent more time proving this than proving she was responsible for his death.

He truly cares about the people he represents. Kudos to him.

BBM

I think he accomplished both things.

imo

 

[TigerBalm]

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.

Juan does not have to prove his case through a combative defendant.

 

[paperwing]

Holy cow that's a gigantic butter picture.

For some reason this post just cracks me up - reading, reading, reading, knives, license plates, murder, psychopath, killed him, reading, reading, reading, trial, JM, and then... "Holy cow that's a gigantic butter picture."

I get the reference, but I like it better in it's randomness... :floorlaugh:

 

[Simply Caustic]

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.

Most respectfully: I think all the above statements you make are inferences drawn from the evidence that we (and, thus, the jury) have seen.

Don't you think a reasonable jury could draw the same, or similar, inferences? Isn't it feasible that they will, too, connect the dots, as it were, between what Jodi said - her lies, and half-truths - and the actuality of the situation?

He doesn't have to spell it out - her lies are so glaringly grotesque that they stand out to even the most casual observer...let alone, a jury that is focused on this trial as a civic duty.

MOO

 

[minor4th]

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 disagree, and I think the chances of her getting any verdict other than guilty of first degree murder are negligible.

To address your points:

1. Motive: jealousy and anger. The most common motivation for domestic violence homicides.

2. Jodi clearly was an enthusiastic sex partner, and that was made abundantly clear. It was even explained and acknowledged by Jodi.

3. Again, it is more than clear to anyone who watched her testimony that Jodi was an enthusiastic sexual partner, who had much more experience than Travis, and was the sexual aggressor in the communications we saw between the two of them. The jury will regard Jodi's testimony as false as far as being coerced into sex with Travis.

4. The rope issue is unimportant - there's no corroborating evidence that there was ever a rope there or that there was a knife handy. It really doesn't matter anyway because Jodi did not present any self-defense testimony about the stabbing.

5. It's clear as can be that the gun story was a complete lie, and that was demonstrated through Juan's questioning, among other things. If Juan had asked her that question, she would have just said "No." No reason to ask a question that we already know she will not answer truthfully - it just gives her another chance to tell her made-up stories.

 

[Hope4More]

I wonder if JM has any evidence-from computer forensics or from phone logs-to prove on rebuttal that Travis didn't know JA was coming to his house on June 3/4. He sure doesn't need that proof to make his case, but it would be icing on the cake.

 

[beldon]

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.

It's my hope that these issues will to be further addressed when he has other witnesses' lined up for the rebuttal. Along with some keen emphasis on:

-- if she remembers nothing after the gunshot (which she didnt think actually hit him) why would she begin covering up the crime when came out of her fog? According to her, she couldnt have know he was even injured, let alone dead...

-- the witness tampering issue

-- way more on the pre-meditation, its so key to get that across and I'd agree its not there yet

 

[katiedid2]

February 28, 2013 - 8:17 pm
Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer
Reporters speculate that the private discussion had to do with whether jurors would see her stun belt.
Restraints
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/487281_133801126792947_192265998_n.jpg

 

[paperwing]

Juan does not have to prove his case through a combative defendant.

That - and he's not done yet.

 

[lil_buddy]

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?

Well, I have to tell you, that criminologists are VERY familiar with this sort of killing. When a killing this brutal occurs, the police are going to be looking for a jealous lover first - yes, a jealous rejected lover is the most likely type of person to commit a murder this brutal. This is Jodi's way of saying - I am going to make you feel the pain that I feel.

 

[Lexington]

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?

Simple answer. Because she is vicious.

 

[sleuth21]

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.

100% agree.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

I'm thinking the jury has access to video of the trial and close ups of Jodi's face that they can view again. Is that correct? It's too much to ask that they remember every single thing otherwise. Do they watch parts of the trial again?

I think they can ask for a read back of testimony, but I personally (not an attorney, so ....grain of salt and all that!) have NOT ever seen video replayed. But, this court is very state of the art - so I hope Gitano, AZLawyer or one of our verified lawyers will weigh in on that.

It was fascinating seeing that duping delight right between her hands while pretending to weep. OH MY.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

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

He proved premeditation in his CIC. He bolstered it with his great cross examination of the defendant.

This will not be a hung jury. This is going all the way to verdict of First Degree Murder. I dont remember a case that had this much evidence.

I also believe there is a very good chance she will get the DP too.

 

[TexMex]

I respectfully disagree. The inferences are there and conclusions are drawn.

Yes, JM will tie it together in Closing argument.

 

[JusticeJunkie]

From Twitter:

Says it all
https://twitter.com/BellaCookie/status/307305947670401024/photo/1


.

WOW Thanks so much for linking that. It made me cry.

 

[inthedark14]

Hi all...a late observation, as ever...that whole pesky work thing...but I made it home today for the last of the testimony...

I just have to say that I didn't buy her crying when she was reading the email. It ALMOST sounded real, like she was truly upset and couldn't go on reading it....but she recovered SO QUICKLY. I keep thinking of her in the green shirt all red faced and puffy from being really, truly crying over something...something that was upsetting her.

She DID NOT look like that today, even when Juan showed the pictures she refused to even look at.

Today, I was able to watch her fake crying live, I can't say I saw her smile, but I do not believe that any woman who is upset enough to choke up and be unable to speak will within minutes be only wiping their nose. I saw the tears, but no puffy face, no red nose, no "post crying" face that every human I've ever met gets.

Through this whole trial that has irked me to no end...this woman is never really crying, she's never the "victim" she wants the world to believe she is. You can't be hurt that much physically or emotionally and be able to sit there stoic, and even smile and suppress a giggle. You also cannot love someone, so completely, so entirely that you FAKE crying over their death, ESPECIALLY if you are the cause of it.

Someone who was truly abused, debased and devastated by the person they killed in self defense would show honest emotion, not this display we've seen.

Always, MOO

 

[A_News_Junkie]

I missed the smile! Anyone have a screenshot?

I will upload it for you. It is amazing. Give me 10 mins or so to upload, convert, etc. Will post when done.

 

[ZsaZsa]

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

Someone should have bought her the book "He's just not that into you".

 

[McNEverest]

I dont think Cancun was the catalist.

At the end of May and around the time she stoled the gun Travis told her he would not be able to come to see her afterall. Iirc it was the second time he had stalled and postponed it. She knew he was rejecting her and trying to distance himself from her for good.

I do not believe anything that JA says including that he knew and asked her to come.

By then he was writing about gold diggers and a possibility of marrying an axe murderer. He was referring to Jodi IMO.

imo

Me either.. think JA would have 'elaborated' on the Cancun subject at one point
Like minds on the May 18th blog entry, then something to do with $$ given the check written on 5/25 is what JA used to get back 'in the door' that morning and the cd's also play into this possible blackmail to expose Their true relationship..
I didn't catch JA cell phone replacement until yesterday so adding that in the mix too given the 'sex recording' was already downloaded on hard drive.. so what was her reason for a replacement phone.. another coinky dink?