trial day 33: the defense continues its case in chief #96

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, not buying a hoodie. I'm a Californian-No. & So., whose been to Phoenix in 120 degree heat in May. You wouldn't even dream of packing a hoodie!

You can get lightweight short sleeved tops with a hood and a front pocket. I have a couple. I wear them in the summer.

They are similar to the picture that another Wser just posted on the thread.
 
Are y'all watching Dr Drew????
Holy cow...read here much??? Lol....
 
THEY JUST SHOWED JODI SWIPE THAT FOLDER AND SIT ON IT--on Dr Drew show.

:giggle: :giggle: :floorlaugh:

Who was that who made the comment regarding JA's back side? It was hilarious!!!

:floorlaugh:
 
Did you all hear what Janine Driver just said about her sitting on the folder?! :floorlaugh:
 
That was beautifully written!
:bowdown:

I feel the same way.

I also believe they had in one other what the other was missing which made it so complicated and twisted.


IMHO if you are trying to figure out why JA brutally and viciously murdered TA using logic and reasoning, then you are doing it wrong. While I agree there were definite steps taken that constitute premeditation, I don't believe those steps were taken as the result of a logical, sensible mindset capable of predicting cause and effect.

JA and TA had a complicated relationship that went through phases and evolved over time. The consistent through-line was sexual, and that's where I think JA started confusing violence/aggression and sexuality/physical intimacy. (No, not a sexual amnesia or whatever Samuels was talking about.) I think that JA fully bought into the double standard that somehow her sexual nature and sexual activities with TA reflected negatively on her, (as a woman,) in a way they did not reflect on TA. I believe that TA promoted that idea and was attempting to rid himself of her by shaming her for her sexuality at the same time he was enjoying her availability.

I'm not interested in a religious debate, but I've heard JA use the term "courting" (courtship,) which has a specific meaning in fundamentalist christian circles. While JA may have aspired to being courted and being a good Mormon and being in the "in crowd," she must have come to the realization ultimately that she instead had lost all self-respect. As a feminist I know many women, myself included, who have had to work through issues of self-identity as it relates to sexuality. JA made the decision to destroy TA as an object of her own self-hatred. After all, TA was going, (or had gone,) to the Bishop to begin the process of repentance and coming back into the Mormon fold. That was not an option open to JA without exposing her sexuality to the scrutiny of others, a much more dangerous prospect likely to arouse condemnation and disgust. (And she is one who, according to Ryan Burns, was socially awkward even in amongst other PPL folks whom she knew well.)

As another poster pointed out in a thread long gone, JA was jealous of TA's success; financial, interpersonal, material, familial, spiritual, all of it. I believe she killed him as the only means she could see to pull herself up from the bottom of the barrel, from depravity, from self-loathing. I believe she wanted power over him, to control him, to have the last word, to inflict as much pain as possible. I don't believe she was mad about any one thing; Cancun, the other women, being called a *advertiser censored*, *nal sex. The paradox of JA's actions is that she killed TA to bury all the "bad" in herself, but instead she uncovered it for all the world to see.
 
The one big lie that Samuels told today is that he reversed the signs when a person repeats a story saying that when someone is telling the truth there are inconsistencies in their story each time they tell it, and when they are lying there are no inconsistencies each time they tell it. That's totally opposite of reality and Psychology 101.

When someone is telling the truth their story is always consistent because they are recalling an actual event that occurred. An actual event that occurs is unalterable as it is something that actually happened so the memory of that actual happening is imprinted in the brain in the way it actually happened and only in that way. And when someone makes up a story each time they tell it there will be inconsistencies depending on how much the liar practiced the details of an event they made up. The inconsistencies are because they are describing an event that did NOT actually occur and the subconscious mind can and does come up with a large variety of details that are inconsistent with the original false story as when someone retells a story that was not something that actually happened but something they made up each time they retell it there will be inconsistencies - details omitted and other details added because the story is a fantasy with multiple scenerios and not an actual occurance that is recalled. In fabricating a story there is a huge variety of things that could have happened, thus with each telling inconsistencies naturally occur whereas the recalling of an actual event can only be recalled one way - as the event actually occurred - therefore, with each retelling the truthful story based on an actual event won't have inconsistencies with each telling but the false made up story will have inconsistencies.

