State rests rebuttal case- thread #164

[yuzu-lemon]

wow, i thought of everything but that, thanks

I had to search google to figure out what bbm, iirc, ita, and moo meant. :crosseyed:
Websleuths needs a glossary "IMO".

 

[Southern_Meadow]

So, Dr. Geffner testified on behalf of a man who choked a little girl to death and then said he couldn't remember doing it? Sound familiar? After what I've read about him, I cannot believe the DT would even bother calling him. Juan will have a field day with this info on cross.

 

[Softail]

I'd like to tell him what I think about drunk drivers.:waiting:

You and me both!

Don't even get me started on Drunk Drivers, or any type of distracted drivers!

 

[Softail]

I had to search google to figure out what bbm, iirc, ita, and moo meant. :crosseyed:
Websleuths needs a glossary "IMO".

WS has one:


[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=193885"]Websleuths Lingo - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[kaydono]

GOOD THINGS come to those who wait. :takeabow:

Patience is not something I possess, but I will get through it, til Wednesday. I am gonna be hoarse or lose my voice on Wednesday, screaming at the TV, either @ KN, or JW. :cursing::burn::banghead::cursing::burn::banghead:

 

[Hope4More]

This weekend I read up on AZ's death penalty statutes, as well as the full appellate record for Wendi Andriano. (Andriano is the woman JM put on death row for premeditated murder, with the aggravating circumstance of cruelty.)

Here's what I found that I think is is relevant to JA's case (Disclaimer-- I am not an attorney!):

1. CRUELTY.

Assuming a verdict of guilty on 1st degree murder, the jury then turns to considering whether or not the aggravating circumstance of "cruelty" applies. The State has the burden of proof in this phase.

From the appellate record, AZ's legal definition of cruelty:


“Cruelty” involves the infliction of physical pain and/or mental anguish on a victim before death.   A crime is committed in an especially cruel manner when a defendant either knew or should have known that the manner in which the crime is committed would cause the victim to experience physical pain and/or mental anguish before death.  

The victim must be conscious for at least some portion of the time when the pain and/or anguish was inflicted."

Given that definition, I can't imagine how the jury could conclude that the cruelty standard was NOT met, whether they believe the gunshot came first or last. That Travis lived long along to crawl down the hallway and was still alive when when his throat was slit says it all.


2. MITIGATION


Assuming the jury concurs that the State has proven cruelty, the DP is officially on the table. The jury is then asked to consider mitigating factors that could warrant giving JA LWOP rather than the DP.

The burden of proof is now on the DT and the defendant.

In Adriano's case, the defense offered these mitigating factors (from appellate record):


-- Stress of husband’s cancer (she killed her terminally ill husband)

-- Strong religious convictions

-- Missionary and community work

-- Model prisoner

-- Family life, good mother to two children

-- Sexual abuse and domestic violence victim


If you're rooting for a DP conviction (I am), then what the jury found, the court upheld, and the appellate court agreed upon will please you:

The Court ruled that even if every single one of those mitigating factors were true and could be demonstrated, ALL of them combined were not enough to "warrant leniency," and not enough to outweigh the cruelty of the murder.

You might also be interested to know that the Court didn't think any of the mitigators, individually, were relevant/significant.

Domestic violence was the only potential mitigator that might have applied, but the Court found that there was only spotty evidence DV had ever occurred, and most important, DV was irrelevant because Andriano wasn't being attacked/had not been attacked at the time she murdered her husband.


---------

Given that this jury seems alert, responsible, and capable of paying attention to detail and following up, I'm hard pressed to see how they don't at least get to the point of finding cruelty and putting the DP squarely on the table.

 

[Alexander family fan]

I saw on twitter someone made the coolest shirt for verdict day

On the front the blue Justice For Travis ribbon
on the back ...one large word....
"Served"



I like the confidence. I too believe justice will be served, and the jury will come back with murder one.

