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

[neesaki]

And thats fine but i don't know how anyone can this guy doesn't let it go he rammbles you can't tell me your not sick of this trial and he has had the floor for 90% of it. And who knew that crime around the world would simply stop or so they would have you believe in 36 days we have not heard about another crime no updates no new cases murders disappearances absolutly nothing . So respectfully disagree all you want but if your not sick of one guy rambbling for 90% OF 36 DAYS then hey I guess iam alone in my thinking with being more then annoyed with this guy...

90% ? :waitasec: You must have missed out on Nurmi and JA?

 

[VALee]

Wait, what?

I'm not trying to be annoying (though I may seem that way to you ), but your emphasis on wrestling puzzles me.

1. What is your source/citation for your description (multiple times) that Travis was a 'wrestler' or 'former wrestler'?

Really agree, TA may have been a wrestler in HS, but he was 30, that does not make him a wrestler, no more than me playing on the tennis team makes me a tennis player today (substitute for what interests you explored during HS). This was all just embellishment by JA, silly that was even brought up during her testimony as any sort of explanation.

2. What (about the gunshot) makes you think it came first? Because it seems forensics seem to differ on that point... what explains the lack of blood from the gunshot wound, do you think? I've watched and rewatched Dr. Horn's testimony. He could not say for certain the gunshot wound was first or last, and remember TA was 'cleansed' to a degree in the shower post mortem, and Dr. Horn could not analyze the brain/skull damage adequately due to decomp and gravity. There's a great article on HLN done by another doctor about it too. I'll see if can find and post for us.

3. How/why do you include the bathtub? (Kidding - I'm guessing you meant shower)... lol, def. I think shower was meant

I'm just curious about your theory when far simpler explanations of events that jive with the forensic evidence say something else... Granted, JA is basking in the power rush of knowing the answer to all these questions but, ever the brat - she's playing it/us for as long as she can.

Knife first, forensically and logically, is more difficult for me to get to, I'm in the gun first camp, so would love to hear your thoughts, I just haven't heard enough up to now to get me from gun first.

I've been doing some research on head gunshot wounds, there are several stories of people moving around right after, not for long after to be sure but we only have 62 seconds we are talking about. The reason people have been able to move is consistently due to the part of the brain that is hit, and whether it is one or both sides of the brain.

 

[WhoaIsMe]

Putting this out there as I remember it....It could have been a dream....but I heard Nurmi say that the cards were for him......anyone??

He did.

Sent from my SGH-S959G using Tapatalk 2

 

[VALee]

Found the link to forensic opinion that gun shot came first:

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/01/22/what-really-killed-travis-alexander

 

[momof7]

Of course I don't care about her looks/sexual preferences/etc. but I'm unable to respect or like anyone who is willing to testify for the Defense in this case.

There is overwhelming evidence that Arias is guilty of first-degree murder and no evidence of Travis having been an abuser.

Hopefully this expert won't be as bad as Samuels but color me biased in any case.

But remember, the jury should not/hopefully is not aware of everything we are. The DT is throwing out there any possibility to save their client from the DP. The flipside is that these witness and experts know more than we do and have seen/heard things we have not. I don't personally think JA was abused, more like the abuser.

Maybe this witness will give the jury that conclusion as well once she starts discussing domestic violence. I also think that JM will be able to dispel any issues. Lets face it, he can merely show that JA was just as abusive to TA inthe stalking and obsession. He has texts, conversations, etc. I believe in the end this testimony won't mean much regardless of whose side called her in. He might even be able to get her to admit that.

I actually hope...not betting the farm mind you...that her testimony will be interesting.

Kelly

 

[camcneishg]

well here is a link to the you tube of the card......hope this works....about the 5:30 mark I think
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3uUztWu7HE"]Jodi Arias Murder Trial Day 32. Attorneys argue about card sent by Dr. Samuels to Jodi - YouTube[/ame]

 

[rose222]

Knife first, forensically and logically, is more difficult for me to get to, I'm in the gun first camp, so would love to hear your thoughts, I just haven't heard enough up to now to get me from gun first.

