trial day 34: the defense continues its case in chief #97

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm sorry but the Mods have REPEATEDLY said that ALL opinions are welcome.



Not cool. :(

I am not so sure I can necessarily agree on this, opinions do have to be websleuth friendly to remain. I have seen opinions go by the big delete button if they are in contrast to the majority even if they are well versed in a polite manner.
 
Yes and they honestly need financial support I'm told. I believe the 1st page here (for sure on the court room observers thread) and for sure on the Justice for Travis facebook has the email address you can donate to. You don't need a paypal account just the email address. I understand even small amounts are welcome as they add up.

I think it's so important for us to help if we can, even the tiniest bit. I can't imagine what a financial burden this must place on them and they feel they HAVE to be there for Travis. Just one more way JA has tried to destroy that family.
 
About the cost of defense, I know everyone is tired of hearing this but this IS a death penalty case. You want her put to death but you don't want the state or her attorneys to spend the money and time necessary to ensure her defense is presented IN ITS ENTIRETY to the people empowered to take her life? I know everyone is frustrated by how long it is taking, I am too, but let's try to have some perspective.
I think the complaint is the amount of time the attorneys are spending going around in circles... I doubt anyone is saying she shouldn't get a fair trial or representation...jmo

WagaraTapaTalk
 
I'm reading all these posts regarding whether JA will be convicted of premeditation and arguments concerning the sequence of events and how that will or may play into the jury's decision to convict on premeditation - well, I'd just like to point out that the most damning thing related to premeditation is Travis Victor Alexander's post-mortem body. It's so obvious that the amount of force she used was uncalled for and she could have gotten away unharmed, if indeed she was in fear for her life from his "threat".
First of all, she was fully dressed, he was naked and dripping wet from the shower. She could have run out the door and raced out of the house - I doubt he would have followed her naked, dripping wet, out of the house, let's face it, this is the most logical thing to do.
Travis' body is proof of overkill. I don't think JA and her defense team have proven or will prove that her overly aggressive, violent actions, her butchering of Travis - the defensive wounds on his hands, the stab to the heart, the gunshot to head, the stabbing wounds close together on his upper back - STABBING IN THE BACK!- for heaven's sake, there was no reason to kill him unless she planned it before hand. I just don't think the jury will ignore the enormous injustice Travis was subjected to at the hands of Jodi Arias - because in fact, it's all about the victim. Put his bludgeoned body next to all the other facts - the stolen gun, the rented car, the cell phone calls, the lies, hiding the car, the license plate, the trip to Utah, the voice mail left on TA's phone, and the camera in the washing machine....etc. PREMEDITATED.

I think the disconnect is extended planning v. formed in a second premeditation. Your post speaks to the latter, while the evidence the State seems focused on (stolen gun, gas cans, cell phone off, etc) speaks to the former. I've always said I was surprised that the State is going with stabbed first (maybe they had to b/c the ME felt strongly about that) because the argument that she stole a gun to kill Travis but didn't use it first goes against the State's apparent "extended planning" focus. Maybe the State will offer both premeditation theories to the jury in their rebuttal case, but I don't think so. I think they're relying on the felony murder charge to cover it if the jury doesn't buy the extended planning argument. jmo
 
This isn't a high school lunch room. They can't pass notes. That note may tell her mom to hire a hit man to 'off' Martinez.

This is a court of law and this person is in jail awaiting her punishment. Good lord...what sloppy court room etiquette. First they're constantly starting late, constantly at side-bar and now not paying attention to inmate Arias.

Here are some of the other strange/sneaky actions caught on camera:

Takes notebook?
Jodi arias - YouTube

Puts something in mouth?
.Jodi Arias "taking something" in court. Probably just Tylenol. - YouTube

Jodi eye-roll!
Jodi Arias Murder Trial. Day 33. Sir do you have a problem with your memory. Jodi eye roll - YouTube

Turns page?
What did Jodi just do with the paper?? Jodi palms a paper in court while attorneys at sidebar. - YouTube

My favorite; Unseen Jodi Arias ;)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz8YR22DduI

The talking heads are saying Jodi wasn't hiding anything,but you can see something moving upwards behind her then she rocks over and puts something under her.
 
Definition of beyond a reasonable doubt

The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.
 
I haven't been able to follow much of the trial lately. But IMO I'm quite sure carrying out a premeditated murder can cause PTSD, amnesia fog, etc. Did JM ask the good dr. about that possibility?
 
I am not so sure I can necessarily agree on this, opinions do have to be websleuth friendly to remain. I have seen opinions go by the big delete button if they are in contrast to the majority even if they are well versed in a polite manner.

I don't believe this at all and I've been here for a very long time. I have never seen posts disappear just because the opinion goes against the grain. They are only deleted if they are violating TOS. The moderators here are VERY good and VERY fair and they wouldn't stoop to that level.
 
I just have to rant a bit, then feel free to throw stones at me.

I've seen JA referred to on WS as the 15 year old BJ queen, *advertiser censored*, etc. IMHO, it's not relevent. There are plenty of *advertiser censored* who don't kill.

Also, when we start judging people on what age they started having sex, what type of sex they have, etc., it's kind of a slippery slope. There can be rape victims whose sexual history should not be admissable.

