State rests rebuttal case- thread #164

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
How would they choose another jury? The jury pool would have heard most everything about this case.

It wouldn't be for trial, but penalty and they can only go by what has been presented in trial or Juan's summation, I believe.
 
Just wanted to say hi all, i've been lurking for about a month :fence:

Three things that have weighed heavy on me:

1. If I were a juror on this case, I would be highly offended by the 'grasping at straws' going ons by the DT. They might as well just tell the jury they think they're dense.

2. The diagnosis of PTSD is a disgrace to anyone who has truly ever been through a trauma & was unfortunate enough to suffer PTSD. I was diagnosed with PTSD after a brain injury (TBI) and I feel like they are making a mockery of the diagnosis :moo:

3. I converted to the LDS church 2 years ago. I obviously knew what sexual acts were against the word of God from my previous religion & the LDS missionaries. Also, I am now a Ward missionary (I assist the full time missionaries with their duties) and we have a book we are required to go by when teaching. So the explanation that whomever in that church in Mesa didn't explain that to her, is a crock. Every LDS church is the same, every where.

That is all. So nice to finally come out of hiding! :seeya:

Welcome :welcome: :seeya:

Sent from my 'alternate reality' 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'd lay out pix of Travis's crime scene and autopsy - the gunshot, the slashed throat. Then I'd point out every single wound he suffered, and ask this juror to point out the defendant's wounds.

I'd go step by step through every action she took prior to her Mesa trip to hide the fact she was in AZ. I'd show her new hair color from the phone she "lost", and what steps she took to "hide" her appearance.

I'd lay out her booking photo, and then play snippets from her 48 Hrs interview.

I'd point out EVERY one of her lies in court, and remind this juror she swore she was telling the truth NOW.

Finally, I'd show Travis, lying bloody, butchered and exposed for the world to see and use the defendant's own quote - "no jury will ever convict me"!
 
If not deserving of the death penalty, I don't know what is. :help:

Well...since you asked... Here are the types of circumstances that would be (even more) deserving of the DP:

- Multiple victims (i.e. > 1) murdered
- Victims include children under 14
- Combo of felonies (like kidnapping and murder as one example)
- Prior felonies and convictions
- Crossing state lines (multiple jurisdictions)
- Use of WOMD (weapons of mass destruction)

To name just a few.
 
Sorry. Here's the exact quote from JA, on tape 15.


05:48

JA: Okay. I’m just… If I had planned to hurt him in any way, I, you know, I am not the brightest person, but I… I don’t think I could stab him. I think I would have to shoot him continuously until he was dead, if that were my intention. Again, and I would bring up the gloves again, but I would have to wear gloves. I mean I am not too worried about prints, because they are all over anyway, but I would never stab him.

If, if, if I had it anywhere in me to kill him, the least I could have done was to make it as humane as possible, or quick, or something, you know, if any killing is humane, so to speak. I don’t mean it that way…I would just...like, he was still alive...
 
Personally, I would have no problem if she were sentenced to LWOP. It's cheaper for the state, and living in an 8x10 box for the rest of her life would be justice for me.

I wouldn't have had as big of a problem with it if she didn't start selling her art for hundreds of dollars on Ebay and tweeting! :banghead:
 
I don't know, given all the aggravation and cruelty, how they could NOT go for the death penalty! :twocents::moo:

I sure hope so. Cause she is someone I believe would most DEFINITELY kill again, if put in the right circumstances. She's a danger to anyone who crosses her path. IMO
 
Sorry. Here's the exact quote from JA, on tape 15.


05:48

JA: Okay. I’m just… If I had planned to hurt him in any way, I, you know, I am not the brightest person, but I… I don’t think I could stab him. I think I would have to shoot him continuously until he was dead, if that were my intention. Again, and I would bring up the gloves again, but I would have to wear gloves. I mean I am not too worried about prints, because they are all over anyway, but I would never stab him.

If, if, if I had it anywhere in me to kill him, the least I could have done was to make it as humane as possible, or quick, or something, you know, if any killing is humane, so to speak. I don’t mean it that way…I would just...like, he was still alive...

The reason she wasn't too worried about her handprint in the blood or her hair. She figured she could explain that away by saying "I was there all the time blah blah".
 
I had a couple of minor problems with DeMarte, too. I think her refusing to respond to the "good morning" or "good afternoon" made it seem like she had a chip on her shoulder toward the defense. Yes, her testimony was not favorable toward the DT, and DrD obviously didn't have fond feelings towards them. However, I think she took things too personally, and made it seem she had a grudge against JA and the DT in general. When in reality, she was just testifying to facts she had garnered from her tests and interview.

