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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Simply Caustic said:
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
Click to expand...

I have had to spell it out very slowly to Jodi supporters on many occasions. They simply can't grasp how these inconsistencies and "coincidences" -- when taken together -- point to premeditated murder beyond reasonable doubt. They're hung up on the "little girl" comment and other such crap. It's like they need an HD video of the murder and a full confession. I fear that some of the jury may be just a stupid.
 
Curious Me said:
Dr.D's guest host, Laura what's her name, has a huge hardware chain on her neck. She's good at squints and nods, and has stopped interrupting as much today. So-so. Anderson is on the show. Abe A. is on next.

I think I'm starting to force myself to watch these shows when I should just drop my cable package.
Click to expand...


Curious--- Turn the HLN off, Put the remote down, and step away from the TV.

:ignore: Those crazy people on your television! ;)


I do love me some Andy Coop. That Laura lady on the other hand... she does a fantastic job at filling up half of the split screen. :aktion:
 
Ammonitida said:
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.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your standpoint, my thoughts on each:

1) Motive - She was incredibly jealous and her history of 'stalking' by snooping in e-mails and text messages, not just with Travis but previous boyfriends as well, goes to show she has jealous tendencies.

2) Guilt by Travis - You may have missed the testimony where Juan did just that, he showed that what Jodi claimed was a 'guilt trip' was nothing more than something she labled it, not some kind of sales pressure. I don't think I've ever met a person who never heard the words "Oh, I see how you are, you just don't love me enough". People say that kind of thing all the time, that does not equate to a guilt trip.

3)He absolutely established that every sexual act was consensual and welcome. In fact, when asked if she wanted the sex and if it were consensual her reply was "Always". No rape.

4)The rope, in my opinion, is inconsequential. It doesn't mean anything because every act she performed with Travis was on her own volition. He forced her to do nothing. The rope means nothing. I think the only reason Juan focused on the rope at all was to show inconsistencies in her story. I believe he was successful.

5) Hell would freeze over before Jodi ever admitted to taking the gun from her grandfather's home and bringing it to Arizona with her, no matter how Juan phrased the question. Her answer to the question as you've posed it above would have been the same as it was with every other way he posed a question about her taking the gun from her grandfather's, and that answer was "no". Every single time.

All just MOO.
 
legalmania said:
Lets take a look at what Arizona says what premeditation is:

1. "Premeditation" means that the defendant acts with either the intention or the knowledge that he will kill another human being, when such intention or knowledge precedes the killing by any length of time to permit reflection. Proof of actual reflection is not required, but an act is not done with premeditation if it is the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.

Now with second degree you can have intent. So to prove first degree murder you have to prove premeditation.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/01101.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS
Click to expand...

In a nutshell, premeditation is simply a decision to kill. I think it has been demonstrated that Jodi decided to kill Travis.
 
kscornfed said:
All this time I've thought that in the dragging picture, his head was towards the bathroom. I had it turned around, I think. So that picture had to be taken from the hall looking towards the bathroom,, right? Didn't she say when she dropped it, it rolled over by the tub? So it DID move. Did it get kicked down the hall?
Click to expand...

Yep - today we learned the dragging picture shows the bathroom beyond his feet, bedroom behind JA. I had pictured it the other way as well.

And, what still remains unclear - how did the camera get from the shower/tub area to the end of the hall near the master bedroom?

- JA threw/carried/kicked it?
- TA kicked it?
- ??
 
One of the slides they showed in court today had her height as 5'4" weight 111lbs and Travis as 5'9" and 189lbs. They compared them side by side..
 
ElleElle said:
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?
Click to expand...

I couldn't even begin to speculate why this (admittedly) prolific liar and killer - arguably, murderer - although, to me, that's a foregone conclusion - would kill him is this vicious fashion.

Although, if I did speculate - I would think something along the lines of...her wrath was a force to be reckoned with - and she would show him...she would show him with a sickening 27 stab wounds. She would slit his throat. She would shoot him. She would denigrate him on the stand, in the press, to his family, to his church - she wouldn't just take his life away, but she would base her WHOLE defense around attempting to ruin his memory with a pathetic pedophile claim - she would destroy him.

