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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ammonitida said:
That's possible. But I fear the jury may not buy that. They see this blood all over the bathroom and hallway, but almost none in the shower (just the postmortem blood after his body was removed). That doesn't look good.
Click to expand...

The jury would also surmise that with all that blood she would be covered in it however she states when she came out of the fog she only had blood on her hands and then later she said on her hands and feet (testified under oath). That seems impossible just as you think the shower shouldn't be clean (even though you admit she would have rinsed him to clean off her DNA).

During the CIC for the State a bit of blood was found on the downstairs bathroom sink. Also one of the jury questions was something like - did you clean up after killing TA. So rest assured some on the jury is thinking about JA cleaning up and it's not impossible to believe with the crime photo of TA in the shower he didn't have a lot of blood on him and I believe the ME's report even stated it looked like he had been rinsed. So you don't need to worry too much at least about the shower. idk
 
Ammonitida said:
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? I strongly disagree, the jury questions were sarcastic and maybe they want her to explain before they convict her.

Let me explain;




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!We only have the word of an admitted liar that Travis was aware of the "photo shoot". Same liar also said that Travis didn't want shower pictures taken. There is shots where he looks surprised and fearful indicating he was not aware she was there.

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).
We don't know for a fact that they did have sex on the 4th. Again the word of an admitted liar. The photos of her could have been taken by herself with the KY as a prop.
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. I think jealousy over Mimi going to Cancun is every bit as strong of a motive as Travis telling her she was a psychopath. Why can't it be both???

Unless Juan can work a miracle in rebuttal, Jodi has a very good chance of being acquitted of all charges!
Click to expand...
My responses are in red. I think you are absolutely wrong on the above points.
 
Ammonitida said:
I'm not ignoring it. But for a lot of people, it's just not enough to convince them that a *woman* premeditated this murder (especially since they had sex that day). The evidence of planning they attribute to "freak coincidences". Her attempt at covering her tracks they attribute to the "understandable fear" of a battered woman going to prison. We just had two jurors from a mock jury vote to acquit her. That should NEVER happen with this kind of evidence for premeditation.
Click to expand...

That was not a mock jury - that was a tabloid type entertainment show put on by HLN After Dark. The jurors are suspected to be CNN office employees, and they know their role in the show of the evening.

Your other findings I have more trouble following. :seeya:
 
Ammonitida said:
I'm not ignoring it. But for a lot of people, it's just not enough to convince them that a *woman* premeditated this murder (especially since they had sex that day). The evidence of planning they attribute to "freak coincidences". Her attempt at covering her tracks they attribute to the "understandable fear" of a battered woman going to prison. We just had two jurors from a mock jury vote to acquit her. That should NEVER happen with this kind of evidence for premeditation.
Click to expand...

There has been no mock jury voting on her guilt or innocence of the murder. Last night the question was whether or not she faked PTSD and 2 agreed that she could have. Monday night the question was, did Travis attack her and provoke the killing. Last Thursday the question was, is JM too aggressive and the first episode, last Wednesday, was whether or not she lied about the gun and staged the burglary at her grandparent's house. Me thinks you're not up to speed on a lot of this stuff you're saying.
 
luvtenniss said:
Yes, she is evil! I wish I could remember who posted this last night. But on the area of PTSD, the doc said the person suffering gets worse, or suffers more when presented with the incident. Well, JA asked to go by Travis' house after the murder, she asked Flores to see the autopsy photos, and she had to sneak looks of the pics in court. She seemed more than fine in all those instances. As you said, pleased with herself.
Click to expand...

ITA with one small quibble. My take on her interview with Flores was that he told her they found a camera and had some photos taken at the time of the murder. She wanted to know (a) if Flores was lying, and (b) how to adjust her story. So not the autopsy photos, by those "inadvertent" photos. JMO
 
Ammonitida said:
I'm not ignoring it. But for a lot of people, it's just not enough to convince them that a *woman* premeditated this murder (especially since they had sex that day). The evidence of planning they attribute to "freak coincidences". Her attempt at covering her tracks they attribute to the "understandable fear" of a battered woman going to prison. We just had two jurors from a mock jury vote to acquit her. That should NEVER happen with this kind of evidence for premeditation.
Click to expand...

It didn't matter that JA had sex that day with TA, so what if she is a woman. SEX was her tool. Sometimes we have to look between the lies she spews to see the truth. She used sex to control TA, but she had already realized he was no longer under her control. She liked the sex and initiated it, so she tried to use her tool one more time, but this time she didn't get what she wanted and continued on with plan A, murder TA.:banghead:
 
Clue Finder 55 said:
I think even somebody that had a labotomy could figure out she killed him with premeditation.
Maybe she has PMS and it was just a bad day for poor Jodi
Click to expand...

I am starting to think some people have no clue what premeditation is. You are so right Clue....there is premeditation all over the place, even if you take out hair, gas cans, long arse drive to AZ, rental car.

