trial day 36: the defense continues its case in chief #106

[AngelWings444]

The guest commenting on nancy grace looks like a woman but has a mans voice. Is she female or male, not judging just curious.

And the man seemed to have a woman's voice. I was so confused when I started watching/listening. :what:

 

[Dana]

Mimi testified in court and said this?

The slashed tires testimony starts at the 2:30 mark....

[video=youtube;Ip7EN8uoD-Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip7EN8uoD-Q[/video]

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

Ok, I just finished watching the part of the trial I missed today. I think JM has destroyed any credibility that Richard Samuels had since he first raised his hand and took the stand. I was surprised that JM was able to get away with the "Because you have feelings for her!" line, without presenting any real evidence. While I agree with him, it seems in a court of law he should have to prove that. I.E. producing a Valentines card or something.

JM's step by step analysis of the exam and getting the witness to explain each and every choice he made was brilliant. I'm just a little bummed that nobody asked that if Jodi qualifies for PTSD, then shouldn't every murderer? It seems like Gus Jr.'s argument was that the PTSD was caused by the murder and that everything she did afterword was consistent with trying to avoid the event. I.E. sending flowers, attending the memorial service, talking to one of TA's friends about how she envisioned their kids playing together, writing an 18 page letter to the family, going on 48 Hours, going on Inside Edition etc... JMO, but if anyone believes that she was trying to avoid the event they're looney. In my opinion avoiding PTSD is not thinking about the trauma at all, it just comes back due to certain triggers. Like a soldier hearing a car backfire or a balloon burst.

I think this next witness for the defense is going to be a much more formidable opponent for JM. I actually like her. When they went through her credentials she seems to be an admirable woman. I'm hoping all of her opinions were based on Gus Jr.'s reports and when she finds out what he really did she turns to the prosecutions side.

JMO, but if anyone believes that she was trying to avoid the event they're looney. In my opinion avoiding PTSD is not thinking about the trauma at all, it just comes back due to certain triggers. Like a soldier hearing a car backfire or a balloon burst

Good Evening: What exactly do you mean by the BBM portion? TIA

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

The slashed tires testimony starts at the 2:30 mark....

Jodi Arias Trial Day 1 (Audio Only) - YouTube

Thank you so much Dana !!! I tried your video but it didn't work - I know how to find previous testimony though...Thanks Again!

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Which, in my view, should make her a better potential ally for the victim here (thus, the state).

If she is truly a champion for any/all victims of domestic abuse - in the varied forms it takes, then she should, ultimately, be a champion for the victim in this case, too. And that is NOT JA.

This is very likely a turning point in her career. This is the most recognition she has/will ever get.

If she is authentic, there is nothing to worry about. She may very well say that JA suffers from symptoms of or akin to abuse victims - or she may even say that she thinks Travis abused JA (hogwash, imv), BUT - and with someone with her years of experience and knowledge there should be a BUT - her findings cannot indicate that JA acted in any excusable way by butchering Travis Alexander...

Frankly, I believe this is the crux of the argument, even if abused (which I do not believe) was JA justified in planning a 3000 mile trip in order to 'defend' herself against a 'batterer' who was leaving the flipping COUNTRY in 5 days!

If ALV finds JA credible... 'nuf said.

Part of her schtick is "why do women come back" to abusers. Doesn't bode well imo. Hope I'm wrong.

 

[Sedonia Sunset]

I watched a lecture by ALV (partially re fairy tales) on youtube earlier this evening. She did NOT talk about Snow White being an abuse victim, at least not in that particular lecture. She asked people to describe SW, along with other characters in the story. She discussed how men and women are conditioned to act certain ways (or NOT act certain ways) in order to achieve our goals, about what is rewarded and what is not, about how society can be manipulated about gender roles by the media, past and present. It was an interesting lecture and I listened to all but about the last minute of it. She asked a lot of questions about how people in the audience would react in various scenarios of domestic abuse, given a certain set of circumstances. She talked about group therapy that started out with just men, but they were required to add women to the group, and how the dynamics of the group subsequently changed (not in a good way).

She used a line from The Big Chill about going a week without rationalizing something (as opposed to going a week without sex).

I have no idea how she will testify or how she will interact with JM through the lens of a strong feminist. I'm sure he has his approach to cross-examining her ready and tailored to fit her testimony. I'm willing to keep an open mind until I see how it goes.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

Ok, I just finished watching the part of the trial I missed today. I think JM has destroyed any credibility that Richard Samuels had since he first raised his hand and took the stand. I was surprised that JM was able to get away with the "Because you have feelings for her!" line, without presenting any real evidence. While I agree with him, it seems in a court of law he should have to prove that. I.E. producing a Valentines card or something.

