Trial break: The State vs Jodi Arias; trial resumes 4 February 2013

[oceanblueeyes]

I am curious as to how Jodie (a petite woman) could drag a 190 pound man thru the hallway and into the shower. Any thoughts?

I imagine the same way I did my hubby when I asked him could I pull him around on the tile floor when I wanted to experiment to see if I could do it. Im about 117 pounds and shorter than Jodi. Much older too. Easy peasy. First I pulled him by his wrists and then I swung him around on the floor and pulled him holding on to his ankles when pulling him. He weighs 190 pounds.

He wasnt naked, slippery from water being thrown on the floor.. nor bloody either which would have made him even easier to pull.

Smaller women have been murdering large men forever. Some even getting the victims bodies out of the home to bury them in the backyard or loading them up in their vehicle in order to be able to discard the body somewhere else. One case I read the couple lived upstairs and she had to take his body down a flight of outside stairs to get him loaded in the car which she did.

Never underestimate an evil woman's ability who is hell bent on doing harm to a man and moving the body afterward.

IMO

 

[LambChop]

The reason the Judge said she will review the call is because Arizona is a ONE party consent State. California is a TWO party consent State. If JA was in California and wanted to record TA and he happened to be in Palm Desert, CA at the time she would need both parties to consent (and since she is recording, we know she is giving her own consent)

If JA is in California and she is talking to TA and he is in Arizona, a ONE party consent State, it is not illegal in AZ to record the call so JA is the only one that needs to "know" it is being recorded, and she did.

If JA recorded the call in question from CA to AZ (a two party consent state to a one party consent state) and then JA killed TA in the State of California, and her Attorney wanted to use this call in the Trial in California, they could not use this recorded call in the California Trial as California is a Two party Consent State.

However, the trial is in Arizona where the party that got recorded did not have to give his consent to be recorded. This is why the Attorney in opening statement said that this call will be played in court.

The Judge took the taped call and is making a decision on whether to play this in court, but my guess is it is NOT being decided based on the legality of recording as TA did not need to give consent in AZ, it is being decided based on relevance to her Defense only.

(If you are in a one party state and the other person online is in a one party state - you do not have to inform them they are being recorded. You knowing that you are recording, qualifies as the one party notification. This is not an interpretation of the law. It IS the law.)

CALIFORNIA PHONE RECORDING LAW: Cal. Penal Code § 632(a)
Statute prohibits the recording of confidential communications without "the consent of all parties." Evidence obtained in violation of this section may not be used in any judicial proceeding. This prohibition is confined to confidential communications, defined by statute as "any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties there to," but does not include communications made under any "circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded."

ARIZONA PHONE RECORDING LAW: Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3005
A party is not prohibited from intercepting oral communications.

(This is a good table of recording laws State by State)
http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm

This was an interstate call which also falls under federal laws. This is from your insert:

"This chart sets forth the applicable law regarding whether telephone conversations may be lawfully recorded. Remember that unless the caller and the called party are in the same state - then only that state's law would apply - the interstate call actually implicates three bodies of law, federal law, the law of the calling-party's state, and the law of the called- party's state. Each law must be obeyed."

This would mean that the state with the most restrictive law would have to be obeyed. That would mean if Jodi were in California recording the call is unlawful. And since she was the only recording the call I would think that would also mean she was breaking the law at the time which might keep the call out. jmo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

This was an interstate call which also falls under federal laws. This is from your insert:

"This chart sets forth the applicable law regarding whether telephone conversations may be lawfully recorded. Remember that unless the caller and the called party are in the same state - then only that state's law would apply - the interstate call actually implicates three bodies of law, federal law, the law of the calling-party's state, and the law of the called- party's state. Each law must be obeyed."

This would mean that the state with the most restrictive law would have to be obeyed. That would mean if Jodi were in California recording the call is unlawful. And since she was the only recording the call I would think that would also mean she was breaking the law at the time which might keep the call out. jmo

So if that is the case then how is the DT going to get these illegal calls in?

It only comes in if Travis called her and how would he know she was recording him? I would like to see the calls where she called him.

