It's VERY important for the defense. It's an attempt to explain her "black out" ploy as well as argue for temporary insanity regarding the overkill. If the jury believes it, she will be acquitted. It's that simple.
Further, judging from the juror questions to Jodi, the jury doesn't believe premeditation IMO. Thanks to Juan, this whole case is going down the drain. Sounds harsh?
Let me explain;
Juan and his experts have presented an illogical theory of the crime. Chiefly, that a stabbing came first in the shower. There's almost no blood splatter in the shower to support the assertion that a flurry of stabs took place there (indeed one jury asked a question about this, saying, "could the shower have been cleaned of blood?"). It is simply more logical that the gunshot came first for a number of reasons. Being far less risky is one. Another reason is that it's utterly foolish and unnecessary to leave behind gun evidence that could link her to the May 28th "burglary" of her residence. And this notion about how she wanted to make him suffer isn't going to cut it when you're talking about a female perpetrator and a predominately male jury. They won't buy it. What does this mean? That Jodi's sequence of events is far more plausible and this could tremendously help her credibility with the jury.
Not even one attempt to explain the ceiling photo and dropped camera photos that Jodi is using to support her version of events. He has not stressed that the camera was on the ground at the end of the hallway, inconsistent with the camera falling to the mat and rolling by the bathtub. The explanation that it got kicked over there is also inconsistent with the crime scene, as no evidence of a commotion occurred in that area, and based on the layout of the bathroom it would require two or three "kicks" to have the camera end up to where the dragging picture was taken (stretches credulity). Or one very hard kick that would cause it to bounce off the walls but then we'd expect to find external damage on the camera and there was none. He has left this wide open but Jodi has not and that could be a very big problem. He has provided no explanation for this and she HAS!
Juan BUNGLED twice now with the issue involving the shower ruse. First, during cross, he badgered Jodi -- incorrectly stating that her repeated attempts to convince Travis to take a photo of him shaving happened on the same day as the murder. She clearly was talking about an incident from a previous date. The sad thing is, Juan didn't need to do this because during the same taped interview she admits to convincing him a second time too -- this time on June 4th for a "Calvin Klein shoot", to which Travis initially responded "I feel so gay". That the issue of who suggested the shower shoot might have been lost on the jury thanks to Juan's bungling could spell disaster for the case!
Why? Because it is germane to the whole issue of premeditation. If the jury believes that Travis suggested the photo shoot, premeditation falls apart. And that's exactly what she told Samuels -- that he suggested the pictures. Jodi lied to Samuels about it because she knew that it had to do with her premeditation of the murder. Juan had an opportunity to expose this lie, but his previous bungle with Jodi on cross allowed both Willmot and Samuels to challenge him about this "inconsistency", referring to his prior incorrect statements concerning that taped interrogation, effectively burying the issue -- possibly implanting in the minds of the jurors that it was Travis who convinced Jodi. And Juan buried it further because he still refused to admit that he was WRONG. It was not an "interpretation", Juan. It is fact that she was talking about a prior incident. This bungle is MAJOR! And here's the funny (sad) thing, Jodi herself acknowledged on the stand that YES she did convince him to take the photos on June 4th, not once but twice. Once under direct, once during cross. Juan could have used those statements to challenge Samuels, but no, he had to be stubborn!
No effort to explain why she had sex with him on the day she planned to kill him. This alone argues against premeditation. It is often brought up by Jodiphiles to support their side. Juan has let the defense characterize the state's case as one involving a contract killing. This was no such case. Jodi had an emotional attachment and likely had second thoughts about going through with her plan to kill him (but was later re-triggered and had to clean up her sex mistakes with a shower ruse).
Failure to establish a credible motive. The Cancun crap is ridiculous when we have the May 26th exchange and the May 28th burglary. She was motivated by RAGE over him trashing her verbally, not jealously. Jodi would frequently shake over these verbal arguments by her own admission and on May 26th, she snapped and had enough. That's the motive! Not Cancun. Juries need motives -- credible ones.
Unless Juan can work a miracle in rebuttal, Jodi has a very good chance of being acquitted of all charges!
.
