trial day 31: the defense continues it's case in chief #87

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm hoping they're wrong. That would be kind of like stooping to the DT's level by attacking the character of the witness, and not the testimony (kinda like WS TOS LoL isn't it?). I'm pretty sure JM won't stoop to those tactics. He'll be able to discredit him based on his testimony without going there.

IDK if Juan will bring it up. You have to admit though the DT pulled a fast one today and I am worried if they have done something similar regarding the DV expert. I hope Juan looks into what she has again.
 
What exactly is this??

JM objection over this last minute power point, etc. JM didn't get it until today. Judge only let the "brain" power point today with an cravat and the Time Magazine notations as peer review, altered testimony, "new" verbiage that is close of testifying about premed (not allowed by law), etc.
 
I'm hoping they're wrong. That would be kind of like stooping to the DT's level by attacking the character of the witness, and not the testimony (kinda like WS TOS LoL isn't it?). I'm pretty sure JM won't stoop to those tactics. He'll be able to discredit him based on his testimony without going there.

The issue isn't his character, the issue is the terms upon which this witness delivers testimony, and if those terms are ethical. There is no "stooping" necessary to ask that he explain the arrangements under which he provides sworn testimony.
 
I hear what you are saying but IMO, and Jodi said it herself.. she "never killed anyone before." She obviously watched a lot of TV/movies; she chipperly said on 48 Hours the jail booking was JUST like what you see on TV.. What she didn't say was killing someone with a knife is sooo NOT what you see on TV! I think she intended on the murder to be up close and personal, but with TA in a vulnerable position (naked and sitting in the shower) but what she didn't plan on is how much he would fight for his life and how chaotic and bloody it would be.
And I guess in my theory, she went there with the weapons and she was going to kill him if he would not take her to Cancun/take her back/etc... so when he wouldn't take her back or whatever, she went on with her plan to kill him.
IDK if that makes sense when I say it.. but yeah either way if what they are saying isn't self-defense which is what their 100% defense story is at this time then I don't see how it could be presented as defense testimony because it isn't fitting in with what they are trying to say?
:moo: Hopefully I am typing coherently.. :please:

I understand! I think the problem is with this theory. It's not a solid theory, and for the reason you give, IMO.

There are a lot of premeditated murders that go off the rails because people don't plan well enough, and because things do go wrong. As it did here, IMO because I'm with you------this didn't happen like it did in her head. So it's a bloody scene. But the cleanup is pretty meticulous.

So I think his 'theory' is BS because to be correct, then the murderer could never be convicted of premeditated murder if the scene was messy. That's just stupid.
 
BK on DD right now and she just said she doesn't think the judge will allow this evidence they're having a hearing for tomorrow.
 
I so hope the prosecution is able to present the differences of a psychopath and extreme narcissist vs PTSD.!!!

Would JM be allowed to show a power point to the jury?
 
I understand! I think the problem is with this theory. It's not a solid theory, and for the reason you give, IMO.

There are a lot of premeditated murders that go off the rails because people don't plan well enough, and because things do go wrong. As it did here, IMO because I'm with you------this didn't happen like it did in her head. So it's a bloody scene. But the cleanup is pretty meticulous.

So I think his 'theory' is BS because to be correct, then the murderer could never be convicted of premeditated murder if the scene was messy. That's just stupid.

ITA! :rocker:
 
Marc Klaas said tonight that "there is a pool of these kind of characters" who will testify to just about anything."
 
This so called expert is a total fraud. His discussion on the limbic system is neuroanatomy 101 taught to all first year medical students.

His discussion of flight or fight involves material that is well over 50 years old.
His claim to be an expert on “memory” is laughable. The discussion on memory formation is also ELEMENTARY and taught in first year neuro courses. It can be found in any rudimentary neuroanatomy text book.

If you take 100 people who have harrowing near death experiences either from guns or traffic accidents almost 100% will vividly recall the major details. I was involved in a near fatal car accident over 10 years ago and I can remember in vivid detail the color and nature of the oncoming car to this day. Ask any soldier who is in combat what he can remember when the bullets start firing. No soldier will describe the “fog” rolling in. Police will have vivid memories of shoot outs. The details of the incident may be fuzzy or might change but the major elements of the danger are crystal clear.

JM merely needs to go to the Univ of Arizona or Arizona State and obtain the services of a neurophysiologist or a neurologist to rebut this current JA "expert"hokum.

I find this testimony baffling. If a brain just turns off during near death, stressful, under attack situations, and, the rage part of the brain turns on causing a person to murder -- then it would impossible to have a Military or Police Officers.

Soldiers in combat would shoot each other, blow each other up, mutilate anything in their way. Deployed sailors under intense duress would turn their ships into large metal coffins filled with carnage. Police officers would turn against each other - or uncontrollably mutilate an innocent bystander.

If anything I think that the normal reaction for a person to have during extreme life threatening situations - is for the horrible event to become "seared" into the brain. No amount of time, therapy, medication, alcohol, drugs can erase.

If Arias was scared, and, wanted to get away from Travis - why isn't Arias running away from Travis Alexander's butchered body? How is Arias as a person filled with such fear causing her brain to turn off standing over Travis Alexander's bloody lifeless body?

Travis Alexander crouched down sitting on his shower drain does not look to be a threat. He is naked, wet, in an enclosed space, appears to bent over in a weakened state - Arias had the advantage. She was fully clothed, dry, is mobile (as opposed to being in an enclosed space) - according to Arias she is agile (able to sprint down hallways, shut doors, leap up shelves, is able to find with ease a gun that is out of her sight).

Arias cannot have it both ways - agile and leaping with precision to get a gun that is out of her sight, and, scared for her life with her brain shutting off.

Arias' rage brain did not interfere with cleaning up, deleting photos off of the camera, washing clothes, driving to see another guy.

I believe in fair trials - however, sometimes actions are just too gruesome to make excuses for. The butchering of Travis Alexander, IMO, falls under this category.

This opinion may be the reason that this "education of the human brain" testimony baffles me (in terms of explaining Arias butchering Travis Alexander).
 
Beth Karas on Dr Drew: What is important is what the Doctor didn't say, he did not say her PTSD was caused by her killing Travis. Tomorrow's hearing is to see if the judge will allow the Doctor's testimony as he will define homicide, ie, if it was instrumental homicide (pre medidated) vs expressive/reactive homicide (in the heat of passion/fight/self defense). I don't think the judge will allow it.
 
I wonder if the DT is watching HLN tonight. If they are, I bet their mood just dropped about a thousand notches.... assuming they had the impression they had a good day. These folks on DD are eviscerating Samuels.
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGYHuDDLDQ8"]Jodi Arias Murder Trial Day 31. The camera was still running after court had ended. - YouTube[/ame]

check out :07, it starts up again. She is awful happy for someone on trial for her life.
 
So are we supposed to feel sorry for her if she suffers a litte PTSD because she herself caused it by Stabbing, Slicing, and Shooting Travis.

Here is my official analysis
"What comes around goes around---so too freaken bad"

Jodi's law of attraction at work.
 

I get that Samuels seems to be a sleeze of sorts (surprise, surprise when it comes to HER DT). But I still think JM would be better off just destroying his testimony as it relates to this defendant, rather than dragging up a bunch of muck on him to question his moral character.

Hard to say what the jury is thinking, but I think they are totally fed up with the muckraking that has gone on during this trial, and they just want some facts to take back to deliberations. And I would totally agree with them on that :please:.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
137
Guests online
338
Total visitors
475

Forum statistics

Threads
609,473
Messages
18,254,623
Members
234,662
Latest member
LikeCandy
Back
Top