State rests rebuttal case- thread #166

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
everyone that has been involved in this trial, including all of the TA's friends who have been on the various shows, have been discussed on these threads. Some of the posts I have seen (some deleted) are exactly why I was hesitant to post earlier today. :twocents:

Oh man. I guess that means I'm about to go on another vacation. :eek:fftobed:

I thought I was posting responsibly. Sorry.
 
Yes, she's insufferable, not all-powerful. For the lives she has directly and irrevocably damaged, she's the worst thing that ever happened; but the sensationalism of this case has left reason and proper perspective in its wake. Now, she's THE face of evil, having nudged out, apparently, the serial rapists/spree killers and the world's most infamous, mass torturing and murdering dictators from their top positions. It's as though her badness is never quite bad enough on its own terms, but has to be contiually augmented, fictionalized, even, to satisfy a hunger for it. For all the people who are so spiritually gifted, with their sixth sense for the palpable chill of soullessness, haven't they heard the observation that evil tends to be banal? Why dress it up in a scary costume, when that's not how it presents itself? Seems to be a lot of projecting going on when there's this fear that her badness requires extraordinary, special measures to contain it, prevent it from oozing into every corner of society.

Yes, Jodi is the face of evil. Not THE face, but she is evil. I consider all psychopathic murderers evil, no matter what their atrocities are. I don't put one above the other based on the gravity of their crime or crimes. Anyone that kills in cold blood is an evil that should be kept away from society forever, period. She is the kind of person the DP was made for because she is beyond reform. Just because JA is in the spotlight now doesn't mean this isn't how I feel about all the Jodis and Scott Petersons and Ted Bundys and OJ Simpsons. Jodi is just who we're talking about at the moment.
 
Honestly, guys, we haven't had court since last Thursday.

Two nights in a row, one of the Hugheses has been on HLN in an "exclusive".

I think it 's entirely on topic to discuss them while we have no trial to rehash.

MOO, but no need for a separate thread for the Hugheses.

This would be one dead thread if we couldn't discuss what was on TV while we are on trial break.

Discussing the Hugheses?? :silenced:
 
Jodi_Arias_20130425105411_320_240.JPG

Jodi Arias trial update: Defense, prosecutor want more witnesses

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/regio...update-defense-prosecutor-want-more-witnesses

Arghhhh!

That needs a warning!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I disagree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the Hugheses. Respectfully.

Maybe I am missing something. I watched both the Hughes do the interview on Dr. Drew. I found them to be interesting. I did not get any heebie jeebies from them at all. I vaguely remember them on the 48 hours video too.
What is it that bothers some of us so much?
 
I will refrain from saying what I REALLY want to say lest I get my first TO, but I would like to say that it is not just you :floorlaugh:
The only thing I would disagee with would be the word "wee"
 
Didn't JA's Father miss her singing the National Anthem too??? I remember ALV saying something to the effect. Wow

:jester: Her parents never supported her tracing art work from magazines either back then.
 
One of the surrebuttal witness Juan tried to bring in was a fraud investigator. Perhaps he could have brought this in.

What was her name again? I'm asking because I've seen the lists and I don't think she was named as a surrebuttal witness, but just a regular witness a long time ago. My feeling was that her current job had nothing to do with her potential testimony. But I've seen a lot of speculation about that, so maybe others know for a fact that fraud was to be her topic?
 
Oh Brother,
I'm new. If I remember correctly, Skye said that she knew that Travis "had issues"...when Nurmi told her about the pedofile letters. I think she was ready to believe it. I think she was a busybody interferring in Travis' life. Chris Huges redeemed himself by saying that Nurmi was a "snake" and had duped them. Poor Travis. He was young and naive and I feel sorry for him. I think he had "fair-weather friends." He just wanted someone to help him get through life.

Your entitled to your opinion but I disagree with the "fair-weather" friends.
 