 

[momtective]

I had to search google to figure out what bbm, iirc, ita, and moo meant. :crosseyed:
Websleuths needs a glossary "IMO".

There's a "Websleuths Lingo" thread in the jury room.

 

[Softail]

I saw on twitter someone made the coolest shirt for verdict day

On the front the blue Justice For Travis ribbon
on the back ...one large word....
"Served"



I like the confidence. I too believe justice will be served, and the jury will come back with murder one.

It would be awesome if someone sent one to Ms. Arias. :giggle:

 

[bettybaby00]

Someone posted earlier, I tried going back to quote but WS isn't cooperating

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=39cj...=/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=39cjZz78OkA

Great vid. I was totally creeped out by JA's voicemail to travis after the murder, it was the first time I heard it.

When she says, "you don't need to call me back," I felt a chill run up my spine!!!

That was played in court right??? And did ALV try testiphony (love this new word!) that such behavior is consistent with DV abuse *outraged*

 

[Juli]

You and me both!

Don't even get me started on Drunk Drivers, or any type of distracted drivers!

I hear ya. DUI = Total disregard for the lives of other people!! Texting while driving isn't much better.

 

[bettybaby00]

This confuses me as well. But someone upthread stated it may be the level of the charge for the DUI.

I don't know if 'charged' with a DUI would be diffferent for a juror than 'convicted' of a DUI. Like JA, innocent until proven guilty, so can't be held against him just yet. IDK. Its a head thumper for me why the wait since I would think a breathalyzer would have shown guilt/innocence?

Not sure!
K

Hmm...still confused :lol: to me it shouldn't make difference?? But what do I know

 

[Hope4More]

Imagine you are on the jury, and that you have to convince a fellow juror to find JA guilty of premeditated murder. You only know what the jury knows.

This juror doesn't believe that JA stole her grandparent's gun, doesn't want to believe that JA went there to kill Travis, does believe that Travis was at least very verbally abusive, and thus probably he had hurt JA physically- at least once, even if it didn't happen the way she said it did.

To this juror, it seems plausible that JA simply snapped-- because of her BPD, or for whatever reason, but in response to something Travis did or said. If JA had gone there to kill him, says the juror, she would have killed him sooner and done so without taking any chance at all that he could fight back.

What would you tell this juror?

 

[Alexander family fan]

What's interesting about ALV's testimony that she "assumed" Travis was looking at *advertiser censored* on the computer is the following: we all know, after watching JA on the stand for 18+ days, that she would not have said something fairly non-specific like "Travis was looking at *advertiser censored* of little boys." JA is very descriptive and would have described the incident like she did on the stand -- walking into the bedroom, he's on the bed, has photos, one flutters to the floor. There is no way ALV was left with so little information about this ALLEGED turning point in JA's and Travis' relationship that she had to make assumptions. Also, if she is so technologically ignorant as she claims, it seems to me she would have assumed he was looking at magazines.

Regarding ALV, she lied. It is that simple. She realizes that this is A MAJOR point in this defense, and she was caught, in order to save face she lied and said she was mistaken, yada , yada, yada. She will never work again after that testimony. Either she flat out lied or she has no idea how to do a clinical interview and does not take notes on MAJOR parts of the story. Either way, she is useless as a witness going forward. The jury will discount her testimony, as a whole, ( in this case ). I firmly believe that.

They know her testimony was biased, as was Samuels. It was so blatant. This is why we are hearing from Johnny Come Lately this week to try to clean up the disaster of biblical proportions that the pair of them caused. :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

I think the jury will look away, pick their nails, look at the floor, give heavy sighs and be overtly unimpressed. It is obvious he is the would be clean up man. Meanwhile, everything, every single thing the brilliant Dr. DrMarte explained to them about Jodi matches up with the lying Jodi they have had in front of them and heard about from various witnesses for low these five months. They have had the whole weekend to think about those gruesome autopsy photos. There is nothing JCL I am going to call him, can do or say to undo that! In the words of Detective Flores, "It is over Jodi. This is absolutely over!"

