State rests rebuttal case- thread #164

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
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

Yes, but wouldn't pics taken out in the daylight be lighter than those taken in a darkened room? In the pics of her in the bedroom her hair is lighter than the pics of her hair in the car outside, with natural lighting.
 
Day 24 and 25 are really important days of her cross. Interesting watching them now after the rest of the defense case and rebuttal are over
 
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.

there is no "try", it was derailed the second JA took the stand. No matter, it won't hurt the state. DT has had so many trainwreck moments its not even funny

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
 
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 simply point to all the evidence that shows premeditation. The lies about where she was going on this roadtrip, the license plates, gas cans, renting a car 90 miles from home, died hair, turning off cell phone, not parking in driveway etc., etc. None of which works with her simply deciding to visit at the last moment, and 'snapping'. I'd also remind them that a quick kill might have been wiser if that had been her only goal, but it wasn't. She wanted him to know that she was the person taking his life, and planned it so he would suffer. And last, I would ask them why she didn't just tell this 'abused/snap' story to begin with if she truly felt she was a victim. She thought she was a genius and could pull off the perfect crime, plain and simple. She wasn't and didn't.
 
After the substance of JM's opening statement, Jennifer's opening statement of Travis wasn't a virgin and he wasn't a gentleman to Jodi sure seems downright silly. Nobody in Travis' life cared if he was a virgin and I trust no one on the jury could care less about his private sex life either. Having listened to all of the testimony and now seeing her OS, it leaves one wondering....that is it? That is all you have got? You brought to the jury, basically he was jerk so he had it coming? I think the jury is going to throw the book at her.
 
:seeya: Good Morning !

I haven't been here the past several days due to "real life" ...

So has there been any "NEWS" ? Anything that is "newsworthy" ?

TIA !

I cannot wait for Closing Arguments ...

:please: Justice for Travis and his Family !
 
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'd ask them if they wanted to take moral responsibility for JA's next 'snap' and I'd ask them if they'd always had the ability to enter the mind of a psychopath and think like them. That juror would be insulted and horrified denying no. I'd ask them to then stop projecting how they would kill someone onto this case. JA had an agenda that involved mental and physical torture before murder and she pre-meditated it.
 
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 tell this juror that we need to call an ambulance because they apparently have been in a coma for the last 4 months. :floorlaugh:
 
Does anyone remember when JA said she took the gas can back to Walmart? I remember she testified that she bought it, did something else, then took it back (returned it) but I cannot find that particular youtube???
 
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.
I suspect there were strict parameters given to DT when this motion was granted and that both JM and JS will be listening closely to the DT and witness. I also wonder if there was a bit of 'splitting the baby' going on with this motion - she allowed limited testimony in surrebutal, in exchange for JM being allowed to present the closet shelf testimony?
 
there is no "try", it was derailed the second JA took the stand. No matter, it won't hurt the state. DT has had so many trainwreck moments its not even funny

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2


That is really a good point. Their whole defense has pretty much been a disaster already. Just a little more of the same I suppose. :floorlaugh:

I guess I just want this over with and this really scares me that they have another chance to cause chaos or worse.
 
Originally Posted by kaRN
I'd like to tell him what I think about drunk drivers.

You and me both!

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

I am very surprised and appalled at the many people willing to give this man a "pass" on his EXTREME drunk driving arrest, and to even make jokes about being driven to drink due to being a juror on the Arias case! It saddens me actually.

This man got behind the wheel of his car and chose to drive on public streets with his senses impaired! Thank you GOD that he did not hit or kill anyone or himself.

I don't even care what he has to say about being a juror at this point.
All I would care to hear is his deep remorse for the decision to drive EXTREMELY DRUNK.

https://www.facebook.com/Justice4Travis/posts/4694556964527

Garry Scarff - He was arrested for "Extreme DUI".. blood alcohol level above .150. Lucky the officer nabbed him before he killed someone else on the road.
http://www.arizonaduicenter.com/practice-areas/extreme-dui/
 
Theres a new memorial video for Travis on the court observers #9 thread.
 
