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

[Allyne Smithe]

No, it's the same thing I've been saying all along. He was emotionally abusive in that he wasn't making it clear to Jodi where she really stood with him - keep having sex with a woman and she WILL believe that there is still some kind of relationship going on. He kept after his ex girlfriend to marry him while at the same time having sex with Jodi and not ever letting her know that. He continued to have sex with Jodi but said mean things about her behind her back - he used her for sex.

Same exact thing I've been saying all along. And I have also been saying all along that it is mild emotional abuse as it's the same kind of thing that plenty of guys do to women and woman also do to men all the time. But it doesn't make it not emotional abuse even though it's on the low end of the spectrum.

And as I've continually said all along as well it doesn't matter where this case in concerned as he was never ever PHYSICALLY abusive to Jodi or any other woman, and it is PHYSICAL abuse that Jodi claims she was subjected to by him and the reason she "had" to kill him to save her life.

Thanks for the explanation. Although I've gotta say, I don't think guys "owe" any woman they've just recently started dating an explanation of 'where they stand,' i.e., whether they are headed to the chapel at some unspecified future time. Talk about how to send a guy running for the hills! :back:

ETA: Re: your statement "keep having sex with a woman and she WILL believe that there is still some kind of relationship going on" - it's too late for Jodi but Matt Titus and Tamsen Fadal's book, "Why Hasn't He Called? How Guys Really Think & How to Get the Right One Interested in You" preaches Don't sleep with him, no kissing, be the first to say goodnight, and zip it when it comes to further communicaiton. They say, "If you initiate a call after your first date, that will give hiim enough of a reason not to ask you out for a second date. So, don't pick up that phone, email or 'just send him a short text.'" Titus founded a Manhattan dating agency, The Little Black Book, and insists "if you sleep with a man on the first date, he will assume that's how you operate. Don't think you can convince him otherwise by rolling over afterward and saying, 'I never do this.' He won't believe you whether it's true or not. But he probably won't even hear it he'll be too busy wondering how long he has to stick around and pretend to be interested before he can bolt and not look like a pig."

"Never Utter the Final Four: The 'final four' are four words that will make almost any man run if they are uttered in the first few months of a relationship. No matter how great you get along, how many friends he has introduced you to, or how often you have slept together, rest assured, your courtship will come to a screeching halt if you mention these four words: "Where is this going?" Let him dictate the pace of the relationship; if you don't, you'll instead be asking, "Where did he go?"

So I respectfully submit that Travis wasn't emotionally abusive to Jodi by not making it clear where she really stood with him. Although I further submit that he did, indeed, make it clear where she stood. Whether the Hughes said so or not, JA was little more than a booty call.

 

[josie1986]

I've been up all night with 2 asthma attacks. Please pray for me. Going to bed now. Make the Mods proud, and love y'all bunches! :blowkiss:

Uh feel better (((((hugs)))))

My 4year old has asthma and ended up in hospital last time he was rushed into the resuscitation room most scared I've been so I hate to think how I'll you feel.

Think of Mr Juan's cross of alv ans rebuttal that will get you feeling better

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Nhic]

Furthermore ...

This case is not going to hurt Laviolette's career.

I disagree and because she has been basing her pro DT testimony on the lies by JA, she is not someone I would ever want as an expert witness. IMO that speaks to her being (a) easily fooled/scammed by a murderer or (b) so unbelievably biased against men that it leaves her uncredible.

I think it's always been that way. Each side goes at it with their fiercest advocacy and bias, and the truth is supposed to be shaken out in the process.

IMO that's a rather simplistic and not entirely accurate viewpoint. Nowhere in
the following link does it give the OK for any attorney, prosecutor OR defense attorney, to advance anything but the truth in any trial. Rule 3.3
http://www.azbar.org/ethics/rulesofprofessionalconduct

All attorneys are to advance the truth in the interests of justice. That includes defense attorneys.

 

[missmazzy]

Sounds like a set up. :waitasec:

Why is one juror hanging outside the courthouse after the trial is done for the day? Shouldn't they go home? Yeah, yeah, it's a free country and all that, but a woman is on trial for her life, there should be NO illusions of impropriety, from all parties involved.

Sounds fishy.