 

[Softail]

Imagine you are on the jury, and that you have to convince a fellow juror to find JA guilty of premeditated murder. You only know what the jury knows.

This juror doesn't believe that JA stole her grandparent's gun, doesn't want to believe that JA went there to kill Travis, does believe that Travis was at least very verbally abusive, and thus probably he had hurt JA physically- at least once, even if it didn't happen the way she said it did.

To this juror, it seems plausible that JA simply snapped-- because of her BPD, or for whatever reason, but in response to something Travis did or said. If JA had gone there to kill him, says the juror, she would have killed him sooner and done so without taking any chance at all that he could fight back.

What would you tell this juror?

:dunno: Get your head out of your :behind:? I'm not even kidding. There is too much evidence to the contrary. Too much to even list right now, but yeah, I'd splain it to that juror for sure.

 

[Jane Jetson]

Opening statements being played on True TV right now

JM: Mr. Alexander did not die calmly. The Medical Examiner will explain the various defensive wounds. That means he was fighting for his life, trying to defend against someone with a knife.

I had never seen these first 15 minutes, they are always missing from the tapes of opening statements I have seen. I think the jury was with Juan Martinez every second of the trial, after this OS. Powerful!!!

Definitely. I got renewed hope after seeing the OS last week or two weeks ago, when they showed them again (I got to the trial after JA hit the stand. I couldn't resist a trial where a defendant in this situation was crazy enough to speak!). JM does a masterful job, imo.

:juanettes::juanettes::juanettes:

 

[megmono]

juans opening statements are on insession right now... for those that missed it

 

[geevee]

-------"Juan stuck with issues/lies that he could definitively prove, and the more important issue was the fact she had pics of herself with her new hair color the day before the murder, proving that she lied on the stand, and showing premeditation."


This is an issue I am not clear on. We already know her hair was dark from the naked pics. So what does the new photos from the day before tell us?

It shows us that her hair was blonde on June 2nd when she rented the Ford Focus in Redding (testimony from the car rental guy) and it was dark brown on June 3rd the afternoon before she left for Mesa.

Just realized something, her hair in the nudie pics looks closer in color to the pic with her sister than the new, dark brown pics of her in the rental car. Hmmm...

 

[Pink Panther]

It shows us that her hair was blonde on June 2nd when she rented the Ford Focus in Redding (testimony from the car rental guy) and it was dark brown on June 3rd the afternoon before she left for Mesa.

Just realized something, her hair in the nudie pics looks closer in color to the pic with her sister than the new, dark brown pics of her in the rental car. Hmmm...

geevee - ITA! I've been thinking the same thing! I've posted about those pics on the "sequence of events" thread and I'm still not convinced that they were taken on June 4th. I think that the PA may not be convinced either but I don't think it will come out in trial as it just "muddies the water"...Maybe we'll find out more once the trial is over???

moo

 

[bznbear]

Really? I thought he was very convincing. More so than the first time. No wishy-washy-ness. But you know, some jurors may agree with you and that's okay. The jurors can pick whichever version they want. Even with Arias' version it amounts to first degree murder. Going to get a knife after shooting Travis and then stabbing him 29 times is first degree murder.

Hey, Rose! I missed his first time on the stand, so I have no comparison.

His testimony didn't change my mind about guilt, whatsoever. I just thought some of his answers were, well, a little wishy-washy. When JM asked him about immediate incapacitation from the gunshot, I felt he left wiggle room - he said "probably" first, then "yes".

I did like the fact when JW started to characterize his answer about the bullet going through the brain as "guessing", he shook his head no, and stated there were 2 holes, it's simple geometry.

Wilmott's cross was abominable, imo. It appeared she was attempting to discredit Dr. H by mischaracterizing his testimony, when she asked about what he said to Det. Flores regarding incapacitation/death, and what he previously testified in court.

It was obvious he made a misstatement, which he quickly corrected.