I've been doing some research on head gunshot wounds, there are several stories of people moving around right after, not for long after to be sure but we only have 62 seconds we are talking about. The reason people have been able to move is consistently due to the part of the brain that is hit, and whether it is one or both sides of the brain.

There is no way Arias cornered Travis with just a knife. He would have won that battle had she been armed with a knife only. My guess is that she used the gun to corner him and make him sit down. Then she stabbed him while he sat in that vulnerable position. Yes, an ordinary person would have simply shot him but she is crazy with a capital C. She had all that pent-up hatred that she needed to express by sticking a knife deep inside his body. That must have been the predominant thought in her head. I think the gun was a back-up. The adrenaline must have been through the roof. A woman who is able to cut a man's throat from ear to ear is just unusual to say the least.

 

[TigerBalm]

:seeya: Trial live streaming and mobile links are in my sig below.

Have a Juanderful day!!! :skip:

 

[carnnell]

This is totally off.

1. The murder itself iIS evidence of 1st Degree. As Juan explained at a hearing, the intent to kill can be formed in a heartbeat. So even if she didn't go there with the intent or at least the possibility of killing him (which she clearly did), 1st Degree still applies because at some point Travis was no longer a threat and she chose to kill him a few more times anyway. That is still 1st Degree by AZ law.

2. It does NOT in any way rest on believing she brought the gun. However it has been proven that a gun of the same calibre was stolen from her grandparents, where she lived, one week prior; and there is no evidence Travis had a gun AT ALL. But putting that aside, she killed him with a knife. A knife she may have brought or just figured she'd comveniently grab from his house.

3. There has been a mountainof additional evidence proving premed. You don't have to prove a weapon was brought to prove premeditation.

As I understand it Capital 1st Degree Murder must have premeditation means in AZ intent (plan), knowledge of that plan and reflection of the plan ( to do it or not to do it). JMHO

According to AZ jury instruction:
Pr-meditation means intent or knowledge to kill another human being.

"Premeditation" means that the defendant intended to kill another human being or knew [he] [she] would kill another human being, and after forming that intent or knowledge, reflected on the decision before killing. It is this reflection, regardless of the length of time in which it occurs, that distinguishes first-degree murder and second-degree murder. An act is not done with premeditation if it is the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. [The time needed for reflection is not necessarily prolonged, and the space of time between the intent or knowledge to kill and the act of killing may be very short.] pg PDF 71

REVISED ARIZONA JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL) Third Edition 2011

http://www.azbar.org/media/292098/2011_cumulative_supplement.pdf

 

[KMouse]

Good morning WSers.

Prayers for Travis' family today as they endure yet another day of testimony. Today from a domestic violence expert who will characterize Travis as an abuser. So sad.

 

[Nube7]

Is this the photo that Travis had in his closet? If so, then it probably is where Jodi got the Spidey pants idea.

https://twitter.com/Mmartinfan4life/status/316357740727525378/photo/1

As it has been said of JA " In every lie there is some truth" So now we have a
picture of a cute little boy in the arms of his father and his is wearing the "
Spidey briefs". So is this the one that "fluttered" from his bed that fit so well in her story? And how cruel was it to send 20 Irises to his Grandmother when
TA was 20 when his Dad died?!! :furious:

 

[paperwing]

JA is so full of sh@!, she is lying in that "I kicked a dog once" snip. OMG, she is thinking up the story (lies) while she pauses before she says "that I can remember". Watch how dramatic and - quickly - she goes into "I kicked a dog once".

She had to take time to remember the dog kicking story, then tells Det. Flores that "it changed my world as far as the treatment of animals". BS BS BS

C'mon verdict! MHO

Didn't make sense to me, either. It seems as though this dog was abused/neglected already - and given the chance it took off (although I had a rescued beagle who's SOLE mission in life was to RUN. He was old too, and so sweet...

Thank goodness we lived on a big farm - the farm owners ended up with him because they lived farther away from the main road and he was safer with them. His last days were happy and safe.

