The state Rests in The State v. Jodi Arias: break in trial until 28 January 2013 #11

[polleypockets]

watch this... jodis mom is expressing concern and well if you cannot read lips you will still be able to get what she said

56mins14..watch the mom on top right..watch her reaction at 56 mins and 34 secs(shaking head) 56mins 40 secs (shaking head and saying no..i know) hum...if that was not true...wheres the proof
http://youtu.be/XY5lvxGFgpU

i understand what you are saying - after following NP"s case - you have a complete media ban, we have complete media access - we base our system on the fact that the jury will take their job very seriously and follow the rules, faith in the ppl on the jury - some times that doesn't work - but it does most of the time - imo - with a complete media ban, ppl worry there can be prosecutal misconduct (like old time chicago) , so i guess we have to trust the ppl on the jury in order to make sure our officials have accountability

ETA: I am answering your other post about our media - sorry

 

[Linda7NJ]

I find it really insulting she was sitting there with a smirk on her face the entire time. Occasionally laughing because she though what he was saying was ridiculous. No matter if you think your daughter is innocent, this man's murder is no laughing matter and your attitude is rude. With all the evidence the court has laid out and the multiple lies from JA I am surprised that she is still so convinced of her daughter's innocence.

That's just what moms do. Denial truly is a remarkable subconscious coping mechanism


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bobloblaw]

i understand what you are saying - after following NP"s case - you have a complete media ban, we have complete media access - we base our system on the fact that the jury will take their job very seriously and follow the rules, faith in the ppl on the jury - some times that doesn't work - but it does most of the time - imo - with a complete media ban, ppl worry there can be prosecutal misconduct (like old time chicago) , so i guess we have to trust the ppl on the jury in order to make sure our officials have accountability

ETA: I am answering your other post about our media - sorry

If you are referring to Canada, we don't have a media ban in our courts, just no live tv broadcast.

 

[dgfred]

face - 5:29:20
stittine slumped 5:30:30 - you can see it on the youtube recording of the trial

Thank you so much :seeya: ... I have been wondering this for 3 days. :waitasec:

So the entire thing took place in about 2-3...maybe at most 4 or 5 minutes. Dang.

I have been wondering about her 'get her clothes out of the closet statement'

She ask- So Travis, have you changed your mind about me going on the trip and our overall relationship? You say NO... get all my stuff out of the closet and GO AWAY! Well...

Or she just flat out was going to kill him in his sleep... but the dang man wouldn't go to sleep (FOR SOME REASON-like he would!!!). So she had to distract him with pics as she killed him. Didn't work out just right. Almost.

Probably wished she would have studied the camera more with her interest in photography... like the deleting pics not being deleted all the way and waterproof parts especially.

 

[polleypockets]

If you are referring to Canada, we don't have a media ban in our courts, just no live tv broadcast.

but doesn't that extend to all the evidence leading up to the trial too? - or if it is a 2 part court - 2 ppl being tried in different courts - don't they also ban the first court hearing?

 

[popoju]

i understand what you are saying - after following NP"s case - you have a complete media ban, we have complete media access - we base our system on the fact that the jury will take their job very seriously and follow the rules, faith in the ppl on the jury - some times that doesn't work - but it does most of the time - imo - with a complete media ban, ppl worry there can be prosecutal misconduct (like old time chicago) , so i guess we have to trust the ppl on the jury in order to make sure our officials have accountability

ETA: I am answering your other post about our media - sorry

heheh i know sorry
but.....im in canada in a francophone place..and i see this trial all the time....i dont believe that the jury didnt see anything about this

 

[TaRazza]

I still don't believe some of it.

Did he really allow her into his home?

What sexual encounter? The pics don't show them together at all. She could have taken pics of her nude self, and pics of Travis unaware in his bedroom. All I know is those pics don't show a sexual encounter.

Then, there's shower pics she claims he wanted her to take, where he looks unaware she's there.

For all I know, she could have held a gun to him the entire time and made him get in that shower.

Good points, Curious Me! I agree that the photos on that horrible last day, the ones we've seen so far don't show sex, just anatomy, and only single subjects, never as a couple. I find that weird, esp. since the camera obviously had a timer. Could there yet be photos from that day that we haven't been shown? Not that I'd want to see anymore of the nude pix (shields eyes), but I think the single subject photos are telling us something here.

I still maintain until there's more evidence that he probably didn't know she was taking his picture in the shower. Not fact, but JMHO; he doesn't really look like he's posing to me. Now if there were bi-flexing and smiles or winking at the camera, yes, by all means. But I'm just not seeing that here.

Your theory about her being in his home the whole time without his knowledge lends an especially chilling piece to this horrible crime. It would mean, if I'm not mistaken, that she would have to stay hidden for around 12 hours. Sneaking around him all the while he is unaware of her presence. YIKES! Not only is that bold, it is bat house crazy. As I recall in one of the later interviews, (the updated version of 48 Hours, I think) she said he didn't pay attention to her when she arrived because he was watching something funny on YouTube.

Could that be another of her very veiled 'truths'? Maybe what she really meant was he was watching YouTube on his computer when she SNUCK into his home and he didn't notice her there?