Believe me, I see how the DT introduced JA's sexual experience as a way to somehow distort Travis' sex life. So I know sexual acts are a part of this case and will be discussed here. I just think the name calling about it stupid.

Judge JA because she is a stone-cold murderer, not because she has an extensive sexual history that began at age 15. :twocents:

*runs and ducks for cover*

I agree with you VV. It doesn't matter how old she was when giving bjs
or how many she blew, Not relevant. All that is relevant to me is her brutally murdering TA.
 
This isn't a high school lunch room. They can't pass notes. That note may tell her mom to hire a hit man to 'off' Martinez.

This is a court of law and this person is in jail awaiting her punishment. Good lord...what sloppy court room etiquette. First they're constantly starting late, constantly at side-bar and now not paying attention to inmate Arias.

snipped for space.

I think it's complacency on the sheriff's part.

None of the notebook taking, note passing, or ?pill taking should be allowed and the sheriffs obviously do not have control over the courtroom. It's a security breach as far as I am concerned. The Sheriff's officer should see this "best of" complilation. Thanks for taking the time to do this.
 
I just have to rant a bit, then feel free to throw stones at me.

I've seen JA referred to on WS as the 15 year old BJ queen, *advertiser censored*, etc. IMHO, it's not relevent. There are plenty of *advertiser censored* who don't kill.

Also, when we start judging people on what age they started having sex, what type of sex they have, etc., it's kind of a slippery slope. There can be rape victims whose sexual history should not be admissable.

Believe me, I see how the DT introduced JA's sexual experience as a way to somehow distort Travis' sex life. So I know sexual acts are a part of this case and will be discussed here. I just think the name calling about it stupid.

Judge JA because she is a stone-cold murderer, not because she has an extensive sexual history that began at age 15. :twocents:

*runs and ducks for cover*
Here is how I think about this. When people are angry they say angry things. If the person they are angry with is a man, they say man things. If it's a woman, they say woman things. One pretty much has to take life as it is. The whole world isn't going to stop in it's tracks and only hurl soft foam verbal nerf balls at each other when they are angry from now on. These barbs are specifically directed at JA, and no one else. There are no other implications that one needs to assign here. And people have every right to be angry in this particular case. Hope this helps.
 
Still catching up on the previous thread......
Can someone explain to me what whether or not Jodi and Travis had or didn't have sex that day has ANYthing to do with premeditation???

It doesn't. But for some reason people want to ignore the obvious and really want to believe they didn't have sex that day. Hey, maybe they didn't. But they at least messed around and took nude photos of each other. It isn't important though.
 
I don't want this to get lost in the last thread so......
Here's Gus Searcy on Judge Judy.
Listen to his used-car-salesman-like exaggeration and creepiness at the end!

Gus Searcy on Judge Judy - YouTube

Hard to believe that Gus SAR-see, as Her Honor, Judge Scheindlin pronounced it, would de-edify his wife and children in that way.

I carefully reviewed his inventions, but I was unable to find any automatic spousal and child support machines.
 
JA is innocent people and their sympathizers say that if she was planning on shooting him, she would have done it as soon as he opened the door and not waited to have sex with him. To them, it proves that something happened to provoke her.

This sounds to me like 'they' are agreeing she brought the gun with her......bringing the gun with her = premediation. Doesn't matter if she used it in moment one or hour 4. She brought the gun with her. imo
 
After thinking the "shooting first" made more sense I have done a complete turnaround. Jodi planned every minute detail right down to turning the license plates. So the murder was planned to a T. I believe she planned on BOTH stabbing and shooting Travis to make it look like there were 2 killers. She planned on stabbing first (why would you stab if your gunshot already killed him) and then shooting him. I wouldnt be surprised that she planned on stabbing right handed and fire the gun left-handed or visa versa to aid in the 2 killer story. I think she planned on doing both in the shower - first, sitting in there would make him more vunerable and 2nd it would contain the blood.

What went wrong was that after being stabbed, Travis was able to get up and out of the shower before she could shoot him...therefore she had to stop him by repeatingly stab and ultimately slashing his throat...since her original plan was to shoot in shower, she dragged him back and put him in plus the reason for attempted clean up (trying to return to her master plan).

I welcome alternate theories or reasons why my theory doesnt make sense!
 
I think they had sex. That makes her killing him after that more evil and coldblooded, imo.
 
This is a victim friendly website so any trashing of the victim or victims family isn't allowed. Mods have warned on inappropriate jokes of sexual nature and making fun of the DT and even calling JA names. I don't think they can monitor 100% of the time but if someone alerts on a post (the little triangle at the top of a post) the mods are alerted.

I had one of my posts deleted for just mentioning a poster (it wasn't negitive) becasue TOS is not to talk about a poster, just the post. I do see alot of that in other threads but mine was re a poster on another website, which is not allowed.

So unpopular and minority opinions are allowed here just not embraced by most :)).

I have had some unpopular posts/opinions way back and they were allowed. idk moo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
131
Guests online
3,373
Total visitors
3,504

Forum statistics

Threads
602,746
Messages
18,146,379
Members
231,522
Latest member
supersnooper001
Back
Top