But if JA is to be believed (ha) the dog she kicked was an afterthought and (at best) neglected.

I cannot begin to fathom what would compel someone to kick a dog. She said he/she got off the leash (who wouldn't!) or lead tied up in the back yard - and ignored - and thus foraged (?) for food in the garbage...

Who would kick a dog in that situation? Who? Not someone with at least 2 ethical brain cells working.

The subsequent sob story was for Det. Flores' - an attempt at displaying regret, remorse, human feeling. Didn't work. The pretense of caring about Napoleon is equally shallow. Napoleon is alive because Travis loved him and therefore JA saw the little guy as a useful tool.

I'm sorry but if someone is capable of harming/neglecting a dog/pet and doesn't or won't acknowledge that and find a healthy home for him/her, then I have zero reason to trust them around people.

Wicked. The defendant is wicked. Ugly and wicked.

 

[rose222]

Posting this again as I think it's very good. Not sure which site I got it from.

Example of a Willful, Deliberate, Premeditated Murder

Imagine that Joannie and her husband Tim are in a terrible fight in the kitchen. Tim tells Joannie that he is going to get a divorce and will thereafter seek full custody of their two young children. Joannie states, “Wait here. I need to go to the bathroom. I will be right back.” She walks down the hall, but goes into the bedroom, rather than the bathroom, and removes a handgun from the nightstand drawer. She then walks to the bathroom and flushes the toilet. Hiding the handgun in the pocket of her bathrobe, she walks back into the kitchen, removes it, and shoots Tim four times in the abdomen, killing him.

In this scenario, Joannie probably could be convicted of premeditated murder in most jurisdictions. Joannie shoots and kills Tim in a calm, methodical manner, evidencing deliberation. Her manufactured excuse and flushing of the toilet indicate planning. The act of shooting Tim four times shows that Joannie has a specific intent to kill and a strong and calculated desire to bring about Tim’s death. Note that timing is not an issue here. Even a few minutes are enough to carry out a premeditated murder if the proper facts are present.


Example of a Spontaneous Killing

Compare the previous example with this scenario. Frank, Dillon’s supervisor, calls Dillon into his office and fires him. Enraged, Dillon grabs a heavy brass paperweight from the top of Frank’s desk and strikes him in the forehead, killing him instantly. In this example, Dillon acts in anger, not calm, cool, reflection. The act of grabbing a heavy brass paperweight appears impulsive, not planned. There is no evidence to indicate that Dillon knew he would be fired or knew that there was a brass paperweight on Frank’s desk. In addition, the single blow to the head does not necessarily indicate that Dillon had a strong and calculated desire to kill Frank. Dillon’s conduct may be supported by murder intent (most likely implied malice, knowingly, or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life), but there is no evidence of specific intent to kill, deliberation, or premeditation. Thus Frank’s killing would probably not be first-degree premeditated murder in most jurisdictions

 

[momof7]

Exactly. We have figured, here, that it was probably her. Even the young lady said at first she thought it was possible it was her ex boyfriend who did it initially. So, you just never know.

Did the email that was sent to Lisa ever get admitted. I never have seen all of her testimony, I had to work and got too far behind to see every bit.

The one discussing all the religious reasons she should stay away from TA? I didn't think it was ever known for sure that JA was the one who sent it?

Kelly

 

[carnnell]

I hope everyone realizes one the pathology of psychopaths is abusing animals in their formative years.. Sounds like Jodi fits that criteria of the DSM-IV TR.

*sigh*.. It is imperative the jury finds her GUILTY... of Capital 1st Degree Murder..

JMHO

 

[Ricki]

Good morning WSers.

Prayers for Travis' family today as they endure yet another day of testimony. Today from a domestic violence expert who will characterize Travis as an abuser. So sad.

