Jodi Arias Trial Discussion #9 *may contain graphic and adult content*

[hindsight2020]

Beth Karas says this woman was a chameleon, her manner in how she adapted to her surroundings, what stands out to her is the DT Flores interrogation on how she goes on, daring a jury to convict her, how she will beg a jury for death penalty if she killed him, how she would shoot him in a humane fashion but could never slash him.

Beth Kara also stated if JA would not have left the camera behind, this would be a very difficult case for the PT to prove and a totally different case altogether.

IMO, THE IRONY the very thing she loved, photography/the camera was ultimately her achilles heel.

 

[kscornfed]

After thinking about it, it makes so much sense that the prosecution put on a bare-bones case. Martinez didn't have to prove that Jodi killed Travis, Ms. Willmott, in her opening stated that there was no doubt about who killed him. It was Jodi Arias. The only question was why she was "forced" to kill him. She then went on to outline the types of abuse Jodi suffered at the hands of Travis Alexander.

Martinez was mainly showing premeditation and Jodi's character. The videos told his whole story. Jodi Arias is not to be believed. Why burden the jury with all the details when he doesn't absolutely have to.

In spite of Nurmi's comment about a changing theory of the case, he really can't. Ms. Willmott's opening wasn't testimony, but it did set the scene for the defense case.

As for putting on no defense case, I don't see that happening here. Nurmi managed to elicit a few scraps he could use to claim Travis abused Jodi, but it's nowhere near enough.

He has to get his expert on here. He has to have some sort of independent verification of abuse. As of now, Jodi is a total liar. Anything she would testify to would be self-serving. She can say all she wants of abuse and how she told nobody about it, but that's where Martinez comes in.

He will rip her to shreds should she testify. As Martinez showed with the last witness, Jodi's "best acquaintances" were never told stories of abuse. I'd bet they weren't told stories of abuse because there wasn't any on Travis part, anyway.

Then, Martinez has a wide-open playing field to rebut whatever the defense puts out there. He has probably saved some of his very best witnesses for last.

Perhaps we could have a thread for the "Interlude" in the trial until the 28th?

i'm with you all the way. i'm thinking the rebuttal case could be juicier than what we've seen so far.

 

[LotusPawprint]

After thinking about it, it makes so much sense that the prosecution put on a bare-bones case. Martinez didn't have to prove that Jodi killed Travis, Ms. Willmott, in her opening stated that there was no doubt about who killed him. It was Jodi Arias. The only question was why she was "forced" to kill him. She then went on to outline the types of abuse Jodi suffered at the hands of Travis Alexander.

Martinez was mainly showing premeditation and Jodi's character. The videos told his whole story. Jodi Arias is not to be believed. Why burden the jury with all the details when he doesn't absolutely have to.

In spite of Nurmi's comment about a changing theory of the case, he really can't. Ms. Willmott's opening wasn't testimony, but it did set the scene for the defense case.

As for putting on no defense case, I don't see that happening here. Nurmi managed to elicit a few scraps he could use to claim Travis abused Jodi, but it's nowhere near enough.

He has to get his expert on here. He has to have some sort of independent verification of abuse. As of now, Jodi is a total liar. Anything she would testify to would be self-serving. She can say all she wants of abuse and how she told nobody about it, but that's where Martinez comes in.

He will rip her to shreds should she testify. As Martinez showed with the last witness, Jodi's "best acquaintances" were never told stories of abuse. I'd bet they weren't told stories of abuse because there wasn't any on Travis part, anyway.

Then, Martinez has a wide-open playing field to rebut whatever the defense puts out there. He has probably saved some of his very best witnesses for last.

Perhaps we could have a thread for the "Interlude" in the trial until the 28th?

My "extra smileys" aren't working but "Good Post!"

 

[Carol2]

Testimony resumes THURSDAY at 1230 EST

Might want to correct and update this to January 29.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I'm inclined to think she has no choice but to testify. But you never know maybe she doesn't. There's only one way to get in the self defense theory in the door and that's through Jodi. Unless if they plan to only call her family to testify that Travis was abusive.

Gitana will come in here and explain, but, IMHO that is called hearsay and not allowed unless it's against Jodi's self-interest.

 

[Ramblinrose01]

Beth Karas says this woman was a chameleon, her manner in how she adapted to her surroundings, what stands out to her is the DT Flores interrogation on how she goes on, daring a jury to convict her, how she will beg a jury for death penalty if she killed him, how she would shoot him in a humane fashion but could never slash him.

Beth Kara also stated if JA would not have left the camera behind, this would be a very difficult case for the PT to prove and a totally different case altogether.

IMO, THE IRONY the very thing she loved, photography/the camera was ultimately her achilles heel.

Remember, she also left her handprint in Travis' blood mixed with her own blood! That alone should be enough to convict her!