 

[Lulu67]

This is the thing that really has me baffled. I don't know if you saw the picture of the hugh penis. Now was it just me or were there two black fingers by the balls? Those pictures were supposedly found on Jodi's computer that the hard drive was destroyed. What was that all about? Was that Travis's penis? Who's fingers were those?

Here is something I saw elsewhere. I think they are DB's fingers. They could look dark because the poor quality of the camera (cellphone??) taking the pictures, and also if he is a smoker, sometimes their fingers get very red almost purple. Anyway, here's the shot to compare:

 

[corundogs]

I think the only IS employee left is Beth since Jean already testified. I find that most attorneys who deal in high profile cases end up with big heads. To put them in the same category as rock stars is a joke.

I get that...but with a side eye at the media/celebrity gossip.

I mean, would society be in a different place if we DID IN FACT "worship" people like JM (successful prosecutor), or CEO's who run their company the "right" way, and other pillars of society that aren't given much credit from the general public.

I am still at a loss - since I am NOT in the legal field - why seeing JM talking to the press, or the general public and taking pictures is a bad thing though.

I mean, I swear to God if I was a juror I would see this as nothing more than what people do now in this media driven world.

The jurors are fully aware the trial is being broadcast daily. They were not living under rocks during the Casey Anthony or OJ or whoever where the trial was sensationalized on tv.

They are also aware of the testimony that has been heard and how that would be further sensationalized - the sex stuff, the graphic murder...just all of the details of the trial. They have to get how this is playing out with us. They are admonished and then questioned about seeing things in the media. I am pretty sure they have seen stuff - say a headline and then change the channel or don't click the story on the internet, etc. I mean, it would be impossible not to, IMO.

I don't think the JM media thing is a big deal. Others however seem to think it is. I wish I understood why.

On another note, I ran into a woman last week who had never heard Jodis name. She is 30 years old, has 3 children and works. My aunt had only heard her name a couple of days before from a friend. Again, last week! These are both women who have internet access, tvs, etc. They just don't tune in to the 24 hour news media cycle. And have no interest in stuff like this!

 

[Lulu67]

I just watched HLN After Dark and had to post this. (Maybe someone has already mentioned it. I haven't read this thread yet.) Vinnie had huge blown up photos of Travis in the shower. In the one of Travis' face, which I believe was taken at 5:29:20, that we all speculate about what he was thinking, if you look at the shower wall over Travis' right shoulder there are a few specks of BLOOD!. This proves he was stabbed first as we can see he has not been shot in the head yet. I am positive of what I saw.

The specks are small, like about 3 or 4 droplets, but very visible in that huge blow up in color.

I don't think anyone would sit still after being stabbed. Even if they're scared, they're going to fight back. jmo

 

[missmazzy]

Here is something I saw elsewhere. I think they are DB's fingers. They could look dark because the poor quality of the camera (cellphone??) taking the pictures, and also if he is a smoker, sometimes their fingers get very red almost purple. Anyway, here's the shot to compare:

View attachment 31348

I agree those are not TA's fingers. Brewer knows more than he testified to, probably the reason why he didn't want his face shown on-screen.

 

[corundogs]

Thanks for the explanation. Although I've gotta say, I don't think guys "owe" any woman they've just recently started dating an explanation of 'where they stand,' i.e., whether they are headed to the chapel at some unspecified future time. Talk about how to send a guy running for the hills! :back:

And to add to all of that, they weren't even living in the same state when all of this was going on!

I mean, how serious are you about someone you have shown interest in but it's the first few weeks/months of dating when you don't even live in the same city?

Yes, they travelled etc. But still. Relationships are built on daily living and interacting with each other.

ESPECIALLY when these emails were sent...the beginning of January, 2007. This is way early in the whole thing. I mean, don't they say they were "official" for only about 6 months, and wasn't it shortly before Jan, 2007 that this was considered?

I mean, what guy is going to tell a woman he sees this as "the one" when he hasn't spent more than a few nights with her consecutively?

ESPECIALLY a guy that has made it to the point Travis was in his life without getting married already? You don't get to 30 and then jump into something without being fully aware of what you are getting into!

 

[josie1986]

I agree those are not TA's fingers. Brewer knows more than he testified to, probably the reason why he didn't want his face shown on-screen.

I hope this will be clarified in court, its annoyed me that she would pass off what is clearly darryls manhood as travis's.

