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

[bexlex]

.....
Unless Juan can work a miracle in rebuttal, Jodi has a very good chance of being acquitted of all charges!

RSBM

:waitasec: What has changed since yesterday?

 

[JusticeJunkie]

The juror questions will be put to samuels without any coaching from the DT this time, just like they should have been put to Arias. I am on the edge of my seat waiting for his digging through all his papers for the answers.

 

[LambChop]

Didn't Jodi complain of cuts/scratches to her ankle/s? She could have had the knife in her sock!

Or it was from cactus type plants while she searched for a place to get rid of the evidence. My mother lived in the high desert in California and when I was there I tried to get some of those prickly weeds out of the garden and they are sharp as a razor. So I could see those cuts and scratches at the ankles from walking through an area that was covered with this type of vegetation. jmo

 

[Rosemary Pierce]

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!

This is you speculating.....and that's all :facepalm:

 

[popsicle]

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! snipped by me

I am only addressing this one part. If someone snaps on May 28th, how then do they not commit the murder until June 4th? That is not snapping, that is premeditated. imo

 

[G&AMom]

OMGawd - she uploaded that AFTER she murdered him. I am not that all for the death penalty (am so primarily in cases of child murderers), but this has to be the topping on the cake. Please, please, jury - give her the needle.

MOO - thanks.

Mel

I totally understand your feelings. I'm pretty much opposed to the death penalty as well.

I find myself simply not caring what happens to Jodi. DP or LWOP, I don't care. What I DO care about is Travis' family, his friends, you, me -- even the staff at the prison. Whatever they decide to do with her, I think consideration of the rest of humanity should be paramount. If the best thing for Travis' siblings is for her to get the death penalty, then that's really all that should matter.

 

[coup de grace]

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!

Thanks for the laughs :great: You couldn't be more WRONG imo

 

[MandyLeigh]

So how much does it cost an entire state when Jodi doesn't get what she wants?

Cari Gerchick, Maricopa County Communications Director, told ABC15 the total amount spent on her defense team has been roughly $838,000 and continues to climb.

Yes it's going to hit 1 Million just to defend her.
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/jodi-arias-trial-cost-taxpayers-could-end-up-spending-more-than-1-million-to-defend-arias

Not the costs for feeding her, her medical care or anything in the last 4 years. Not court costs, state costs or anything after the trial like appeals, keeping her in prison and of course the cost of the needle.

She disgusts me not only for robbing Travis of his life but for what she is costing you Arizona people becuase she refuses to just admit what she did wrong.

Nurmi and Willmott disgust me when they needlessly waste court time for being lazy, disrespectful and unprepared. The tax payer clock is ticking.

 

[raisincharlie]

I have been diagnosed with PTSD, BPD, and anxiety. Not just by one therapist/psychologist/psychiatrist either. I was very unhappy to be labelled and I wanted other opinions as to why things were happening to me. I was told re: the BPD diagnosis that to be careful letting people know that because it is completely misunderstood by a lot of people.

With my PTSD, I have intrusive images (like youtube clips of my trauma) that sometimes appear out of nowhere. Sometimes they are triggered by movie scenes, smells, certain objects. I have undergone EMDR and DBT for treatment. It has helped a lot, it also was a lot of work.

When my PTSD is triggered (and I cannot get it under control by changing my thoughts, etc.) I go into fight or flight mode. Yes that is a real thing - Parasympathetic nervous system. When I am in flight or flight mode (even though I'm just sitting in my car or at home, etc.) that is when I have full blown panic attacks (anxiety) I either use the DBT to calm myself or in severe anxiety attacks I have a medication I can put under my tongue which will make my physical body fight or flight mode calm down.

I have never once forgotten anything and I remember every single detail. For years prior to therapy, I had no idea what was happening to me, I didn't understand why I would have a zillion thoughts or images going through my mind. I tried with all my might pre-therapy to block out the images, sounds, etc., no I could not.

Even in my dreams I could not escape because I would have night terrors.

I think this Doc Samuels is an absolute quack.