Sorry for the questions.

IMO

 

[StephanieHartPI]

Because of how explosive some calls can be due to content, this call seems to already have passed the sniff test in pre trial evidence where both sides know what is being presented since her Attorney nearly read a full transcript of what was said. And then brought it up yet again with the Jury present. The Judge then later said she will make a decision on it.

This leads me to assume they ironed out the Interstate part or the Prosecutor would never have allowed the call to be brought up and then literally in the Opening Statement JA Attorney said you will hear a phone call ....

((In his phone calls he talks of his fantasies, his fantasies with Jodi of tying her to a tree and putting it ******(Taken out due to graphic nature, its on the real transcript) all the way. Jodi pretends to********* (Taken out due to graphic nature, its on the real transcript) for the first time. And then he tells her, it`s so hot.))

She said that out loud. So if we could see an evidence list, it would appear that Call and the validity of recording, was already established.

This was an interstate call which also falls under federal laws. This is from your insert:

"This chart sets forth the applicable law regarding whether telephone conversations may be lawfully recorded. Remember that unless the caller and the called party are in the same state - then only that state's law would apply - the interstate call actually implicates three bodies of law, federal law, the law of the calling-party's state, and the law of the called- party's state. Each law must be obeyed."

This would mean that the state with the most restrictive law would have to be obeyed. That would mean if Jodi were in California recording the call is unlawful. And since she was the only recording the call I would think that would also mean she was breaking the law at the time which might keep the call out. jmo

 

[Chester_from_THM]

Raising hand "I did" hehe
Liars are quite easy if you study what they say, take out all the BS and ultimately the truth is hidden in their somewherel; just let liars keep talking like this detective did; I admired his patience!
JA actually did eventually map out what she did thru her lies.. IMO

I have often wondered what LE might have gotten out of CA if they had taken an approach more like Flores with JA. I think the tough, brow-beating approach was never going to be effective with her, as she just got more resistant. I think it was much like her existing family dynamic with Cindy and George.

I also think you can get a lot of true information even out of chronic liars, as long as you can keep them talking. Most liars cannot completely fabricate reality, they need to supplement things from actual experience, IMO.

 

[Zuri]

I have some questions.
1) What is the role of the mitigation expert?
2) The Defense OS appears to be "the story according to JA." As officers of the court, is the DT required to put forth a scenario they believe to be truthful?
3) Did JA have a duty to retreat if she felt "threatened" by TA? JA was dressed and could flee. TA was not dressed and I am skeptical he would have chased her outside with no clothes on.
4) Why didn't the PA call character witnesses to the stand knowing the DT was going to do a character assassination of TA? Or do they save those witnesses for later?

 

[LambChop]

This illustrates California to Arizona Phone recording law with regard to "trials".

A person in California (two party consent State) desires to call someone in Arizona, a One party consent state for the specific purpose of recording the conversation.

Does the person in California need the person’s consent in Arizona in order to record the conversation?

A. No, since the person in California is consenting to the conversation being recorded and it makes no difference if the person in Arizona consents.

(Correct Answer is: A, as stated above)

Part B is a True/False

-------------------
Part B

This recorded call may be used as evidence in an upcoming criminal trial to be held in a Arizona court. True or False

A) True


(IF TA CALLED JA FROM HIS ARIZONA HOME AND RECORDED IT, AND CAME TO CALIFORNIA AND KILLED JA IN YREKA, COULD HIS RECORDED CALL BE USED IN A TRIAL IN CALIFORNIA. NO, IT COULD NOT. CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRES BOTH PARTIES TO CONSENT TO RECORDING A CALL)

It's possible the reason the judge has not ruled yet is because it was an interstate call and the federal laws also apply. In any case the law is whichever state is the most restrictive, that is the law you must obey. So if she had told TA she was recording the conversation it would have been fine. Because she did not the recording was illegal in California and that is the law that has to be obeyed. That was my understanding from what you posted and was posted earlier in the thread. jmo

 

[StephanieHartPI]

BBM (my added commentary - translation...)