State does not need to show motive BTW-juries LIKE motive, but the state only has to prove a crime has been committed by the defendant. This isn't Law and Order where everything ties up so neatly. Some crimes don't have a discernible motive. Many people don't agree with me...I don't think the pros in SP's case showed a motive. I could read between the lines...he didn't want a wife and child, but that wasn't definitively proven. No matter, justice was still served.

So pre-meditation = intent to kill. She intended to kill him as he stabbed him over and over and over. She could have stopped at any time but she did not. She slit his throat-another intent to kill him. Most logical people know that a slit throat is difficult to survive. She shot him in the head-again, intent to kill, whether one believes the shot came first or last. Either way SHE MEANT TO KILL HIM!! That is premeditation! Order of events does not matter because the outcome was the same and would have been the same whichever happened first. Whether you like him or not, he has shown pre-meditation. It isn't that hard to piece together, even for a pea-brain like me. Crimeny this case has so much more than CA's ever did-JA WILL NOT WALK!

I get that some people don't like JM because of his style-granted it bothers me sometimes too. It works for him, however, and at the end of the day its justice for Travis and his family, however it happens. I would love to have someone passionately taking their job seriously to get justice for my family-regardless if I liked everything about him or not.
 
Ramblinrose01 said:
OT but I work at an intermediate school in N. Tx. and we are on lockdown due to an inmate escaping from the courthouse about 4 blocks away. Can hear helicopters flying overhead. God knew I was bored today due to trial starting late!!!! LOL! :what:
Click to expand...

:what: OMG Yikes! I live in N. TX as well & have a daughter in elementary school. I just got home so haven't seen it on the news yet.
 
jojomonkey said:
"Freak coincidences" - ok
Click to expand...

I seem to remember that scott peterson was convicted on mostly evidence of coincidences. One freak coincidence could be believable to some, but when you're talking 4 or more, people stop allowing for 'coincidence' as an explanation. There is absolutely no way anyone with a brain will accept:

gun stolen days before murder same type weapon used in murder

her cell phone pings consistently before and after , just not when she is in Arizona because she didn't have a charger

TA sent her angry breakup txts & emails days before murder

she decided to save on gas by getting gas cans, and amazingly she only fills up when she is not in AZ

I'm sure there is more, but I can't think of it right now. SP was convicted on way less than the evidence we have in this case. No way is this jury not voting guilty.
 
Kensie said:
I get nervous too. The jury seems to be intelligent but there are idiots all over the place in all walks of life. I just hope that the jury does not have any sympathy, empathy or any other feeling towards JA except total disgust.

The fact, the people on the forum and talk shows think JA may be acquitted scares me too.

I guess I am just nervous about the outcome.
Click to expand...

She will never be acquitted. The worst that can happen is a hung jury. Juan Martinez will never give up.
 
LambChop said:
I think the point is he could have written clothing, shirt but he put sweater and then said he could have mistakenly written that down. Why would he insert his own opinion on what she said? It shows he could have been helping her with her storyline because in his mind he was already inserting information that just was not told to him. On his website Samuels claims that he can "help your case". That could mean he is willing to twist information that the defendant claims to mean something different than what is the actual case. In this case he has clearly proven he has done just that. There is no "thin veil" here. It could be seen as him tailoring the testing to fit into what he wanted for an end result. He should lose his license or at least his ability to testify in court. He is not competent to hold onto that position. Time for him to retire. jmo
Click to expand...

You're right -- he was definitely trying to tailor his replies to fit in with Jodi's story. I guess my feeling was that there are so many other obvious examples of him doing this, I don't really care about this one thing.
 
Ammonitida said:
I'm not ignoring it. But for a lot of people, it's just not enough to convince them that a *woman* premeditated this murder (especially since they had sex that day). The evidence of planning they attribute to "freak coincidences". Her attempt at covering her tracks they attribute to the "understandable fear" of a battered woman going to prison. We just had two jurors from a mock jury vote to acquit her. That should NEVER happen with this kind of evidence for premeditation.
Click to expand...

A lot of people are on this thread and have the advantage of information most of the public are not given to consider and feel that premeditation was proved early on and over and over again. They are not John Q public who are disadvantaged by being limited to what they are shown or told. Most of us here see what the jury sees and there is an overwhelming belief she planned the whole thing. A snapshot in time is not a good measure to prove whether she is guilty or not guilty. This is why we don't let the media and masses decide defendant's fate. It's done in the courtroom and either way the media trials while a trial is going on should not be permitted. Again, either way, it is not fair to the defendant. jmo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 260 more.
Total: 2,384 (members: 261, guests: 2,123)

Online statistics

Members online
261
Guests online
2,123
Total visitors
2,384
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,076
Messages
18,090,129
Members
230,783
Latest member
electricalbee651
Back
Top