 

[hindsight2020]

I'm inclined to think she has no choice but to testify. But you never know maybe she doesn't. There's only one way to get in the self defense theory in the door and that's through Jodi. Unless if they plan to only call her family to testify that Travis was abusive.

She's damned if she does take the stand and damned if she doesn't. Wonder how the jury will feel either way, if I was on the jury, I would want to hear from the abused victim, I would want to hear her story.

 

[HarvestMoon]

Does she testify or not?

Let's discuss.

Who thinks she will? Who doesn't?

Will not.

 

[Curious Me]

Beth Karas says this woman was a chameleon, her manner in how she adapted to her surroundings, what stands out to her is the DT Flores interrogation on how she goes on, daring a jury to convict her, how she will beg a jury for death penalty if she killed him, how she would shoot him in a humane fashion but could never slash him.

Beth Kara also stated if JA would not have left the camera behind, this would be a very difficult case for the PT to prove and a totally different case altogether.

IMO, THE IRONY the very thing she loved, photography/the camera was ultimately her achilles heel.

Chameleon or some kind of lizard that can climb down walls in interrogation rooms.

 

[lonetraveler]

Wow, I hate that there is such a long break between the State and the Defense testimony. Death penalty trial that I served on had a three week break due to judge's wife passing away. There was discussion to start the trial over with a new judge or refresh the jurors with a summary. It was very difficult. I hope that the jurors can retain what the state presented.

 

[nursebeeme]

New thread here: this thread will close in a few minutes

The State Rests: break in trial until 28 January 2013 #10 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[Hatfield]

After thinking about it, it makes so much sense that the prosecution put on a bare-bones case. Martinez didn't have to prove that Jodi killed Travis, Ms. Willmott, in her opening stated that there was no doubt about who killed him. It was Jodi Arias. The only question was why she was "forced" to kill him. She then went on to outline the types of abuse Jodi suffered at the hands of Travis Alexander.

Martinez was mainly showing premeditation and Jodi's character. The videos told his whole story. Jodi Arias is not to be believed. Why burden the jury with all the details when he doesn't absolutely have to.

In spite of Nurmi's comment about a changing theory of the case, he really can't. Ms. Willmott's opening wasn't testimony, but it did set the scene for the defense case.

As for putting on no defense case, I don't see that happening here. Nurmi managed to elicit a few scraps he could use to claim Travis abused Jodi, but it's nowhere near enough.

He has to get his expert on here. He has to have some sort of independent verification of abuse. As of now, Jodi is a total liar. Anything she would testify to would be self-serving. She can say all she wants of abuse and how she told nobody about it, but that's where Martinez comes in.

He will rip her to shreds should she testify. As Martinez showed with the last witness, Jodi's "best acquaintances" were never told stories of abuse. I'd bet they weren't told stories of abuse because there wasn't any on Travis part, anyway.

Then, Martinez has a wide-open playing field to rebut whatever the defense puts out there. He has probably saved some of his very best witnesses for last.
Perhaps we could have a thread for the "Interlude" in the trial until the 28th?

If the defense lets say only calls 0, 1 or 2 people, isnt the PA limited to only rebutting just those people?

I just have a bad feeling that the defense is not going to call hardly anyone. They seem to think that not much was proved based on their acquittal attempts.

I am afraid the state isnt going to get a chance to do much rebuttal if the defense doesnt call hardly anyone.

 

[creepingskills]

Not sure if this has been discussed yet but I'll throw it out there...

Does anyone think if TA had filed a restraining order that this would have turned out differently? Theres a big part of me that thinks JA was already to fixed on her dream to let a restraining order make a difference. I'm curious what you think...

Probably wouldn't have made a big difference, IMO. Save for the fact it would have been a record of JA's scary behavior. I'm not sure if the procedure is the same in AZ, but in MA obtaining and extending a restraining order isn't exactly easy. I had an ex boyfriend who seemed obsessive for months after we broke up. When I began seeing someone new, he followed me a few times to his house, kept a very watchful eye. He sent me creepy text messages noting he knew where I was, when I got home, etc. Final straw came when I was leaving a friend's house at night, noticed a light on in my car. I froze. Ran back into my friend's house, we checked out the car. The ex smeared dog poop under the driver side door handle, that was it. I didn't know what to make of the situation, but freaked me out that he was increasingly getting more brazen. He was such a quiet guy, so I think I had a false sense of security that he wouldn't actually hurt me. But I went to the police station the next day, they documented his text messages, the car incident. I was given a temporary restraining order, 48 hours, if I recall.

In order to extend the restraining order beyond the temporary period, I would've had to go to court and explain to the judge why I felt my ex was a danger to me. And then my ex would have the opportunity to counter. The police told me it would be a tough battle because he wasn't violent. Maybe JA's tire slashing would point to a propensity for violence?

 

[nursebeeme]

New thread here: this thread will close in a few minutes

The State Rests: break in trial until 28 January 2013 #10 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

see you on the other thread