Arias said that in her final conversation with Alexander, he was “nice and cordial, but kind of acting like he had hurt feelings.” (because I shot him, then stabbed him 29 times, he is really sensitive about things like getting murdered)

She told police she may have tried to call Alexander the next day and had “sent him a couple of text messages, and a couple of pictures,” but claimed he never answered the phone and his voice mail box was full. (I sent him pictures of himself dead, he didn't respond)

“That’s unusual. He deletes all of his messages. I didn’t want to be obsessive about it because we’re not together anymore and I didn’t like to call too much,” Arias said. (we are not together anymore because I killed him which will make it hard to date now)

In reality, Arias had been to Alexander’s home, had sex with him, and killed him on June 4.

Flores also questioned her about purchasing a handgun, but she told him that such weapons frighten her. (Because I realize now how loud they are when you fire them and they don't really do the job as fast as I would like I had to resort to the butcher knife also)

“I’ve looked into handguns. I have a list of things I’m scared of that I’m trying to overcome… I got that from Travis, you know, to push yourself out of your comfort zone, and do things you’re afraid of. But handguns are expensive and not really in my price range right now,” Arias told Flores. (so I took one from my grandparents house. In retrospect I am so glad TA had me expand my weapon horizons, they don't scare me anymore)

http://www.examiner.com/article/jod...er-trial-lying-to-police-recorded-phone-calls

 

[StephanieHartPI]

which begs the question, is a defense attorney allowed to say anything at all, literally in opening statement such as "I will produce evidence that he made a creepy call and that two ninja fighters broke in and killed him"

And then she does neither....? (which I mean as a serious question) how much leeway is a Defense Attny. given in opening to just say what they want?

It's possible the reason the judge has not ruled yet is because it was an interstate call and the federal laws also apply. In any case the law is whichever state is the most restrictive, that is the law you must obey. So if she had told TA she was recording the conversation it would have been fine. Because she did not the recording was illegal in California and that is the law that has to be obeyed. That was my understanding from what you posted and was posted earlier in the thread. jmo

 

[Madeleine74]

Okay, reading AbPsych books and articles is reallllly not a good idea for the highly impressionable.

It's been a few decades since my psych class in college, but now reading some things I've already self-diagnosed myself as sociopath with a side of hypochondria, and apparently I'm just getting started. Somebody stop me before I check myself into Bellevue!

 

[amyfarrahfowler]

I saw that but not sure the tape on the floor could have gone around Travis arm. He had big biceps. I think Juan would have brought it up. He seems to have everything else figured out. IMO

Good Point. Thank You!:seeya:

 

[LambChop]

Because of how explosive some calls can be due to content, this call seems to already have passed the sniff test in pre trial evidence where both sides know what is being presented since her Attorney nearly read a full transcript of what was said. And then brought it up yet again with the Jury present. The Judge then later said she will make a decision on it.

This leads me to assume they ironed out the Interstate part or the Prosecutor would never have allowed the call to be brought up and then literally in the Opening Statement JA Attorney said you will hear a phone call ....

((In his phone calls he talks of his fantasies, his fantasies with Jodi of tying her to a tree and putting it ******(Taken out due to graphic nature, its on the real transcript) all the way. Jodi pretends to********* (Taken out due to graphic nature, its on the real transcript) for the first time. And then he tells her, it`s so hot.))

She said that out loud. So if we could see an evidence list, it would appear that Call and the validity of recording, was already established.

They can say what they want in opening statements but it does not guarantee they will be able to prove it. Many defense attorneys make statements in opening they fail to prove during the trial. It's a way to get it in without getting it in. It can't be that difficult for the judge to rule. My guess is the judge wants case law from both sides to show how defense can get it in or prosecution is justified in keeping it out. But that is just a guess. She is claiming abuse but if it's just him talking about sex fantasies how in the world does that prove abuse. Plus why would she tape him? Did she know what he was going to say? Did she set him up by something she said in a previous telephone call? Was the recording the whole call or just a portion? These may be the issues the judge has to consider. What was HER motive for taping it. It may not have been a call from hello until goodbye and that could be part of the problem. What is missing could be what is holding this recording from being ruled on. jmo

 

[neesaki]

I've tried to read through and see if this was asked and answered but I gotta get to work so...