First I am sorry you have this in your life and I sincerely wish you the best in staying strong against it.

Second - your last two sections prior to your comment about Samuels in particular are exactly why I do not believe for a single minute the murderess has PTSD. Doc Samuels, if he was to be honest with himself about it, would have never gotten on that stand and declared she suffered from PTSD. Shameful man.

 

[Sustained]

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!

BBM - you mean the sequence of events that SHE MADE UP ???? What makes you think that the jury BELIEVES ANYTHING SHE HAS SAID ???? The woman is a pathological liar, especially when it's in her best interest ... LIKE NOW !!!

Your post would be a good candidate for post of the year on the "Arias supporter" site.

 

[Southern_Meadow]

If JA doesn't get the death penalty, I think she should serve out her LWOP locked in that closet. :moo:

No. She would probably like that, seeing as how she was obsessed with everything Travis. From what his friends have said, she was pretty fond of that closet, even hiding in it waiting for him to come home from dates with other women.

 

[Rosemary Pierce]

RSBM

:waitasec: What has changed since yesterday?

Absolutely nothing. I am thinking this is secretly Jean C.

 

[LaneGirl]

The juror questions will be put to samuels without any coaching from the DT this time, just like they should have been put to Arias. I am on the edge of my seat waiting for his digging through all his papers for the answers.

Just don't get too nervous if the questions are asked in order because there were questions in the basket before JM got up to cross.

 

[Angelina Frost]

Unless Juan can work a miracle in rebuttal, Jodi has a very good chance of being acquitted of all charges!

29 stab wounds, near decapitation, gunshot to the head and 5 zillion things that point to premeditation, and your assessment is a potential acquittal? <mod snip>

<mod snip>.

 

[gloomy]

Arias being acquitted of all charges? Not in this lifetime... not ever. I have a feeling the jury is paying attention. They're not dumb. :twocents:

 

[KMouse]

I read somewhere that they aren't immediatly released, in case they have to replace a juror still. I'm not sure if that's accurate because I can't remember where I read it.

That would make sense in case one of the 12 jurors fell ill or had a family emergency and had to leave.

 

[G&AMom]

Lol, I know. As much as she lies, I'm really surprised she didn't come up with some better material to substantiate the abuse claims.

Hard to substantiate something that doesn't exist. :floorlaugh: Although she did try with those "letters."

 

[coup de grace]

I totally understand your feelings. I'm pretty much opposed to the death penalty as well.

I find myself simply not caring what happens to Jodi. DP or LWOP, I don't care. What I DO care about is Travis' family, his friends, you, me -- even the staff at the prison. Whatever they decide to do with her, I think consideration of the rest of humanity should be paramount. If the best thing for Travis' siblings is for her to get the death penalty, then that's really all that should matter.

She will make LWOP her own little party. Sociopaths adapt easily to the prison environment and never commit suicide gosh darn it all :banghead:

 

[Kelley0424]

I am still hung up on something that has been bothering me from a few weeks ago. Regarding her road trip, she refers to "WE" twice in her testimony. No one every asked her who "we" were??



Originally Posted by Ramblinrose01
I was just listening to this afternoon's testimony again and noticed something JA stated that is odd to me. JM is talking about her road trip to Mesa and she states that "we" left early the morning of the 3rd after midnight. Did anyone else catch this and do you know what she means?

It is at 16:30
Jodi Arias Murder Trial Day 24. Afternoon session. Part 1. - YouTube

[video=youtube;jD2nyqJmQ6Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD2nyqJmQ6Q[/video]

 

[Midnight Meddler]

Except there is no evidence that he even knew about the phone sex tape.

EXACTLY!

Hmmm... maybe she played it for him on May 26th '08 provoking the texts where he says she has betrayed him etc... etc.. ?

Speaking of those texts, does anyone know what her response was to them? Did she ever text him back? I do know she claims that she never received the e-mail he sent her that he references that she couldn't get off her lazy butt to read due to her only thinking of herself.. There's so much missing?

If anyone knows, thank you!!