:newhere:

I'm also watching In Session right now and this is the first time I've seen Juan giving his OS. If anyone can prove the truth it's Mr Martinez.

Jennifer Wilmont on the other hand, drives me bonkers. I can't decide if she honestly believes JA's lies or if she's just trying to do her job to the best of her ability. Either way, it baffles me. How does she sleep at night? How can she and the rest of the DT trash Travis the way they do while his beautiful family sits there hearing all these lies?

I've been unlucky enough to have known a girl who's behavior makes JA look like a novice; she's destroyed marriages, made up stories about her "tragic" past growing up in Utah in a Morman family and most importantly, she was a stalker who would completely change herself depending on who she was around. At one point she tried to become me, taking stories I'd told her about my teenage years and adopting them as her own, dressing exactly like me, and making a point to go after every guy I'd been involved with before I got married. She even tried to sleep with my husband and she couldn't stand the fact that he wanted nothing to do with her.
After she had burned every bridge she tried to cross she had no other choice but to go back to Utah, it took a few years of her sending me letter after letter,(all of which I threw away without opening them)before she finally got the hint. If anyone had BPD it was this girl from Utah, who went so far as to change her name depending on who she was with.

My point is that when I see JA, when I hear her open her mouth and spill lie after lie about a wonderful man like Travis Alexander, I see right through her and I Pray hard that the Jury will see right through her and do the right thing. I've always been unsure of how I feel about the DP but in this case, I believe the DP is the least of what JA deserves.
 
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.

Remain calm friend. The judge limited this testimony of the next witness by putting a clock on it. He is not going to begin with.... It all started when she was a baby......

I believe he is going to be permitted to narrowly rebut Dr. DeMarte's testing or her interpretation of the testing. He may opine or interpret the test results himself, based on his experience, etc. That seems to be what he specializes in, coming into court and kibitzing other experts work. Since five years have gone by since the murder, any interview he did with Jodi would be moot at this point, after all of her self help books, and testimony she sat through about how the tests work, etc. The judge likely is only allowing this out of an abundance of caution, for the appeal to not be granted. There is nothing, absolutely nothing Dr. DeMarte testified to that was not in her report that the defense has had for over a year. Therefore, the judge KNOWS they did not suffer any gotcha moment. The fact that she put on clock on the witness tells me she is not happy to even allow it. I do think she will hold the defense to the narrow areas she ruled on in the sealed hearings on this matter.

It will not take long for JM to discredit him. JM will have had a chance to depose him, and we all know how that goes.

Even a cursory Google search pops up the various times he has been thoroughly discredited, even sanctioned by the court in previous trials. JM has access to transcripts of every trial the man has ever testified in, his license history, any complaints filed against him, the very public information that he has given lectures with ALV for YEARS, wrote a forward to her book, advised on a documentary with her , in which the credits refer to ALV , falsely, as a psychologist, etc.
He has lawyers and other psychologists sending him things about the witness that he may use to discredit him. I bet his in box in full. :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Juan Martinez will mop the floor with Johnny Come Lately
 
That is really a good point. Their whole defense has pretty much been a disaster already. Just a little more of the same I suppose. :floorlaugh:

I guess I just want this over with and this really scares me that they have another chance to cause chaos or worse.

I cant imagine listening to the DT clising all day. I think I will skip it. I will listen to JM.
 
Does anyone remember when JA said she took the gas can back to Walmart? I remember she testified that she bought it, did something else, then took it back (returned it) but I cannot find that particular youtube???
IIRC, she said she went to Starbucks and then went back to Walmart to return it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
204
Guests online
2,850
Total visitors
3,054

Forum statistics

Threads
603,926
Messages
18,165,435
Members
231,891
Latest member
clarainwonderland_
Back
Top