The State v. Jodi Arias: break in trial until 28 January 2013 #13 *ADULT CONTENT*

[katiecoolady]

I'm rewatching the hearing now...God this Gus dude with his big gold ring and nerdy gold brooch is literally sitting there, during a murder trial, SMILING and smirking --I know you have all said this and I also said it but it's just so disturbing--only wish they jury could see this idiot--is he being called as a defense witness other than this hearing? I hope the jury gets to see this snake and Martinez gets another shot at him.

 

[Isabelle]

BBM

Innocent until proven guilty, and it's prudent to look at all of the facts in the case. Does it appear that JA is guilty? Of course. However, the defense can introduce many things that can potentially cast the benefit of the doubt in her favor. If they start to paint a picture of verbal, emotional, sexual abuse carried out by the victim, they may garner sympathy from the jury. All it takes is one hesitant juror to hem up the works.

While some may have automatically assigned guilt and decide to put their fingers in their ears and not hear any other possible rationale, motives, or reasoning... The defense will still try to say certain things occurred. In fact, they may have. We don't know. That's the whole point of the trial. I generally try to keep an open mind even if the evidence leans greatly in one direction (as it does in this case - I can't wrap my head around how someone acting in self-defense would try to cover everything up and repeatedly lie like she did), and that's no different here.

If it turns out she's guilty (and let's be honest, that's how it looks right now), then great! But if she's realistically been systematically abused in multiple ways and there's more to this story than has been put out so far... It needs to be paid attention to, or at least the scenario needs to be played out to see how plausible it is.

The only think I can say is, it takes two to tango! If Jodi was being used/abused she should have walked away.

 

[JusticeJunkie]

ok was so what is the proseucor misconduct then?? because chris called guy and said he knew he was on defense witness list?

DT will probably say CH was trying to find out what Gus would testify to, and that he was trying to influence his testimony.

But in answer to your question - yep

 

[Boodles]

:waitasec:

That just means I agree with the thing I quoted. Did I quote you?

 

[Sleuth13]

As posted on here earlier - today's clip

Jodi Arias murder trial evidentiary hearing. Partial - YouTube

 

[LambChop]

Perhaps given the manner of his death the Church will chose not to excommunicate and consider that his repentance. I really don't know.

Mimi said it would be up to Travis to confess and repent. If Travis did not share this with the church based on what evidence we see there is really no proof TA was having sex with Jodi. We see naked pictures, yes but no actual proof, only the appearance that they may be having sex. It sounds as if it were up to TA to confess as far as the church was concerned. jmo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

BBM

Innocent until proven guilty, and it's prudent to look at all of the facts in the case. Does it appear that JA is guilty? Of course. However, the defense can introduce many things that can potentially cast the benefit of the doubt in her favor. If they start to paint a picture of verbal, emotional, sexual abuse carried out by the victim, they may garner sympathy from the jury. All it takes is one hesitant juror to hem up the works.

While some may have automatically assigned guilt and decide to put their fingers in their ears and not hear any other possible rationale, motives, or reasoning... The defense will still try to say certain things occurred. In fact, they may have. We don't know. That's the whole point of the trial. I generally try to keep an open mind even if the evidence leans greatly in one direction (as it does in this case - I can't wrap my head around how someone acting in self-defense would try to cover everything up and repeatedly lie like she did), and that's no different here.

If it turns out she's guilty (and let's be honest, that's how it looks right now), then great! But if she's realistically been systematically abused in multiple ways and there's more to this story than has been put out so far... It needs to be paid attention to, or at least the scenario needs to be played out to see how plausible it is.

How can they justify this killing as self defense even if he did verbally abuse her and her own attorney said it was emotional abuse. I want to see if she talks vulgar too. I doubt it is one sided. Of course that is the thing the DT would say because then they dont have to actually prove physical abuse happened when it didnt.

The thing that is so rare in this case we know exactly what Travis was doing minutes before his death. We see he is simply taking a shower minding his own business. How is that threatening? He was the one vulnerable. He had no weapon, naked, and unable to get away from the hacking slashing murderess who was pulling his body all around within two minutes after the final photo.

There isnt anything plausable about how and when she killed him other than she knew she had lost control over her victim and got rid of him. We have been at this for months and if there was a way of making it reasonable we would have figured it out by now. Frankly I dont want to hear another lie come out of a liar's mouth that even makes CA look like a second class liar in comparison. I also dont want to hear some paid hired gun make her into a victim when Travis has a profile of being a victim and her profile is that of an abuser.

Phone sex sure isnt a form of abuse. Many couples partake in it and its just what consenting adults decide they want to do. She darn sure didnt have to tape them so she could replay them over and over again if they were so offensive to her. Imo she taped them so she could get off by getting to hear them again.

The bottom line is she is saying this is self defense but yet she has a gun and knife while in the bathroom and she murdered him three different ways. What logical person is going to believe that is normal or self defense?

