The State v. Jodi Arias: break in trial until 28 January 2013 #18 *ADULT CONTENT*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I stopped watching dr drew a while back. Something just strikes me as wrong.
I do however love mark! Not sure if it's true or not but I heard he is vinnies cousin.


I also stopped watching Dr. Drew sometime between Loveline, Celebrity Rehab, Sober House, Non Celebrity Rehab, his daytime show that got cancelled and the HLN show. TMDD.


Is Mark really Vinnie's cousin (my cousin vinnie?!)?
 
Oh, I hate to admit it, too, but I have been hiding out from everyone. I have been ducking and running for cover from any sort of responsibility until this is all over.

Guilty as charged here too!
My daughter called me today asking if I'm mad at her because every time she has called lately I can't talk! I told her I've been consumed with some legal matters!!!
 
Trying to sway public opinion, and apparently successfully from some of the comments here.

imo, Nurmi doesn't care enough about the case to try and sway public opinion. Even if public opinion were relevant, which it obviously isn't at this point.
 
She travelled all those miles, stole her Grandfather's gun, died her hair, rented a car 90 miles away, borrowed (!) gas cans, no receipts in AZ.

Perhaps, perhaps I am wrong! What say you people?

I was agreeing with you. She is guilty as sin.

But you did say "end of friggin story", so I took it to mean you felt nobody should post anything else , making this thread unnecessary. :D
 
a question occurs to me:
If Jodi was such a stalker, and Travis knew that she had the ability to do some nasty things (tire slashing, computer account hacking, etc.) why the HECK would he allow her to take x-rated photos? I don't understand the duct tape or the last picture of him alive, in the shower, where he looks (IMO) very dejected. I just wonder if there was coercion involved on jodi's part...

He may have felt he could handle her and even if he felt afraid at times, he might have tried, in a macho way, to ignore the little voice telling him she was dangerous. I had a stalker for 8 years. But I wasn't really afraid and I didn't really think, in all that time, that he was capable of seriously harming me until the end. I laughed him off. Then, after he started following me and showing up unannounced again, I went to the police to find out what I could do. A nice guy at the desk turned his computer around so i could see what he wasn't allowed to actually tell me. The stalker (who was a guy I briefly dated at age 16), had lied about his age and was much, much older. He had a long record and had engaged in a situation involving the police in which he refused to come out, was surrounded and threatened to do harm. (which explains his absence for awhile from stalking me. He was in jail.).

It was only after that that I began to realize what he might really be capable of.

Thanks, gitana. In your professional opinion, do you think that will come soon? Or toward the end of the defense's case?

At the end.


Totally agree. I don't fault the defense attorneys -- they are clearly exasperated and frustrated at the complete loser of a case they have to defend. How many times did the defense attorney sigh today right in the middle of a direct exam?

All they can do is hope to humanize Jodi a bit and make Travis seem less than perfect and hope for some amount of compassion from a couple of jurors so that Jodi doesn't get the death penalty.

Yes, but, reading some posts here, I am afraid that some juror will equate Travis less than perfect conduct with their own, past heartbreak and secretly find jodi at least a little bit justified.

The defense has not begun to open the door to a self defense claim but they might get a juror who never got over a past break up or who hates men and strike gold just by *advertiser censored*-shaming Travis.

Yes, and so does the prosecution pay for their opinions. That said, being a verified attorney, would you not agree that where there are competing experts reaching opposite conclusions about the authenticity of documents, especially in a death penalty case, that the court allows the trier of fact to decide? And wouldn't you also agree that if the court has already ruled that the letters are "phony," Nurmi would not have mentioned the letter, much less brought it up in open court at the evidentiary hearing?

Imo, something's up with that letter.

Agree that they're two totally different contexts. But, nonetheless, I think the context is irrelevant to my questions. Which are (1) do you think that Nurmi referenced letters at an evidentiary hearing which were previously found by the court to be phony and excluded on that basis (which I seriously doubt) and/or (2) do you think that Nurmi doesn't have an expert report that says they're likely legit and disagree that the court would NEVER exclude evidence with conflicting expert reports in a capital case unless there was some other reason?

Thanks, gitana. I appreciate your input and please take these questions in the spirit they are asked. I'm sincere in my belief that there's something going on with the letter(s)

I know you sincerely believe there is something up with those letters. But I think you are misunderstanding something. During the prosecutorial misconduct hearing, they were not entered into evidence. They were referenced in an attempt to impeach him. The defense was not attempting to enter the letters or the supposed expert statement into evidence. They were trying to show that Chris Hughes was lying about how he had felt and had been influenced by the prosecution. So nothing regarding the actual veracity of the letters was being determined. I know that's confusing based on what Nurmi said to Chris Hughes about the expert, but I promise you, whether or not the letters were really fake or whether or not the defense paid an expert to state they seemed real, was not at issue.

The fact is, the letters were excluded in a pre-trial motion. If the defense presented an expert opinion, clearly it was not enough to overcome the FBI expert who determined they were forgeries. Or, there was another reason not to admit them.

