trial day 38: the defense continues its case in chief #112

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Welcome to Websleuths, Karraster!
:wagon:

From what I saw on HLN, the judge questioned <modsnip> on her comment that a juror could have witnessed JM taking photos and signing some woman's cane. I don't think the judge has questioned jurors yet.
 
I really have a simple question. How can this even be considered a self defense -- defense. She could have run, she didn't need to shoot him, if you believe her version. But, after she did what she admits to why did she stab him 29 times and why did she slit his throat? A murder of passion because he abused her. I can't see how the DT is going to tie this in to self defense. What is their explanation for the over kill? Why is this so hard and going down so many rabbit trails? I am confused. Come on Juan and get us out of this fog. jmo
 
Pensfan said:
Welcome to Websleuths, Karraster!
:wagon:

From what I saw on HLN, the judge questioned <modsnip> on her comment that a juror could have witnessed JM taking photos and signing some woman's cane. I don't think the judge has questioned jurors yet.
Click to expand...

It was posted above that all the jurors were approved, and the jury was still intact. Nothing inappropriate found.
 
Whisperer said:
Doesn't anyone think that a nude wet guy is not likely to be aggressive? At least let the guy put on his clothes, then we may be talking some anger...BUT a naked man? Is everyone on these talk shows forgetting he was naked as a jaybird?

Come on now! Has anyone EVER heard of a wet naked guy turn aggressive? Being nude puts you in a vulnerable position.

How could a person with a full brain believe or even consider he was the attacker?
Click to expand...

I agree and I always wondered that if this was truly a case self defense then because TA was naked, her bet defense was to run out of the house. I doubt he would have followed her naked.
 
4Jacy said:
Holly, on HLN, just said JA was a "professional photogrator." Really, you have to go to school for that. The only thing JA was a professional was being a.......better not, I'll surely get a TO!
Click to expand...

You don't have to go to school for photography to be a professional photographer and most don't. Photography is an art form that is easily self-taught. To be a professional "whatever" means that you make money from it. My dad did photography as a hobby, but there were a few times he did reluctantly sell some of his work so could have been considered a professional then.

Jodi was no professional photographer. She simply liked taking photographs with a point and shoot digital camera, and she new precious little about digital cameras. Pretty much no photos she took that I've seen could be considered to be art... they're nothing more than the same type of photos we all take with our digital cameras (friends, places we've seen, family, etc.). Besides that, any dope with a finger can take digital photographs. No one is a professional photographer without having in depth understanding of lenses, filters, etc. and how, when and why to use them. And no one is a professional photographer if they aren't selling their work or their phototaking services.
 
4Jacy said:
Holly, on HLN, just said JA was a "professional photogrator." Really, you have to go to school for that. The only thing JA was a professional was being a.......better not, I'll surely get a TO!
Click to expand...

She wasn't a professional at that either. She gave it away for nothing.
 
garthmax said:
Nurmi is pissed because the cost of the trial was released, but grow up. This is the second time you have accused Mr. Juan of misconduct. All you have managed to do is piss a lot of people off and have sunk so low. The TH keep saying Mr. Juan is taken this trial personally but if I was accused twice of misconduct, I would be firing back. Nurmi may be a tall man in height but he can't measure up to Mr. Juan's integrity.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it the third time?
 
manzana said:
I think Chris Hughes stating he could envision Travis throwing Jodi against a wall in his interview with Flores may cause him to worry a bit.
Click to expand...

I disagree. This post seems to characterize Chris Hughes' statement as if he randomly stated he feels Travis is a violent person. That's not reality, IMO.

TigerBalm said:
Chris didn't say that, Detective Flores asked Chris a question if he could envision it or not.
Click to expand...

Heck, I can envision it too. I think anyone who has ever been a victim of this monster is capable of blowing it and throwing her up against a wall. Would that be right? No. Is it what happened with Travis? No. Does an affirmative answer in this regard to a question posed matter much to the outcome of this case. No. :moo:
 
BetteDavisEyes said:
I never liked Jean C - and that goes back to the days of Court TV. Since she's been on In Session (that I hardly ever watched) and as a talking head on HLN, I've come to dislike her even more. She always struck me as someone who could not be trusted - a two-faced, gossipy, nice to your face but stab you in the back type of person. Jean reached a brand new low with this Juan Martinez thing. :furious: I plan to let HLN/Turner Broadcasting know just how I feel about it. If there's a way to have Comcast block the channel on our cable, it will be done. I'm sure that all of the programs on HLN will be featuring this incident tonight, but this former viewer won't be watching. Ever. Again.
Click to expand...

I'm behind (I had to take some mental health time because it was making me very sad to watch this trial after seeing the ME pictures of Travis Alexander - Yet, Arias' confession of mutilating Travis Alexander is getting lost by testimony about PTSD, fog, ect. Then we have Alyce LaViolette get on the stand for the defense - a woman that is supposed to be an advocate for victims) so, now I've watched Jean C. take the stand concerning Nurmi's claim of JM misconduct.

Misconduct? Is Nurmis trying to preempt any misconduct motions from the state? Many people have seen Arias' acts of misconduct in the courtroom - getting notes passed, taking pills, ect.

Alyce LaViolette took the stand to give testimony that included:

I have the continuum in my head - it's something I think about when determining if a person is in an abusive relationship. I have read a lot of people in the field writings. Speaking to women and their perpetrators - implying that only women are victims of domestic violence - these women are concerned the way that abuse is portrayed in the movies. If you look at the media portrayals of domestic violence - and I of three movies that one just came out this summer 'The Burning Bed,' 'Sleeping with the Enemy,' and 'Enough,' and one that just came out staring Julianne Hough.

Now, with these movies you have a very popular actress and a lesser known male actor that plays the abuser. What winds up happening is that you see these lesser known actors playing the abuser and they are very one dimensional. I actually don't think that they would really have partners if they acted like this all of the time. Most people do not fit into the pure good and pure evil of these movies.

WHAT is LaViolette talking about? - she is not giving a seminar or an interview. She is a witness in a criminal trial.

Yes, of course, no one lives up to "Hollywood Standards." Not even hollywood stars - they are airbrushed, photoshopped - hollywood stars in their everyday lives do not measure up to "Hollywood Standards."

I do not believe that victims of domestic abuse - male or female - say, "you know the abuse was horrible. Hollywood's depiction of abuse made my abuse even worst. I watched Julia Roberts star in a movie, I can't remember the male actors name - come to think about it I cannot think of the male actors name in any movie that depicts domestic violence. So, I watched Julia Roberts and I thought she is so beautiful, fit - her character has no flaws. I cannot identify with her even though she is depicting "my story." The years of abuse I suffered - the years of mental anguish - the years I spent worrying about the safety of my children -- that was one thing, but, hollywoods' depiction of abuse has been the real gut wrencher!

Most of the things LaViolette says, I have no idea what they have to do with being a defense witness to explain the admitted crime of murder committed by Arias.

Is the jury supposed to now think, "got it! Arias murdered Travis Alexander because he was a threat to Arias' life. Travis Alexander was naked, in the shower, and vulnerable - still he was a threat to Arias' life. [U]When Arias shot Travis Alexander in the head as he stood wet and naked - Arias could not take the chance to run to safety. [/U]Arias had to take her knife and stab Travis Alexander at least 9 times in his back - instead of going to safety. Arias had to stab Travis Alexander a total of 27-29 times - Arias still could not run to safety because she had to slice Travis Alexander throat so severely that she almost took off his head. Arias still could not flee for safety because she had to drag Travis Alexander's naked body back into the shower. It makes sense because of hollywoods' portrayal of violence! Glad LaViolette was able to clear everything up!"

Can witnesses get up in court to testify and say anything? What if LaViolette started saying, "a lot of women are abused because as children decorative items for females tend to be fairies, and, unicorns - the books females read such as Sleeping Beauty show females that they need a prince. Between fairies, unicorns, and fairy tale princes - all things that are not real - women easily and often go into a made up universe - in this made up universe an abused woman could stab someone hundreds of times, shoot the same person hundreds of time - I understand that the abuse Arias suffered caused her to only stab Travis Alexander 27 times and shoot him one time - believing it is not happening. In other words, abused females go into made up worlds of unicorns, fairies and princes - and do not know that their actions are real. Now my favorite hollywood portrayal of a fairy tale came out in 2010, Tangled, so it will be a generation or so before we see women murder because of this hollywood portrayal. Tangled does not have anything to do with Arias' actions because the movie was not out in 2008. Unless Arias was somehow able to secure a pre-released screening of Tangle - in movie distribution often the major hollywood studios will let individuals screen movies well before the movie is released in theaters. This helps movie studios to get feedback so that they can reduce the risk of "flops."