I know this if my abusive ex husband had told me he wanted me out of his life instead of the other way around he wouldn't have to say it twice......that would the last thing I would do is come back to him and stalk him. The most relief a truly abused victim has is when the abuser finally leaves them to hell alone.

IUPG is a judicial standard and only pretains to the jurors that sits on her case. Here we do not have to presume or assume anything much less innocence.

She is guilty of cold blooded murder against this young man that deserved so much better, imo.

IMO

 

[Carol2]

That just means I agree with the thing I quoted. Did I quote you?

Oh, ok! Gotcha!

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

There's this:

After those incidents, his new girlfriend received a harassing email from a "John Doe." Alexander suspected that Arias was responsible, and told friends that he suspected Arias had hacked into his Facebook account.​

And then:

"[Arias] was totally obsessed with him," Alexander’s close friend Sky Hughes told The Huffington Post. "She wouldn't let him go. Whenever he would try to sever all ties, she would threaten to kill herself ... He would tell her he didn't want anything to do with her, and she would show up at his house. We knew it was her. We didn't want it to be her, but [we] just knew it was."​

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/inside-the-mind-of-jodi-arias_n_2528011.html

Who do you think was telling the friends these details about what was going on?

Friends have maintained that the relationship between Alexander and Arias was tumultuous, with Alexander trying to distance himself from Arias to no avail.​

Read more at http://global.christianpost.com/new...eath-at-hands-of-jodi-arias-friends-say-88227

Such distance that they kept sexting and having phone sex, and he even let her in and took nude photos with her, showered with her, and allegedly had sex with her?
I think she's as crazy as they come, but the entire thing doesn't wholly make sense.

OK....where are all these things being pulled out of??? "He let her in"???? "He showered with her"????
"Took nude photo's with her"??? He wasn't in ANY of the photo's "with" her....the shower ones even SHE said he wouldn't have liked, AND it looked like he didn't even know she was there for a good number of them.
You are right though, there's soooo much we don't know AND never will because the only "story" we have...take yer pick which one...are ONLY what the person who commited the vicious act tells us.
Like a sage judge from the Anthony trial had said about Casey, I'll substitute the name....But, the truth and Jodi Arias are strangers!!!!

 

[LambChop]

I'm rewatching the hearing now...God this Gus dude with his big gold ring and nerdy gold brooch is literally sitting there, during a murder trial, SMILING and smirking --I know you have all said this and I also said it but it's just so disturbing--only wish they jury could see this idiot--is he being called as a defense witness other than this hearing? I hope the jury gets to see this snake and Martinez gets another shot at him.

Are there videos, other than the last one posted on here, or do I have to resort to watching :thud: Nancy Grace????

 

[JusticeJunkie]

IF Gus and Chris had no previous history, personal or business, and Chris badgered him to divulge his testimony, it might look better for the DT.
I believe this was a discussion among friends, and possibly a huge,"You're going to testify for the DEFENSE?" conversation that did absolutely no harm to the DT.
IMO, the DT's got enough problems without adding this swarmy wit to their case.

 

[Frigga]

Okay I have a different take on today.

WHY is Chris Hughes contacting someone who is going to be a(nother) witness in the case? Did he not know that is a big no-no? And where did Skye Hughes get the info about Gus S. being a witness, and why can't she keep her mouth shut (either)?

Yes, Gus is sleazy, but the Hughes are making things worse by gossiping and trying to get info and then passing it along. Making remarks about anyone in the case (including the lawyers) to another potential witness is really stupid. Doesn't matter if their observations about Nurmi are correct or not, it was not their place to instigate contact with Gus S. And they did. And they not only instigated contact, they specifically asked about his being a witness in this case. Not okay.

So I hold the 2 of them (Chris & Skye Hughes) accountable for this cluster****. Isn't it common sense that if you believe you will be a witness in a murder trial you keep your mouth shut? And that means, say nothing to anyone? That's the only way to protect the integrity of a case. Not just when a judge tells you to, but from the beginning. You talk to the police, you talk to the district attorney or whoever is working on the case, and then you shut up about what you know or what you hear for as long as it takes for a legal case to be resolved. If it's years, like this one, then it's years. You say nothing except to the case principals and only when asked. Sheesh.

Lets not also forget that both these men are bigwigs at a LEGAL INSURANCE FIRM!

 

[nursebeeme]

Yup! He's the guy who asked Jodi about her Magic Underwear.

dang!!!!! it will get even better tomorrow!

omg

btw, thanks to everyone who transcribed.. I just have updated the timeline thread for those that missed the "goings on" today!

 

[nursebeeme]

New thread here. Move on over at your leisure. This thread will close shortly

The State v. Jodi Arias: break in trial until 28 January 2013 #14 *ADULT CONTENT* - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

gather up your selves and move on over.. :seeya: