Exactly. That is what the jury will ask if they do not
prove that she was actually a stalker versus a girl Travis talked trash about.
That is LWOP.
Are you saying that if they don't prove she is a stalker she won't get the DP???
Exactly. That is what the jury will ask if they do not
prove that she was actually a stalker versus a girl Travis talked trash about.
That is LWOP.
Oh the jury has a question.
uh oh. jury wants to know who said travis was a flirt. jury pool must have been from an elementary school. we are in trouble if this is relevent to them.
Totally agree, he's lying about not having sex IMO.
Why doesn't anyone understand what I am saying? Men tell their friends girls are stalkers when they are embarrassed of them .it's not always true. If no one saw it we don't know it wasn't just a guy trying to look like he wasn't egging her on. Has anything been shown where someone saw her crawl through the dog door or where they saw her following him? His word means nothing
if he's trying to convince people who dislike Jodi that
he doesn't have any interest in her.
With all due respect, I completely disagree that it was dumb question. I LOL'd when the judge read it. There was a big fight between the prosecution and defense over that testimony because of hearsay. The jury wanted it nailed down if it was hearsay or not. I thought it was brilliant. JMO
I just started a media/timeline/no discussion thread here:
Jodi Arias Trial media and timeline thread **no discussion** - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
anyone can post links there and it will keep them in one place
I agree with you. This is her one shot (no pun intended). I don't know what went on in their relationship or during the murder yet, but if there was DV and she was fearful or abused or whatever, this is the only shot she has to defend herself.
If you try to step back from the emotion and look objectively, she has the legal right to a defense. And if there is a 1 in a million chance that she does have a valid defense, then this is the only chance she has to present it.
I don't know if the defense has anything substantive or not. We'll find out eventually. I would hope they have something of significance to present during their case or we wouldn't be watching a trial. I can't imagine a successful self defense argument based on what, 4 days of the prosecution's case so far, but we just don't know yet.
And let's just pretend or imagine that she does have a valid defense, just for argument's sake. There is a very tight group of people with significant religious beliefs who want to protect themselves and probably their friend's image as well. People who have not been privy to the truth from TA about his "real" lifestyle. A group of people banded together to all say "he's the greatest" is pretty formidable. I don't think many, if anyone, knows the other side of him which is not an upstanding moral guy within the framework of the Mormon beliefs.
Are you saying that if they don't prove she is a stalker she won't get the DP???
Why weren't both sides of the IMing provided? Instead like the PA pointed out it seems like the defense had pick and choose pieces of the IMing puzzle.
Because the Defense is afraid she will stab them with anything bigger? IMOWhy does she write with putt-putt golf pencils?
could not agree more. Some of the prosecutions witnesses are pointless because they do not have a full picture. This is a dramatic comparison but no one believed Ted Bundy was a killer who knew him. his public image did not reflect who he truly was. people are up in arms about supposed character assassination but the truth is that the defense is hired to save her life. If the prosecution have evidence of her stalking him ( real evidence not hearsay) that's a card the prosecution needs to play. if the defense can disprove the stalking rumor it paints her as a victim of his manipulation not the reverse.
Why does she write with putt-putt golf pencils?
Reposting this link for anyone joining now that wants to reference photos and other evidence. GRAPHIC. warning.