JM's step by step analysis of the exam and getting the witness to explain each and every choice he made was brilliant. I'm just a little bummed that nobody asked that if Jodi qualifies for PTSD, then shouldn't every murderer? It seems like Gus Jr.'s argument was that the PTSD was caused by the murder and that everything she did afterword was consistent with trying to avoid the event. I.E. sending flowers, attending the memorial service, talking to one of TA's friends about how she envisioned their kids playing together, writing an 18 page letter to the family, going on 48 Hours, going on Inside Edition etc... JMO, but if anyone believes that she was trying to avoid the event they're looney. In my opinion avoiding PTSD is not thinking about the trauma at all, it just comes back due to certain triggers. Like a soldier hearing a car backfire or a balloon burst.

I think this next witness for the defense is going to be a much more formidable opponent for JM. I actually like her. When they went through her credentials she seems to be an admirable woman. I'm hoping all of her opinions were based on Gus Jr.'s reports and when she finds out what he really did she turns to the prosecutions side.

BBM: I could be wrong but I think the judge ruled that the cards can't come in b/c the cards were allegedly sent to JA b/c Nurmi thought he was leaving the case. I think JM was trying to get the defense to open that door so he could bring the cards in.

 

[AlanCFA]

Yes. She was an ex-girlfriend of Travis's and ended up looking far better for the prosecution than the defense.

I agree. When I saw her testifying, I only caught a snippet and did not realize that she was a defense witness - I thought she was a prosecution witness! (Thanks for the video link, I did not know her name and had been Googling trying to find her).

When it was time for jurors questions, she was asked if she ever called Arias a stalker. She replied, “Yes.” (So much for helping the defense)

Also, during the questioning, Juan showed a picture of Travis with his throat slit. Jodi's expression did not change for several seconds. It was the witness, Lisa Daidone, who started to cry and, when Jodi saw tat others in the courtroom were crying, pretended to cry herself. Again, that was far more powerful for the prosecution than for the defense.


Finally, JM treated her well and she replied with a simple yes or no. There was none of the "harsh" treatment for which JM has been criticized.

 

[Sedonia Sunset]

NG is showing "never before seen police interrogation" of JA. Did anyone else see the part about the gun?

Flores said something about finding the ammunition to the .25 caliber gun, he went on to say he casing was tested against this found ammunition.

I know that many of us here, at WS have questioned whether the casing could actually be tested to see if it were from the same box of ammunition found at JA mother's house. Well, doesn't this answer that question?

Looks like it was a match (per Flores in the interrogation) and could this be a closing 'Bombsell' for the prosecution?

I'm getting all giddy, just thinking about this!:great:

It may or may not be true. Police are allowed to lie during interrogations in order to elicit things from the suspects. For instance, they'll say they have evidence that they don't have or they will say that their accomplice pointed the finger at them, etc. I think it they had a match for something like that, it would have come into testimony early on.

 

[chakti]

Ok, I just finished watching the part of the trial I missed today. I think JM has destroyed any credibility that Richard Samuels had since he first raised his hand and took the stand. I was surprised that JM was able to get away with the "Because you have feelings for her!" line, without presenting any real evidence. While I agree with him, it seems in a court of law he should have to prove that. I.E. producing a Valentines card or something.

JM's step by step analysis of the exam and getting the witness to explain each and every choice he made was brilliant. I'm just a little bummed that nobody asked that if Jodi qualifies for PTSD, then shouldn't every murderer? It seems like Gus Jr.'s argument was that the PTSD was caused by the murder and that everything she did afterword was consistent with trying to avoid the event. I.E. sending flowers, attending the memorial service, talking to one of TA's friends about how she envisioned their kids playing together, writing an 18 page letter to the family, going on 48 Hours, going on Inside Edition etc... JMO, but if anyone believes that she was trying to avoid the event they're looney. In my opinion avoiding PTSD is not thinking about the trauma at all, it just comes back due to certain triggers. Like a soldier hearing a car backfire or a balloon burst.

I think this next witness for the defense is going to be a much more formidable opponent for JM. I actually like her. When they went through her credentials she seems to be an admirable woman. I'm hoping all of her opinions were based on Gus Jr.'s reports and when she finds out what he really did she turns to the prosecutions side.

Ya know I'm thinking more then talking about Jodi she will be talking in general about other cases she has been associated with.

 

[thefragile7393]

lol... well - there goes all my theories of myself

At this point in the trial (and it's not over yet) - I wouldn't find her guilty of 1st degree. Manslaughter - certainly - if that gets on the table. But I'm not on the jury....




AGREED

The experts in this trial are not, in any way, involved in the crime. They don't belong to the Jodi Arias fan club - there's no secret handshake - no secret attempt to fool the world.

Hating and demeaning them for their professional opinion is best left to people who are paid to do that for entertainment value (like certain talk-show-hosts on certain networks).

considering that there is so much evidence towards murder 1-I am surprised anyone would think manslaughter of all things is in this case. I mean...pre-meditation is all in the fact that she wanted him dead and inflicted wounds to ensure he would die. I mean 29 times stabbing, slicing his throat, and shooting him is somehow accidental?

And if discussing the experts and their opinion is best left to the talking heads...why are any of us bothering to discuss this here?

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Hatfield]

....snipped....

Also, how did JM get away with accusing the doctor of liking Jodi without any solid proof? Could that be an appellate issue?

One thing the judge could use more often is the striking of statements.

Edited. Someone mentioned she did strike this which is good. Should help prevent appeal potential.

 

[Sedonia Sunset]

I saw a little bit of the video shown on NG (or maybe Dr Drew) wherein JA talks about kicking the family dog after it got diaper garbage all over the yard, and the dog ran away because of it. It made me wonder if she'd seen the movie "My Dog, Skip".

 

[otto]

Many thanks to Croakerqueen123 for posting the video on youtube! I completely missed everything today.

[video=youtube;XO4f9omfhik]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO4f9omfhik[/video]

 

[MeeBee]

One thing the judge could use which I dont see her using often is the striking of statements. The judge could have easily had those comments stricken from the record. Just another example of the judge not doing a good job IMO.

She did strike them. She told the jury to disregard the last statements.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

One thing the judge could use which I dont see her using often is the striking of statements. The judge could have easily had those comments stricken from the record. Just another example of the judge not doing a good job IMO.

It depends, when the cards sent to JA from RS was first mentioned a sidebar was called. After that they were not mentioned again. If the judge ruled they can only be discussed if the defense opens that door, then I think JM was ringing the door bell. The DT could have asked for a "show proof" motion but they weren't about to open the door knowing JM was waiting on the other side ready to do so. JMHO!

 

[gitana1]

lol... well - there goes all my theories of myself

At this point in the trial (and it's not over yet) - I wouldn't find her guilty of 1st degree. Manslaughter - certainly - if that gets on the table. But I'm not on the jury....




AGREED

The experts in this trial are not, in any way, involved in the crime. They don't belong to the Jodi Arias fan club - there's no secret handshake - no secret attempt to fool the world.

Hating and demeaning them for their professional opinion is best left to people who are paid to do that for entertainment value (like certain talk-show-hosts on certain networks).

Oops! Sorry! No offense meant at all.

But I assume (yeah, yeah, I know, lol), that you have not watched every moment of the trial. Those jurors have a neat perspective and what with the jury instructions they will be given, I am confident in my prediction.

But, while I don;t get demeaning experts for their appearance or whatever, I have no problem demeaning them for their "professional" opinion if it appears that opinion was bought!!!

The slashed tires testimony starts at the 2:30 mark....

Jodi Arias Trial Day 1 (Audio Only) - YouTube

I couldn't listen past a few minutes but what I heard showed that the defense elicited the stalker testimony! And now I remember that happening. Which to me 100% opens the door for the state to talk all about jodi;s stalker behavior. In other words, if it was considering too prejudical or character evidence and thus ruled inadmissable prior to trial, bu the defense brought it up during trial, then they open the door and the state may discuss it!!!

 

[AngelWings444]

JMO, but if anyone believes that she was trying to avoid the event they're looney. In my opinion avoiding PTSD is not thinking about the trauma at all, it just comes back due to certain triggers. Like a soldier hearing a car backfire or a balloon burst

Good Evening: What exactly do you mean by the BBM portion? TIA

As testified in court today, JA was not avoiding the "event", MURDER, of Travis. She wrote about Travis in her journal, she sent flowers to his Grandmother, she went to his memorial, she lied to officers, she talked about their children playing together (even though she knew he was dead), she left voicemail messages to Travis, she sent emails to Travis...all while knowing SHE killed him. The expert said in testimony, JA's PTSD was diagnosed by a certain factors, one being that she/JA avoided the Travis's death. Just not so.

Hope that helps and makes sense.

 

[AlanCFA]

Ok, I just finished watching the part of the trial I missed today. I think JM has destroyed any credibility that Richard Samuels had since he first raised his hand and took the stand. I was surprised that JM was able to get away with the "Because you have feelings for her!" line, without presenting any real evidence. While I agree with him, it seems in a court of law he should have to prove that. I.E. producing a Valentines card or something.

I think that statement about having "feelings for her" was somewhat supported by the self-help book that he bought for her.

 

[otto]

Part of her schtick is "why do women come back" to abusers. Doesn't bode well imo. Hope I'm wrong.

Isn't the idea of abuse and honeymoon cycle pretty much at the core of domestic abuse? One person is an abuser, is abusive and then starts the honeymoon phase of trying to woe the abused back. The abused forgives, goes back during the honeymoon phase, that wears off, then there is abuse ... and so the cycle repeats itself. If Travis didn't call Jodi and wasn't expecting her, if there was no honeymoon phase, why would she go back?