But make no mistake. This judge is stellar, fair and impartial. She is not going to do a thing to cause an appeal. And excluding authentic, even remotely exculpatory evidence, like a letter from Travis in which he admits to being a pedophile or an abuser, would never happen without a very, very good reason (like they are fake).

There is nothing to these letters except the fact that jodi arias is desperate to come up with anything that can set her free.
 
Shew. Well there ya go. Let's close the thread now. No need for any more discussion.

Spoiler alert- end of friggin story!

She travelled all those miles, stole her Grandfather's gun, died her hair, rented a car 90 miles away, borrowed (!) gas cans, no receipts in AZ.

Perhaps, perhaps I am wrong! What say you people?
 
Oh there's still plenty of side discussions (that don't matter imo ) We have the gun verses stab first argument, eyeball reflection pixel discussion, the did Travis know he was being photographed, etc.... No shortage of stuff!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Eyeball! Eyeball! I vote Eyeball!

I LOOOVE those hidden picture puzzles!
 
You may lol. That's why I said afaik, because it's irrelevant to my point -- which is that Nurmi wouldn't have stood up there with a letter "shown to be forged by the defendant" if the Court had ruled that it was, in fact, a forgery. Or that he would have lied about the conflicting expert report. He wouldn't have done either of those things, imo, and if he had, there would have been a far more ballistic response by the State and the Court. Johunt made a good point about "a" letter v. "the" letters. We shall see. I'm standing by my opinion that there's an expert that says Travis likely wrote a letter that's damaging to the State's case and that the Court has not yet definitively excluded it because it would be insane to exclude evidence which is the subject of conflicting expert reports in a capital case. jmo

But you think Juan would stand up and say they were found to be forgeries if they weren't actually found to be forgeries? :waitasec:
 
I'm baaaack. What a day.

Ok so I got to the courthouse about 12:45 and tons of people were already in the hallway waiting to get in. They themselves had created a makeshift lineup with numbers and we all lined up against the wall. The Deputy in charge was letting in as many people as they could. Some idiot charged in ahead of me and they cut it off literally as the person before me got in. :furious: (yeah I confronted him later and almost got in to a thing in the hallway but that's neither here nor there).

So I ended up hanging out with this adorable 20 something girl who *literally* looks like Sharon Stone (also trying to get in) and while we were catching up a producer from Dr. Drew approached us about being on his show. She had been sharing her dream of getting in to crime journalism somehow so I immediately said "she's your girl" and it turns out she will be on next week! A trial watcher perspective. I've kind of worn out my welcome in that world and it was right up her alley so voila..love connection. The cool thing was we had a lot of time to talk off and on all day to this producer which was a nice connection.

Anyhoo, sitting there, first Travis younger sister literally burst out of the courtroom sobbing and running to the restroom with her brother following. Shortly thereafter Tanisha ran out sobbing and dissolved in the arms of her victim advocate. Sobbing and hugging her. It was heartbreaking, literally heartbreaking. Sigh...they were all ushered in to a small room off the hallway and I didn't see them come out. A court recess happened shortly therafter.

Beth came out and was talking to a legal analyst sitting right next to me so I heard the whole thing. She was very upset about the Judge taking so many things in to chambers and feels it is "unconstitutional" in terms of what the public should be allowed to see. She said she was contacting Turner media's attorney over it. She said it was happening way too much in this trial than should be allowed.

To be continued....:seeya:
 
I'm also afraid of the power of psychopath taking the stand. Especially a young attractive one skilled at manipulating men and all the women on her block.

Misty Cummings and Linsey Lohan bring out my maternal instincts and for some reason I find myself wanting to protect, nurture and parent them. I made unbelievable excuses for them.

I don't want that to happen to any juror. If the prosecutor comes after her in an aggressive manner, I fear someone's gonna want to protect her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Oh there's still plenty of side discussions (that don't matter imo ) We have the gun verses stab first argument, eyeball reflection pixel discussion, the did Travis know he was being photographed, etc.... No shortage of stuff!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

3 holed wonders, dragging partners around, Gus-Gus, Nurmi's awful attire, great shower debate of 2013.....

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
 
I'm also afraid of the power if a psychopath taking the stand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Psychopaths and narcissists typically make very poor witnesses. They are very easily riled and cannot keep their lies straight. I'm not worried at all.
 
That's why I never watch, I record dr drew to fast forward to mark.... Then I shut it off!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:seeya: I recently got a DVR to replace my beloved VCR -- so I will do the same!

And I will head to Target tomorrow for some of those boypants or whatever.

Thanks for all the advice lol.
 
Oh there's still plenty of side discussions (that don't matter imo ) We have the gun verses stab first argument, eyeball reflection pixel discussion, the did Travis know he was being photographed, etc.... No shortage of stuff!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And some are wondering if they really had sex that fateful day,
If she snuck in or was invited, will jodi take the stand, etc etc.
We have loads to still get ironed out on here!
 