According to what KCL heard Ms Laviolette can not make TA the abuser. This is what KCL wrote in the court observers thread. I hope this correct. Sorry for reposting as it is on the previous page.

katiecoolady katiecoolady is offline
Verified Bad *advertiser censored*


Starting with dessert first I"ll just share from the convo we had with Beth at the trucks before leaving for the evening (new hair looks mahvelous btw)

She said that in an extended hearing with LaViolette before the trial it was decided she can testify to NOTHING having to do with Travis being an "abuser". She can only testify to Jodi.

Maybe you know this...I didn't. This really deflates the defense balloon.

 

[Southern_Meadow]

Not looking forward to today at all if indeed what I think is coming.

Ms LaViolette is going to bash Travis for being a woman beating, abusing, pedophile...on what grounds? The word of a proven lying liar.
NO proof whatsoever.

My only light at the end of this tunnel is Juan turning it around and showing in fact Jodi was the abuser

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

KCL reported that she got info from BK that she cannot testify to that; she can only speak about Jodi, not Travis.

 

[momof7]

Didn't make sense to me, either. It seems as though this dog was abused/neglected already - and given the chance it took off (although I had a rescued beagle who's SOLE mission in life was to RUN. He was old too, and so sweet...

Thank goodness we lived on a big farm - the farm owners ended up with him because they lived farther away from the main road and he was safer with them. His last days were happy and safe.

But if JA is to be believed (ha) the dog she kicked was an afterthought and (at best) neglected.

I cannot begin to fathom what would compel someone to kick a dog. She said he/she got off the leash (who wouldn't!) or lead tied up in the back yard - and ignored - and thus foraged (?) for food in the garbage...

Who would kick a dog in that situation? Who? Not someone with at least 2 ethical brain cells working.

The subsequent sob story was for Det. Flores' - an attempt at displaying regret, remorse, human feeling. Didn't work. The pretense of caring about Napoleon is equally shallow. Napoleon is alive because Travis loved him and therefore JA saw the little guy as a useful tool.

I'm sorry but if someone is capable of harming/neglecting a dog/pet and don't acknowledge that and find a healthy home for him/her, then I have zero reason to trust them around people.

Wicked. The defendant is wicked. Ugly and wicked.

While Dr Samuels has a crap load of compassion (according to him) JA has zero. You can not explain the unexplainable. She doesn't have it in her to feel compassion for others, including animals. She only sees that the dog got in the trash. Not the reasons around it. Normal thinking people do. She is not a normall thinking person.

JA uses people who have a kindness/compassionate heart because she can. She doesn't emotionally attach to people or things like we do. It helps her cause. She can use people and feel no remorse whatsoever. Because somewhere in her mind they deserve what they got for not giving her what she deserves. IMHO
Kelly

 

[DebinGA]

Reposting this as I put it in the Armchair Psych thread by mistake earlier:

Given I can't take Jodi's word for anything, if this dog story is true it makes me feel a little sympathy for the little girl she might have been.

I missed her testimony on direct when she discussed her upbringing, and I really don't care to go back and hear it at this point. But I believe she has a much older half-sister from another mother, a younger sister, a much younger brother, and maybe another brother somewhere in the mix. In the dog-kicking video she claims two of her younger siblings were still in diapers, and she was a young teen tasked with diaper disposal duty and cleanup.

What other work she was expected to do in the home idk, but maybe a lot since the family restaurant may have been an all-hands-on-deck deal. Samuels said Jodi told him that her parents loved all their children except her. She may have had good reason to believe that, even if only because she required more discipline than the others. I can imagine little Jodi resenting having to care and clean-up after her more loved siblings. I can imagine an unlovable young Jodi, tasked with diaper duty by a mom too busy to do it all herself, lashing out at a dog that had just added to her misery.

 

[LambChop]

Good morning WSers.

Prayers for Travis' family today as they endure yet another day of testimony. Today from a domestic violence expert who will characterize Travis as an abuser. So sad.

Not sure she will be permitted to do that. She has no first hand knowledge and there has been no proof given by defense that he ever abused her. Only her claims. Even her finger has been proven to have come from the knife wound. It's been mentioned that there was a hearing with ALV and she will not be able to claim Travis was abusive and can only talk about Jodi. jmo