Oh Brother,
I'm new. If I remember correctly, Skye said that she knew that Travis "had issues"...when Nurmi told her about the pedofile letters. I think she was ready to believe it. I think she was a busybody interferring in Travis' life. Chris Huges redeemed himself by saying that Nurmi was a "snake" and had duped them. Poor Travis. He was young and naive I feel sorry for him. I think he had "fair-weather friends." He just wanted someone to help him get through life.

WELCOME!


BBM

Truer words never spoken. :seeya:
 
Oh man. I guess that means I'm about to go on another vacation. :eek:fftobed:

I thought I was posting responsibly. Sorry.

no no noooooo LOL I didn't mean you!!!! sorry if you misunderstood. I think you have been very respectful in your postings.

Just seen a few things that were subsequently removed that hit a nerve, that is all.
 
I know this was not addressed to me, but it got me to thinking about Sky's reaction to Nurmi's "revelation."

I wonder if Sky wasn't a friend by association originally? You know, Chris was his friend and then he married Sky, kind of thing? That would explain Chris' stronger loyalty to Travis.

It doesn't change the email and gossip. And it does not make her any less a friend to Travis later on.

Maybe Sky is emotional and reactionary in nature. Maybe she just needed someone to reach out to after the ever-over-sexualized Nurmi planted those ideas and images in her head.

I'm not judging or accusing Sky. Just a thought.

Could be. I am not judging either. I have more questions than answers. Will likely never know the real truth.
 
A thought occurred to me... Jodi told Travis she was pregnant and wanted her to have an abortion.

He would pay her to have the abortion and extra $$$ to shut up about it, but he found out she was lying?

Maybe JA was pregnant and had an abortion?
 
Does anyone have a link to the full message from Travis on May 26th?
I am only finding pieces of it.

I wanted to dig into it a little further,
That comment about hurting him worse than his father's death.

My dad is still alive, but my mom died on May 6th 2000, 8 days before
Mother's day. In fact her last Mother's Day present was the dress
I buried her in. I was 32.
6 weeks later My Grandmother (her mother) died
just 2 days before my 33rd birthday.

Most days it still feels like it was yesterday.

*** :shush: y'all please don't say you are sorry,
I can't read that stuff this week!
I will melt into a sniveling mess!
:tears::tears:
I miss my Grandma, but NOTHING like I miss my mom.

Of course Travis and his dad are males, so a little
different relationship there I am sure, Travis' dad died on his 20th birthday
in a motorcycle crash? Correct?

I am just trying to think of what any person could do or say or accuse me
of that would be bad enough to say that they hurt me worse
than the death of my parent.

:twocents: The WORST thing I can think of....
DID happen hurt me deeply
but still does not compare to losing my mom and it is not
something I would feel like I needed to tell everyone
(including that person's mother)

Travis was not known to freak out. BMW, ATV accident, tires slashed...
 
:floorlaugh: Looks that way!

I'm trying to find out who's testifying tomorrow, my day has been just chaotic so have only picked up bits and pieces. Everyone's busy talking about something else. Oh well. :)


As of right now the only witness is R.G. However, Martinez filed a motion sur-surbuttal(??) today to allow him to present a neuropschy... expert to rebut RG's opinion. There was a closed hearing today and as usual "closed" to everyone. Although, KCL commented that the Alexanders were smiling afterwards. So, we're :please: that Martinez was granted his motion.
 
One of the surrebuttal witness Juan tried to bring in was a fraud investigator. Perhaps he could have brought this in.

Is that when it was, for the surrebuttal? I'd heard he wanted to bring in that type of witness but wasn't sure. I'm so confused. The surrebuttal is from the defense, right? And then the witness can only testify about issues brought up during rebuttal, I thought. AARRGGHHH! This is way beyond me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
87
Guests online
1,832
Total visitors
1,919

Forum statistics

Threads
599,007
Messages
18,089,300
Members
230,774
Latest member
AngelikaBor
Back
Top