Does the above make sense? I really do not understand LaViolette can and has said "just anything." LaViolette statements do not come across as expert defense witness - they come across as Story Time With LaViolette.


Sorry to ramble (like a defense witness) - I'm frustrated, and, disappointed. More so, I am confused: What does this have to do with Arias' admitted crime of murdering Travis Alexander? What happened to Travis Alexander is heartbreaking. The State of Arizona is acting on behalf of 'us.' A crime was committed that threatened our health, safety and well being. Arias committed to the criminal acts that caused Travis Alexander murder - the state has Arias on trial because she murdered Travis Alexander. How is it possible that the defense can have expert witness testimony where anything is said.

Next will the court hear from an expert witness that Arias would not have murdered Travis Alexander if she was not under the control of space aliens?

Again, I apologize that this is so long. I am very confused as to how "anything goes" is excepted.
 
KandyKane said:
You don't have to go to school for photography to be a professional photographer and most don't. Photography is an art form that is easily self-taught. To be a professional "whatever" means that you make money from it. My dad did photography as a hobby, but there were a few times he did reluctantly sell some of his work so could have been considered a professional then.

Jodi was no professional photographer. She simply liked taking photographs with a point and shoot digital camera, and she new precious little about digital cameras. Pretty much no photos she took that I've seen could be considered to be art... they're nothing more than the same type of photos we all take with our digital cameras (friends, places we've seen, family, etc.). Besides that, any dope with a finger can take digital photographs. No one is a professional photographer without having in depth understanding of lenses, filters, etc. and how, when and why to use them. And no one is a professional photographer if they aren't selling their work or their phototaking services.
Click to expand...

As a photographer with 3 years college training I totally agree with you. The art is in the darkroom and with a digital camera if you can't take a good picture you can't point and click. The cameras that take a good photograph have to be set by the photographer. Light, time and the environment. jmo
 
Pensfan said:
In my worthless opinion, the Hughes revealed that they had personal issues with completely supporting Travis while on the witness stand. IMO, they were likely concerned about their own images because of their "sales" jobs with PPL. I hope they will become more supportive.
http://www.teamrenew.com/chris-sky-hughes
Click to expand...

weird. i didn't get that impression at all esp. since they did a bunch of tv interviews.
 
I'm re-watching the Chris Hughes testimony (Day 10), and he is very defensive and kinda shady.
Anyone else think so?
 
I hope Jean C learned a lesson....but somehow I doubt it.

:drink:
 
minor4th said:
Jodi Arias Trial: unseen footage - YouTube

Jodi Arias: Never Before Seen Testimony - YouTube

Jodi Arias Trial: The Neverending Answer - YouTube

Jodi Arias Trial: SuperJuan - YouTube

^^ Just saw that last one for the first time. It's awesome!
Click to expand...

First time posting a youtube link, here's hoping it works!! Have you guys seen this one yet???? Made me chuckle!! :).

ETA: mods, if this doesn't meet TOS, please delete!

[video=youtube;li1JYOHBpbs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li1JYOHBpbs[/video]
 
Whisperer said:
I hope Jean C learned a lesson....but somehow I doubt it.

:drink:
Click to expand...

Personally I wonder if the bunny in the pot is going to be called as a witness next week. Actually jurors COULD have seen her. With her "positive bunny" t shirt. And would she be required to testify in costume? ;)

The irony is I saw her in the background yesterday from her sidewalk perch....right over the left shoulder of none other than Jean Casarez. Lol
 
ElleElle said:
I'm re-watching the Chris Hughes testimony (Day 10), and he is very defensive and kinda shady.
Anyone else think so?
Click to expand...

Not shady, but yes, a little defensive. Nurmi had lied to him in the past and Chris called him out on it. I think I would be a little testy as well if someone told me that my best friend was a 100% Guaranteed pedofile to get me to talk with him, and I find out later that he lied.
 
:floorlaugh:

JM: "With regard to the conversation to the person in the car, who was it?"

Gus Searcy: "Not relevant"

JM: "Sir, *shakes head* not the way it works". :great:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 136 more.
Total: 2,203 (members: 137, guests: 2,066)

Online statistics

Members online
137
Guests online
2,066
Total visitors
2,203
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,838
Messages
18,100,140
Members
230,935
Latest member
CuriousNelly61
Back
Top