 

[spcagrl]

Please help me. I have the understanding that she rented the car as a blonde, returned it as a brunette. That's what I heard the car rental guy testify to, and he picked her out of a lineup as a brunette. Now I am reading that she died her hair twice, from blonde to brunette then back to blonde.

Same thing with the kerosene cans. I thought she bought kerosene cans.....not kerosene. But I have seen a post picturing bottles of kerosene, representing what she bought. I am completely confused now.

 

[popoju]

If you are referring to Canada, we don't have a media ban in our courts, just no live tv broadcast.

Did we ever? im wondering

 

[Bravo]

but doesn't that extend to all the evidence leading up to the trial too? - or if it is a 2 part court - 2 ppl being tried in different courts - don't they also ban the first court hearing?

Correct

 

[dgfred]

IMO she dyed her hair as part of a disguise and premeditation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you think all disguise... or trying to look like Mimi? With the white car and dark hair?

Say a roommate/witness sees a dark haired girl from a white car going into Travis' house... would they think it was Mimi?

Or if she parked on the street... and nobody really saw her. Nobody would guess she was there.

 

[polleypockets]

Please help me. I have the understanding that she rented the car as a blonde, returned it as a brunette. That's what I heard the car rental guy testify to, and he picked her out of a lineup as a brunette. Now I am reading that she died her hair twice, from blonde to brunette then back to blonde.

Same thing with the kerosene cans. I thought she bought kerosene cans.....not kerosene. But I have seen a thread picturing bottles of kerosene, representing what she bought. I am completely confused now.

no you are right she rented as a blonde and returned it as a brunette - thats what the budget guy said - and i think thats one of the reasons he remembered her so well - and that he was flirting w/ her

 

[Linda7NJ]

Do you think all disguise... or trying to look like Mimi? With the white car and dark hair?

Say a roommate/witness sees a dark haired girl from a white car going into Travis' house... would they think it was Mimi?

Or if she parked on the street... and nobody really saw her. Nobody would guess she was there.

I think it was to travel incognito


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dgfred]

Good points, Curious Me! I agree that the photos on that horrible last day, the ones we've seen so far don't show sex, just anatomy, and only single subjects, never as a couple. I find that weird, esp. since the camera obviously had a timer. Could there yet be photos from that day that we haven't been shown? Not that I'd want to see anymore of the nude pix (shields eyes), but I think the single subject photos are telling us something here.

I still maintain until there's more evidence that he probably didn't know she was taking his picture in the shower. Not fact, but JMHO; he doesn't really look like he's posing to me. Now if there were bi-flexing and smiles or winking at the camera, yes, by all means. But I'm just not seeing that here.

Your theory about her being in his home the whole time without his knowledge lends an especially chilling piece to this horrible crime. It would mean, if I'm not mistaken, that she would have to stay hidden for around 12 hours. Sneaking around him all the while he is unaware of her presence. YIKES! Not only is that bold, it is bat house crazy. As I recall in one of the later interviews, (the updated version of 48 Hours, I think) she said he didn't pay attention to her when she arrived because he was watching something funny on YouTube.

Could that be another of her very veiled 'truths'? Maybe what she really meant was he was watching YouTube on his computer when she SNUCK into his home and he didn't notice her there?

I don't know if, and think most likely we haven't ... seen ALL the pics. But then again... we have seen some terrible ones. :waitasec:

The investigator says in the interview... 'It is obvious you are having sex'.

But he might have just been fishing for answers and trying to get her to talk more.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Please help me. I have the understanding that she rented the car as a blonde, returned it as a brunette. That's what I heard the car rental guy testify to, and he picked her out of a lineup as a brunette. Now I am reading that she died her hair twice, from blonde to brunette then back to blonde.

Same thing with the kerosene cans. I thought she bought kerosene cans.....not kerosene. But I have seen a post picturing bottles of kerosene, representing what she bought. I am completely confused now.

You and I share the same opinion on the hair.

The gas containers, I honestly don't recall hearing it during testimony and I was unable to read the receipts. No help from me on that one:/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dgfred]

no you are right she rented as a blonde and returned it as a brunette - thats what the budget guy said - and i think thats one of the reasons he remembered her so well - and that he was flirting w/ her

Flirting with her?!?!

Lucky he caught her in a decent mood. :innocent:

 

[ladonna]

106 Seconds of Terror

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2...oyfriend-according-to-crime-scene-recreation/

 

[Linda7NJ]

Flirting with her?!?!

Lucky he caught her in a decent mood. :innocent:

Lol true!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Isabelle]

I am still floored at how she managed to get out of the bathroom and bedroom without tons of bloody evidence everywhere. Even if I planned out a crime I would have to write out the steps and be well prepared because you just never know what will end up going down. As bloody as that crime scene was, she left very little evidence in the way of blood evidence outside the actual scene. Can anyone explain to me how she might have done that? Everything she needed had to have been within arm reach of the bathroom door because there are no bloody foot prints going across the bedroom or thru the closet.

I think she took all of her outerwear off (probably had clothes underneath) close to an area that was blood free, packed it up and left.

 

[Linda7NJ]

106 Seconds of Terror

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2...oyfriend-according-to-crime-scene-recreation/

The one comment cracked me up. "What did he do? Threaten to squirt her in the eye with shower soap?"




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk