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

[popsicle]

Members? WS Q?
How long do you stay logged in?
I have to keep logging in?
I get cut off if I do not post often.

When you log in...click the box that says remember me. You will stay logged in that way.

 

[KBisMe]

A guy on HLN just said that 89% of people voted that TA was GUILTY of abusing JA last night on the After Dark show! :what:

Seriously? I didn't watch it. My mom said that the "fake jury" voted 11-1 NOT GUILTY. So, the internet vote was 89% guilty? :waitasec:

 

[paperwing]

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. ...

bbm - respectfully snipped.

On this:

I don't think Travis is being forced to pose in those photos. If anything I think he is annoyed - my guess: by JA's insistence that he 'pose' for her. All I read in his face in those (now) tragic shots is, "Please. Just. Freaking. Leave." I don't think Travis' demeanor in these photos matter - beyond the fact that they are the last moments of a decent human being before he is violently butchered. His life - not his demeanor REALLY matters to me. And JA is the only person at that time - who knows he's about to die. That is important. Travis' last breath is important, I don't care if he was mad or sad or surprised or what - I care that someone took away his ability to breath. (sorry... this defendant makes me so furious I have trouble containing it).

I think JA caught Travis off guard - she did something that made him exit the shower without putting on his robe or grabbing a towel first... it was something THAT startling - or that troublesome - she provoked an otherwise inordinately neat and clean person to exit a shower soaking wet - not an ordinary action - not for a guy with the habits/home of Travis.

And this is where the gun comes into play and how I think JA got Travis to forget everything - only an emergency would do that:

JA suddenly (planned by her, unexpected by Travis) whips out Gpa's gun and says something like, "Okay, F-it! You won't (take me/be with me/forsake all others/whatever a violent, homicidal psychopath would say), then my life means nothing!" ...or some such drivel JA would spew, gun to her head, safety on. She grew up with guns. She knows what does/doesn't happen depending on the safety/cocking/trigger mechanism. She grew up with guns.

THAT would alarm any decent person, including one who cares *deeply* about neatness, order and takes pride in his home - THAT would make him forget all that. Make him forget about everything - except the immediate crisis.

This make sense, forensically, imv. JA caused Travis to somehow exit the shower uncharacteristically - basically eliminating the strength/size advantage, catching him off guard...

Plunge. So ugly, so vile, so (horribly) ...easy. Right in his heart, but not quite.

Hence the blood evidence at the sink. I've gone on too long, so you can take it from there - and the forensics work without demanding unrealistic mental calisthenics as JA is wont to do.

The tinkly, piddly little gun was a ruse to make an unsuspecting, 100% vulnerable man into a 200% vulnerable man. A man unwilling to have an ex-girlfriend blow her brains out. Little did he know that this was just one more event in her long line of using the threat of suicide as a weapon or control factor to make things go her way.

Just my theory.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Again nothing she ever says makes sense!

I saw an interview online with a couple of guys that she INVITED HERSELF on a surfing trip with. They were talking about it in her presence and she tagged along, no one asked her to come.

One guy said she was just weird. The other said he thought she was very comfortable putting herself in close-contact situations with guys she barely knew. She kept creeping closer to him on that day in fact.

She had no issues or fears being around guys, after all she knows exactly how to control and manipulate them.

She has no women friends, does she?

 

[raisincharlie]

IIRC, she testified to it on the witness stand but she (conveniently) couldn't remember the names of those involved other than they were peeps she supposedly worked with - which could easily be secret code for 'there really was no camping trip but dumba££ that I am, I went a bought a gun I better come up with a reason for'.

And the real reason is - she liked the power of a gun, the fear it could instill. She learned however that an old .25 calibre gun wasn't the right thing to have, a 9mm is so much better.

 

[jojomonkey]

"I'm not Josie grossie anymore!!!!"

Such a great movie!! lol

Jodi grody!

 

[JayB12]

I don't think all criticisms have been misogynistic. I've seen comments on RS's looks and hair, and I do hope those were removed also. While he may be a jerk for essentially signing off on his career for money to testify as an expert for the DT (and being stubborn enough to not concede he was duped by JA), I would not resort to mocking his physical appearance, and I think it is wrong to do no matter what. It's bullying. If he were to read here, I'd think his feelings would be hurt based on the mocking of his person, not his TESTIMONY.

Just putting that out there, because its tiring to hear complaints about mean comments when they are about a persons looks if they're a woman, or they're gay, but if it's a man - fair game. It's wrong to do NO MATTER WHAT.

I agree.

Unfortunately, we live in a society where people are judged first upon their appearance and then by their personality, actions, knowledge, etc. Maybe its more prevalent in fields that are geared towards helping people, like therapy, life coaches, etc. Maybe not?

For example, if a person joined a gym looking to get in shape, and had a choice between two individuals as a trainer (an out of shape man or in shape woman), which would that person choose? Sort of like...you're trying to help me but you don't appear to have your own stuff in order.

I really think that this case is so frustrating at many levels, that some may just get pushed to the brink, myself included, and lash out at the obvious things. The incompetence should be the focus. However, human nature sometimes gets the better of us.

 

[Nosey Parker]

:great::great:

someone take her squeaky-wheeled luggage crammed full of notes away from her.. immediately, I'll grab the handwritten dictionary, version 15, everyone else get all the other versions from her, she needs an intervention!

:truce: It's okay. I've left the stand.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I like it when he yells.... makes me feel safe. LOL

Part of me lives vicariously through Juan ...

I'm not one to yell, rarely ever raise my voice....

But I so enjoy when he does.

 

[Ammonitida]

Funny, but I did not see that. She talked about being involved in a program to guide men to be more responsible fathers. That takes a great deal of patience in a person, male or female, to be able to counsel men who just don't want that responsibility. From the sounds of it she is very proud of the program and how it has helped men become better fathers. That does not sound biased to me. I just think her main focus is counseling those who have been abused and women just happen to be more likely to report it than men. Some men don't realized they are being abused or in an abusive relationship. I'd say Travis was one of them. jmo

Again, that is the *only* article of hers I could find on the subject of "abused men" and funny, it did nothing but downplay the abuse (as I predicted when I first saw it on google). Her experience with helping men to become better fathers means what, exactly? It's still a man = villain, woman = victim kind of article.

Just wait until she's finished with her hatchet job of Travis's character. Her bias will not be doubted for a moment.

 

[LambChop]

I have always wondered why she even admited to "dropping" the knife. Why would anyone even bring that up - she never confessed this to the police so how could it possibly be impeached? Not only that, but it flies in the face of Doc Samuels little teaching about the hippocampus and the fact that memories do not exist when the hippo isn't writing. Really, why was this issue even brought up - Jodi thinking it made her appear more believable or what ? I just do not get this one at all.

Didn't Jodi say under direct that she put the knife in the dishwasher, then changed her testimony later to she may have but could not remember because it could have been another time she was thinking of. My guess is she could not get any guidance one way or another about what she should say about the knife. Should she admit having it, seeing it, putting it in the dishwashing because no knives were missing from the house. If she left it upstairs it would have been found, so she claims she put it in the dishwasher and then later claims she really can't remember. So if it was a knife from the house, what happened to it? This allows the jury to assume she put it in the dishwasher but can't remember for sure because she was in a fog. Kind of clever, though, don't you think. No wonder she can't sleep. Must be hard figuring out your story so it matches the evidence. jmo

 

[BritsKate]

Oh I think she would have taken it so far as to get a passport to make it look more legit.

I have personal experience with a pathological liar/sociopath. I was married to one, he took his lies so far it was mind-boggling. I had never known or seen anything like it until the Scott Peterson/Casey Anthony/and now Jodi Arias. I didn't know others existed for a long time and it made me feel like th biggest fool on the planet!!!

He once told me he was going into business with a friend and had me type up his business plan. It was never a real thing, I spent hours on something that didn't exist. Call me stupid, live and learn, (20 years ago), but I never imagined someone could lie that much about anything and everything. These kind of people do.

Um, no! :hug: I'd be calling myself stupid too for a start but this is one of the reasons I'm so outspoken about my relationship with a psychopath. I'm a reasonably intelligent person who actually knew, as a true crime junkie, all the warning signs of psychopathy when I met mine and was still duped and drawn in. Truly anyone can fall prey once a psychopath knows even the most benign information about you. They have a very distinct pattern though that if one knows it, can help keep people safer.

I personally think one of the reasons their lies are so convincing is because they lie over the stupidest, most inconsequential things no one in their right mind ever would. It seems a game of sorts to them - how much they can get over on a person before they suspect something might be up.

JMO

 

[ZsaZsa]

A guy on HLN just said that 89% of people voted that TA was GUILTY of abusing JA last night on the After Dark show! :what:

Seriously? I didn't watch it. My mom said that the "fake jury" voted 11-1 NOT GUILTY. So, the internet vote was 89% guilty? :waitasec:

I didn't watch the show but the Internet vote was overwhelmingly Not guilty.

http://www.hlntv.com/poll/2013/03/25/travis-alexander-abused-jodi-arias

 

[MistyM]

I like it when he yells.... makes me feel safe. LOL

i get super pissed off at some of these 'experts' on HLN, saying oh juan goes on too long, he's being too aggressive...he's losing the jury..

do they even WATCH the trial? why aren't they talking about his brilliance in getting out that jodi has past violent behaviour, and other goodies that we all seem to notice.

my gosh, they did a peice on him (someone put it up on here from youtube) about how much the public loves him, there are so many tribute videos showing up. remember the jury is our peers... they probably and most likely, according to the questions, think like us, they aren't sleeping, they are catching on and are pretty sharp.

i really sometimes think these people on tv have no clue what they are talking about. they don't know juan like we do AT ALL!

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

When this Abuse expert is on the stand today..he really needs to CHILL
and not raise his voice..

Depends on what she's saying. If she is spreading manure like RS, then JM can say yell as much as he wants as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Tuba]

A.LaV., to her credit, does not neglect the impact of domestic violence on the children of the household. In earlier posts, I've been suggesting that Arias tailored her particulars of abuse by Travis to the definitions provided by organisations offering assistance to victims. Her indicators conform all too neatly and leave no wrong unchecked. Even where she had to reach like a trapeze artist for some real or imaginary "incident". None of them substantiated. Does this woman leave us cynical and suspicious? Well, that's where she leaves me and therefore, I find in the DV assistance organisations, the germinus of her pedophilia allegation against Travis. Since she scored 100% on personal "domestic" abuse, why leave out the children who are injured by these villains? Ergo, charge Travis with unspeakable ('til now) issues, those of a "pedophile with a past"! Fabricate a two-for-one where you walk in on Travis in the act and also leave all the worse for it with a broken finger.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Wonder if we'll see some of these 'camping planners' in rebuttal? Agreed on the accidental versus buy another gun thought, and certainly jurors question too, among a bazillion other counter-reasonable statements.

Would be great if they testify she was never invited, invited herself and they lied about where they were going to avoid her

Sound familiar?

 

[KBisMe]

A guy on HLN just said that 89% of people voted that TA was GUILTY of abusing JA last night on the After Dark show! :what:

Seriously? I didn't watch it. My mom said that the "fake jury" voted 11-1 NOT GUILTY. So, the internet vote was 89% guilty? :waitasec:

Yes, I'm quoting myself. Lol :giggle:

I just went to the poll and that guy is WRONG. It says 90% found him NOT GUILTY! Sheesh... you are one of the hosts of the show... get it right!!!

http://www.hlntv.com/poll/2013/03/25/travis-alexander-abused-jodi-arias

 

[Liebchenmutti]

I agree I don't think he had feelings for her either. I think he is at fault for not being cynical enough to question anything she told him. I think he believed her in the beginning and wanted to do something to help her, it's a fine line between evaluating someone and wanting to help them. He crossed the line and made poor judgements but I just think he felt sorry for her situation. He was convinced by her tears and tales of woe and abuse, I think she worked him over in that way, he just wasn't professional enough to separate his evaluation process from feelings of sympathy for her.

I think Samuels DEFINITELY had feelings for JA & Juan was prevented from playing an excerpt that referenced a greeting card and a special visit he paid JA when Nurmi was trying to quit. He was acting as a therapist, not an unbiased assessor. There's always more than meets the eye with evidence unfortunately. There is so much there that doesn't come in. This "doctor" visited JA way too much and he tailored his bogus evaluation to JW's defense summary. Lying for money on the witness stand is crossing the line.

 

[Ammonitida]

Ahem. You don't have to be a feminist to hate *advertiser censored*.

I hate *advertiser censored* (well most of it anyway), but not for the reasons that "anti-*advertiser censored* feminsts" do. Their hatred for *advertiser censored* is rooted in their hatred for men.