Secondly, I really hated to see her come back the second go around changing her position on being an "expert" on DV. She has many credentials, and was more than qualified to give her opinion on DV without changing her attitude about being an "expert". I thought that made her seem less credible.

She was a wonderful witness, and had professional and knowledgeable answers to willmott's questions. I just thought her attitude left a little to be desired, and I hope the jurors will judge on facts alone.

I was immediately turned off when Alyce, during re-direct, changed her testimony 180 degrees from her cross with Juan, and I saw a fleeting glimpse of that with Dr D.

And, I too, wish she had explained the tiger question more fully. *I* know what she meant, but I don't want to leave anything questionable in the juror's minds.

I don't think the DT's new witness will make any lasting impression in their case, and I'm just anxious to get to closing statements. I remember in the CA trial, the JP had time limits on the closing statements. I wonder how JS figured out how much time they each get, considering Juan gets two shots. I hope she sticks to her guns, because I can see nurmi going on, and on and on................, and I don't want Juan to be cheated out of any of his time at last to bat.

I can't help but believe most of the jurors have a good idea of their decision already, and are just waiting to hear the closing arguments to bolster an opinion they have already reached.

I pray for justice for Travis, and for changes in our system that will make the victim have at least as many rights as the defendant - in this case, a cold-blooded, premeditated murderer.

RIP Travis.

We don't really know whether or not DD acknowledged "good morning" because the camera was not on her. She could have nodded her head as many people do.

As far as changing her position on DV. She didn't. All DD did was clarify that she has the psychological background to judge whether or not Jodi was suffering from DV or had some other disorders that would explain her behavior. ALV is not qualified to do that. ALV only sees clients for therapy. She is already aware they have been victims of DV. It's what she does. While DD was able to test Jodi with a number of tests to show DV is not likely because there is an indication of BPD. Dr. Samuels was clearly biased.

I believe JW was a little too rude to DD. I'm sure the jury was aware that JW was trying to be more like JM but there is a noticeable difference between the way JW treated the defense witnesses and the way she asked DD questions. I think DD kept her composure pretty well when JW asked her about those 6 signs of DV which LW uses. DD stuck to her guns and said she was wrong. Jury won't know that because they would not have watched NG that night who had LW on to back up DD's statement.

JM treats all the witnesses the same, including Flores. JW trying to act like JM with a rebuttal witness makes JW look desperate. As far as closing statements. I don't think JM will take that long. Maybe a couple of hours. Defense never proved Travis ever did anything wrong, no proof he knew she was coming, no proof he had the gun, no proof he ever agreed to the photographs in the shower.

As far as the "tiger" question. DD could only give the answer she did because as a professional she knows, a lie is a lie and it would not be an accurate test if it is based on a lie. I think we can all get that. I think the juror asking the question was thinking can we trust Samuels testing because he testified at the end that because Jodi's story changed maybe he should have retested her. Samuels made a determination based on lies and failed to catch himself. Another error among many.
 
That's the "without parole" part. ;) In fact, death sentences in Texas have decreased since the legislature allowed LWOP. Jodi will find prison a far different place from the county jail too.

I originally hoped that JA would be transferred quickly to prison from the Estrella jail once convicted. Since then, I heard an interview with Sheriff Joe. Apparently, in the time between conviction and the transfer to the prison, JA would be placed on the chain gang. That would suit me fine. Make that transfer take a while....the thought of her on a chain gang, working, suits me just fine.
 
Hi Guy's,

While we wait I have been looking at other forums and have 2 questions:

Where was the card for the camera found? In the camera or separate at the bottom of the washer?

Why are there time stamps on some of the pictures and not others?

Oh and the Tootsie Pop picture when was that taken?

If someone would be so kind as to clear that up for me, TIA

RUK
 
Watching the opening statements again. If Jodi didn't want to have phone sex, why didn't she hang up? If she didn't like giving a *advertiser censored* in the Starbuck's parking lot, why not get out of the car?

Very basic questions. I'm sure the jury will deliberate the same.

where can I find the opening statements by JM I missed them..came in late to trial ty::clap:
 
It's that LIVING part that I have problem with....

Yabbut with a lengthy appeals process for death row inmates, she'd be living 20 to 25 years anyway. I don't know what the specific stats are in AZ for average time from DP to execution, but even in places like Texas, it's a protracted process. And the state has to pay for her lawyers (still, again!).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
126
Guests online
2,109
Total visitors
2,235

Forum statistics

Threads
601,313
Messages
18,122,527
Members
231,001
Latest member
SBMonsterFighter
Back
Top