He may have felt he could handle her and even if he felt afraid at times, he might have tried, in a macho way, to ignore the little voice telling him she was dangerous. I had a stalker for 8 years. But I wasn't really afraid and I didn't really think, in all that time, that he was capable of seriously harming me until the end. I laughed him off. Then, after he started following me and showing up unannounced again, I went to the police to find out what I could do. A nice guy at the desk turned his computer around so i could see what he wasn't allowed to actually tell me. The stalker (who was a guy I briefly dated at age 16), had lied about his age and was much, much older. He had a long record and had engaged in a situation involving the police in which he refused to come out, was surrounded and threatened to do harm. (which explains his absence for awhile from stalking me. He was in jail.).

It was only after that that I began to realize what he might really be capable of.



At the end.




Yes, but, reading some posts here, I am afraid that some juror will equate Travis less than perfect conduct with their own, past heartbreak and secretly find jodi at least a little bit justified.

The defense has not begun to open the door to a self defense claim but they might get a juror who never got over a past break up or who hates men and strike gold just by *advertiser censored*-shaming Travis.





I know you sincerely believe there is something up with those letters. But I think you are misunderstanding something. During the prosecutorial misconduct hearing, they were not entered into evidence. They were referenced in an attempt to impeach him. The defense was not attempting to enter the letters or the supposed expert statement into evidence. They were trying to show that Chris Hughes was lying about how he had felt and had been influenced by the prosecution. So nothing regarding the actual veracity of the letters was being determined. I know that's confusing based on what Nurmi said to Chris Hughes about the expert, but I promise you, whether or not the letters were really fake or whether or not the defense paid an expert to state they seemed real, was not at issue.

The fact is, the letters were excluded in a pre-trial motion. If the defense presented an expert opinion, clearly it was not enough to overcome the FBI expert who determined they were forgeries. Or, there was another reason not to admit them.

But make no mistake. This judge is stellar, fair and impartial. She is not going to do a thing to cause an appeal. And excluding authentic, even remotely exculpatory evidence, like a letter from Travis in which he admits to being a pedophile or an abuser, would never happen without a very, very good reason (like they are fake).

There is nothing to these letters except the fact that jodi arias is desperate to come up with anything that can set her free.

okay. Drilling down to the core issue of the posts about the letter. If it is a proven forgery, is the judge going to let Nurmi use it for any purpose in any context. I think she is not.
 
Gotta love this place! Only here can regular folk disagree with professionals and actually feel like they are right! :)

Well it was our own AZLawyer who discovered the evidence about "foolproof suffication" on Casey Anthony's computer, when even the so-called experts didn't, evidence that would have been so crucial in the convicting the killer of Caylee Anthony.

But yes, i do love this place because our WSers bring about many valuable viewpoints and ideas. And as we all know, many experts DO read WS so we must be doing something right.
 
3 holed wonders, dragging partners around, Gus-Gus, Nurmi's awful attire, great shower debate of 2013.....

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

To lube or not to lube....

Pig tails verses pony tails

Types of women's panties

Hey! I have a semi new topic! Since when do abusive men that force themselves on women use silky rope? Jodi claims the last time he tied her up... The rope was too scratchy! Kinda considerate, don't ya think?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
My Day in Court Part 2:

So...the deputy on and off all afternoon kept coming out saying "I'm trying to find you girls two seats". And then after the break he pulled us in (just as I was talking to my friend Michael Keifer, a journalist covering this for the local paper and he was trying to get me a way to get in). We didn't sit together (ironically her name is katie!) but we both got in.

The environment in there is so freaking intense I can't tell you. I felt my anxiety level go up the minute I sat down. It is such an intense vibe in there. Saw Lisa for like one second of testimony and all the other final witnesses for the day.

I made a bunch of notes so here goes:

The size of the courtroom is like a huge ballroom you might find yourself in for a big wedding reception. I can't impress how LARGE it is. Jodi is WAY far away from the jury. I could barely see her today with my view.

The jury is attentive, many taking notes. I'm fixated on this one female juror in the front, 30 something, tri color hair, she's paying such detailed attention. I keep thinking she could be foreperson. She's WAY in to everything.

Tanisha's husband holds his arm around her waist every time she stands. Looks like he's literally holding her up. good man. He looks much younger in person than on tv.

On Jane Valez Mitchell yesterday an older female friend of Travis was on as a guest. I met her today When the younger sister Desiree 's name was called as a witness, she sharply turned around looking at the person behind her with a long long WTF type stare.

All of Travis ' family are in suits and dresses. Very dressed up.

Nurmi takes forever to get to a point.

I once again talked to their Victim Advocate and she handed me her card saying "tell them tomorow you're with me and you can get in". :great: It was after I asked her if she'd slip a card to the family for me tomorrow. Which I will do. And I will mention the WS community on my card to just so you know.

At the end of court, Juan walked up to the family, checked in with them, he said "are we good?" and they nodded. I'm glad I saw that.

I think that's it for now. I'm going back early tomorrow. I will get in for sure and can stay for the morning (have to work in the afternoon).

I'm thinking tomorrow will be a BIG day. Just a hunch.

Now gonna read some posts and CRASH. :seeya:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
175
Guests online
291
Total visitors
466

Forum statistics

Threads
609,440
Messages
18,254,258
Members
234,655
Latest member
Scarytree
Back
Top