State rests rebuttal case- thread #164

[josie1986]

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?

shut up? :floorlaugh:

i dunno,id just explain how i saw the evidence and that it clearly paints premeditated and that travis was never abusive

 

[megmono]

how many fever blisters has she gotten during the trial? two for sure that i remember. im not judging. i get them myself. but that should be an obvious sign to the jury. that tells the truth to me. shes way more stressed than she wants you to know while shes vontrapping and being bff with jw. the stress was showing on her face last thursday. wednesday should be telling.

 

[Pink Panther]

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.

He corrected her immediately and it was obvious that she was trying to be sneaky. ITA - Her cross was really, really bad.

moo

 

[josie1986]

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...

difference is lighting changes that way it will look.

1 taken outside daylight
1 taken in a dim bedroom

my hair was purple,some photos it looked a deep purple some it looked a lot lighter,same when my hair was red,some photos looked like a deep red and others looked like the colour it should have been,a little darker than pillarbox red

 

[megmono]

"i wouldnt use obsession. it was a two way street"

rigggght. because travis slept under your tree. drove 1000's of miles at random to check in on you on a whim. he slashed your tires. he crawled thro the doggy door. he hacked all of your personal accounts.

yall im gonna lose my mind.

 

[bznbear]

I'm a Yankee.The first time I was at a Waffle House in the South and ordered tea, the manager of the restaurant had to explain to the server what I was asking for (hot tea) and how to make it!

LOL, I've been drinking hot tea since I lived in Britain, so I know what you mean. And, my DH can't have sugar, so it's a battle trying to get unsweetened tea where we are!

 

[Jane Jetson]

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.

Wasn't there a guy, can't remember his name right now, that had an iron rod go straight through his brain, and he lived for years? It did change his personality, apparently - he got kind of surly after that - but he did continue to walk, talk, and live a somewhat normal life, iirc.

 

[megmono]

its really interesting to rewatch the opening statements. juan makes it all about the murder, never gets away from it. jw is talking about making money and jobs and all over the map. get back to the murder people. i dont care that she got promoted to event planner. all over the map

 

[bettybaby00]

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?

I would have to restrain myself for giving a head-smack as a starting off point :lol:

The crime / the intent of the murder was completely premeditated.

1) receives email/text from travis a week before giving motive IMO for murder
2)goes 60+ miles out of her way to rent a car, and insists on a more nondescript color for a trip to Nevada.
3) "coincidental" break-in at grandparents where a 25 caliber gun is stolen..same caliber that travis is shot with
4)to borrow gas cans from DB, and mentions needing to go to Mesa.
5) purchases additional gas can in order to be able to "refill on the road"
6) testifies to the idiotic concept of wanting to be able to re-gas outside of Cali bc prices are cheaper...yet she proceeds to fill her car and the gas cans while in Cali.
7) "proves her whereabouts by traveling to Utah by way of southern Cali....leaving a massive paper trail. "I was never in AZ and I have the receipts to prove it."
8) dyes her hair day before the murder. In her own words she states no one would have recognized her at travis's bc they know her as a blonde.
9) cell phone mysteriously has no signal, and she can't charge it because she "lost her charger," which miraculously reappears after entering NV
10) claims of DV and pediphilia can not be corroborated in any way shape or form. Duped expert witnesses don't count!!!!

I only became invested in this case while she was on the stand. Prior to that I was only peripherally aware of it. My first thoughts centered on the idea of coincidence. Yes they happen...but countless coincidences relating to one specific event = a pattern. Funny how ALV refused to look at that pattern, or the totality of events, which is according to her what proved travis was an abuser and a pedaphille.

I'm sure I'm leaving some things out. But another point I would hammer home...

11) she lies
12) she lies
13) she lies
14) she lies
15) she lies

I think you get the idea

 

[Lark2]

Here is jodi's work : http://www./?page_id=123

Here is the link : http://www.free-picture.net/love-wallpapers/heart-hand-heart-hand-love.jpg.html

She copied it.

Someone needs to let the owner know about this (the REAL owner, lol). The copyright language is clear and she is in violation. She not only copied it but she then reproduced it into prints and is selling 100 of them for $250 a pop.

 

[atm9533]

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

Yes there is, I just recently found it and it was very helpful.

 

[bettybaby00]

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.

SMFH for her.

 

[rose222]

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.

Oh! That geometry bit was my favourite part. Funny how we get different vibes from the same witness. I was a little disappointed with Demarte's tiger/bear question myself.

Oh well. Hopefully these jurors will all agree that it was premeditated murder.

 

[geevee]

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

I agree, probably nothing to really gain by him trying to prove they weren't taken then but I hope at some point we know the actual facts about those nudies, I really don't think they were taken that day and now with the Focus pics we can at least compare them. I need to get copies of those new (not nude) pics. lol

 

[Ramblinrose01]

Do we have court today?

 

[Hatfield]

JMO
This sur-rebuttal is concerning me for a few reasons.

First it probably should not have even been granted.

Secondly, I think the DT is going to try to use this witness to try to derail this trial. The DT has to know by now the trial is not going well based on jury questions. I think they are going to try to fillebuster and drag this witness on for days and days like they did with Jodi and ALV. I just dont see how this time limit is going to be enforced. The DT can just keep on asking question after question. I just have a bad feeling about this and I hope I am wrong.

Thirdly, The jury has to be confused about this. They know the DT already had their chance with witnesses. So they will be wondering what this is all about and how this happened. I hope the judge explains why the DT gets to bring on another witness after they already had their chance the first time. If she does not explain it well to the jury, they may think something is up with the PA case for it to be allowed.

I hope I am wrong and hope it goes quick and hope it does not hurt the states case.

 

[kaRN]

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:

I've been watching Day 25 cross JM vs. JA. She's such a bad actress, I highly recommend you watch. It's actually melting my stress away!! :seeya:

 

[LMcAthGa]

Do we have court today?

No, starts back up Wednesday.

 

[megmono]

Do we have court today?

no court till wednesday

 

[Alexander family fan]

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.

The pictures speak for themselves. I loved when Mr. Martinez had Jodi on the ropes on the stand and he mentioned all the stabs in the back and the back of Travis' head, "Obviously....he was no threat to you in then".
Jennifer or Nurmi is going to try to make a lot of hay with the fact that
according to them,
first he told Detective Flores one thing
then he testified to something different
and then testified to a variation of even that.

Funny, the irony is rich as this is what her witnesses did, and then some, both Samuels and ALV.

One cannot have it both ways. The Medical Examiner has done over eight thousand autopsies. I think they will trust him. Also, they do get to use their common sense.