Baffles me why he didn't want his facw shown his photo is all over the internet anyway

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

 

[rose222]

I get that...but with a side eye at the media/celebrity gossip.

I mean, would society be in a different place if we DID IN FACT "worship" people like JM (successful prosecutor), or CEO's who run their company the "right" way, and other pillars of society that aren't given much credit from the general public.

I am still at a loss - since I am NOT in the legal field - why seeing JM talking to the press, or the general public and taking pictures is a bad thing though.

I mean, I swear to God if I was a juror I would see this as nothing more than what people do now in this media driven world.

The jurors are fully aware the trial is being broadcast daily. They were not living under rocks during the Casey Anthony or OJ or whoever where the trial was sensationalized on tv.

They are also aware of the testimony that has been heard and how that would be further sensationalized - the sex stuff, the graphic murder...just all of the details of the trial. They have to get how this is playing out with us. They are admonished and then questioned about seeing things in the media. I am pretty sure they have seen stuff - say a headline and then change the channel or don't click the story on the internet, etc. I mean, it would be impossible not to, IMO.

I don't think the JM media thing is a big deal. Others however seem to think it is. I wish I understood why.

On another note, I ran into a woman last week who had never heard Jodis name. She is 30 years old, has 3 children and works. My aunt had only heard her name a couple of days before from a friend. Again, last week! These are both women who have internet access, tvs, etc. They just don't tune in to the 24 hour news media cycle. And have no interest in stuff like this!

JM himself has said in court that there was nothing wrong. He's an experienced and successful prosecutor. I trust him. I also trust our intelligent and wise court observers. The Defense just wants drama as they are desperate at this point. Also, JA is looking for ways to get back at everyone who is supporting Travis. Useless drama. Unfortunately people get sucked into it. Nothing wrong was done. It's no big deal. The Defense will cry out for a mistrial at every point now. It's up to us to separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

[miscalling]

Just like when Willmott asked her if every child who grows up in abusive houses become abusers.. She said there was no way to know because they can't ask everyone out there. Wouldn't the logical answer be No? Does she not know of one single person who grew up with violence and abuse who didn't inflict violence and abuse as an adult?? Ughhh!

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2

Just like when Willmott asked her if every child who grows up in abusive houses become abusers.. She said there was no way to know because they can't ask everyone out there. Wouldn't the logical answer be No? Does she not know of one single person who grew up with violence and abuse who didn't inflict violence and abuse as an adult?? Ughhh!

This is a good point. It's a perfect example of how witnesses are groomed to answer questions in a way that will benefit the side for which they are testifying.

 

[corundogs]

JM himself has said in court that there was nothing wrong. He's an experienced and successful prosecutor. I trust him. I also trust our intelligent and wise court observers. The Defense just wants drama as they are desperate at this point. Also, JA is looking for ways to get back at everyone who is supporting Travis. Useless drama. Unfortunately people get sucked into it. Nothing wrong was done. It's no big deal. The Defense will cry out for a mistrial at every point now. It's up to us to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Thanks Rose! That's what I thought too. But I have read some people with "verified" legal terms (one was a paralegal, who I believe I responded to...and a couple of other lawyers) who have said it was wrong and he shouldn't have done it and it could cause problems.

I am just hoping that these silly legal maneuvers backfire on the defense!

 

[rose222]

Thanks for the explanation. Although I've gotta say, I don't think guys "owe" any woman they've just recently started dating an explanation of 'where they stand,' i.e., whether they are headed to the chapel at some unspecified future time. Talk about how to send a guy running for the hills! :back:

OMG, I would most certainly run from a guy who felt he needed to give me an explanation of where the relationship is going so soon into the 'relationship'. Yikes. Talk about trouble.

Travis did not abuse Arias in ANY way. He basically wanted sex from her and she was a willing participant. We are not obligated to have a deep and meaningful relationship with every person we sleep with! As long as there are two consenting adults it's fine! And JA was not only willing but taught Travis a lot more than he taught her sexually speaking.

Arias abused Travis. All the snooping, stalking, slashing tires, being unable to take NO for an answer. She abused him emotionally and finally ended up butchering him to death.

 

[katiecoolady]

No, it's the same thing I've been saying all along. He was emotionally abusive in that he wasn't making it clear to Jodi where she really stood with him - keep having sex with a woman and she WILL believe that there is still some kind of relationship going on. He kept after his ex girlfriend to marry him while at the same time having sex with Jodi and not ever letting her know that. He continued to have sex with Jodi but said mean things about her behind her back - he used her for sex.

