jodi arias TAKES THE STAND FOR 14TH DAY #68*may contain graphic and adult content*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, Travis needs to get permission from JA for everything, every time, but if Travis says 'come on over' once, then she thinks she has permission to come over anytime, forever? Who is buying this crap?
 
Feel free to disagree, but I don't think it is possible for a man to give oral sex for three hours straight. Major case of neck strain and chapped lips just to name a few problems.:moo:
 
Surprise oral sex is so wrong. Two or three hours flatters Jodi, embarrassed, but flattered. Fantasy or reality or Domestic Violence?
 
Nurmi is trying to make it sound like Travis performed oral sex for 2 or 3 hours. :floorlaugh: Now that is diligence!
 
I think he is doing this to set up his experts to come in and say poor little Jodi was abused.
 
Go Juan, make him frustrated and work for this disgusting ploy that was allowed.
 
Kicking around fantasies......like a true professional
 
This will piss off the jury...you can mark my words on that

I agree. These antics are beyond reprehensible, and I'm surprised the judge is allowing it.

If I was sitting on that jury I wouldn't give this any merit whatsoever. Even if he was a flaming pervert (and he was NOT IMO), the fact remains that she initiated the sequence of events that led to his murder. All this does is scream desperation on the part of the defense to me.

I hope and pray we're both right, and that the jury sees right through it :please:.
 
And if the jury can't see how animated she was ten minutes ago, but now she's now all meek and mild.

Also, why did Nurmi capitalize *advertiser censored* in his slides?

Have you seen his?? :floorlaugh: oh carp.... sorry mods.....
 
IMO Nurmi plays this every night at his bed time.
 
we are just going over the same crappola as on direct - how can the judge keep allowing this?
 
Jean Cesarez (sp?) just said this will be very effective, "It paints a very BAD portrait of Travis Alexander." (I think that's what she said - it's close.

Say what?

What is BAD about what he's saying? Anyone? It's a private talk about private matters... it's raunchy - not meant for all ears to hear... but what's bad about it? He's a sexually healthy, energized 29-30 (?) year old man. It's sex talk. Some to say it, some like to think it, some like to hear it, some don't like it...

ITS_JUST_SEX.

I didn't hear anything "bad" in any of that (other than it was unfairly and prejudicially edited. Now that's bad).
 
Nooooo Judge. :banghead: You don't have to let yourself be spun around by the defense team. You would NEVER EVER have been overturned on appeal for saying, "No. I won't let the jury hear the tape edited to remove all context."

I agree. She's completely overcompensating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
68
Guests online
2,053
Total visitors
2,121

Forum statistics

Threads
601,346
Messages
18,123,050
Members
231,024
Latest member
australianwebsleuth
Back
Top