About the phone call and conflicting AR CA law: Since the trial is in AR wouldn't they go by AR law? Or if she is charged for recording him without his knowledge (if that is what she did) wouldn't CA have to charge her? TIA for anyone who can answer.

Just a random thought on my part. If I was on the jury and they were pulling that stunt with the lowered chair to make her look smaller than she is on me, I'd be po'd the first time I saw her standing.

So would I.

Also, regarding the phone recording, as far as I know the only way it could be confirmed that he had knowledge of the recording, is if he stated so on the recording. I mean, she's not to be believed so if she claims he did know it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans. jmo

 

[human]

I am curious as to how Jodie (a petite woman) could drag a 190 pound man thru the hallway and into the shower. Any thoughts?

Apparently some people tried this with their willing mates and they said it was easy. It would be hard for me and I am her size.

 

[Zuri]

Another question: Does the private investigator for the DT have to disclose their work product to the PA?

 

[SkiptomyLu]

I agree. At 5'4" I have lifted many people and could easily drag someone twice my size. They want her to appear small and frail but IMO she is not either.:moo:

I imagine blood is very slippery, and would quite easy to pull someone along a wet surface.

 

[StephanieHartPI]

My guess is he did not die right away and got out of the shower, crawled (where that accidental photo was taken showing him bloodied) and he crawled as she followed him, he did not get far from the photos, and could have crawled back if she is standing there with her knife, he was trying to get away, all of this easily could take place in 3 or 4 minutes that it took him to die. He could easily have crawled back toward the shower not even knowing where he was crawling to, I am sure he was getting woozy and barely conscious.

Thus ending up back where they started, so she may not have dragged him far, or much at all. He could have even pulled himself up at the sink where she landed the final to the throat slice, evidenced by the extreme blood splatter.. and she just shoved him sideways one or two feet, falling into the shower into the position I see in the evidence photos... backed him up and pushed...down he goes.

(AS amazed as everyone is that she landed such a violent attack, we might be equally amazed at how long and hard he fought this, and in fact did not get dragged around much at all)

I imagine blood is very slippery, and would quite easy to pull someone along a wet surface.

 

[PASA]

I'm in the middle of this and can hardly believe this guy!!! Can't wait to see JM fry this CREEP!!!!

Thank you! I hadn't seen that one.

If you want more Juan here's another case he prosecuted.

48Hours|Mystery - Deadly Prophecy

Deadly Prophecy - 48 Hours - CBS News

 

[amyfarrahfowler]

Forgive me for one more duct tape question.
Does the placing on T's arm confirm the theory of "pumping it off"? I thought it looked a little higher on his arm - right ABOVE the bicep ?

I do NOT think it CONFIRMS the theory, now that you bring that point to my attention. IS there a way to actually confirm the theory?

I guess it DOES maybe look a little higher on his arm than the most bulging portion of the muscle, but iirc (which I may NOT, as it has been decades since my gross anatomy exposure) the insertion points of that muscle go from elbow to shoulder (or thereabouts?) so i was thinking in terms of the whole more dorsal aspect of the upper arm being being included in what the term "biceps" means to me. I'm guessing it would have been better to just say "arm" in my original post.
Sorry for that.:blushing:

Thanks for responding and giving me an opportunity to try to clarify. I will try to crawl back under my rock now. Hope I haven't made things worse.:blushing:

 

[StephanieHartPI]

Another question: Does the private investigator for the DT have to disclose their work product to the PA?

(THIS is "general" FAQ - note they say "may be")


It Is Safer To Have Your Attorney Hire the PI Rather Than You?

The private investigator should be hired by the attorney, not the client, to maintain "work product protection." In general, an attorney's investigation of the facts of the case are not discoverable by your adversary. This is called "work product."

If the PI is hired by the attorney, a PI's findings may be protected from disclosure. But non-attorneys generally don't have this protection.