Samuels blatantly reversed this well known lie/truth criteria in order to fit with Jodi's inconsistencies in her stories as being truthful when they actually show that those inconsistencies show that she made up the stories, and they were not actual events that she is recalling. The memory part of the brain is separate from the fantasy/imagination section with entirely different criteria in how they are recalled.

Inconsistencies in recalling an event is the bedrock of police and other criminal investigators to show that a person in not being truthful. Who in the world doesn't know THAT? This goes directly to the well known occurrence of recalled memory of an actual event will not have inconsistencies whereas a recalled fantasy of an event that was made up will have inconsistencies.

I seriously cannot believe that Samuels reversing the criteria of truth vs. lying as if no one would notice that he did and that this was a blatant attempt on his part to make it appear that Jodi's epic list of inconsistencies are actually criteria that she's telling the truth about an actual occurrence when it is the opposite. Even the average lay person knows the simple psychology of truth vs. lies... truth = no inconsistencies and lies = inconsistencies.

:furious:

I hope JM totally clobbers him on this reversal of Psychology 101.
 
I'm watching HLN, which I'm not really used to doing. It's confusing me a bit. Seems like the talking heads keep saying that Samuels was her therapist. He really wasn't, was he? He was hired to psych eval her so that he could testify on her behalf—from the get go—right?

The TV talking heads don't always get the facts straight ;)
 
A little trivia: Just noticed in the afternoon session that JA has a container filled with what appears to be 7-8 ink pens sitting in front of her to the right of the monitor. She must have complained about the stubby little golf pencil, lol.

Any of her jail mates better not ask to borrow any pens from her unless they wear surgical gloves. :floorlaugh:
 
:floorlaugh:Dr drew
Jennie driver said
regarding jodi putting the folder behind her butt
Well she hasn't had anything back there for a while lol
 
Probably did. Wonder if Laviolette is aware of what's happing with the PhD? Can an expert witness request to remove themselves from a case?

JM hinted during his cross of JA that she told LaViolette that Travis had child *advertiser censored* on his computer. When asked if she told her that, she said no and Juan dropped it. I bet he has proof somewhere that she did tell her that, otherwise I doubt he would have even mentioned it.
 
Jodi is trying to mirror her atty! Dressing alike!
Thelma and Louise
 
I find a couple of things very disturbing about Dr. Boring.
For one, I've been to several "therapists" in my life. While they might not take notes while you're talking to them, the ones I've been to, and MD's also do this....After they see you, they record their notes on a small recorder which is later transcribed. Maybe I missed it but with Dr.Boring, has there been ANY way to authenticate that he made these notes on the same day he spoke to her? For a guy who has been supposedly in this business for 30+ years, doesn't have a freaking secretary? Drs have to usually be precise in their dealings with patients in order to charge insurance companies. How do we know that he's not just following some script the Defense gave him? I also notice that when Angry Bird Wilmot is talking to him, when it relates to what JA supposedly told him, he relays it more like he was there at Travis's actually seeing the murder. Once in a while with Wilmot he will say "she said" meaning JA said but most of the time he relays it like he was a witness...she went into the closet, she shot the gun, etc.
 
And this too...

hB9595D1E

Hilarious!! BTW, is that emu drawing an original Arias? :floorlaugh:
 
Seriously? Dr. Drew doesn't know the difference between a 'ladies' wig and a comical mullet wig??

C'mon, Drew... please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
161
Guests online
1,060
Total visitors
1,221

Forum statistics

Threads
602,122
Messages
18,135,042
Members
231,244
Latest member
HollyMcKee
Back
Top