Same exact thing I've been saying all along. And I have also been saying all along that it is mild emotional abuse as it's the same kind of thing that plenty of guys do to women and woman also do to men all the time. But it doesn't make it not emotional abuse even though it's on the low end of the spectrum.

And as I've continually said all along as well it doesn't matter where this case in concerned as he was never ever PHYSICALLY abusive to Jodi or any other woman, and it is PHYSICAL abuse that Jodi claims she was subjected to by him and the reason she "had" to kill him to save her life.

What about if the woman, Jodi in this case, was also telling him she was completely ok with a "friends with benefits " situation? That she was on board knowing herself they'd never get married? That it was ok to pursue other partners for marriage? That they were "friends" and not even dating? I remember how odd it sounded, to me, when I first started watching her , years ago, she always referred to Travis as her "friend". Not even her "ex boyfriend" but "friend". How is it abusive if she led Travis to believe she was ok sleeping together at times but still being "friends"?

 

[TexMex]

Here is something I saw elsewhere. I think they are DB's fingers. They could look dark because the poor quality of the camera (cellphone??) taking the pictures, and also if he is a smoker, sometimes their fingers get very red almost purple. Anyway, here's the shot to compare:

View attachment 31348

They were sent by Travis's phone to Jodi. Entered into evidence.

 

[rose222]

Just like when Willmott asked her if every child who grows up in abusive houses become abusers.. She said there was no way to know because they can't ask everyone out there. Wouldn't the logical answer be No? Does she not know of one single person who grew up with violence and abuse who didn't inflict violence and abuse as an adult?? Ughhh!

This is a good point. It's a perfect example of how witnesses are groomed to answer questions in a way that will benefit the side for which they are testifying.

I'm so sick of this carp! What about taking responsibility for one's actions and life? How silly is this Defense! Healthy and compassionate individuals who have been abused will not want to even hurt an ant! They know what's it like to be abused and will not even dream of hurting another!

 

[DebinGA]

There will be a hearing on the evidence in this case tuesday. Interesting..........

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/28/arias-prosecutors-conduct-questioned/2029913/

That link notes that Judge Stephens quizzed each juror after court ended yesterday re seeing JM outside interacting with his fans. Another post below Tulessa's has a news link noting one of the jurors sitting down eating ice cream outside the the courthouse near JM groupies at the end of the day. I'd have thought the judge would have just told jurors not to linger within sight/sound of the crowds outside. I hope "ice cream guy" isn't the "*advertiser censored*/bad haircut" question sender, because he may get the boot.

 

[katiecoolady]

Just like when Willmott asked her if every child who grows up in abusive houses become abusers.. She said there was no way to know because they can't ask everyone out there. Wouldn't the logical answer be No? Does she not know of one single person who grew up with violence and abuse who didn't inflict violence and abuse as an adult?? Ughhh!

This is a good point. It's a perfect example of how witnesses are groomed to answer questions in a way that will benefit the side for which they are testifying.

I suspect one of Juan's first questions on cross will be "Ma'am have you ever seen a person who was subjected to abuse in their childhood actually grow up to be a person who never becomes abusive but who attracts abusive people?" I don't think she's sophisticated enough to withstand a rapid fire cross examination and not get confused re: who he's referring to Travis or Jodi...because they want to cherry pick it: that Travis grew up with abuse and being male, of course grew up,to be an abuser. Jodi grew up with "abuse" so she being female attracts Travis, an abuser.

Juan is gonna turn that whole argument around so fast, based on the facts of THIS case, that I hope they are handing out Dramamine that day in court.

 

[katiecoolady]

That link notes that Judge Stephens quizzed each juror after court ended yesterday re seeing JM outside interacting with his fans. Another post below Tulessa's has a news link noting one of the jurors sitting down eating ice cream outside the the courthouse near JM groupies at the end of the day. I'd have thought the judge would have just told jurors not to linger within sight/sound of the crowds outside. I hope "ice cream guy" isn't the "*advertiser censored*/bad haircut" question sender, because he may get the boot.

I've seen a juror sitting outside the courthouse steps AT LUNCH but not at days end. And he's not the guy I think sent those questions.