Literally.

Fortunately, JA - this pathetic pseudo-photographer, actually unemployed waitress - isn't quite as smart as she thought she was.
Clever is one thing - beating an experienced prosecutor is quite another.

And she didn't even come close. MOO
 
TxBlondie said:
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
Click to expand...
I agree. Juan asking Jodi those questions would have been superfluous. The answers were already covered.

Ammonitida said:
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.
Click to expand...
1) He doesn't need to. She admitted to killing him. All he needed to do was prove it wasn't in self defense. He demolished her self defense story today.

2) Who cares. It's silly to refute it; it's like arguing how far away the lamp post is.

3) Yes he did. The tape. Jodi on the stand admitting she liked all of it. Everything they did sexually she liked. No rape. Enough said.

4) See response to point 1.

5) She shot him. No gun was found. She obviously disposed of it. The reason she tossed the murder weapons are age old: she didn't want to get caught. Besides, she was in an alleged fog.

Basically I respect your thoughts on this, but I think the conclusion drawn is flat out wrong.

She will get 1st degree murder.

IMO
 
R.U.Kidding! said:
They showed the video of JA crying and when she moved her hand to take her glasses off-the Body Language expert on JVM said she saw a smile----but to be honest I do not think that was the case--IMO it was just a part of the crying act.
Click to expand...

I had to back it up to watch that segment myself and I was shocked to see that JA did smile in that part which I though was pretty ballsy even for her. She has never shed a single tear for Travis and she has no remorse for what she did. She is just sorry she got caught!
 
"Were you crying when you were stabbing him?"

It doesn't get any better than that.
 
Melly53 said:
Did you read the scientific document examination report on page 22 and 23? Nurmi eventually ended up withdrawing their request to have them submitted into evidence. Sorry if I said court order, instead of court filing, but the legal filings and the report from the document analysis investigator leave no doubt that Jodi wrote those letters.

Why is Jodi still allowed to go on calling Travis a pedophile, when there is evidence that she wrote all 10 letters purported to be from TA to bolster her claim that he was a pedophile? What part of her attempt to manufacture evidence against TA, the victim, to make it appear he was a pedophile do you not understand? She was framing him for her own benefit. Why? Her whole pedophile story is made up to make TA look like he was a bad guy when in truth he wasn't. The only bad person in this is Jodi Arias.

Also I have never believed her story about the Spider-man underwear either. In the sex tape she starts talking about how she though that the Spider-man movie was a love story. Travis stated that he did not like the Super-Hero movies and Spider-man was the first on his list of the ones he DID NOT LIKE!
Click to expand...

Excellent post!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Boodles said:
Question for the forum: What was the reason for JM pointing out that she moved the camera from near the bathtub to the hallway? What was the significance of the camera moving at this point?
Click to expand...

The way he presented it to me, was that these photos weren't really inadvertant, she did on purpose.

Case 1: If her version (I know, I know)....the camera bounced and she ran and ran and shot him then FOG.......how/why was the camera moved if DV killing.

Case 2: If our version :)floorlaugh:) .... the camera was involved in slaying and she is one sick ****** for moving the camera, taking it with her whilst dragging the body around at the other end of the hallway and then again in the hallway. :waitasec: After he did this today, I've come to a NEW opinion. That she is a REAL beotch and she did these photos on PURPOSE.
 
lil_buddy said:
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.
Click to expand...

In couples therapy the therapist learned that everything was and always would be 'my' fault. She gave up. Literally said there was nothing she could do. Same with the professional mediators. That lasted 20 minutes. It was court ordered, too.

And none of them ever saw what it was really like... (sigh)
 
oceanblueeyes said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly, they have photographs of the murder scene, & the defendant's own words & actions, which convict her, IMO (premeditation, obsession, & rage)- if the jury doesn't hand down a death sentence, I will question my own logic...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 97 more.
Total: 2,722 (members: 98, guests: 2,624)

Online statistics

Members online
98
Guests online
2,624
Total visitors
2,722
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,284
Messages
18,121,956
Members
230,996
Latest member
unnamedTV
Back
Top